New Book: Kerry ‘Unfit for Command’

I've been arguing this specific title in a number of my local city threads, so I guess I'll just bring my dirty laundry over here.I find it pretty funny noticing the parallels between a topic like evo./creation with such a topic like Kerry's past. In that I mean I often notice a creationist attempt to fallaciously ask an evolutionist to prove a negative, which is an erroneous burden for anyone. I find the same situation occurring here with this group of Smear Boaters, because it's really not just the account of Kerry that they are going against, but they are also going against 10 eyewitnesses that were actually on his boat, as well as documented Navy records. Of course they don't want to expound further than just Kerry's word alone, but the real burden is upon them to somehow bring positive, verifiable evidence to support their assertions. Given the fact that there were NO Smear Boat men on Kerry's boat, and given the fact that what they are stating is mere opinion, their assertions alone should be held suspect.But what's worse for this group of Smear Boaters is their questionable motives AND credibility. A good article was written back in May here:Slave labor in the statehouse | Salon.comNote the parts about Hoffmann, the commander of Kerry being somewhat obsessed with body count figures. Nice guy, huh? Funny how he is the founder of this group against Kerry. What I don’t seem to understand is, if he was so against Kerry, why then, according to the Navy Archives, did he give high praise for Kerry?:

quote:

---

Yet Hoffmann and Kerry had few direct dealings in Vietnam. A Los Angeles Times examination of Navy archives found that Hoffmann praised Kerry's performance in cabled messages after several river skirmishes. And while the Purple Heart account remains murky, its award was routine. Navy records show Swift boat crews were frequently raked with slight wounds of uncertain origin injuries that often earned decorations.

​

"I don't know what conclusions you can draw about someone's ability to lead from their combat experience, but John's service was commendable," said James J. Galvin, a former Swift boat officer who, like Kerry, was honored for three minor wounds and left the coastal combat zone early. "He played by the same rules we all did."

​

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-kerryviet...

---

Oh but wait, what were some of those cables that Hoffmann stated praise about Kerry? Well golly gee, here they are:Kerry's charge won him a Silver Star, personally awarded by Zumwalt in a Saigon ceremony. Three days after the skirmish, Kerry and his crew also received a cable from Sealords task force headquarters.

quote:

---

"The tactic of attack and assault thoroughly surprised the enemy in his spider-holes and proved to be immensely effective in rousting him into the open," the message read.
The cable was from Hoffmann. Four times in February and March, he cabled Kerry and his crew, praising them and other Swift boats after skirmishes. Hoffmann acknowledged the cables, saying Kerry showed "some pretty sharp thinking. He had courage. But he was loose. He went out on his own too much."

​

Hoffmann and several former Swift officers said Kerry's boat sometimes veered off during missions without explanation a criticism Kerry and his crewmen dismissed.

​

There are no official rebukes in Navy archives or Kerry's available personnel file. Hoffmann's criticism is also at odds with the glowing evaluations of Kerry in his official Navy record. Only Hibbard's was less than effusive.

​

The same day as the Silver Star beaching, Hoffmann sent Kerry's boat another cable commending the crew's capture of "5 VC males" in a "daring PCF operation [that] will provide an invaluable source of intelligence."

---

By golly, a body-count nutbag like Hoffmann praising Kerry? Who woulda thunk it?And let’s keep in mind that 9 out of 10 crewmates of Kerry support his leadership throughout his Vietnam tour. The lone wolf who doesn’t (Gardener), strangely enough seems to have some kinda political motivation against Kerry in the first place:Page not found | TIMEBoy oh boy, who woulda thunk that?But wait, we’ve got more than just Hoffmann of that smearing crew to examine in their flip-flopping views on Kerry. Let’s take a look at yet another piece, this one from Fox exosing that group:http://mediamatters.org/items/200405050004

quote:

---

FOX exposed anti-Kerry vets' flip-flopping

​

As part of ongoing efforts to undermine Senator John Kerry's war record, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group founded to discredit Kerry's record during and after his service in Vietnam, held its first news conference on May 4. Also on that day, Media Matters for America released a report on the group's founder, John O'Neill -- also one of Kerry's strongest critics; the report documents O'Neill's participation in Republican efforts to smear Kerry dating back to the Nixon administration. The scrutiny that cable networks directed toward Kerry's critics throughout the day varied significantly; FOX News Channel provided in-depth coverage, including revealing that some of Kerry's present-day critics have, in the past, actually praised Kerry for his Vietnam service.

​

In many of the May 4 cable news reports, the partisan political backgrounds of the Swift Boat Vets were mentioned. CNN's afternoon news program, Live From..., described the group only as "Vietnam vets who formed a special purpose political action committee" and did not note O'Neill's or any other member's political affiliation. Later in the day, CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley reported on Inside Politics: "[T]he Kerry campaign points out there are Republicans here." Crowley also noted that the group's spokeswoman "is a Texas Republican who has contributed to the Bush campaign." On CNN's Crossfire, co-host James Carville also pointed to the Swift Boat Vets' Republican ties, as reported in Salon.com by Joe Conason in a May 4 article.

​

On MSNBC's Scarborough Country, host Joe Scarborough mentioned criticism of O'Neill's "dirty tricks" for the Nixon administration and asked if O'Neill was doing it again for the Bush campaign. MSNBC's Lester Holt Live showed a clip of Michael Meehan, Kerry presidential campaign adviser, criticizing the Swift Boat Veterans for their partisan attacks on Kerry and noting that a number of Kerry's crewmembers in Vietnam have praised his service. An afternoon report on MSNBC's daily news show, MSNBC Live, noted only that the Kerry campaign is "of course putting up veterans who disagree" with Kerry's critics. The broadcast omitted any information on individual members of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, whom the program identified as "a group of former Navy swift boat commanders and personnel many of whom served with Kerry in Vietnam."

​

FOX News Channel pushed harder on the credibility of some of the group's members. On several shows throughout the afternoon and evening, including Special Report with Brit Hume, FOX News Channel chief political correspondent Carl Cameron provided substantial background on some key Kerry critics. Cameron reported that the veterans held a news conference "essentially to trash [Kerry]" and that much of their criticism "dramatically conflicts with the public record." Cameron stated, "Senator Kerry has released most of his military records and for the most part, they are a glowing detail of his military service." Not only does their criticism conflict with what The New York Times described in an April 22 article as Kerry's "uniformly positive" evaluations included in his military records, but, as Cameron also reported, their criticism is inconsistent with statements previously made by many of the Swift Boat Vets themselves. Cameron reported that in 1968, Kerry critic Grant W. Hibbard,[1] a lieutenant commander in Vietnam during Kerry's tour:

​

... described Kerry in various favorable ways, as quote, "One of the top few in his willingness to seek and accept responsibility." Captain George Elliot, who served in Vietnam at the same time Kerry did, condemns Kerry now for touting his service in a war that Kerry later protested. ... But in '96, Elliot and other critics of today, praised him for going after the enemy.

---

Wait a tick — is that the same Grant Hibbard in that darned Smear Boat For Truth commercial? Nahh, couldn’t be!

quote:

---

Beyond pointing out the inconsistent statements by some of Kerry's critics, Cameron also reported that Democrats say that "many of them ... have become Republicans ... who have supported the Bush campaigns in Texas, have been close friends of the Bush family both in politics and business." Cameron stated on Special Report with Brit Hume, "The GOP says it's not involved with the veterans criticizing Kerry, but many of them are Republicans who have contributed to and backed various Bush campaigns and causes over the decades."

---

What what what?!?!? Veterans smearing Kerry having historical ties to the Bush family and GOP? No way, brother! It just ain’t true, is it?

quote:

---

On FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes, co-host Alan Colmes challenged the credibility of the Swift Boat Vets. Colmes noted that Swift Boat Vets leader O'Neill did not serve in Vietnam with Kerry; rather, as O'Neill told Colmes, "I actually took his boat over, but about two months after he [Kerry] left." Colmes also draws attention to the flip-flopping nature of the comments made about Kerry by several group members. Colmes questioned O'Neill who appeared on the show:

---

Wait a gosh darn minute! The smear group’s leader wasn’t even on the boat with Kerry? Hmmmm

quote:

---

Here is what Grant Hubbard [sic], who's now part of your group, here's what he had to say back then about John Kerry. And he signed -- let's put it up on the screen -- a report on Kerry. He said on initiative, one of the top few. Cooperation, one of the top few. Personal behavior, one of the top few. Why would he say that then and now be supporting you now?

---

Oh Hibbard, you’re such a jokester!

quote:

---

Colmes further probed:

​

Let me show you the report of George Elliott, who also graded John Kerry in Vietnam. Here's what was said. Here's what he said. "In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, Lieutenant Junior Grade Kerry was unsurpassed. LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach." That's a report of officer fitness from 1969 by George Elliott, who also graded Kerry. How do you account for that? Do you want to claim that everybody now is saying what you're saying? It's clearly not true.

---

That silly Elliott guy, what was he thinking back then? Surely he just didn’t mean all those nice praises for Kerry, did he?Well by golly, we got ourselves a little flip-floppin’ goin’ on har, and it ain’t even Kerry this time!Let’s examine another guy from that smear group, the doctor LewisLetson who supposedly examined Kerry’s 1st purple heart: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-swift...Funny how he wasn’t even the doctor that signed off on Kerry’s exam. Nice credibility problem he’s developed.
But let’s grant this bloke, for argument sake, that he did examine Kerry, and that it was merely a scratch. Why is he after Kerry for this? Who granted Kerry the award? Did Kerry grant himself the award?Umm, uhh, uhh, was it the Navy?You betcha! so why aren't these smear boat artists going after the navy for giving Kerry the award?(Oh, sidenote, here’s Kerry’s request to go to Vietnam:http://www.johnkerry.com/...e/Request_For_Swiftboat_Duty.pdfAny conservative wish to contrast that with Bush’s request NOT to go to Vietnam?)Funny how his fitness reports from the Navy tend to contradict this group’s smear attempts. You can read those fitness reports here:http://www.intel-dump.com/archives/archive_2004_04_21.shtmlLet’s see, who else? Oh yeah, Capt. Adrian Lonsdale, another Smear Boat winner had this to say about Kerry in November 4, 1996 issue of South Coast Today:

quote:

---

"Adrian Lonsdale remembers a young John F. Kerry as a naval officer who was a good debater, even back in his days in Vietnam. "'He and I and others used to have long discussions at the officers club,' said Mr. Lonsdale of Mattapoisett, a former Coast Guard officer who commanded a division in which the Massachusetts senator was attached back in 1969. 'They were very spirited discussions about the war and the politics back home.' "'He was opposed to the war but it didn't make any difference in his performance,' said the former owner and still instructor at Northeast Maritime Institute in New Bedford. 'He was a very good officer.' "Capt. Lonsdale was among a group of former Vietnam veterans the Massachusetts Democrat brought to the Charlestown navy yard recently to rebut a Boston Globe column that raised questions about Sen. Kerry's Vietnam service, particularly the Silver Star he won. "Mr. Lonsdale was in charge of a two-division flotilla opereating [sic] out of Phu Quoc, a big island near the Cambodian border. One division was made up of Swift boats, fast 50-foot offshore boats, while the other was composed of 82-foot Coast Guard patrol boats."

​

Fastly error: unknown domain www.s-t.com

---

Kerry’s fishy circumstances for earning his medals (note it is a nonpartisan website):John Kerry's Service Record | Snopes.comBut most importantly, this examination into Kerry’s war record really begs the comparison to your war hero Bush and his military record (or lack thereof). By all means, please attempt to defend his unaccountability for at least 3 months.By the way, McCain isn’t too happy with this BS group either, nor is he happy with the White House for failing to condemn them. Probably feels a little familiar to him, doesn’t it?:Yahoo News - Latest News & HeadlinesHere's a few more websites to examine:1. A good summary of the majority of charges by the Swifties against Kerry, and a long refutation of each of those charges:StackPath2. The latest from factcheck.org (non-partisan, in case you're wondering) on Elliott's flip-flopping problems and affidavits:Page not found - FactCheck.org3. Drudge continuing to push the false report on Kranish with Kerry/Edwards' campaign:http://mediamatters.org/items/2004081000014. The latest on Bob Perry, one of the 3 big Texas GOP donors (and good ol' buddy of Bush and Rove) for this Smear Boat Group: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-perry...5. Co-author of the book, Jerome Corsi being caught in racial slurs and bigotry:http://mediamatters.org/items/200408060010(To be fair, Corsi has since apologized for his remarks since then)6. Ted Sampley, co-founder of the Smear Boat group, being exposed on MSNBC for his smearing and distortion of McCain's record:http://mediamatters.org/items/2004081100107. Jim Rassman's criticism in the Wall Street Journal on this group. He was the guy Kerry saved and received a Bronze Star. He's also a registered Republican, BTW:Get The Wall Street Journal’s Opinion columnists, editorials, op-eds, letters to the editor, and book and arts reviews.8. A well-written and documented in-depth analysis on one of the Smear Boat's chapters on Kerry's first purple heart:Welcome fearofclowns.com - BlueHost.comWelp, that's about all. Sorry this was so long.{Shortened display form of 3 URL's, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-12-2004 03:39 PM

quote:

---

What's your source for this ? Your use of the term "suspended" raises questions. Suspended from flight status ?

---

Umm, yeah:
{Rescaled graphic to "100%", to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}
Full size version available at http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/grounded.gif

quote:

---

"Reason for Suspension: Failure to accomplish annual medical examination."

---

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-12-2004 04:19 PM

My apologies Adminnemooseus. Just had to answer that one, but will remain on topic from here on out.

quote:

---

Wasn't that also the first medical examination where they had mandatory drug testing? I've heard this before, but I can't find any source to substantiate it.

---

Yes, here's an excerpt from a Salon.com article that describes the '72 Air Force Regulation:

quote:

---

Which is where Air Force Regulation 160-23, also known as the Medical Service Drug Abuse Testing Program, comes in. The new drug-testing effort was officially launched by the Air Force on April 21, 1972, following a Jan. 11, 1972, directive issued by the Department of Defense. That initiative, in response to increased drug use among soldiers in Vietnam, instructed the military branches to "establish the requirement for a systematic drug abuse testing program of all military personnel on active duty, effective 1 July 1972."

​

It's true that in 1972 Bush was not on "active" duty: His Texas Guard unit was never mobilized. But according to Maj. Jeff Washburn, the chief of the National Guard's substance abuse program, a random drug-testing program was born out of that regulation and administered to guardsmen such as Bush. The random tests were unrelated to the scheduled annual physical exams, such as the one that Bush failed to take in 1972, a failure that resulted in his grounding.

​

The 1972 drug-testing program took months, and in some cases years, to implement at Guard units across the country. And the percentage of guardsmen tested then was much lower than today's 40 percent rate. But as of April 1972, Air National guardsmen knew random drug testing was going to be implemented.

​

During the 2000 campaign, when Bush's spokesman was asked about the possibility of Bush facing a drug test back in 1972, the spokesman told the Times of London that Bush "was not aware of any [military] changes that required a drug test." Still, at the time when Bush, perhaps for the first time in his life, faced the prospect of a random drug test, his military records show he virtually disappeared, failing for at least one year to report for Guard duty. White House officials insist that if Bush missed any weekend Guard drills in 1972, he made up for them during the summer of 1973. If this is true, he would have been vulnerable to random drug tests during his makeup days. But again, Bush's own discharge papers fail to conclusively back up his claim that he performed Guard service in 1973. [This last sentence is no longer quite true, the gap is now measured in months.—ajl]

​

Bitter pills | Salon.com

---

HTH,Opus

Stearing back to topic (well, sort of), if individuals like the Swift Boaters for Truth want to question things like Kerry saving the life of a registered Republican, I kinda wonder if they'll question his life-saving action of this GOP Senator:Just a moment...Hehe.

Coupla things. First, O'Neill never served with Kerry. In fact, he never really knew of Kerry during the war. He had taken over Kerry's boat once Kerry's tour was finished.I'm not sure if what you stated was a mispeak on your part, but this particular tidbit is a fact.Second, the debate between O'Neill and Kerry in '71 is well documented. Heck, a simple Google search came up with this immediately:File Not FoundThis debate occurred in May of '71, over 2 months after Kerry's testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. O'Neill was sent in to debate Kerry by Nixon, whom Nixon thought was a formidable, well-spoken opponent:MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest VideosColson, Nixon's advisor, wanted to put the clamps on Kerry quickly, before he "becomes another Ralph Nader."http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=John_E._O'NeillBut turning back to the O'Neill/Kerry debate, I scanned through it numerous times, and I noticed something missing from O'Neill's accusations -Not once did O'Neill accuse Kerry of lying about receiving his medals. Don't you think if Kerry was indeed lying about his awards then, it would have been an incredible opportunity for O'Neill to expose this lie back in '71? Don't you kinda find it a little odd that O'Neill has said nada about Kerry's medals until it was clear that Kerry was to be the Democratic nominee in March? Why was he so insistent on keeping his mouth shut about Kerry for some 35 or so years? Surely he knew Kerry was a Senator all this time, he could have really put the clamp down on him anytime he wanted to, couldn't he?I can't help but to call "shenanigans" on this point.But the Swifties here, most of them at least, are not so much after Kerry for what he did during Vietnam, but what he stood for and stated after the war. They are certainly entitled to their opinions and feelings, and I understand that they may have felt that Kerry was undermining and insulting their efforts in the war. Kerry's sentiments after the war, however, were not so much directed towards the actions of the men and women serving their country, but toward the But it seems to me that they are really quibbling on not so much the central point of Kerry's message of our government being wrong on our position in Vietnam, but went after his charges of atrocities that he had witnessed.Time did wonders to dispell the cover-ups of these Vietnam atrocities such as the My Lai massacres, the Tiger Force massacres and the Thanh Phong massacres. I think we would be giving a little too much credit to O'Neill if we assumed that he wasn't aware of such atrocities. In fact, in hindsight I'd say it looks more like O'Neill is flat out lying during his debate with Kerry. But I also think it's important to point out the specifics of what Kerry has stated, and what the Conservative mouthpieces have spun ad nauseum.Take Sean Hannity, for instance. He has repeated over and over a false statement from Kerry, stating that Kerry said, "I committed atrocities." You only have to take a quick glance at the transcripts of Kerry's '71 statements to see he ACTUALLY stated,

quote:

---

I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free fire zones. I did take part in harassment and interdiction fire. I did take part in search and destroy missions, in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these, I find out later on, these acts are contrary to the Hague and Geneva conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the application of the Nuremberg principles is, in fact, guilty.

---

More can be seen here:http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh081104.shtmlNow we can clarify the rest of his statements by him merely following orders. With a Commander like "body-bag" Hoffmann giving orders to Kerry's group, coupled with the well-known atrocities that occurred throughout that war, I really do not find the rest of his statements very shocking at all. In fact, it seems Kerry is right on.This message has been edited by MisterOpus1, 08-13-2004 02:41 PM

quote:

---

Kerry's Picture is in a place of honor in respect to their victory over the United States, however, whats interesting is a book written by Kerry's peers

---

Not by eyewitnesses to his acts of bravery, but "peers" nonetheless. A number of those 250+ Swift Boat for Truth folks have never even met Kerry once. Not in Vietnam. Not after Vietnam.You really should take their "testimony" with a grain of salt.

quote:

---

but what is interestingly he is not held in honor by his peers, of the surviving peer officers that served with Kerry 17 of them say that Kerry didn't stand behind his own, and twisted the truth.

---

None can demonstrate any eyewitness accounts of Kerry's actions on his boat. But hey, let's grant the possibility that they did see Kerry (a few hundred yards away, according to Naval archives), why are they not going after his eyewitness crewmates as well as the Navy for supporting the same account as Kerry? Why are they not going after Rassman, the registered Republican who's life Kerry saved, with the same amount of vitriol as they are with Kerry?Did Kerry award himself those medals? If not, why are they not going after those hated superior officers who granted Kerry those medals?Oops, I guess because a coupla those superior officers are on the Swifties. Interesting conflict they have there (among other conflicts like praise for Kerry's actions and valor).

quote:

---

I suspect the one thing both the Vets and the North Vietnamese shared was awe, and not respect. Suspect if a North Vietnamese would of spouted propaganda against their cause they wouldn't of been allowed to continue in this act of treason against their own(Only in America). Either your for your country, or your against.

---

Uhh, huh? Brad, is that you? What are you saying here? I really can't decifer your statement at all.

quote:

---

This is a problem with the democratic party, so Kerry fits right in with their agenda, to them its not about our soveignty, but the world community. Were all seeing the fruit of clintonomics, the price of crude over 45 dollars per barrel, cause of the industries clinton blessed to leave this country without penalties are now drawing excessively from the world middle east oil supply, you can not tell these foriegn industries they can not have access to middle east oil, its supply and demand, etc...
What is Kerrys voting record in respect to drilling for our own oil, etc... I like Edward in this particular article cause he is for drilling for Alaskan oil, talk about opposites running on the same ticket, I don't like the supply and demand senerio's that John Kerry played a main role in filibustering, so that always cause prices to rise, off supply and demand in the world market.

​

MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos

​

"How sweet it is," Kerry told reporters after the April 2002 vote to sustain the filibuster against drilling.

​

Kerry is the Senator that is responsible for setting us up for the high price of crude, so were dependent on foriegn oil, we need to be drilling for oil in our own country, etc...You don't see Kerry driving a hybrid, leading by example, etc...

---

Do you always run off on tangents like this? Geez, you start from Kerry's Vietnam record to his record against Alaskan drilling?Umm, 'kay.Kerry's policy against Alaskan drilling is not merely shared by Kerry alone. There's a reason why it hasn't been passed yet, so you'll have to blame everyone else (including a coupla Repubs.) for that one. But even so, a Reuters article back in February outlined this:

quote:

---

The Interior Department estimates the refuge could hold between 5.7 billion and 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil. If the refuge was opened to drilling, it would take about eight years before the area reached full oil production.

---

(sorry, no current link)Even after 8 yrs. when the area reached full production, 16 billion barrels does not last long at all. Even the most conservative estimates give this approx. 2 full years of supply.So perhaps Kerry sees the futility of this whole project, and perhaps he realizes that it's more or less a Red Herring. Perhaps this is also why his energy policy calls for higher alternative fuel production.What does Bush's energy policy call for again?And are you really blaming our oil crisis on Clinton? Oh boy, that really is a new one. I really have heard most of our current problems being pinned on Clinton by the Conservatives, but this one really surprised me.

Interesting side note that I'd like to bring out about the publishers of this book - Regenery Publishing:A list of highly recommended books by Regnery Publishing, a subsidary of Eagle Publishing- the same people who brought you Robert Novak- more one-sided election year conservative dribble for the whole family!Let's take a look at some of the other books Regnery has to offer:Reckless Disregard
This best-selling author looks at the danger of electing liberals to be commander-in-chieffrom LBJ to Clinton to KerryTurnaround
Mitt Romney, governor of Massachusetts, tells this story of how he rescued the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics and guided it to success in the new age of terrorism.A Public Betrayed
Uncovering the worst about the institution in Japan designed to serve and inform the populacewith valuable lessons for the U.S.Inside the Asylum
by Jed Babbin Hardcover - (June 2004) - $27.95If John Kerry and Hillary Clinton have their way, Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac will gain veto power over American foreign policy.Scared? You should be. It could happen. And in Inside the Asylum, former deputy undersecretary of defense Jed Babbin shows just how it could happen and why the UN deserves the nickname The Asylum.Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror
by Thomas McInerney and Paul Vallely
Hardcover - (April 2004) - $27.95Tom McInerney and Paul Vallely are retired generals. They’ve devoted their lives to defending America. Now they’re military analysts for FOX News, privy to up-to-the-minute reports and inside sources. They know everything that’s going on within the Pentagon, the CIA, and other government agencies.They’re also smart. When other analysts were wringing their hands and whining about quagmires in Afghanistan and Iraq, they calmly predicted relatively easy and decisive American victoriesand they were right.In Endgame, they devote their experience and expertise to the question of how to win the war on terror...A Victor, Not a Butcher
by Edward Bonekemper
Hardcover - (April 2004) - $27.95Civil War hero General Ulysses S. Grant has been unfairly maligned because of the bloody 1864 campaigns he conducted against Robert E. Lee to secure final victory for the Union. Victor, Not A Butcher takes you into those decisive campaigns to prove that far from being a crude butcher (as he has been characterized not only by Southern partisans, but by historians) Grant’s casualty rates actually compared favorably with those of other Civil War generals. Grant was an inspired military leader with a genius for issuing lucid orders, maneuvering his troops adroitly, and making excellent use of his staff. His perseverance, decisiveness, moral courage, and political acumen place him among the greatest generals of the Civil Warindeed, of all military history.The Real Jimmy Carter
by Steven Hayward
Hardcover - (May 2004) - $27.95Jimmy Carter: America’s best ex-president?Only if you’re not bothered by the resurgence of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism (which started on his watch), the shamefaced foreign policy of Bill Clinton and John Kerry (ditto), and think that ex-presidents should travel the world coddling dictators and bad-mouthing America la Jesse Jackson.It’s time to set the record straight. Finally, an honest historianSteven F. Hayward, author of The Age of Reagandemolishes the myth of Saint Jimmy and exposes how he created today’s leftist Democratic party of John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.The Official Handbook of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
by Mark W. Smith
Paperback - (March 2004) - $14.95Arm yourself for the 2004 election year!The Official Handbook of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy has all the ammunition you need to help you win every argument against loony liberals. Shoot down their biggest myths and expose their blatant hypocrisy!Madame Hillary
by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. with Mark Davis
Hardcover - (February 2004) - $27.95Prepare the way for President Hillary! Her Dark Road to the White House Revealed at Last No one knows Hillary Clinton the way R. Emmett Tyrrell and Mark Davis know her. Tyrrell’s American Spectator was the magazine of record for breaking stories on the Clinton administration. For eight solid years it was the administration’s most formidable journalistic opponenta persistent (as well as a devastatingly perceptive and witty) obstacle to the Clintons’ attempts to hoodwink the public and whitewash their own corruption. Former White House speechwriter and longtime Clinton watcher and chronicler Mark Davis has compiled devastating files of research on Hillary.Rumsfeld's War
by Rowan Scarborough
Hardcover - (March 2004) - $27.95The man in the cockpit fighting the war on terror.When terrorists crashed a plane into the Pentagon, he was therehelping carry the wounded to safety. And he’s been thereleading the war on terror, directing its operations around the world in both open and covert missions, and bluntly focusing on one primary goal: killing terrorists. He is Donald Rumsfeld. His great fear was a second Pearl Harbor. When it happened on September 11, 2001, he led the charge to make sure it never happens again.Rogue State
by William C. Triplett II
Hardcover - (March 2004) - $27.95Veteran national security specialist William C. Triplett II, coauthor of the bestselling Year of the Rat and Red Dragon Rising, exposes just how dangerous the mad regime of North Korea regime has becomea rogue state dedicated not just to developing nuclear weapons but to proliferating them.Nuclear weapons aren’t the only threat. Triplett shows how the North Korean regime sponsors global terrorism, and he dissects the twisted layers of the cult-based, family-run criminal enterprise of North Korea’s aggressive and secretive Communist dictatorship.A Time for Reflection
by William E.Simon
Hardcover - (January 2004) - $27.95William E. Simonquintessential American figure of the American century: Wall Street wunderkind, treasury secretary under Presidents Nixon and Ford, successful entrepreneur, U.S. Olympic Committee president, best-selling author, pioneering philanthropist, and devout Catholic.His insightful and often humorous autobiography, A Time for Reflection, includes a diverse cast of characters whose lives intersected with Simon’s: from the president and his advisers at the White House; to the highest realms of the Catholic Church (in particular, Cardinal Egan), to celebrities, like actress Meryl Streep; and sports figures, like basketball coach Bobby Knight.Anyone heard of this next book?:The Privileged Planet
by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards
Hardcover - (March 2004) - $27.95Is Earth merely an insignificant speck in a vast and meaningless universe? On the contrary. The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery shows that this cherished assumption of materialism is dead wrong. Earth is a lot more significant than virtually anyone has realized. Contrary to the scientific orthodoxy, it is not an average planet around an ordinary star in an unremarkable part of the Milky Way.
In this original book, Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards present a staggering array of evidence that exposes the hollowness of this modern dogma.War Stories: Operation Iraqi Freedom
by Oliver North
Hardcover - (November 2003) - $29.95The mainstream media are trying to discredit our victory in Iraq by saying there was no reason to take out Saddam. But Oliver North knows better. He was there. Contrary to some of the media’s willing inaccuracies, in War Stories: Operation Iraqi Freedom you’ll witness:* How an arsenal was provided to Saddam by so-called friends of the United States
* Evidence of equipment used to disperse chemical weapons
* The uncovering of huge caches of Iraqi weapons stored in hospitals, schools, and mosques
* Evidence of terrorist bases and weapons in Iraq
* The connection between captured terrorists and Saddam’s regimeThat's right folks, they have it all! From international xenophobia to revisionist history, with a little Christian-Thiest Manifest Destiny thrown in for good measure, not forgetting the obligatory embrace of literary Conservative iconostasis...Regnery Publishing, Inc.Giving you predictable conservative crap since 1947.Coming this month from Regnery Publishing:In Defense of Internment
The post-World War II critics are challenged in this controversial justification of internment, and its implications for Bush’s war on terror.Outrage
The case against gay marriage, and how it threatens our institutions and our core values.

I can't help but to post some more interesting information about the publisher of this book, Regenery Publishing. Granted, this may be arguably an ad hominem, but I do think it has some merit on the credibility of the book itself:http://www.oliverwillis.com/node/view/281And here's an interesting dating service by William Regenery:

quote:

---

Sites: Dating the White Way

​

Newsweek

​

Aug. 9 issue - It's hard for white separatists to get a date. And not just for the reasons that you think. Part of the problem is that there are no whites-only dating services, says William Regnery, publisher of The Occidental Quarterly, a magazine that espouses white nationalism and whose statement of principles calls for limiting immigration to "selected people of European ancestry."

​

Regnery's now preparing to enter the markethe recently announced the idea of a racially exclusive dating Web site in a letter to subscribers. He says he's worried about the declining percentage of whites in the population and hopes a dating site would increase the number of white families, "since the survival of our race depends upon our people marrying, reproducing and parenting." Such fears tap into the "common paranoid fantasy" of white separatists, says Mark Potok of the watchdog Southern Poverty Law Center. But Regnery defends the whites-only matchmaking idea, insisting that it is no different from sites run for Jewish singles. "I'm sure you're familiar with JDate," he says, naming one Jewish-dating site. "It's huge, and there are a variety of other ones for ethnic, religious [and] special-interest groups." For now, Regnery's project has no domain name and no start date. "This is still a gleam in the eye of the beholder," he says.

​

Andrew Murr

​

2004 Newsweek, Inc.
MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos

---

Some more websites of interest:1. Recent eyewitness comes forward to give Kerry's first Purple Heart merit (as if he really needed it): Search2. Ex Navy Chief, Republican Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Sen. John Warner, defends the process by which Kerry earned the Silver Star:Breaking News, World News, US and Local News - NY Daily News - New York Daily News3. The rear gunner of Kerry's boat defends Kerry's Silver Star:East Bay Times - Contra Costa and Alameda county news, sports, entertainment, lifestyle and commentary4. The eriposte website I gave earlier updates the Swift Boat saga as often as possible. A very well-written summary of events covering this whole charade:StackPath

I'd like to expand on this notion a little further, just in case whatever missed it.One thing I must admire about Republicans is how incredibly talented they are when they strive to be disingenuous. It’s something the dems really need to pick up if they every want to effectively compete against republicans. The actual Kerry quote reads,"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."Secondly, it really does seem awfully equivocating doesn’t it? As a matter of fact, it seems like it’s SUCH an indefensible statement that that should be your first clue that something’s wrong and that MAYBE we’re making a contextual miscalculation as we seem so prone to do. Well it would be my pleasure to clear up the muddy waters so to speak. Allow me to introduce to you senate amendment 1796:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SP1796:If you don’t want to read the text of Senate amendment 1796 it essentially amends bill 1689 (supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan security and reconstruction) to pay for the $87 billion by suspending a portion of the reductions in the highest income tax rate for individual taxpayers. Now this amendment, which was co-sponsored by Kerry, was tabled by congress on October 2, 2003 by a 57-42 vote. Kerry voted against tabling it so he effectively cast a vote for it. Bill 1689 eventually passed on October 17, in which Kerry cast a vote against it. Now, in case you haven’t put 2 and 2 together by now, allow me to connect the dots:Kerry: I actually did vote for the $87 billion (Bill 1796) before I voted against it (Bill 1689).Did you catch that?Kerry: I actually did vote for the $87 billion (Bill 1796) before I voted against it (Bill 1689).Kinda tricky but I’m sure you can comprehend that simple concept. But here’s the best part, if you can grasp the implications of this concept we can conclude that not only is Kerry not waffling, but by voting against bill 1689 he is doing the exact OPPOSITE of waffling. Not only is he sticking to his original amendment that he introduced, but he’s willing to stick to his original amendment by voting against 1689 against OVERWHELMING odds.Teehee that’s not the best part though. The best part comes from the rhetoric of the Bush campaign with respects to this issue. What do they say?

quote:

---

BUSH (7/14/04): Now, when Senator Kerry tried to explain his vote, here’s what he said. He said, I actually did vote for the $87 billionbefore I voted against it. (Laughter.) End quote. It sure doesn’t clear it up, does it? (Laughter.) Now he’s offering a different explanation. Earlier this week, he said he is proud he and his running mate voted against the funding for our troops.

​

AUDIENCE: Booo!

​

BUSH: No, he’s entitled to his view, but here’s mine: Members of Congress should not vote to send troops into battle and then vote against funding them. (Applause.) As the Commander-in-Chief of this great military, I will see to it they have what is needed to complete their mission. (Applause.)

​

CNN.com - Transcripts

---

Hahahaha but apparentely it’s ok for the President to threaten veto of a bill to fund said troops if the version doesn’t agree with him! Can you believe this guy? But wait it get’s better!

quote:

---

BUSH (7/16/04): I assure you, ladies and gentlemen, the cause of freedom is in really good hands.
(APPLAUSE)

​

BUSH: I'll make sure our troops have the best. They deserve the best. And that's why last September I proposed supplemental funding to support our military in its mission. This legislation provided funding for body armor and other vital equipment, for hazard pay, health benefits, ammunition, fuel, spare parts. In the Senate, only a small, out-of-the-mainstream minority voted against the legislation. And two of those 12 senators, two of the 12, are my opponent and his running mate.

​

AUDIENCE: Booo.

​

BUSH: When asked to explain his vote, Senator Kerry said this, I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.

​

(LAUGHTER)

​

BUSH: End quote. Now he's offering a different explanation. Earlier this week, Senator Kerry said he is proud that he and his running mate voted against the funding for the troops.

​

AUDIENCE: Booo.

​

BUSH: And yesterday, he said that his vote against funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan was complicated. No, there's nothing complicated about supporting our troops.

​

(APPLAUSE)

​

BUSH: As the Commander-in-Chief of a great United States military, I will make sure they have what is necessary so they can do their jobs.

​

(APPLAUSE)

​

nytimes.com

---

Wait what did this guy just say???

quote:

---

No, there's nothing complicated about supporting our troops

---

Nothing complicated??? Then why the hell did you threaten to veto supporting our troops if there’s NOTHING COMPLICATED about it???? Hahahah isn't he great folks?So let’s summarize: Republican criticism of Kerry’s flip-flopping on the Iraq vote: BASELESS AND HYPOCRITICAL.Regards,Opus1

quote:

---

It is not like the ONLY people who can be said to have served WITH Kerry had to be on his little boat.

​

There were probably 4 men to a boat, 4 boats to a squad, and 3 squads to a platoon, 3 platoons to a company, and so on... (I don't know the navy terminology for these divisions however they are basically the same in all branches)

​

Now it is not like the only people that got to know Kerry were the 3 other guys on his particular boat. The officers of the other boats would undoubtedly have to work and communicate with Kerry to operate together as a team. I'm sure they would rarely if ever send a single boat on a mission. So it is completely false to say that none of these men ever served "with" Kerry simply because they were not on his boat.

---

While I agree that this notion is plausible, the problem with the other's accounts is the continual contradictory evidence against their charges. The latest victim is Thurlow, whom seems to have a problem with the fact that not only did HIS report state there was enemy gunfire, but another guy on his boat, Lambert - HIS report stated there was enemy gunfire as well. Chris Matthews, of all people, had Thurlow for lunch the other day:Bull Escapes Truck to Slaughterhouse and Destroys ShopsNow Thurlow's claim about Kerry writing the after action report is also stretching the truth quite a bit, esp. when he has absolutely no evidence to support that claim. In fact, evidence counters his claim quite well:

quote:

---

Who Initialed Navy Report?

​

Much of the debate over who is telling the truth boils down to whether the two-page after-action report and other Navy records are accurate or whether they have been embellished by Kerry or someone else. In "Unfit for Command," O'Neill describes the after-action report as "Kerry's report." He contends that language in Thurlow's Bronze Star citation referring to "enemy bullets flying about him" must also have come from "Kerry's after-action report."

​

O'Neill has said that the initials "KJW" on the bottom of the report "identified" it as having been written by Kerry. It is unclear why this should be so, as Kerry's initials are JFK. A review of other Swift boat after-action reports at the Naval Historical Center here reveals several that include the initials "KJW" but describe incidents at which Kerry was not present.

​

Other Swift boat veterans, including Thurlow and Chenoweth, have said they believe that Kerry wrote the March 13 report. "I didn't like to write reports," said Thurlow, who was the senior officer in the five-boat flotilla. "John would write the thing up in longhand, and it would then be typed up and sent up the line."

​

Even if Kerry did write the March 13 after-action report, it seems unlikely that he would have been the source of the information about "enemy bullets" flying around Thurlow. The official witness to those events, according to Thurlow's medal recommendation form, was his own leading petty officer, Robert Lambert, who himself won a Bronze Star for "courage under fire" in going to Thurlow's rescue after he fell into the river. Lambert, who lives in California, declined to comment.

​

In a telephone interview, the head of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, retired Adm. Roy Hoffmann, who commanded all Swift boats in Vietnam, said he believed that Kerry wrote the March 13 after-action report on the basis of numerical identifiers at the top of the form. He later acknowledged that the numbers referred to the Swift boat unit, and not to Kerry personally. "It's not cast-iron," he said.

​

(snip)

​

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...icles/A21239-2004Aug21.html

---

So in other words, they have no evidence whatsoever to support their assertions.Yet again.But more and more individuals are coming to support Kerry's version, his crewmates' version, and the Naval record: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - AM}-That's the Chicago editor coming forward to defend Kerry's Silver Star, in case you don't have a subscription (it's free, BTW).Telluride Daily Planet - Suites hotels in New York-another independent verification of Kerry's Bronze Star.Meanwhile, the distortions and filth continue to become unraveled, such as this guy who wasn't even there to witness Kerry's heroism and valor: Yet he had the audacity to claim that Kerry was lying about his record. Pathetic.Or how 'bout this guy?:

quote:

---

"I do not have a single document," Odell said. "I have the fact that I wasn't wounded in that 5,000 meters of fire that he wrote about."

​

Reuters | Breaking International News & Views

---

Thanks for mentioning that you have no evidence to support your assertions, Mr. Odell. But yet you want us to buy your line that there was no enemy fire because you did not get shot?How pathetic can you get? And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Odell a lawyer? I certainly wouldn't want him on my team.

quote:

---

While I think Kerry's war record is absolutely the stupidest thing to judge his qualifications for president on (people change a lot over the years), it is the ONLY thing he is asking us to base our decision on. Why would he ask us to base our decision on FOUR MONTHS of service that happened so long ago in a very different culteral and political climate with facts so dubious that there will always be room for debate and speculation as to what the truth actually is?

---

Well I do agree with you here that Kerry should have been playing his war record a little less, but I strongly disagree with you that it was the ONLY thing he has mentioned. I think the media has to share a portion of the blame here, sensationalizing this swift boat crap to the point of nauseum. But in Kerry's speech during the Democratic convention, he broadly outlined nearly every one of his policies and stances, and actually scarcely mentioned his war record. You can see more of his stances in detail here:http://www.johnkerry.com

quote:

---

My guess is he really has nothing else to show.

---

On the contrary, he has a great deal to show in his Senatorial record, some of it of course makes a few individuals in Bush's Administration a little uneasy, like Kerry uncovering the Iran/Contra affair. Or even more interesting was this little Iran/Contra follow-up gem by Kerry:http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/.../0409.sirota.html#bylineWhat I find interesting is how Kerry clearly demonstrates anything BUT that of a flip-flopper here. He was going against powerful people in BOTH parties, but he had the conviction that the path he chose was the right one.Kerry was, of course, right.I predict Kerry's Senatorial record will be September's hot button. Kerry certainly has some faults, but he has done some great work as well. What it seems to me though, is that Bush's group and his 527's are NOT wanting to talk about Kerry's political record, and want to continue to ad hominem attack him to death.Hey, if it worked against Cleland and McCain, why fix somethin' if it ain't broken?

quote:

---

He is NOT an anti-war candidate as I heard him quoted recently as saying that knowing what he knows now, he still would have voted to go to war in Iraq, yet he still says the war in Iraq is a travesty, and "I would have done it better, I would have gotten our allies in line..."

---

He never claimed to be an anti-war candidate, so why attempt to paint him as such?What Kerry has a problem with is Bush's rush to war without accepting (or understanding) the consequences of the war. That includes hastily kicking out the UN Weapons Inspectors for no reason while they were doing their jobs, doing a piss-poor job at gaining more global support, refusing to listen to strong evidence that we needed more troops for stability AFTER the successful invasion, and refusing to put together a coherent and viable post-war rebuilding plan (actually willfully dismissing those intelligence officials who asked this very question).As a result, well, you see the results now, and the U.S. taxpayers are nearly paying for it all. Hardly what we need in a recovery, but the neo-cons got their way regardless.

quote:

---

Taking Kerry's character and actions on the whole and disregarding the 4 meaningless months in vietnam that he has chosen to base his campaign on, I find Kerry most definately unfit to command.

---

It appears you might be a little misinformed, or are choosing to ignore evidence to the contrary of your political beliefs.This message has been edited by MisterOpus1, 08-23-2004 04:14 PMThis message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-24-2004 12:07 AM

quote:

---

What is the US national debt right now compared to 4 years ago?

---

Or more to the point, what did Bush say about the effects of tax cuts to our deficit? Did he say they would increase or decrease the deficit?(pssst, I'll give you a hint, he didn't say "increase").

quote:

---

Kerry comes across as believing his contradictions are true, but a contradiction can not both be true, etc...Kerry is like a ship without a rudder, and thats not the man to be electing to the highest office of the land, etc...

---

Oh come now, aren't you being a little harsh on the fella? I mean, you want to talk about contradictions, why don't cha have a little bite of your man in office right now:1. Social Security SurplusBUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]2. Patient's Right to SueGOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [Salon, 2/7/01]...CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush, 10/17/00]...PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE "To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits ‘would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [Washington Post, 4/5/04]3. Tobacco BuyoutBUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM... "They've got the quota system in place -- the allotment system -- and I don't think that needs to be changed." [President Bush, 5/04]...BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL SUPPORT FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO QUOTAS "The administration is open to a buyout." [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04]4. North KoreaBUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02]...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]5. AbortionBUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]...BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE "I am pro-life." [Governor Bush, 10/3/00]6. OPECBUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES... "What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00]...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]7. Iraq FundingBUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004... "We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]...BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 "I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops." [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]8. Condoleeza Rice TestimonyBUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'... "Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]...BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: "Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony." [President Bush, 3/30/04]9. ScienceBUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE..."I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good." [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE "60 leading scientistsincluding Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidentsissued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels." [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]10. Ahmed ChalabiBUSH INVITES CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS...President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03]...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI'S HOUSE "U.S. soldiers raided the home of America's one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers." [Washington Post, 5/20/04]11. Department of Homeland SecurityBUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]12. Weapons of Mass DestructionBUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons.And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]13. Free TradeBUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03]14. Osama Bin LadenBUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]15. The EnvironmentBUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]16. WMD CommissionBUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04]17. Creation of the 9/11 CommissionBUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]18. Time Extension for 9/11 CommissionBUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04]...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04]19. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission TestimonyBUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04]...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]20. Gay MarriageBUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]21. Nation BuildingBUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]22. Saddam/al Qaeda LinkBUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]23. U.N. ResolutionBUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03]...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]24. Involvement in the Palestinian ConflictBUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02]...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03]25. Campaign FinanceBUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02]I guess everyone has a few "contradictions" underneath their pillows, don't they?

quote:

---

It is more than a "plausible notion". It is the truth. And it is absolutely dishonest for democrats who know better to continue saying these people never served "with" Kerry because they weren't on the same 4-man boat. That's all I was trying to point out.

---

And as I was pointing out, the Smear Boaters continue to contradict their previous glowing after-action and fitness reports about Kerry's heroic acts. They are also contradicting Naval records as well as true eyewitness accounts of individuals who were NOT JUST ON KERRY'S boat. I demonstrated a number of individuals who have come forward lately to support Kerry whom were on other boats. According to Naval records, the closest the Smear Boaters were to Kerry's boat was a couple hundred yards away and were patrolling the OTHER side of the river. The eyewitnesses that support Naval record and Kerry's version were patrolling literally right next to Kerry.I then demonstrated the contradiction with Thurlow's account as yet another piece of evidence against the Smear Boaters.Combine this with this group's well-known agenda, previous smear record against McCain, and big-bucks Texas Republican backing, this group rots to high heaven.

quote:

---

I've heard arguments back and forth about this, and I generally believe the swift boat vets claims. However, as I said before,

---

You're free to believe their claims, so long as you accept the fact that you're believing highly contradictory evidence to Naval record, along with unsupported assertions.

quote:

---

I wouldn't base any decision on 4 months that happened so long ago and in a different environment.

---

Nor would I. But his act of volunteering to the military and request to serve his tours in Vietnam, vs. a guy who deliberately wanted to skip the war by enrolling in a politician-friendly Air Guard, scored in the 25th percentile on his test but was allowed in ahead of other passing scores anyway, flat-out requested NOT to be sent to fight in Vietnam, and couldn't even finish his service in the first place,tends to speak volumes about the building of character to me.

quote:

---

OOooo... Ad Hominem... I'm starting to learn a little logic hanging around here.

---

Could have fooled me.I stand by my statement. Odell's statement:"I do not have a single document," Odell said. "I have the fact that I wasn't wounded in that 5,000 meters of fire that he wrote about."is absolutely preposterous. Odell claims that Kerry has not been honest and does not have any evidence to his claim that Kerry embellished his after-action report on his Bronze Star and 3rd Purple Heart. In fact, as I so neatly pointed out, it's highly doubtful that Kerry even wrote the report for his Star and PP, given the fact that the initials on the report are not his and also show up on other reports unrelated to Kerry in any manner.But yet he wants us to go by the fact that he himself wasn't shot, therefore there was no shooting involved? Please don't tell me you buy into that logic?If he utilized this type of logic in a court, he would be laughed right out the door.

quote:

---

Now that's just bull. I watched his acceptance speech at the convention. From his corny introduction, "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty," to the vets lining the stage to his statements that he would fight the war smarter and better because he served his country in vietnam, his wartime service was the main emphasis of the whole thing. You'd think he'd want to emphasize his senate career, but no, four months in vietnam....

---

Again I stand by my statement of "scarcely" during his speech. I do agree with you that his opening line was a little corny, but no biggie. After that line, however, he rarely referred back to his military service again (perhaps maybe one other time). The Swift Boat men on the stage were not a part of his actual speech, even though they were a part of the nightly speeches altogether. I was specifically referring to his speech.

quote:

---

As far as broadly outlining "nearly every one of his policies and stances" all I heard was string of unconnected generalizations that sounded as if he was painting a word picture from a wish list from the audience of what goodies they want to recieve when he gets in office. His lack of vision, clarity, presence, optimism, and humility were evident in his appearance at the convention and in the bits of his recent speeches I've seen.

---

Hmmm, must have heard a different speech than I did. I have an idea next time you hear a Kerry speech on TV -Switch the channel off of Faux News.That might cut down on the Conservative attack, I mean Conservative talking points during his speech a little better.As for the speech itself, ALL nomination speeches are broad. Did you not listen to Bush's nomination speech in 2000? Very few details are given, which is kinda funny how that correlates exactly with what I said:"he broadly outlined nearly every one of his policies and stances..."The specifics are there for you to read here:http://www.johnkerry.comFeel free to read them, if you really care to.

quote:

---

Then why is Kerry touting his four months in vietnam rather than his umpteen years in the senate?

---

Have you really listened to any of his stump speeches or any of his speeches at all?Granted, he has touched on his war record throughout his speeches, but he does so as a demonstration of his leadership and character. If you have listened to any of his speeches, and not to the distortions of Hannity or Limbaugh, you would hear about his proven accomplishments in the Senate.For the most part, his Senate record was that of an investigator, not a policy maker (though he did create a few here and there). He wasn't the type of Senator that wanted his name on everything he touched. Rather, he utilized his investigative background on a number of events (Iran/Contra, BCCI bank, etc.) that proved invaluable for our government and our country.Often times he went against powerful individuals in his own party, if he felt what he was doing was right.Hardly the flip-flopper that the Conservative mouthpieces want to slap him with.

quote:

---

And aside from the lack of leadership characteristics I sensed, the nature of his policies absolutely give me the shivers.

---

Explain. Be specific as to which policies give you the shivers.

quote:

---

What hipocracy...

---

Explain. It is just my opinion, of course, but it seems that the main issues of the day (Iraq, economy) favor Kerry, as does the public. How is what I said hypocritical?

quote:

---

He's a fence sitter. He's trying to have it both ways. He is saying that the war on terror needs to be fought but we aren't going to do the fighting... we're going to leave it up to france and germany and the UN to do it... a VERY scary thought.

---

You really should listen a little better to what he is saying as opposed to the Conservative mouthpieces.If you think we can fight the war on terror by ourselves without the help of the UN and European nations, you are not only shortsighted but terribly misguided. The assistance of the European nations so far in fighting terrorism has been invaluable. But it certainly could be better.With Bush's current "piss on the UN" type stance, however, we are only moving backwards on our global war on terror.

quote:

---

The endless criticism of the war in Iraq drags on, but when asked if he would have voted for the war knowing what he knows now, he says he still would have voted in favor of it.

---

Again, you really need to listen to what Kerry has said. He would have voted the same, but NOT for the President to utilize that power and fail to have a stronger coalition, kick the UN inspectors out prematurely, and have no real post-war plan.But even more so, who's to say that under the same circumstances if Kerry were President 4 yrs. ago, that he would have even pushed Iraq on the forefront the way Bush did, while at the same time neglecting Afghanistan and pulling troops out of there who were searching for the REAL terrorist threat? My guess is that Kerry (or I guess, Gore to be more historically accurate) would likely not have pushed Iraq out there as a threat, esp. when there was counterevidence that clearly indicated Saddam was very well contained regardless.

quote:

---

What is that supposed to mean?

---

What part didn't you understand?

quote:

---

First of all, thats a hidden attack on Bush's intelligence.

---

Well if you think it's hidden, then allow me to come out and say it - Bush is a complete dumbass.There, now there's no hidden feelings involved here.

quote:

---

Secondly, no one can know the future.

---

But one can listen and plan for possible consequences quite a bit better, can they not?So was it true what Rumsfeld said about the Iraqi's welcoming us with "open arms"?

quote:

---

Thirdly, the war and the aftermath has gone VERY well and I'm very happy with the consequences and so are most of the soldiers over there who've risked their lives to accomplish what they've accomplished.

---

Most of the soldiers are happy with the consequences? Source, please.Are you really being serious with this comment? It is reported by our own military that our troops are overstretched over there in Iraq. It is reported that men and women are serving longer than their expected 1 yr. tours. We are unfortunately having to use many retired reservists in order to keep our rotation of tours fair to everyone serving right now.Bush and Rumsfeld was told we needed more troops by the State Dept. and high ranking Pentagon officials. They ignored this completely and now we have this overstretched military fiasco.From a NYTimes article:

quote:

---

Almost a year after Congress approved an American contribution of more than $18 billion to rebuild Iraq, very little of this money has been spent. Very little has actually been built in Iraq, and most of what has been done has been paid for out of Iraq's own revenues. This is more than an embarrassing case of dysfunctional aid management and shifty accounting.

​

Almost a year after Congress approved an American contribution of more than $18 billion to rebuild Iraq, very little of this money has been spent. Very little has actually been built in Iraq, and most of what has been done has been paid for out of Iraq's own revenues. This is more than an embarrassing case of dysfunctional aid management and shifty accounting. It helps explain why so many Iraqis have come to resent the American occupation even though it removed a hated dictator and ended 13 years of punishing economic sanctions. Even people who initially welcomed the invasion have had a hard time understanding or accepting why, 16 months after American troops took Baghdad, electricity and clean water are only intermittently available and nearly half of employable Iraqis are without work.

​

Of the $18.4 billion Congress approved last fall, only about $600 million has actually been paid out. Billions more have been designated for giant projects still in the planning stage. Part of the blame rests with the Pentagon's planning failures and the occupation authority's reluctance to consult qualified Iraqis. Instead, the administration brought in American defense contractors who had little clue about what was most urgently needed or how to handle the unfamiliar and highly insecure climate.

​

Occupation officials also felt free to tap into Iraqi revenues, which are subject to far less oversight and looser controls than Congressionally appropriated funds. Late last year, for example, the Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root was awarded a no-bid contract out of Iraqi revenues. At the time, Congress might have balked at further dealings with a company facing questions about the inflated prices it charged for importing gasoline into Iraq and about a no-bid contract awarded by the Army Corps of Engineers just before the invasion. Last week, The Washington Post reported that almost $2 billion in Iraqi revenues had been awarded to American companies.

---

This info. can be found here, BTW (free registration required): http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/09/opinion/...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}Furthermore, the water supply is being tainted by sewage as a result of all the fighting occurring, offering lovely diseases such as typhoid and hepatitis E to the citizens:http://www.iraq.net/displayarticle5004.htmlAdditionally, the latest Iraqi public opinion poll still demonstrates a wide majority of Iraqis wanting our troops out now. They reject our help and their puppet government.

quote:

---

I don't know whether or not the Iraqis were giving the inspectors the run around or not.

---

There was no indication from intelligence that they were. Even if they had, surely something would have been found by now.

quote:

---

There is some very reliable intelligence that the Iraqi's shipped a lot of weapons to Syria just before the baloon went up,

---

A little hunt on your statement turned up this in March of 2003:http://www.news24.com/...aq/0,6119,2-10-1460_1340941,00.htmlBut our Administration could not confirm such a link:Page not found | Power LineAnd then the Iraqi Survey Group offered the opposite account in Sept. of last year, saying such an event was "highly unlikely" BBC NEWS | UK | Politics | No WMD in Iraq, source claims But then the "trusty" old World Net Daily decided to run yet another unsupported account of events last January:Page not found - WNDBut then Conoleeeeeeza Rice came out and stated this:

quote:

---

"Any indication that something like that happened would be a very serious matter," Ms. Rice said on Friday. "But I want to be very clear: We don't, at this point, have any indications that I would consider credible and firm that that has taken place. But we will tie down every lead."

---

http://216.26.163.62/2004/ss_iraq_01_11.htmlUnless there's something new since then that I haven't noticed, there is NO evidence to support the notion of WMD being smuggled into Syria at this time.

quote:

---

but regardless... Saddam needed to be taken out immediately.

---

Well we know now that he has no WMD, and there were no ties between him and the 9/11 terrorists, as well as no working relations between him and bin Laden, so what was the vital reason that he "needed to be taken out immediately", esp. since he posed no imminent or "serious" threat to us?

quote:

---

He should have been taken out in the first gulf war.

---

That I can agree with. But then again, that's Bush Sr.'s fault, wasn't it?

quote:

---

He had a sizeable coalition (I've heard numbers from 30 to 50 something). Some nations are wimping out and surrendering to the terrorists demands. While its good to have some global support, I could really careless what the world thinks of him or us, it was the right thing to do, and when people see the consquences of a free democratic Iraq, the objective person will agree.

---

Yeah, a coalition of individuals who gave a few troops here or there and a coupla bucks and a pat on the back. When it comes down to it, however, it was us and the British. And when it comes down to who's paying the big majority of the bill,it's most certainly us.How could it be the right thing to do if Saddam has no WMD, and no ties to Al Qaeda terrorists, esp. the ones that attacked on our soil?

quote:

---

And besides that, we have filled in one more gopher hole for the terriorists to pop their heads out of.

---

Oh, perhaps you didn't read the reports that indicated that Al Qaeda and it's supporters have now poured into Iraq to kill our men and women there?Or perhaps you didn't read the confession by Powell that global terrorist attacks are actually much higher now than they ever were before?Hardly a hole plugged up by anyone's standards.

quote:

---

There IS stability and freedom throughout the vast majority of the nation now. The only instability is the result of radical muslims from Iran and other terrorist groups sending in militants in order to try and make this attempt at providing freedom and democracy in the middle east fail.

---

Which is effectively crippling the rest of the country of Iraq as a result. Read the report on the water and sewage as an example.Let me be clear, there are some positives here and there. But the negative effects override the positives, and for good reason - they have a much more lasting effect on the people as a whole.

quote:

---

I don't care what you say,

---

Then why debate me in the first place? Just kindly don't respond then. Or don't even read, if you so desire.

quote:

---

transforming a tyrranical dictatorship into a democracy in a little more than a year is a phenomanal feat and no easy process, but we have made huge progress.

---

It would be quite a feat if it were true and done on correct pretenses. I won't deny that progress has been accomplished, but the cost of that progress on us is astonishing (esp. when you consider that we are trying to recover from a domestic economic downturn), and the process from which it has occurred is nothing shy of sloppy and shortsighted.

quote:

---

And I like what I see... Why do all of Kerry's supporters think we've been living in "hell" for the last four years?

---

Because of both the foreign and domestic policies by this Administration have done very little to truly move us forward.

quote:

---

First of all, the war was a worthy cause to pay for.

---

It would have been much more worthy if Saddam truly was a threat to us, and that our pretenses for invading their country were true.That was not the case by any stretch of the imagination.

quote:

---

Second of all, there is a LOT of unworthy excess baggage that needs to be eliminated from the governments expenditures.

---

I agree.

quote:

---

Defense spending and the war on terror is not something you can convince me we need to spend less on.

---

I didn't realize I was trying to convince you of this, nor is Kerry. But since Iraq did not pose an imminent threat, and since there were no ties to bin Laden, I fail to see how invading Iraq was a worthy fight right now in our war against terrorism.Don't you think our efforts should have been more towards Al Qaeda instead?

quote:

---

If that were the case it would be a miracle, since %95 of the press is absolutely enthralled with Kerry. I thought Peter Jennings was going piss his pants he was so excited at the convention.

---

Oh just give Peter a chance for the RNC - he'll be pissing his pants there just as much.I would hardly agree with you about the press and Kerry. I can't remember how many times I heard the numerous Conservative talking points coming out of their mouths about him ("flip-flopper", "liberal Senate record", etc. etc.).In fact, the case can be made for the opposite. Just recently, both the NYTimes and the Washington Post have made open apologies in their papers for going along the Conservative and Bush rhetoric about Saddam's WMD without equally weighing or even INVESTIGATING counterevidence against this claim.The press is out for one thing - sensationalism. They care very little who they trash or praise. If it makes them a few extra bucks or it grabs higher ratings, then they will all be for it.

quote:

---

There IS a lot of information floating around out there, and I've heard enough to make my decision. I'm very happy with many of Bush's policies, and Kerry telling me, "Iii'm going to do it better," and "help is on the way," and "Iii'm going to take this matter to the UN" is not going to convince me that he is a better choice.

---

Well then perhaps you should read more about his proposals instead of listen to his rhetoric:http://www.johnkerry.comAnd then weigh his ideas with Bush's. If you do so with equal footing on both and still vote for Bush, more power to you. But at least you can read exactly what Kerry stands for instead of listening to the Conservative mouthpieces attempting to define/distort his words and policies for him.This message has been edited by MisterOpus1, 08-25-2004 03:13 PMThis message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-25-2004 03:41 PM

By all means, be my guest. Besides, as one Admin. here has stated, anything posted on this forum becomes the property of the forum.