A Case for Kerry

Agrajag · Post by **Agrajag** » 2004-09-28 04:05pm

George Bush has made many accusations regarding the peril the country would endure if John Kerry were elected. The problem with this is that virtually none of those accusations stand up to scrutiny. In addition, his own promises ring hollow. Consider the following:

During his acceptance speech at the RNC, Bush promised a number of far reaching initiatives that sounded great in a speech but included many that were promised four years ago. In fact, much of his speech sounded as if Bush hadn't even been in office for a first term. Bush has been unable to get any of these initiatives through Congress even though the Republicans control both the House and Senate. In a year when it appears the Democrats will win back some more seats, how will Bush get these same initiatives through a less-friendly Congress?

He promised to provide funding for job training programs, yet in his first term he's cut funding for job training programs.

He promised to provide aid for community colleges and yet cut aid for those same programs in his first term. In fact, Bush has already attempted to freeze or cut Pell Grants during this term. Is he suddenly going to change positions in a second term where he has no concern for re-election and thus, doesn't need to pander to anyone?

He speaks of his "success" with No Child Left Behind and yet teachers around the country overwhelmingly pan the entire initiative. Bush lauded Houston's school system as a classic example of how well this initiative can work. What he didn't point out is that Houston's schools have now fallen under heavy scrutiny as they've been caught cooking the books to falsify the results in order to look like a success. This is happening all over the country.

He said that American's would get the skills they need to compete in new fields and that American's can beat anyone out for a position based on their skills. This is ridiculous. First, American's just want the jobs they've chosen. Second, skills have little to do with it in this economy. Jobs being off-shored are being sent overseas to save money, not to find workers with increased skills. It's rather silly to suggest that a company is going to pay an American twice the salary (or more) to do the same job that someone in India, for example, is willing to do. That's why our jobs have been sent out of the country. It has nothing to do with skills. I don't know anyone that prefers to speak with a technical support representative who has a difficult time speaking English or understanding American viewpoints over someone who is fully capable in these areas.

Bush wants to privatize Social Security. This sounds great in a speech too but simply is not feasible and even outspoken Republican consultants have noted this. The idea is for you to be able to take the money you've paid into Social Security and to apply it (or part of it as now Bush is down to trying to privatize 1/6th of the money) to any number of investments you deem necessary. First of all, most American's are not interested in becoming stock brokers. They like the idea of money being put aside and getting something back later. They have the ability today of taking their own income and investing it. There's little need to add Social Security to this mix. Many who want the option of investing Social Security funds are people who don't need the benefit in the first place. They just want a bigger pile for themselves. They're market-savvy and want to wring every cent out of this investment. Most American's are NOT market-savvy and, in fact, if this sort of option were opened up to all Americans, many would end up losing their nest egg. Quite a larger number would end up losing their funds to countless scams now perpetrated against regular novice investors. Second, this entire concept fails to factor in how Social Security works in the first place. The money you pay in isn't YOUR money. That money is used to pay for the benefits of the generation before you. It will be the younger generation that pays into Social Security that pays for your benefit. So, if Bush were to suddenly make 1/6th of Social Security available to you to invest, that money would be coming directly out of the benefits of the generation ahead of you who didn't get the opportunity to invest and now is 1/6th short for their benefit. This has to be made up somewhere and the cost to cover just that amount is 2 TRILLION dollars. Where is Bush going to come up with $2 Trillion dollars in the next 4 years? That won't stop him from promising all this though because, again, it sounds great in a speech and that's all that matters right now.

The Bush team and the Right keep trying to make the point that John Kerry is soft on Terrorism and that he wants to get permission from other countries to be able to deal with emergencies like 9/11. That's also ludicrous. First, certainly for the remainder of at least our lifetimes, and likely for long after, it'd be a virtual impossibility to be soft on terrorism. Terrorism is now with us for the duration. You cannot win this battle in the way we're going about it now. Contrary to what you're hearing, Iraq is a mess. Large portions of the country are not under our control and the nation is quickly turning into a Shiite-controlled country whose leaders abhor our very existence. They are not just going to stop fighting us based on our current methods. All we've done is to create our own version of Israel's West Bank troubles. You need the help of the world to fight terrorism. You cannot alienate your allies and the other countries and expect to get very far with terrorism. In fact, that will do little but to bring on more terrorism. The Right suggests that Kerry wants to ask the permission of countries to get things done. This is just incorrect. What he'd like to do is point out to countries like Saudi Arabia that Iraq, if things continue on as they are, is going to degenerate into a regime that will be hostile to all those countries around it and thus, it's in the very best interests of these neighboring countries (and all of our allies) to get involved and keep that from happening. Simply going it alone is getting us anywhere. Our world image has never been lower and if Kerry gets into office, that alone will boost our image in the world and open up some doors that Bush has managed to have slammed in our faces the first time around.

Much has also been made of Kerry's voting record in Congress, especially his vote against $87 Billion in aid for the troops. This is more semantics. If George Bush served even a single term in Congress, you'd be able to argue the same points against him. Any member of Congress is going to have a voting record that can be twisted to present whatever story a person would like to tell. Anyone who knows anything about bills in Congress knows that they are anything but simple. Most bills are laden with so many special interests that it's often hard to know exactly what someone is voting for or against. Kerry has been ridiculed for purportedly saying he was for this bill before he was against this bill. While that sounds funny, it's not only accurate but also quite normal. In its earliest stages this bill represented $87 Billion in funds to go to the troops. Kerry was for it at that point in time. Then, as the bill made its way through Congress, the special interests decided to pack on all sorts of surprises including a $20 Billion dollar blank check for Halliburton. This is what Kerry objected to so, at this point, he voted against it. He was not voting against body armor for our troops. He was voting against wasteful, morally wrong special interests that attempted to hijack an otherwise positive initiative. If someone would have put forth an initiative to supply $87 Billion in true, un-tainted support for our troops, every member of Congress would have voted for it.

Much is also made of Kerry's overall voting record. To attempt to suggest that his voting record is, in some way abhorrent, is to also suggest that the millions of voters in Massachusetts who keep returning him to Congress are, in some way, defective. If his views were so outside the mainstream, Kerry could not possibly continue to garner solid support from the voters. As much as you may not like his politics, his voting record has kept him in Congress for many years now. Clearly he's done something right. Massachusetts is not populated by aliens.

George Bush also recently made a big deal of the unemployment rate being so low and mentioned that it's lower than it was during the 70's, 80's and 90's. His main reason for emphasizing the 90's was to suggest that Clinton's unemployment rate was a problem. If you look at the numbers for those periods what you see is that the unemployment rate in 1988 was about the same as it is today and then the first George Bush took office and it shot up to 8 percent in his only term. Then Clinton took over and it continually fell down to a level nearly equal to what it is today.

Bush has also made a big deal about home ownership being higher than it ever has been. This is yet another attempt to say something that sounds impressive but really isn't. This statistic has been in existence since 1965 and every single year since its been tracked, the number of people owning a home has risen. There has never been a time when the number of home owners has gone down.

Bush has also made a point of saying that he has not gotten by on his father's name. Ann Coulter, a master of the art of leaving out the most critical points of a topic in order to paint a skewed picture, said in her book, 'Slander', that Bush didn't get by on his father's name and that Bush Senior was a little-known Senator on the verge of losing his first term in office. She admits that Bush Senior was an alumnus of Yale but that this had nothing to do with the son's getting into Yale. The suggestion here is that Bush got into Yale purely on his own merit. What Coulter fails to point out is that Bush's Grandfather was not only a top Senator from Connecticut, the home of Yale, but was also a Yale board member. It's also now clear that many strings were pulled to get Bush into the Texas Air National Guard, contrary to his own comments on the issue, and that continued pressure was kept on from above to make sure Bush had a clear and easy path through this stage of life. Peter Ueberroth is on the record of having said that Bush was only brought into ownership of the Texas Rangers baseball team as a favor to Bush Senior.

On Kerry's war record, the specifics are nothing more than a smoke-and-mirrors campaign by the Right to keep the real point off the table. The real point is that John Kerry was every bit as privileged as George Bush. Kerry COULD have chosen to avoid Vietnam. He could have taken deferments. He could have gotten a spot in the National Guard. He didn't do these things. He chose the more difficult path of volunteering for Vietnam and went there. Even if his motives weren't 100% honorable (and there's little proof to suggest they weren't), he CHOSE this path and managed to turn a huge negative into a large positive. That's the sort of leadership we need. We don't need a group of people who sweep problems under the rug and take the easy way out of things and then try and cover that up by ridiculing the ability of others who chose the path that they were unwilling to take.

Zell Miller made a big deal about Kerry's supposedly having opposed (note carefully that the word 'vote' wasn't used here) so many weapons and weapons systems that the military would be reduced to having to use "spitballs". Fact checking shows that Kerry hasn't opposed an annual Pentagon appropriation since 1996. And he's voted for them far more often than against them. Kerry has been in office for 19 annual votes on Pentagon appropriations and has voted for them 16 of those 19 times. In addition, when Kerry was voting against such systems earlier in his career, he was voting to put a halt to weapons and weapon systems that almost identically match the same items Dick Cheney was pushing to shut down. He did cast votes more than a decade ago against the B-2 Stealth Bomber in 1989, 1991 and 1992. But by 1992 even Senior President Bush was calling for cancellation of the B-2 and promising to cut military spending by 30% in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was no secret -- Bush did that in his 1992 State of the Union address. But Miller left out that little detail.

The right continually bashes Kerry for supposedly flip-flopping on issues and then they say it so often that, like most things they say, gets people to actually believe that it means something negative. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with changing your mind upon gaining new information. What is far more concerning is someone who stubbornly stands his ground regardless of the facts just to avoid having to admit a possible shortcoming previously. However, if flip-flopping is a concern, George Bush is every bit as guilty of it as anyone else. Now he supports an Intel Director with full budget power, when previously he didn't support the position at all, then changed his mind to say he supported it but without budget power or the ability to hire and fire and now he supports the position with budget power. He has done this on many fronts. The bottom line is that the Right just makes up terms, assigns some negative definition to it and then attempts to have it stick to the opponent regardless of their own actions.

Bush and his team refuse to talk about their record. All they can muster up is the classic tactic of spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt). Dick Cheney's recent comment spells this out clearly ("It's absolutely essential that on Election Day voters make the right choice. Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating.) That's absolutely ridiculous and insulting. If this administration is so intelligent about terrorism then how did we get hit during their term? Cheney also recently ripped into Kerry for a comment regarding handling the terror situation with "sensitivity". He ridiculed Kerry on this at the exact moment when Bush was giving a speech to Veterans in which he commented that this situation needs to be handled with sensitivity. This administration will say ANYTHING to win, regardless of its hypocrisy.

They move to destroy ANYONE who does not act as a cheerleader for the party line. Richard Clarke worked for several administrations, more Republican than Democrat, and was clearly in the know on international terrorism issues. The Bush team valued him until he spoke out against the party line. Then they attempted to destroy the man. In the end, the 9/11 Report vindicated Clarke agreeing entirely with his assessment on the situation. Then there was Paul O'Neill, their own VERY Repulican Treasury Secretary. O'Neill had been a Bush backer for a long time and was a valued asset right up until he disagreed with the administration. Suddenly the administration started suggesting O'Neill was unstable and had ulterior motives that were questionable. The same tactic has been used for anyone that has taken a divergent view.

George Bush is running very heavily on his response to 9/11. He keeps drawing references to it. Think about what 9/11 represents. It represents one of the biggest mistakes made by an administration while the head of that administration was too busy taking vacation (42% of the time up to 9/11) to bother with the details. Now we should give this guy a second term because he stood on a pile of burning rubble and looked like a leader for 20 minutes at Ground Zero?

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-09-28 04:41pm

The Case Against John Kerry

September 14, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by John Hawkins
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you're talking about John Kerry's record, then regrettably, you must begin by discussing his time spent in Vietnam since he obsessively brags about it at every opportunity. While John Kerry certainly deserves credit for going to Vietnam and getting shot at after his deferment was turned down, he has also been caught in a number of rather significant lies about his service.

For example, although John Kerry has told numerous stories about his "Christmas in Cambodia" over the years and said the memory was "seared in me", his own campaign now admits that wasn't the truth. Furthermore, another frequently told story, about how John Kerry's boat turned into an ambush to save a man in the water while all the other "swift boats (were) evacuating from the area" has been revealed to be untrue as well. In fact, as the Kerry campaign now admits, all the other boats stayed while John Kerry's boat temporarily left the area.

It also appears to be almost a certainty that John Kerry fraudulently obtained his first and third Purple Hearts which allowed him to leave Vietnam almost a full year early. Not only are there eyewitnesses from the anti-Kerry group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who say that's the case, John Kerry's own biography disaffirms Kerry's explanations of how he earned those two Purple Hearts. Of course, the Kerry camp denies those allegations, but John Kerry has chosen not to explain the huge discrepancies in his story or to release his military records. Rather than address this issue head on, the Kerry campaign has simply chalked it up to partisan politics and has declared the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group which brought these allegations to light, to be liars.

However, that group is composed of more than 250 Vietnam Vets including John Kerry's entire chain of command up to an admiral who has passed away, 17 of the 23 officers who served with Kerry, and 60 out of 100 men who served in the field with Kerry in Vietnam. That begs an obvious question: Why should anyone vote for a candidate who is declaring himself to be qualified for the presidency based in large part on his Vietnam experience when the man who served on his boat for the longest period of time (Steve Gardner), the majority of men who fought beside him in combat, and his own chain of command all say he's a liar and "unfit for command"?

After Kerry left Vietnam and he came home, he joined and later led an anti-war group called "Vietnam Veterans Against the War". This group was so radical that they actually considered assassinating pro-war US officials. While Kerry opposed that seditious plan, he did meet with the North Vietnamese in 1971, even as our troops were fighting and dying in the field, and endorsed their "peace plan".

That was not the last time John Kerry was to be of use to our enemies either. During John Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony, he recounted stories from the "The Winter Soldier Investigation". That event was organized, in part, by Vietnam Veterans against the War, and it featured large amounts of fraudulent testimony from "fake witnesses who had appropriated the names of real Vietnam Veterans". Kerry repeated their lies in front of the world and accused our troops of torture, rape, and acting like the hordes of Genghis Kahn among other things. Kerry's speech caught the ear of the Vietcong, who actually played his testimony to our soldiers in POW camps in an effort to break their will. Then there was the time Kerry joined traitorous anti-war protestor Jane Fonda in the back of a pick-up truck in order to speak out against the war, Kerry's medals, which he pretended to throw away, and the atrocities that Kerry admitted he committed in Vietnam (which makes you wonder if Lyndie England could run for President in 30 years). Understandably, John Kerry doesn't spend a lot of time talking about this period of his life on the campaign trail, but he should be deeply ashamed of his actions.

Later in life, John Kerry became a big man in Massachusetts politics. After a short stint as ultra-liberal Michael Dukakis' Lieutenant Governor, Kerry went on to a largely uneventful 20 year run as Ted Kennedy's sidekick in the Senate. Kerry's time in the Senate, which was so unremarkable that he barely even mentioned it during his 55 minute acceptance speech at the Democratic convention, was mostly notable for his timid record on national security issues & his liberal voting record -- when he bothered to even show up at all that is. In 2003, John Kerry missed 64% of all votes and so far this year, Kerry has missed a whopping 90% of all votes cast. But, given the paucity of accomplishments John Kerry has in the Senate, perhaps the people of Massachusetts didn't even notice the difference.

But I suppose Massachusetts' loss is the military's gain. Despite the fact that John Kerry has portrayed himself as a hawk to the American people during this campaign, his record is quite dovish and he has been a persistent foe of the military during his time in the Senate. Just take a look at this excerpt of a speech from John Kerry's fellow Democratic Senator Zell Miller, who was so concerned by the prospect of John Kerry becoming President during a time of war that he actually agreed to speak at the Republican Convention...

"Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile; against, against, against.

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?

U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?"

Kerry also opposed the invasion of Grenada, Desert Storm, has called National Missile Defense a "fantasy", & after voting for the war in Iraq, he then voted against funding the troops and the rebuilding effort. The whole image of John Kerry as a gung-ho hawk who's going to go after the terrorists directly contradicts 30 years of history, from the time that John Kerry was an anti-war activist through the present day. It's nothing but an election year fiction designed to fool voters who are serious about the war on terrorism into trusting John Kerry with the job of commander-and-chief.

Speaking of "election year fiction," the same could be said of the claim that John Kerry is a "moderate". Come on folks, he's a Senator from Massachusetts, he was Michael Dukakis' Lieutenant Governor, and he referred to Ted Kennedy as his "mentor" earlier this year. Given that, is anyone really going to argue that John Kerry isn't a liberal?

If so, they're going to have a hard time making their case given his Senate record. A Washington nonpartisan policy magazine, National Journal, said John Kerry had the most liberal voting record in the Senate for 2003 (Incidentally, his running mate John Edwards had the 4th most liberal record). Furthermore, Kerry's lifetime rating from the Liberal Americans For Democratic Action is 92% out of a hundred. Even two politicians long considered to be ultra-liberals, Walter Mondale and Ted Kennedy, scored only 90%!

Kerry's liberal record is actually what has caused him to acquire his well deserved reputation as a flip-flopper. It's not that John Kerry can't make up his mind; it's that he would rather try to trick voters into supporting him by telling what they want to hear rather than tell the truth about his liberal record.

That's why John Kerry, a man who "perennially receives a 100-percent rating from (anti-abortion groups like) NARAL and Planned Parenthood," has affirmed that he believes "life does begin at conception," which is the central tenet of the pro-life movement. It also explains why Kerry, an anti-gun advocate, recently waved around a shotgun given to him by supporters at a West Virginia campaign stop and called it a "beautiful piece" even though he supports legislation that would ban people from hunting with that very same weapon.

Then there's John Kerry's indecipherable position on the Iraqi war which seems to change almost depending on who he's talking to. One month he calls it "critical to the outcome of the war on terror," the next month he responds in the affirmative when Chris Matthews asks him if he's an "anti-war candidate". In February of 2003, Kerry was saying, "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me", but earlier this month Kerry said the war in Iraq was, "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time".

Of course, that statement really doesn't make any sense given that Kerry said just last month that he still would have given the President the authority to go to war even "knowing what I know today". On the other hand, that also contradicts what Kerry said this month, that the "only legitimate reason was the weapons of mass destruction question". You can go on and on like this, trying to make sense of Kerry's constantly shifting positions on the war, but there is no logical consistency to Kerry's position. It's just like when John Kerry said of his vote to fund our troops in Iraq, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Kerry wants as many people as possible, pro and anti-war, to believe that he's "on their side" and he's willing to pretend to take both sides of the issue simultaneously if necessary. Quite frankly, that sort of duplicitousness isn't a very attractive trait for a man who wants to be the next leader of the free world.

Summing this up, if you want a flip-flopping Massachusetts liberal who lied about his war record and made a name for himself by smearing our troops to become President despite the fact that there is sparse evidence to go on in his Senate career that shows he is up for the job or capable of effectively waging the war on terror, then John Kerry is your man.

John Hawkins

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/h/ ... 091404.htm

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-09-28 04:41pm

Not ment as flame bait... but The first post made no real case for Kerry. just ABB shit...

Agrajag · Post by **Agrajag** » 2004-09-28 05:02pm

I don't expect to convince someone who is a Bush fan that Kerry is the right choice for them. If you can look at what Bush has done over the last 4 years and view that in positive light, you are, in my view, not worth the effort.

That said what the hell does ABB mean?

In response to your above post, clearly this is biased garbage... Kerry does NOT BRAG about his Vietnam experience obsessively. It IS an issue because he actually chose to serve in a hell hole when others of priviledge did not. To turn that into any form of negative reality is playing to the ignorant.

Further, his own campaign has NOT said he wasn't truthful about Christmas in Cambodia. He was on, near or over the border. The right makes it out like he was in Beverly Hills on Christmas. He was in a hostile jungle in the middle of the night. Forgive me if I give the guy some latitude on his exact longitude that evening. He was certainly closer to Cambodia than George Bush ever got.
(http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunhera ... 726235.htm) This from a right-leaning paper from a clear Red state.

The record also clearly supports HIS position on his awards. Stating that these awards were fraudulent again, plays to the ignorant. Nothing more, nothing less. The record is clear. To suggest anything else at this point is clearly done to deceive.

In addition, nearly every Swift Boat accusation has now been soundly discredited and, finally, disavowed by the Bush administration, yet you keep on about it..... hmm....

I also find it rather telling that Kerry came home, stood before Congress and took a HUGE risk in speaking against the war in the way he did. There's a word for behaving like that, it's called leadership.

The entire rest of your case against Kerry is filled with more of this biased, totally unsubstantiated garbage.

How about telling us how YOU feel? My post is my viewpoint, not something I read somewhere and just spit back out at you. I've actually taken the time to look into every one of the items I posted to make sure they were based on fact and not just some biased, ulterior-motive-laden view of someone else's.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-09-28 05:27pm

Agrajag wrote

I've actually taken the time to look into every one of the items I posted to make sure they were based on fact and not just some biased, ulterior-motive-laden view of someone else's.

If you would have bothered to look at the link.. everything is sourced and linked....

Unlike yours..

Glad you personally check all of your facts...

Here this might help you get through the next 4 years of Bush..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-09-28 05:30pm

Then you will like this..

The Siren of Defeatism
The visionless Kerry is his own worst enemy.

One of the reasons John Kerry is going to lose the foreign-policy debate Thursday night in Coral Gables, Florida, is that he is a pessimist and a defeatist. His recent broad-side attacks on President Bush’s war against terrorism are right out of the Vietnam-era: Blame America. Blame the commander-in-chief. Blame the military. Assume we will lose.

Prime Minister Allawi of Iraq seemed to grasp the danger in this when he spoke in the Rose Garden last week: “When political leaders sound the siren of defeatism in the face of terrorism, it only encourages more violence.” Compare that line to the one Kerry delivered at NYU: “We have traded a dictator for chaos that has left America less secure.”

Less secure? Is he nuts? The U.S. took out the Taliban in Afghanistan. With the help of Pakistan we are in the process of destroying the al Qaeda organization. We have taken out Saddam, who, by the way, according to Russian President Putin, was planning an attack on the United States.

Kerry, who despicably agrees with Kofi Annan that the Iraq war was somehow illegal, calls Iraq a “profound diversion” from the battle against al Qaeda. But former allied commander Tommy Franks says in his book that “we entered Iraq with 9,500 troopers in Afghanistan. And by the time we finished major combat in Afghanistan — or in Iraq — we had 10,000 troops in Afghanistan.”

Do we need Allawi to remind us that Iraq is a “country emerging finally from dark ages of violence, aggression, corruption and greed”? Allawi underlined the fact that more than a million Iraqis were murdered or disappeared under Saddam, with at least 300,000 found in mass graves. Allawi concluded, “My friends, today we are better off, you are better off, and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein.”

Kerry may correctly state that Iraq has become a haven for terrorists. But we have engaged the forces of Islamo-fascism and terrorism on their turf rather than ours. Surely this has made America safer.

Meanwhile, the U.S. has established a forward military beachhead in the heart of the Middle East. This will enable the U.S. to respond quickly to potentially aggressive actions from Syria, Iran, and others. Think of it as keeping troops in South Korea or Japan or Germany during the Cold War. It’s a vitally important strategic objective.

In his speech before Congress, Allawi chronicled progress in quelling the terrorist insurrection and laying the groundwork for free elections. Most — 14 to 15 — of the 18 Iraqi provinces are stabilized. Najaf and Kufa are in better shape. Secretary of State Colin Powell has made it clear that the U.S. military will soon mop up in Ramadi and Samarra, before tackling Fallujah. Sen. Kerry apparently doubts the U.S. military, but they will not let us down.

According to Iraq the Model, an Iraq-based blog, there’s no bad news coming out of Duhok, Samawa, Diwanya, Kerbela, Irbil, Ammarah, Kut, Hilla, Rawa, Haditha, Ana, Rutba, and Heet. The Kurds enthusiastically embrace the election outlook up north. Al-Sistani is a strong supporter of elections in the Shia south. Allawi and other observers also confirm that oil pipelines are being repaired, homes are being rebuilt, hospitals are working, and millions of kids are back in school.

Defeatism is the hallmark of the Kerry policy, so you won’t hear the candidate mention any of this. Instead he’ll whine about internationalizing the war, while neglecting to mention that U.N. resolution 1546, which passed in June, endorsed the Iraqi interim government and pledged support for the upcoming elections. The G-8, the European Union, and NATO have also issued formal statements of support.

Problems in Iraq? Absolutely. A quagmire? Absolutely not. Allawi a strong ally? Definitely. “But a puppet of the United States, [where] you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips,” as top Kerry advisor Joe Lockhart put it? Nonsense. Pure partisan political pap. And the solutions Kerry is putting forward — training Iraqi security forces, rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure, holding elections in January, bringing in more allies — are already being undertaken by the Bush administration.

This is World War IV, as Norman Podhoretz recently put it. Bush understands this. Kerry does not. In essence, it’s a vision thing — a key difference that will surface in Thursday’s debate. Bush’s vision is to use American power to promote democracy and freedom in a vital part of the world that has become unimaginably dangerous. Bush’s vision is also one of optimism, of America’s ability to succeed in carrying out a humanitarian operation which will make the world a better place and leave America more safe and secure.

Kerry has no such vision. He’s a pessimist and a defeatist whose campaign is doomed to failure.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/ku ... 280831.asp

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-09-28 05:34pm

In response to your above post, clearly this is biased garbage... Kerry does NOT BRAG about his Vietnam experience obsessively. It IS an issue because he actually chose to serve in a hell hole when others of priviledge did not. To turn that into any form of negative reality is playing to the ignorant.

No, no it’s not an issue. If Clinton’s deferment meant nothing in relation to how effective he was in the Oval Office, how can you claim it will have any bearing on either the Kerry or Bush presidencies?

And don’t try and feed anyone that garbage about “leadership.” Kerry, as his campaign – and his time as a Senator – has shown time and again, is no leader.

Further, his own campaign has NOT said he wasn't truthful about Christmas in Cambodia. He was on, near or over the border. The right makes it out like he was in Beverly Hills on Christmas. He was in a hostile jungle in the middle of the night. Forgive me if I give the guy some latitude on his exact longitude that evening. He was certainly closer to Cambodia than George Bush ever got.

Cambodia is an issue not because anybody wants to prove Kerry wasn’t in the theater of war, but because Kerry himself tried to sell it as evidence of war crimes and wartime mismanagement. Remember the controversy over our intervention into Cambodia. Of course, the man’s entire argument is discredited by the fact that the Cambodian border was regularly violated by the VC and NVA – quite at will, in fact.

I also find it rather telling that Kerry came home, stood before Congress and took a HUGE risk in speaking against the war in the way he did. There's a word for behaving like that, it's called leadership.

Just because you can speak eloquently, or in a hall of bigwigs, doesn’t mean you deserve to be president. Give me a break. On that supposition, anyone who stumps for anything is a proven leader.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-09-28 05:40pm

Axis Kast wrote:
No, no it’s not an issue. If Clinton’s deferment meant nothing in relation to how effective he was in the Oval Office, how can you claim it will have any bearing on either the Kerry or Bush presidencies?

And don’t try and feed anyone that garbage about “leadership.” Kerry, as his campaign – and his time as a Senator – has shown time and again, is no leader.

Axis, I'm curious as to how you arrive at the conclusion that Kerry isn't a leader. He is a Senator for crying out loud, so he's helping to lead the nation. Can you provide some backing to your statement?

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-09-28 05:43pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Axis Kast wrote:
No, no it’s not an issue. If Clinton’s deferment meant nothing in relation to how effective he was in the Oval Office, how can you claim it will have any bearing on either the Kerry or Bush presidencies?

And don’t try and feed anyone that garbage about “leadership.” Kerry, as his campaign – and his time as a Senator – has shown time and again, is no leader.

Axis, I'm curious as to how you arrive at the conclusion that Kerry isn't a leader. He is a Senator for crying out loud, so he's helping to lead the nation. Can you provide some backing to your statement?

I dont think you can prove a negative.... you have to show leadership..

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-09-28 05:45pm

theski wrote:
I dont think you can prove a negative.... you have to show leadership..

Good point. I'm still curious as to what Axis thinks Kerry is doing wrong though.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-09-28 05:47pm

Here ya go Agrajag something to help you sleep..

Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: Kerry 207 Bush 317

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

As of today...

Agrajag · Post by **Agrajag** » 2004-09-28 05:49pm

theski wrote:
If you would have bothered to look at the link.. everything is sourced and linked....

I did look at the link kid. A right-wing attack piece quoting sources like, "Right Wing News" does not impress me at all with their "objectivity".

Axis, being a Vet was an issue for Bob Dole and Bush Senior when they ran against Clinton. It was an issue. He, however, overcame that and the right DID attempt to make a VERY big deal about it. He was flat out called a draft dodger. Who on the left is calling Cheney a draft dodger?

It IS an issue for Kerry because, just like Bush Sr and Bob Dole, it's something he can offer up that one up's the opponent. This isn't rocket science.

I would also take issue with your view of leadership. Are you going to suggest that it doesn't take some rather unique, rare, leadership-like skills to become a Senator? You realize there are only 100 of them in the country right? I'd say that puts anyone who reaches that plateau is some pretty rare company. How long have you been in the Senate? If it's so easy I'd think you'd have been there at least once.

NO ONE is saying that Kerry deserves to be President because he spoke before Congress. Where you got that idea is a mystery. I said that it speaks volumes about his ability to stand up and speak for what he believes in front a slew of people who could have destroyed his entire future. To suggest that anyone can get up and speak to a congressional hearing on a highly controversial and contentious issue is just incorrect. Most people find it difficult to speak normally when just calling into a local radio show for 2 minutes. Doing it in front of Congress against the will of the administration is nothing to dismiss. Clearly you haven't spoken in front of very many people.

Agrajag · Post by **Agrajag** » 2004-09-28 05:53pm

theski,

You seem really hell-bent to try and impress me with your ability to paste URL's. Feel free.... I really don't care what sources you feel the need to visit to attempt to bolster your belief. I'm curious. How many Presidential elections have you voted in?

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-09-28 05:57pm

might want to rethink the Kid part.....

Most liberal senator... comes from.. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Jul18.html

maybe this if facts enough for you

Kerry's Voting Record on Defense and Intelligence

SENATOR KERRY FOUGHT TO SLASH INTELLIGENCE FUNDING BY AT LEAST $2.5 BILLION
1995: Proposed Bill Cutting $1.5 Billion From Intelligence Budget. Kerry introduced a bill that would "reduce the Intelligence budget by $300 million in each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000." There were no cosponsors of Kerry’s bill, which never made it the floor for a vote. (S.1290, Introduced 9/29/95)

1995: Voted Slash FBI Funding By $80 Million. (H.R. 2076, CQ Vote #480: Adopted 49-41: R 9-40; D 40-1, 9/29/95, Kerry Voted Yea)

1994: Proposed Bill To Gut $1 Billion From Intelligence And Freeze Spending For Two Major Intelligence Programs. Kerry proposed a bill cutting $1 billion from the budgets of the National Foreign Intelligence Program and from Tactical Intelligence, and freezing their budgets. The bill did not make it to a vote, but the language was later submitted (and defeated : see below) as S. Amdt. 1452 to H.R. 3759. (S. 1826, Introduced 2/3/94)

1997: Kerry Questioned Growth Of Intelligence Community After Cold War. "Now that that [Cold War] struggle is over, why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow even as Government resources for new and essential priorities fall far short of what is necessary"? (Senator John Kerry Agreeing That Critic's Concerns Be Addressed, Congressional Record, 5/1/97, p. S3891)

When His Bill Stalled In Committee, Kerry Proposed $1 Billion Cut As Amendment Instead. Kerry proposed cutting $1 billion from the National Foreign Intelligence Program and Tactical Intelligence budgets, and freezing their budgets. The amendment was defeated, with even Graham, Lieberman and Braun voting against Kerry. (Amdt.. To H.R. 3759, CQ Vote #39: Rejected 20-75: R 3-37; D 17-38, 2/10/94, Kerry Voted Yea; Graham, Lieberman And Braun Voted Nay)

After all the above, he has the nerve to say this, after 9/11

12 Days After 9/11: Kerry Questioned Quality Of Intelligence. "And the tragedy is, at the moment, that the single most important weapon for the United States of America is intelligence. And we are weakest, frankly, in that particular area. So it’s going to take us time to be able to build up here to do this properly." (CBS’s "Face The Nation," 9/23/01)

SEN. KERRY’S DEFENSE STRATEGY: CUT CRITICAL WEAPONS SYSTEMS

In 1996, Introduced Bill To Slash Defense Department Funding By $6.5 Billion. Kerry’s bill had no co-sponsors and never came to a floor vote. (S. 1580,Introduced 2/29/96)

In 1995, Voted To Freeze Defense Spending For 7 Years, Slashing Over $34 Billion From Defense. Only 27 other Senators voted with Kerry.

Fiscal 1996 Budget Resolution : Defense Freeze. "Harkin, D-Iowa, amendment to freeze defense spending for the next seven years and transfer the $34.8 billion in savings to education and job training." (S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #181: Rejected 28-71: R 2-51; D 26-20, 5/24/95, Kerry Voted Yea)

In 1993, Introduced Plan To Cut Numerous Defense Programs, Including:

Cut the number of Navy submarines and their crews
Reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one
Reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force
Terminate the Navy’s coastal mine-hunting ship program
Force the retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the Armed Forces in one year. (S.1163, Introduced 6/24/93)
Has Voted Repeatedly To Cut Defense Spending, Including:

In 1993, Voted Against Increased Defense Spending For Military Pay Raise. Kerry voted to kill an increase in military pay over five years. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #73: Motion Agreed To 55-42: R 2-39; D 53-3, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea)
In 1992, Voted To Cut $6 Billion From Defense. Republicans and Democrats successfully blocked the attempt to cut defense spending. (S. Con. Res. 106, CQ Vote #73: Motion Agreed To 53-40: R 38-1; D 15-39, 4/9/92, Kerry Voted Nay)
In 1991, Voted To Slash Over $3 Billion From Defense, Shift Money To Social Programs. Only 27 Senators joined Kerry in voting for the defense cut. (H.R. 2707, CQ Vote #182: Motion Rejected 28-69: R 3-39; D 25-30, 9/10/91, Kerry Voted Yea)
In 1991, Voted To Cut Defense Spending By 2%. Only 21 other Senators voted with Kerry, and the defense cut was defeated. S. Con. Res. 29, CQ Vote #49: Motion Rejected 22-73: R 1-39; D 21-34, 4/25/91, Kerry Voted Yea)
Has Voted Repeatedly To Cut Or Eliminate Funding For B-2 Stealth Bomber.

H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #203: Rejected 29-71: R 2-43; D 27-28, 9/26/89, Kerry Voted Yea;
H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #310: Rejected 29-68: R 3-41; D 26-27, 11/18/89, Kerry Voted Yea;
S. 2884, CQ Vote #208: Rejected 43-56: R 8-36; D 35-20, 8/2/90, Kerry Voted Yea;
S. 2884, CQ Vote #209: Rejected 45-53: R 9-34; D 36-19, 8/2/90, Kerry Voted Yea;
S. 1507, CQ Vote #174: Rejected 42-57: R 7-36; D 35-21, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Yea;
H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #206: Motion Agreed To 51-48: R 36-7; D 15-41, 9/25/91, Kerry Voted Nay;
S. 2403, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 61-38: R 7-36; D 54-2, 5/6/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 3114, CQ Vote #216: Rejected 45-53: R 8-35; D 37-18, 9/18/92, Kerry Voted Yea;
S. 2182, CQ Vote #179: Rejected 45-55: R 8-36; D 37-19, 7/1/94, Kerry Voted Yea
Has Voted Repeatedly Against Missile Defense.

S. 1507, CQ Vote #171: Motion Agreed To 60-38: R 40-3; D 20-35, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Nay;
S. 1507, CQ Vote #173: Rejected 46-52: R 5-38; D 41-14, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Yea;
H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #207: Motion Agreed To 50-49: R 38-5; D 12-44, 9/25/91, Kerry Voted Nay;
S.2403, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 61-38: R 7-36; D 54-2, 5/6/92, Kerry Voted Yea;
S.3114, CQ Vote #182: Rejected 43-49: R 34-5; D 9-44, 8/7/92, Kerry Voted Nay;
S.3114, CQ Vote #214: Rejected 48-50: R 5-38; D 43-12, 9/17/92, Kerry Voted Yea;
S. 3114, CQ Vote #215: Adopted 52-46: R 39-4; D 13-42, 9/17/92, Kerry Voted Nay;
S. 1298, CQ Vote #251: Adopted 50-48: R 6-36; D 44-12, 10/9/93, Kerry Voted Yea;
S. Con. Res. 63, CQ Vote #64: Rejected 40-59: R 2-42; D 38-17, 3/22/94, Kerry Voted Yea;
S. 1026, CQ Vote #354: Motion Agreed To 51-48: R 47-6; D 4-42, 8/3/95, Kerry Voted Nay;
S. 1087, CQ Vote #384: Rejected 45-54: R 5-49; D 40-5, 8/10/95, Kerry Voted Yea;
S. 1745, CQ Vote #160: Rejected 44-53: R 4-49; D 40-4, 6/19/96, Kerry Voted Yea;
S. 1507, CQ Vote #168: Rejected 39-60: R 4-39; D 35-21, 7/31/91, Kerry Voted Yea;
S. 1507, CQ Vote #172: Motion Agreed To 64-34: R 39-4; D 25-30, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Nay;
S. 1873, CQ Vote #131: Rejected 59-41: R 55-0; D 4-41; I 0-0, 5/13/98, Kerry Voted Nay;
S. 1873, CQ Vote #262: Rejected 59-41: R 55-0; D 4-41, 9/9/98, Kerry Voted Nay;
S 1635, CQ Vote #157: Rejected 53-46: R 52-0; D 1-46, 6/4/96, Kerry Voted Nay;
S. 2549, CQ Vote #178: Motion Agreed To 52-48: R 52-3; D 0-45, 7/13/00, Kerry Voted Nay
KERRY OPPOSED WEAPONS CRITICAL TO RECENT MILITARY SUCCESSES

Running For Senate In 1984, Kerry Promised Massive Defense Cuts. "Kerry in 1984 said he would have voted to cancel the B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber, AH-64 Apache helicopter, Patriot missile, the F-15, F-14A and F-14D jets, the AV-8B Harrier jet, the Aegis air-defense cruiser, and the Trident missile system. He also advocated reductions in many other systems, such as the M1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Tomahawk cruise missile, and the F-16 jet." (Brian C. Mooney, "Taking One Prize, Then A Bigger One," The Boston Globe, 6/19/03)

Weapons Kerry Sought To Phase Out Were Vital In Iraq. "[K]erry supported cancellation of a host of weapons systems that have become the basis of US military might -- the high-tech munitions and delivery systems on display to the world as they leveled the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in a matter of weeks." (Brian C. Mooney, "Taking One Prize, Then A Bigger One," The Boston Globe, 6/19/03)

F-16 Fighting Falcons. "The Air Force would also play an important role in strikes against high-ranking officials of the Ba’ath regime. On April 4, two Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcons dropped laser-guided munitions on the house of Ali Hassan al-Majid, a.k.a. ‘Chemical Ali,’ in Basra." (Abraham Genauer, "Technology And Volume Of Sorties Overwhelmed The Iraqis’ Defenses, The Hill, 5/21/03)

B-1Bs B-2As F-15 And F-16s. "On the night of March 21 alone, the first of ‘shock and awe,’ coalition air forces flew nearly 2,000 missions. Involved were Air Force B-1B Lancers, B-2A Spirits, F-15E Strike Eagles and F-16 Fighting Falcons." (Abraham Genauer, "Technology And Volume Of Sorties Overwhelmed The Iraqis’ Defenses, The Hill, 5/21/03)

M1 Abrams. "‘[M1 Abrams] tanks were the sledgehammer in this war,’ added Pat Garrett, an associate analyst with GlobalSecurity.org. ‘The tank was the tool that allowed [the ground forces] to progress as fast as they did.’" (Patrick O’Connor, "Revolutionary Tank Tactics Alter Iraqi Conflict, Future Of Urban Warfare, The Hill, 5/21/03)

Patriot Missile. "U.S. Central Command says the Patriots have improved to the point where they intercepted nine of the Iraqis’ short-range al-Samoud 2 and Ababil-100 missiles in this conflict." (Andrea Stone, "Patriot Missile: Friend Or Foe To Allied Troops? USA Today, 4/15/03)

AH-64 Apache Helicopter. "Recently, Apaches in Afghanistan achieved success directly supporting ground troops. Whether in shaping the battle in a combined arms Warfighter-type fight where intelligence of the enemy is known, or by conducting close combat attacks in direct support of a ground commander, the Longbow Apache provides significantly increased flexibility and firepower for U.S. Army forces ." (Maj. David J. Rude and Lt. Col. Daniel E. Williams, "The ‘Warfighter Mindset’ and the War in Iraq, Army Magazine, 7/03)

Tomahawk Cruise Missile. "The first operational use [of Tomahawk cruise missiles] was in Operation Desert Storm, 1991, with immense success. The missile has since been used successfully in several other conflicts include[ing] Bosnia in 1995 and in Iraq again in 1996 [and in] strikes against training camps run by Osama Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network in Afghanistan in 1998. Cruise missiles were also fired during the air campaign over Kosovo in 1999." (Vivek Rai, "Cruise Missiles, By Air And Sea, MSNBC.com, Accessed 7/17/03)

Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser. "During Operation Iraqi Freedom, [the Aegis cruiser] Bunker Hill was one of the first warships to conduct Tomahawk strikes against leadership targets in Iraq. The ship launched a total of 31 missiles during the war. Its embarked helicopter detachment supported the rescue of United Nations workers being forcibly removed from oil platforms in the Northern Arabian Gulf and provided medical evacuations from the Iraqi city of Umm Qasr." (S.A. Thornbloom, "USS Bunker Hill Makes Revolutionary Return, NavyDispatch.com, Accessed 7/17/03)

During 1980s, Kerry And Michael Dukakis Joined Forces With Liberal Group Dedicated To Slashing Defense. Kerry sat on the board of "Jobs With Peace Campaign," which sought to "develop public support for cutting the defense budget" ("Pentagon Demonstrators Call For Home-Building, Not Bombs, The Associated Press, 6/3/88)

Running For Congress In 1972, Kerry Promised To Cut Defense Spending. "On what he’ll do if he’s elected to Congress, Kerry said he would ‘bring a different kind of message to the president.’ He said he would vote against military appropriations.

http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2527/kerry12.html

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-09-28 05:58pm

Agrajag wrote:theski,

You seem really hell-bent to try and impress me with your ability to paste URL's. Feel free.... I really don't care what sources you feel the need to visit to attempt to bolster your belief. I'm curious. How many Presidential elections have you voted in?

This will be my 6th... and you

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-09-28 05:59pm

Good point. I'm still curious as to what Axis thinks Kerry is doing wrong though.

Agrajag attempted to argue that Kerry's service in Vietnam marks him as a leader. That's ridiculous. Kerry's service lends him moral standing, but it is not an automatic affirmation that he is presidential material.

Axis, being a Vet was an issue for Bob Dole and Bush Senior when they ran against Clinton. It was an issue. He, however, overcame that and the right DID attempt to make a VERY big deal about it. He was flat out called a draft dodger. Who on the left is calling Cheney a draft dodger?

It IS an issue for Kerry because, just like Bush Sr and Bob Dole, it's something he can offer up that one up's the opponent. This isn't rocket science.

If you think this election should be decided on the basis of either candidate's whereabouts thirty years ago, you're so disconnected from the world outside your door, you might as well shave your head and don a habit.

I would also take issue with your view of leadership. Are you going to suggest that it doesn't take some rather unique, rare, leadership-like skills to become a Senator? You realize there are only 100 of them in the country right? I'd say that puts anyone who reaches that plateau is some pretty rare company. How long have you been in the Senate? If it's so easy I'd think you'd have been there at least once.

Being in public office doesn't make you fit for national leadership. Kerry's stint in the Senate isn't an indication of the merit of his platforms - which, frankly, I find quite bankrupt on close inspection. You can't expect me to vote for the man because he got himself elected to the Senate. Bush got himself elected - or, if you prefer, installed - as the President. Using your own logic, he's a leader superior to Kerry as of this point in time. Of course, weighing either man on such a scale would be quite silly.

NO ONE is saying that Kerry deserves to be President because he spoke before Congress. Where you got that idea is a mystery. I said that it speaks volumes about his ability to stand up and speak for what he believes in front a slew of people who could have destroyed his entire future. To suggest that anyone can get up and speak to a congressional hearing on a highly controversial and contentious issue is just incorrect. Most people find it difficult to speak normally when just calling into a local radio show for 2 minutes. Doing it in front of Congress against the will of the administration is nothing to dismiss. Clearly you haven't spoken in front of very many people.

So any public speaker is now political material? Bush speaks before the world on a regular basis.

Kerry's decision to stand up in front of Congress to make a point - a point I think was wrong - doesn't earn him any points on the road to being President in my book. I can't see why it does in yours, unless you attach to it a preexisting desire to see him win. All of the things you cite are incidental to your prior sentiments. Therein lies the problem. The issues you cite are only issues because you're flailing around to legitimate a man you were already sold on - hopefully in the context of other decisions or accomplishments rather than those rehashed here.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-09-28 06:06pm

Axis Kast wrote: Agrajag attempted to argue that Kerry's service in Vietnam marks him as a leader. That's ridiculous. Kerry's service lends him moral standing, but it is not an automatic affirmation that he is presidential material.

Well I have to agree with that. I served with lots of people in the military, very few of which I would want as PM of Canada. It does put Kerry ahead of Bush in the moral credibilty area though. I must admit that I have no idea who would be better as President though. Where as Bush is a proven commodity, Kerry is an unknown who has consistently voted against defense spending.

Agrajag · Post by **Agrajag** » 2004-09-28 07:48pm

Voting records mean very little to me. Sorry. Anyone who knows anything about how Congress votes realizes that the votes can be twisted to represent any position.

With regard to voting it appears we're about the same age. This is my 6th as well.

Axis, once again you suggest I say his Vietnam record provides Kerry automatic affirmation that he is Presidential material. I'm not saying that at all. I am saying that his choices there, for many of us, suggest he's more of a leader than the opponent who decided to hide in Texas and (partially) in Alabama.

Bush exhibited virtually no leadership skills before becoming Governor of Texas. When he was a leader of companies, they failed. Texas, as we found out, with him at the helm, was near the bottom in most every meaningful measurement. Now he's the leader of our country and our populace is more divided than its ever been and the world looks at us with disdain. These are leadership skills to you???

I also never said this election should be based on Vietnam experience. Why do you keep suggesting things I never said? However, his CHOICE to serve in Vietnam when he did not have to do so IS important to this election because it shows that Kerry has chosen the harder path in his life and that's a key component of any genuine and effective leader.

I also disagree that being in public office doesn't make you fit for national leadership. We're not talking about a small office here. We're talking about the third-highest office you can be elected to and he's been there election after election. He IS a national leader. Any Senator is. They're deciding national policy every day. And I do give Bush credit for getting into office (sorry, in my view he wasn't elected to it). He's clearly no dummy.

As far as being sold on Kerry, frankly, I'm not. I just know I've seen what Bush has done with his 4 years and I'm now voting against Bush. I personally can't wait for McCain to be a choice but that's another topic. Kerry is not my first choice for President but he's shown me enough to make me feel that he can do a better job than the current guy who ran on being a uniter and then proceeded to divide us and the world at every turn and whose actions in office haven't benefitted anyone that I can see except his closest allies. The economy stinks. The job market stinks. The stock market is all over the place. We're in debt more each day with no end in sight and we're involved in a conflict in a foreign land that is getting worse every day and we're being lied to about it. No thanks.

Kendall, as I pointed out, and you can check the facts on this yourself at factcheck.org, it's a myth that Kerry has consistently voted against defense spending. As noted, he's voted on the positive side 16 out of 19 times during his tenure. How is that turned into a negative record?

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2004-09-28 08:11pm

Can someone please explain how Kerry planned to "cancel" the F-14A in 1984 ten years after it entered service?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-09-28 08:21pm

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:Can someone please explain how Kerry planned to "cancel" the F-14A in 1984 ten years after it entered service?

Some of the upgrades to the F-14A, I think, ones that would effectively end or curtail it's worth as a naval fighter.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-09-28 08:24pm

Agrajag wrote:Voting records mean very little to me. Sorry. Anyone who knows anything about how Congress votes realizes that the votes can be twisted to represent any position.

What do you judge a congressman by, then?

With regard to voting it appears we're about the same age. This is my 6th as well.

Not that this has anything to do with anything.

Axis, once again you suggest I say his Vietnam record provides Kerry automatic affirmation that he is Presidential material. I'm not saying that at all. I am saying that his choices there, for many of us, suggest he's more of a leader than the opponent who decided to hide in Texas and (partially) in Alabama.

Say what you will about Bush's policies, but the guy's a LOT more charismatic than John Kerry. Just look at the way he and his team get points across. Rhetorically, the guy's VERY solid. Meanwhile, Kerry has to stumble along and extract himself from overly-complicated sentence structures, befuddling his central ideas--this is a huge part of why he hasn't managed to inspire American voters.

Bush exhibited virtually no leadership skills before becoming Governor of Texas. When he was a leader of companies, they failed. Texas, as we found out, with him at the helm, was near the bottom in most every meaningful measurement. Now he's the leader of our country and our populace is more divided than its ever been and the world looks at us with disdain. These are leadership skills to you???

No. Those are policies. They have little to do with leadership in the character sense. Incidentally, I'm not sure what you're measuring Texas by, but Texas and California consistently rate near the bottom in lots of meaningful categories in large part because of their poor locations and large immigrant populations, which no self-respecting state-by-state study takes into account since they're big on talking up differences between the states.

I also never said this election should be based on Vietnam experience. Why do you keep suggesting things I never said? However, his CHOICE to serve in Vietnam when he did not have to do so IS important to this election because it shows that Kerry has chosen the harder path in his life and that's a key component of any genuine and effective leader.

The decisions Kerry made decades ago hardly have much bearing on who he is today (lucky for him). Choosing a difficult path, while a prerequisite to being a leader, is not exactly a qualification in and of itself, and if you don't mind my saying I find it difficult to think of either candidate as having led a particularly difficult life.

I also disagree that being in public office doesn't make you fit for national leadership. We're not talking about a small office here. We're talking about the third-highest office you can be elected to and he's been there election after election. He IS a national leader. Any Senator is. They're deciding national policy every day. And I do give Bush credit for getting into office (sorry, in my view he wasn't elected to it). He's clearly no dummy.

Kerry hasn't done shit in the Senate, though. Bush, at least, has consistently pushed his agendas through--that takes leadership talent, does it not?

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-09-28 08:37pm

Axis, once again you suggest I say his Vietnam record provides Kerry automatic affirmation that he is Presidential material. I'm not saying that at all. I am saying that his choices there, for many of us, suggest he's more of a leader than the opponent who decided to hide in Texas and (partially) in Alabama.

But we’re not fighting the Vietnam War in November. Neither of these men stands or falls based solely on their decisions thirty years ago.

Bush exhibited virtually no leadership skills before becoming Governor of Texas. When he was a leader of companies, they failed. Texas, as we found out, with him at the helm, was near the bottom in most every meaningful measurement. Now he's the leader of our country and our populace is more divided than its ever been and the world looks at us with disdain. These are leadership skills to you??

Our populace is not more divided than ever; that’s a fabrication of drama mongers who want to sell themselves as prophets of doom to a wired nation. A victory for Bush will not signal the succession of eleven states of the Union.

As for the rest of the world, you highly overestimate the problems posed by their disappointment with Bush.

First of all, none of our vital treaties have gone anywhere. And don’t even try to bring up non-entities like the Kyoto Pact (which the Deputy Prime Minister of the U.K. declared was “killed and buried” in Europe), the International Criminal Court (a farcical entity given the chance for manipulation), or the Nuclear Test Ban (which is now worthless considering that even an expansion of the U.S. missile infrastructure on our part wouldn’t solicit new, parallel militarization on the part of Russia or China).

Secondly, most of the problems are not the result of Bush’s leadership. As I’ve already pointed out elsewhere, Germany and France thought Saddam did have illicit weapons before Hans Blix went to Iraq. And they promised that, regardless of what was found by the IAEA, that’s all they would ever support – inspections. It wasn’t in their security interests to support an invasion. So they didn’t. The same is true with Iran. It’s not in their interests to suspend trade over nuclear development. So they won’t. And that’s how it will always remain, Kerry or no.

I also never said this election should be based on Vietnam experience. Why do you keep suggesting things I never said? However, his CHOICE to serve in Vietnam when he did not have to do so IS important to this election because it shows that Kerry has chosen the harder path in his life and that's a key component of any genuine and effective leader.

Bush sticks by his guns despite the criticism of the rest of the world.

And, frankly, Kerry’s decision to criticize Vietnam was a poor one. History vindicated the United States after he was through – notably on the issue of Cambodia, which he liked to raise before being called on it.

I also disagree that being in public office doesn't make you fit for national leadership. We're not talking about a small office here. We're talking about the third-highest office you can be elected to and he's been there election after election. He IS a national leader. Any Senator is. They're deciding national policy every day. And I do give Bush credit for getting into office (sorry, in my view he wasn't elected to it). He's clearly no dummy.

Not every Senator should be President. Bill Bradley, for example.

As far as being sold on Kerry, frankly, I'm not. I just know I've seen what Bush has done with his 4 years and I'm now voting against Bush. I personally can't wait for McCain to be a choice but that's another topic. Kerry is not my first choice for President but he's shown me enough to make me feel that he can do a better job than the current guy who ran on being a uniter and then proceeded to divide us and the world at every turn and whose actions in office haven't benefitted anyone that I can see except his closest allies. The economy stinks. The job market stinks. The stock market is all over the place. We're in debt more each day with no end in sight and we're involved in a conflict in a foreign land that is getting worse every day and we're being lied to about it. No thanks.

McCain did a lot to fall from grace. His inability to be a “good soldier” really (A) retards his chances of ever making a Republican ticket again, and (B) suggests that he’s not as good a candidate for national leadership as his advocates might think. His ability to talk big ideals doesn’t necessarily translate to certain action in the Oval Office.

As for Kerry, he’s no uniter. He’s getting votes from people who don’t like Bush, not building a coalition on his own merits.

As for the economy, it’s fine. In fact, it’s better than it was when Bill Clinton ran for reelection in ’96.

Agrajag · Post by **Agrajag** » 2004-09-28 09:45pm

The fact of the matter is that votes in Congress are not black and white as opponents without a record there attempt to make them out to be. I base my view of a Congressman on their views with respect to the issues. I know what Kerry stands for based on his platform. Trying to say that he won't do X in office because he did Y as a Senator is frought with problems. As I said elsewhere, if a bill came along called the Free Air act that ran the traditional course, by the time it came to vote on it, it could have so many horrific riders on it to make it completely unacceptable but if you vote against it, someone will come out and say, "He voted against free air!" Nothing could be further from the truth. It's like the mythical vote against body armor for the troops. Talk about a load of bull****. He rightly voted against a blank check for Halliburton. End of story.

As far as charisma, I'll give anyone that easily. George Bush is extremely charismatic. Kerry is a lump of dead wood in the charisma department and I didn't think anyone could beat Gore on that account. I just don't factor in charisma when it comes to voting on a President. Of course I voted for Perot so I'm not sure if that counts for or against charisma.

On living a tough life, I don't think either really have myself, though I suspect Kerry certainly got a large dose of reality in Vietnam. I won't vote for him BASED on Vietnam but it is a SMALL piece of the reasoning. Frankly, if he does get in, I'm going to worry quite a bit about a number of things regarding his personality, but at this point I'll be glad to worry about those issues over the ones that concern me now.

Regarding who has done more with agendas, Kerry's been in the Senate a long time and served on many top committees. I find it impossible to believe that he's been re-elected all this time simply due to his charisma! <grin>

Axis, we ARE more divided today. People are being fired from their jobs over bumper stickers, t-shirts, etc. You now have to worry about a lot of what you say in public because the "other side" may be in your group and take issue with it. Voter registration is through the roof right now. There's a reason. People are getting off their asses because they're concerned. However, no one also suggested that a Bush victory means states will be exiting the Union. I really don't know where you get this stuff.

Bush sticks to his guns despite evidence to the contrary. That's called being bull-headed. I don't find that to be a good trait in a leader. It is also clear to me, and many others, that we are in NO WAY safer today than before this all started. If they were so amazing with regard to terrorism, how'd we get hit the first time? Oh, I forgot, not Bush's fault, he was on vacation.... Forgive me. Then there's the argument that no one could have done anything about it because it was the first time it happened... Oh, but it was the second time it happened.... But hey, we haven't been attacked SINCE we were first attacked so clearly these guys are masters of terrorism. Give me a break.

And again, no one said anything about every Senator being President. Bradley may not make a good President (we'll never know) but the guy was a clear leader and always has been.

On McCain, he did a lot to fall from grace. Yes, he went against Bush. Rest assured this guy will be back in force.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-09-28 10:02pm

quote] On living a tough life, I don't think either really have myself, though I suspect Kerry certainly got a large dose of reality in Vietnam. I won't vote for him BASED on Vietnam but it is a SMALL piece of the reasoning. Frankly, if he does get in, I'm going to worry quite a bit about a number of things regarding his personality, but at this point I'll be glad to worry about those issues over the ones that concern me now.

[/quote]

And I’m telling you that it has no bearing on which candidate I choose.

Regarding who has done more with agendas, Kerry's been in the Senate a long time and served on many top committees. I find it impossible to believe that he's been re-elected all this time simply due to his charisma! <grin>

He doesn’t need charisma. He’s a Democrat in a state known for its Democratic machine. He’s got a personal fortune to double as his war chest – to the point that it probably deters a large number of potential challengers. And finally, he sits alongside Ted Kennedy, the best-known machine politician this side of Chicago.

Axis, we ARE more divided today. People are being fired from their jobs over bumper stickers, t-shirts, etc. You now have to worry about a lot of what you say in public because the "other side" may be in your group and take issue with it. Voter registration is through the roof right now. There's a reason. People are getting off their asses because they're concerned. However, no one also suggested that a Bush victory means states will be exiting the Union. I really don't know where you get this stuff

And what does that division suggest to you?

People have always been subject to political discrimination. There was always a chance “the other side” would take offense at something you said. Voter registration may be through the roof, but that’s a characteristic of every close election. These signs don’t foretell any kind of impending doom.

Bush sticks to his guns despite evidence to the contrary. That's called being bull-headed. I don't find that to be a good trait in a leader. It is also clear to me, and many others, that we are in NO WAY safer today than before this all started. If they were so amazing with regard to terrorism, how'd we get hit the first time? Oh, I forgot, not Bush's fault, he was on vacation.... Forgive me. Then there's the argument that no one could have done anything about it because it was the first time it happened... Oh, but it was the second time it happened.... But hey, we haven't been attacked SINCE we were first attacked so clearly these guys are masters of terrorism. Give me a break.

We got hit the first time as a result of a confluence of events across multiple presidencies. All the contingencies for terrorism involving planes began and ended on the tarmac. Bush had a role to play, but it was no larger or more culpable a role than that of Clinton, who was in office during the ’93 bombings. Trying to peg this on Bush because he took frequent trips down to his ranch isn’t going to cut it. In fact, all that does is make you look like a two-bit moron who plans to vote based on blind misconstructions of the opposition.

On McCain, he did a lot to fall from grace. Yes, he went against Bush. Rest assured this guy will be back in force.

Not on a Republican ticket, he won’t.

Agrajag · Post by **Agrajag** » 2004-09-28 10:36pm

Axis Kast wrote:He doesn’t need charisma. He’s a Democrat in a state known for its Democratic machine. He’s got a personal fortune to double as his war chest – to the point that it probably deters a large number of potential challengers. And finally, he sits alongside Ted Kennedy, the best-known machine politician this side of Chicago.

Complete ignorance there Axis. Kerry is only a Senator because he has money? That didn't seem to help a large number of others who ran and lost and are you suggesting that Kennedy has been in office for 42 years against all challengers simply because of machine politics? Come on. Meanwhile George is struggling to get elected once.

And what does that division suggest to you?

That George was full of shit about being a uniter or failed miserably in his attempt to unite everyone. He hasn't united anyone.

Voter registration may be through the roof, but that’s a characteristic of every close election.

Really? We had a slightly close election not that long ago... I wonder if I can recall back that far. It seems so long ago now, and yet they didn't have this sort of registration turnout. Many areas are showing record registrations and some haven't seen this sort of participation in 20+ years.

Again, we didn't call him the Uniter. He called himself that. WHERE is the unity he promised?

Bush had a role to play, but it was no larger or more culpable a role than that of Clinton, who was in office during the ’93 bombings.

The last time I checked, the World Trade Centers were still standing after 1993 and I don't think 3,000 people died in that one either. You have a funny way of measuring responsibility. Under one President a bomb went off, 5 people died and we brought those responsible to justice. Under another President a group hijaaks 4 planes and flies into 3 buildings killing 3,000 and those responsible are still at large.

Trying to peg this on Bush because he took frequent trips down to his ranch isn’t going to cut it.

Well, that and not paying any attention to your top Intel people, their reports and daily action memos denoting plans to hijaak planes and fly them into buildings..... Yeah, he had no responsibility. It's all Clinton's fault.

In fact, all that does is make you look like a two-bit moron who plans to vote based on blind misconstructions of the opposition.

Sounds better than blind faith of the failed.

Not on a Republican ticket, he won’t.

Wanna bet?