a vote for Kerry = vote for Osama

[DBAHO]

I am going to vote for Tarzan, king of the jungle.

George of the Jungle would be very disappointed in u.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

cwsox, that's a crock of s*** in whose opinion? Yours? Well i dont think it's a crock of s*** at all. In fact, i agree with YASNY in about all of it

 

And let's not forget Clinton's convenient timing of his bombings. Hypocrisy? Ya, i see some, but not in the same places as you do

[IlliniBob72]

And of course your party did not run a candidate against Carter in 1980 because the defeat of Carter, who the Ayaltollah called evil, was a victory for the Ayatollah.

I;ve got to mark this day in my calendar...Jimmy Carter being reelected as President would have been bad news for anybody not an American citizen, much less the Ayatollah. I never thought I'd see that thought expressed in my lifetime.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I;ve got to mark this day in my calendar...Jimmy Carter being reelected as President would have been bad news for anybody not an American citizen, much less the Ayatollah. I never thought I'd see that thought expressed in my lifetime.

This guy amazes me. I'm sure he's old enough to remember the gas lines & the double digit inflation & interest rates & high unemployment. The situation we had going on back then makes the recession we just came out of look like peanuts.

 

Of course that certain someone who got elected in 1980 and fixed all that will never get credit from the left because he's the only man in the world who is reviled as much as Dubya is with them.

[YASNY]

I am stating a fact here. I believe that if George Bush loses, then you will see on the news Islamic radicals dancing in the streets. I believe it will happen. Pure and simple. It's not a pro Bush statement. It's not an anti Kerry statement. Stop twisting my words and jumping to conclusions like I am questioning somebody's patriotism or supporting one party over the other.

 

In fact, cw ..... I will probably vote against Bush in the upcoming election because I am afraid of the Patriot Act, and deathly afraid of Patriot Act II. So stop referring to either party as "my party". I am not so ignorant as to limit myself to the philosophies of one and only one party. I have stated that I consider myself a moderate with conservative leanings. I have never claimed to be a Republican, nor a Democrat. I claim only to be an American citizen.

[YASNY]

A. I do not feel we should let Bin Laden determine our course of history. Isn't he already rejoicing that we care what he thinks and will vote based on him? Doesn't that give him a victory already?

 

B. The Pres is one of thousands that play a part of our anti-terror program. If we are worried about what switching Presidents will do should we start a Bush 2008 campaign? If this was his second term would we be arguing we can't change Presidents now?

I agree. I don't feel Bin Laden should influence in any way who we pick as our leaders.

[YASNY]

Bush's re-election would be great for al queda. Bush has avoided pursuing al queda so he could do his own thing against Iraq which had no weapons of mass destruction, posed no threat - meanwhile al queda is stronger than ever, active, and 570 some service people died in Iraq and Bush makes jokes about looking under the office furniture for WOMD.

 

Thus a Bush victory is a victory for Bin Laden, the still free Bin Laden.

 

I am sure if Gore had been sworn in, you would be avidly advocating a Gore re-election, right? And your party of course did not run a candidate against FDR in the midst of WW2 because the defea of FDR would have been a victory for Hitler. And of course your party did not run a candidate against Carter in 1980 because the defeat of Carter, who the Ayaltollah called evil, was a victory for the Ayatollah.

 

Read carefully sir. I never said a Bush defeat would be considered a victory for Bin Laden. I said it would be considered a victory by Bin laden. Huge difference.

[Texsox]

There is a colossal difference between going about our day to day business and blatantly ignoring a threat to our country's security. It seems like you are advocating pretending al Qaida doesn't exist. The fact that the way our country deals with terrorism is a factor in our election is not a victory for terrorists.

The fact we are having a discussion about what Bin Laden would do if Kerry or Bush is elected is amazing.

 

Terrorsists have been a fact of life for far more than this election. It is a bigger campaign issue than any other campaign.

 

To think the men and women that are actually working to find Bin Laden will work harder or easier based on who is elected is an insult to those dedicated agents.

 

I'll bet Nuke will not slack off and be less of a soldier because Kerry gets elected. I believe he has too much pride as an American and in wearing the uniform. We could elect Elmer Fudd and the search will not change considerably.

 

Both parties desperately want to be the party in the White House when Bin Laden is captured. To think otherwise shows a lack of experience in the two party system and how to win political points.

[kapkomet]

I'll bet Nuke will not slack off and be less of a soldier because Kerry gets elected. I believe he has too much pride as an American and in wearing the uniform. We could elect Elmer Fudd and the search will not change considerably.

This is exactly right - as long as Kerry does one very important thing that Clinton never did, and that's RESPECT them. That's why they like GWB so much, because he "respects the man in uniform". I won't discuss if that's true or not, but that is certainly the perception.

[IlliniBob72]

The fact we are having a discussion about what Bin Laden would do if Kerry or Bush is elected is amazing.

 

Terrorsists have been a fact of life for far more than this election. It is a bigger campaign issue than any other campaign.

 

To think the men and women that are actually working to find Bin Laden will work harder or easier based on who is elected is an insult to those dedicated agents.

 

I'll bet Nuke will not slack off and be less of a soldier because Kerry gets elected. I believe he has too much pride as an American and in wearing the uniform. We could elect Elmer Fudd and the search will not change considerably.

 

Both parties desperately want to be the party in the White House when Bin Laden is captured.  To think otherwise shows a lack of experience in the two party system and how to win political points.

Kerry, as a member of the Senate, voted repeatedly to cut back funding for defense and the intelligence agencies. I never once said that the people serving in the armed forces wouldn't do their jobs to their utmost if Kerry were elected. It is my belief, based on Kerry's track record, that those servicemen and servicewomen will not receive the same support and means to do the job that they get from Bush. I have no reason to think otherwise. No reason that Kerry has given.

[cwsox]

Kerry, as a member of the Senate, voted repeatedly to cut back funding for defense and the intelligence agencies. I never once said that the people serving in the armed forces wouldn't do their jobs to their utmost if Kerry were elected. It is my belief, based on Kerry's track record, that those servicemen and servicewomen will not receive the same support and means to do the job that they get from Bush. I have no reason to think otherwise. No reason that Kerry has given.

Biush has slashed all kinds of expenditures for the troops and the generals ain't happy with him either

 

remember it was Bush who attempted to take away their combat pay and it was Kerry and other Dems who protested vehemently and got it restored

 

it was Bush 'early out" of the reserves who is refusing the current reserves out even on their out dates

 

the image is not the same as the substance

 

the image is not at all the same as the reality

 

and if you think Bush is any damn good for American security - he has stretched so thin militarily now and we just sent 2,000 more troops in Afghanistan that if another crisis looms, it is questionable how it will be handled, if it can be

 

Hollywood knows G W looks so cool in his military gear but image ain't reality

 

 

and ain't it curious Clarke says what he does and Rice refuses to testify in public but now wants more secret testimony: if she testifies in public, will she be (1) bringing down Bush by telling the truth or (2) commiting perjury for lying under oath? Amazing she can do every morning talk show and can't testifiy under oath

[southsider2k5]

and ain't it curious Clarke says what he does and Rice refuses to testify in public but now wants more secret testimony: if she testifies in public, will she be (1) bringing down Bush by telling the truth or (2) commiting perjury for lying under oath?  Amazing she can do every morning talk show and can't testifiy under oath

Or 3) not revealing current security situations to the enemy... We have Geraldo Rivera for that.

[cwsox]

Amazing she can do every morning talk show and can't testifiy under oath.

 

 

Always the excuses... heard them so many time. And it turns out in every instance bull.

 

It sure would he harmful to the US to talk about what happened in 2001. Or is that, just, harmful to Bush?

 

 

Amazing she can do every morning talk show and can't testifiy under oath.

Amazing she can do every morning talk show and can't testifiy under oath.

Amazing she can do every morning talk show and can't testifiy under oath.

Amazing she can do every morning talk show and can't testifiy under oath.

Amazing she can do every morning talk show and can't testifiy under oath.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Sen. Bob Graham of Florida argued last April that wounded soldiers were a certainty in the new Iraq war. He asked for $375 million for their health care at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Appropriators bargained that down to $100 million in a 2003 war-spending bill and allowed the VA to use the money for other things. Now thousands of Iraq veterans are using VA hospitals and clinics, but none of that $100 million will go toward their health care. The VA plans to spend it on processing benefit claims instead. "Particularly with the large casualties that we've suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm stunned that they're not going to use it for that purpose," said Graham, the ranking Democrat on the Veterans Affairs Committee. -- Herald Tribune

 

Catie Shinn figures she made two "mistakes" that could end up costing her money: She served her country as a captain in the Army, and she earned a master's degree in college. Either one, she says, could keep her from getting overtime pay under regulations the government is preparing to issue next month. Veterans and labor groups say 8 million other workers could lose their overtime. A handful of veterans and members of the St. Louis Labor Council and Jobs for Justice gathered Thursday inside the museum at Soldiers Memorial downtown. With Navy torpedoes and Civil War-era pistols as background, they protested the Labor Department's new overtime rules and an appearance in St. Louis planned on Saturday by Vice President Dick Cheney. "It's unthinkable that those people who have served their country so diligently in the armed forces now would be denied benefits," said Bob Soutier, secretary-treasurer of the Labor Council. -- St. Louis Post Dispatch

 

Mr. Bush proposed last year to double co-payments on prescription drugs for many veterans, primarily those with higher incomes and no service-connected disabilities. The White House reaffirmed its support for that proposal in November. In the last week, the Pentagon has been considering a new proposal to increase pharmacy co-payments for retirees with at least 20 years of military service. Under the proposal, the charge for a generic drug would rise to $10, from $3, while the charge for a brand-name medicine would rise to $20, from $9. The Military Officers Association of America criticized this as "a grossly insensitive and wrong-headed proposal." In e-mail messages to the White House, members of the association asked Mr. Bush, "Why do your budget officials persist in trying to cut military benefits?" -- NY Times

 

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/11/ana03304.html is a few more links to articles that are a pretty interesting read.

 

The Bush administration, most specifically, Rumsfeld, for a time wanted to cut military hazard pay for troops in the front. It was not done because so many people found out and were outraged about it. They have denied government health care coverage to Reservists and National Guardsmen yet sent them to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq. He also increased the waiting time for troops to get medical care (It's already a little bit over a 3 month wait) He increased co-payments for troops to get medication by approximately 30%.

 

The idea that Bush supports the troops is a pretty big fallacy. It doesn't vindicate Kerry's vote but it puts a new light on both of the candidates.

[cwsox]

Apu, as there is silence in regards to the Bush administration's continual betrayl of our troops so there will be silence in the inept way in which the Bush adminsitration - unlike the Clinton administration which protected the homeland from terrorism, the attempt at LAX - there will be silence on this article.

 

more to be silent about

[southsider2k5]

unlike the Clinton administration which protected the homeland from terrorism,

I hope you are kidding again, because this couldn't be further from the truth.

[cwsox]

I hope you are kidding again, because this couldn't be further from the truth.

I never kid, my friend, on things of this importance. Did you read the link I gave? You remember the foiled attempts at LAX and other places for 1-1-2000?

 

Facts are so troublesome, yes, when they interrupt the spin.

[southsider2k5]

I never kid, my friend, on things of this importance.  Did you read the link I gave?  You remember the foiled attempts at LAX and other places for 1-1-2000?

 

Facts are so troublesome, yes, when they interrupt the spin.

So him ignoring everything else and the fact that the two previous worst acts of terrorism in US history occurred under his watch, doesn't matter? How many more lives lost because Clinton was afraid to go after Al Qaida and Bin Laden?

 

Look past the partisian politics of it all. I'm not even talking about spin. You can't blame Bush for one thing, yet praise Clinton for another. That's what I am talking about. George Bush didn't do enough about terrorism. Bill Clinton didn't do enough about terrorism. Groundbreaking I know, but its the truth. I know you view Bush as the devil reincarnate, and think the world has ended under his watch, but I would think you would realize just because Clinton's term ended on January 20, 2001, doesn't mean the effects of his Presidency don't linger on either.

 

This problem isn't JUST George Bush and republican's fault. Geesh, even Clarke hawking his books couldn't get up and say that.

 

Years of calculated risk and neglect by both the legislature and Presidency have made this mess. And even if John Kerry gets elected tommorrow, the problems will go on.

 

You have got to be more open minded than you have sounded lately with this stuff. Everything sounds like a campaign ad lately, with a catchy little cute quip at the end of it. It comes off as really condensending and honestly has come off as really insulting and tiresome. I hope this is just a temporary thing, because I like to debate with you, but lately it just doesn't sound like you.

[HighHeat45]

unlike the Clinton administration which protected the homeland from terrorism

Yeah, just like this

Link

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Alex Jones! Then again he's all about both Clinton and Bush letting it happen.

[YASNY]

I must say that I was totally shocked that there was not one single response to my posts from last night.

 

Disclaimer: There are no implications or insinuations in the above statement.

[kapkomet]

I never kid, my friend, on things of this importance.  Did you read the link I gave?  You remember the foiled attempts at LAX and other places for 1-1-2000?

 

Facts are so troublesome, yes, when they interrupt the spin.

This is the first election since I was old enough to vote in the '92 election that I probably won't go. Or, I'll cast a vote for everything except President. I personally think both Kerry and Bush are full of piss and vinegar, lies, and BS promises. Politics, even past what it was 12 years ago seems so much more polarized. Everything is a negative, let's blame EVERYTHING on a president in office blame game right now.

 

Clinton ignored terrorism but got lucky when HE (Ahem) caught the terrorists for 1/1/00. That's pure hypocrisy. I guess if Dole was president he would have let those terrorist blow stuff up on HIS watch.

 

Remember my post about Kerry, saying he would do what he could because he is an AMERICAN, which you were so quick to agree with? If anyone is sick enough to make the accuisation that Bush WANTED 9/11 to happen so he could control the country has to be a wacko nutjob leftist. (Empahsis added on wacko nutjob). I've seen the conspiracy theorys and I about :puke every time I see them.

 

Bush is probably the most controlling president we have had in a long, long time, which is why many despise him so much. His stance on "working together for America" when he first got to Washington is probably his biggest lie since taking office, because frankly I can think of no other president in my lifetime that has been more controlling of policy then he is. I don't like that, because he leaves no room for compromise, which is one of the main reasons (there are others) as to why I don't want to vote for him this fall.

 

Kerry: what beautiful ideas does he have that makes him any different? Oh, I see. Vote for him because he's not Bush. WHAT A VOTE. You can't vote for the guy because of his issues and stances, you vote for him because it's NOT BUSH. I think that bothers me more then not voting for Bush because he and his administration's policies. That's why they both suck IMO, and why Gore and Bush were so close in the elections.. THERE's NO DIFFERENCE in the candidates anymore.

 

So where all this rambling leaves me is why should we vote for these candidates? WHY SHOULD WE, not why should we NOT vote for them...

[cwsox]

If anyone is sick enough to make the accuisation that Bush WANTED 9/11 to happen so he could control the country has to be a wacko nutjob leftist. (Empahsis added on wacko nutjob). I've seen the conspiracy theorys and I about  every time I see them.

 

I agree with this too. I do not believe that Bush WANTED September 11th to happen. I believe they were negligent in nationa;l security areas and I believe they have mishandled things since but as to wanting it, that is the province of the conspuracy theorists of whatever stripe.

[kapkomet]

I agree with this too.  I do not believe that Bush WANTED September 11th to happen. I believe they were negligent in nationa;l security areas and I believe they have mishandled things since but as to wanting it, that is the province of the conspuracy theorists of whatever stripe.

I agree that Bush was negligent. But so was every President before him on this matter (well, Bush I and Clinton because it was not as much of a threat until Gulf War I planted the seeds).

 

Do you at least admit that Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II were ALL negligent in ackknowledging the "true" threat?

[Texsox]

Kerry, as a member of the Senate, voted repeatedly to cut back funding for defense and the intelligence agencies

Should the military have a blank check to spend whatever they feel is necessary?