NationStates Jolt Archive

mostly through spending cuts
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/fiscal_responsibility.html

I see another post showed up just before I started typing this reply. Brians room, you can find more than the snippets if you go to that same link and look through Kerry's platform (click "more issues" on the left, click on an issue category, and then click on a link to more detailed plans on the right)

Oh, I'm completely aware of what's on his site. I do this for a living.

I just don't agree with all of it. Click on that link, and bring up those things he's discussing.

Kerry is proposing a middle class tax cut - why? We just got a tax cut, and the middle class pays the vast majority of the taxes in America. A middle class tax cut is merely going to make the deficit larger. I know he plans on roll backing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, but all that will really do is kill small businesses (who pay their taxes at the individual rate) and create even more "lawyer welfare" as I call it - any millionaire worth his mettle has a good tax lawyer that will keep them from getting hurt by these taxes. And the fees the lawyer collects are less than the taxes anyway. I also disagree with with Kerry's claim here that he'll be giving 98% of Americans tax cuts and 99% of businesses too - that just doesn't add up. Is he saying that only 2% of America is poor and rich?

Restore PAYGO - Well, obviously whoever wrote this wasn't paying attention to what the PAYGO provisions were. For those non-Americans, the PAYGO rules were simply budgetary rules that required that any new spending that Congress approved had to be offset by tax increases or spending cuts in other areas. If Kerry thinks he's going to be able to get a tax increase through the Republican controlled Congress (and at House, at the very least, will remain Republican), then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'm selling cheap.

Restraining discretionary spending - Yay! Something I agree with. But here's the problem - he's already talked about increasing money for education and health care ... that's discretionary spending. What's he going to cut? And defense spending is a horse of a different color. It's in its own seperate world out there. Is he going to try and cut defense and homeland security spending during a war?

Cut Corporate Welfare - I don't have a problem with this, but it kind of clashes with his goal of keeping American jobs in America. He's going to have to be dolling out Corporate welfare like a Republican if he plans on keeping manufacturing jobs in America ... we just can't compete with China's 2 dollars a year laborers.

A lot of this other stuff has been Republican push button items for years - line item veto, spending freezes ... they never happen because they're nearly impossible. A line item veto was passed and struck down by the Supreme Court. You've gotta amend the constitution to do it. That's not easy. And spending freezes are hard to get through, even when one party controls all three houses.

I'm just not sold on this stuff - it doesn't add up here.

Voting for a guy because he isnt another feelow is no sound form of government.Arnold Schwarzenegger won with nothing but votes against someone else. And California is doing much better now. Not coincidentally, Davis had the same economic policy as Bush and Schwarzenegger has the same economic policy as Kerry

Sen. John Kerry
Democrat from Massachusetts
says he is strongest
Presidential Candidate on National Defense !

He said Check the Record..

We Did !

Here is what we learned.

He voted to kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle
He voted to kill the M-1 Abrams Tank
He voted to kill every Aircraft carrier laid down from 1988
He voted to kill the Aegis anti aircraft system
He voted to kill the F-15 strike eagle
He voted to kill the Block 60 F-16
He voted to kill the P-3 Orion upgrade
He voted to kill the B-1
He voted to kill the B-2
He voted to kill the Patriot anti Missile system
He voted to kill the FA-18
He voted to kill the B-2
He voted to kill the F117
He voted to kill every military appropriation for the development
and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988, including a
bill for battle armor for our troops.

It is most likely,
with Sen. John Kerry as President
and Commander in Chief of our Armed Services,
that they will cease to function making it impossible for our
country to protect itself
John Kerry voted to kill all anti-terrorism activities of each and
every agency of the U.S. Government.

He voted to cut the funding of the FBI by 60%,
He voted to cut the funding for the CIA by 80%,
He voted to cut the funding for the NSA by 80%.
THEN, and this is abhorrent to almost every American Voter be you
Democrat, Republican or Independent
He voted to increase OUR funding for U.N operations by 800% !!

Ask yourself
Is THIS a the person you want as President of these United States
providing for the Common Defence of the Nation and be the Leader of
the Free World ?

In addition, if his record on defense voting is so hypocritical, how can he possibly be trusted with to be honest on any other issue? Yes, the record is there and it speaks for itself.

Arnold Schwarzenegger won with nothing but votes against someone else. And California is doing much better now. Not coincidentally, Davis had the same economic policy as Bush and Schwarzenegger has the same economic policy as Kerry

Not exactly. The recall was a vote against Davis. The vote for Schwarzenegger was a vote for Schwarznegger. There were a lot of other candidates in that race, incuding Bustamente and other legitimate political figures in California, and Arnie beat them all.

Could you elaborate on the "Davis had the same economic policy as Bush, Arnie as Kerry" part? I don't get that.

Sen. John Kerry
Democrat from Massachusetts
says he is strongest
Presidential Candidate on National Defense !

He said Check the Record..

We Did !

Here is what we learned.

He voted to kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle
He voted to kill the M-1 Abrams Tank
He voted to kill every Aircraft carrier laid down from 1988
He voted to kill the Aegis anti aircraft system
He voted to kill the F-15 strike eagle
He voted to kill the Block 60 F-16
He voted to kill the P-3 Orion upgrade
He voted to kill the B-1
He voted to kill the B-2
He voted to kill the Patriot anti Missile system
He voted to kill the FA-18
He voted to kill the B-2
He voted to kill the F117
He voted to kill every military appropriation for the development
and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988, including a
bill for battle armor for our troops.

It is most likely,
with Sen. John Kerry as President
and Commander in Chief of our Armed Services,
that they will cease to function making it impossible for our
country to protect itself
John Kerry voted to kill all anti-terrorism activities of each and
every agency of the U.S. Government.

He voted to cut the funding of the FBI by 60%,
He voted to cut the funding for the CIA by 80%,
He voted to cut the funding for the NSA by 80%.
THEN, and this is abhorrent to almost every American Voter be you
Democrat, Republican or Independent
He voted to increase OUR funding for U.N operations by 800% !!

Ask yourself
Is THIS a the person you want as President of these United States
providing for the Common Defence of the Nation and be the Leader of
the Free World ?

In addition, if his record on defense voting is so hypocritical, how can he possibly be trusted with to be honest on any other issue? Yes, the record is there and it speaks for itself.

again, youre missing the majority point of the elction. Most people who vote kerry do it for this reason : hes not bush. and thats good enough for me.

Crackpie ...

Why? What makes you dislike Bush so much?

Restore PAYGO - Well, obviously whoever wrote this wasn't paying attention to what the PAYGO provisions were. For those non-Americans, the PAYGO rules were simply budgetary rules that required that any new spending that Congress approved had to be offset by tax increases or spending cuts in other areas. If Kerry thinks he's going to be able to get a tax increase through the Republican controlled Congress (and at House, at the very least, will remain Republican), then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'm selling cheap.

Restraining discretionary spending - Yay! Something I agree with. But here's the problem - he's already talked about increasing money for education and health care ... that's discretionary spending. What's he going to cut? And defense spending is a horse of a different color. It's in its own seperate world out there. Is he going to try and cut defense and homeland security spending during a war?


A lot of this other stuff has been Republican push button items for years - line item veto, spending freezes ... they never happen because they're nearly impossible. A line item veto was passed and struck down by the Supreme Court. You've gotta amend the constitution to do it. That's not easy. And spending freezes are hard to get through, even when one party controls all three houses.

I'm just not sold on this stuff - it doesn't add up here.in those three dismissals, you gave the Republican-controlled Congress as the reason why Kerry's plans would fail. That's not a problem with Kerry. If the Republicans in Congress won't allow PAYGO, discretionary spending cuts, and line-item veto, that means the congressional Republicans, not Kerry, are bad for the economy

in those three dismissals, you gave the Republican-controlled Congress as the reason why Kerry's plans would fail. That's not a problem with Kerry. If the Republicans in Congress won't allow PAYGO, discretionary spending cuts, and line-item veto, that means the congressional Republicans, not Kerry, are bad for the economy

Hmmm the line item veto was turned down by the US Supreme Court!

Sen. John Kerry
Democrat from Massachusetts
says he is strongest
Presidential Candidate on National Defense !

He said Check the Record..

We Did !you did not check his record
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp

you did not check his record
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp

Actually Pantylvania, that is what he did so yea he did!

In 1993, he tried to cut 6 Billion dollars from the Intelligence Budget AFTER the 1st WTC attack! Come on now! Are you going to tell me that I'm wrong?

Sen. John Kerry
Democrat from Massachusetts
says he is strongest
Presidential Candidate on National Defense !

He said Check the Record..

We Did !

Here is what we learned.

He voted to kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle
He voted to kill the M-1 Abrams Tank
He voted to kill every Aircraft carrier laid down from 1988
He voted to kill the Aegis anti aircraft system
He voted to kill the F-15 strike eagle
He voted to kill the Block 60 F-16
He voted to kill the P-3 Orion upgrade
He voted to kill the B-1
He voted to kill the B-2
He voted to kill the Patriot anti Missile system
He voted to kill the FA-18
He voted to kill the B-2
He voted to kill the F117
He voted to kill every military appropriation for the development
and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988, including a
bill for battle armor for our troops.
Nice try but wrong answer.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp

Oh, I never claimed that Kerry was bad for the economy. What I'm simply saying is that Kerry will have a hard time getting those items passed - so should we vote for him simply because he thinks these are good ideas? I don't think so.

Kerry has said that his plans will result in 10 million new jobs being created. But he has to get those plans passed by Congress, which more than likely is going to be Republican controlled. He's not got a very good history of bipartisanship and if he wins this election, I can guarantee he's not going to get much cooperation from the Republicans.

Bush, on the other hand, would be in control of the party - he's much more likely to get the things he wants done done. So when he says "I am going to do this", he's already got a head start, because he can guarantee passage in at least the House (the Senate is tougher - Democrats can filibuster).

Kerry doesn't have that luxury - so he needs to not only explain what he wants to do, but how he plans on doing it. And he's not done that yet.

Nice try but wrong answer.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp

Here's a story that was totally ignored by mainstream media outlets: http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/cussword.asp

The Kerry voting against things issue...

...granted, he did vote to cut funding on a lot of things, but to line those up like that just isn't fair. That's 20 years worth of votes, and we have no idea what else was in those bills. If he voted against a bill that would fund the B-1 bomber, but also required all three year olds to be branded with a large "X" on their foreheads, we couldn't tell from that list.

Kerry's lack of leadership despite his 20 years in the Senate is, in my mind, a much more damning thing. Lyndon Johnson was elected Majority Leader in his first term in the Senate. Kerry has had 4, and he's done little or nothing with it.

He had a position of significant authority for a long time, yet never chose to exercise it to do the things he wants to do now as President. Why?

Here's a story that was totally ignored by mainstream media outlets: http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/cussword.asp

Ironic isn't it! They did play it but not to any extent. However when Cheney said it was blasted Coast to Coast! Talk about bias in the media

Still, no one has answered the basic question of this thread. Why Kerry?

He had a position of significant authority for a long time, yet never chose to exercise it to do the things he wants to do now as President. Why?

Kerry spent all his Senate career in the shadow of the fat lush. They struck off really well when Kerry gave his infamous war crimes testimony. I guess Kennedy put Kerry in his place.

Ironic isn't it! They did play it but not to any extent. However when Cheney said it was blasted Coast to Coast! Talk about bias in the media

Kerry did get smacked by some of the pundits for this, but it got wiped away because this was right around when he clinched the nomination.

Cheney's comment happened in the middle of a slow news cycle, so it got picked up more.

The only really issue here is that Kerry had no reason to call the USSS guy an SOB. Cheney, on the other hand, had plenty of reasons to tell Leahy to f-himself...not the least of which is that Leahy is an ignominious prick. And luckily I've not met the guy, or I'd tell that to his face.

Could you elaborate on the "Davis had the same economic policy as Bush, Arnie as Kerry" part? I don't get that.Davis supported high deficit spending and shifted the tax burden from income to sales. With the state getting close to bankruptcy, he promised that the economic problems would be fixed if we would just stick with his policies. George W Bush supports high deficit spending and has not complained about teh tax burden shift from federal income tax to local sales tax. With record deficits and money flowing out of the country, he promises that the economic problems will be fixed if we just stick with his policies. Schwarzenegger supported massive spending cuts, pay-as-you-go spending, and a balanced budget. And he's been able to get it done, despite a legislature packed with people who disagree with him. Kerry supports massive discretionary spending cuts, pay-as-you-go spending, and an almost balanced budget

Ironic isn't it! They did play it but not to any extent. However when Cheney said it was blasted Coast to Coast! Talk about bias in the media
Yeah and I also heard that Bush swears. So what? If it was an ongoing running off at the mouth by ANY of them, then perhaps there could be concern?

The stock market is part of the economy. Oil is not the economy.They are not the economy though. That is measured through unemployment data and inflation rate data. In fact those other things are minor parts of it. But that's ok, I will assume you did not just make it up. I will assume you are right. So , in that case, how will Kerry be helping the economy be better than it is right now?Oil is a major part of the economy, because it extends far beyond gas production. The petrochemical industry affects almost every part of our everyday lives, so any massive fluctuation in the cost of oil shakes the economy gravely. Higher oil costs mean not just higher gas costs--it means higher costs for heating oil, for plastics, for energy production, for food production, for just about everything. And a massive spike in oil prices caused by a deliberate shortage as was the case during the OPEC embargo in the 70s causes massive hemorrhaging everywhere in the economy.

And the current instability in the oil market is part of the reason the economy has stayed sputtering. We have other massive problems--trade imbalances, a lousy balance sheet as a nation, and an overextended military combined with the fact that a lot of the world doesn't like us right now and isn't going out of their way to do us any favors--but the oil problem isn't helping matters, especially since most of the world is at or very near capacity right now and demand is continuing to rise.

And that's where one of Kerry's policies that I really like comes into play. He has a realistic plan to emphasize renewable energy here in the US so we're not dependent on oil anymore. Part of the plan also includes conservation, which is necessary. Bush's energy policy seems to consist of invading oil-rich countries and drilling in the ANWR (which won't produce much oil and won't produce it for ten years at best). I like Kerry's approach better.

In 1993, he tried to cut 6 Billion dollars from the Intelligence Budget AFTER the 1st WTC attack!

Are you sure that that six billion dollar budget cut wasn't attached to something else that may have been beneficial? I don't know for sure, but I've seen several instances where Kerry voted either for or against something that a lot of people didn't agree with, but he wasn't actually voting for or against that issue. There was something else tacked on there that he either thought was good, so he voted for, along with the bad parts, or vice versa.

*edit* I noticed after I posted this that someone else said something nearly the same. Sorry. :p

Actually Pantylvania, that is what he did so yea he did!

In 1993, he tried to cut 6 Billion dollars from the Intelligence Budget AFTER the 1st WTC attack! Come on now! Are you going to tell me that I'm wrong?
Can you back up your claim?

Davis supported high deficit spending and shifted the tax burden from income to sales. With the state getting close to bankruptcy, he promised that the economic problems would be fixed if we would just stick with his policies. George W Bush supports high deficit spending and has not complained about teh tax burden shift from federal income tax to local sales tax. With record deficits and money flowing out of the country, he promises that the economic problems will be fixed if we just stick with his policies. Schwarzenegger supported massive spending cuts, pay-as-you-go spending, and a balanced budget. And he's been able to get it done, despite a legislature packed with people who disagree with him. Kerry supports massive discretionary spending cuts, pay-as-you-go spending, and an almost balanced budget

There's a difference here, though. A state can't run high deficits - it doesn't generate money. It has a credit rating, just like anyone else, and high deficits mean it's harder to borrow. The Federal Government doesn't have that problem.

And while there currently is a high deficit, Keynesian economics say when the economy is bad, the government has to spend. And much of the deficit is the result of defense and homeland security spending, coupled with the recession.

I don't understand what you mean about the "shifting tax burden from federal income tax to local sales tax". Local sales taxes are paid to state governments, not the federal government (except for gasoline). There's been no shift. This is a bit of a stretch.

And the funny thing is, Schwarzenegger is taking a number of pages out of the standard Republican economic text book - all of those things are things that were instituted by a Republican controlled Congress (that doesn't get nearly enough credit for the balanced budget and projected surpluses as it deserves).

Bush isn't your standard economic conservative, but unlike Kerry's plans (which are relatively untested, and unlikely to pass) Bush's are either already law, or are likely to become law.

But we're also not talking about the billions in new health care and education spending Kerry plans on introducing. Where is that money coming from?

Can you back up your claim?
I'm willing to bet it's one of those votes like the one where Kerry supposedly tried to kill all those weapons systems. It was something that was attached to another bill or something like that.

And as far as the weapons systems are concerned, I notice Republicans never mention that on those votes they're calling Kerry on, McCain voted the same way, and that the weapons systems they accuse Kerry of trying to kill are the same systems that Dick Cheney tried to kill while he was the Secretary of Defense.

Kerry has said that his plans will result in 10 million new jobs being created. But he has to get those plans passed by Congress, which more than likely is going to be Republican controlled. He's not got a very good history of bipartisanship and if he wins this election, I can guarantee he's not going to get much cooperation from the Republicans.

Bush, on the other hand, would be in control of the party - he's much more likely to get the things he wants done done. So when he says "I am going to do this", he's already got a head start, because he can guarantee passage in at least the House (the Senate is tougher - Democrats can filibuster).

Kerry doesn't have that luxury - so he needs to not only explain what he wants to do, but how he plans on doing it. And he's not done that yet.if he's the president and he gets a spending bill filled with pork, he can veto it. It won't be as clean as a line item veto, but the president does have the power to make the Republicans in Congress unambiguously show the country just how much their party supports wasteful spending

And that's where one of Kerry's policies that I really like comes into play. He has a realistic plan to emphasize renewable energy here in the US so we're not dependent on oil anymore. Part of the plan also includes conservation, which is necessary. Bush's energy policy seems to consist of invading oil-rich countries and drilling in the ANWR (which won't produce much oil and won't produce it for ten years at best). I like Kerry's approach better.

Actually, drilling in ANWR could result in considerable oil production, and it's heavily favored by most Alaskans. Funny - the Alaskans are for opening ANWR but people who don't live there don't want it.

And I don't understand why "won't produce it for ten years at best" is a knock on Bush's energy policy when Kerry's renewable energy plans aren't even past the drawing board phase. Wind and solar power are simply not commercially viable for most of America, and there's some knee-jerk reaction to nuclear power plants that keeps them from being produced. Kerry's increased renewable energy research will take much more than 10 years to bear fruit. As for conservation, I think everyone is for this - but how do you do it? Tax the living heck out of gasoline? Force people to conserve? Mass transit is great in the big city, but most of America is rural - that won't work there.

Also, I don't understand how "invading oil-rich countries" could be part of Bush's energy plan, considering that the price of oil has gone UP since the war in Iraq, not down, and we've not seen major oil production from Iraq since the infrastructure there is in piss-poor shape even when it isn't being blown up.

Kerry's plan is lipservice - we won't see any of those benefits until long after he isn't president anymore. Bush's plan is not that much better, but at least it isn't dependent on as-yet-uninvented technology.

if he's the president and he gets a spending bill filled with pork, he can veto it. It won't be as clean as a line item veto, but the president does have the power to make the Republicans in Congress unambiguously show the country just how much their party supports wasteful spending

Here's a little secret those of us in Washington don't want you to know....they're all filled with pork!

That's all spending bills are. But the problem is that most of the most heavily porked up bills are also the most important ones. We call those types of bills "Christmas Trees" down here ... because people scramble to hang every thing they can on one.

They're extremely hard to veto. And if Kerry is elected, and he does veto a pork bill...well, that just means that the pork gets added on to every single one of his campaign promise bills. See if he vetos those!

That's politics.

Actually, drilling in ANWR could result in considerable oil production, and it's heavily favored by most Alaskans. Funny - the Alaskans are for opening ANWR but people who don't live there don't want it.

And I don't understand why "won't produce it for ten years at best" is a knock on Bush's energy policy when Kerry's renewable energy plans aren't even past the drawing board phase. Wind and solar power are simply not commercially viable for most of America, and there's some knee-jerk reaction to nuclear power plants that keeps them from being produced. Kerry's increased renewable energy research will take much more than 10 years to bear fruit. As for conservation, I think everyone is for this - but how do you do it? Tax the living heck out of gasoline? Force people to conserve? Mass transit is great in the big city, but most of America is rural - that won't work there.

Also, I don't understand how "invading oil-rich countries" could be part of Bush's energy plan, considering that the price of oil has gone UP since the war in Iraq, not down, and we've not seen major oil production from Iraq since the infrastructure there is in piss-poor shape even when it isn't being blown up.

Kerry's plan is lipservice - we won't see any of those benefits until long after he isn't president anymore. Bush's plan is not that much better, but at least it isn't dependent on as-yet-uninvented technology.
Even best estimates of ANWR have it providing a pittance in comparison for the effort it's going to take to get it out. As for conservation, you could enforce CAFE standards and close the SUV loophole for starters. That would cut gas consumption by a good chunk. You could also give tax credits for purchasing a hybrid or a car that gets over, say, 35 mpg, and stop giving tax credits to people who buy Hummers.

Renewable energy is farther along than most people realize--it just gets no press because for the moment, oil is cheaper and the oil people have a better lobby. But there is technology available that would reduce our dependence significantly--not eliminate it, but reduce it with just a little oomph from the feds. Wind power is especially good for this.

As to Bush's plan for invading oil rich countries, well, it's his plan, but like most of them, it's just not a good one. This is another case where he was listening to Chalabi, who painted this picture of getting oil fields up and running and having the people greet us with flowers. Didn't work out like Bush planned and so we haven't seen any benefits. Just because his plan didn't work doesn't mean it wasn't his plan to start with.

Finally, as far as comparing the two plans are concerned, even if your assessment of Kerry's plan were accurate--which it isn't--it would still be superior because it's not absed on a faulty premise, namely that we can drill our way out of this problem. The simple fact is that consumption is increasing and supply is decreasing, and we're going to run out of cheap oil sooner rather than later. We've got to move to other forms of energy, and we've got to start now.

There's a difference here, though. A state can't run high deficits - it doesn't generate money. It has a credit rating, just like anyone else, and high deficits mean it's harder to borrow. The Federal Government doesn't have that problem.

And while there currently is a high deficit, Keynesian economics say when the economy is bad, the government has to spend. And much of the deficit is the result of defense and homeland security spending, coupled with the recession.

I don't understand what you mean about the "shifting tax burden from federal income tax to local sales tax". Local sales taxes are paid to state governments, not the federal government (except for gasoline). There's been no shift. This is a bit of a stretch.

And the funny thing is, Schwarzenegger is taking a number of pages out of the standard Republican economic text book - all of those things are things that were instituted by a Republican controlled Congress (that doesn't get nearly enough credit for the balanced budget and projected surpluses as it deserves).

Bush isn't your standard economic conservative, but unlike Kerry's plans (which are relatively untested, and unlikely to pass) Bush's are either already law, or are likely to become law.

But we're also not talking about the billions in new health care and education spending Kerry plans on introducing. Where is that money coming from?the problem that the federal government has, equivalent to CA's, is the amount of money that goes toward paying interest on the debt. CA was in danger of defaulting on payment of its bonds because of the deficit. The US is in danger of defaulting on payment of Social Security benefits because of the deficit.

Much of, possibly all of the deficit is the result of those things combined with the pork barrel spending that Bush doesn't oppose. Because Bush has a friendly Congress ready to cut the spending bills for him and because the Iraq war is Bush's fault, the blame for the deficit can't be directed toward much more than Bush. Bush supported tax cuts and spending hikes before the recession and he supports making the tax cuts permanent and increasing spending even more while the economy is supposedly "strong and getting stronger." Not Keynesian.

Bush's education and homeland security mandates weren't sufficiently funded and had to be covered by local tax increases.

The standard Republican economic text book is what Kerry has been using for years in his support for balanced budgets. Schwarzenegger's support for pay-as-you-go spending and opposition to pork-barrel spending show him to be similar to Kerry

The standard Republican economic text book is what Kerry has been using for years in his support for balanced budgets. Schwarzenegger's support for pay-as-you-go spending and opposition to pork-barrel spending show him to be similar to KerryExcept that Schwarzenegger hasn't done pay as you go yet--he's done "get long term bonds and then claim the problem is solved when it really isn't" so far.

Even best estimates of ANWR have it providing a pittance in comparison for the effort it's going to take to get it out. As for conservation, you could enforce CAFE standards and close the SUV loophole for starters. That would cut gas consumption by a good chunk. You could also give tax credits for purchasing a hybrid or a car that gets over, say, 35 mpg, and stop giving tax credits to people who buy Hummers.

Renewable energy is farther along than most people realize--it just gets no press because for the moment, oil is cheaper and the oil people have a better lobby. But there is technology available that would reduce our dependence significantly--not eliminate it, but reduce it with just a little oomph from the feds. Wind power is especially good for this.

As to Bush's plan for invading oil rich countries, well, it's his plan, but like most of them, it's just not a good one. This is another case where he was listening to Chalabi, who painted this picture of getting oil fields up and running and having the people greet us with flowers. Didn't work out like Bush planned and so we haven't seen any benefits. Just because his plan didn't work doesn't mean it wasn't his plan to start with.

Finally, as far as comparing the two plans are concerned, even if your assessment of Kerry's plan were accurate--which it isn't--it would still be superior because it's not absed on a faulty premise, namely that we can drill our way out of this problem. The simple fact is that consumption is increasing and supply is decreasing, and we're going to run out of cheap oil sooner rather than later. We've got to move to other forms of energy, and we've got to start now.

We're obviously looking at different estimates of ANWR production, but in any event, I would much rather do both - work on renewable fuels while at the same time drilling in ANWR. These aren't mutually exclusive items.

The market is going to drive CAFE standards and getting rid of SUVs, just like it did in the late 70s. There's already been a trend in decreasing SUV sales because of high gas prices. Most states already have tax incentives for hybrid vehicles. And clean coal technology is much more likely to replace oil for use in electrical plants than solar or wind energy is. If wind and solar power were as commercial feasible as you claim, then why are they not being exploited now? The oil lobby is kind of hamstrung right now by the fact that Bush is president - yes, read that again. I didn't believe it either, but I had lunch with an oil industry lobbyist two weeks ago and she told me that they can barely get anything through right now because everyone is afraid of their being any kinds of connections between the Republicans and oil.

Oh - and the Hummer tax credit was originally designed for farmers and businesses ... it's based on the tonnage of the vehicle. Hummers just happen to hit the weight requirement. That's been in the tax code for a while, if I recall. It'll probably get removed this year.

Invading "oil-rich countries" has never been part of the anyone's energy plans - it's never been mentioned by anyone as part of the calculus for invading Iraq, and never by the president. So while this is fun to speculate about, it has no basis in fact. Chalabi sold us a bill of goods, but he'd been doing that since 91 - the Clintons dealt with him too. There's no way we could touch a drop if Iraqi oil - it's just what everyone expects us to do.

The premise isn't that we can drill our way out of this problem - the Republican energy bill had a ton of renewable fuel sections in it, particularly regarding ethanol and other grain based fuel alternatives. But the ANWR provisions sunk it, depsite their not being the primary focus. The Republican energy plan is written, it's out there waiting to be passed.

Kerry's plan isn't even in the drafting stages, so we don't know what it really looks like, and it has less than 50/50 chances of ever passing.

Even with Kerry as president you aren't going to see what you want here. Is it really enough to just talk a good game?

I like Kerry because we have many of the same views. Pretty simple actually.

Here's a little secret those of us in Washington don't want you to know....they're all filled with pork!

That's all spending bills are. But the problem is that most of the most heavily porked up bills are also the most important ones. We call those types of bills "Christmas Trees" down here ... because people scramble to hang every thing they can on one.

They're extremely hard to veto. And if Kerry is elected, and he does veto a pork bill...well, that just means that the pork gets added on to every single one of his campaign promise bills. See if he vetos those!

That's politics.I trust that John Kerry would veto it. A veto, unlike a senatorial "nay" vote, can include the reasons. If the Republican-controlled Congress passes an important bill that's filled with pork and the president vetos it, it's the Congress' fault that the important stuff didn't happen. And if the Democrats have control of the Senate, I can just imagine how much damage the Republicans would do to their party by filibustering the revised bill

I trust that John Kerry would veto it. A veto, unlike a senatorial "nay" vote, can include the reasons. If the Republican-controlled Congress passes an important bill that's filled with pork and the president vetos it, it's the Congress' fault that the important stuff didn't happen. And if the Democrats have control of the Senate, I can just imagine how much damage the Republicans would do to their party by filibustering the revised bill

Even if it's his universal health care bill? Or his middle class tax cut? Or his education funding bill? I doubt it.

If they pick the right vehicle, it's unvetoable.

And while it may be "Congress' fault that the important stuff didn't happen", the President is the one who actually has to say "no". Congress said "yes". They can spin it to make him look bad. And it usually works. The Senate is probably going to remain Republican, and the damage done to the party wouldn't be that hard to deal with...especially if its early in the Kerry Administration. They've got 4 years to clean up their reputations.

Still, no one has answered the basic question of this thread. Why Kerry?

Ummmm....

I like Kerry because we have many of the same views. Pretty simple actually.

Even if it's his universal health care bill? Or his middle class tax cut? Or his education funding bill? I doubt it.

If they pick the right vehicle, it's unvetoable.

And while it may be "Congress' fault that the important stuff didn't happen", the President is the one who actually has to say "no". Congress said "yes". They can spin it to make him look bad. And it usually works. The Senate is probably going to remain Republican, and the damage done to the party wouldn't be that hard to deal with...especially if its early in the Kerry Administration. They've got 4 years to clean up their reputations.from the page I linked to that started this whole thing, "If Congress cannot agree on savings, John Kerry will be willing to sacrifice some of his priorities, if necessary, to control spending." If John Kerry is to fulfill his campaign promises, he would veto a universal health care bill, a middle class tax cut, and an education funding bill if they have enough pork to kill his deficit-reduction plan. He has already reworded his national service plan to imply that he won't try to make it happen during his first term unless things go unrealistically well with the budget.

If Bill Clinton can manage to outspin the Republican Congress on the government shutdown, John Edwards can outspin it on a health care vs pork issue. But it can only get this far if the Republicans minus McCain are united in refusal to pass a balanced budget

Just a thought... listening to John Edwards talk about healthcare is a bit ironic, IMO.

Just a thought... listening to John Edwards talk about healthcare is a bit ironic, IMO.that's just the result of a stereotype spread by the Lionel Hutz character from the Simpsons and strongly pushed by Bush's campaign. Just imagine Erin Brockovicz or Ralph Nader talking about health care and you should be fine.

I mean Ralph Nader from the 1960's and 1970's, not Ralph Nader as he is now.


edit: Brian's Room hasn't posted in this thread in a while. Probably sleep since it's so late here, and he was doing well, so nobody try to make it look like he backed down

-The Patriot Act
-The No Child Left Behind Initiative
-Massive Tax Cuts
-Companies profitting from the War on Iraq
-The War on Iraq
-There's more Arsenic and mercuary in my drinking water and fish
-There are no more jobs
-The Euro is stronger than the USD
-Where's Osama?
-Our president can't string together a coherent sentence using a word with more than 6 letters, despite the fact that he got the best education money can buy.

That's why I'm supporting Kerry

Yeah and I also heard that Bush swears. So what? If it was an ongoing running off at the mouth by ANY of them, then perhaps there could be concern?

CH! I've said this before, I don't care either. I find it Ironic though that his got more media play than Kerry's. That is all I was saying.

Stop reading into things.

from the page I linked to that started this whole thing, "If Congress cannot agree on savings, John Kerry will be willing to sacrifice some of his priorities, if necessary, to control spending." If John Kerry is to fulfill his campaign promises, he would veto a universal health care bill, a middle class tax cut, and an education funding bill if they have enough pork to kill his deficit-reduction plan.

Now there is really one thing you are forgetting! Congress CAN override a Presidential Veto.

from the page I linked to that started this whole thing, "If Congress cannot agree on savings, John Kerry will be willing to sacrifice some of his priorities, if necessary, to control spending." If John Kerry is to fulfill his campaign promises, he would veto a universal health care bill, a middle class tax cut, and an education funding bill if they have enough pork to kill his deficit-reduction plan. He has already reworded his national service plan to imply that he won't try to make it happen during his first term unless things go unrealistically well with the budget.

If Bill Clinton can manage to outspin the Republican Congress on the government shutdown, John Edwards can outspin it on a health care vs pork issue. But it can only get this far if the Republicans minus McCain are united in refusal to pass a balanced budget

I would be more inclined to believe this is it has ever happened - which it hasn't. No President is going to sacrifice one of his campaign promises to cut back on pork. The reason why is that cutting pork is unpopular ... with Congress. Pork gets them reelected. Pork gets them campaign contributions. Pork gets them vote. Cutting the pork means making it harder for everything to get passed. Kerry did spend 20 years in the Senate - and while Kennedy did most of the heavy lifting when it came to bringing home the bacon for Massachusetts, he knows how it works. In any event, what one person calls pork, another calls a legitimate governmental function.

It's a little known fact, but Presidents generally always fulfill their campaign promises - Kerry is going to have a hard time getting any of his legislative priorities done, so he's going to have to massage Congress to get them. Massage=pork.

Rewording plans is one thing - pulling out the veto stamp on your campaign promises is another. You trust Kerry when he says this. But I've never seen it happen, and I don't think he's got it in him.

Clinton did outspin the Congress - he was good like that. But Kerry is no Bill Clinton. Edwards won't be spinning anything having to do with health care, because - no matter what you think on his trial lawyer experience - he can't touch them now.

Oh, and I'm willing to trade McCain away for another player to be named later and a second round draft pick.

(PS - It was 2 am when I went to bed. :) )

-The Patriot Act
-The No Child Left Behind Initiative
-Massive Tax Cuts
-Companies profitting from the War on Iraq
-The War on Iraq
-There's more Arsenic and mercuary in my drinking water and fish
-There are no more jobs
-The Euro is stronger than the USD
-Where's Osama?
-Our president can't string together a coherent sentence using a word with more than 6 letters, despite the fact that he got the best education money can buy.

That's why I'm supporting Kerry

The Patriot Act - the boogeyman that no one can seem to explain why it's bad without bringing up library books.

No Child Left Behind - the most comprehensive BIPARTISAN education reform package in a long time, coupled with the largest education budgets ever

Companies profiting from the War in Iraq - that's what happens in war ... someone has to make the bullets and butter. If you're talking Halliburton, they not making that much money, the company overall is in bad financial shape, and they've had more employees killed than any unit in the armed forces over there.

The War in Iraq - we pay the president to make the tough choices. He decided Saddam was a threat. That's his job. You may not agree, but that's fine. I think he did the right thing, and twenty years from now, everyone will agree.

There's more arsenic... - That's wrong too. The EPA changing its own regulations does not = more stuff in your water. It means the regulation changed. And when you can point to someone who died from arsenic or mercurial poisoning from their drinking water, you can use this as an excuse.

There are no more jobs - this is a bit vague, and not exactly true. Unemployment is at 5.4%, which is pretty close to full employment, but if you've read my previous stuff I still fail to see where Kerry's plan will result in any new jobs being created, particularly in the manufacturing sector where we're at a competitive disadvantage.

The Euro is stronger than the USD - that's good. A stronger Euro stimulates european spending over here because our stuff is cheaper than their's is. But come on - are you really going to try and pin the blame for the wildly changing currency values on the president? It's cyclical and market based. The president has little control over this.

Where's Osama? - He's somewhere in the middle of a desert and he doesn't want to be found. Go to the FBI website, click on "10 most wanted". Those guys are the most wanted men in America, and we've got roads, cops everywhere, roads, etc. And those guys are still missing. It's not that easy to find someone who doesn't want to be found. But we'll get him. It's just going to take time.

Our president can't... - Of all the ignorant and baseless charges that people bring up, it's the "Bush can't talk", "Bush is an idiot" crap. He has trouble speaking in public - many people do. Kerry makes just as many flubs. And Bush did get a good education, but what makes you think he's stupid? Because he mangles his words sometimes? Frankly, milking the "I'm stupid" belief is beautiful politics - it won him the debates with Al Gore. The media and late night comics had made Bush out to be such a blithering idiot that all he had to do was show up and not drool on himself and he would've exceeded expectations. No man can be elected President without significant intelligence...and even if he isn't the best public speaker, he's got the ability to establish an instant relationship with people by being straightforward and likeable, and that's the political midas touch.

So basically, you're not supporting Kerry for anything he says, you just don't like the President. That's fine - you're a mainstream Kerry supporter.

Why Kerry?

I would imagine it is because most people view Kerry as better than the alternative.

Some like the idea of a commander-in-chief who has actaully served time in the military. People are funny like that.

Some like the idea of a politician who isn't basically in office because of name-recognition.

Some like the idea of a politician who didn't get into office because of voter-irregularity... coincidentally in another state where the candidate has family in office..

Some people like the idea of a president who isn't a war-monger.

Some people like the idea who would tax the wealthy more than the poor, rather that less.

Some people like the idea of an american president who wants to keep jobs in america.
WORD

Here's a question for the liberals: why do you support John Kerry? What will he do that qualifies him for the Office of President of the United States? After this post, I do not want to see anyone using the words Bush, Badnarik, Dubya, Nader, Cheney, Halliburton, Vietnam, or Voltron.

Bill Van Auken for President!

The Patriot Act - the boogeyman that no one can seem to explain why it's bad without bringing up library books.

No Child Left Behind - the most comprehensive BIPARTISAN education reform package in a long time, coupled with the largest education budgets ever

Companies profiting from the War in Iraq - that's what happens in war ... someone has to make the bullets and butter. If you're talking Halliburton, they not making that much money, the company overall is in bad financial shape, and they've had more employees killed than any unit in the armed forces over there.

The War in Iraq - we pay the president to make the tough choices. He decided Saddam was a threat. That's his job. You may not agree, but that's fine. I think he did the right thing, and twenty years from now, everyone will agree.

There's more arsenic... - That's wrong too. The EPA changing its own regulations does not = more stuff in your water. It means the regulation changed. And when you can point to someone who died from arsenic or mercurial poisoning from their drinking water, you can use this as an excuse.

There are no more jobs - this is a bit vague, and not exactly true. Unemployment is at 5.4%, which is pretty close to full employment, but if you've read my previous stuff I still fail to see where Kerry's plan will result in any new jobs being created, particularly in the manufacturing sector where we're at a competitive disadvantage.

The Euro is stronger than the USD - that's good. A stronger Euro stimulates european spending over here because our stuff is cheaper than their's is. But come on - are you really going to try and pin the blame for the wildly changing currency values on the president? It's cyclical and market based. The president has little control over this.

Where's Osama? - He's somewhere in the middle of a desert and he doesn't want to be found. Go to the FBI website, click on "10 most wanted". Those guys are the most wanted men in America, and we've got roads, cops everywhere, roads, etc. And those guys are still missing. It's not that easy to find someone who doesn't want to be found. But we'll get him. It's just going to take time.

Our president can't... - Of all the ignorant and baseless charges that people bring up, it's the "Bush can't talk", "Bush is an idiot" crap. He has trouble speaking in public - many people do. Kerry makes just as many flubs. And Bush did get a good education, but what makes you think he's stupid? Because he mangles his words sometimes? Frankly, milking the "I'm stupid" belief is beautiful politics - it won him the debates with Al Gore. The media and late night comics had made Bush out to be such a blithering idiot that all he had to do was show up and not drool on himself and he would've exceeded expectations. No man can be elected President without significant intelligence...and even if he isn't the best public speaker, he's got the ability to establish an instant relationship with people by being straightforward and likeable, and that's the political midas touch.

So basically, you're not supporting Kerry for anything he says, you just don't like the President. That's fine - you're a mainstream Kerry supporter.
Don't believe everything you hear on Fox News.


No Accountability – The PATRIOT Act weakened key oversight
and accountability checks on the powers of the Executive Branch,
reducing judges to mere “rubber stamps” and leaving many decisions
about investigative techniques to the discretion of FBI agents.
Restoring the Balance: Although the FBI should have the power it
needs to investigate terrorism, the courts and Congress should have
the authority to ensure that the FBI does not overreach.

Sneak & Peek Searches – The PATRIOT Act broadened the
government’s power to search an individual’s home without telling her
until weeks or months later, and to do so in any criminal case.
Restoring the Balance: Secret searches should be allowed only in
special circumstances, such as if someone’s life is at stake or evidence
will be destroyed. Otherwise, FBI agents should have to knock on a
person’s door and announce that they have a search warrant, as
intended by the Fourth Amendment.

Access to Sensitive Business Records – The PATRIOT Act
gave the FBI nearly unlimited power to obtain business records,
including sensitive files like medical, library and bookstore records,
with a secret court order issued with no factual showing of need.
Restoring the Balance: The FBI should only be able to obtain files
about people suspected of being terrorists or spies. It should not be
able to get entire databases of information about innocent people.

Broad Definition of Terrorism – The PATRIOT Act contains a
definition of “domestic terrorism” so broad that someone committing a
misdemeanor could end up being dubbed a terrorist, thereby facing
asset forfeiture and other serious consequences.
Restoring the Balance: Only the most serious crimes should be
considered terrorism.

Monitoring Computer “Trespassers” Without a Court
Order – The PATRIOT Act allows ISPs, universities and network
administrators to authorize government surveillance of anyone they
deem a “computer trespasser” without a court order, and with no
notice to the person being monitored.
Restoring the Balance: Surveillance of computer users should occur
with proper judicial review, not secretly with no judicial involvement.

Secret Investigations – The FBI’s domestic intelligence
investigations under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), a
statute that was expanded by the PATRIOT Act, occur in total secrecy,
with almost no information released to the public.
Restoring the Balance: The FBI should do more public reporting, on
a statistical basis, about the use of secret FISA investigative
techniques so the public knows how much information is gathered
about U.S citizens and using what methods.

Monitoring of Email and Web Surfing – The PATRIOT Act
extended to the Internet the already broad authority to monitor
transactional (non-content) information about communications with
very little justification. A record of every call you make and every
email you receive offers a full picture of your life, even without the
contents.
Restoring the Balance: Approval to monitor who is calling whom
should be granted only when a judge finds there is reason to believe
that a crime is being committed. And in the Internet context, there
should be a bright-line distinction between monitoring transactional
data and intercepting content.

Expansive “Roving” Wiretap Authority – The PATRIOT
Act permitted the FBI to use “roving” wiretaps in intelligence
investigations, but it did not include safeguards long used in criminal
investigations to avoid recording the conversations of innocent people.
Restoring the Balance: The FBI should be granted wiretap orders
only where it specifies either the name of the target or the telephone
or computer to be tapped. And in carrying out a roving tap, an FBI
agent should have to verify that the person named in the order is
about to use a particular phone before the tap is turned on.

End-Run Around Standard Criminal Procedures – The
PATRIOT Act authorized the FBI to use special intelligence
investigative techniques under FISA, which has lower standards than
regular criminal law, even where the primary purpose of the
investigation is to obtain information for a criminal trial. This
essentially permits the FBI to collect evidence for criminal cases under
lower standards.
Restoring the Balance: The special intelligence standards should be
used only where intelligence gathering is the primary purpose for the
investigation.


Growing Chorus of Voices
Calling for Changes in NCLB

The National Education Association supports the goals of the so-called "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB) Act, including closing the achievement gap and ensuring that all students are held to high expectations of learning.

But the law was developed by politicians and bureaucrats, while the many recommendations by teachers, education support professionals, administrators, and others went ignored.

The education community wants ESEA/NCLB to allow for alternate ways to measure student performance, remedies for schools that are struggling, and the resources to carry out the objectives of the law.

NEA is not alone in its concerns about the law and its implementation. A growing chorus of voices is calling for changes in the law and additional federal resources for proven methods.

The following are updated summaries of some of the concerns policymakers and the public have expressed.

Editorials and opinion columns: Local newspaper editorial boards and commentators support changing and properly funding the law.
Other Voices: A growing number of organizations are calling for legislative and regulatory changes to NCLB.
State Legislative Action: Dozens of state legislatures have seen the introduction of bills or resolutions advocating full funding of NCLB and a wide variety of changes in the law and/or its implementation.
Amendments, Letters and Statements by Members of Congress: Concern is rising among Members of Congress from both parties about both the lack of funding and the need for substantive changes to NCLB.
Editorials and Opinion Columns
Newspaper editorial boards across the country have increasingly come out in favor of changing unworkable provisions of the law and providing the resources needed to make it work. The following selections are just some of hundreds of similar editorials and opinion columns.

"Rely on course grades, not the Bushes' grades," Palm Beach Post, June 13, 2004
"The problem is that parents can't make sense out of all the information because the conglomeration doesn't jibe with itself. Eighty-four percent of 10th-graders can write on grade level, according to the 2004 FCAT, but only 37 percent can read on grade level."
"No Child Left Behind leaves school districts behind," Santa Cruz Sentinel, June 13, 2004
"At the expense of students, NCLB continues to undermine, rather than support, California’s more realistic, more rigorous and more manageable accountability and achievement efforts. Schools must now deal with two competing accountability systems and conflicting rules and priorities have thoroughly frustrated and confused schools up and down the state."
"Fed plan: No school budget left uncut,"Dover-Sherborn Press [MA], June 3, 2004
"What this program really has proven to be is Bush's way of appearing to care about education without having to do too much to back up his words. It's too bad his actions don't back up his words, but when it comes to domestic programs that [affect] children, the elderly and the middle and lower classes, that has often been the case with this administration. Without the promised funding, NCLB may do more harm than good, an unfunded mandate that diverts resources desperately needed to help students catch up."
"No Child Left Behind doesn't work for Maine," Portland Press Herald [ME], May 30, 2004
"No Child Left Behind is highly flawed… If an education program that's meant to ensure more students graduate from high school is causing more to drop out, that's a pretty good indication that something is wrong with the system, however."
"More kids dropping out is a warning sign of a big problem," Maine Today, May 23, 2004
"A GED shouldn't become an escape from the traditional system, though. The point of higher standards is to make kids succeed, not to make them fail. If the No Child Left Behind standards are having the opposite effect, it's all the more reason to re-examine the law."
"Keep old promises first" Des Moines Register [IA], May 21, 2004
"The federal government loves to tell state and local educators what to do, but can't be depended on for the money. That's the case, too, for the No Child Left Behind Act. It brings significant funding for technical implementation but falls way short on professional development for teachers. That's probably not something President Bush will point out as he seeks re-election."
"Middle school teachers hit by interpretation of initiative’s requirement," Lafayette Advertiser [LA], May 1, 2004
"While middle school teachers should probably seek middle school certification, they should not be put under undue pressure because of the way the state has chosen to interpret a vague requirement of the No Child Left Behind Act."
"Education law falling behind," Fort Wayne Journal Gazette [IN], April 23, 2004
"Contrary to the first lady’s claim, the parents of Indiana students will find nothing in No Child Left Behind to help their children learn. They are better served by ignoring the federally required lists and getting involved in their schools to see firsthand how they measure up."
"Senate continues surrender to federal education fiasco," Springfield News-Leader [MO], April 23, 2004
"The No Child Left Behind Act was supposed to push improvements in education. In Missouri, it is stopping them."
"School numbers sometimes lie," Cleveland Plain Dealer [OH], April 20, 2004
"President George W. Bush's major federal education reform law, No Child Left Behind, gives parents the right to transfer from schools that persistently post low scores. But this research indicates that such a move might not be in the best interests of some students; that is, an individual youngster may be better-served in a lower-performing school if his own progress is good."
[Back]

Other Voices
A growing number of organizations have called for legislative and regulatory changes to NCLB. A partial list includes:

American Association of School Administrators
American Federation of Teachers
Citizens for Effective Schools
Civil Society Institute
Communities for Quality Education
Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents
Council of Chief State School Officers
Education Officials for NCLB Flexibility (coalition of 14 chief state school officers)
FairTest
Florida Coalition For Education Reform
Illinois Association of School Administrators
Maine School Superintendent Association/Maine School Board Association Executive Committee
Montana South Central Administrators
National Association of Elementary School Principals
National Conference of State Legislatures
New Hampshire Association of School Administrators (PDF, 21 pages)
North Carolina NCLB Coalition
Pennsylvania School Superintendents (138 superintendents) (MSWord document, 2 pages)
Tennessee School Boards Association
Washington State’s Superintendent of Public Instruction (PDF, 8 pages)
West Virginia Association of School Administrators
Western States Benchmarking Consortium (PDF, 7 pages)
[Back]

State legislative activity
Dozens of state legislatures have seen the introduction of bills or resolutions advocating full funding of NCLB, calling for changes or state waivers, authorizing studies of the law's additional cost, prohibiting spending state funds on its implementation, or seeking to opt out of the law altogether.

ALASKA: SJR30 calls on the President and Congress to allow states, such as Alaska, to receive waivers if they can demonstrate increases in student achievement. The bill was pending in committee as of 02/16/04.

ARIZONA: SCM 1006 calls for full funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Education (IDEA) Act and the NCLB. It passed in the Senate on 02/23/04.

HB2696 and HB 2596 would call for Arizona to "opt out" of NCLB. HB2696 passed in House committee 2/26/04. HB2594 was pulled from consideration.

CONNECTICUT: SJR4 calls for waivers for states that can demonstrate increases in student achievement. It also calls for additional federal resources for school readiness, reading and school construction. The measure was passed by the Senate on 03/03/04 and was introduced in the House on 03/09/04.

HAWAII: HCR62 calls for waivers and changes NCLB and HR42 calls for additional resources to help Hawaii use the law to improve education. Both resolutions were reported favorably by committee 3/31/04.

SCR60 andSR28 are companion bills calling for waivers and additional resources that were reported favorably by committee 4/5/04.

HR118 Resolution urges the board of education and superintendent of education to consider declining any further participation in NCLB and to return all federal funds conditioned on the implementation of the act by the state of Hawaii, unless Congress fully funds the act. Adopted 5/13/03.

IDAHO: SJM108 urges Congress to adopt a growth model for student assessment and more flexibility for English language learners. It was passed unanimously in the Senate on 02/23/04, and it passed the House on 03/04/04.

INDIANA: SB 258 seeks waivers from NCLB provisions that conflict with Indiana school accountability measures. The resolution passed the Senate on 01/27/04, and it is in the House committee.

IOWA: SCR105 seeks waivers from NCLB mandates if states can demonstrate increased student achievement. The resolution was in committee on 02/19/04.

KANSAS: HR6028 calls for changes in NCLB that would allow states that are meeting high standards to receive waivers. The resolution calls for additional federal resources to complement law and grant certain waivers. The resolution was in committee on 03/18/04.

SCR1621 calls on Congress to fully fund NCLB and grant certain waivers. The bill was in committee on 03/23/04.

SR1834 urges Congress to reevaluate NCLB and provide full funding. The bill passed the Senate unanimously on 3/26/04 and is being sent to Congress.

KENTUCKY: HR174 calls for full funding of NCLB mandates and more flexibility to implement the law. The House unanimously passed it on 03/11/04.

SR 172 is a resolution that calls for additional funding and waivers. The bill was in committee on 03/11/04.

LOUISIANA: HCR12 and HCR13 state that Louisiana has to right not to comply with NCLB unless Congress provides full funding. The bill was in committee as of 3/29/04.

HCR20 calls for Congress to fully fund NCLB mandates. The bill was in committee as of 3/29/04.

MAINE: LD1716 directs the state department of education not to use any state funds to implement NCLB and calls for an investigation of the costs and benefits of not participating in NCLB. It passed the Senate 3/29/04 and House 4/6/04.

MINNESOTA: SF1853 and HF1917 call for waivers from NCLB mandates if the state is performing acceptably under state adopted standards. Both bills were in committee on 02/08/04.

HF2042 and SB1921 call for the state department of education to revise its NCLB implementation plan to specify that the plan will be nullified by June 1, 2004, unless the Minnesota legislature specifically affirms the implementation plan before that date. Passed by committee.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: HB 786 prohibits the state department of education using state general fund resources to comply with NCLB. Passed the House, died in Senate committee 1/28/04.

NEW JERSEY: ACR142 calls for additional time for education support professionals to meet the higher standards, as long as they are making progress to the defined qualifications. It was in committee on 02/11/04.

NEW MEXICO: HJM09 calls for more funding to supplement education improvement efforts and waivers when the state can demonstrate increased student achievement. It was passed in House on 02/09/04 but died in the Senate on 02/16/04.

SJM56 calls for a study of unfunded mandates. The bill passed the Senate on 02/13/04, and it was in the House committee on 02/16/04.

SB513 would have New Mexico "opt out" of NCLB. The bill was in committee as of 2/4/04.

OHIO: SCR25 calls for waivers and full funding of the NCLB. It was in committee on 03/11/04.

OKLAHOMA: HCR1052 calls for appropriate testing of special education students and English language learners, as well as changes in the federal definition of highly qualified teachers. The House passed the bill on 03/03/04.

HR1037 calls for waivers for states that already are meeting high standards and improving student achievement. It passed the House on 03/22/04.

SOUTH CAROLINA: HCR4891 calls for changes in assessments for special education and English language learners. It calls for altering the timeframes for the federal definition of highly qualified teachers and paraprofessionals. The resolution also calls for changes in how student performance is measured and how supplemental services are provided. It was passed by committee on 03/22/04.

SOUTH DAKOTA: HCR1018 calls for full funding of NCLB. The bill was introduced on 02/24/04.

TENNESSEE: SJR 694 urges members of the Tennessee congressional delegation to seek full funding of NCLB and all federal education mandates. The resolution was in committee on 01/26/04.

HR2979 and SB 2256 both require the select committee on education oversight to conduct studies of the NCLB accountability plans. The bills were in their respective houses on 02/04/04.

UTAH: HCR09 calls on Congress to change the NCLB and seeks more flexibility in assessments for English language learners. The resolution was in committee on 01/12/04, but it died when session ended.

HB43 states that Utah will comply with NCLB in the areas fully funded by the federal government. Passed House 2/10/04; sent for an interim study by the Senate on 2/26/04.

HB43 would have Utah opt out of NCLB participation. The bill was amended to allow state education agencies to participate in No Child Left Behind programs to the degree they are adequately funded. The bill passed as amended 2/10/04.

VERMONT: SR23 calls for waivers for states that meet high standards and already are improving student achievement. It was in committee on 03/12/04.

HR29 urges members of Congress to grant waivers to states whose students perform at a high academic level. It was in committee on 03/18/04.

SB185 prohibits school districts from incur any costs related to NCLB that are not paid for by the federal government. Passed and signed by the Governor, 6/11/03.

VIRGINIA: HJR192 and SJR77 call for automatic waivers in NCLB for states that can demonstrate increased student achievement. HJR192 returned to the House on 02/19/04. The Senate passed SJR77 on 02/19/04.

WASHINGTON: HJM4042 calls for clarity in assessment standards for students with disabilities and English language learners. It also urges additional funding for the NCLB and more flexibility to ensure nationwide implementation. The bill passed the House on 02/13/04, and it was referred to the Senate education committee.

WEST VIRGINIA: HR6 calls for waivers for states that can demonstrate improved student achievement through their own standards and accountability programs. The bill also urges waivers to continue to be available should states maintain their high standards. The House passed it on 02/04/04.

SCR32 calls for full federal funding of NCLB and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. It was passed in the Senate on 02/10/04.

WISCONSIN: SR19 calls for waivers for states that can demonstrate increases in student achievement. The bill was in committee on 10/15/03.

SR32 urges more federal funding to implement the NCLB. It was passed by the Senate on 03/12/04.

WYOMING: HJR06 calls for waivers to exempt the state from NCLB mandates. The bill was in committee on 02/10/04.

HB127 would prohibit Wyoming's participation in NCLB. (In committee 2/10/04. Not heard in time for consideration.

[Back]

Amendments, Letters
and Statements by Members of Congress
Concern is rising among Members of Congress from both parties about both the lack of funding and the need for substantive changes to NCLB. A number of bills have been introduced in the House and Senate to either fully fund NCLB, modify its provisions, or suspend its sanctions.

To date there have been 18 bills introduced in Congress to fully fund NCLB, modify its provisions, or suspend its sanctions, with a total of 156 House members and 10 Senators sponsoring one or more of these bills. Many members have also publicly expressed concerns with NCLB or called for changes:

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) (June 28, 2004
House and Senate Democrats (March 24, 2004)
Senate and House Democrats (Jan. 8, 2004)
Rep. Rob Simmons (R-CT) (Oct. 30, 2003)
Sen. Mark Dayton (D-MN) (March 1, 2004)

War profiteering

The unsavory prospects of war profiteering in the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq, and its alleged "reconstruction", were proclaimed in a January 21, 2004 press release by the Institute for Southern Studies: a "New Investigation Reveals 'Reconstruction Racket' in Iraq." The latest issue of the Institute's publication "Southern Exposure" provides an "in-depth report by Pratap Chatterjee and Herbert Docena ... one of the first on-the-ground accounts of how U.S. taxpayer money given to Bechtel, Halliburton and other companies is being spent."

An "investigative team spent three weeks in Iraq visiting project sites, analyzing contracts, and interviewing dozens of administrators, contract workers, and U.S. officials. Among the findings:


Despite over eight months of work and billions of dollars spent, key pieces of Iraq’s infrastructure – power plants, telephone exchanges, and sewage and sanitation systems – have either not been repaired, or have been fixed so poorly that they don’t function.
San Francisco-based Bechtel has been given tens of millions to repair Iraq’s schools. Yet many haven’t been touched, and several schools that Bechtel claims to have repaired are in shambles. One 'repaired' school was overflowing with unflushed sewage; a teacher at the school also reported that 'the American contractors took away our Japanese fans and replaced them with Syrian fans that don’t work' – billing the U.S. government for the work.
Inflated overhead costs and a byzantine maze of sub-contracts have left little money for the everyday workers carrying out projects. In one contract for police operations, Iraqi guards received only 10% of the money allotted for their salaries; Indian cooks for Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root reported making just three dollars a day.
"The [Southern Exposure] report also reveals further details of Halliburton’s contracts: for example, that of Halliburton’s $2.2 billion in contracts, only about 10% has gone to meeting community needs – the rest being spent on servicing U.S. troops and rebuilding oil pipelines. Halliburton has also spent over $40 million in the unsuccessful search for weapons of mass destruction.

"'A handful of well-connected corporations are making a killing off the devastation in Iraq' observes Chris Kromm, publisher of 'Southern Exposure'. 'The politics and process behind these deals have always been questionable. Now we have first-hand evidence that they’re not even doing their jobs.'"

See related external links under "The War / Rebuilding of Iraq" section in Halliburton Company article.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Knight Ridders' Seth Bornstein reports on May 21, 2004, that "Empty flatbed trucks crisscrossed Iraq more than 100 times as their drivers and the soldiers who guarded them dodged bullets, bricks and homemade bombs.
"Twelve current and former truckers who regularly made the 300-mile re-supply run from Camp Cedar in southern Iraq to Camp Anaconda near Baghdad told Knight Ridder that they risked their lives driving empty trucks while their employer, a subsidiary of Halliburton Inc., billed the government for hauling what they derisively called 'sailboat fuel.'

"Defense Department records show that Kellogg Brown and Root, a Halliburton subsidiary, has been paid $327 million for 'theater transportation' of war materiel and supplies for U.S. forces in Iraq and is earmarked to be paid $230 million more. The convoys are a lifeline for U.S. troops in Iraq hauling tires for Humvees, Army boots, filing cabinets, tools, engine parts and even an unmanned Predator reconnaissance plane.

"KBR's contract with the Defense Department allows the company to pass on the cost of the transportation and add 1 percent to 3 percent for profit, but neither KBR nor the U.S. Army Field Support Command in Rock Island, Ill., which oversees the contract, was able to provide cost estimates for the empty trucks. Trucking experts estimate that each round trip costs taxpayers thousands of dollars."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reported in the Los Angeles Times on 14 July 2004, Advocates of War Now Profit From Iraq's Reconstruction by Walter F. Roche Jr. and Ken Silverstein

Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey is a prominent example of the phenomenon, mixing his business interests with what he contends are the country's strategic interests.

Neil Livingstone, a former Senate aide who has served as a Pentagon and State Department advisor and issued repeated public calls for Hussein's overthrow. He heads a Washington-based firm, GlobalOptions, that provides contacts and consulting services to companies doing business in Iraq.

Randy Scheunemann, a former Rumsfeld advisor who helped draft the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 authorizing $98 million in U.S. aid to Iraqi exile groups. He was the founding president of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Now he's helping former Soviet Bloc states win business there.

Margaret Bartel, who managed federal money channeled to Chalabi's exile group, the Iraqi National Congress, including funds for its prewar intelligence program on Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction. She now heads a Washington-area consulting firm helping would-be investors find Iraqi partners.

K. Riva Levinson, a Washington lobbyist and public relations specialist who received federal funds to drum up prewar support for the Iraqi National Congress. She has close ties to Bartel and now helps companies open doors in Iraq, in part through her contacts with the Iraqi National Congress.

Joe Allbaugh, who managed President Bush's 2000 campaign for the White House and later headed the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and Edward Rogers Jr., an aide to the first President Bush, recently helped set up two companies to promote business in postwar Iraq. Rogers' law firm has a $262,500 contract to represent Iraq's Kurdistan Democratic Party.

September 3, 2004

Serving Two Flags
The Bush Neo-Cons and Israel
By STEPHEN GREEN

[Editors' Note: This is a slightly updated version of a ground-breaking essay exposing the relationship of the neo-cons embedded in the Bush administration with the government of Israel.]

Since 9-11, a small group of "neo-conservatives" in the Administration have effectively gutted--they would say reformed--traditional American foreign and security policy. Notable features of the new Bush doctrine include the pre-emptive use of unilateral force, and the undermining of the United Nations and the principle instruments and institutions of international law....all in the cause of fighting terrorism and promoting homeland security.

Some skeptics, noting the neo-cons' past academic and professional associations, writings and public utterances, have suggested that their underlying agenda is the alignment of U.S. foreign and security policies with those of Ariel Sharon and the Israeli right wing. The administration's new hard line on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict certainly suggests that, as perhaps does the destruction, with U.S. soldiers and funds, of the military capacity of Iraq, and the current belligerent neo-con campaign against the other two countries which constitute a remaining counterforce to Israeli military hegemony in the region--Iran and Syria.

Have the neo-conservatives--many of whom are senior officials in the Defense Department, National Security Council and Office of the Vice President--had dual agendas, while professing to work for the internal security of the United States against its terrorist enemies?

A review of the internal security backgrounds of some of the best known among them strongly suggests the answer.

Dr. Stephen Bryen and Colleagues

In April of 1979, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Robert Keuch recommended in writing that Bryen, then a staff member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, undergo a grand jury hearing to establish the basis for a prosecution for espionage. John Davitt, then Chief of the Justice Department's Internal Security Division, concurred.

The evidence was strong. Bryen had been overheard in the Madison Hotel Coffee Shop, offering classified documents to an official of the Israeli Embassy in the presence of the director of AIPAC, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee. It was later determined that the Embassy official was Zvi Rafiah, the Mossad station chief in Washington. Bryen refused to be poly-graphed by the FBI on the purpose and details of the meeting; whereas the person who'd witnessed it agreed to be poly-graphed and passed the test.

The Bureau also had testimony from a second person, a staff member of the Foreign Relations Committee, that she had witnessed Bryen in his Senate office with Rafiah, discussing classified documents that were spread out on a table in front of an open safe in which the documents were supposed to be secured. Not long after this second witness came forward, Bryen's fingerprints were found on classified documents he'd stated in writing to the FBI he'd never had in his possession....the ones he'd allegedly offered to Rafiah.

Nevertheless, following the refusal of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to grant access by Justice Department officials to files which were key to the investigation, Keuch's recommendation for a grand jury hearing, and ultimately the investigation itself, were shut down. This decision, taken by Philip Heymann, Chief of Justice's Criminal Division, was a bitter disappointment to Davitt and to Joel Lisker, the lead investigator on the case, as expressed to this writer. A complicating factor in the outcome was that Heymann was a former schoolmate and fellow U.S. Supreme Court Clerk of Bryen's attorney, Nathan Lewin.

Bryen was asked to resign from his Foreign Relations Committee post shortly before the investigation was concluded in late 1979. For the following year and a half, he served as Executive Director of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), and provided consulting services to AIPAC.

In April, 1981, the FBI received an application by the Defense Department for a Top Secret security clearance for Dr. Bryen . Richard Perle, who had just been nominated as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, was proposing Bryen as his Deputy Assistant Secretary! Within six months, with Perle pushing hard, Bryen received both Top Secret-SCI (sensitive compartmented information) and Top Secret-"NATO/COSMIC" clearances.



Loyalty, Patriotism and Character

The Bryen investigation became in fact the most contentious issue in Perle's own confirmation hearings in July, 1981. Under aggressive questioning from Sen. Jeremiah Denton, Perle held his ground: "I consider Dr. Bryen to be an individual impeccable integrity....I have the highest confidence in [his] loyalty, patriotism and character."

Several years later in early 1988, Israel was in the final stages of development of a prototype of its ground based "Arrow" anti-ballistic missile. One element the program lacked was "klystrons", small microwave amplifiers which are critical components in the missile's high frequency, radar-based target acquisition system which locks on to in-coming missiles. In 1988, klystrons were among the most advanced developments in American weapons research, and their export was of course strictly proscribed.

The DOD office involved in control of defense technology exports was the Defense

Technology Security Administration (DTSA) within Richard Perle's ISP office. The Director (and founder) of DTSA was Perle's Deputy, Dr. Stephen Bryen. In May of 1988, Bryen sent a standard form to Richard Levine, a Navy tech transfer official, informing him of intent to approve a license for Varian Associates, Inc. of Beverly, Massachusetts to export to Israel four klystrons. This was done without the usual consultations with the tech transfer officials of the Army and Air Force, or ISA (International Security Affairs) or DSAA (Defense Security Assistance Agency.

The answer from Levine was "no". He opposed granting the license, and asked for a meeting on the matter of the appropriate (above listed) offices. At the meeting, all of the officials present opposed the license. Bryen responded by suggesting that he go back to the Israelis to ask why these particular items were needed for their defense. Later, after the Israeli Government came back with what one DOD staffer described as "a little bullshit answer", Bryen simply notified the meeting attendees that an acceptable answer had been received, the license granted, and the klystrons released.

By now, however, the dogs were awake. Then Assistant Secretary of Defense for ISA, (and now Deputy Secretary of State) Richard Armitage sent Dr. Bryen a letter stating that the State Department (which issues the export licenses) should be informed of DOD's "uniformly negative" reaction to the export of klystrons to Israel. Bryen did as instructed , and the license was withdrawn.

In July, Varian Associates became the first U.S. corporation formally precluded from contracting with the Defense Department. Two senior colleague in DOD who wish to remain anonymous have confirmed that this attempt by Bryen to obtain klystrons for his friends was not unusual, and was in fact "standard operating procedure" for him, recalling numerous instances when U.S. companies were denied licenses to export sensitive technology, only to learn later that Israeli companies subsequently exported similar (U.S. derived) weapons and technology to the intended customers/governments.

In late1988, Bryen resigned from his DOD post, and for a period worked in the
private sector with a variety of defense technology consulting firms.



Bryen and the China Commission

In 1997, "Defense Week" reported (05/27/97) that, ...." the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence reaffirmed that U.S.- derived technology from the cancelled [Israeli] Lavi fighter project is being used on China's new F-10 fighter." The following year, "Jane's Intelligence Review" reported (11/01/98) the transfer by Israel to China of the Phalcon airborne early warning and control system, the Python air-combat missile, and the F-10 fighter aircraft, containing "state-of-the-art U.S. electronics."

Concern about the continuing transfer of advanced U.S. arms technology to the burgeoning Chinese military program led, in the last months of the Clinton Administration, to the creation of a Congressional consultative body called the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission. The charter for the "The China Commission", as it is commonly known, states that its purpose is to...."monitor, investigate, and report to the Congress on the national security implications of the bilateral trade and economic relationship between the United States and the Peoples Republic of China." The charter also reflects an awareness of the problem of "back door" technology leaks: "The Commission shall also take into account patterns of trade and transfers through third countries to the extent practicable."

It was almost predictable that in the new Bush Administration, Dr. Stephen Bryen would find his way to the China Commission. In April 2001, with the support of Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Senator Richard Shelby (R-Alabama) Bryen was appointed a Member of the Commission by Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. Last August, his appointment was extended through December of 2005.

Informed that Bryen had been appointed to the Commission, the reaction of one former
senior FBI counter-intelligence official was: "My God, that must mean he has a "Q
clearance!" (A "Q" clearance, which must be approved by the Department of Energy, is the designation for a Top Secret codeword clearance to access nuclear technology.)


Michael Ledeen, Consultant on Chaos

If Stephen Bryen is the military technology guru in the neo-con pantheon, Michael Ledeen is currently its leading theorist, historian, scholar and writer. It states in the website of his consulting firm, Benador Associates, that he is "...one of the world's leading authorities on intelligence, contemporary history and international affairs" and that...."As Ted Koppel puts it, 'Michael Ledeen is a Renaissance man....in the tradition of Machiavelli.'" Perhaps the following will add some color and texture to this description.

In 1983, on the recommendation of Richard Perle, Ledeen was hired at the Department of Defense as a consultant on terrorism. His immediate supervisor was the Principle Assistant Secretary for International Security Affairs, Noel Koch. Early in their work together, Koch noticed with concern Ledeen's habit of stopping by in his (Koch's) outer office to read classified materials. When the two of them took a trip to Italy, Koch learned from the CIA station there that when Ledeen had lived in Rome previously, as correspondent for The New Republic, he'd been carried in Agency files as an agent of influence of a foreign government: Israel.

Some time after their return from the trip, Ledeen approached his boss with a request for his assistance in obtaining two highly classified CIA reports which he said were held by the FBI. He'd hand written on a piece of paper the identifying "alpha numeric designators". These identifiers were as highly classified as the reports themselves....which raised in Koch's mind the question of who had provided them to Ledeen if he hadn't the clearances to obtain them himself. Koch immediately told his executive assistant that Ledeen was to have no further access to classified materials in the office, and Ledeen just ceased coming to "work".

In early 1986, however, Koch learned that Ledeen had joined NSC as a consultant, and sufficiently concerned about the internal security implications of the behavior of his former aide, arranged to be interviewed by two FBI agents on the matter. After a two hour debriefing, Koch was told that it was only Soviet military intelligence penetration that interested the Bureau. The follow-on interviews that were promised by the agents just never occurred.

Koch thought this strange, coming as it did just months after the arrest of Naval intelligence analyst Jonathan Pollard on charges of espionage for Israel. Frustrated, Koch wrote up in detail the entire saga of Ledeen's DOD consultancy, and sent it to the Office of Senator Charles Grassley, then a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which had oversight responsibility for, inter alia, the FBI.

A former senior FBI counter-intelligence official was surprised and somewhat skeptical, when told of Koch's unsuccessful attempts to interest the Bureau in an investigation of Ledeen, noting that in early 1986, the Justice Department was in fact already engaged in several on-going, concurrent investigations of Israeli espionage and theft of American military technology.



Machiavelli in Tel Aviv

Koch's belated attempts to draw official attention to his former assistant were too late, in any event, for within a very few weeks of leaving his DOD consultancy in late 1984, Ledeen had found gainful (classified) employment at the National Security Council (NSC). In fact, according to a now declassified chronology prepared for the Senate/House Iran-
Contra investigation, within calendar 1984 Ledeen was already suggesting to Oliver
North, his new boss at NSC...." that Israeli contacts might be useful in obtaining release of the U.S. hostages in Lebanon." Perhaps significantly, that is the first entry in the "Chronology of Events: U.S.- Iran Dialogue", dated November 18,1986, prepared for the Joint House-Senate Hearings in the Iran-Contra Investigations.

What is so striking about the Ledeen-related documents which are part of the Iran-Contra Collection of the National Security Archive, is how thoroughly the judgements of Ledeen's colleagues at NSC mirrored, and validated, Noel Koch's internal security concerns about his consultant.

-- on April 9, 1985, NSC Middle East analyst Donald Fortier wrote to National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane that NSC staffers were agreed that Ledeen's role in the scheme should be limited to carrying messages to Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres regarding plans to cooperate with Israel on the crisis within Iran, and specifically that he should not be entrusted to ask Peres for detailed operational information;

- on June 6, 1985, Secretary of State George Shultz wrote to McFarlane that, "Israel's record of dealings with Iran since the fall of the Shah and during the hostage crisis [show] that Israel's agenda is not the same as ours. Consequently doubt whether an intelligence relationship such as what Ledeen has in mind would be one which we could fully rely upon and it could seriously skew our own perception and analysis of the Iranian scene."

- on 20 August, 1985, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense informed Ledeen by memorandum that his security clearance had been downgraded from Top Secret-SCI to Secret.

- on 16 January, 1986, Oliver North recommended to John Poindexter "for [the] security of the Iran initiative" that Ledeen be asked to take periodic polygraph examinations.



- later in January, on the 24th, North wrote to Poindexter of his suspicion that Ledeen, along with Adolph Schwimmer and Manucher Ghorbanifar, might be making money personally on the sale of arms to Iran, through Israel.

During the June 23-25, 1987 joint hearings of the House and Senate select committees' investigation of Iran-Contra, Noel Koch testified that he became suspicious when he learned that the price which Ledeen had negotiated for the sale to the Israeli Government of basic TOW missiles was $2,500 each.

Upon inquiring with his DOD colleagues, he learned the lowest price the U.S. had ever received for the sale of TOWs to a foreign government had been a previous sale to Israel for $6,800 per copy. Koch, professing in his testimony that he and his colleagues at DOD were not in favor of the sale to begin with, determined that he--Koch--should renegotiate the $2,500 price so that it could be defended by the "defense management system." In a clandestine meeting on a Sunday in the first class lounge of the TWA section of National Airport, Koch met over a cup of coffee with an official from the Israeli purchasing mission in New York, and agreed on a price of $4,500 per missile, nearly twice what Ledeen had "negotiated" in Israel.

There are two possibilities here--one would be a kickback, as suspected by his NSC colleagues, and the other would be that Michael Ledeen was effectively negotiating for Israel, not the U.S.

Like his friend Stephen Bryen (they've long served together on the JINSA Board of Advisors) Ledeen has been out of government service since the late1980s....until the present Bush Administration. He, like Bryen, is presently a serving member on the China Commission and, with the support of DOD Undersecretary for Policy Douglas Feith, he
has since 2001 been employed as a consultant for the Office of Special Plans OSP). Both involve the handling of classified materials and require high-level security clearances.
To Be Continued...

Don't believe everything you hear on Fox News.








To Be Continued...

Falls asleep!

The Principals : Perle, Wolfowitz and Feith

One might wonder how, with security histories like these, Messrs. Bryen and Ledeen have managed to get second and third chances to return to government in highly classified positions.

And the explanation is that they, along with other like-minded neo-conservatives, have in the current Bush Administration friends in very high places. In particular, Bryen and Ledeen have been repeatedly boosted into defense/security posts by current Defense Policy Council member and former chairman Richard Perle, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith.

As previously mentioned, Perle in 1981 as DOD Assistant Secretary for International Security Policy (ISP) hired Bryen as his Deputy. That same year, Wolfowitz as head of the State Department Policy Planning Staff hired Ledeen as a Special Advisor. In 2001 Douglas Feith as DOD Under Secretary for Policy hired, or approved the hiring of Ledeen as a consultant for the Office of Special Plans.

The principals have also assisted each other down through the years. Frequently. In 1973 Richard Perle used his (and Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson's) influence as a senior staff member of the Senate Armed Services Committee to help Wolfowitz obtain a job with the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. In 1982, Perle hired Feith in ISP as his Special Counsel, and then as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Negotiations Policy. In 2001, DOD Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz helped Feith obtain his appointment as Undersecretary for Policy. Feith then appointed Perle as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board. In some cases, this mutual assistance carries risks, as for instance when Perle's hiring of Bryen as his Deputy in ISP became an extremely contentious issue in Perle's own Senate appointment hearings as Assistant Secretary.

Every appointment/hiring listed above involved classified work for which high-level security clearances and associated background checks by the FBI were required. When the level of the clearance is not above generic Top Secret, however, the results of that background check are only seen by the hiring authority. And in the event, if the appointee were Bryen or Ledeen and the hiring authority were Perle, Wolfowitz or Feith, the appointee(s) need not have worried about the findings of the background check. In the case of Perle hiring Bryen as his deputy in 1981, for instance, documents released in 1983 under the Freedom of Information Act indicate that the Department provided extraordinarily high clearances for Bryen without having reviewed more than a small portion of his 1978-79 FBI investigation file.



RICHARD PERLE: A HABIT OF LEAKING

Perle came to Washington for the first time in early 1969, at the age of 28, to work for a neo-con think tank called the "Committee to Maintain a Prudent Defense Policy." Within months, Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson offered Perle a position on his staff, working with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

And within months after that--less than a year--Perle was embroiled in his first security inquiry. An FBI wiretap authorized for the Israeli embassy in Washington picked up Perle discussing with an Embassy official classified information which he said had been supplied by a staff member of the National Security Council. An NSC/FBI investigation to identify the staff member quickly focused upon Helmut Sonnenfeldt. The latter had been previously investigated in 1967 while he was a staff member of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, for suspected to an Israeli Government official of a classified document concerning the commencement of the 1967 war in the Middle East.

Perle's second brush with the law occurred in 1978. He was the recipient of a classified CIA report on alleged past Soviet treaty violations. The leaker (and author) of the report was CIA analyst David Sullivan. CIA Director Stansfield Turner was incensed at the unauthorized disclosure, but before he could fire Sullivan, the latter quit. Turner urged Sen. Jackson to fire Perle, but he was let off with a reprimand. Jackson then added insult to injury by immediately hiring Sullivan to his staff. Sullivan and Perle became close friends and co-conspirators, and together established an informal right-wing network which they called "the Madison Group," after their usual meeting place in--you might have guessed--the Madison Hotel Coffee Shop.

In 1981, shortly before being appointed Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (ISP)--with responsibility, inter alia, for monitoring of U.S. defense technology exports, Richard Perle was paid a substantial consulting fee by arms manufacturer Tamares, Ltd. of Israel. Shortly after assuming that post, Perle wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Army urging evaluation and purchase of 155 mm. shells manufactured by Soltam, Ltd. After leaving the ISP job in 1987, he worked for Soltam.



PAUL WOLFOWITZ : A WELL PLACED FRIEND

In 1973, in the dying days of the Nixon Administration, Wolfowitz was recruited to work for the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA). There was a certain irony in the appointment, for in the late 1960's, as a graduate student at the University of Chicago, Wolfowitz had been a student and protege of Albert Wohlstetter, an influential, vehement opponent of any form of arms control or disarmament, vis a vis the Soviets. Wolfowitz also brought to ACDA a strong attachment to Israel's security, and a certain confusion about his obligation to U.S. national security.

In 1978, he was investigated for providing a classified document on the proposed sale of U.S. weapons to an Arab government, to an Israel Government official, through an AIPAC intermediary. An inquiry was launched and dropped, however, and Wolfowitz continued to work at ACDA until 1980.

In 1990, after a decade of work with the State Department in Washington and abroad, Wolfowitz was brought into DoD as Undersecretary for Policy by then Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney. Two years later, in 1992, the first Bush Administration launched a broad inter-departmental investigation into the export of classified technology to China. O particular concern at the time was the transfer to China by Israel of U.S. Patriot missiles and/or technology. During that investigation, in a situation very reminiscent of the Bryen/Varian Associates/klystrons affair two years earlier, the Pentagon discovered that Wolfowitz's office was promoting the export to Israel of advanced AIM-9M air-to-air missiles.

In this instance, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, aware that Israel had already been caught selling the earlier AIM 9-L version of the missile to China in violation of a written agreement with the U.S. on arms re-sales, intervened to cancel the proposed AIM (-M deal. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs at the time was General Colin Powell, currently Secretary of State.

Wolfowitz continued to serve as DoD Undersecretary for Policy until 1993, well into the Clinton Administration. After that, however, like most of the other prominent neo-conservatives, he was relegated to trying to assist Israel from the sidelines for the remainder of Clinton's two terms. In 1998, Wolfowitz was a co-signer of a public letter to the President organized by the "Project for the New American Century." The letter, citing Saddam Hussein's continued possession of "weapons of mass destruction," argued for military action to achieve regime change and demilitarization of Iraq. Clinton wasn't impressed, but a more gullible fellow would soon come along.

And indeed, when George W. Bush assumed the Presidency in early 2001, Wolfowitz got his opportunity. Picked as Donald Rumsfeld's Deputy Secretary at DoD, he prevailed upon his boss to appoint Douglas Feith as Undersecretary for Policy. On the day after the destruction of the World Trade Center, September 12, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz raised the possibility of an immediate attack on Iraq during an emergency NSC meeting. The following day, Wolfowitz conducted the Pentagon press briefing, and interpreted the
President's statement on "ending states who sponsor terrorism" as a call for regime change in Iraq. Israel wasn't mentioned.



Douglas Feith: Hardliner, Security Risk

Bush's appointment of Douglas Feith as DoD Undersecretary for Policy in early 2001 must have come as a surprise, and a harbinger, even to conservative veterans of the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administration. Like Michael Ledeen, Feith is a prolific writer and well-known radical conservative. Moreover, he was not being hired as a DoD consultant, like Ledeen, but as the third most senior United States Defense Department official. Feith was certainly the first, and probably the last high Pentagon official to have publicly opposed the Biological Weapons Convention (in 1986), the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty (in 1988), the Chemical Weapons Convention (in 1997), the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (in 2000), and all of the various Middle East Peace agreements, including Oslo (in 2000).

Even more revealing perhaps, had the transition team known of it, was Feith's view of "technology cooperation," as expressed in a 1992 Commentary article: "It is in the interest of U.S. and Israel to remove needless impediments to technological cooperation between them. Technologies in the hands of responsible, friendly countries facing military threats, countries like Israel, serve to deter aggression, enhance regional stability and promote peace thereby."

What Douglas Feith had neglected to say, in this last article, was that he thought that individuals could decide on their own whether the sharing of classified information was "technical cooperation," an unauthorized disclosure, or a violation of U.S. Code 794c, the "Espionage Act."

Ten years prior to writing the Commentary piece, Feith had made such a decision on his own. At the time, March of 1972, Feith was a Middle East analyst in the Near East and South Asian Affairs section of the National Security Council. Two months before, in January, Judge William Clark had replaced Richard Allen as National Security Advisor, with the intention to clean house. A total of nine NSC staff members were fired, including Feith, who'd only been with the NSC for a year. But Feith was fired because he'd been the object of an inquiry into whether he'd provided classified material to an official of the Israeli Embassy in Washington. The FBI had opened the inquiry. And Clark, who had served in U.S. Army counterintelligence in the 1950's, took such matters very seriously.....more seriously, apparently, than had Richard Allen.

Feith did not remain unemployed for long, however. Richard Perle, who was in 1982 serving in the Pentagon as Assistant secretary for International Security Policy, hired him on the spot as his "Special Counsel," and then as his Deputy. Feith worked at ISP until 1986, when he left government service to form a small but influential law firm, then based in Israel.

In 2001, Douglas Feith returned to DoD as Donald Rumsfeld's Undersecretary for Policy, and it was in his office that "OSP", the Office of Special Plans, was created. It was OSP that originated--some say from whole cloth--much of the intelligence that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have used to justify the attack on Iraq, to miss-plan the post-war reconstruction there, and then to point an accusing finger at Iran and Syria.....all to the absolute delight of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.


Reason for Concern

Many individuals with strong attachments to foreign countries have served the U.S. Government with honor and distinction, and will certainly do so in the future. The highest officials in our executive and legislative branches should, however, take great care when appointments are made to posts involving sensitive national security matters. Appointees should be rejected who have demonstrated, in their previous government service, a willingness to sacrifice U.S. national security interests for those of another country, or an inability to distinguish one from the other.

Top 20 Hazardous Substances

from the

CERCLA Priority List of Hazardous Substances for 2003


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is the Top 20 List?
The list below contains the Top 20 hazardous substances on the CERCLA Priority List of Hazardous Substances for 2003. The complete list of 275 substances is obtained from an annual evaluation fulfilling the conditions of CERCLA section 104 (i), as amended, which requires ATSDR and EPA to revise the Priority List of Hazardous Substances periodically to include additional hazardous substances.
Further information about the evaluation process and the complete set of 275 substances on the current list can be accessed online at:
CERCLA Priority List of Hazardous Substances for 2003.

Each of the Top 20 substances listed below is identified with their 2003 Rank Number and includes a link to an ATSDR publication, the ToxFAQsTM Sheet, which has further health and chemical information about that substance.

The ATSDR Division of Toxicology has prepared several sets of publications that provide answers to many health concerns that are voiced by community groups and give general information on various properties of each of these substances. Those publications are listed and may be accessed online at:

ATSDR ToxFAQsTM Sheets
ATSDR Public Health Statements
ATSDR Toxicological Profiles

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Top 20 Hazardous Substances
from the 2003 CERCLA Priority List of Hazardous Substances
1 ARSENIC
2 LEAD
3 MERCURY
4 VINYL CHLORIDE
5 POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS
6 BENZENE
7 CADMIUM
8 POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
9 BENZO(A)PYRENE
10 BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
11 CHLOROFORM
12 DDT, P,P'-
13 AROCLOR 1254
14 AROCLOR 1260
15 DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE
16 TRICHLOROETHYLENE
17 CHROMIUM, HEXAVALENT
18 DIELDRIN
19 PHOSPHORUS, WHITE
20 CHLORDANE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contact information:
Further information can be obtained by contacting the ATSDR Information Center at:

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Division of Toxicology
1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop E-29
Atlanta, GA 30333
Phone: 1-888-422-8737
Fax: 1-404-498-0057
E-mail: ATSDRIC@cdc.gov.

http://zfacts.com/p/531.html][/url]
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/jobs-graph-L.gif
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/531-Bush-Job-Loss-L.gif


http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm][/url]
Energy

Cóilín Nunan: Oil, Currency and the War on Iraq

This document is also available in PDF format.

It will not come as news to anyone that the US dominates the world economically and militarily. But the exact mechanisms by which American hegemony has been established and maintained are perhaps less well understood than they might be. One tool used to great effect has been the dollar, but its efficacy has recently been under threat since Europe introduced the euro.

The dollar is the de facto world reserve currency: the US currency accounts for approximately two thirds of all official exchange reserves. More than four-fifths of all foreign exchange transactions and half of all world exports are denominated in dollars. In addition, all IMF loans are denominated in dollars.

But the more dollars there are circulating outside the US, or invested by foreign owners in American assets, the more the rest of the world has had to provide the US with goods and services in exchange for these dollars. The dollars cost the US next to nothing to produce, so the fact that the world uses the currency in this way means that the US is importing vast quantities of goods and services virtually for free.

Since so many foreign-owned dollars are not spent on American goods and services, the US is able to run a huge trade deficit year after year without apparently any major economic consequences. The most recently published figures, for example, show that in November of last year US imports were worth 48% more than US exports1. No other country can run such a large trade deficit with impunity. The financial media tell us the US is acting as the 'consumer of last resort' and the implication is that we should be thankful, but a more enlightening description of this state of affairs would be to say that it is getting a massive interest-free loan from the rest of the world.

While the US' position may seem inviolable, one should remember that the more you have, the more you have to lose. And recently there have been signs of how, for the first time in a long time, the US may be beginning to lose.

One of the stated economic objectives, and perhaps the primary objective, when setting up the euro was to turn it into a reserve currency to challenge the dollar so that Europe too could get something for nothing.

This however would be a disaster for the US. Not only would they lose a large part of their annual subsidy of effectively free goods and services, but countries switching to euro reserves from dollar reserves would bring down the value of the US currency. Imports would start to cost Americans a lot more and as increasing numbers of those holding dollars began to spend them, the US would have to start paying its debts by supplying in goods and services to foreign countries, thus reducing American living standards. As countries and businesses converted their dollar assets into euro assets, the US property and stock market bubbles would, without doubt, burst. The Federal Reserve would no longer be able to print more money to reflate the bubble, as it is currently openly considering doing, because, without lots of eager foreigners prepared to mop them up, a serious inflation would result which, in turn, would make foreigners even more reluctant to hold the US currency and thus heighten the crisis.

There is though one major obstacle to this happening: oil. Oil is not just by far the most important commodity traded internationally, it is the lifeblood of all modern industrialised economies. If you don't have oil, you have to buy it. And if you want to buy oil on the international markets, you usually have to have dollars. Until recently all OPEC countries agreed to sell their oil for dollars only. So long as this remained the case, the euro was unlikely to become the major reserve currency: there is not a lot of point in stockpiling euros if every time you need to buy oil you have to change them into dollars. This arrangement also meant that the US effectively part-controlled the entire world oil market: you could only buy oil if you had dollars, and only one country had the right to print dollars - the US.

If on the other hand OPEC were to decide to accept euros only for its oil (assuming for a moment it were allowed to make this decision), then American economic dominance would be over. Not only would Europe not need as many dollars anymore, but Japan which imports over 80% of its oil from the Middle East would think it wise to convert a large portion of its dollar assets to euro assets (Japan is the major subsidiser of the US because it holds so many dollar investments). The US on the other hand, being the world's largest oil importer would have to run a trade surplus to acquire euros. The conversion from trade deficit to trade surplus would have to be achieved at a time when its property and stock market prices were collapsing and its domestic supplies of oil and gas were contracting. It would be a very painful conversion.

The purely economic arguments for OPEC converting to the euro, at least for a while, seem very strong. The Euro-zone does not run a huge trade deficit nor is it heavily endebted to the rest of the world like the US and interest rates in the Euro-zone are also significantly higher. The Euro-zone has a larger share of world trade than the US and is the Middle East's main trading partner. And nearly everything you can buy for dollars you can also buy for euros - apart, of course, from oil. Furthermore, if OPEC were to convert their dollar assets to euro assets and then require payment for oil in Euros, their assets would immediately increase in value, since oil importing countries would be forced to also convert part of their assets, driving the prices up. For OPEC, backing the euro would be a self-fulfilling prophesy. They could then at some later date move to some other currency, perhaps back to the dollar, and again make huge profits.

But of course it is not a purely economic decision.

So far only one OPEC country has dared switch to the euro: Iraq, in November 2002,3. There is little doubt that this was a deliberate attempt by Saddam to strike back at the US, but in economic terms it has also turned out to have been a huge success: at the time of Iraq's conversion the euro was worth around 83 US cents but it is now worth over $1.05. There may however be other consequences to this decision.

One other OPEC country has been talking publicly about possible conversion to the euro since 1999: Iran2,4, a country which has since been included in the George W. Bush's 'axis of evil'.

A third OPEC country which has recently fallen out with the US government is Venezuela and it too has been showing disloyalty to the dollar. Under Hugo Chavez's rule, Venezuela has established barter deals for trading its oil with 12 Latin American countries as well as Cuba. This means that the US is missing out on its usual subsidy and might help explain the American wish to see the back of Chavez. At the OPEC summit in September 2000, Chavez delivered to the OPEC heads of state the report of the 'International Seminar on the Future of Energy', a conference called by Chavez earlier that year to examine the future supplies of both fossil and renewable energies. One of the two key recommendations of the report was that 'OPEC take advantage of high-tech electronic barter and bi-lateral exchanges of its oil with its developing country customers'5, i.e. OPEC should avoid using both the dollar and the euro for many transactions.

And last April, a senior OPEC representative gave a public speech in Spain during Spain's presidency of the EU during which he made clear that though OPEC had as yet no plans to make oil available for euros, it was an option that was being considered and which could well be of economic benefit to many OPEC countries, particularly those of the Middle East6.

As oil production is now in decline in most oil producing countries, the importance of the remaining large oil producers, particularly those of the Middle East, is going to grow and grow in years to come7.

Iraq, whose oil production has been severely curtailed by sanctions, is one of a very small number of countries which can help ease this looming oil shortage. Europe, like most of the rest of the world, wishes to see a peaceful resolution of the current US-Iraqi tensions and a gradual lifting of the sanctions - this would certainly serve its interests best. But as Iraqi oil is denominated in euros, allowing it to become more widely available at present could loosen the dollar stranglehold and possibly do more damage than good to US economic health.

All of this is bad news for the US economy and the dollar. The fear for Washington will be that not only will the future price of oil not be right, but the currency might not be right either. Which perhaps helps explain why the US is increasingly turning to its second major tool for dominating world affairs: military force.

REFERENCES

Anon., 'Trade Deficit Surges to a Record High', Reuters, (January 17, 2003), http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/4970891.htm.
Recknagel, Charles, 'Iraq: Baghdad Moves to Euro', Radio Free Europe (November 1, 2000), http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2000/11/01112000160846.asp.
Anon., 'A Look At The World's Economy', CBS Worldwide Inc., (December 22, 2000), http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/12/22/2000/main259203.shtml.
Anon., 'Iran may switch to euro for crude sale payments', Alexander Oil and Gas, (September 5, 2002), http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntm23638.htm.
Hazel Henderson, 'Globocop v. Venezuela's Chavez: Oil, Globalization and Competing Visions of Development', InterPress Service, (April 2002), http://www.hazelhenderson.com/Globocop%20v.%20Chavez.htm.
Javad Yarjani, 'The Choice of Currency for the Denomination of the Oil Bill', (April 14, 2002), http://www.opec.org/NewsInfo/Speeches/sp2002/spAraqueSpainApr14.htm.
The Association for the Study of Peak Oil, Newsletter 26, (February 2003), http://www.asponews.org.
FURTHER READING
William Clark, 'The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth', (January 2003), http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html.


14. Osama Bin Laden

BUSH 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]

Remarkably, the Bush Administration believed too much emphasis was placed on neutralizing Osama bin Laden. When the State Department released its annual report "Patterns of Global Terrorism" on April 30, 2001, CNN reported that "unlike last year, there's no extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and `personalizing terrorism.'" (CNN's Inside Politics, 4/30/01).



BUSHSPEAK
by PHILIP GOUREVITCH
The President’s vernacular style.
Issue of 2004-09-13
Posted 2004-09-06
The roadkill on the highway west of El Paso, our southernmost interstate, is mostly jackrabbits and coyotes. For miles, the blacktop is hemmed by cattle pens, and the smell of sunbaked dung sweetens the air. Beneath the near-hundred-degree heat of a cloudless late-summer sky, the scrubby West Texas landscape is ash-dry, except in the startlingly green oases created by irrigation or the flat muddy cuts of the Rio Grande. Everything about the place—“out here,” as people say, or “down here”—announces itself, totemically, as belonging to America’s southwestern border and seems to imply a set of choices and attitudes, a particular way of life. But those choices and attitudes do not translate as obviously as might be imagined into political inclinations.

While George W. Bush can count on his home state on Election Day, the arithmetic changes twenty minutes out of El Paso, where the interstate slips into New Mexico and twenty minutes later slices through the city of Las Cruces. New Mexico was the most closely divided state in the 2000 election, rejecting Bush in favor of Al Gore by just three hundred and sixty-six votes, and Las Cruces, which has a huge state university and a large Mexican-American population, is predominantly Democratic. So it was to Las Cruces that Bush flew from his ranch on the last Thursday of August, to commence a week-long campaign swing leading up to his speech at the Republican Convention in New York.

At eight-fifteen in the morning, the time ticket-holders to the rally had been warned that the doors would close, and an hour before Bush was to take the stage, a local congressman, Steve Pearce, was warming up the overwhelmingly white crowd, denouncing John Kerry as an unreconstructed enemy sympathizer cut from Jane Fonda’s cloth, and praising Bush’s leadership. “There’s lots of wonderful things going on in Iraq,” he said, “and the media refuses to cover them.” A Texas swing band called the Desperados took over for a while, cranking out “San Antonio Rose,” “Cherokee Maid,” and “Faded Love,” and then Pearce resumed his harangue, characterizing the Democratic Party as subservient to the United Nations and hostile to the notion of individual responsibility. “If poverty causes crime, then affluence causes kindness, and you know in your heart that’s not true,” he said. Pearce got the biggest cheers for an untruth of his own: “There is one candidate who will keep the words ‘under God’ in our pledge.” In fact, this is not an issue in the campaign, since both candidates oppose removing the words, and neither would be in a position to protect them if a court should find them unconstitutional.

The Desperados kept the arena awake with the song “Take Me Back to Tulsa” until a giant video screen lit up with a live shot of the Presidential motorcade—a trio of armored limousines, led by motorcycle cops and flanked by squad cars—pulling into the parking lot outside. When Bush appeared in person, moments later, he seemed surprisingly ordinary. “I’m here to ask for the vote,” he told the audience. “I believe it’s important to get out and ask for the vote. I believe it’s important to travel this great state and the country, talkin’ about where I intend to lead the country.” He made this sound like an original idea, and perhaps a controversial one, and the way he repeated the words “I believe” carried an air of defiant conviction: I’m not here offering myself to you because that’s how it’s done in a democracy but because that’s just how I am, and I don’t give a damn who says different.

He wore no tie, and his sleeves were rolled up, and the simplicity of the proposition, the easy conversational forthrightness, seemed so natural, so obvious and reassuring, that it was easy to forget, as he wound on through his stump speech, that he had promised to lay out a plan for the future. He offered no such plan, or even any new initiatives. He just declared the past four years a success, and said that more and better was to come. What was the alternative? John Kerry? Bush spends a good deal of time on the stump deriding his rival, and the rest of the time he projects the attitude of a man who is running unopposed—which he could be forgiven for thinking if the election depended simply on who is the better campaigner.

Bush campaigns with the eager self-delight of a natural ham. There’s an appealing physicality about him. When he says he wants your vote, he does not just mouth the words but follows them through with his entire body, rising to his toes, tilting toward you yearningly. When he works his way along the edge of the stage, waving, shaking hands, he has the concentration of an athlete in the thrall of his game. He seems to hold nothing back. He reaches for the hands around him, tipping so far forward that it appears, in the frozen fraction of a second captured in photographs, that he has lost his balance. He twists, and stoops, and spins, and stops abruptly to wave, and the raised hand seems to lift the rest of him with it, up and forward. Bush is said to be charming, and polls show that Americans tend to find him more likable than his policies, but one does not even have to like him to admire how truly at home he appears in his body.

He has a repertoire of stock poses and expressions, as does any professional performer, but the freedom of his movements is striking. Flip through snapshots of him, and you’ll find any number that catch him in a bizarre or comical position. The mobility of his face leaves him open to lampooning, not least because of its simian modelling, which is underscored by his affectation of an equally simian gait—the dangle-armed swagger, like a knuckle-walker startled to find himself suddenly upright. But even when he looks foolish, or simply coarse, Bush is never less than an expressive presence.

The same can be said of his language. He is grossly underestimated as an orator by those who presume that good grammar, rigorous logic, and a solid command of the facts are the essential ingredients of political persuasion, and that the absence of these skills indicates a lack of intelligence. Although Bush is no intellectual, and proud of it, he is quick and clever, and, for all his notorious malapropisms, abuses of syntax, and manglings or reinventions of vocabulary, his intelligence is—if not especially literate—acutely verbal. His words, in transcription, might seem mindless, incoherent, or unintentionally hilarious (“I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family”; “Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we”), but it is pretty plain what he means. “Even when we don’t agree, you know what I believe and where I stand,” he reminded the nation at Madison Square Garden, during his acceptance of the Republican nomination.



Bush’s top speechwriter, Michael Gerson, is regarded as a master of his trade. His speeches are composed of short, declarative sentences packed with substance. While John Kerry can speak rousingly for whole paragraphs without saying anything precise or concrete, Bush rarely puts ten words together in a major address without taking a position, passing a judgment, or proclaiming a purpose. He is less concise when unscripted, or—as on the stump—only loosely tethered to a text, but when he’s ad-libbing he makes up for whatever tightness he lacks with an emotional appeal, seeking and generally finding a level of connection to his supporters that eludes his rival entirely. Bush’s gift in this regard is a function of his lack of polish: the clipped nature of his phraseology, the touch of twang, the hard consonants, the nasal vowels, the dropped conjunctions and slurred or swallowed suffixes.

“I’m sorry Laura’s not here,” he told the breakfast-hour crowd in Las Cruces, and they moaned in sympathy. “I understand,” he said, and got a big laugh. “I kissed her goodbye in Crawford this morning and said, ‘I’ve got to go to work.’” More laughter. “She said, You git over to New Mexico and you remind ’em that her kinfolk were raised right here down the road in Anthony. I’m proud of Laura. She’s a great mom, a wonderful wife.” Loud yips and applause. He continued in a deadpan: “I’ll give you some reasons why I think you ought to put me back in. But perhaps the most important one of all’s so Laura’s the first lady for four more years.”

To watch Bush work a room, however cheesy his salesmanship and however canned his hucksterism, is to behold a master of the American vernacular, that form of expression which eschews slickness and makes a virtue of the speaker’s limitations—an artfulness that depends on artlessness, an eloquence that depends on inflection and emphasis. His speeches rely on the same stagger-stacking of phrases and refrains that characterizes popular songs and sermons. “We’ve been through a lot together in the last four years,” he told the Las Cruces crowd. “We’ve accomplished a great deal. But there’s only one reason to look backward at the record. And that is who best to lead us forward. That’s what I want to talk about. Want to remind you we have much at stake in this election.” He began gathering momentum in a steady crescendo that he let build until he was cut off by applause: “We have more to do to move America forward. We have more to do to create jobs and improve our schools. We have more to do to fight terror and protect the homeland. We have more to do t’spread freedom and peace. We’ve made much progress. I’m here to tell you. I’m ready for the job. I’m ready to accomplish it all.”

Bush’s voice has a surprising range: he can get a shouting attack going, and he can fall suddenly quiet to create emphasis and declare his seriousness. But the most effective quality is the harsh staccato that overcomes him when he speaks about his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the boundless, all-encompassing, and perhaps eternal war on terror. He acquires a drill sergeant’s punctiliousness—pro-noun-cing ev-er-y syl-lab-le, hit-ting ev-er-y con-son-ant, singing out the sibilants, and bending words, drawing them out, or isolating them between stark silences, with some of the weird sonic zing of Bob Dylan’s diction. He leans in over the microphone, and to make no mistake about his message he reads from a script: “See, our—our fu-ture de-pends on our willing-ness to lead in the world. If America shows uncertainty and weak-ness in this decade, the world will drift toward”—pause—“tragedy”—pause. “This will not hap-pen on my watch.” Bush’s right hand, held out flat, beats steadily up and down, patting the lectern in accompaniment to his robotic rhythm. He is nothing if not insistent.

The best sendup of Bushspeak was published by the Washington Post cartoonist Tom Toles this spring. It was a drawing called “George W. Bush Press Conference Refrigerator Magnet Set,” and showed an icebox door arrayed with a patchwork of words and phrases: “I want to say / I mean / clearly / the situation was / a / tough week / tough / dangerous / because the / terror / terrorism / threat was / a nation / that was dangerous / because of / weapons / programs / activities / we’re still looking / but even / though / I was briefed / a lot / steadfast / and strong / about / historical / killer / terrorist / suiciders / who would / fly it into buildings / which was / a gathering threat / in / easy hindsight / that / empty words / would embolden / dangerous people / hidden in a turkey farm / where / I was tired of swatting flies / so / I want to be clear.”

Bush has created a language of his own—as austere and strange as that of David Mamet or Samuel Beckett, with whom he shares a taste for speaking in spare absolutes that can sound simultaneously profound and absurd. “The world changed on a terrible September morning, and since that day we have changed the world,” he said, and, as he enumerated the changes, he kept returning to a refrain: “And America and the world are safer.” In Iraq, he said, “I saw a threat.” September 11th had taught him not to let a threat materialize. Congress and the U.N. agreed with him that Saddam Hussein had to be brought to heel. “The world spoke,” Bush said. Saddam remained defiant. America acted. “Knowing what I know today, I would have made the same decision,” he proclaimed, and with that he launched into an attack on Kerry’s shifting positions on Iraq.

Bush’s performance on the stump is more a rap than a speech, a sequence of talking points strung together by applause lines. In style and substance, his discourse is saturated in churchiness: he touts the rights of the unborn, pooh-poohs same-sex marriage, speaks of marshalling the “armies of compassion” and transforming America into a “culture of responsibility” and an “ownership society” by changing “one heart and soul, one conscience at a time.” But, for all his God talk, he is remarkably lacking in humility. No fault, no blame, no regret, no room for shame attends him as he goes about changing the world. Nor does he appear to entertain the possibility that the changes he is imposing could be anything but improvements. To hear him tell it, the economy is terrific, public education is thriving, health care is better than ever, terrorists are on the run, democracy is spreading throughout the Middle East, and everywhere America is living up to what he describes as its “calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom.” Because Bush does not appear able to recognize his own errors, much less admit them, he is incapable of self-correction. Indeed, he boasts tirelessly of his resolve and steadfastness, making a virtue of rigidity. Like it or lump it.



Bush’s motorcade withdrew to Las Cruces’s tiny desert airfield at mid-morning; he was off to give the same performance at rallies in Farmington and Albuquerque before flying home to the White House for the night. Not far from Air Force One, on the tarmac, a Kerry-Edwards campaign plane waited for John Edwards, who was holding a rally at noon in the historic town square of Mesilla, just a few miles from where the Bush crowd was dispersing. The last time that Republican and Democratic rallies coincided in Mesilla, in August of 1871, sharp whiskey and sharp words resulted in brawls and gunplay that left nine men dead and as many as fifty wounded. The memory of that massacre provides a heartening reminder that there is a good deal of both hype and plain ignorance behind the claim, widely upheld among the political classes this year, that we are in the throes of the bitterest, most polarizing electoral contest in American history. Sure, as both the Bush and the Kerry camps keep saying, much is at stake. Sure, the race has become plenty ugly. But what makes it most discouraging is not the divisiveness but the falseness and the foolishness of so much of the debate—and, thus far, it is Bush, the self-styled heir to such great statesmen as Churchill and Truman, who has contributed most to lowering the tone.

Four years ago, Bush ran for President as a champion of compassion at home and humility abroad. After the September 11th attacks, he recast himself as a man of action, a warrior, whose basic message to the world is: They messed with the wrong guy. In a video clip shown at the Republican Convention, he said, “I think the best part of this job is to set in motion big changes of history—it’s unbelievably exciting to be in a position to do that.” He has done so by force of arms, and also by force of words. For Bush, rhetoric is reality, and he operates as if things were as he says they are. If reality does not conform, he remains undeterred, and on message—as with his insistence that even if he’d known that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he would have invaded and occupied the place anyway. Indeed, as his Presidency has progressed, and his policies have failed to create the circumstances he has proclaimed—whether in regard to the economy, education, prescription drugs, the hunt for Osama bin Laden, nation-building in Afghanistan, or war and occupation in Iraq—the gap between his grandiose, self-glorifying rhetoric and our anxious and unsettling reality has grown steadily wider.

That gap was on full display last week at Madison Square Garden, where the Republicans devoted more time to heaping scorn—and a good deal of calumny—on John Kerry than to laying out their vision for four more years of Bush. Although the President himself showed up, according to tradition, only on the final night, the Convention was the ultimate festival of Bush rhetoric. The agenda, which was designed to create an air of Party unity, reflected an effort to appeal to predominantly moderate undecided voters and also to rally the party’s conservative base. Cabinet members most intimately identified with controversial Bush policies (Attorney General John Ashcroft, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Rumsfeld’s deputy, Paul Wolfowitz) were nowhere to be seen. Instead, prime-time hours were given over to figures better known for being ideologically out of step with the President than for hanging around with him (John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger), who found common ground in their enthusiasm for Bush as a war leader.

It is not apparent that most Americans think of themselves as living in a nation at war, or that a sense of being engaged in a struggle to the death with an unseen but all-threatening enemy is the defining political experience of our time. But that has been the premise of the Bush presidency since the day when, as he insists on putting it, “everything changed,” and that was the dominant theme of the Bush Convention. Indeed, the pageant at the Garden was as much a tribute to September 11th as it was to Bush himself—and the commemoration of that date had a lugubrious, cultish quality.

During the culture wars of the early nineties, Republicans deplored the bullying political correctness that came from the intertwining of victimology and identity politics, and yet in the construct of recent history promoted by the White House, and by speaker after speaker and video after video at Madison Square Garden, America’s great wound was featured as a sort of national treasure—the ultimate and all-justifying source of legitimacy of the Bush Presidency. So the constant invocations of mass death and devastation were proffered to the conventioneers and their television audience not only as a bad thing but also, perversely, as something to cherish, even to celebrate, as a source of unity and purpose. Giuliani, in whose life story September 11th is a very good very bad day, set the tone on opening night by recycling the bullying, jingoist credo that Bush originally extracted from Ground Zero: “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.” Nobody needed to be told where that put Kerry and his supporters, especially after Zell Miller, the bilious, hatchet-faced senator from Georgia, delivered a keynote rant in which he declared it tantamount to treason for Kerry to campaign against Bush.



So it went: blood and fire and God and country and “Amazing Grace.” It was a proper war party at the Garden, charged with the language of Christian martyrology, and Bush could not have been more at home on closing night, when he strode out on a catwalk that had been built to lead him to a special altar in the round, which placed him in the middle of the floor, amid the masses, “a man of the people.” That was the idea, anyway. In fact, he looked about as populist there as a Roman emperor, and he was not at ease. The burden upon him, and upon his speech, was to explain to Americans what he has in mind to do for them if he gets a second term. It was not a memorable speech, and it did not quite answer that question. It was an expanded, beefed-up version of his standard stump speech, with many of the same punch lines. His domestic agenda was a grab bag of mostly recycled ideas for reforming Social Security, health-care policy, education, and the tax code. He was vague about how any of these things might be accomplished, much less paid for, and although he enunciated with zealous care every word that appeared on the teleprompters, he read too slowly, without any particular conviction, until he got to the final pages of the speech, which dealt with September 11th, terror, and war. Then he came alive.

The words Osama bin Laden, North Korea, and Iran had hardly been spoken at the Convention, and they did not pass Bush’s lips. About Iraq’s troubles since Saddam’s capture he was equally silent. Yet he vowed to make the world safer, and, as he waxed abstract, that prospect seemed to move him. “Freedom is not America’s gift to the world,” he intoned, as he does at every campaign stop. “It is the Almighty God’s gift to every man and woman in this world.” He spoke of “the resurrection of New York City,” and how in the future visitors to Ground Zero will say, “Here buildings fell, and here a nation rose.” And then, a few moments later, the balloons dropped, the confetti blizzard blew, the music swelled, and out came Laura, out came the Cheneys, out came all the kids and grandkids, and, love them or hate them, everybody watching seemed to agree that the Republicans had just had a hell of a successful Convention.

Of course, the same was said about the Democrats a month earlier. But Bush and his crew had pretty much wiped away Kerry’s advantage, even before they gathered in New York. They had fought him dirty, with the lying Swift Boat Veterans’ ads, and they’d fought him mean, caricaturing and taunting him, jabbing and lashing at him with sharp tongues. They’d ganged up and piled on, and they’d made no apologies. In fact, they’d enjoyed every minute of it.

“Some folks look at me and see a certain swagger, which in Texas is called walking,” Bush said at the Garden. “Now and then, I come across as a little too blunt—and for that we can all thank the white-haired lady sitting up there.” He indicated his mother. That was the joke in his speech, the self-deprecating part, but the President wasn’t kidding. Kicking ass is just his nature. And, while he had been effectively tied with or trailing his challenger all year, and still was behind on many issues and in many states, an early post-Convention poll showed him opening a national lead beyond the margin of error. Even so, both candidates must now recognize that neither of them inspires any great enthusiasm in a majority of the electorate. Neither can expect to win on his merits. Rather, for each the best hope is to make the other one lose—and, for the moment at least, Bush had succeeded in turning a referendum on himself into a referendum on the other guy.


Either do your own research, or read the research that other's have provided you. You have no excuses.

Either do your own research, or read the research that other's have provided you. You have no excuses.
http://zfacts.com/p/480.html

Also: http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/OMB-2004-National-Debt-History.pdf

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/Stoft-2004-debt-presidents.gif

After reading your extensive post, I guess my siggy below is VERY accurate?

http://zfacts.com/p/480.html

Also: http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/OMB-2004-National-Debt-History.pdf

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/Stoft-2004-debt-presidents.gif

After reading your extensive post, I guess my siggy below is VERY accurate?

Did you read what Kerry's estimates for Federal Spending is going to be?

Question...does anyone read what I have to say? I know I have a low post count, but that doesn't mean everyone should automatically ignore me. I've asked a couple questions because I really wanted to know what the answers were, but no one ever answered me. Could someone please answer the two questions I asked?

What does Voltron have to do with Kerry?

Democrats will be:
Pro choice
pro gay marrages
anti gun
anti-business

What do you mean by anti-business? I know Kerry wants to reward companies that keep jobs here, instead of shipping them off to other countries, but I'm not sure how that would be anti-business. And what about anti-gun?

If someone else answered these and I missed them somehow, I apologise. I have been reading this thread every day, several times a day, most days. Maybe I missed it. If someone could please answer these questions for me, I'd appreciate it.

First of all, I don't get all my news from Fox News.

But here, since you started it, I guess I respond with my own research.

PATRIOT ACT:

Questions and Answers about the USA PATRIOT Act

Charles S. Morford
U.S. Attorney
Eastern District of Michigan
August 23, 2004

Q: What is the USA PATRIOT Act?
A: The USA PATRIOT Act is an act of Congress that was enacted on October 26, 2001. USA PATRIOT is an acronym, so it is properly spelled in all capital letters. It stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism." The USA PATRIOT Act, which was passed 98-1 in the Senate and 357-66 in the House of Representatives, amended a number of existing statutes and enacted new provisions covering a wide range of topics. Although much attention has been focused on the amendments to surveillance and immigration laws, the USA PATRIOT Act also provides for, among other things, financial assistance to victims of terrorist attacks, increased benefits for public safety workers, a condemnation of discrimination against Arab and Muslim Americans, consumer protection from fraud by requiring disclosure in solicitations for charitable contributions after a terrorist attack, increased staffing and overtime pay for Northern border enforcement employees, funding for training, and resources to study critical infrastructure.

Q: Did the USA PATRIOT Act create the secret foreign intelligence court?
A: No. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA") created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to provide judicial oversight of government surveillance in foreign intelligence matters. The 1978 Act came as a response to wiretapping abuses during Watergate. Before 1978, foreign intelligence surveillance had no such judicial oversight. Foreign intelligence information is defined in FISA as information that relates to a foreign power or agent of a foreign power involved in an attack, potential attack or "other grave hostile acts," sabotage, international terrorism, or clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network. Because matters before the FISA court relate to national security, they are not open to the public. FISA was an effort to balance the need for judicial oversight with the need to keep foreign intelligence information confidential.
Similar to the standard used in a criminal case, FISA requires that before the court will authorize a wiretap, the government must provide a detailed affidavit establishing probable cause to believe that the target is an agent of a foreign power and that the facilities to be monitored are being used by an agent of a foreign power. As in a criminal case, a physical search of premises in a foreign intelligence case require a search warrant issued by the court based on a detailed showing of probable cause. As in criminal cases, less intrusive searches, such as requests for business records maintained by a third party, require less oversight.
The USA PATRIOT Act amended FISA to allow its provisions to be used in cases where foreign intelligence is a "significant purpose" of the investigation rather than "the purpose" of the investigation. In November 2002, the FISA Court of Review upheld this provision of the USA PATRIOT Act, finding that information derived from FISA investigations may be used in criminal cases because criminal prosecutions are but one way to protect the national security from international terrorism. The FISA Court of Review's opinion suggested that the Department of Justice had been overly cautious in the past by erecting a wall between foreign intelligence and criminal information.

Q: Does the USA PATRIOT Act eliminate judicial oversight of federal law enforcement activities?
A: No. In criminal cases and foreign intelligence cases, federal agents still must obtain a wiretap order from a court based on a detailed affidavit setting forth probable cause before they can install a wiretap. Agents still must obtain a search warrant from a court based on a showing of probable cause before they can search a residence. Agents still must obtain court orders before installing a pen register or trap and trace device on a telephone to obtain outgoing and incoming telephone numbers. Courts retain the power to suppress evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Where government surveillance intrudes on expectations of privacy, the USA PATRIOT Act preserves judicial oversight as part of our system of checks and balances.

Q: Does the USA PATRIOT Act erode the probable cause standard?
A: No. As was true before the USA PATRIOT Act was enacted, the probable cause standard in a criminal case is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person is using the facilities sought to be monitored or searched in connection with the crime; in a foreign intelligence case, probable cause that the target is an agent of a foreign power and that the facilities sought to be monitored or searched are being used by an agent of a foreign power. In both types of investigations, probable cause must be established to obtain a wiretap order or search warrant. As was true even before the USA PATRIOT Act, lesser intrusions, such as requests for records from third parties, require a lower standard.


Q: Does the USA PATRIOT Act permit "sneak and peek" searches, in which the person whose property is searched is never notified?
A: No. Section 213 of the USA PATRIOT Act codified only delayed notification of search warrants; notice is still required. Generally, when government agents execute a search warrant, they must provide a copy of the warrant to the person whose premises are searched at the time the warrant is executed. Courts previously allowed for a delay of the notification where necessary to avoid compromising an ongoing investigation, finding that such delay complied with the Fourth Amendment, see, e.g., United States v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1324, 1331 (2d Cir. 1990), but because the procedures were not contained in statute or court rule, they were applied differently around the country. The USA PATRIOT Act provides uniformity by specifying the circumstances under which delay is permissible. When a judge finds, based on facts articulated in a sworn affidavit, reasonable grounds to delay notice, such as risk of flight or destruction of evidence, a judge may allow for a specific period of delay that he or she finds to be reasonable. Upon expiration of that time, notice must be given. During the search, evidence may not be seized unless the court finds that seizure is necessary.

Q: What are "roving" wiretaps?
A: Roving wiretaps allow a wiretap order to be specific to a person, regardless of which telephone he is using, rather than specific to a particular telephone. Section 206 of the USA PATRIOT Act extended to foreign intelligence investigations roving wiretaps, which existed in criminal cases before the USA PATRIOT Act was enacted. In this day of cellular telephones, such a provision is a necessary update in the law to keep up with technology. When the original wiretap statute was passed in 1968, most people had only one telephone. In the 21st century, many people have more than one telephone including a cellular telephone. Sophisticated targets change their cellular telephones frequently in an effort to thwart investigators. The roving wiretap order still requires that a federal law enforcement agent swear in a detailed affidavit to facts establishing probable cause, and still requires a court to make a finding of probable cause before issuing the order. The roving order has the additional requirement of a judge's approval to monitor more than one telephone. But now, each time a target changes his cellular telephone, instead of going through the application process, which can take days or weeks, government agents can use the same wiretap order to monitor the target's calls.

Q: Does the USA PATRIOT Act allow the government to spy on my e-mail?
A: No. Sections 214 and 216 of the USA PATRIOT Act relate to pen registers and trap and trace devices, which are investigative tools used to obtain information about the source and destination – but not the content – of telephone calls and e-mail messages. These tools have been available to law enforcement for years with respect to telephone calls. The USA PATRIOT Act simply makes it clear that the same rules may be applied to e-mail that previously applied to telephones. When the statute pertaining to telephones was enacted in 1986, lawmakers did not contemplate the dramatic expansion in computer communication that would exist fifteen years later. Although judges had applied the telephone rules to e-mail before the USA PATRIOT Act was enacted, the PATRIOT Act clarified that pen register and trap and trace provisions apply to e-mail as well as telephone facilities, and made these rules uniform across the country. These provisions permit a judge to enter an order allowing the government to obtain addressing and routing information, that is, the addresses of e-mail messages sent and received or the telephone numbers of the telephone calls made and received. The order does not permit the interception of content, including the subject line of an e-mail message. Before a court will enter the order, a government attorney must certify that the information is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation, or, in a foreign intelligence case, that the information is relevant to an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities or to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning U.S. persons (defined as citizens and permanent resident aliens). Any investigation of a U.S. person may not be based solely on activities protected by the First Amendment. Therefore, in either criminal or foreign intelligence cases, fishing expeditions of people's e-mail messages based on their political activity is not permitted. These provisions update existing law to keep up with changing technology.
Under law that has not been changed by USA PATRIOT Act, the government must obtain a search warrant to see the content of unopened e-mail communications that are less than six months old. The content of older, opened e-mail messages, or of messages previously opened and stored on a mail server, can be obtained with a grand jury subpoena, a court order, or a search warrant, all of which require notice to the subscriber, although such notice may be delayed, if the court approves, upon a proper showing of need by the government. All of these provisions allowing access to the content of e-mail existed before the enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act.


Q: Is the government using the authority of the USA PATRIOT Act to compile watch lists based the books ordinary citizens check out of the library?
A: No. Section 215 permits the government to obtain "tangible things" from third parties in foreign intelligence investigations. Although the USA PATRIOT Act does not mention libraries, this section could be applied to library records as business records. Under previous law, government agents had the ability to access business records, including library records, with a grand jury subpoena in criminal cases. Section 215 now allows such requests in foreign intelligence cases. An important protection provides that Section 215 may not be used against U.S. persons (citizens or permanent resident aliens) solely based on activities protected by the First Amendment. In practice, these requests are made only as to specific individuals who are already the target of an investigation. This provision includes a safeguard that provides that government agents must seek a court order for the records, based on a certification from a high-ranking FBI official (Assistant Special Agent in Charge or higher) that the records sought are for "an authorized investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." An additional safeguard requires the Department of Justice to report its use of this provision to Congress every six months.


Q: Why does the USA PATRIOT Act permit one part of the government to share intelligence information with other parts of the government?
A: Section 203 permits the sharing of foreign intelligence or grand jury information to federal law enforcement, intelligence, national security, national defense, protective or immigration personnel "to assist the official receiving that information in the performance of his official duties." This provision is an effort to let the right hand know what the left hand knows. For example, if federal law enforcement authorities learn through a grand jury proceeding or foreign intelligence surveillance that a group is planning to blow up Joe Louis Arena during a Red Wings game, this provision permits them to tell criminal investigators, who can then act on that information in an attempt to prevent the attack. Under previous law, disclosure was prohibited.

Q: Does the USA PATRIOT Act permit the FBI to conduct surveillance of religious services, internet chat rooms, political demonstrations and other public meetings?
A: No. The USA PATRIOT Act does not address these types of investigations. After 9/11, the Attorney General Guidelines for investigating terrorism cases were amended to permit the FBI to "visit any place and attend any event that is open to the public on the same terms and conditions as members of the public generally." With respect to Internet sites, agents are permitted to "conduct online search activity and to access online sites and forums on the same terms and conditions as members of the public generally." The rationale for the guideline is that law enforcement agents should be permitted to go anywhere that is open to the public because in such places there is no expectation of privacy, which is where the Fourth Amendment draws the line for reasonable searches.
The guidelines provide for safeguards against abuse of the information obtained. For example, the guidelines provide that agents may not maintain files on individuals "solely for the purpose of monitoring activities protected by the First Amendment or the lawful exercise of other rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Rather, all such law enforcement activities must have a valid law enforcement purpose." The guidelines further provide, "No information obtained from such visits shall be retained unless it relates to potential criminal or terrorist activities."


Q: Does the USA PATRIOT Act define domestic terrorism so broadly as to chill constitutionally protected speech?
A: No. Section 802 amended 18 U.S.C. § 2331 to define domestic terrorism as offenses that (1) involve acts dangerous to human life that violate the laws of the United States or any state; and (2) are intended to coerce or intimidate a civilian population, influence government policy by intimidation or coercion or affect the conduct of government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnaping. This definition is virtually identical to the definition of international terrorism that existed before the USA PATRIOT Act under 18 U.S.C. § 2331, except that domestic terrorism applies to acts that occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Prohibiting "acts dangerous to human life" does not violate the Constitution. Speaking at a political rally or participating in an anti-war demonstration would not amount to domestic terrorism under this definition.

Q: Why were 762 immigrants arrested after 9/11 if they weren't charged with crimes of terrorism?
A: Most of the 762 were illegal aliens who had overstayed their visas. A visa gives a visitor permission to stay in the United States for a set period of time. Upon expiration of that time, the alien must leave the United States. If he fails to do so, he may be arrested and deported. Before 9/11, the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") failed to arrest many aliens who had overstayed their visas. Some of the 9/11 hijackers were visa overstays. The INS has now been dismantled and replaced by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement under the Department of Homeland Security. The 762 aliens were not arrested under the USA PATRIOT Act, which was not enacted until about six weeks after 9/11.

Q: Does the USA PATRIOT Act permit the indefinite detention of non-citizens based on mere suspicion that they are involved in terrorism?
A: No. Section 412 of the USA PATRIOT Act requires the Attorney General to certify on "reasonable grounds to believe" that an alien is engaging in acts of terrorism or endangers the national security of the United States before an alien may be detained under this section. Moreover, it does not permit indefinite detention. An alien may be held for only seven days before the Attorney General must either start deportation proceedings (because the alien has no legal right to be in the United States) or file criminal charges. Otherwise, the alien must be released. In situations in which the alien is deportable, but is not likely to be deported within the reasonably foreseeable future, the alien may be detained for additional periods of up to six months only if the release of the alien would threaten the national security of the United States or the safety of the community or another person. If the alien is determined not to be deportable, detention shall terminate. An important safeguard in Section 412 provides for habeas corpus review by courts on the merits of any detention. To date, Section 412 of the USA PATRIOT Act has not yet been used.

Q: Does the USA PATRIOT Act authorize detention of people as enemy combatants?
A: No. Enemy combatant status, which essentially permits detention of enemy soldiers during hostilities, as opposed to detention under the criminal justice system, pre-dates 9/11, and was approved by the Hague and Geneva Conventions. Enemy combatant status was used to detain a U.S. citizen who attempted sabotage during World War II. Nothing in the USA PATRIOT Act addresses enemy combatants.

Q: Does the USA PATRIOT Act permit closing immigration hearings to the public?
A: No. The procedures to close immigration hearings in cases involving foreign intelligence and national security information are not part of the USA PATRIOT Act. Since 9/11, some immigration hearings have been closed to the public where necessary to protect the national security. In the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes federal cases in Michigan, Judge Damon Keith wrote that closing immigration hearings is appropriate, on a case-by-case basis, for that portion of the hearing that could compromise the national security. (The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in a case the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review, held that blanket closure of immigration hearings, rather than case-by-case, is permissible where disclosure could affect the national security.) Disclosing information to the court without disclosing it to the public is necessary in some situations where the information could compromise intelligence sources, at best tipping off other suspects, at worst endangering the lives of cooperating sources around the world.

Q: Is the USA PATRIOT Act unconstitutional?
A: No provision of the USA PATRIOT Act has been held unconstitutional by any court in the country.

Q: Does the USA PATRIOT Act discriminate against Arab and Muslim Americans?
A: No. To the contrary, the USA PATRIOT Act protects Arab and Muslim Americans. Section 1001 directs the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General to process and investigate complaints alleging abuses of civil rights by Department of Justice employees. Section 102 of the USA PATRIOT Act specifically condemns acts of violence or discrimination against all Americans, including Arab Americans and Muslim Americans and Americans from South Asia. It directs that their civil rights and civil liberties be protected and that every effort be taken to preserve their safety. Toward that end, our office has successfully prosecuted cases involving hate crimes and false accusations against Arab American victims since 9/11. In one case, a defendant was convicted after telephoning and threatening to kill a victim simply because of the victim's Arabic name. In another case, a defendant was convicted of perjury after he falsely testified before a grand jury that local individuals were members of a terrorist cell planning an attack.
In addition, U.S. Attorney Jeffrey G. Collins has formed and co-chairs a group called BRIDGES, which stands for Building Respect in Diverse Groups to Enhance Sensitivity. BRIDGES includes leaders from the local Arab American community and law enforcement. The group meets monthly to promote mutual understanding and cooperation.

Q: What are some of the reasons critics oppose the USA PATRIOT Act?
A: First, the USA PATRIOT Act appears to have become a short-hand label for all aspects of the war on terrorism. Critics have incorrectly attributed to the USA PATRIOT Act a number of anti-terrorism initiatives that have nothing to do with the Act. For example, the USA PATRIOT Act does not address such issues as enemy combatants, military tribunals, closed immigration hearings, or monitoring of attorney-client communications. A number of newspapers nationally and within the Eastern District of Michigan recently reported on claims of civil rights abuses by government employees, but incorrectly attributed the abuses to the USA PATRIOT Act. In fact, the report was required by one of the USA PATRIOT Act's many safeguards. Section 1001 directs the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General ("OIG") to process and investigate complaints alleging abuses of civil rights by Department of Justice employees. The USA PATRIOT Act is not the basis of the complaints cited in the OIG report; it is the mechanism for investigating the complaints.
Second, it seems that many critics are unaware of the investigative tools that were available to law enforcement before the USA PATRIOT Act was enacted. Instead, they incorrectly assume that these tools were created by the USA PATRIOT Act. For example, roving wiretaps were permissible in criminal cases before the USA PATRIOT Act was enacted. The USA PATRIOT Act simply extended this tool to foreign intelligence cases. Similarly, investigators were able to obtain library records with a grand jury subpoena in criminal cases long before the USA PATRIOT Act was enacted. The USA PATRIOT Act simply extended this ability to foreign intelligence cases, and added some protections, such requiring a court order, prohibiting the investigation of a U.S. person based solely on activities protected by the First Amendment, and requiring the government to report the use of this provision to Congress. As another example, the foreign intelligence surveillance court was not, as is sometimes assumed, created by the USA PATRIOT Act; it has existed since 1978. Moreover, the court was created to prevent government wiretap abuses by creating judicial oversight in foreign intelligence cases.
These inaccuracies and false assumptions perpetuate the myth that the USA PATRIOT Act violates constitutional rights. Instead, it provides tools to assist law enforcement in combating terrorism, while preserving the constitutional rights that make America worth protecting.

---------------------------------------

No Child Left Behind

---------------------------------------

Introduction: No Child Left Behind

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (No Child Left Behind) is a landmark in education reform designed to improve student achievement and change the culture of America's schools. President George W. Bush describes this law as the "cornerstone of my administration." Clearly, our children are our future, and, as President Bush has expressed, "Too many of our neediest children are being left behind."

With passage of No Child Left Behind, Congress reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)--the principal federal law affecting education from kindergarten through high school. In amending ESEA, the new law represents a sweeping overhaul of federal efforts to support elementary and secondary education in the United States. It is built on four common-sense pillars: accountability for results; an emphasis on doing what works based on scientific research; expanded parental options; and expanded local control and flexibility.

WHAT NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND DOES FOR PARENTS AND CHILDREN

Supports learning in the early years, thereby preventing many learning difficulties that may arise later
Children who enter school with language skills and pre-reading skills (e.g., understanding that print reads from left to right and top to bottom) are more likely to learn to read well in the early grades and succeed in later years. In fact, research shows that most reading problems faced by adolescents and adults are the result of problems that could have been prevented through good instruction in their early childhood years (Snow, Burns and Griffin 1998). It is never too early to start building language skills by talking with and reading to children. No Child Left Behind targets resources for early childhood education so that all youngsters get the right start.

Provides more information for parents about their child's progress
Under No Child Left Behind, each state must measure every public school student's progress in reading and math in each of grades 3 through 8 and at least once during grades 10 through 12. By school year 2007-2008, assessments (or testing) in science will be underway. These assessments must be aligned with state academic content and achievement standards. They will provide parents with objective data on where their child stands academically.

Alerts parents to important information on the performance of their child's school
No Child Left Behind requires states and school districts to give parents easy-to-read, detailed report cards on schools and districts, telling them which ones are succeeding and why. Included in the report cards are student achievement data broken out by race, ethnicity, gender, English language proficiency, migrant status, disability status and low-income status; as well as important information about the professional qualifications of teachers. With these provisions, No Child Left Behind ensures that parents have important, timely information about the schools their children attend--whether they are performing well or not for all children, regardless of their background.

Gives children and parents a lifeline
In this new era of education, children will no longer be trapped in the dead end of low-performing schools. Under No Child Left Behind, such schools must use their federal funds to make needed improvements. In the event of a school's continued poor performance, parents have options to ensure that their children receive the high-quality education to which they are entitled. That might mean that children can transfer to higher-performing schools in the area or receive supplemental educational services in the community, such as tutoring, after-school programs or remedial classes.

Improves teaching and learning by providing better information to teachers and principals
Annual tests to measure children's progress provide teachers with independent information about each child's strengths and weaknesses. With this knowledge, teachers can craft lessons to make sure each student meets or exceeds the standards. In addition, principals can use the data to assess exactly how much progress each teacher's students have made and to better inform decisions about how to run their schools.

Ensures that teacher quality is a high priority
No Child Left Behind defines the qualifications needed by teachers and paraprofessionals who work on any facet of classroom instruction. It requires that states develop plans to achieve the goal that all teachers of core academic subjects be highly qualified by the end of the 2005-06 school year. States must include in their plans annual, measurable objectives that each local school district* and school must meet in moving toward the goal; they must report on their progress in the annual report cards.

Gives more resources to schools
Today, more than $7,000 on average is spent per pupil by local, state and federal taxpayers. States and local school districts are now receiving more federal funding than ever before for all programs under No Child Left Behind: $23.7 billion, most of which will be used during the 2003-04 school year. This represents an increase of 59.8 percent from 2000 to 2003. A large portion of these funds is for grants under Title I of ESEA: Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged. Title I grants are awarded to states and local education agencies to help states and school districts improve the education of disadvantaged students; turn around low-performing schools; improve teacher quality; and increase choices for parents. (For more about Title I, see the introductory paragraph to Q-and-As.) For fiscal year (FY) 2003, funding for Title I alone is $11.7 billion--an increase of 33 percent since the passage of No Child Left Behind. President Bush's FY 2004 budget request would increase spending on Title I by 48 percent since he took office.

Allows more flexibility
In exchange for the strong accountability, No Child Left Behind gives states and local education agencies more flexibility in the use of their federal education funding. As a result, principals and administrators spend less time filling out forms and dealing with federal red tape. They have more time to devote to students' needs. They have more freedom to implement innovations and allocate resources as policymakers at the state and local levels see fit, thereby giving local people a greater opportunity to affect decisions regarding their schools' programs.

Focuses on what works
No Child Left Behind puts a special emphasis on implementing educational programs and practices that have been clearly demonstrated to be effective through rigorous scientific research. Federal funding will be targeted to support such programs. For example, the Reading First program makes federal funds available to help reading teachers in the early grades strengthen old skills and gain new ones in instructional techniques that scientifically based research has shown to be effective.

Why No Child Left Behind Is Important to America
Federal Spending on K-12 Education under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and NAEP Reading Scores (Age 9)


Note: Appropriations for ESEA do not include funding for special education. Reading scores are the average scores for 9-year-olds, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). A score of 200 implies an ability to understand, combine ideas and make inferences based on short, uncomplicated passages about specific or sequentially related information.

*Reflects the President's budget request for 2004.

Source: U.S. Department of Education Budget Service and NAEP 1999 Trends in Academic Progress.



Since the Elementary and Secondary Education Act first passed Congress in 1965, the federal government has spent more than $242 billion through 2003 to help educate disadvantaged children. Yet, the achievement gap in this country between rich and poor and white and minority students remains wide. According to the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) on reading in 2000, only 32 percent of fourth-graders can read at a proficient level and thereby demonstrate solid academic achievement; and while scores for the highest-performing students have improved over time, those of America's lowest-performing students have declined (National Assessment of Educational Progress 2001).

The good news is that some schools in cities and towns across the nation are creating high achievement for children with a history of low performance. If some schools can do it, then all schools should be able to do it.

United for Results
Because of No Child Left Behind:
Parents will know their children's strengths and weaknesses and how well schools are performing; they will have other options and resources for helping their children if their schools are chronically in need of improvement.

Teachers will have the training and resources they need for teaching effectively, using curricula that are grounded in scientifically based research; annual testing lets them know areas in which students need extra attention.

Principals will have information they need to strengthen their schools' weaknesses and to put into practice methods and strategies backed by sound, scientific research.

Superintendents will be able to see which of their schools and principals are doing the best job and which need help to improve.

School boards will be able to measure how their districts are doing and to measure their districts in relation to others across the state; they will have more and better information on which to base decisions about priorities in their districts.

Chief state school officers will know how the schools in their states and in other states are doing; they will be better able to pinpoint where guidance and resources are needed.

Governors will have a yearly report card on how their states' schools are doing; they will be able to highlight accomplishments of the best schools and target help to those schools that are in need of improvement.

Community leaders and volunteer groups will have information they can use to rally their members in efforts to help children and schools that need the most help.

------------------------------------

Oh I give up.

Nothing that I post is going to change your mind. Those sources are biased beyond comprehension.

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/
Joun Kerry's website: This is why.
Just a few issues:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/

1) Deploy All That Is In America's Arsenal
The war on terror cannot be won by military might alone. As president, John Kerry will deploy all the forces in America's arsenal - our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas - to make America more secure and prevent a new generation of terrorists from emerging.
2)Free America From Its Dangerous Dependence On Mideast Oil
To secure our full independence and freedom, we must free America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil. By tapping American ingenuity, we can achieve that goal while growing our economy and protecting our
environment.
3)Launch And Lead A New Era Of Alliances
The threat of terrorism demands alliances on a global scale - to utilize every available resource to get the terrorists before they can strike at us. As president, John Kerry will lead a coalition of the able - because no force on earth is more able than the United States and its allies.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/
1) Create Good-Paying Jobs
As president, John Kerry will cut taxes for businesses that create jobs here in America instead of moving them overseas. John Kerry and John Edwards will also stand up for workers by enforcing our trade agreements.
2) Cut Middle-Class Taxes To Raise Middle-Class Incomes
When John Kerry is president, middle-class taxes will go down. Ninety-eight percent of all Americans and 99 percent of American businesses will get a tax cut under the Kerry-Edwards plan.
3) Make Washington Live Within A Budget
John Kerry will cut the deficit in half during his first four years in office. He will end corporate welfare as we know it, roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and impose a real cap to keep spending in check. And when John Kerry puts forward a new idea, he'll tell you how he's going to pay for it.
4) Invest In The Jobs Of Tomorrow
Today, businesses are harnessing new technology to manufacture energy-efficient cars, high-grade steel, advanced plastics and other new products. And this requires a bigger, skilled labor force to make them. John Kerry and John Edwards believe we should invest in these jobs and invest in the people who will fill them.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/health_care/
1) Cut Your Premiums
John Kerry and John Edwards will cut family premiums by up to $1,000. That's $1,000 in real savings people can use to buy groceries, pay the bills, and save for their children's future. And that will mean more jobs and more competitive American businesses.
2) Cover All Americans With Quality Care
The Kerry-Edwards plan will give every American access to the range of high-quality, affordable plans available to members of Congress and extend coverage to 95 percent of Americans, including every American child. Their plan will also fight to erase the health disparities that persist along racial and economic lines, ensure that people with HIV and AIDS have the care they need, end discrimination against Americans with disabilities and mental illnesses, and ensure equal treatment for mental illness in our health system.
3) Provide Affordable Prescriptions
The Kerry-Edwards plan will reduce prescription drug prices by allowing the re-importation of safe prescription drugs from Canada, overhauling the Medicare drug plan, ensuring low-cost drugs, and ending artificial barriers to generic drug competition.
4) Cut Waste And Inefficiency
Today, approximately 25 percent of health care costs are wasted on paperwork and administrative processing. The Kerry-Edwards plan harnesses American ingenuity to cut waste, save billions, and take new steps to ensure patient privacy.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/energy/
1) Explore And Develop New Energy Sources
Tomorrow's energy economy will be fueled by new energy sources. The Kerry-Edwards plan will invest in the research and exploration needed to turn ideas into fuel and develop renewable energy sources.
2) Develop Tomorrow's Technology Today
Under the Kerry-Edwards plan, America will take the lead in developing the new technology and production methods needed to ensure that resources such as coal and natural gas are used more efficiently and cleanly, and fully integrated into the New Energy Economy.
3) Make America Energy Independent Of Middle East Oil
Our security in the war on terror demands an end to our dependence on Middle East oil. Under the Kerry-Edwards plan, we will strengthen our national security while growing our economy and protecting our environment.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/homeland_security/
1)Track And Stop Terrorists
Many of the intelligence problems that allowed terrorists to slip into our country before 9/11 have not been addressed. John Kerry and John Edwards will improve our ability to gather, analyze, and share information so we can track down and stop terrorists before they cause harm.
2) Protect Our Borders And Shores
Today, our borders, our ports, and our airports are not as secure as they must be. John Kerry and John Edwards will make our airports, seaports, and borders more secure without intruding upon personal liberties.
3) Harden Vulnerable Targets
Chemical industry lobbying has kept the Bush administration from strengthening security at chemical plants, where an attack could endanger 1 million Americans. John Kerry and John Edwards will always put Americans' safety ahead of big business interests and take strong measures to harden likely targets-including nuclear plants, trains, and subways-against possible attack.
4) Improve Domestic Readiness
Our first defenders will respond to any attack with courage and heroism-but they also need the equipment and manpower to do the job. John Kerry and John Edwards will back up their words with resources and ensure that America's first responders have everything they need to protect their communities.
5) Guard Liberty.
We must always remember that terrorists do not just target our lives - they target our way of life. John Kerry and John Edwards believe in an America that is safe and free, and they will protect our personal liberties as well as our personal security.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/education/
1) Meet Our Responsibilities To Our Schools
John Kerry and John Edwards will establish a National Education Trust Fund to ensure that schools always get the funding they need. They will also ensure that No Child Left Behind works for schools, states, and teachers by rewarding those who meet higher standards and rewarding schools that turn around and improve.
2) Continue Reform And Put A Great Teacher In Every Classroom
Great teachers are the foundation of a great school. As president, John Kerry will enact a new bargain that offers teachers more, including better training and better pay in troubled schools, and asks for more in return, including fast, fair ways to make sure that teachers who don't belong in the classroom don't stay there.
3) Offer 3.5 Million After-School Opportunities Through "School's Open 'Til Six"
John Kerry and John Edwards are strong supporters of after-school programs. They give students extra help, keep them out of trouble, and offer peace of mind to working parents. The Kerry-Edwards "School's Open 'Til 'Six" initiative will offer after-school opportunities to 3.5 million children, through programs that are open until 6 p.m. and offer safe transportation for children.
4) Make College Affordable For All And Expand Lifelong Learning
As president, John Kerry will offer a fully refundable College Opportunity Tax credit on up to $4,000 of tuition for every year of college and offer aid to states that keep tuitions down. And he will launch a new effort to ensure that all of our workers can get the technical skills and advanced training they need.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/environment/
1) Create Cleaner, Greener Communities
Together, we can improve the environment in backyards and communities across America. John Kerry and John Edwards will revitalize contaminated industrial sites, get toxins out of communities, guarantee our children access to clean, safe parks and baseball fields, and take on traffic congestion and sprawl.
2) Protect Our Health By Reducing Dangerous Air Emissions
As president, John Kerry will reverse the Bush-Cheney rollbacks to our Clean Air Act, plug loopholes in the law, take aggressive action to stop acid rain, and use innovative, job-creating programs to reduce mercury emissions and other emissions that contribute to global warming.
3) Restore America's Waters
Today, approximately 45 percent of our nation's waterways do not meet the "drinkable, swimable and fishable" standard set out by the Clean Water Act 30 years ago. As president, John Kerry will implement a "Restore America's Waters" campaign, an integrated approach to protecting our precious, limited water resources. He will work with states on the toughest water quality challenges, restore damaged watersheds, protect wetlands, invest in our waterfronts and coastal communities, and protect our oceans.
4) Enact A Conservation Covenant With America
John Kerry and John Edwards believe that Americans are united in our respect for the land. They will enact a Conservation Covenant with America to ensure balanced protection for our public lands and adequate resources to enhance our national parks.

Need I say more?

Did you read what Kerry's estimates for Federal Spending is going to be?
I am sure that Kerry will do much better than the last 3 Republican Presidents have done.

Look at the blue, yellow, orange, and red on that graph. From 25% of GDP to over 71% GDP, and it is all Republican Debt.

I am sure that Kerry will do much better than the last 3 Republican Presidents have done.

Look at the blue, yellow, orange, and red on that graph. From 25% of GDP to over 71% GDP, and it is all Republican Debt.

I will take this as a no!

http://www.ntu.org/main/press_release.php?PressID=629&org_name=NTUF
http://www.ntu.org/main/press_papers.php?PressID=628&org_name=NTUF
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=51

Take a good look into how the candidates got to where they are:

Kerry--Born into a well-to-do family, married into a fortune.
Edwards--Sued doctors (the people who keep you and me healthy) to get rich

Why would you trust them to uphold Liberal ideals? Why would you trust them at all?

I am sure that Kerry will do much better than the last 3 Republican Presidents have done.

Look at the blue, yellow, orange, and red on that graph. From 25% of GDP to over 71% GDP, and it is all Republican Debt.

How? He's not going to have a friendly Congress and he's not Bill Clinton.

How will he get anything done on that list?

How? He's not going to have a friendly Congress and he's not Bill Clinton.

How will he get anything done on that list?

He won't be able too.

Take a good look into how the candidates got to where they are:

Kerry--Born into a well-to-do family, married into a fortune.
Edwards--Sued doctors (the people who keep you and me healthy) to get rich

Why would you trust them to uphold Liberal ideals? Why would you trust them at all?
The other canduidates:
Cheney used to be secretary of state I think, invcolved with Haliburton. Rich. Heart troubles.
Bush: Freinds with big business, oil, and many rich people. His connections won him job at owning baseball team, getting into National Guard, and owning a oil company that failed.(I think it did)
Did poorly at school and getting into flight school for national guard but his father helped him get from almost dead last to top of lists.

Take a good look into how the candidates got to where they are:

Kerry--Born into a well-to-do family, married into a fortune.
Edwards--Sued doctors (the people who keep you and me healthy) to get rich

Why would you trust them to uphold Liberal ideals? Why would you trust them at all?
More than the guy who got his money from his oil family and the one who ran a company underinvestigation.

Seriously, what where you hoping with on this? That somehow by comparison Bush and Cheney would be better? Where were you hoping to go with this? C'mon, at least Brian's Room is trying....

Take a good look into how the candidates got to where they are:

Kerry--Born into a well-to-do family, married into a fortune.
Edwards--Sued doctors (the people who keep you and me healthy) to get rich

Why would you trust them to uphold Liberal ideals? Why would you trust them at all?You ever read about any of the cases Edwards won? I guarantee you you didn't, because otherwise you wouldn't make asinine comments like that one. Edwards sued people who were negligent--manufacturers of faulty products, for one--who caused real damage to innocent people. Try reading up on his cases--especially the one about the girl whose intestines were sucked out of her anus by a faulty jacuzzi drain, a drain that the manufacturer knew was faulty and could have fixed for two bucks and decided to ignore instead. At least Edwards came from the working class.

It's not like Bush was born to working class people--he was born to wealth, drove multiple companies into the ground only to be bailed out by family friends, used family influence to get into college and stay there, as well as to avoid service in Vietnam.

While Kerry may have been born to privilege, he did manage to hold down a job as a successful prosecuting attorney before going into government--he earned that job, just like he earned his law degree and passed the bar exam. So don't act like the two Democrats are some children of privilege who have never done anything while the Republicans are everyday guys--it's bullshit, plain and simple.

How? He's not going to have a friendly Congress and he's not Bill Clinton.

How will he get anything done on that list?
So what I hear you saying is we have to not only elect Kerry, but elect him some help in the congress. Good plan, thanks.

(Sorry, that response is a disservice to your larger posts, I'm just lazy right now...)

How? He's not going to have a friendly Congress and he's not Bill Clinton.

How will he get anything done on that list?Well, the Senate is within easy striking distance, and the House, while tougher, is within reach. I'm not making any predictions here, but Kerry could find himself in at least as good a situation as Clinton was in, and perhaps better.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi--has a nice ring to it, don't you think?

Why Kerry?

I would imagine it is because most people view Kerry as better than the alternative.

Some like the idea of a commander-in-chief who has actaully served time in the military. People are funny like that.

Some like the idea of a politician who isn't basically in office because of name-recognition.

Some like the idea of a politician who didn't get into office because of voter-irregularity... coincidentally in another state where the candidate has family in office..

Some people like the idea of a president who isn't a war-monger.

Some people like the idea who would tax the wealthy more than the poor, rather that less.

Some people like the idea of an american president who wants to keep jobs in america.

There, now lets see who John Kerry opposes shall we?

1) He opposes The Child Tax Credit.
2) He opposes the Full Marriage Penalty Relief.
3) He opposes The Historic 2001 And 2003 Bush Tax Cuts.
3) He opposes The Bipartisan Energy Bill And Now Oppose Free Trade Agreements Such As NAFTA.
4) He opposes abortion...no wait he supports it....no wait...no...Ok. He opposes it. That one took him a few times to get his mind right.
5) He opposes Medicare Reform And Prescription Drugs For Seniors.
6) He opposes The No Child Left Behind Act
7) He opposes the The Partial Birth Abortion Ban.
8) He voted against Body Armor For Our Troops
9) He voted against Health Care For Our Troops As Well As Support For Their Families.
10) He voted against Increased Combat Pay And Armored Humvees.

There, now lets see who John Kerry opposes shall we?

1) He opposes The Child Tax Credit.
2) He opposes the Full Marriage Penalty Relief.
3) He opposes The Historic 2001 And 2003 Bush Tax Cuts.
3) He opposes The Bipartisan Energy Bill And Now Oppose Free Trade Agreements Such As NAFTA.
4) He opposes abortion...no wait he supports it....no wait...no...Ok. He opposes it. That one took him a few times to get his mind right.
5) He opposes Medicare Reform And Prescription Drugs For Seniors.
6) He opposes The No Child Left Behind Act
7) He opposes the The Partial Birth Abortion Ban.
8) He voted against Body Armor For Our Troops
9) He voted against Health Care For Our Troops As Well As Support For Their Families.
10) He voted against Increased Combat Pay And Armored Humvees.
we can spin things all we like


lets fix some shall we?

number 3: voted against record deficits
number 6: voted against no school left unfunded
number 7: supports right to choose, period
number 8,9,10: positive those are all the same bill, in which he voted to fund by repealing some of the record deficit causing tax breaks
number 4: lie, he said he supports abortion even though he doesnt believe in it because he realises its not his job to inerfere in peoples personal lives, isnt that what republicans are supposed to be all about? small government, personal rights, shit like that?
number 5: you mean the medicare fix maze where if you find the way to the end you get to choose between 3 doors that lets you have 20% off a drug that jsut got its price boosted 20%?

not familiar enough with the rest

A reason that I would NOT vote for a democrat is because the entire party thinks of its voters as complete idiots and failures at life.
Proof? Several liberal thinkers have stated that Bush was able to win the first time because of all of the voters who couldn't figure out how to use the voting machines/ballads. They assumed that they would have all been for Gore. So, Democrats, your party depends on stupid americans to vote for them. I would never vote for a party who requires most americans to be stupid to win elections.

So, democrats try to apeal to:
> The stupid
> Failures at life
> Tree huggers
> Pro abortionists
> Homosexuals
> Child molesters
> Fanatic feminists
> Terrorists
> Pacifists
> Communists and socialists

I certainly hope that the majority of our population isn't on this list. I hope our country hasn't fallen so far.


You sir are an idiot. I have and am a moderate so don't go on a spew about me being liberal. Its people like you that really turn me off from voting for republicans at times. I can't help but wonder about the state some of our electorate is in when they share views like you have given.

You sir are an idiot. I have and am a moderate so don't go on a spew about me being liberal. Its people like you that really turn me off from voting for republicans at times. I can't help but wonder about the state some of our electorate is in when they share views like you have given.

If you let every day republicans decide how you view a political party I'm not sure I want you voting in the first place :-\

Its strange, I read so many legitimate reasons for John Kerry over George Bush, and yet these people continue to retort with insults and mindless dribble. Kerry will tax those more who sensibly, should be taxed more, he will deal with the outsourcing issues, and he will address the problems of the nation simply because hes a crowdpleasing skank. Bush on the other hand, is a father's tool and a war profiteer who deserves prison after impeachment, not another four years.

This is one of the few times where the decision is clearcut, and the republicans need to swallow their immense prides and realize that.

Here's a question for the liberals: why do you support John Kerry? What will he do that qualifies him for the Office of President of the United States? After this post, I do not want to see anyone using the words Bush, Badnarik, Dubya, Nader, Cheney, Halliburton, Vietnam, or Voltron.


The primary reason the president has lost my vote, is over his handling of the economy. We have went from budget surpluses to deficits during his term. Moreover corporate outsourcing is running rampant to improve companies bottom lines and the people who are being cut some of whom are my friends. Two of my friends had to train their replacements in India. This absolutely has to stop and only Kerry seems to realize the gravity of the problem. Its amazing to me that a party who supposedly espouses family values, cares so little about the plight of the fathers and mothers who work, are looking for work and are trying to get by in a world. Don't get me wrong terrorism is important, but so is American families. I have heard John Kerry propose a very reasonable solution to outsourcing and all I have heard out of the president is his vice president cracking a joke about the situation.

That is why a former supporter of the current president will be voting for John Kerry.

There, now lets see who John Kerry opposes shall we?

1) He opposes The Child Tax Credit.
2) He opposes the Full Marriage Penalty Relief.
3) He opposes The Historic 2001 And 2003 Bush Tax Cuts.
3) He opposes The Bipartisan Energy Bill And Now Oppose Free Trade Agreements Such As NAFTA.
4) He opposes abortion...no wait he supports it....no wait...no...Ok. He opposes it. That one took him a few times to get his mind right.
5) He opposes Medicare Reform And Prescription Drugs For Seniors.
6) He opposes The No Child Left Behind Act
7) He opposes the The Partial Birth Abortion Ban.
8) He voted against Body Armor For Our Troops
9) He voted against Health Care For Our Troops As Well As Support For Their Families.
10) He voted against Increased Combat Pay And Armored Humvees.


I think this had been stated like a million and two times on this thread now, but I guess it might help if someone else states it maybe you'll understand it: numbers 8, 9, and 10 are bad examples. Why? Because it wasn't like this stuff was on the Body Armor for Our Troops Bill. These things were inserted on other bills to which Kerry had issues with. For example, imagine there's a bill that gives everyone free health care! Yay! That's great right? But now imagine on that bill is also a resolution that would take control over public schools from local government and give that control to the federal government. Many people would obviously try to strike down that bill. Is it fair to mention, and only mention, the fact that a senator voted against universal health care? No; very few things in life, if any, are that simple. That is especially true for politics and legislation.

So why did Kerry vote against funding our troops? Because our executive branch (specifically Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs) promised us that the war would cost us around $200 billion; all of a sudden they realize that their plan is far too optimistic. They ask for more money. Kerry, and a few other, disagree to just let the president ask for unlimited funds. Obviously, you might disagree. You could make a cogent and powerful argument that now that our troops are in Iraq we must defend them at all costs. But then again, you can argue that it's also wrong to give the executive branch free reign over anything, including a war.

Anyway, on most of your other issues, your defense is pretty weak, simply because it is a matter of opinion. I'm against Bush's tax cuts, and yes, I pay taxes. But honestly, I think its important that we have social security, health care, and at least a quasi-balanced budget. Many people are for the partial birth abortion, and many people oppose NAFTA (if you don't believe me go read newspapers printed around the time of NAFTA meetings and you'll read about the thousands of people who protests these meetings). So these issues are a matter of opinion. So stop stating those things like you're right and other people are wrong. All that leads to is perpetual arguments of opinion.

Also, as to your healthcare reform statement, are you sure you want to go there? I can bring up the fact that more senior citizens than ever try to go outside of the country to buy drugs more. I can also bring up the fact that the Republicans decided to make importation of drugs from other nations illegal as soon as they found this. Of course, you can argue that the Republicans did this because they were scared of senior citizens getting drugs they thought were Viagra, but turn out not to be. But I can then raise the fact that the odds that the drugs they're getting from Canada are fake are minimal.

If you let every day republicans decide how you view a political party I'm not sure I want you voting in the first place :-\

In my opinion you have to listen to not only the candidates but also those who support them to truely understand the platform of the parties. If gronde was an isolated incident then I could understand your reaction. Simply put I have heard his statements reiterated by far to many conservatives. Shawn Hanaday and Rush Limbaugh have callers who accuse Clinton for instance of being a murderer and have stated basically the exact same thing that gronde did . These people aren't asked to back up those statements and that to me shows just how radical those people are. I believe as I stated before you have to listen to everyone. The democrates have their fair share of wacko's, Whoopie Goldberg for instance qualifies as one in my book for some of the statements she has made in their favor. Does that mean I am voting for Ralph Nader, no, I listen to everyone not just one person before making up my mind. Its when I start hearing repetition when I start making up my mind in the base of whichever party I am voting for.

Sadly I keep hearing the same things from Republicans, because of the repetition it has led me to the conclusion that it has far to many people like this person, Gronde. I am sorry if you don't hold that view, but the simple fact is it is the ordinary people who become delegates, its ordinary people who first take public office and Gronde isn't the first republican by any means whom I have heard say the exactly the same thing that he posted earlier.

Listening to people like this is simply ugly. I don't want to vote or even be on the same side as ugly and basically ignorant people. People who simply can't seem to get over their party affiliation and then make up lies to justify their blind obediance. For that reason I would just prefer not to be aligned with those individuals. This moderate will be voting for John Kerry in November.

So what I hear you saying is we have to not only elect Kerry, but elect him some help in the congress. Good plan, thanks.

(Sorry, that response is a disservice to your larger posts, I'm just lazy right now...)

Well, it would be a good plan, but it's a little tough. There aren't that many competitive races this year. Senate is the best chance - House is never going to happen.

I'd like Inez Tennenbaum to win in South Carolina - she's great. Had breakfast and a long meeting with her. Great candidate. Barack Obama is also a good candidate. Only met him in passing at a fundraiser, but he's coming back to town again so I hope to chat with him again. Inez has a tough race, but Obama is a shoe in. Erskine Bowles is leading in North Carolina.

On the other hand, Pete Coors is looking good in Colorado, and Mel Martinez in Florida. There aren't that many other places where the races are too awfully competitive.

But like I said, Kerry has a lot of grandiose plans but I don't see any of them happening. If you're vote is based on things getting done, then Bush is more likely to get his projects through than Kerry is. And that's completely unbiased.

Well, the Senate is within easy striking distance, and the House, while tougher, is within reach. I'm not making any predictions here, but Kerry could find himself in at least as good a situation as Clinton was in, and perhaps better.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi--has a nice ring to it, don't you think?

Actually, I do think that has a nice ring to it. Nancy loves me. It would have total access if she were Speaker.

Senate is close, House is never going to happen this year, sadly.

As for your comments about Edwards and who he sued - sure, there were legitimate cases that he tried. But there were also a lot of cases that had some questionable science behind them - primarily the medical malpractice cases regarding doctors and delivering babies that developed cerebral palsy.

That's one of the reasons why Edwards won't be good for working on health care issues - the medical lobby positively hates him. They blame him and his trial lawyer buddies for their medical malpractice insurance rates skyrocketing.

Labor is also a bit nervous about Kerry (although you'll never hear us actually say it). He's never been a friend to labor - not like Gephardt was - and with Edwards on the ticket, the Trial Lawyers have supplanted us as the primary go-to people for funds and votes.

But hey - if Kerry loses, the Trial Lawyers get taken down a peg. That's just gravy.

Well, the Senate is within easy striking distance, and the House, while tougher, is within reach. I'm not making any predictions here, but Kerry could find himself in at least as good a situation as Clinton was in, and perhaps better.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi--has a nice ring to it, don't you think?

Problem is is that the House is going to REMAIN Republican! No one is saying otherwise. The Senate is another matter. It could go either way.

I think the Senate is more likely to stay Republican than not, I think. Five southern Democrats are retiring, and then there's Tom Daschle in South Dakota - in an election year. The Dems are certain to get Illinois, but all of the other "close" races are in Republican states on an on year.

Its strange, I read so many legitimate reasons for John Kerry over George Bush, and yet these people continue to retort with insults and mindless dribble. Kerry will tax those more who sensibly, should be taxed more, he will deal with the outsourcing issues, and he will address the problems of the nation simply because hes a crowdpleasing skank. Bush on the other hand, is a father's tool and a war profiteer who deserves prison after impeachment, not another four years.

This is one of the few times where the decision is clearcut, and the republicans need to swallow their immense prides and realize that.

Wait, wait. So your response to the "insults and mindless dribble" people say about Kerry is call the President names and claim he's committed impeachment worthy crimes?

There's a joke about a pot and kettle somewhere here, but I can't put my finger on it.

Kerry's taxation of the wealthy will not increase revenue - it will increase tax attorney's profits. Outsourcing is an issue that I doubt he'd heard of before the presidential election, because he's done nothing for us in labor ever. If he wins and Gephardt is Secretary of Labor, maybe something gets done, assuming anything can be done. He's a poltician - we're all crowd pleasing skanks. Bush isn't a father's tool - but if I had a Dad who could get me into as many doors as his Dad could (and did) I know I'd use him. And Bush hasn't made a dime off the war, and neither has Dick Cheney, despite whatever crap people can come up with regarding Halliburton.

The decision here isn't clear cut at all. If it were, the polls wouldn't be as close as they are. They'd be looking more like Reagan vs. Mondale or Nixon vs. McGovern. And they're not. There's a real race here, and there are two real choices, and I hope people decide based on the issues rather than on pithy slanders and biased reporting (on both sides).

I think the Senate is more likely to stay Republican than not, I think. Five southern Democrats are retiring, and then there's Tom Daschle in South Dakota - in an election year. The Dems are certain to get Illinois, but all of the other "close" races are in Republican states on an on year.

I Honestly believe this to Kwangistar but I'm not going to celebrate yet till I know for sure that it occured. Even winning a couple out of all those races would be of benefit.

I think the Senate is more likely to stay Republican than not, I think. Five southern Democrats are retiring, and then there's Tom Daschle in South Dakota - in an election year. The Dems are certain to get Illinois, but all of the other "close" races are in Republican states on an on year.

The only issue with the 5 southern democrats is that you've got a real race going on in South Carolina with a candidate (Tenenbaum) who has run statewide and who has won more votes in any statewide election in the history of the state. That's going to be tough. North Carolina, you've got Bowles, who ran against Elizabeth Dole and almost won, and he's got a ton of name recognition. Georgia's a republican lock. Florida will be tough - Betty Castor has got the dough now that she's knocked out the other 2 contenders, but Martinez has Bush support in a state he'll be in constantly. And Lousiana...well, you never can tell about Louisiana. I've given up handicapping races there because I'm always wrong. But Vitter is the only Republican and he's got two credible Democratic opponents in John and Kennedy. If they split the Dems, he could win in November by more than 50%, meaning no December runoff. But that's probably not likely.

South Dakota is going to be a tough race. Thune ran before, he's popular, and Daschle is hurting a bit. But he's got the whole Democratic establishment behind him...that means lots of money and lots of volunteers.

In the end, the Senate's still going to be close, but I think it'll end up with a Republican 1 seat pickup.

Well, even in a close race in direct Senate vs Senate polls, a Presidential race pushes up turnout across the board - but if the board is slanted 60/40 in favor of one party, one candidate will obviously benifit more from people who would have otherwise stayed at home (if the election was on an off-year).

Well, it would be a good plan, but it's a little tough. There aren't that many competitive races this year. Senate is the best chance - House is never going to happen.

I'd like Inez Tennenbaum to win in South Carolina - she's great. Had breakfast and a long meeting with her. Great candidate. Barack Obama is also a good candidate. Only met him in passing at a fundraiser, but he's coming back to town again so I hope to chat with him again. Inez has a tough race, but Obama is a shoe in. Erskine Bowles is leading in North Carolina.

On the other hand, Pete Coors is looking good in Colorado, and Mel Martinez in Florida. There aren't that many other places where the races are too awfully competitive.

But like I said, Kerry has a lot of grandiose plans but I don't see any of them happening. If you're vote is based on things getting done, then Bush is more likely to get his projects through than Kerry is. And that's completely unbiased.
If the things getting done are the wrong things, that's no good either. I'm not basing my vote on how many in the other branches agree with him. That defeats the whole idea of checks and balances.

When did Iraq attack the US? :eek:

If you would've paid attention to the news before the Iraq invasion, you would've known that the Iraqi army was constantly shooting at British and American war planes ordered by the UN and NATO (and was part of Saddam's 1991 treaty with the UN) to patrol the south of Iraq. That in itself is an act of war.

If you would've paid attention to the news before the Iraq invasion, you would've known that the Iraqi army was constantly shooting at British and American war planes ordered by the UN and NATO (and was part of Saddam's 1991 treaty with the UN) to patrol the south of Iraq. That in itself is an act of war.
I have a hard time keeping track, is that the reason today?

I have a hard time keeping track, is that the reason today?

Actually Cannot think of a name, US and British Planes have been getting shot at since 1991. Under International Law, this is technically an act of war. However, our planes had the capacity to shoot back and they did destroying radar and SAM sites on the ground. Not to mention Communications too.

I will take this as a no!

http://www.ntu.org/main/press_release.php?PressID=629&org_name=NTUF
http://www.ntu.org/main/press_papers.php?PressID=628&org_name=NTUF
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=51
Those links are just biased towards the Republicans, even though it is the Republicans that have totally overspent what they DIDN'T have in the first place.

Hell, there is even a picture of George W. on their Republican page, even though they declare that they are non partisan. Give me a break.

Why weren't these guys hammering away at the Republicans over the past 4 years, while the US Debt was increasing by $1.5 TRILLION dollars? All of this deferred debt is a tax on future generations (yeah thats you Cornlieu)and the sooner the people wake up and smell the coffee, then the sooner you can get your house in order.

Blaming the poor economy on a 4 year recession is nonsense. Hundreds of Billions of dollars have been allocated as tax cuts that really for the most part did NOT spur the economy upwards. The major reason for that, is that the bulk of the tax cuts ended up in the pockets of the wealthiest people who are most likely NOT to spend it, at least not in America.

If you would've paid attention to the news before the Iraq invasion, you would've known that the Iraqi army was constantly shooting at British and American war planes ordered by the UN and NATO (and was part of Saddam's 1991 treaty with the UN) to patrol the south of Iraq. That in itself is an act of war.
Ummm I did pay attention and fully understand what was going on. Actually, I think the US and the UK perferred this, because it gave their forces the ability to wipe out Iraqi ground forces and anti-aircraft.

To use this as an argument to launch a full scale attack against Iraq is utter bullshit. Nice try though.

Those links are just biased towards the Republicans, even though it is the Republicans that have totally overspent what they DIDN'T have in the first place.

HAHAHAHA!!! ITS NON-PARTISAN CH! If you bothered to read it!

non-partisan National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF).

If you bothered to read it CH, you would've seen this!

Hell, there is even a picture of George W. on their Republican page, even though they declare that they are non partisan. Give me a break.

Would you like an arm or a leg?


http://www.ntu.org/main/ <---This is their homepage. Not a single picture of Bush on it. Ironically it also has Bush's on here too. They are non partisan! You just don't like the fact that they looked into what Kerry Plans to do.

Why weren't these guys hammering away at the Republicans over the past 4 years, while the US Debt was increasing by $1.5 TRILLION dollars? All of this deferred debt is a tax on future generations (yeah thats you Cornlieu)and the sooner the people wake up and smell the coffee, then the sooner you can get your house in order.

Well I'm sure if I dig long and deep I would probably find something on it. Problem is, its the Congress that passes the spending bills, not the President. As for my house, I'm planning on buying a home as soon as I get a job. My house is actually in order.

Blaming the poor economy on a 4 year recession is nonsense. Hundreds of Billions of dollars have been allocated as tax cuts that really for the most part did NOT spur the economy upwards. The major reason for that, is that the bulk of the tax cuts ended up in the pockets of the wealthiest people who are most likely NOT to spend it, at least not in America.

Have I blamed the economy on 4 years of recession? Since when did this recession last 4 yours? It lasted shorter than that in all actuality. You need to wake up and smell the roses CH! Our Recession ended a couple of years ago. Our economy is growing. Our GDP is increasing at a rate not seen in 20 YEARS! Ironically that was when Reagan was in office. The Tax Cuts kept our economy afloat because it gave people the opportunity to spend it where they want to and to help put kids through college. The Tax Cuts that you "claim" are for the rich was ACROSS THE BOARD!!! I guess you just don't like it that the Rich are getting their share back. The middle class got a tax Cut. I should know. My family got more money back and they are saving it up. So I know my family got a tax cut. So what are you saying that the tax cuts was for the rich only?

http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=487

Just to let you know. This is about Bush and his state of the Union Address of 2002 stating that his proposals could cost the US Taxpayers over 100 Billion dollars mores.

HAHAHAHA!!! ITS NON-PARTISAN CH! If you bothered to read it!

If you bothered to read it CH, you would've seen this!

Would you like an arm or a leg?
You obviously did NOT read my reply? I stated that it was SUPPOSED to be a Non Partisan site, but obviously it is not.

http://www.ntu.org/main/ <---This is their homepage. Not a single picture of Bush on it. Ironically it also has Bush's on here too. They are non partisan! You just don't like the fact that they looked into what Kerry Plans to do.

Well then try this page? (http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=43)

Well I'm sure if I dig long and deep I would probably find something on it. Problem is, its the Congress that passes the spending bills, not the President. As for my house, I'm planning on buying a home as soon as I get a job. My house is actually in order.Good for you.

Have I blamed the economy on 4 years of recession? Since when did this recession last 4 yours? It lasted shorter than that in all actuality. You need to wake up and smell the roses CH! Our Recession ended a couple of years ago. Our economy is growing. Our GDP is increasing at a rate not seen in 20 YEARS! Ironically that was when Reagan was in office. The Tax Cuts kept our economy afloat because it gave people the opportunity to spend it where they want to and to help put kids through college. The Tax Cuts that you "claim" are for the rich was ACROSS THE BOARD!!! I guess you just don't like it that the Rich are getting their share back. The middle class got a tax Cut. I should know. My family got more money back and they are saving it up. So I know my family got a tax cut. So what are you saying that the tax cuts was for the rich only?
The US economy has a NET job loss of 900,000 jobs, and that is after an infusion of hundreds of Billions of tax cut dollars.

I never said that the tax cuts were only for the wealthy. Learn to read? BTW, your family would still get a tax cut under Kerry, unless your dad makes over $200,000 per year, which I doubt.

BTW, does this represent a healthy economy to you?

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/household+payroll-1994-2004.gif

Whatever you may think about the candidates, make your decision on this:

Kerry won't send us into two unwinnable counter-insurgencies during a recession.

You obviously did NOT read my reply? I stated that it was SUPPOSED to be a Non Partisan site, but obviously it is not.

Obviously you just don't care so why bother!

Well then try this page? (http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=43)
Good for you.

You just killed your arguement. Tax & Fiscal Information for President George W. Bush

Its ABOUT BUSH! Of course their going to have a picture of him.

BTW, About about this page? http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=30
It has a picture of none other than JOHN F KERRY!

The US economy has a NET job loss of 900,000 jobs, and that is after an infusion of hundreds of Billions of tax cut dollars.

And I guess you haven't been following the Household Survey. Also, I guess you haven't noticed that we are still creating jobs. BTW the Household Survey deals with Small Business as well as Entrepenours. You know, Self employed. They are creating jobs left and right.

I never said that the tax cuts were only for the wealthy. Learn to read? BTW, your family would still get a tax cut under Kerry, unless your dad makes over $200,000 per year, which I doubt.

Bull! I doubt it very highly that we'll get a tax cut under Kerry. Especially when he realizes that his tax hike for the Rich isn't going to hack the program. I'm expecting him to try and raise our taxes. No thanks. I like the money we make.

BTW, does this represent a healthy economy to you?

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/household+payroll-1994-2004.gif

I know how healthy our economy is. If it wasn't healthy, we wouldn't be creating jobs. We would be losing them. Ironically, Jobs have increased just not in the corporate world but in the small business world. People are going into business for themselves.

http://www.governmentguide.com/govsite.adp?bread=*Main&url=http%3A//www.governmentguide.com/ams/clickThruRedirect.adp%3F55076483%2C16920155%2Chttp%3A//www.dol.gov

http://www.governmentguide.com/govsite.adp?bread=*Main&url=http%3A//www.governmentguide.com/ams/clickThruRedirect.adp%3F55076483%2C16920155%2Chttp%3A//www.dol.gov

It's pretty hard to pump billions of borrowed dollars into an economy and NOT to see some job growth; the real question is 'when did the Republicans become Keynesians?'

I could say something like, "If it hadn't been for those mis-executed tax cuts, the economy would have picked up around Jan 03." But I'm not going to because two-wars-in-a-recession wtf.

The only issue with the 5 southern democrats is that you've got a real race going on in South Carolina with a candidate (Tenenbaum) who has run statewide and who has won more votes in any statewide election in the history of the state. That's going to be tough. North Carolina, you've got Bowles, who ran against Elizabeth Dole and almost won, and he's got a ton of name recognition. Georgia's a republican lock. Florida will be tough - Betty Castor has got the dough now that she's knocked out the other 2 contenders, but Martinez has Bush support in a state he'll be in constantly. And Lousiana...well, you never can tell about Louisiana. I've given up handicapping races there because I'm always wrong. But Vitter is the only Republican and he's got two credible Democratic opponents in John and Kennedy. If they split the Dems, he could win in November by more than 50%, meaning no December runoff. But that's probably not likely.

South Dakota is going to be a tough race. Thune ran before, he's popular, and Daschle is hurting a bit. But he's got the whole Democratic establishment behind him...that means lots of money and lots of volunteers.

In the end, the Senate's still going to be close, but I think it'll end up with a Republican 1 seat pickup.You're also forgetting a couple of races that will be close in traditionally Republican states--Tony Knowles in Alaska and Brad Carson in Oklahoma are moderate Democrats with real chances.

Knowles is the former governor, so he's not only won statewide, he's got good name recognition and a good reputation, and he's facing a foe in Lisa Murkowski who's got some negatives because of accusations of nepotism.

Carson is a moderate Democratic Representative from the Tulsa side of the state, who's facing off against an uber-conservative in Tom Coburn, who has likened the race to a fight between good and evil--his words, I swear.

And Daschle has a great hole card--he can argue that if he wins and the Democrats are able to take the Senate back, he'll be majority leader again, and therefore able to bring home the pork, whereas Thune would be a junior Senator with no pull. It's a shitty argument, but in a tight race, it just might work.

Louisiana will be a December runoff again, no doubt about it, and depending on the results of the earlier races, will garner a ton of attention, just like it did when Mary Landrieu won reelection in 2002.

Obviously you just don't care so why bother!
You don't understand. I do care, and that is why I am concerned. Our economy is very closely related with yours, so I want BOTH of our countries to do well. Perhaps you just can't recognize partisan and in this case harmful advice?
You just killed your arguement.
Okay there maybe a picture of Kerry that I overlooked, but I stand by my argument that the web site is biased towards the Republicans.

Why, you might ask? Well when the site makes the following comment, it is obvious WHO they favour:

The national debt has raced past $5 trillion, and federal entitlement programs will push our nation toward bankruptcy without reform. Under Bill Clinton's watch, the federal tax bite has climbed to its highest point since World War II - despite years of peace and prosperity.

Ummm they forgot to mention that the national debt has raced past $7 trillion under George Bush's "watch". Why is that they don't mention that "fact"? Also considering that they STILL want to blame Clinton, check this out:

National Debt Heads for 50-Year Record:

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/federal-debt-GDP.gif


And I guess you haven't been following the Household Survey. Also, I guess you haven't noticed that we are still creating jobs. BTW the Household Survey deals with Small Business as well as Entrepenours. You know, Self employed. They are creating jobs left and right.
Of course jobs are still being created. Without any impetus at all, the economy would grow by approximately 150,000 per month, and it hasn't even been doing that. That is why there is a net job loss of 900,000.

Bull! I doubt it very highly that we'll get a tax cut under Kerry. Especially when he realizes that his tax hike for the Rich isn't going to hack the program. I'm expecting him to try and raise our taxes. No thanks. I like the money we make.
That is just speculation on your part. He has stated that he wants to rescind the tax cut for the wealthiest 2%, and that is not you.
I know how healthy our economy is. If it wasn't healthy, we wouldn't be creating jobs. We would be losing them. Ironically, Jobs have increased just not in the corporate world but in the small business world. People are going into business for themselves.
You really are losing jobs. People are walking away from the job market because they can't find a job.

BTW, where are those 5 Million new jobs that Bush promised with the tax cuts? NOT 1 new job that he promised. Not 1!!!

http://zfacts.com/p/563.html

Your economy is not healthy. It is groaning along, which is more worrisome considering the lowest inflation rate in over 50 years, and an infusion of hundreds of billions of tax cut dollars into the system.

I could say something like, "If it hadn't been for those mis-executed tax cuts, the economy would have picked up around Jan 03." But I'm not going to because two-wars-in-a-recession wtf.
I think you are correct. If the tax cuts had not been so steep, or weighted in favour of the wealthiest, the economy would be performing better than it is.

BTW, although there are two wars being fought, that still pumps billions into the domestic economy, because it keeps the equipment and munitions providers very busy.

Why Kerry?

I would imagine it is because most people view Kerry as better than the alternative.

Some like the idea of a commander-in-chief who has actaully served time in the military. People are funny like that.

Some like the idea of a politician who isn't basically in office because of name-recognition.

Some like the idea of a politician who didn't get into office because of voter-irregularity... coincidentally in another state where the candidate has family in office..

Some people like the idea of a president who isn't a war-monger.

Some people like the idea who would tax the wealthy more than the poor, rather that less.

Some people like the idea of an american president who wants to keep jobs in america.

Wow, there's a word for people like you. Can't seem to recall... oh wait... it starts with a P and ends with a Y. There are two S's before the end and um... U can guess the last letter.

Wow, there's a word for people like you. Can't seem to recall... oh wait... it starts with a P and ends with a Y. There are two S's before the end and um... U can guess the last letter.There's a word for people like you too--asshole.

Foul mouthed liberals. Really.

Ah well. Bed time. Chummin' for liberals isn't even a challenge anymore.

Everyone flaming needs to knock if off. Now.

Unfree People
Forum Moderator

Foul mouthed liberals. Really.
You call someone a pussy, and have the balls to call me foul-mouthed. Do you really feel superior? :rolleyes:

When did I make an accusation? It's just like a democrat to disessemble my statement and change it to what you want it to meen.

Anywho, if I were a child molester or a terrorist, I would vote for kerry.
Terrorist: Kerry would not provide the same security. I would be able to run a cell much more easily with Kerry in office.

Child molester: I probobly should have just said "criminal who hasn't been convicted yet" because democrats are much more for criminal rights than republicans. Criminals do not deserve rights, they deserve to be shot. (Don't even get me started on liberals and gun laws)

If I were a child molester or a terrorist, I would vote for Kerry. That that's just plain silly.
I I were an arms dealer, I would vote for (and donate lots of money to ) Bush. If I were chief of an oil company set on destroying national parks in Alaska, I would vote for (and donate lots of money to ). If I'm the kind of person that likes to keep people in a prison for two years on an island, without knowing what they're held for, without any contact with relatives, without any rights actually, I would vote Bush. If I like the USA invading countries for made up reasons, just so I could do more business (remember all the contracts? for repairing bridges BEFORE they were actually destroyed?), yes again I would vote Bush. And I would donate huge sums of money.
Facts is, I can't actually say what I would do if I were someone else because I'm not.
Facts is, selling guns to shoot people YOU have never heard of, in countries mister Bush probably can't pronounce - let alone selling arms to your neighbours while clearly all statistics prove that in most cases people get shot by their own relatives-, is a crime against all logic and human decency.
And since you stated so nicely, criminals deserve to be shot, they have no rights .... right?

You don't understand. I do care, and that is why I am concerned. Our economy is very closely related with yours, so I want BOTH of our countries to do well. Perhaps you just can't recognize partisan and in this case harmful advice?

I actually do understand. Yes our economy is closely linked. However, we also have a far more complicated economy than Canada. All of our industries is tied together. Charley and Frances is going to play havoc with Orange Prices and they have lost money do to these two storms. I guess your going to try to blame this on Bush who BTW is giving 2 Billion Dollars in aide. I guess that's 2 billion dollars more added to our deficit. Why not blam Bush for that? He's adding to the Deficit.

Okay there maybe a picture of Kerry that I overlooked, but I stand by my argument that the web site is biased towards the Republicans.

Though the website is non-partisen, something I guess you just don't understand, they support anyone who is with the taxpayers. Did you know that Bush's taxcuts is smaller than Reagans and JFKs? Yep there's an article in there about that too. However, it is non-partisen and them I can believe.

Why, you might ask? Well when the site makes the following comment, it is obvious WHO they favour:

The national debt has raced past $5 trillion, and federal entitlement programs will push our nation toward bankruptcy without reform. Under Bill Clinton's watch, the federal tax bite has climbed to its highest point since World War II - despite years of peace and prosperity.

And yet Clinton did crap for the US Taxpayers. I guess you don't realize that the NTUF stands for the National TAXPAYERS Union Federation. Hell, I might even join them and I don't even like unions.

Ummm they forgot to mention that the national debt has raced past $7 trillion under George Bush's "watch". Why is that they don't mention that "fact"? Also considering that they STILL want to blame Clinton, check this out:

National Debt Heads for 50-Year Record:

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/federal-debt-GDP.gif

I want you to look at the graph again. Here's something to keep in mind. Reagan revamped the military. Gave the US Taxpayers one of the largest tax cuts in the history of the US. Spent money on the Department of Defense and National Security. I'm not sure what else he spent money on. Of course he'll have high deficit spending. Ok now I come to GWB! We had a terror attack, corporate scandals. Airline Bailout Packages and Emergency Money to the Victims of the attack. Before this and after, we had Tax Cuts which we wanted. Now, You couple Afghanistan and Iraq. Now we have had 3 tropical Systems slam into Florida. Bonnie, Charley, Frances. Federal Emergency Aide is on the way. I may not like how high we have our national debt CH, frankly I don't, but I know why we have this national debt. A terror attack, corporate scandals, and the War on Terror all contributed to the National Debt, not just the Tax Cuts.

Of course jobs are still being created. Without any impetus at all, the economy would grow by approximately 150,000 per month, and it hasn't even been doing that. That is why there is a net job loss of 900,000.

However, you are overlooking how we lost jobs in the first place. Something liberals always seem to forget or if they don't forget, never understand. We had a massive terror assault that knocked down Two buildings with two more collapsing later by 4 airplanes. With this, the airline industry took a hit. Pilots were furlowed and flight attendents laid off. Because of the lack of air travel, tourist destinations where hit. Hotels and restaurants and others had to lay people off because there was no need to have them. Same goes for hotels, theme parks, and other tourist traps. Now ontop of that, we had the Corporate Scandals. Everyone got hurt on this one. The employess, the stock holders and the general public. After that, no one trusted the stock market. More people lost jobs. Now the job numbers are coming back. Slowly, I will admit, but they are coming back.

That is just speculation on your part. He has stated that he wants to rescind the tax cut for the wealthiest 2%, and that is not you.

It actually isn't speculation CH! Its actually the laws of economics. The money he wants to spend, the take hike for the rich won't be able to cut it. So he either will raises taxes on the middle class or he will cut programs elsewhere. That is what he will have to do. I am willing to place bets that he will tax us middle class because there is no way he'll cut programs.

You really are losing jobs. People are walking away from the job market because they can't find a job.

Probably because they are 1)to lazy and just don't care 2)they are unqualified or 3)they are not looking in the right places. I was searching the want ads and I found a TON of jobs. Yes, most are part time. No denying that but I would rather have a part time job while looking for full time work so I can put food on the table to feed my family, have a roof over my head to protect my family, and clothes to feed my family. This "I can't get a job" thing has gotten old. Yea some just walk away because finding a job is difficult. It always has been and always will be. Its doggie dog out there CH. Just because you can't find a job doesn't mean they're not there. The Jobs are there and they will grow.

BTW, where are those 5 Million new jobs that Bush promised with the tax cuts? NOT 1 new job that he promised. Not 1!!!

Actually several jobs have been created by his tax cuts. You can attribute alot of the recent job creation numbers to the job market. Not to mention with the tax cuts. People are starting to own their own businesses. This is good for the US Economy.

http://zfacts.com/p/563.html

And you trust this website over the Department of Labor? Frankly, I'll take the Deparment of Labor over this website since I can't find out who runs it.

Your economy is not healthy. It is groaning along, which is more worrisome considering the lowest inflation rate in over 50 years, and an infusion of hundreds of billions of tax cut dollars into the system.

Our economy is healthy. I've seen our economy grow. Our economy is still growing. The jobs are there. Small Business is booming. Home Ownership is UP! Jobs across the sectors are UP! Yes our economy is Healthy. Granted there is still some high employment in some states but even those numbers are starting to go down. Get off of it CH! You have no idea what the US Economy is doing. I barely know what its doing and I follow it every day.

Those links are just biased towards the Republicans, even though it is the Republicans that have totally overspent what they DIDN'T have in the first place.

Hell, there is even a picture of George W. on their Republican page, even though they declare that they are non partisan. Give me a break.

Why weren't these guys hammering away at the Republicans over the past 4 years, while the US Debt was increasing by $1.5 TRILLION dollars? All of this deferred debt is a tax on future generations (yeah thats you Cornlieu)and the sooner the people wake up and smell the coffee, then the sooner you can get your house in order.

Blaming the poor economy on a 4 year recession is nonsense. Hundreds of Billions of dollars have been allocated as tax cuts that really for the most part did NOT spur the economy upwards. The major reason for that, is that the bulk of the tax cuts ended up in the pockets of the wealthiest people who are most likely NOT to spend it, at least not in America.

First of all, the national debt has been increasing by significant amounts under every President, not just Bush. As a percentage of GDP, the debt has not gone up any more under Bush than under any other president, in fact the debt is reducing.

The debate over the national debt is touchy because it depends on a lot of things - how you measure it, for instance. Much of the debt is not payable on demand, nor is much of the deficit. A large amount of the debt is tied up in the now defunct 30 year treasury bond, which - as you can see - isn't due to be paid for 30 years.

Every nation has a national debt. They've had them since nations began. There's nothing wrong with it. The numbers change all the time, as the economy changes. So using this argument against the President isn't really fair - there's not been a single president in recent memory who hasn't added to the national debt in some way.

The tax cuts did spur consumer spending, and I personally did enjoy the $300 check I received in the mail, as did the other members of my family. I cannot understand why people do not believe that a tax cut for EVERYONE is fair - why should we penalize the people at the highest tax levels? They earned their money, for the most part, the same way I did. They deserve tax relief too. If the tax cuts didn't spur the economy on, I don't know what did, because it is demonstrably better today than it was last year at this time. And as I have said before, and none of you have seemed to realize, most of the people filing in the highest tax bracket aren't the megarich like Kerry and Bill Gates - they're small business owners, who are taking those tax cuts and hiring new people. That's good the economy.

You're also forgetting a couple of races that will be close in traditionally Republican states--Tony Knowles in Alaska and Brad Carson in Oklahoma are moderate Democrats with real chances.

Knowles is the former governor, so he's not only won statewide, he's got good name recognition and a good reputation, and he's facing a foe in Lisa Murkowski who's got some negatives because of accusations of nepotism.

Carson is a moderate Democratic Representative from the Tulsa side of the state, who's facing off against an uber-conservative in Tom Coburn, who has likened the race to a fight between good and evil--his words, I swear.

And Daschle has a great hole card--he can argue that if he wins and the Democrats are able to take the Senate back, he'll be majority leader again, and therefore able to bring home the pork, whereas Thune would be a junior Senator with no pull. It's a shitty argument, but in a tight race, it just might work.

Louisiana will be a December runoff again, no doubt about it, and depending on the results of the earlier races, will garner a ton of attention, just like it did when Mary Landrieu won reelection in 2002.

The Oklahoma race isn't that tight right now, and Oklahoma leans Republican - but it is worth mentioning. The latest polling I've got here has Coburn up by 7 points, which is a tough lead to catch up with. But Carsons got about 4 times as much cash on hand, so this could change if Coburn doesn't get his fundraising act together.

The Alaska race I specifically didn't mention because I'm trying not to jinx it. :) The problem that Lisa has is that she's got her father's last name. Frank Murkowski has got horrendous approval ratings right now, and my perspective he's gone completely off the deep end. This race frustrates me because she should be leading - Knowles isn't hugely popular, and Alaska is a heavily Republican state. The nepotism thing is an issue, but the bigger issue is that she keeps making damn stupid mistakes in the campaign - attacking her primary opponent when he was a no-name was absolutely retarded. But she's still leading in the polls and I hope that the Bush coattails extend to her, because she's a friend to labor and she's been good for us up there.

I cannot understand why people do not believe that a tax cut for EVERYONE is fair - why should we penalize the people at the highest tax levels? They earned their money, for the most part, the same way I did. They deserve tax relief too.
From: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=557746
$10.9m Average wealth of the members of Bush's original 16-person cabinet.
75% of Americans unaffected by Bush's sweeping 2003 cuts in capital gains and dividends taxes.
87% of American families in April 2004 who say they have felt no benefit from Bush's tax cuts.
39% of tax cuts that will go to the top 1 per cent of American families when fully phased in.
49% of Americans in April 2004 who found that their taxes had actually gone up since Bush took office.
88% of American families who will save less than $100 on their 2006 federal taxes as a result of 2003 cut in capital gains and dividends taxes.
$30,858 Amount Bush himself saved in taxes in 2003.
$42,000 Average savings members of Bush's cabinet received in 2003 as a result of cuts in capital gains and dividends taxes.
40% of wealth in the United States held by the richest 1 per cent of the population.
18% of wealth in Britain held by the richest 1e per cent of the population.
4.7m Number of bankruptcies that were declared during Bush's first three years in office.
2002 The worst year for major markets since the recession of the 1970s.
$489bn The US trade deficit in 2003, the worst in history for a single year.
$5.6tr Projected national surplus forecast by the end of the decade when Bush took office in 2001.
$7.22tr US national debt by mid-2004.

First of all, the national debt has been increasing by significant amounts under every President, not just Bush. As a percentage of GDP, the debt has not gone up any more under Bush than under any other president, in fact the debt is reducing.

The debate over the national debt is touchy because it depends on a lot of things - how you measure it, for instance. Much of the debt is not payable on demand, nor is much of the deficit. A large amount of the debt is tied up in the now defunct 30 year treasury bond, which - as you can see - isn't due to be paid for 30 years.

Every nation has a national debt. They've had them since nations began. There's nothing wrong with it. The numbers change all the time, as the economy changes. So using this argument against the President isn't really fair - there's not been a single president in recent memory who hasn't added to the national debt in some way.

The tax cuts did spur consumer spending, and I personally did enjoy the $300 check I received in the mail, as did the other members of my family. I cannot understand why people do not believe that a tax cut for EVERYONE is fair - why should we penalize the people at the highest tax levels? They earned their money, for the most part, the same way I did. They deserve tax relief too. If the tax cuts didn't spur the economy on, I don't know what did, because it is demonstrably better today than it was last year at this time. And as I have said before, and none of you have seemed to realize, most of the people filing in the highest tax bracket aren't the megarich like Kerry and Bill Gates - they're small business owners, who are taking those tax cuts and hiring new people. That's good the economy.

So very true Brians Room! Its nice to see someone is very informative here. Keep up the good work my friend.

It doesn`t matter if Kerry or B*** will be presidents after election . America wants fuel , because of that there will be a lot of wars startened in future.
Also the Bosses wants to get richer.
In this fact the presidents name or party doesn`t matter.

From: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=557746
$10.9m Average wealth of the members of Bush's original 16-person cabinet.
75% of Americans unaffected by Bush's sweeping 2003 cuts in capital gains and dividends taxes.
87% of American families in April 2004 who say they have felt no benefit from Bush's tax cuts.
39% of tax cuts that will go to the top 1 per cent of American families when fully phased in.
49% of Americans in April 2004 who found that their taxes had actually gone up since Bush took office.
88% of American families who will save less than $100 on their 2006 federal taxes as a result of 2003 cut in capital gains and dividends taxes.
$30,858 Amount Bush himself saved in taxes in 2003.
$42,000 Average savings members of Bush's cabinet received in 2003 as a result of cuts in capital gains and dividends taxes.
40% of wealth in the United States held by the richest 1 per cent of the population.
18% of wealth in Britain held by the richest 1e per cent of the population.
4.7m Number of bankruptcies that were declared during Bush's first three years in office.
2002 The worst year for major markets since the recession of the 1970s.
$489bn The US trade deficit in 2003, the worst in history for a single year.
$5.6tr Projected national surplus forecast by the end of the decade when Bush took office in 2001.
$7.22tr US national debt by mid-2004.

Wait a minute, wait a minute.

Okay. I wasn't going to bring this argument up, but I have to now. Why are you quoting a list of statistics based on some kind of polling that's quoted in a British newspaper about America?

1.) 10.9 mill... - So what? Kerry will be the richest President in the history of the Union is elected. All of those folks have gotten to the tops of their professions. They're going to be well compensated.

2.) 75%... - This is crap - because I guarantee that the poll doesn't take into account the fact that the vast majority of the dividend tax cut benefitted pension plans and mutual funds, who hold most of the stock in America. That directly benefits a lot of the retired, and families who've invested in the stock market. The capital gains tax reduction benefits everyone with money in the stock market - but only when they've sold their stock.

3.) 87%... - The latest Zogby polling indicates that a third of Americans think the tax cuts have helped the economy, a third think they've hurt the economy, and third don't have an opinion. So I don't know where this number came from.

4.) 39%...- That's if you're looking at the raw dollar totals. Again - I don't get why people can't seem to understand this. A 2% reduction in the tax bracket for someone making $1 million a year is going to equal more dollars saved than a %20 reduction in the tax bracket for someone making $40,000. The more you pay, the more you are affected by a slight change. No one has given me good reason why the rich should be forced to pay a higher percentage of their income than they do now (which is almost HALF of what they make).

5.) 49%...- If this is true, which I doubt, it's because of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was designed to keep THE RICH from getting out of paying taxes. But since the tax cuts, more and more families have gotten caught into this - which is why it needs to be reformed, and it's on Congress' list of things to do.

6.) 88%...- This is probably true, but what's the point? As I've said before, the capital gains and dividend cuts mainly benefitted people indirectly.

7.) Next 3 lumped together - So what? The implication here is that the tax cuts were designed to benefit Bush and his cabinet. Hardly. If Bush was in this for the money, he'd have stayed in private industry where he can make 10 times the paltry $400,000 he makes as president. The cabinet members get paid even less, and most of them left multi-million dollar a year jobs to enter into public service.

8.) Wealth in the US/Britain - Again, so what? The UKs GDP is $1.66 trillion. The US GDP is $10.98 trillion. The UK's population is 60 million. The US population is 293 million. We're going to have more rich people than they do.

9.) 2002 - Yes, it was a bad year. A recession, war talk and domestic terrorism will play havoc with the markets.

10.) The Surplus - This was all projected. On paper. The number is meaningless. It never existed, and to talk like it did is like talking about being a millionaire in 40 years if you save all your money starting now - not going to happen.

11.) The trade deficit - Yes, this is bad. But if people don't quit buying stuff at wal-mart that's made in China, it's not going to go down. That's not Bush's fault - that's the market.

12.) The national debt - See my above post.

Bottom line is that you can take numbers and spin them any way you want.

Not that you care, or that you even really wanted to do anything more than mentally masturbate at stance of your own highly politicized post.

I am voting for Kerry for a number of reasons, in no particular order.

1) I voted for Bush in the last election. I was not a big fan of Clinton, and didn't like Gore's views on gun-control, UN control of american troops, using our troops for 'nation building', or his wife's near nazi-like book burning practices. I thought Bush was the lessor of two evils. I thought that, until he turned against everything he said he stood for. Now, instead of gun-control, I have to deal with the Patriot Act, which in many ways is worse, and a near constant 'morality' witch-hunt. The complete and utter disregard for the UN entirely. Our troops being used for nationbuilding in two wars, one of which was based on faulty intelligence and/or lies, and the perpetual disregard for diplomacy. Instead of the book-burning, I get constantly reminded that I am a 'communist' or a terrorist simply for disagreeing with their practices.

2) Because I consider myself a fiscal conservative, and Kerry has, so far, the more economically sound plan for the budget. I believe we need major reductions in pork-barrell spending, a balanced budget, spending reductions in general, and fairer taxation accross the economic spectrum. Bush supports none of these things (actions speak louder than words), and is proposing making them worse.

3) Because Kerry doesn't support ammending the constitution for what boils down to an individual issue (or at most a state one).

4) Because Kerry isn't a gun-control nut. (Not that Bush is, but this is often a vote killer for me)

5) Because Kerry is pro-choice.

6) Because Kerry is the more experienced diplomat of the two, at a time where diplomacy in international waters is greatly needed.

7) Because I believe in freedom of view and not McCarthyism. The world is a much richer place than 'with us or against us' type talking espouses.

8) And because my first choice (McCain) isn't running, and my second choice (Edwards) is the VP nominee.

Oh who cares! Monarchy forever!

HRH Frederik Glucksborg

Our economy is healthy.
That is not what the experts are saying, or at the very least, the numbers don't support your comment. Try looking at those graphs and perhaps you will see something. Perhaps then you can respond in a reasoned manner and not continually regurgitate the party line.
I've seen our economy grow. Our economy is still growing. The jobs are there. Small Business is booming. Home Ownership is UP! Jobs across the sectors are UP! Yes our economy is Healthy.
You can say that over and over ad nauseum but it still does not make it true. The US economy should be growing at 150,000 per month without any external impetus and it is not even doing that, despite hundreds of billions of "tax cut" dollars that were supposed to fuel an ADDITIONAL 5 Million jobs.
Get off of it CH! You have no idea what the US Economy is doing. I barely know what its doing and I follow it every day.
Now here is where I disagree with you. It appears that I have a far better grasp of what is happening to the US economy than you do? You have been offered tons of information that support what I have been saying and you can only offer excuses for the mishandling of the economy by Bush and the Republicans.

While the attacks of 9/11 seriously impacted the US economy, the ill conceived Bush tax cut program and the unnecessary war in Iraq have combined to create a climate of uncertainty about the future of the US economy. The present day greed of tax cuts, is like throwing an anchor to a drowning man. The promise of jobs created through tax cuts has not materialized and all the government has done is deplete the coffers of much needed revenue.

Here is an article that was written in September of last year but it is still a worthwhile read. Perhaps if you read the whole thing, you just might learn something?

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/1000

It starts off:

"In a scenario changed by the 9/11 events, and after the excessive reaction of the Bush Administration to the so-called terrorism resulting in Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the strain on the American economy has been so tremendous that all these supply-side theories have fallen apart on the ground realities of highly strained economy that ensued after these unforeseen events and the wars."

I go by my tag at the bottom: Bush is an economic "terrorist".

It doesn`t matter if Kerry or B*** will be presidents after election . America wants fuel , because of that there will be a lot of wars startened in future.
Also the Bosses wants to get richer.
In this fact the presidents name or party doesn`t matter.

I have been sidelining this one because the folk responding have been doing such a fine job. I suspect they won't even mess with this one. So I have to ask, do you really think that way or are you stirring for a reaction.

If you believe that, then it is important because elections become an issue of choosing a President and elected officials who have integrity in these issues. They also have to understand economics and the impact of their allegiances on the economy.

For example: Take the Democrats and the the noose the Unions have on them. My company is growing, adding jobs and improving wages and benefits in a rust belt region. The union companies are gone. Those that decertified have rebuilt their companies and survived. The Democrats can't face that reality. How can you trust them to do what's right? Presidents don't lose jobs, companies that can't compete lose them. Presidents that don't tell that message are deceiving their own supporters.

Every time the unions, the socialists or the ignorant and uneducated Hollywood establishment slams an elected official, they are pointing a finger at a person who understands the harsh reality of economics and honest politics.

Thats why integrity is important!

Cheers

Not that you care, or that you even really wanted to do anything more than mentally masturbate at stance of your own highly politicized post.

I am voting for Kerry for a number of reasons, in no particular order.

1) I voted for Bush in the last election. I was not a big fan of Clinton, and didn't like Gore's views on gun-control, UN control of american troops, using our troops for 'nation building', or his wife's near nazi-like book burning practices. I thought Bush was the lessor of two evils. I thought that, until he turned against everything he said he stood for. Now, instead of gun-control, I have to deal with the Patriot Act, which in many ways is worse, and a near constant 'morality' witch-hunt. The complete and utter disregard for the UN entirely. Our troops being used for nationbuilding in two wars, one of which was based on faulty intelligence and/or lies, and the perpetual disregard for diplomacy. Instead of the book-burning, I get constantly reminded that I am a 'communist' or a terrorist simply for disagreeing with their practices.

2) Because I consider myself a fiscal conservative, and Kerry has, so far, the more economically sound plan for the budget. I believe we need major reductions in pork-barrell spending, a balanced budget, spending reductions in general, and fairer taxation accross the economic spectrum. Bush supports none of these things (actions speak louder than words), and is proposing making them worse.

3) Because Kerry doesn't support ammending the constitution for what boils down to an individual issue (or at most a state one).

4) Because Kerry isn't a gun-control nut. (Not that Bush is, but this is often a vote killer for me)

5) Because Kerry is pro-choice.

6) Because Kerry is the more experienced diplomat of the two, at a time where diplomacy in international waters is greatly needed.

7) Because I believe in freedom of view and not McCarthyism. The world is a much richer place than 'with us or against us' type talking espouses.

8) And because my first choice (McCain) isn't running, and my second choice (Edwards) is the VP nominee.

Finally - a well reasoned reason to vote for Kerry.

You've brought up a number of issues that I have with Bush as well. The war and the Patriot Act don't bother me as much as they do you - I recognize that not all intelligence is great, and the President doesn't have as much leeway to give foreign governments who are hostile to us the benefit of the doubt anymore. The Patriot Act, on its face, worries me, but I've not seen any abuses of it yet, and until I do, I'm going to give DOJ the benefit of the doubt.

I'm a fiscal conservative as well, and Bush's fiscal policies bother me - particularly in regards to government spending. But I'm also annoyed with the Republicans in Congress too. The party has been out of power (and out of pork) for so long, that now they're feasting on it constantly, and it's making the party look like a bunch of hypocrites.

The gay marriage issue is stupid, and I'm also against the idea of turning the Constitution into a dictionary, but I recognize the reason that Bush brought that up and it's not because he plans on doing anything about it - it was purely political red meat to throw to the religious right, who he really hasn't been that good for yet. As for the abortion issue, I'm pro-life, but it's not a push button issue for me.

I have to say that I am concerned that you aren't concerned about Kerry and his gun control views. I'm an NRA life member, and Kerry has never been great on gun issues - I worry that he'll revert to typical democratic form and try and repass the Clinton gun ban (which should expire next month, keep your fingers crossed).

The "with us or against us" was, in my opinion, a deft move - it shook up a lot of folks abroad, which is a good thing. Terrorism had generally been condoned, or even ignored as an "over there" issue until September 11. I'm glad we're finally taking a more active role against it. I don't think it's McCarthyism - you don't have people denouncing each other as terrorists now, and despite what some claim, I've never seen anyone question Kerry's patriotism.

McCain, by the way, is one of the few people in Washington that I cannot physically stand. He is the biggest political opportunist I have ever met, and he can't stand not being in the limelight. He chases publicity like dogs chase cars. Edwards, other than being a trial lawyer, gets passing marks in my book, but you don't vote for a President because of the VP.

Thanks for the post - it was refreshing to see some thought here, rather than just the same tired rhetoric.

Here's a question for the liberals: why do you support John Kerry? What will he do that qualifies him for the Office of President of the United States? After this post, I do not want to see anyone using the words Bush, Badnarik, Dubya, Nader, Cheney, Halliburton, Vietnam, or Voltron.
Because almost anything is better than the garbage we have now, and the only viable choice has been narrowed down to Kerry.

First of all, the national debt has been increasing by significant amounts under every President, not just Bush. As a percentage of GDP, the debt has not gone up any more under Bush than under any other president, in fact the debt is reducing.
Well if you believe that, then you really need to remove that wool over your eyes. The US is currently writing record yearly deficits which are bloating the US National Debt.

The debate over the national debt is touchy because it depends on a lot of things - how you measure it, for instance. Much of the debt is not payable on demand, nor is much of the deficit. A large amount of the debt is tied up in the now defunct 30 year treasury bond, which - as you can see - isn't due to be paid for 30 years.
Since you are talking about futures here, you might want to consider these facts:

Treasury statistics indicate that foreigners bought 58 percent of the securities that Treasury sold to investors. Some 60 percent of that 58 percent was bought by central banks. A large percentage of that went to the central banks of Japan and China. This exposes the United States to financial or political risk that either bank will stop buying Treasuries - or selling them heavily.

This is seen as a very substantial risk by some who study geopolitics and creditary economics.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/U.S.%20debt

Another issue is that the numbers do not count other shortfalls and leakage. For instance, in the 2003 projection, the U.S. Department of the Treasury used a $2.4 trillion Social Security surplus to offset its cash shortfall. This means that in 2013, "the government will owe Social Security about $4 trillion, just as baby boomers begin retiring en masse. I don't see how that debt can be honored without huge borrowings from outside investors that would send rates to the moon, or huge cuts in other programs," claimed Sloan.

Every nation has a national debt. They've had them since nations began. There's nothing wrong with it. The numbers change all the time, as the economy changes. So using this argument against the President isn't really fair - there's not been a single president in recent memory who hasn't added to the national debt in some way.
However, certain Presidents have added to the US Debt to the detriment of the overall economy. Do you remember the double digit inflation and interest rates of the 1980's? There is a lesson there and I guess some people have to repeat history before it sinks in?

The tax cuts did spur consumer spending, and I personally did enjoy the $300 check I received in the mail, as did the other members of my family. I cannot understand why people do not believe that a tax cut for EVERYONE is fair - why should we penalize the people at the highest tax levels? They earned their money, for the most part, the same way I did. They deserve tax relief too. If the tax cuts didn't spur the economy on, I don't know what did, because it is demonstrably better today than it was last year at this time. And as I have said before, and none of you have seemed to realize, most of the people filing in the highest tax bracket aren't the megarich like Kerry and Bill Gates - they're small business owners, who are taking those tax cuts and hiring new people. That's good the economy.When $700 Billion is added to the debt to offer these "tax cuts", on top of over $200 Billion for wars in Afghanistan and the unnecessary one in Iraq, and the economic depression caused by the attacks of 9/11, the economy gets crunched big time. There will be a fallout especially since the US trade deficit hit an a record high of $55 Billion for the month of June alone.

Look at the broader picture?

I have been sidelining this one because the folk responding have been doing such a fine job. I suspect they won't even mess with this one. So I have to ask, do you really think that way or are you stirring for a reaction.

If you believe that, then it is important because elections become an issue of choosing a President and elected officials who have integrity in these issues. They also have to understand economics and the impact of their allegiances on the economy.

For example: Take the Democrats and the the noose the Unions have on them. My company is growing, adding jobs and improving wages and benefits in a rust belt region. The union companies are gone. Those that decertified have rebuilt their companies and survived. The Democrats can't face that reality. How can you trust them to do what's right? Presidents don't lose jobs, companies that can't compete lose them. Presidents that don't tell that message are deceiving their own supporters.

Every time the unions, the socialists or the ignorant and uneducated Hollywood establishment slams an elected official, they are pointing a finger at a person who understands the harsh reality of economics and honest politics.

Thats why integrity is important!

Cheers

Okay - I've gotta take a shot at this one.

Labor does not have a stranglehold on the Democratic party. They've got a stranglehold on us. If we had as much control as people give us credit for, Gephardt would be the nominee, not Kerry. Labor doesn't drive policy in the Democratic party anymore. We're just their ATM.

Unions would not be necessary if it weren't for the tendency of some companies and some industries to try and balance their books on the backs of their employees. Unions are picking up the slack that many companies and industries are letting go of - with pensions, health care, and other important employment related items that companies cut first, while ignoring the other fat that can be trimmed.

Companies who fold or move overseas generally tend to claim that Unions are the result - but the bottom line is simply that they do not like having to negotiate with us, and they recognize that they are operating at a competitive disadvantage over here, especially in manufacturing, when they can move to a country with no Unions and no labor laws, where a few thousand dollars gets them exempted from anything they want.

Unions are democratic where most corporations are not - I don't understand why people don't recognize the inherent Americanism in labor unions.

Okay - I've gotta take a shot at this one.

Labor does not have a stranglehold on the Democratic party. They've got a stranglehold on us. If we had as much control as people give us credit for, Gephardt would be the nominee, not Kerry. Labor doesn't drive policy in the Democratic party anymore. We're just their ATM.

Unions would not be necessary if it weren't for the tendency of some companies and some industries to try and balance their books on the backs of their employees. Unions are picking up the slack that many companies and industries are letting go of - with pensions, health care, and other important employment related items that companies cut first, while ignoring the other fat that can be trimmed.

Companies who fold or move overseas generally tend to claim that Unions are the result - but the bottom line is simply that they do not like having to negotiate with us, and they recognize that they are operating at a competitive disadvantage over here, especially in manufacturing, when they can move to a country with no Unions and no labor laws, where a few thousand dollars gets them exempted from anything they want.

Unions are democratic where most corporations are not - I don't understand why people don't recognize the inherent Americanism in labor unions.
If you are a Union member as you suggest here, I find it interesting that you would support the Republican Party that is hell bent on removing your right to have a "democratic" Union in the first place?

Republicans don't "recognize the inherent Americanism in labor unions". Period.

Well if you believe that, then you really need to remove that wool over your eyes. The US is currently writing record yearly deficits which are bloating the US National Debt.

Since you are talking about futures here, you might want to consider these facts:

Treasury statistics indicate that foreigners bought 58 percent of the securities that Treasury sold to investors. Some 60 percent of that 58 percent was bought by central banks. A large percentage of that went to the central banks of Japan and China. This exposes the United States to financial or political risk that either bank will stop buying Treasuries - or selling them heavily.

This is seen as a very substantial risk by some who study geopolitics and creditary economics.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/U.S.%20debt

Another issue is that the numbers do not count other shortfalls and leakage. For instance, in the 2003 projection, the U.S. Department of the Treasury used a $2.4 trillion Social Security surplus to offset its cash shortfall. This means that in 2013, "the government will owe Social Security about $4 trillion, just as baby boomers begin retiring en masse. I don't see how that debt can be honored without huge borrowings from outside investors that would send rates to the moon, or huge cuts in other programs," claimed Sloan.

However, certain Presidents have added to the US Debt to the detriment of the overall economy. Do you remember the double digit inflation and interest rates of the 1980's? There is a lesson there and I guess some people have to repeat history before it sinks in?
When $700 Billion is added to the debt to offer these "tax cuts", on top of over $200 Billion for wars in Afghanistan and the unnecessary one in Iraq, and the economic depression caused by the attacks of 9/11, the economy gets crunched big time. There will be a fallout especially since the US trade deficit hit an a record high of $55 Billion for the month of June alone.

Look at the broader picture?

I'm looking at the broader picture. The "yearly record deficits" are true - but you aren't taking into account the fact that we're in the middle of a war, and the deficit is not a greater percentage of America's GDP - that's the biggest indicator of serious problems.

During World War 2, the deficit was a whopping 30% of America's GDP. That's the highest it's ever been, and it was under a Democratic president. Right now, the deficit (despite the "records levels") is about 3% of GDP - and that's still less than it was in 91/92, and less than it was during most of the Cold War. Even during the height of Reagan's massive spending spree, it was only 6%.

I will say it again - the deficit does not matter. The budget process is the most wacked out, crazy process and the way the deficits, surpluses, etc. are all calculated make it nearly impossible to be exactly sure of what is going on until you are a number of years out from when you are projecting. I've taken whole courses on the federal budget process and it still trips me up. Saying that Bush is bad because of deficits is an extremely, extremely, extremely simple view of how this process works.

As for the treasuries - the reason why foreign governments buy up our treasuries is twofold - one, it's a hedge against the own currency holdings, which tend to fluctuate much more than ours do, and two, a recognition that the safest investment in the world is the US treasury bond.

I don't think this is unsafe - it's just how the market works.

As for the "double digit inflation" of the 1980s, you're getting your decades mixed up. Under Carter, we dealt with "stagflation", the mixture of high inflation and high interest rates. By 1984, both rates and inflation were under control, and this is generally credited to Reagan's tax and economic policies.

The national debt has little control over the economy - it's merely a number, and a number that can be changed or fiddled with depending on how you look at it. The trade deficit means even less - the difference between imports and exports isn't a critical indicator. It has nothing to do with industrial decline, nor does it have anything to do with unfair trade practices abroad - it merely is the discussion of the "flow of capital across international borders, flows that are determined by national rates of savings and investment." (according to the Cato Institute). So bringing it up just introduces more fog into an already difficult to grasp concept.

The economy was great during the Reagan years, and he was adding more debt than anyone since Roosevelt. And no one added more debt as a percentage of GDP than Roosevelt did.

You can keep throwing these number arguments out, but the bottom line is that they're all open to interpretation and they're all easily spun in different directions.

I live and work in this economy, as do all of my friends and family. It's not as bad as you make it look on paper, we're not heading towards a depression (I don't think there will ever be another depression, frankly) and the economic indicators point that things are getting better.

If you are a Union member as you suggest here, I find it interesting that you would support the Republican Party that is hell bent on removing your right to have a "democratic" Union in the first place?

Republicans don't "recognize the inherent Americanism in labor unions". Period.

I'm a lobbyist for a labor union, and I'm a Republican.

My crusade is to get the Republican party to recognize that labor represents millions of people who would generally vote Republican based on their religious beliefs, gun control beliefs, and general conservative political views. But unfortunately, the Republicans cannot recognize that big business (who only saddled up to the Republicans because they controlled the government during the industrial revolution) is not a constant friend, and they will go with whomever increases their profits.

Eventually, I'm going to win too. :)

I'm a lobbyist for a labor union, and I'm a Republican.

My crusade is to get the Republican party to recognize that labor represents millions of people who would generally vote Republican based on their religious beliefs, gun control beliefs, and general conservative political views. But unfortunately, the Republicans cannot recognize that big business (who only saddled up to the Republicans because they controlled the government during the industrial revolution) is not a constant friend, and they will go with whomever increases their profits.

Eventually, I'm going to win too. :)
It almost looks like you need to have a 3rd party in the USA? However, it would need to be somewhat more representative than the poorly supported "independent" candidates such is Nader and was Perot?

Okay - I've gotta take a shot at this one.

Labor does not have a stranglehold on the Democratic party. They've got a stranglehold on us. If we had as much control as people give us credit for, Gephardt would be the nominee, not Kerry. Labor doesn't drive policy in the Democratic party anymore. We're just their ATM.

Unions would not be necessary if it weren't for the tendency of some companies and some industries to try and balance their books on the backs of their employees. Unions are picking up the slack that many companies and industries are letting go of - with pensions, health care, and other important employment related items that companies cut first, while ignoring the other fat that can be trimmed.

Companies who fold or move overseas generally tend to claim that Unions are the result - but the bottom line is simply that they do not like having to negotiate with us, and they recognize that they are operating at a competitive disadvantage over here, especially in manufacturing, when they can move to a country with no Unions and no labor laws, where a few thousand dollars gets them exempted from anything they want.

Unions are democratic where most corporations are not - I don't understand why people don't recognize the inherent Americanism in labor unions.


Good solid response but its dated. A great response when unions were needed.

Corporations are not nations.
There is no place for democracy in corporate life. Everyone can come to the table and make their contribution but at the end, we place our bets and someone has to be responsible. Then everyone has to buy in - unlike what I see in democracy American style.

(Aside: I don't agree with excessive CEO pay but unions are hypocrites to decry them as they are mostly achieved through negotiation)

I agree, nobody likes negotiating with an entity whose strategy is to drive a wedge between coworkers. No executive team can survive with that sort of relationship, why do unions think they have something to offer when they take that approach?

If you were serious about making a contribution, why don't you send your representatives back to school to learn about how to make companies successful in a world economy. If union reps used their influence to create value and negotiated for a piece of that, businesses would see them as allies. Rather, its about "how much can we bleed these companies without destroying them, Oops we did it again and lost another one".

If you are a union member, get your real bosses (who you pay) to go hire some good lean and 6 sigma engineers and build a strategy on improving the companies you work at. That would be a formula for a union that could take over every other union, make plenty of money for those "members" who run them from their limos and resorts, and still improve the lot for members and the US.

Maybe not stranglehold but they are doing to the Democratic Party what they are doing to the US, adding little value, threatening lots and deceiving their members.

I'm a lobbyist for a labor union, and I'm a Republican.
That is interesting. Unions are mainly comprised by the political left - also in Europe. Though they are a few segments of the unions who favour a centre-left or even centrist or government (some for religious reasons the christian democrats). And there is a small Christian Union.
Well: but overwhelmingly it is left-wing.
I think that is mainly the case in the US as well.

That is interesting. Unions are mainly comprised by the political left - also in Europe. Though they are a few segments of the unions who favour a centre-left or even centrist or government (some for religious reasons the christian democrats). And there is a small Christian Union.
Well: but overwhelmingly it is left-wing.
I think that is mainly the case in the US as well.

Honestly, it depends on the union.

Most unions have a mixture of voters, but the elected officials tend to vote Democratic. Many are social conservatives, but they vote their wallets, so they vote Democratic.

The union that I represent is heavily Republican, but we tend to give to both sides of the aisle (although more Democratic, but I'm trying to change that).

Generally, I'd agree with you that most of the unions as a whole are more left wing, but most Union voters are split. Union voters tend to have strong anti-gun control opinions, which often leads them to vote Republican.

I don't forsee the viability of a third party any time soon, since there has been an increasing trend in America to push all liberals into the Democratic party and all conservatives into the Republican party. There are very few conservative Democrats or liberal Republicans left. Because both parties are umbrella parties, they suck in everyone. Doesn't leave much room for the third parties to get a toehold.

Good solid response but its dated. A great response when unions were needed.

Corporations are not nations.
There is no place for democracy in corporate life. Everyone can come to the table and make their contribution but at the end, we place our bets and someone has to be responsible. Then everyone has to buy in - unlike what I see in democracy American style.

(Aside: I don't agree with excessive CEO pay but unions are hypocrites to decry them as they are mostly achieved through negotiation)

I agree, nobody likes negotiating with an entity whose strategy is to drive a wedge between coworkers. No executive team can survive with that sort of relationship, why do unions think they have something to offer when they take that approach?

If you were serious about making a contribution, why don't you send your representatives back to school to learn about how to make companies successful in a world economy. If union reps used their influence to create value and negotiated for a piece of that, businesses would see them as allies. Rather, its about "how much can we bleed these companies without destroying them, Oops we did it again and lost another one".

If you are a union member, get your real bosses (who you pay) to go hire some good lean and 6 sigma engineers and build a strategy on improving the companies you work at. That would be a formula for a union that could take over every other union, make plenty of money for those "members" who run them from their limos and resorts, and still improve the lot for members and the US.

Maybe not stranglehold but they are doing to the Democratic Party what they are doing to the US, adding little value, threatening lots and deceiving their members.

They are still needed. C'mon - look at it from the workers perspective. My mother works for a grocery store. She's non-Union. She's only allowed to work 35 hours per week, so the store can claim she's "part time" and not pay her benefits. If she works over the 35 hours, or tries to claim overtime, she gets fired. Sound fair to you? It's not - and if I worked for the UFCW, I'd have them in a Union so fast their heads would swim.

I agree with you that the labor movement needs to evolve - we need to start picking up computer technicians and others who are getting outsourced to China, and we have to quit holding on to industries that America just can't compete in anymore.

Corporate life, at the top, is democratic - boards of directors are inherently democratic, and in a publicly held company, the CEO and the board are all responsible to the shareholders. Why should it be democratic at the bottom as well? Why shouldn't workers be able to band together and petition the corporate governors for a redress of their grievances? That's fundamental to American democracy, and not being able to do that was one of the reasons that led to the Declaration of Independence.

The Union officials don't represent the company - they represent the workers. They have a responsiblity to ensure that the workers get the best deal that they can. Sometimes that requires making tough decisions. And I won't argue that Unions are perfect, but neither are the companies. And there are some industries where the Unions and Management work very well together. Some they don't.

The funny thing is - I'm not a Union member. I'm just their lobbyist. But Unions generally do add value to their companies, particuarly in industries that require highly technical, skilled employees. In those industries, the Unions generally take up the slack, training and providing employees with good, stable pensions, where their companies couldn't afford to do so.

Unions add value, because they add stability, protect their members, and ensure that no one's rights are trampled upon.

Without Unions there would be no weekend, no 40 hour work week, no child labor laws, and no Labor Day. (I hope you enjoyed yours, if you're an American).

One problem with unions is that they donate to political issues and parties using money collected by member dues. like what was previously posted,not every person employed is from the democrat or republican party yet the employee has no choice when the union supports one position.
Another is that the pay-rate, safety laws are governed by state law and the union is not a law enforcing agency, hence they have do authority to police them.
Unions also seem to protect the trouble workers more than they protect the employees that are there to put food on their families tables and put in a good days work. Take drug use for example. I work in a union shop and we can get fired for not paying union dues but we can go to work and take drugs on ther premises in front of the bosses and not get fired. We are allowed to get sent to rehab three times before getting fired. That is three times -per type of drug.
I know that I listed just the bad side of unions,but I think the time of the unions is over and that they do not help the employees in the long run because the overly high pay they receive will ultimatly send the jobs to where labor is cheaper.
"They are still needed. C'mon - look at it from the workers perspective. My mother works for a grocery store. She's non-Union. She's only allowed to work 35 hours per week, so the store can claim she's "part time" and not pay her benefits. If she works over the 35 hours, or tries to claim overtime, she gets fired. Sound fair to you? It's not - and if I worked for the UFCW, I'd have them in a Union so fast their heads would swim." if that claim is valid, i work in the 588 in north California,I have worked for ten years at forty hours+ a week and I am still classifed as part time. Guess my union isnt so hot,lol. But at least its president is making a good six hundred thousand dollars a year off the sweat that we in the store work for.
Another statement in the previous post to mine was that It was the American way for employees to band together to vote for their work environement. That is the communist way. America was started under the assumption of private property in private ownership. The store your mom works for is the property of its owner, he put up all the capital to open it run it and assumes all the risks and responseability for the upkeep of the store. The owner has offered your mom a certain wage to work for him in his business and your mom accepted the offer by taking the job. If after working there your mom needs to change or does not want to abide by the agreement she accepted,it is her choice and her task is to find a place to work that will be acceptable to her needs. ;)

One problem with unions is that they donate to political issues and parties using money collected by member dues. like what was previously posted,not every person employed is from the democrat or republican party yet the employee has no choice when the union supports one position.
Another is that the pay-rate, safety laws are governed by state law and the union is not a law enforcing agency, hence they have do authority to police them.
Unions also seem to protect the trouble workers more than they protect the employees that are there to put food on their families tables and put in a good days work. Take drug use for example. I work in a union shop and we can get fired for not paying union dues but we can go to work and take drugs on ther premises in front of the bosses and not get fired. We are allowed to get sent to rehab three times before getting fired. That is three times -per type of drug.
I know that I listed just the bad side of unions,but I think the time of the unions is over and that they do not help the employees in the long run because the overly high pay they receive will ultimatly send the jobs to where labor is cheaper.
"They are still needed. C'mon - look at it from the workers perspective. My mother works for a grocery store. She's non-Union. She's only allowed to work 35 hours per week, so the store can claim she's "part time" and not pay her benefits. If she works over the 35 hours, or tries to claim overtime, she gets fired. Sound fair to you? It's not - and if I worked for the UFCW, I'd have them in a Union so fast their heads would swim." if that claim is valid, i work in the 588 in north California,I have worked for ten years at forty hours+ a week and I am still classifed as part time. Guess my union isnt so hot,lol. But at least its president is making a good six hundred thousand dollars a year off the sweat that we in the store work for.
Another statement in the previous post to mine was that It was the American way for employees to band together to vote for their work environement. That is the communist way. America was started under the assumption of private property in private ownership. The store your mom works for is the property of its owner, he put up all the capital to open it run it and assumes all the risks and responseability for the upkeep of the store. The owner has offered your mom a certain wage to work for him in his business and your mom accepted the offer by taking the job. If after working there your mom needs to change or does not want to abide by the agreement she accepted,it is her choice and her task is to find a place to work that will be acceptable to her needs. ;)

Actually, we're not allowed to do that. Unions are prohibited from making donations to political parties and to political candidates using dues money. All of the money that we donate comes from voluntary contribution to Union based political action committees.

General funds are only able to be used in some state and local races (depending on the state) and to give to 527 groups. But direct contributions of dues money to federal candidates will land you in jail.

The Union member does have a choice - they vote for their Union officials and they voluntarily contribute to their PACs. If they disagree with the Union's political position, they can vote out their leadership and quit giving to the PAC.

Unions aren't law enforcing bodies, but they have a recognized place under the National Labor Relations Act as a representative of their members, and they play a role in ensuring company compliance with the NLRA, OSHA regs, EEOC regs, and other employer/employee relations.

Unions do tend to protect the trouble makers - but that's mainly because the troublemakers are the ones needing protection. I've not heard about the drug use thing you mention here, but either that needs to change, or the company gave in during contract negotiations where it shouldn't have.

And it looks like local 588 needs some work there. :)

I've already said that Unions need to evolve, just like the American workforce needs to evolve. But there will always be a place for Unions, because wherever there is a company, there will be people who try to take advantage of the workforce, particularly if its uneducated.

Unions ARE the American way, and they're not "the communist way". There's no claim that the employees own the means of production. It's still private property, and we understand that. But companies do not have the right to trample on the rights given to employees by the government simply because it's their store. If this were true, we'd still have children working 60 hours a week, we'd still have people living in shanty towns, etc. We've seen what rampant industrialization with no accountability has done - and without Unions there would have been little if any reason to change.

Why should my mother be forced to leave her job and go elsewhere? So the company can take advantage of another worker? Why not make the company accountable? Corporations need to recognize that the average Union worker isn't a lazy, no-account slob who wants to take their money and fight them at every turn. The average Union worker is a hard working, family oriented individual who has pride in what they do and also in their places of work. If management came to the table in a non-adversarial way, they'd be surprised at the cooperation they get. There are some industries where this happens and many where it doesn't. It's a shame.

Brian I have a question!

Did my arguements make any sense to you? I'm just curious by what you think about what I said.

Thanks

Brian I have a question!

Did my arguements make any sense to you? I'm just curious by what you think about what I said.

Thanks

They made sense.

The only problem that I have is that arguing about the deficit, job creation numbers, etc. is doomed to result in a he-said-she-said back and forth argument. None of this tracking is precise, and every time the DOL releases job data, then end up revising it later (usually up) and that never gets reported.

I don't think the economy is perfect, but I think it's getting much, much better and I agree with you on the tax cuts.

The middle class pays the vast majority of taxes in America - and that was prior to the tax cuts. That's because most of the money we pay in taxes comes directly from our income - which comes directly from jobs. The rich have their money tied up in investments, securities, land, cash, and multiple tax shelters designed to reduce their tax liability. They can afford good tax attorneys to ensure that they pay the absolute minimum in taxes that they can. A tax cut for them doesn't result in massive revenue shortfalls because they weren't paying that large a percentage of the overall tax revenue anyway. Those of us in the middle class were.

The tax system in America is too complicated to speak about generally, and it needs to be reformed. So does the federal budget system.

Thanks for your input Brian! It is much appreciated! :)

there's no diffrence :mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :confused: :headbang: :sniper: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :fluffle:

They're so desperate for change that they'll vote for almost anyone, even an @$$hole like Kerry.

Please note that I said almost.

No, I've seen someone on this board that said he would vote for a sock compared to Bush, so don't go saying almost, its a fact for some people.

If you are a union member, get your real bosses (who you pay) to go hire some good lean and 6 sigma engineers and build a strategy on improving the companies you work at.

One problem I have with this is that I used to have a decent job. I worked in a Celestica factory. When they implemented the lean manufacturing process, yes, it made the company more efficient and lowered costs. It also made many jobs obsolete. Many employees got layed off. A majority of the costs cut came from the fact that they no longer had to pay wages or benefits for many employees. While lean manufacturing is good for the company, it's not good for the people who keep the company running - the employees.

Finally - a well reasoned reason to vote for Kerry.

You've brought up a number of issues that I have with Bush as well. The war and the Patriot Act don't bother me as much as they do you - I recognize that not all intelligence is great, and the President doesn't have as much leeway to give foreign governments who are hostile to us the benefit of the doubt anymore. The Patriot Act, on its face, worries me, but I've not seen any abuses of it yet, and until I do, I'm going to give DOJ the benefit of the doubt.


First, thank you.

Second, you are correct; the Patriot Act has not had any cases of serious abuse, yet. There have been a few minor cases of what I would consider abuse, but nothing major. However, I am a big fan of the Thomas Jefferson school, and believe that governments are inherently un-trustworthy giving them power without oversight has historically always led to abuse of same.

The gay marriage issue is stupid, and I'm also against the idea of turning the Constitution into a dictionary, but I recognize the reason that Bush brought that up and it's not because he plans on doing anything about it - it was purely political red meat to throw to the religious right, who he really hasn't been that good for yet. As for the abortion issue, I'm pro-life, but it's not a push button issue for me.

His pandering to a political faction that he may have no intention of following through with is reason for me to trust him less, not say, "Oh well he's only being political."

I have to say that I am concerned that you aren't concerned about Kerry and his gun control views. I'm an NRA life member, and Kerry has never been great on gun issues - I worry that he'll revert to typical democratic form and try and repass the Clinton gun ban (which should expire next month, keep your fingers crossed).

True, Kerry has historically been in support of gun-control laws, in general, along similar lines to those of his party. However, he says that he doesn't support adding any new laws to the books, and being that he happens to be an outdoorsman and gun owner, I am more likely to believe him than your typical 'No new gun-control' democrat. Federally, it isn't that difficult to get a gun now as long as you are a law abiding citizen/adult, so outside of a few states taking the issue, IMO way too far, I don't see a problem with keeping the laws at a similar level. I find the 'assault rifle' laws to be a bit of a joke, and a step in the wrong direction, but I don't see that as getting much worse under Kerry. At least, not in the same way that I saw it getting worse under Gore.

The "with us or against us" was, in my opinion, a deft move - it shook up a lot of folks abroad, which is a good thing. Terrorism had generally been condoned, or even ignored as an "over there" issue until September 11. I'm glad we're finally taking a more active role against it. I don't think it's McCarthyism - you don't have people denouncing each other as terrorists now, and despite what some claim, I've never seen anyone question Kerry's patriotism.

I think you may want to take a nice long look around you and look/listen to the rhetoric your fellow republicans are throwing around. It is not uncommon for someone of a non 'neo-con' viewpoint to be dismissed out of hand as a 'communist' or 'terrorist lover' in right-wing media or on the Internet. While I freely admit that I haven't personally seen Bush come out and call someone names for disagreeing with him, I have seen a vast number of his supporters do this.

I cannot, in good conscious, support anyone who fosters an environment in which this kind of reaction to political discourse is encouraged. The phrase, "uniter not a divider" stands out in my head in stark contrast to the opposite reality 4 years later.

McCain, by the way, is one of the few people in Washington that I cannot physically stand. He is the biggest political opportunist I have ever met, and he can't stand not being in the limelight. He chases publicity like dogs chase cars. Edwards, other than being a trial lawyer, gets passing marks in my book, but you don't vote for a President because of the VP.

Thanks for the post - it was refreshing to see some thought here, rather than just the same tired rhetoric.

Understand, that in our own climate, I would consider myself a centrist, or libertarian. And in this climate, being a moderate is fairly difficult. Often times, in any given debate, I agree with neither of the viewpoints being delivered, or agree with both of them. What you may see as McCain being an opportunist, or being 'wishy-washy' I see as him simply being often forced to choose between two viewpoints he doesn't completely agree with. He also seems to me to be the type (as I would also consider myself) to make decisions based off of information I have at the time and not on tradition or party affiliation.

Why wouldn't I vote based on the VP? I don't like the Current president, so I can't vote for him. I don't like the most major opponent to him. I won't waste a vote on a third party candidate at this stage. My only option left is to decide based on the VP. Edwards beats Cheney, hands down.

You're welcome.

You really are losing jobs. People are walking away from the job market because they can't find a job.Probably because they are 1)to lazy and just don't care 2)they are unqualified or 3)they are not looking in the right places. I was searching the want ads and I found a TON of jobs. Yes, most are part time. No denying that but I would rather have a part time job while looking for full time work so I can put food on the table to feed my family, have a roof over my head to protect my family, and clothes to feed my family. This "I can't get a job" thing has gotten old. Yea some just walk away because finding a job is difficult. It always has been and always will be.

I got laid off from the previously mentioned job seven months ago. I haven't been able to find another job since then, other than one at a McDonalds (or similar establishment) three towns away, which might pay me enough to cover the cost of gas to get to work and back home. Why should I take that job? The only other job listings I've found in this area are for engineers or other very specific areas of expertise. Okay, I could do that, if I could afford to go to college for another four years to get the necessary degree.

So...why don't I just move somewhere else, where there are jobs? Because, I don't have the money to move. I wouldn't have a place to live if I managed to pay for the trip there. And you know what? I've looked in online newspaper classified ads for cities all over the country. I've got a two year business administration degree, but I'm not qualified for any job that would pay more than minimum wage. None that I can find advertised anyway.

So, before you go and say that unemployed people are lazy or too picky, maybe you should try talking to one of them. I look every day, for several hours. Most places around here know me by face and name, because I go in at least once a week, asking if they have any job openings yet. You have no right to call me lazy, just because I'm unemployed.

I noticed in an earlier post that you're unemployed. You said you were planning to buy a house once you got a job? Is that right? If you've found so many jobs, why are you still unemployed? :confused:

I got laid off from the previously mentioned job seven months ago.

If you don't mind me asking, what kind of job did you get laid off from and why?

One problem I have with this is that I used to have a decent job. I worked in a Celestica factory. When they implemented the lean manufacturing process, yes, it made the company more efficient and lowered costs. It also made many jobs obsolete. Many employees got layed off. A majority of the costs cut came from the fact that they no longer had to pay wages or benefits for many employees. While lean manufacturing is good for the company, it's not good for the people who keep the company running - the employees.

So, you are angry at your former employer for trying to improve his/her own business? I understand what you are trying to say, not all of the unemployed are lazy. I am sure they are not. However, the economy is changing. Factory jobs can't get you anywhere anymore. They don't provide any work experiance that will help you get employed elsewhere. Either way, this is capitalism, not communism. The government can't make sure that you have a job.

Who are you blaming for your unemployment? The government isn't responsible, what are they going to do? Tell the companies not to make their factories more efficient and automated? Is it the companies fault?

We, the people of the free world(except the US) ask you to think with your head and your heart.
We, here in Europe, are afraid what will happen in a second term of that Redneck cowboy with his country ideas.

Sorry, i have to say that. We, the liberal elite of Europe with over 2000 years of Education(compare that with the US), with Aristoteles, Erasmus and Voltaire, beg you vote ABB!

We always have admired the US, even if we didn't agree on the politics and yes, if you needed help(Iraq,Bin Laden) we joined you in the fight, but you are making a big mess. Of course it is good to liberate Iraq and Afghanistan but to be honest, why now?There were other countries which had better oppurtinities to become a democraty.(like Zimbabwe)Bush is creating hate around the globe, not only because of his STUPID politic to back up Israel(Israel has tortuered more people than Saddam) and the US NEVER said anything. Why? Because of the jewish(Rep) voters.

So for the sake of the world give kerry a chance

Thank you for your attention

If you don't mind me asking, what kind of job did you get laid off from and why?

I worked in a factory, Celestica. They make circuit boards for other companies, like Motorola. They make all sorts of things. I didn't do any one job. I did many. I was an inspector and a tester. I hand placed small parts, and attached larger parts. I did some soldering, too. I could do anything that needed to be done, except run the machines. They laid me off because they took out a lot of the steps in the original process. They no longer inspect the boards. They spot check - look for common, known defects and check one out of ten boards fully for misplaced parts or missing parts. They made the board lot sizes smaller, so only one person was needed in the other areas, instead of the two or three that were needed before. I used to go in to work and have twenty boxes (containing either ten or twenty boards, depending on board size) that I'd have to work on. When they changed things, the back end area was lucky to get ten boxes a night, one at a time. Basically, they cut back on the amount of workers needed, because they decided to run smaller lots of a particular order.

So, you are angry at your former employer for trying to improve his/her own business? I understand what you are trying to say, not all of the unemployed are lazy. I am sure they are not. However, the economy is changing. Factory jobs can't get you anywhere anymore. They don't provide any work experiance that will help you get employed elsewhere. Either way, this is capitalism, not communism. The government can't make sure that you have a job.

Who are you blaming for your unemployment? The government isn't responsible, what are they going to do? Tell the companies not to make their factories more efficient and automated? Is it the companies fault?

I'm not blaming the government or my former employer for my current unemployment. All I said was that lean manufacturing cuts jobs.

We, the people of the free world(except the US) ask you to think with your head and your heart.
We, here in Europe, are afraid what will happen in a second term of that Redneck cowboy with his country ideas.

Sorry, i have to say that. We, the liberal elite of Europe with over 2000 years of Education(compare that with the US), with Aristoteles, Erasmus and Voltaire, beg you vote ABB!

We always have admired the US, even if we didn't agree on the politics and yes, if you needed help(Iraq,Bin Laden) we joined you in the fight, but you are making a big mess. Of course it is good to liberate Iraq and Afghanistan but to be honest, why now?There were other countries which had better oppurtinities to become a democraty.(like Zimbabwe)Bush is creating hate around the globe, not only because of his STUPID politic to back up Israel(Israel has tortuered more people than Saddam) and the US NEVER said anything. Why? Because of the jewish(Rep) voters.

So for the sake of the world give kerry a chance

Thank you for your attention

Luckily, the "people of the world" don't elect our President.

And Jewish voters tend to vote Democrat, FYI.

If you want to complain about America, that's fine - but at least do your homework.

I worked in a factory, Celestica. They make circuit boards for other companies, like Motorola. They make all sorts of things. I didn't do any one job. I did many. I was an inspector and a tester. I hand placed small parts, and attached larger parts. I did some soldering, too. I could do anything that needed to be done, except run the machines. They laid me off because they took out a lot of the steps in the original process. They no longer inspect the boards. They spot check - look for common, known defects and check one out of ten boards fully for misplaced parts or missing parts. They made the board lot sizes smaller, so only one person was needed in the other areas, instead of the two or three that were needed before. I used to go in to work and have twenty boxes (containing either ten or twenty boards, depending on board size) that I'd have to work on. When they changed things, the back end area was lucky to get ten boxes a night, one at a time. Basically, they cut back on the amount of workers needed, because they decided to run smaller lots of a particular order.

What do you think is making it difficult for you to find work again?

Would job retraining make any difference?

I absolutely hate it when peoples' views of communism is what Senator McCarthy fed the American public during the Cold War. What is wrong with communism? It's an economic system, and a perfect one might I add. There's nothing wrong with the idea or supporting it.


Communism? A perfect system? How old are you? Fifteen?
Anyone with one-billionth of a brain cell will fear and hate communism for what it is. It is the complete destruction of private property. It is the government owning every aspect of your life. It is opression. And it does not work. Get back to us when you join the real world.

What do you think is making it difficult for you to find work again?

Would job retraining make any difference?

Well, any job I might potentially find here would require retraining. Or rather, training, as the only training I have is from Celestica, and they're the only company around here that does that type of work. I'm more than willing to be trained to do another job.

I'm not really sure what's making it so hard to find a job. They just pretty much don't exist in my local area. The businesses here have employees that have been working for them since the dawn of time, it seems. Or at least for as long as the business has been operational. I'm taking an accounting class that I didn't take before, and at least 60% of the students in that class are unemployed and looking.

Small sidetrack here, but it's funny. One of the students in this class is an assistant manager for a US Cellular store here, and he announced on the first day that they were looking for someone to fill an opening. He mentioned this because we all had to introduce ourselves, including our job. He came back to class the next time and said that on the day he announced the opening to us, forty people came in and asked about it.

Maybe that's what's making it so difficult for me to find a job. We have one job opening per forty people.

We, the people of the free world(except the US) ask you to think with your head and your heart.
We, here in Europe, are afraid what will happen in a second term of that Redneck cowboy with his country ideas.

Sorry, i have to say that. We, the liberal elite of Europe with over 2000 years of Education(compare that with the US), with Aristoteles, Erasmus and Voltaire, beg you vote ABB!

We always have admired the US, even if we didn't agree on the politics and yes, if you needed help(Iraq,Bin Laden) we joined you in the fight, but you are making a big mess. Of course it is good to liberate Iraq and Afghanistan but to be honest, why now?There were other countries which had better oppurtinities to become a democraty.(like Zimbabwe)Bush is creating hate around the globe, not only because of his STUPID politic to back up Israel(Israel has tortuered more people than Saddam) and the US NEVER said anything. Why? Because of the jewish(Rep) voters.

So for the sake of the world give kerry a chance

Thank you for your attention

What are you afraid of happening? Are you afraid the Europe might lose more power over the world? I have news for you, that already started in 1914 and ended in 1945.
The US needs to become nationalist again.

We were attacked.




Yes we were attacked, but we weren't attacked by the country that we went and fought a war against. We were attacked by Osama Bin Laden, who ironically, has no ties whatsoever to Saddam Hussien. Bin Laden actually called Hussien a "socialist infidel". Not something you go and say about a guy that you have close connections with. And Bush said "HE TRIED TO KILL MY DADDY". We didn't go to war with Iraq because we were attacked by Afghanistan. Bush went to war with Iraq to prove to his daddy that he is better and to make more money.

So, democrats try to apeal to:
> The stupid
> Failures at life
> Tree huggers
> Pro abortionists
> Homosexuals
> Child molesters
> Fanatic feminists
> Terrorists
> Pacifists
> Communists and socialists

Actually the terrorists wouldn't vote for Kerry. They see how easy it is with Bush around to fuck with us, so why would they want to get rid of him. Bush didn't even read the briefing that stated "Bin Laden to use Aircrafts as weapons". Why would they want this guy out of office?

You are the people! Vote!


"Lady Kerry" is on a tour in EU to say to all students that it is important to vote. She hopes that all those 100.000's of US citizens abroad here will vote this time. We saw Republicans on TV that told they'll vote for the first time here. Some are loyal, but most Republicans (Gallup Poll) in EU tend to vote for Kerry. You guys have a problem because they all said that they did not vote FOR Kerry but they only vote for Kerry "because he's not Bush".

Hoped for a stronger Dem candidate but the most (bright because they know the world abroad) Republicans here will vote Kerry only because he's not Bush. Think they told at the news that there are about 1,5 million voters in the EU ans that she is working on the "key-states".

Anyway, I liked to see that a lot of brighter (since they see some more of the world and are in positions or study at important universities here,you know, the next people in power) Reps here have a different opinion then there fellow party men in the US. Of course this attitude is influenced because they have acces to free (in all languages) media that is not sponsored by either of the parties in the US (like FOX is seen by most US abroad as a propaganda station).

welp heres my biggest reason for "why kerry"

1000 american sodiers needlessly dead
over 7000 needlessly wounded

and they took over an entire country!

and they took over an entire country!

Those dead? Tell that in face of their parents, they'll hate the Government now they see the true story of the oil war. Of course president Cheney and his friend Pearl will only get more rich.

Actually the terrorists wouldn't vote for Kerry. They see how easy it is with Bush around to fuck with us, so why would they want to get rid of him. Bush didn't even read the briefing that stated "Bin Laden to use Aircrafts as weapons". Why would they want this guy out of office?

First, you obviously havn't been president, and I doubt that you have ever worked with a president. Do you have any idea how many tips, reports, etc... that are normally in circulation? Most of them were wrong, no one can read every briefing and report.

Second, if GWB came on and said "terrorists are going to attack using aircraft," what would you think? Now, attempt to put yourself in a pre-911 mindset. Every liberal would be saying that it is a political scam or something.

Third, to your previous comment, we went into Iraq because they were harboring terrorists. Can you actually say that you believe that there were/are no terrorists in Iraq?


In other news:

welp heres my biggest reason for "why kerry"

1000 american sodiers needlessly dead
over 7000 needlessly wounded

Your right, they died needlessly. I meen, all they did was remove a bloodthirsty dictator from power. Wouldn't it have been good if another 2,000 Kurds were murdered when we did nothing again? /sarcasm.

Basically I have looked at both parties pland for the next four years. Kerry has offered a straight forward plan on terrorism, economy, health care, taxes, vets, etc.

Bush has planned basically nothing, not that what he has said can be trusted. Some of his stuff appears to be aimed straight at moderates. History shows that few of these plans will come to pass. What he is saying, besides ammendments banning gay marriage and benefits to life-partners (not neccessarily gay) and bans to abortion.

The biggest mistake he made, and this one infuriates me, is his war plan. You do NOT engage in a second avoidable war while you are in the midst of one already! Many have tried this, and it almost always ends up in failure.

We need jobs and an economy that will grow this country. Bush has FAILED on these accounts. The mediocre growth of today means we won't catch up in ages. We need some new thinking.

Your right, they died needlessly. I meen, all they did was remove a bloodthirsty dictator from power. Wouldn't it have been good if another 2,000 Kurds were murdered when we did nothing again? /sarcasm.

Euh, Old Nazi friend (FACT) papa Bush is responsable for most death Kurds since he lied and deserted them in 1990/91:rolleyes: Better study a bit. :rolleyes:

Yes we were attacked, but we weren't attacked by the country that we went and fought a war against. We were attacked by Osama Bin Laden, who ironically, has no ties whatsoever to Saddam Hussien. Bin Laden actually called Hussien a "socialist infidel". Not something you go and say about a guy that you have close connections with. And Bush said "HE TRIED TO KILL MY DADDY". We didn't go to war with Iraq because we were attacked by Afghanistan. Bush went to war with Iraq to prove to his daddy that he is better and to make more money.

The War in Iraq was an extension of the war on terror.

No, Saddam had no direct links to Al Qaeda. Yes, bin Laden didn't like Hussein. But he still sought training camps in Iraq, and Hussein turned him down.

We weren't attacked by Afghanistan, either. The Taliban merely harbored Bin Laden. He didn't control the country. But most of those who disagree with the War in Iraq based on the idea that "they didn't attack us" overlook this fact.

But that's not the point. Attacking Iraq was the right thing to do, based on the information that Bush had when he made the decision to go to war. Yes, some of that information turned out to be faulty, but in the greater good has resulted - there's a fledgling democracy in the center of the middle east where there wasn't one before. And with our help, it will survive and help to bring stability there. The Saudis won't worry about it. The Iranians won't worry about it. The Turks won't worry about it. That's a bonus right there.

Throw in the human rights violations of the Hussein government, and there are multiple layers that demonstrate that no matter what the reason, removing Hussein was a good thing.

As for the "daddy" and "trying to make money" comments, I'm going to ignore them, because they're ignornant. You don't convince the UN, the Congress and more than 50% of the American people that going to war is a good idea because you're trying to get revenge for Daddy - and if the WMD intelligence was so absolutely farfetched that it must be a lie (as most Bush haters claim it was), we would've seen through it. But it wasn't - it was wrong, but it wasn't a lie. It was plausible, and it made sense.

I'm sick of rehashing the Iraq war. It's been done, and it cannot be undone, and even Kerry has admitted that in the same place he would've done the same thing. (Although I think he's changed his position again).

Actually the terrorists wouldn't vote for Kerry. They see how easy it is with Bush around to fuck with us, so why would they want to get rid of him. Bush didn't even read the briefing that stated "Bin Laden to use Aircrafts as weapons". Why would they want this guy out of office?

That's wrong. And I've read the briefing papers. None of that hadn't been said before. There was no reason to think that it was imminent. No reasonable person would've thought it was imminent.

And the terrorists would vote, period. They don't believe in democracy.

welp heres my biggest reason for "why kerry"

1000 american sodiers needlessly dead
over 7000 needlessly wounded

So basically, you're spitting on our dead soldiers here by claiming that they died for no reason.

They thought they had a reason. If they didn't, they wouldn't have gone.

Think before you type. Even if you disagree with the Iraqi war, you have to admit that there are millions of people who are better of now than they were before it happened. And I think those soldiers would say that bringing hope to those who have none was a good enough reason to lay down their life.

I think he is brave to have fought for America in an unpopular war and then brave for coming home and speaking out against it. He is a man of character. He cares about the people and not just the wealthy ones. I believe we need to change presidents if our nation is to survive and I put my faith in Kerry. He is going to make a fine president.

So basically, you're spitting on our dead soldiers here by claiming that they died for no reason.

They thought they had a reason. If they didn't, they wouldn't have gone.

Think before you type. Even if you disagree with the Iraqi war, you have to admit that there are millions of people who are better of now than they were before it happened. And I think those soldiers would say that bringing hope to those who have none was a good enough reason to lay down their life.

No, we who don't support the war are spitting on those who sent those men and women to die bravely for no good reason. Unfortunately, your type can only try to win arguments by painting those against the war as inhuman demons who don't care about our brave men and women overseas.

How many of those soldiers would have signed up, knowing what they know now?

How many of those soldiers would have signed up, knowing what they know now?

Alot of them would. When you sign up to join you are told when you do that you could go off to war.

As to how many will sign up. Probably more than you'll ever think of.

Basically I have looked at both parties pland for the next four years. Kerry has offered a straight forward plan on terrorism, economy, health care, taxes, vets, etc.

Bush has planned basically nothing, not that what he has said can be trusted. Some of his stuff appears to be aimed straight at moderates. History shows that few of these plans will come to pass. What he is saying, besides ammendments banning gay marriage and benefits to life-partners (not neccessarily gay) and bans to abortion.

The biggest mistake he made, and this one infuriates me, is his war plan. You do NOT engage in a second avoidable war while you are in the midst of one already! Many have tried this, and it almost always ends up in failure.

We need jobs and an economy that will grow this country. Bush has FAILED on these accounts. The mediocre growth of today means we won't catch up in ages. We need some new thinking.

If you don't think that the President has offered a coherent plan for the next 4 years, you've not been paying attention. His convention speech sounded like a State of the Union address because he listed all of the things he was planning on doing.

Just to make it easier, here's his Agenda for America:

---------------------------------------

Creating Opportunity for American Workers

• Reforming America’s High Schools: President Bush will provide $250 million annually to extend state assessment of student reading and math skills.
• Jobs for the 21st Century Initiative: President Bush will provide $500 million for Jobs for the 21st Century, which will help educate and train high-skilled American workers in schools and community colleges.
• Tax Reform: President Bush will work to make the tax code simpler for taxpayers, encourage saving and investment, and improve the economy’s ability to create jobs and raise wages.
• Opportunity Zones: President Bush will create new Opportunity Zones, which will encourage public and private investment and provide priority consideration for Federal benefits to communities that are under economic hardship.

Helping American Families in a Changing World

• Helping the Working Uninsured by Expanding Health Savings Accounts: President Bush will propose a tax credit for Health Savings Account contributions to help individuals and families who work for small businesses fund their Health Savings Accounts.
• Make Health Care Accessible: President Bush will call for a community health center in every poor county in America.
• Promote Comp-Time and Flex-Time: President Bush will work to enable employees to choose paid time off as an alternative to overtime pay and to give employees the option of shifting work hours during a pay period.
• Crack Down On Drugs in Schools: President Bush will increase funding for school drug testing to help students resist peer pressure and help parents intervene with students in need.

Promoting an Era of Ownership

• Homeownership: President Bush will provide assistance to help America to meet his new goal of creating 7 million new, affordable homes in 10 years.
• Social Security Reform: President Bush will strengthen and enhance Social Security, guaranteeing no changes in benefits for current retirees and near-retirees, while giving younger workers the opportunity to use their Social Security payroll taxes to build a nest egg for retirement that can be passed on to their families.
• Help Small Businesses: President Bush will help small businesses in a number of ways, including by allowing them to band together to provide more affordable health care for their employees through Association Health Plans.

Defending American Lives and Liberty

• Fight the War On Offense: President Bush will continue to lead a worldwide coalition to fight terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them here at home.
• Intelligence Reform: President Bush will work with a new National Intelligence Director to improve the quality and quantity of our intelligence and our ability to disrupt and prevent terrorist attacks.
• Troop Redeployment: President Bush will restructure American forces overseas to use existing forces more effectively and to support servicemen, servicewomen, and their families more efficiently.

Supporting Our Communities and Honoring American Values of Compassion and Service

• Judges: President Bush will continue to appoint to the Federal courts well-qualified judges who share his commitment to strictly interpret the law.
• Welfare Reform: President Bush will continue to press for reauthorization of welfare reform and to build on its successes, strengthening families and helping more welfare recipients achieve independence through work.
• Faith-Based and Community Initiatives: President Bush will continue to support the good work of community and faith-based groups and help ensure that these charities can participate in Federal, state, and local programs without discrimination.

----------------------------

All of that sounds pretty coherent and straightforward to me.

As for the comments about the War - the War on Terror is not your standard war. It's not a full scale, multi-theater conflict (like we planned on fighting with the Soviet Union). The War in Iraq was part of the War on Terror, not a second war in and of itself. It would be more accurate to call them the Battle of Afghanistan and the Battle of Iraq - two actions in the same global war on terror.

As for your economy comments, read what I've posted in the rest of the thread.

^^^^^^

Seems like a whole lot of spending (and very little regard for budgeting) from a party supposedly in favour of reducing government spending.

No, we who don't support the war are spitting on those who sent those men and women to die bravely for no good reason. Unfortunately, your type can only try to win arguments by painting those against the war as inhuman demons who don't care about our brave men and women overseas.

How many of those soldiers would have signed up, knowing what they know now?

All of them. Because, as I said, they recognized that what we were doing there was right.

I didn't say that those out there who didn't support the war were spitting on our soliders. I said ASHMORIA was - for the callous claim that 1000 of them died "for no reason" and 7000 were wounded "for no reason". There are a million Iraqi children who won't grow up to be tortured and killed who will think they had a pretty damn good reason.

Like I said - you can disagree with the war and the reasons we went to war, but saying that those men and women died for no reason goes too far.

There are a million Iraqi children who won't grow up to be tortured and killed who will think they had a pretty damn good reason.


Judging from the continuing insurrection (and the ongoing prison scandals) this is a pretty outrageous statement. I don't think anyone is in a place to say what Iraq will look like in a decade.

Judging from the continuing insurrection (and the ongoing prison scandals) this is a pretty outrageous statement. I don't think anyone is in a place to say what Iraq will look like in a decade.

No it's not.

There's no on-going prison scandal. What happened at Abu Ghraib is over - because the military stopped it when they found out what was happening. Which was months before the photos were leaked to the media.

The insurrection isn't going to last a decade, and it's not going to result in the reestablishment of the Hussein regime. I don't know exactly what Iraq will look like, but I know it won't look like it did when Saddam was in power.

Those children have hope for their futures now - something they didn't have before.

^^^^^^

Seems like a whole lot of spending (and very little regard for budgeting) from a party supposedly in favour of reducing government spending.

I'm not going to disagree with that. My biggest problem with Bush is his inability to control government spending.

But Kerry has already proposed more than a trillion in new spending initiatives, so I don't think this is an issue that I'm going to have any luck with in either party.

The War in Iraq was an extension of the war on terror.
There is no war on terror--you can't fight a tactic. We are in a war against radical Islamists and the main group we face is al Qaeda.

No, Saddam had no direct links to Al Qaeda. Yes, bin Laden didn't like Hussein. But he still sought training camps in Iraq, and Hussein turned him down.
And that's enough reason to go to war?

We weren't attacked by Afghanistan, either. The Taliban merely harbored Bin Laden. He didn't control the country. But most of those who disagree with the War in Iraq based on the idea that "they didn't attack us" overlook this fact.
Actually, after we positively linked the 1998 Tanzania bombings to al Qaeda, we told the Taliban that if al Qaeda hit us again, we'd hold them responsible. The Bush administration got actionable intelligence linking them to the Cole bombing shortly after taking office and refused to take out the Taliban. Now, that's their decision, and were I in their shoes, I might not have done anything either, but the Taliban were alerted long before 9/11 that we'd hit them if they harbored al Qaeda and they hit us. There was a definite operational link between the Taliban and al Qaeda.

But that's not the point. Attacking Iraq was the right thing to do, based on the information that Bush had when he made the decision to go to war. Yes, some of that information turned out to be faulty, but in the greater good has resulted - there's a fledgling democracy in the center of the middle east where there wasn't one before. And with our help, it will survive and help to bring stability there. The Saudis won't worry about it. The Iranians won't worry about it. The Turks won't worry about it. That's a bonus right there.Sorry, but you're simply reciting platitudes here. There's no fledgling democracy, and the information Bush used to go towar was faulty from the get-go because he wanted an Iraq linkage. He'd been after them since before he was inaugurated, and he found a way to make it happen.

Throw in the human rights violations of the Hussein government, and there are multiple layers that demonstrate that no matter what the reason, removing Hussein was a good thing.
The end result may wind up being a good thing, and Hussein was certainly a bastard, but we had more important things to deal with than him, and now it's all gone to hell because we were sidetracked into an unnecessary war at a bad point in time.

As for the "daddy" and "trying to make money" comments, I'm going to ignore them, because they're ignornant. You don't convince the UN, the Congress and more than 50% of the American people that going to war is a good idea because you're trying to get revenge for Daddy - and if the WMD intelligence was so absolutely farfetched that it must be a lie (as most Bush haters claim it was), we would've seen through it. But it wasn't - it was wrong, but it wasn't a lie. It was plausible, and it made sense. Well, some of us saw through the WMD evidence, but the media didn't do much of an investigatory job except for Dana Milbank and Seymour hersh, and they were too little too late. The other arguments you mention--I agree, although I take exception with your statement that we convinced the UN to go along. We convinced them to renew inspections--we did not get them to agree to the invasion.

I'm sick of rehashing the Iraq war. It's been done, and it cannot be undone, and even Kerry has admitted that in the same place he would've done the same thing. (Although I think he's changed his position again).No--Kerry said he would have given the sitting President the authority that he did. That's not the same as saying that he would have done the same as Bush. Let me say this as well--that vote is a big problem for me, personally, because I was against this war from the moment I started suspecting it was going to happen, which was in early 2002, and it was a large reason why Kerry was far from my first pick for the Democratic nomination. But it's important to me that Kerry's statement be conveyed accurately--he would vote for the authorization again (stupid, I know), but he has never said that we would be at war in Iraq if he were President.

I'm not going to disagree with that. My biggest problem with Bush is his inability to control government spending.

But Kerry has already proposed more than a trillion in new spending initiatives, so I don't think this is an issue that I'm going to have any luck with in either party.

Brian you really do know what your talking about

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=355379 <---This thread could use your insights

No it's not.

There's no on-going prison scandal. What happened at Abu Ghraib is over - because the military stopped it when they found out what was happening. Which was months before the photos were leaked to the media.

Maybe. Of course we'll never know, since AFAIK no journalists are allowed anywhere NEAR any detention centres. Hell, they're torturing people in Guantanamo Bay (according to the Geneva convention) so I'm certain they'd do the same in Iraq.

The insurrection isn't going to last a decade,
I bet the Isrealies thought the same thing. When it comes to a mindbending level of stubborn violence, you (historically speaking, anyways) can't beat the Arabs (no offense intended). As that old British Maxim goes, the Arab's either at your feet or at your throat.

and it's not going to result in the reestablishment of the Hussein regime. I don't know exactly what Iraq will look like, but I know it won't look like it did when Saddam was in power.

Those children have hope for their futures now - something they didn't have before.

Err... what hope exactly? The US hasn't even secured control of the nation yet, much less rebuilding it (significantly, anyways). Seriously, I"m not exactly anti-Iraq, but lets not blind ourselves with this silly 'good-will mission' mentality. The Arabs don't, the military doesn't, and I highly doubt that the Bush adminsitration's outlook is anything other than that put forward in PNAC (i.e. America interests, American Hegemony).

I think he is brave to have fought for America in an unpopular war and then brave for coming home and speaking out against it. He is a man of character. He cares about the people and not just the wealthy ones. I believe we need to change presidents if our nation is to survive and I put my faith in Kerry. He is going to make a fine president.

Personally, I think his Vietnam service was laudable - he went overseas during a time when he didn't have to.

But his only spending 4 months there, and his returning and protesting against the war make me suspicious of his motives. Kerry is very intelligent. What he did makes me wonder if he planned what he was doing specifically to lay the groundwork for his political carreer. But maybe I'm just being hypercritical.

I don't get the feeling that he cares about people. He doesn't exude that to me. Bush does. And not just the wealthy ones.

I don't know how you can claim that another 4 years of Bush in office will result in the destruction of America - I think that's going a little far. Don't you?

I hope that if Kerry is elected that he steps up and exhibits more leadership than he's exhibited during his Senate career. He had an excellent chance to make a difference as a Senator for 20 years, and he has yet to live up to the full potential of that office.

I'm not going to disagree with that. My biggest problem with Bush is his inability to control government spending.

But Kerry has already proposed more than a trillion in new spending initiatives, so I don't think this is an issue that I'm going to have any luck with in either party.


hey, at least with kerry you know a wee bit less of it is ending up in Presidential and vice-presidential pockets. Big ketchup isn't the same as big oil, in my opinion anyways.

Actually, does anyone know how much Cheney personally made off the Iraq war?

Maybe. Of course we'll never know, since AFAIK no journalists are allowed anywhere NEAR any detention centres. Hell, they're torturing people in Guantanamo Bay (according to the Geneva convention) so I'm certain they'd do the same in Iraq.

I bet the Isrealies thought the same thing. When it comes to a mindbending level of stubborn violence, you (historically speaking, anyways) can't beat the Arabs (no offense intended). As that old British Maxim goes, the Arab's either at your feet or at your throat.

Err... what hope exactly? The US hasn't even secured control of the nation yet, much less rebuilding it (significantly, anyways). Seriously, I"m not exactly anti-Iraq, but lets not blind ourselves with this silly 'good-will mission' mentality. The Arabs don't, the military doesn't, and I highly doubt that the Bush adminsitration's outlook is anything other than that put forward in PNAC (i.e. America interests, American Hegemony).

The Red Cross is down in Gitmo, and according to the Geneva Convention, the folks being held down there aren't lawful combatants, as they were not in uniform, fighting for a sovereign state. Therefore they do not have the rights granted by the convention to prisoners of war.

Abu Ghraib is over. The prison is being shut down, if it hasn't been already.

Right now, the "insurrection" is a group of Shiite's that are loyal to Al-Sadr. He doesn't have that much support outside of the Baghdad/Falujjah/Najaf region, and the Iraqi Government is out to get him. Once he is some how taken care of, it will be over. But that's their decision. They're not revolting against an occupier anymore - they've got control over their own country.

As of now, it's not the US' job to secure control of the nation. The nation is under the control of the Iraqi Government. Rebuilding is already underway, and has been for a quite a while. I'm not familiar with PNAC, so I'm not sure what you mean by that.

hey, at least with kerry you know a wee bit less of it is ending up in Presidential and vice-presidential pockets. Big ketchup isn't the same as big oil, in my opinion anyways.

Actually, does anyone know how much Cheney personally made off the Iraq war?

None of it is ending up in Presidential or Vice Presidential pockets. White House Ethics rules prohibit any outside income while you're in government service.

Cheney's Halliburton holdings are worth about half today of what they were prior to his election in 2000, so that argument doesn't wash either.

If either the President or the Vice President has made money off this war, the legitimate media would be after them like flies on shit. But they're not - because the idea is ludicrous.

And can you tell me why you want to vote Bush without mentioning terrorism, september 11th, vietnam, iraq, kerry, or "the economy is strong"?

He let the awb expire. Because he wants to privatize and relieve the tax payers of some tax burden for social issues that could be left to the states if they want it. He will attack any country before talking to them (I am a firm believer to be the first one to throw a punch in a fight, even if your wrong to be in that fight). Now if you want a list of why I do not like him I could provide a better one.

First, you obviously havn't been president, and I doubt that you have ever worked with a president. Do you have any idea how many tips, reports, etc... that are normally in circulation? Most of them were wrong, no one can read every briefing and report.

Second, if GWB came on and said "terrorists are going to attack using aircraft," what would you think? Now, attempt to put yourself in a pre-911 mindset. Every liberal would be saying that it is a political scam or something.

Third, to your previous comment, we went into Iraq because they were harboring terrorists. Can you actually say that you believe that there were/are no terrorists in Iraq?

Point number 1:

True, the president does get tons of memos; at the same time, however, that's the reason that memo's have titles, and honestly, that's the reason memos are short. I would understand if you overlook a memo entitled, "Carpooling functioning well in D.C. beltway." But if the title of the memo is "Bin Ladin to attack United States," you bloody well better read the two page memo. Heck, I would honestly expect you, as commander in chief, as defender of America, to not only read the memo, but ask for the full report and read it! Find out what's going on there. This stuff is important; lives do hang in the balance here.
Plus, it's not like this was a memo from the Department of Transportation, it was from the DoD for crying out loud! Plus, isn't it his job to read the memos? He is the President. We, the American public vote for him and pay him 200,000 dollars a year to read a few memos and make a few important decisions. Seriously, this is his job; stop fishing, or ranching, or meeting with the NCAA basketball champions and read your memos.
Also, I take it from your argument, that you've been president, or know what it's like? Unless your name is Carter or Bush (in wish case, it's a pleasure), I sincerely doubt you can state what you just did. And honestly folks, does the President not have an entire staff full of intelligent advisors to help him make decisions and be informed? If you can't handle all the work yourself, you spread the work out to the National Security Council, the Department of Defense, or whoever else you have to.

Point number 2:

Well, the idea of planes crashing into the Twin Towers isn't that far fetched. The Columbine lunatics described the act of flying planes into buildings, the Twin Towers have been a terrorist target for a while, the FBI had proof that at least one Islam extremist was learning how to fly, and one FBI locale director is quoting as stating the following, "I'm trying to prevent someone from flying a 747 into the World Trade Center." Far fetched? Hardly. True, it would be difficult to collect all the evidence and see the connection, but at least try darn it. That's the least we can ask for, no?

Point number 3:

What terrorists exactly were they harboring? Osama? Oh, no wait, he's in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Any other Al-Queda member? No, not really. I agree that they're harboring terrorists now, but that might be because we invaded their country. Seriously, what would any person do if their country was overrun by another country (the answer here is resist, even if they didn't especially enjoy the previous government). True, Suddam and his thugs were evil, evil mofos, but its hard to argue that they were terrorist threats to the United States.

The War in Iraq was an extension of the war on terror.

No, Saddam had no direct links to Al Qaeda. Yes, bin Laden didn't like Hussein. But he still sought training camps in Iraq, and Hussein turned him down.

We weren't attacked by Afghanistan, either. The Taliban merely harbored Bin Laden. He didn't control the country. But most of those who disagree with the War in Iraq based on the idea that "they didn't attack us" overlook this fact.


You're statement is a little misleading. The Taliban didn't merely harbor Bin Laden, they basically gave him the tools, support, and infrastructure needed to run his operation. Bin Laden, in turn, gave them money and aided them in fighting the Northern Resistance. Not only is this true, but America under Clinton had warned the Taliban that any attack on US soil caused by Al-Queda would be seen as an attack on the US by the Taliban.
The same cannot be said of Iraq.

The underlying difference here is a critical one: the Taliban implicitlly attacked America through a secretive hand, while Iraq did not.

Add this to the fact that the Taliban were warned years in advance about attacking America, and you don't have the same situation. Not even close.

The Red Cross is down in Gitmo, and according to the Geneva Convention, the folks being held down there aren't lawful combatants, as they were not in uniform, fighting for a sovereign state. Therefore they do not have the rights granted by the convention to prisoners of war.

But, ironically, they don't have the rights ascribed to a common criminal. If they're not enemy soldiers, and they're not criminals, why are we detaining them?


Right now, the "insurrection" is a group of Shiite's that are loyal to Al-Sadr. He doesn't have that much support outside of the Baghdad/Falujjah/Najaf region, and the Iraqi Government is out to get him. Once he is some how taken care of, it will be over. But that's their decision. They're not revolting against an occupier anymore - they've got control over their own country.

Oh really? I must have missed the elections. I'm not that stupid, you're not that stupid, and you can be damn sure the Iraqis aren't that stupid.

As of now, it's not the US' job to secure control of the nation. The nation is under the control of the Iraqi Government. Rebuilding is already underway, and has been for a quite a while. I'm not familiar with PNAC, so I'm not sure what you mean by that.
PNAC = Plan for a New American Century, essentially a neo-conservative think-tank, starring such current illuminaries as Elliott Abrams, Dick Cheney, Paula Dobriansky, Aaron Friedberg, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald H. Rumsfeld, John R. Bolton, Vin Weber, and Paul Dundes Wolfowitz, not to mention members of the bush family and certain Saudi royals. It was established in 1997, and is devoted to the creation of a unipolar, American dominated world order.

Essentially, Bush and co. are interested in the establishment of a so-called 'pax americana', plain and simple. I find this idea intensely repelling, especially given the success and monstrous failures (and accompanying attrocities, of course) of previous attempts at unipolar, top down government (i.e. colonialism). It seems the ruling republicans have an acute case of white man's burden, and are quite open about it, if you care to look.

That's wrong. And I've read the briefing papers. None of that hadn't been said before. There was no reason to think that it was imminent. No reasonable person would've thought it was imminent.



The 9/11 Commission would disagree with this statement, not to mention Richard Clarke. There was plenty of proof to show that the attack was, indeed imminent. I'm not going to argue that the Bush administration should have seen the attacks coming; hindsight is 20/20 and what seems obvious to us now wasn't back then, but Bush should have definetly looked closer into Al-Queda once he saw the memo's title.

There is no war on terror--you can't fight a tactic. We are in a war against radical Islamists and the main group we face is al Qaeda..

You're arguing semantics. That's the name of it. Yes, it is a war against radical islamists and the main group we face is Al Qaeda, but we call it the "War on Terror".

And that's enough reason to go to war?.

No. The intelligence that we had that indicated that Saddam was actively pursuing WMD (which has turned out to be wrong), coupled with the knowledge that he has used WMD in the past, has harbored and supported terrorists in the past (most recently Hamas and their suicide bombing campaign in Israel) and his refusal to cooperate fully with UN inspectors in violation of about a zilllion UN Security Council resolutions.

That's was reason enough. You have to look at it from the perspective of what we knew when we started the war - not what we know now.

And even knowing what we know now, I would argue the war was still justified, and I think the President could have convinced the American people it was justified without the WMD argument had it not been available.

Actually, after we positively linked the 1998 Tanzania bombings to al Qaeda, we told the Taliban that if al Qaeda hit us again, we'd hold them responsible. The Bush administration got actionable intelligence linking them to the Cole bombing shortly after taking office and refused to take out the Taliban. Now, that's their decision, and were I in their shoes, I might not have done anything either, but the Taliban were alerted long before 9/11 that we'd hit them if they harbored al Qaeda and they hit us. There was a definite operational link between the Taliban and al Qaeda.

The Clinton Administration informed the Taliban that if al Qaeda hit us again, we'd hold them responsible. Unfortuanately, they waited until we switched administrations - a period of significant upheaval. I don't think that you can hold the President accountable for not starting a war twenty minutes into his Presidency.

There were plenty of previous attacks, including the first World Trade Center bombings, that we had linked back to Al Qaede - why we kept giving them "one more chance", I don't understand. But that's what happened.

Sorry, but you're simply reciting platitudes here. There's no fledgling democracy, and the information Bush used to go towar was faulty from the get-go because he wanted an Iraq linkage. He'd been after them since before he was inaugurated, and he found a way to make it happen.

I'm not reciting platitudes. There is a fledgling democracy - they're planning on holding elections in less than five months. They've got their government up and running, and they're taking over the day to day operations over there. The information used WAS faulty, but it wasn't faulty because Bush wanted it to be faulty. It was faulty because the CIA had it's head up its ass - which isn't the first time. How he could be "after them since before he was inaugurated" I don't know, since he was only governor of Texas. He may not have liked them, but he wasn't in a position to do anything about it. And claiming that the President invented excuses to go to war simply because he wanted to doesn't explain how he convinced Congress, Senator Kerry included (who sat on the Intelligence committee and had access to all of the information that Bush did that was faulty) the UN and the American people that going to war was the right idea. If it was just a conspiracy, we wouldn't have been fooled. This wasn't the Spanish American War Part Deux.

The end result may wind up being a good thing, and Hussein was certainly a bastard, but we had more important things to deal with than him, and now it's all gone to hell because we were sidetracked into an unnecessary war at a bad point in time.

What's all gone now? Iraq did not distract us from going after Al-Qaede and bin Laden. We've been doing both at the same time. The forces used in Iraq were wholly unsuited to finding bin Laden. You don't use a sledge hammer to kill a mouse. We've got special forces on the ground, working the Afghan and Pakistani governments, and I'm confident that it's only a matter of time before we find him. And the Iraq war didn't hinder those efforts.

Well, some of us saw through the WMD evidence, but the media didn't do much of an investigatory job except for Dana Milbank and Seymour hersh, and they were too little too late. The other arguments you mention--I agree, although I take exception with your statement that we convinced the UN to go along. We convinced them to renew inspections--we did not get them to agree to the invasion.

1441 is pretty explicit - Iraq had a timeline, they failed to meet it, so force was authorized. Saddam had the final choice - had he backed off, the US couldn't have invaded. But he didn't, and we did, so now he's gardening in prison.

No--Kerry said he would have given the sitting President the authority that he did. That's not the same as saying that he would have done the same as Bush. Let me say this as well--that vote is a big problem for me, personally, because I was against this war from the moment I started suspecting it was going to happen, which was in early 2002, and it was a large reason why Kerry was far from my first pick for the Democratic nomination. But it's important to me that Kerry's statement be conveyed accurately--he would vote for the authorization again (stupid, I know), but he has never said that we would be at war in Iraq if he were President.

Kerry is not naive - he knew full well that voting to authorize force was giving the President the ability to wage war. You don't authorize force unless you expect to use it. Congress has never authorized force in a situation where force was not used. In any event, whether that was what Kerry meant at the time, or whether he merely meant that he would have voted the same way, he has not held a consistent view on the war in Iraq, and there are clear indicators that his views on the war were not based on his conscience or the will of the voters of Massachusetts, but on what he felt was the most politically expedient at the time.

Kerry is no coward - he came back and protested against the Vietnam War before it was unpopular. He voted against going to war in the Gulf in 1991. Why then, would he cave in and vote for authorizing force here unless he felt that the President had a greater justification for doing so than we did in 1991? This doesn't add up to me.

I'm a politician, so I understand that reading polls and doing what is political expedient tends to work - but I want a President who is willing to do the right thing even if it isn't politically expedient. And I think Bush has proven that he'll stick with what he believes in, even if its not popular. That resonates with me. From Kerry's background, he used to act this way, but somewhere between Vietnam Veterans Against the War and the US Senate he changed. That bothers me.

1441 is pretty explicit - Iraq had a timeline, they failed to meet it, so force was authorized. Saddam had the final choice - had he backed off, the US couldn't have invaded. But he didn't, and we did, so now he's gardening in prison.


Err... given that they didn't actually have any WMD (or so it now appears), I think 1441 would have been pretty damn hard to meet to US satisfaction.

You're statement is a little misleading. The Taliban didn't merely harbor Bin Laden, they basically gave him the tools, support, and infrastructure needed to run his operation. Bin Laden, in turn, gave them money and aided them in fighting the Northern Resistance. Not only is this true, but America under Clinton had warned the Taliban that any attack on US soil caused by Al-Queda would be seen as an attack on the US by the Taliban.
The same cannot be said of Iraq.

The underlying difference here is a critical one: the Taliban implicitlly attacked America through a secretive hand, while Iraq did not.

Add this to the fact that the Taliban were warned years in advance about attacking America, and you don't have the same situation. Not even close.

1993--suspected Al Qaeda Terrorists tried to destroy the WTC! 6 Dead
1998--Embasssy Bombings done by Al Qaeda and they took responsiblity.
2000--USS Cole hit by Al Qaeda Terrorists

No action was taken except for cruise missile assault. So much for that idea.

2001--Al Qaeda Destroys WTC Plaza
Response:
Taliban ousted from power

Kerry is not naive - he knew full well that voting to authorize force was giving the President the ability to wage war. You don't authorize force unless you expect to use it.

Yeah, Kerry was naive to believe Bush's promises...

Point number 1:

True, the president does get tons of memos; at the same time, however, that's the reason that memo's have titles, and honestly, that's the reason memos are short. I would understand if you overlook a memo entitled, "Carpooling functioning well in D.C. beltway." But if the title of the memo is "Bin Ladin to attack United States," you bloody well better read the two page memo. Heck, I would honestly expect you, as commander in chief, as defender of America, to not only read the memo, but ask for the full report and read it! Find out what's going on there. This stuff is important; lives do hang in the balance here.
Plus, it's not like this was a memo from the Department of Transportation, it was from the DoD for crying out loud! Plus, isn't it his job to read the memos? He is the President. We, the American public vote for him and pay him 200,000 dollars a year to read a few memos and make a few important decisions. Seriously, this is his job; stop fishing, or ranching, or meeting with the NCAA basketball champions and read your memos.
Also, I take it from your argument, that you've been president, or know what it's like? Unless your name is Carter or Bush (in wish case, it's a pleasure), I sincerely doubt you can state what you just did. And honestly folks, does the President not have an entire staff full of intelligent advisors to help him make decisions and be informed? If you can't handle all the work yourself, you spread the work out to the National Security Council, the Department of Defense, or whoever else you have to.

Point number 2:

Well, the idea of planes crashing into the Twin Towers isn't that far fetched. The Columbine lunatics described the act of flying planes into buildings, the Twin Towers have been a terrorist target for a while, the FBI had proof that at least one Islam extremist was learning how to fly, and one FBI locale director is quoting as stating the following, "I'm trying to prevent someone from flying a 747 into the World Trade Center." Far fetched? Hardly. True, it would be difficult to collect all the evidence and see the connection, but at least try darn it. That's the least we can ask for, no?

Point number 3:

What terrorists exactly were they harboring? Osama? Oh, no wait, he's in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Any other Al-Queda member? No, not really. I agree that they're harboring terrorists now, but that might be because we invaded their country. Seriously, what would any person do if their country was overrun by another country (the answer here is resist, even if they didn't especially enjoy the previous government). True, Suddam and his thugs were evil, evil mofos, but its hard to argue that they were terrorist threats to the United States.

Point #1 - the President had specifically asked to have drafted a briefing regarding bin Laden and his threats against the United States. This is why that briefing was written. None of the information in the briefing was new - it was all previously reported speculation and intel that had been floating around for a number of years.

Point #2 - No, it's not. Tom Clancy wrote in Debt of Honor (published 1995)about a 747 being crashed into the Capitol Building during a joint session of Congress. It's unconfirmed, but there is speculation that this is where Flight 93 was headed. From what you've said, they were obviously trying - but there are plenty of roadblocks built into the intelligence gathering system in America, and hopefully they will be addressed.

Point #3 - At least one terrorist - Abu Nidal. He was responsible for a long list of terrorist attacks which included the Rome and Vienna airports in December 1985, the Neve Shalom synagogue in Istanbul and the Pan Am Flight 73 hijacking in Karachi in September 1986, and the City of Poros day-excursion ship attack in Greece in July 1988. Suspected of assassinating PLO deputy chief Abu Iyad and PLO security chief Abu Hul in Tunis in January 1991 (taken from the State Departments' Patterns of Global Terrorism 2004).

As the President stated in his address to the nation on September 20th, any state that harbored terrorists was to be considered a threat to the US. And after September 11th, I think that was justified. We cannot simply view threats they way we did prior to that date. We've learned that we're not safe here, and the President is being proactive - which is what he needs to be (and in fact is often lambasted for by his opponents ... not being proactive enough before 9/11).

What's all gone now? Iraq did not distract us from going after Al-Qaede and bin Laden. We've been doing both at the same time. The forces used in Iraq were wholly unsuited to finding bin Laden. You don't use a sledge hammer to kill a mouse. We've got special forces on the ground, working the Afghan and Pakistani governments, and I'm confident that it's only a matter of time before we find him. And the Iraq war didn't hinder those efforts.



Most of your statements are pretty well-structured and intelligent, so I'm not sure if you wrote this.

Why wouldn't you use a sledge hammer to kill a mouse, if that mouse is threatening your family, and if the sledge hammer is the best tool you have available? You can't seriously argue that Iraq hasn't distracted us from Afghanistan? Afghanistan still hasn't had elections, the re-building there is not going very well, and Iraq has stretched our military thin. Seriously, Al-Queda attacked American soil, Iraq has not; yet we have over 100,000 troops in Iraq and 20,000 in Afghanistan. Those priorities are just not right. During most occupations, American and allied forces run 1 for every 50 citizen; in Afghanistan, where Al-Queda is hiding and rebuilding, we have a ratio of one troop for every thousand citizens.

Honestly, you can argue the numbers, but you can't argue that we haven't found Bin Laden; nor can you argue that Afghanistan will really help us. Most of the country is still in warlord hands, and opium is still a problem. Pakistan won't help us all that much either; General Pervez Musharraf is too scared to attack extreme Islamists, doing so might cause major dissent in his country. Not to mention that he still has to hard-ball with India.

That is not a good situation; I'm not sure it would be a great situation without Iraq, but it would certainly be a better on.e

Err... given that they didn't actually have any WMD (or so it now appears), I think 1441 would have been pretty damn hard to meet to US satisfaction.

All they had to do was provide free, complete, unfettered access to the UNMOVIC guys. They didn't.

Had they even attempted to do so, they would've provided France and Germany (and France has an unoverridable veto) the cover they needed to nuke the resolution.

Saddam had no one to blame for himself. He knew what was coming, but his ego (or his mental illness, assuming he has one) kept him from believing it.

Yeah, Kerry was naive to believe Bush's promises...

What promise did Kerry believe?

Point #1 - the President had specifically asked to have drafted a briefing regarding bin Laden and his threats against the United States. This is why that briefing was written. None of the information in the briefing was new - it was all previously reported speculation and intel that had been floating around for a number of years.

Point #2 - No, it's not. Tom Clancy wrote in Debt of Honor (published 1995)about a 747 being crashed into the Capitol Building during a joint session of Congress. It's unconfirmed, but there is speculation that this is where Flight 93 was headed. From what you've said, they were obviously trying - but there are plenty of roadblocks built into the intelligence gathering system in America, and hopefully they will be addressed.

Point #3 - At least one terrorist - Abu Nidal. He was responsible for a long list of terrorist attacks which included the Rome and Vienna airports in December 1985, the Neve Shalom synagogue in Istanbul and the Pan Am Flight 73 hijacking in Karachi in September 1986, and the City of Poros day-excursion ship attack in Greece in July 1988. Suspected of assassinating PLO deputy chief Abu Iyad and PLO security chief Abu Hul in Tunis in January 1991 (taken from the State Departments' Patterns of Global Terrorism 2004).

As the President stated in his address to the nation on September 20th, any state that harbored terrorists was to be considered a threat to the US. And after September 11th, I think that was justified. We cannot simply view threats they way we did prior to that date. We've learned that we're not safe here, and the President is being proactive - which is what he needs to be (and in fact is often lambasted for by his opponents ... not being proactive enough before 9/11).


Counterpoint 1:

That's great that he asked for the memo... except he didn't READ it! What's the point of asking your staff to collect data if your not going to act on it. The information wasn't all information that was hashing around for years (obviously some was dated), some of the information was new and usable. The important thing is that the memo said an attack was imminent. I don't know what imminent might mean to someone else, but to me it means soon. This means, start getting your act together and look through the intelligence. Most importantly, don't make the first meeting on terrorism 8 months after you take office; especially when the previous president said terrorism was the most important issue of the future.

Counterpoint 2:

Have nothing to argue with you, agree with you on everything you said. And I as well, hope that the intelligence issues will be addressed; although I doubt it.

Counterpoint 3:

Ok, let me rephrase, what terrorists that threatened America was Iraq harboring? If we're talking about attacking nations that harbor terrorists that have attacked any other nation, we're talking about wars with Syria, Iran, Chechnya, Ireland, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and a sleuth of other countries. True, terrorism is a worldwide problem, but in that case, there should be a worldwide solution; a solution that doesn't force us to go into every country and destroy their government.

Most of your statements are pretty well-structured and intelligent, so I'm not sure if you wrote this.

Why wouldn't you use a sledge hammer to kill a mouse, if that mouse is threatening your family, and if the sledge hammer is the best tool you have available? You can't seriously argue that Iraq hasn't distracted us from Afghanistan? Afghanistan still hasn't had elections, the re-building there is not going very well, and Iraq has stretched our military thin. Seriously, Al-Queda attacked American soil, Iraq has not; yet we have over 100,000 troops in Iraq and 20,000 in Afghanistan. Those priorities are just not right. During most occupations, American and allied forces run 1 for every 50 citizen; in Afghanistan, where Al-Queda is hiding and rebuilding, we have a ratio of one troop for every thousand citizens.

Honestly, you can argue the numbers, but you can't argue that we haven't found Bin Laden; nor can you argue that Afghanistan will really help us. Most of the country is still in warlord hands, and opium is still a problem. Pakistan won't help us all that much either; General Pervez Musharraf is too scared to attack extreme Islamists, doing so might cause major dissent in his country. Not to mention that he still has to hard-ball with India.

That is not a good situation; I'm not sure it would be a great situation without Iraq, but it would certainly be a better on.e

You try killing a fast moving mouse with a heavy sledge hammer. By the time you get the thing raised up and ready to smack it, the mouse is gone. That's the point. Special forces are fast, nimble, easily redeployed, with minimal equipment and no long logistic train. An armored tank division can't even MOVE without access to a seaport, because there's no way to get their vehicles and equipment to them except via ship. That's the reason why I said that.

If the commanders in the field felt that they needed more troops in Afghanistan, I can safely say they would have them. Iraq may have distracted the public's attention from Afghanistan, but not the military's, not the CIA's and not the State Department's.

I disagree that most of the country is in warlord's hands. The country is in much better shape now than when we took it over, and if it were in such poor shape, I am positive that the mainstream media would be all over it, as continued proof of the "folly" of the war in Iraq. But they're not.

We haven't found bin Laden - true. But as I said before, you're trying to find a needle in a haystack. The area he is possibly hiding in - southern Afghanistan and northern Pakistan - is large, it's undeveloped, it's largely mountainous, and he knows it well. He's not going to be an easy man to find, and deploying a hundred thousand troops to afghanistan to find him isn't going to make a difference. It's just going to cause more trouble than its worth. We just have to be patient - he will be caught in time. Opium has ALWAYS been Afghanistan's primary export - it's no worse now than it was during the Soviet occupation or after.

Pakistan is an ally of convenience. Frankly, Musharaf is no better than the Taliban were. But we needed ports and we needed bases, so we "coerced" Pakistan into working with us. I don't like it, but it was a necessary evil. Once we've found bin Laden, we won't need Pakistan anymore and we can work to force Musharaf to hold elections.

I'm looking at the broader picture. The "yearly record deficits" are true - but you aren't taking into account the fact that we're in the middle of a war, and the deficit is not a greater percentage of America's GDP - that's the biggest indicator of serious problems.

The broader picture might also suggest that the deficit wouldn’t be as high as it is if Bush hadn’t invaded Iraq. There is $140 Billion dollars plus interest that had to be borrowed for an unnecessary war.


During World War 2, the deficit was a whopping 30% of America's GDP. That's the highest it's ever been, and it was under a Democratic president. Right now, the deficit (despite the "records levels") is about 3% of GDP - and that's still less than it was in 91/92, and less than it was during most of the Cold War. Even during the height of Reagan's massive spending spree, it was only 6%. This may be true, but can you really compare apples and oranges? During WW 2, the income tax was also a whopping 94%. Which by the way, spurred the American economy into a fantastic period of growth. With taxes being cut, who will pay these ever increasing deficits and the further ballooning National Debt, which is closing in on 70% of GDP?


I will say it again - the deficit does not matter. The budget process is the most wacked out, crazy process and the way the deficits, surpluses, etc. are all calculated make it nearly impossible to be exactly sure of what is going on until you are a number of years out from when you are projecting. I've taken whole courses on the federal budget process and it still trips me up. Saying that Bush is bad because of deficits is an extremely, extremely, extremely simple view of how this process works.

Well not all others share your “the deficit does not matter”:

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/1000

“Why? Any positive business-investment incentives from lower taxes will be outweighed by the curtailing of national saving and investment caused by mammoth budget deficits. To the extent that larger deficits diminish domestic saving, they eat into productive investment. To the extent that larger deficits are funded by borrowing from the rest of the world, they raise the nation's foreign debt and drive future income into servicing this debt. Contrary to the claims of Administration ideologues, larger deficits mean lower future living standards.”


As for the treasuries - the reason why foreign governments buy up our treasuries is twofold - one, it's a hedge against the own currency holdings, which tend to fluctuate much more than ours do, and two, a recognition that the safest investment in the world is the US treasury bond.

I don't think this is unsafe - it's just how the market works.
As long as foreign investors believe that there is value in the US Treasury bond, sure they will buy them, but if the US continues to have a weak economy, while record deficits, record trade imbalances, and debt skyrocket, the interest may wane and perhaps foreign investors will look to dump their holdings of the “sacred” treasury bonds? What does the broader picture look like when that happens?


As for the "double digit inflation" of the 1980s, you're getting your decades mixed up. Under Carter, we dealt with "stagflation", the mixture of high inflation and high interest rates. By 1984, both rates and inflation were under control, and this is generally credited to Reagan's tax and economic policies.

Actually I am not getting my decades mixed up. I know because I was a victim of the triple whammy era of double digit inflation, unemployment, and interest rates. When I bought my new house in 1981, the interest rate for 1 year was 11 ¾%, and when it renewed in 1982, it was 18 ¼% for one year. People were walking away from their homes because they couldn’t afford the new mortgage rates, goods were rising in price and people were losing their jobs.

I realize that double digit inflation began under Carter but Reagan instituted massive tax cuts in 1981 that would kick in, in 1982. To control the spiraling inflation, Reagan’s money man Paul Volcker jacked up the interest rates to cool the inflation. It eventually hammered the inflation rate but not without a lot of pain and suffering as the world went into a severe ression.


The national debt has little control over the economy - it's merely a number, and a number that can be changed or fiddled with depending on how you look at it. The trade deficit means even less - the difference between imports and exports isn't a critical indicator. It has nothing to do with industrial decline, nor does it have anything to do with unfair trade practices abroad - it merely is the discussion of the "flow of capital across international borders, flows that are determined by national rates of savings and investment." (according to the Cato Institute). So bringing it up just introduces more fog into an already difficult to grasp concept.

Such a simplistic statement for such a complex problem? I do believe that there is extreme concern over the complete US economic picture, which to say the least, is struggling at best. I have come across many articles that express grave concern, especially if you factor in retirement of the baby boomers starting to make its presence felt, and the strain that will put on the Social Security system, and Medicare systems.

Here is one from the same web site as above:

On the contrary, under the so-called jobless recovery, more than two million jobs have disappeared since the president, George Bush, took office in January 2001. In fact, Mr. Bush has revived the memories of 1929 depression, as he could be the first president since Herbert Hoover, who was in the White House from 1929 to 1933, the years of the Great Depression, to oversee a decline in total US jobs during his term. By contrast, 22 million jobs were created during the Clinton years.


The economy was great during the Reagan years, and he was adding more debt than anyone since Roosevelt. And no one added more debt as a percentage of GDP than Roosevelt did. Well that is certainly debatable especially if compared to Clinton’s 8 years in office?



You can keep throwing these number arguments out, but the bottom line is that they're all open to interpretation and they're all easily spun in different directions.

I live and work in this economy, as do all of my friends and family. It's not as bad as you make it look on paper, we're not heading towards a depression (I don't think there will ever be another depression, frankly) and the economic indicators point that things are getting better.

Well the jobs just don’t seem to be there? How many of the 144,000 created last month were minimum wage jobs or part time jobs? Also what happens when interest rates start to go up and people have to pay more for those goods that they purchased on the never pay plan? Another thing to consider, that during the 1980’s many people had savings that they could rely on in hard times. It appears that the national savings is at an all time low as well. It shall be interesting to see how it all works out if Bush wins re-election? Especially if he has more wars to start?

I take it you don't have a reason to support Kerry.



I would imagine democracy could not function under any other principle.



Kerry went to Vietnam for four months and had questionable service. The current Commander-in-Chief spent a few years flying around in a screaming metal death trap.



I like the ide of a politician in office who got a close-up view of the Presidencies of Ronald Reagan and his successor.



Bush won. Get over it.



We were attacked.



Communist. Don't make such vague accusations.



Now that's a cheap shot.

You have not given me a reason to support Kerry.

I find it funny that you believe that just because someones father was in office they automatically know how a government its supposed to be run. I could spend hours watching someone play the guitar, but that doesn't mean that I can then pick one up and be the next Jimmy Hendrix.

Secondly, Bush technically didn't win. Bush won because of a little concept called an electoral college. In case you are unfamiliar with the concept it means that when a state has a majority vote for a candidate all of that states electoral votes go to the majority candidate. However, if you go by actual numbers, more people voted for Gore than for Bush, Bush just managed to get more electoral votes, and thus the presedancy. This is the first time in the history of our nation that someone has been voted into office, without actually having the majority of the actual vote.

Your comment about us being attacked is only partially true. It is true that there was a horrible act of terrorism committed against us that caused many innocent lives to be lost. However, Bush is still a war-monger. He went out and decided that Iraq needed to be taken over. They did not have any ties to al Quaeda. If he was actually interested in going after the country responsible for the terrorists he would have gone after Saudi Arabia, because the vast majority of the terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks were in fact from Saudi Arabi. However he wasn't interested in attacking either the bin Ladens or Saudi Arabi, because the bin Laden family and the Saudi royal family have contributed large sums of money to his previous business ventures.

The comment about him making vague accusations I think is rather amusing, because he is making very deliberate accusations. He is saying that Bush is protecting the wealthy elite (which Bush himself is a memeber of) and is screwing over the working class. I fail to see how he could be any more specific. Do you want him to find specific examples of people who have been harmed by Bushes policies?

And finally, he wasn't making a cheap shot. There is no such thing as a cheap shot, unless you are hitting upon a sore subject. Saying someone is pulling a cheap shot during a debate is basically saying that you know that they have a valid point, but you dont want to admit it. Unless I'm mistaken isn't the point of a debate to be right? I believe you just dont want to admit defeat, despite the fact that you know you've been out done.

1993--suspected Al Qaeda Terrorists tried to destroy the WTC! 6 Dead
1998--Embasssy Bombings done by Al Qaeda and they took responsiblity.
2000--USS Cole hit by Al Qaeda Terrorists

No action was taken except for cruise missile assault. So much for that idea.

2001--Al Qaeda Destroys WTC Plaza
Response:
Taliban ousted from power

Not too long afterwards: "Osama Bin who? Fuck that, we gotta get Saddam!"

Counterpoint 1:

That's great that he asked for the memo... except he didn't READ it! What's the point of asking your staff to collect data if your not going to act on it. The information wasn't all information that was hashing around for years (obviously some was dated), some of the information was new and usable. The important thing is that the memo said an attack was imminent. I don't know what imminent might mean to someone else, but to me it means soon. This means, start getting your act together and look through the intelligence. Most importantly, don't make the first meeting on terrorism 8 months after you take office; especially when the previous president said terrorism was the most important issue of the future.

Counterpoint 2:

Have nothing to argue with you, agree with you on everything you said. And I as well, hope that the intelligence issues will be addressed; although I doubt it.

Counterpoint 3:

Ok, let me rephrase, what terrorists that threatened America was Iraq harboring? If we're talking about attacking nations that harbor terrorists that have attacked any other nation, we're talking about wars with Syria, Iran, Chechnya, Ireland, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and a sleuth of other countries. True, terrorism is a worldwide problem, but in that case, there should be a worldwide solution; a solution that doesn't force us to go into every country and destroy their government.

Counter-counter point 1 (this is fun): First of all, you don't know that he didn't read it. And second of all, he didn't have to read it as the briefing document was merely a paper record of the Daily Intelligence Brief that was delivered to him in person. Maybe he didn't read it, but he heard it.

Counter-counter point 2: Good. :)

Counter-counter point 3: I agree with you - there are some governments on your list that we need to be addressing directly. Maybe not a war, but some kind of pressure to give up the practice. We know that this works - Libya has ended its nuclear program and given up harboring terrorists.

But look - the bottom line is that 9/11 changed how we have to view possible threats to America.

President Kennedy said during the Cuban Missile Crisis that "We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril." He was talking about nuclear weapons here, but what he said then represented a major change in US policy.

The 9/11 attacks did the same thing. We no longer live in a world where only an actual terrorist attack on the United States represents a sufficient challenge to our national security to constitute maximum peril. We can't afford to simply sit back and ignore threats because they aren't "imminent". We did that before 9/11 and look what happened.

If the commanders in the field felt that they needed more troops in Afghanistan, I can safely say they would have them. Iraq may have distracted the public's attention from Afghanistan, but not the military's, not the CIA's and not the State Department's.

I disagree that most of the country is in warlord's hands. The country is in much better shape now than when we took it over, and if it were in such poor shape, I am positive that the mainstream media would be all over it, as continued proof of the "folly" of the war in Iraq. But they're not.

We haven't found bin Laden - true. But as I said before, you're trying to find a needle in a haystack. The area he is possibly hiding in - southern Afghanistan and northern Pakistan - is large, it's undeveloped, it's largely mountainous, and he knows it well. He's not going to be an easy man to find, and deploying a hundred thousand troops to afghanistan to find him isn't going to make a difference. It's just going to cause more trouble than its worth. We just have to be patient - he will be caught in time. Opium has ALWAYS been Afghanistan's primary export - it's no worse now than it was during the Soviet occupation or after.



While I would like to hope that if the commander in Afghanistan wanted more troops he'd get them, it's a stretch to say that's true. The inability of politicians to understand that sometimes quantity is needed as well as quality in a war is staggering. One such case occurred in this very administration, when General Tommy Frank's original plan called for over 400,000 American soldiers to invade Iraq. Rumsfeld sucessfully pushed for that to get cut to 120,000. So while you might be right, I'm not sure if that's necessarily true.


While you might disagree that most of Afghanistan is in warlord hands, many experts don't. If you don't believe me, pick up yesterday's Washington Post and go to the editorial page, there's a column on the situation (I'm assuming you live in D.C. since you work for a union-- I threw it away so I can't quote it directly). Of course you can argue about the meaning of most of the country or about the definition of warlords, but the fact that a nation we are re-building still contains lawlessness as large as this is rather disturbing.

And I'll agree that finding a needle in a haystack is though. But looking for one with 5 people helping you is much easier than looking for one with one person helping you. It's true, special forces and the CIA must take the lead in the actions in Afghanistan, but they're going to need help, and lots of it.

A reason that I would NOT vote for a democrat is because the entire party thinks of its voters as complete idiots and failures at life.
Proof? Several liberal thinkers have stated that Bush was able to win the first time because of all of the voters who couldn't figure out how to use the voting machines/ballads. They assumed that they would have all been for Gore. So, Democrats, your party depends on stupid americans to vote for them. I would never vote for a party who requires most americans to be stupid to win elections.

So, democrats try to apeal to:
> The stupid
> Failures at life
> Tree huggers
> Pro abortionists
> Homosexuals
> Child molesters
> Fanatic feminists
> Terrorists
> Pacifists
> Communists and socialists

I certainly hope that the majority of our population isn't on this list. I hope our country hasn't fallen so far.

I love how you included pacifists in that lineup. Since when was it a bad thing not to want to kill people? I'm not even remotely religious, but isn't one of the 10 commandments "thou shalt not kill"?

Where did the child molesters come into play? And the failures at life? Now you aren't even attempting to be intelligent and mature about it and you're just going the childish route of name calling.

Communism is an economic structure, so I fail to see how that comes into play. The Smurfs were communist... do you hate the Smurfs?

They aren't called pro-abortionists, they're called pro-choice. Can't you read a newspaper?

Why is fanatic femenism a bad thing? I'm a guy, I have no problem with it. If women want to be adamant about being women, then why shouldnt they? You seem to be adamant about making an ass out of yourself.

Now, granted, I may not exactly go out and hug trees, but I was always under the impression that trees were essential to a properly working ecosystem. We breath out CO2, trees take that CO2 and make it into oxygen. Or is breathing not high on your list of priorities?

All in all, I think you are the kind of person who really needs to think before they let their uneducated opionion come boiling out of their mouth. However, don't get me wrong I'm not a democrat. I'm not a republican either. In fact I think both are just groups of stupid rich people. But thats just my opinion.

Counter-counter point 1 (this is fun): First of all, you don't know that he didn't read it. And second of all, he didn't have to read it as the briefing document was merely a paper record of the Daily Intelligence Brief that was delivered to him in person. Maybe he didn't read it, but he heard it.

Counter-counter point 2: Good. :)

Counter-counter point 3: I agree with you - there are some governments on your list that we need to be addressing directly. Maybe not a war, but some kind of pressure to give up the practice. We know that this works - Libya has ended its nuclear program and given up harboring terrorists.

But look - the bottom line is that 9/11 changed how we have to view possible threats to America.

President Kennedy said during the Cuban Missile Crisis that "We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril." He was talking about nuclear weapons here, but what he said then represented a major change in US policy.

The 9/11 attacks did the same thing. We no longer live in a world where only an actual terrorist attack on the United States represents a sufficient challenge to our national security to constitute maximum peril. We can't afford to simply sit back and ignore threats because they aren't "imminent". We did that before 9/11 and look what happened.

Point 1:

There were many reports (in the newspaper, magazines) a couple of months ago (probaly April if not May) stating that he didn't read it. When asked about it by the 9/11 Commission, Bush stated that he didn't recall if he read it or not. Honestly, it's difficult to know if he read it or not, but reporters seem to somehow figured it out. Whether they're spinning it or not, is not for me to decide. Obviously, I'm a liberal and therefore assume that that idiot Bush didn't. You're not a liberal and thus understand that it's tough for a president to remember everything he read. Either way, he should have acted better on the information. Whether he read it or not, he and his staff neglected terrorism. In fact, Bush angered his leading Al-Queda expert so much that he quit, complained to Congress, and wrote a book on how inept Bush is (Richard Clarke). I wasn't there, but from what I've read, Bush was negligent.

Point 2:

Agreement reached

Point 3:

I guess this is sort of a case of opinion. From all the political war theory classes I've taken, I've been taught, brain-washed, whatever you want to call it, that pre-emptive war is always a mistake. It heightens tensions in international affairs, diplomacy loses its power, and mistrust grows among nations. Someone can argue that this theory is obsolete, especially in the 21st century; but, when I see Germans, French, and Canadians booing our anthem, mistrusting every foreign policy we have, and simply lose respect for a nation they once held in admiration, I start to wonder whether the theory is obsolete. Obviously, Bush's style had something to do with our loss of admiration among other nations, but that can't possibly be the only thing. At worse, Bush will be gone in 4 more years; there has to be something else. Americans like to think that the world knows we are guardians of democracy, harbingers of freedom, and decent, moral people. But, we've done some sketchy things in the past, and honestly, no one ever believes that of other people. Mistrust is part of human behavior. When we go and attack another nation who isn't a threat now, we feed that mistrust, and nascent ideas creep into the minds of nations like North Korea, China, Syria, and Iran. They all start believing that America is coming to get them, and our allies begin believing that too, and thus, stop aiding us.

That's my concern. True, some countries will bow down because they're scared we'll topple them if they don't comply, but some, maybe even most won't. We are the only superpower in the world; if we start bullying people (or even appear to), people will bandwagon against us.

P.S. This really is fun

The broader picture might also suggest that the deficit wouldn’t be as high as it is if Bush hadn’t invaded Iraq. There is $140 Billion dollars plus interest that had to be borrowed for an unnecessary war.[QUOTE]

Unfortunately, the President, with the assent of Congress, determined that the war was worth it. And you cannot put a price tag on America's national security. I know that sounds pithy, but arguing that we shouldn't have gone to war because it costs too much is also needlessly simplistic.

Remember - the President can't spend a dime without both houses of Congress agreeing with the decision. And despite the Republican majorities in both houses, he's not gotten everything he's always wanted - look at his judicial appointments.

[QUOTE] This may be true, but can you really compare apples and oranges? During WW 2, the income tax was also a whopping 94%. Which by the way, spurred the American economy into a fantastic period of growth. With taxes being cut, who will pay these ever increasing deficits and the further ballooning National Debt, which is closing in on 70% of GDP?

Not exactly. The highest bracket - for the rich - was 91%. Not every American was paying 91% of their income to the government. If that were the case, we wouldn't have needed to sell war bonds. And the massive government deficit spending is what spurred the American economy into a fantastic period of growth - spending that was due to the war.

Again, you're oversimplifying how the national debt works. Unlike GDP, it is not based on a single year. That debt includes obligations that don't have to be met for more than 30 years. And projections of budget deficits are about as accurate as predicting the weather more than 7 days out - you can't predict them, because other than mandatory spending, all of the non-mandatory discretionary spending can be changed because it's all specifically allocated by Congress. AND not only that, but much of the "deficit" is merely authorized spending - not appropriated spending. There's a difference. Authorized spending means you can - appropriated speinding means you have. And obligated spending means you did.

You are trying to oversimplying an extremely, extremely complex set of numbers. You can't do it.

Well not all others share your “the deficit does not matter”:

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/1000

“Why? Any positive business-investment incentives from lower taxes will be outweighed by the curtailing of national saving and investment caused by mammoth budget deficits. To the extent that larger deficits diminish domestic saving, they eat into productive investment. To the extent that larger deficits are funded by borrowing from the rest of the world, they raise the nation's foreign debt and drive future income into servicing this debt. Contrary to the claims of Administration ideologues, larger deficits mean lower future living standards.”

There's been a huge debate in Economics regarding whether or not deficits matter. And the jury is still out.

I personally do not like large budget deficits. But there is still no solid indicators that large deficits matter. The US goverment has run a deficit for nearly every single year since prior to World War II - they're a fact of life.

But why you think that the deficits under Bush are any worse than the deficits under another President, I don't understand.

I also don't understand why you lay the blame for these deficits at the feet of the President, when he cannot pass any spending package without Congressional approval.

As long as foreign investors believe that there is value in the US Treasury bond, sure they will buy them, but if the US continues to have a weak economy, while record deficits, record trade imbalances, and debt skyrocket, the interest may wane and perhaps foreign investors will look to dump their holdings of the “sacred” treasury bonds? What does the broader picture look like when that happens?[/QUOTE}

Go back and reread my discussion of why trade imbalances don't matter.

The economy in the US is no worse than the economy in any other nation right now - in fact, it's better. And the reason why the US Treasury bond is the most stable is based on a myriad of reasons, not the least of which include the inherent stability of our government, our military strength, our GDP, our land holdings, etc. Even with massive debt, we've still got all of those things. America has the most powerful economy in the world - and that hasn't changed despite whatever you believe the President is responsible for.

[QUOTE]Actually I am not getting my decades mixed up. I know because I was a victim of the triple whammy era of double digit inflation, unemployment, and interest rates. When I bought my new house in 1981, the interest rate for 1 year was 11 ¾%, and when it renewed in 1982, it was 18 ¼% for one year. People were walking away from their homes because they couldn’t afford the new mortgage rates, goods were rising in price and people were losing their jobs.[QUOTE]

Then you also remember that by 1984, at the end of Reagan's first term, interest rates were down to 9.43%, down from the 19.08% they were when he took office. Granted, it took some time, but Reagan had to repair the damage done by Carter - it didn't happen overnight.

[QUOTE]I realize that double digit inflation began under Carter but Reagan instituted massive tax cuts in 1981 that would kick in, in 1982. To control the spiraling inflation, Reagan’s money man Paul Volcker jacked up the interest rates to cool the inflation. It eventually hammered the inflation rate but not without a lot of pain and suffering as the world went into a severe ression.

But not the United States - we began to experience the longest period of economic growth since the 1950s. And it lasted until 1991.

Such a simplistic statement for such a complex problem? I do believe that there is extreme concern over the complete US economic picture, which to say the least, is struggling at best. I have come across many articles that express grave concern, especially if you factor in retirement of the baby boomers starting to make its presence felt, and the strain that will put on the Social Security system, and Medicare systems.

I've read the articles. I know the issues. But I live here, too, you know. The economy isn't "struggling" at best. GDP is increasing at a fairly good clip. Unemployment is down, home sales are at record highs. There is plenty to be optimistic about in this economy. I'm not going to say it's wonderful, but it's getting better.

Medicare and Social Security need to be reformed, and the President recognizes that. I was against the prescription drug plan, but I support his personal SS savings accounts. I think he's got the guts to actually tackle that issue if he gets reelected.

Here is one from the same web site as above:

On the contrary, under the so-called jobless recovery, more than two million jobs have disappeared since the president, George Bush, took office in January 2001. In fact, Mr. Bush has revived the memories of 1929 depression, as he could be the first president since Herbert Hoover, who was in the White House from 1929 to 1933, the years of the Great Depression, to oversee a decline in total US jobs during his term. By contrast, 22 million jobs were created during the Clinton years.

Well that is certainly debatable especially if compared to Clinton’s 8 years in office?

As I stated previously, Clinton had the happy pleasure of being President when an entirely new industry came into existence - the dot.com revolution. Of course he was going to see that many jobs being created. Bush hasn't experienced the creation of a new economic sector.

And yes, we've lost more jobs than we've made. But that's not a result of the President's policies. It's partially a result of the market downturns (which were a result of 9/11 and the corporate scandals which shook faith in the market) and partially a result of outsourcing, which is now the "en vogue" thing in private industry.

Well the jobs just don’t seem to be there? How many of the 144,000 created last month were minimum wage jobs or part time jobs? Also what happens when interest rates start to go up and people have to pay more for those goods that they purchased on the never pay plan? Another thing to consider, that during the 1980’s many people had savings that they could rely on in hard times. It appears that the national savings is at an all time low as well. It shall be interesting to see how it all works out if Bush wins re-election? Especially if he has more wars to start?

I don't know how many of them were minimum wage jobs. But what's the point? How do we know that the millions of jobs lost weren't also minimum wage jobs? (Of course they weren't, but I am not aware of any statistics that demonstrate either way in either scenario).

Interests rates will have to go up - they can't go anywhere BUT up. Savings in America has always been low, but unlike the 1980s, millions more Americans own their own homes now, and they've got locked in low interest rates, and even more folks have taken advantage of the low interest rates to refiniance their homes. That's the best kind of savings there is - equity. The value of a home only goes up, while the value of your money is always going down.

But much of what we're talking about is mere speculation. If Bush wins and the economy is great, he'll get the credit. If Kerry wins and the economy is great, he'll get the credit. If Kerry wins and the economy sucks, it's Bush's fault. The first thing they teach you in politics is that whoever is on top gets all the credit and all the blame, even if neither are fully deserved.

OK. Can' talk about current administration and its corruption to discredit them. :headbang: Got it.

OK. Your going to love this. I spent a long time on it, and I know how you conservatives HATE being proven wrong. And before I start, Ralph Nader has every right to run for President. Whether or not that makes him an egotistical jacka$$ has yet to be seen; I would have voted for Ross Perot over George I (but Bubba would have gotten 1st pick!)

1) John Kerry served admirably in the military; with a PUBLIC RECORD that states he EARNED three purple hearts. I feel that, in a time of war, the United States would be best served by a man with military experience. As to the fact that his military service was short, I say this. John Kerry was in the military and knows how it works; he was in charge of a Swift Boat. However, his service to the Anti-War movement after he came left the military shows that he still has value for human lives and thinks that war should be avoided at all costs.

2) According to economic laws, as established over the years and proven by the actual motions of the economies of the world, tax cuts and increased government spending should boost GDP and stimulate the economy. You can deduce this by thinking: OK. We get a tax cut, we have more money, let's spend it on what we need. The stores where the money is being spent will need to hire new employees, unemployment will go down. The economy, over time, will get better.
STOP
I DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE WENT DOWN IN AUGUST, AND THAT MEANS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS DOING A GOOD JOB. WHEN PEOPLE STOP LOOKING FOR JOBS, THEY ARE NO LONGER CONSIDERED PART OF THE WORK FORCE. PEOPLE NOT LOOKING FOR JOBS ANYMORE CAUSED MOST OF THE FALL IN THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATINGS. DON'T MESS WITH ME, I KNOW MY STUFF. :cool:
2 con't) The current administration, using fear tactics and propoganda against the left, has caused people to sit on their tax cuts, if they were wealthy enough to get one. Tom Ridge, my home state's former governor, is probably the worst example of this politcally motivated fear-spewing. This is what is holding the economy back: PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO LIVE.

3) Back to Kerry. Shall we attack the flip-flopping? I think we shall. *Note: This is only my opinions, I have no facts here.* ;) After four years of lies, and stubborn morons in the government, I want someone who can change their points of view. That is what I believe the flip-flopping is all about. And, as for higher taxes, its REALLY fine with me (and I am old enough to have a job, so I understand how much taxes suck). We need to pay down the national debt, and we need to reduce our defecits. No amount of tax cuts for the rich is going to do that. As for John Kerry's idea to raise taxes on the wealthier, the numbers say from 35% to about 40% for those making over $200,000. Let's do math.
Say there are 300,000,000 people in the United States (I am using round numbers here :) ) 2% make over $200,000. (About 600,000 people. Under the current system, each person making that much pays roughly $70,000 in taxes. Really sucks for them. Under Kerry raises, those people will pay $80,000. WHOA WHOA WHOA. $10,000 extra dollars, how could these poor people live? I guess Jenny won't have Daddy and Mommy but her a new car this year. Give me a break. I am truely sorry for those who will have to pay extra, but if 600,000 people pay $10,000 extra in taxes, that is already $6,000,000,000 extra. That's a lot. And that's not including spending cutbacks proposed by Kerry.

4) John Kerry has been a Senator for many years. He has served on Senate Commitees and helped figure out what happened to the POWs in some small South Asian nation. Without launching into specifics, I feel this means that John Kerry is the type of people (as is John Edwards, as illustrated by his impressive career as a TRIAL LAWYER) that does something until he is finished with it. Before that seems stupid, let me rephrase. John Kerry sticks with something until the job is done, until it is resolved, and until it is better. I read a NewsWeeks (maybe Time?) article recently that described John Kerry's first political race (and loss) and how he is still held in low regard in that place. His mistakes made their show me that he knows how to run a campaign and knows what does and doesn't work when appealing to people (he has learned from screwing up). He isn't a 'go-it-alone' type person who would alienate potential friends and allies.

5) Of all of the Democratic nominees, I think this is my order of voting in the primaries, if I could have. Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards, Wesley Clark, Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, Carol Moselly-Braun, Bob Ghrahm. I wouldn't have voted for Al Sharpton if someone held a gun to my head. When John Kerry came on the Tonight Show on a motorcycle, I thought it was a cheap ploy to grab attention, and you know what, it was. But, going on Arsenio and playing the sax was a cheap trick for Clinton, and it made him look much better. Kerry knows how to have fun, but not at the expense of business. Going windsurfing, snowboarding, all cool things, as long as you don't let it get in the way of work. Our current President let's playtime get in the way of worktime. When a ranch in East Bumblef*#$, Texas is called 'the Western White House', something is wrong.

6) Gay Rights. I'm a liberal, I had to throw it in. Our current administration is trying to right discrimination into the Constitution. Now, I know that some people are morally opposed to gay marriage and such, and that's fine for them, or is it? :confused: Consider this, some people have a moral problem with blacks and Latinos having the same rights as whitey. Some people have a moral problem with women coming 'out of the kitchen'. We call these people bigots, Klansman, and Republicans. JK! But, as of 70 years ago, blacks were not equal to whites, and as of 150 years ago and sooner than that, women were not equal to men. So, to the people who have a 'moral problem' with gays, are you any better than Klansman? I know that this will be an issue for a long time, but be open about it. Leaving it up to states is the better alternative. As a side note, I think if states want to illegalize marriages between two loving people who happen to be of the same sex (I'm sorry this topic really gets me pissed) then they should NEVER EVER make it permanent. Because some day, they will realize that these PEOPLE are just that. I support John Kerry because he supports other people, no matter what their orientation. AND I like the Vice-President a LITTLE bit better because he supports state's rights (about time he stood up a little for his poor daughter). :fluffle: :fluffle:

7) When something doesn't work, you fix it. Plain and simple, this government isn't working. Let's fix it. The current administration (I almost said Bush and Cheney, the horribly corrupt ex-Halliburton head Fuhrer, glad I caught myself. :D ) has had four years to get going on this, and I don't think they have done enough to earn another term. OOOHHHH. And if I hear freedom one more time from the f*&#ing Republicans (or Democrats), I think I am going to go ape $hit. :sniper:

So, I know someone already did this, and maybe you responded, I didn't read the whole thread. Tell me why Bush and Cheney WITHOUT using:
- Rich
- Corrupt
- Redneck
- Moron
- Illiterate
- Ineffective Tax-Cuts
- Freedom
- Spreading Democracy
- Alienating our Country
- Arrogant
- Oblivious
- Dodging Vietnam
- Daddy's Boy
- Slacker

(can you do it?)

8) What qualifies George Bush for the Office of the Presidency? Don't metion.
- Texas Rangers
- Arbusto
- Enron
- Katherine Harris and Good Ole' Jeb (who disenfranchised many illegally and handed this guy the Oval Office)
- John Ashcroft (who lost a race in Missouri to a dead man)
- Colin Powell (the only Republican in this administation I respect, but alas he has no gonads)
- Discrimination = Good
-Thank you if you read all this. At the top, I told you I spent a while. This wasn't that long cause I REALLY got to spewing after a while. It felt good. I could keep going but I think I'll develop carpel-tunnel or something. Plus I'm in college. I shouldn't be being political and junk now. It's Friday night.

You are perhaps the most well organized, intelligent, and knowledgable person who has posted thus far on this forum. You are now my personal hero. In case you hadn't guessed, I agree with every last word.

Point 1:

There were many reports (in the newspaper, magazines) a couple of months ago (probaly April if not May) stating that he didn't read it. When asked about it by the 9/11 Commission, Bush stated that he didn't recall if he read it or not. Honestly, it's difficult to know if he read it or not, but reporters seem to somehow figured it out. Whether they're spinning it or not, is not for me to decide. Obviously, I'm a liberal and therefore assume that that idiot Bush didn't. You're not a liberal and thus understand that it's tough for a president to remember everything he read. Either way, he should have acted better on the information. Whether he read it or not, he and his staff neglected terrorism. In fact, Bush angered his leading Al-Queda expert so much that he quit, complained to Congress, and wrote a book on how inept Bush is (Richard Clarke). I wasn't there, but from what I've read, Bush was negligent.

The President is bombarded with information like this. The fact that he specifically asked for the briefing, and that he (unlike any of his precedcessors) required a daily briefing from CIA Director Tenet shows that he was paying attention.

Like I said before, he got the briefing. But it probably wasn't anything different than what he'd heard before.

Remember, you've gotta look at that briefing and the circumstances surrounding it like 9/11 never happened. No one legitimately thought that anything along the lines of 9/11 was possible - despite the warning signs that should've been obvious to us with our 20/20 hindsight.

They said the same thing about Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor.

I simply cannot fault the man for not recognizing a threat that no one else seemed to recognize either. If Clarke had felt that the threat to America from Al Qaede was imminent, when didn't he resign in disgust pre-9/11 and write his book then?

There was no way the President could have justified anything that we've done in the war on terror since 9/11 without 9/11 happening. Look at the hue and cry from folks about the Iraq War - where he apparently tried to learn from 9/11 and made the mistake of counting on intelligence too much.

The man is only human - at some point we need to cut him some slack.

Point 3:

I guess this is sort of a case of opinion. From all the political war theory classes I've taken, I've been taught, brain-washed, whatever you want to call it, that pre-emptive war is always a mistake. It heightens tensions in international affairs, diplomacy loses its power, and mistrust grows among nations. Someone can argue that this theory is obsolete, especially in the 21st century; but, when I see Germans, French, and Canadians booing our anthem, mistrusting every foreign policy we have, and simply lose respect for a nation they once held in admiration, I start to wonder whether the theory is obsolete. Obviously, Bush's style had something to do with our loss of admiration among other nations, but that can't possibly be the only thing. At worse, Bush will be gone in 4 more years; there has to be something else. Americans like to think that the world knows we are guardians of democracy, harbingers of freedom, and decent, moral people. But, we've done some sketchy things in the past, and honestly, no one ever believes that of other people. Mistrust is part of human behavior. When we go and attack another nation who isn't a threat now, we feed that mistrust, and nascent ideas creep into the minds of nations like North Korea, China, Syria, and Iran. They all start believing that America is coming to get them, and our allies begin believing that too, and thus, stop aiding us.

America has never been "all loved" by every state. And I think that much of the bias against Bush is simply over the fact that he's from Texas, and that state has a large reputation outside the US. Every European I've met considers Bush to be a "cowboy", which is funny, since he's so obviously not. There's a lot of ethnocentrism going on out there, and that's why I don't get offended when France, Germany or Canada don't understand why we do the things we do or boo us. We have our own non-sensicle dislikes and contemporary stereotypes of them too: France is nothing but a bunch of stinky, arrogant, cheese eating surrender monkeys; Germany is full of Nazis (still) and crazy environmentalist nutjobs; Canada is US lite. None of these are true, but if you ask Joe Public on the street, he'll identify with them.

No matter what our allies may think about the President or his policies, one thing they rely on, because it's always been true, is that no matter what happens, the US will always back them up. We've never turned them down when they've needed us, and there are a lot of dead Americans who helped to keep much of the Old World free - and that, in the opinion of many Americans, entitles us to the benefit of the doubt.

Whether or not you agree is your opinion. :)

PS It's now 3 AM in Washington, so I've gotta hit the sack. More arguing tomorrow, if I'm not too busy.

You are perhaps the most well organized, intelligent, and knowledgable person who has posted thus far on this forum. You are now my personal hero. In case you hadn't guessed, I agree with every last word.

I'll try not to take that personally.

You are perhaps the most well organized, intelligent, and knowledgable person who has posted thus far on this forum. You are now my personal hero. In case you hadn't guessed, I agree with every last word.
I also complimented his/her well thought out post. It is good work. :D

I'll try not to take that personally.
Why should you LOL!!! And I thought I was the best hurmpfff!! :eek:

I also complimented his/her well thought out post. It is good work. :D

Guys, c'mon.

Not that I'm jealous or anything, but why can't we have a debate about Bush and Kerry that doesn't lapse into conspiracy theories, ad hominem attacks, and the rest of the mud?

That post was so filled with venom and hatred that I didn't even bother trying to refute it. That type of anger isn't good for making decisions - it clouds your judgement and makes you see things that aren't there.

Bush and Kerry are both men who are trying their best to do what each of them thinks is right. That's where the debate has got to start and end.

Why should you LOL!!! And I thought I was the best hurmpfff!! :eek:

You guys are certainly keeping me on my toes. I've not had to think this hard to debate politics in a long time. :)

(Thanks for helping me keep my edge!)

What promise did Kerry believe?

Apparently, Bush promised to get the international community involved, and to only declare war if it were the only option. Unfortunately, the President's words to Congress are classified (unless I am mistaken, and if so, does anyone have a link to it?) so we may never know for a fact what the Bush administration said to Congress in order to get their vote for authority.

The President is bombarded with information like this. The fact that he specifically asked for the briefing, and that he (unlike any of his precedcessors) required a daily briefing from CIA Director Tenet shows that he was paying attention.

Like I said before, he got the briefing. But it probably wasn't anything different than what he'd heard before.

Remember, you've gotta look at that briefing and the circumstances surrounding it like 9/11 never happened. No one legitimately thought that anything along the lines of 9/11 was possible - despite the warning signs that should've been obvious to us with our 20/20 hindsight.

They said the same thing about Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor.

I simply cannot fault the man for not recognizing a threat that no one else seemed to recognize either. If Clarke had felt that the threat to America from Al Qaede was imminent, when didn't he resign in disgust pre-9/11 and write his book then?

There was no way the President could have justified anything that we've done in the war on terror since 9/11 without 9/11 happening. Look at the hue and cry from folks about the Iraq War - where he apparently tried to learn from 9/11 and made the mistake of counting on intelligence too much.

The man is only human - at some point we need to cut him some slack.



America has never been "all loved" by every state. And I think that much of the bias against Bush is simply over the fact that he's from Texas, and that state has a large reputation outside the US. Every European I've met considers Bush to be a "cowboy", which is funny, since he's so obviously not. There's a lot of ethnocentrism going on out there, and that's why I don't get offended when France, Germany or Canada don't understand why we do the things we do or boo us. We have our own non-sensicle dislikes and contemporary stereotypes of them too: France is nothing but a bunch of stinky, arrogant, cheese eating surrender monkeys; Germany is full of Nazis (still) and crazy environmentalist nutjobs; Canada is US lite. None of these are true, but if you ask Joe Public on the street, he'll identify with them.

No matter what our allies may think about the President or his policies, one thing they rely on, because it's always been true, is that no matter what happens, the US will always back them up. We've never turned them down when they've needed us, and there are a lot of dead Americans who helped to keep much of the Old World free - and that, in the opinion of many Americans, entitles us to the benefit of the doubt.

Whether or not you agree is your opinion. :)

PS It's now 3 AM in Washington, so I've gotta hit the sack. More arguing tomorrow, if I'm not too busy.

Clinton didn't read memos; he, instead, read the entire reports. Clinton was a hell of a reader and felt like he needed to read everything. So, yes, Clinton didn't ask for daily briefings, but that's because he read the reports that landed on his desks, even if they were hundreds of pages long. Every president has his style; Clinton's dealt more with reading, Bush's with talking to people face to face. I'm not saying one way was better, but Clinton at least held meetings about terrorism and attempted to put information together. Again, Bush didn't even hold his first meeting on terrorism until September, EIGHT MONTHS after his inaguaration. And again, Clinton had told Bush that terrorism, and specifically, Al-Queda was America's greatest threat and issue.

Clarke did quit his post before 9/11 and istead of dealing with the intelligence committee took some post dealing with the internet (he stated that he couldn't handle the negligence among the intelligence community and Bush's staff). Obviously, books aren't written in days, nor can you just go up to Congress and say, hey, I want to speak with you guys for a moment. So it's unfair to criticize Clarke who tried more than anyone to bring the facts to light.


And while it's true that we've helped the Old World in many instances, we've also treated them as secondary actors for most of the time we've been in power. France and England had no say during the Cuban missile crisis, even though a war surely would have led to their mutual destruction as well. Countries used to tolerate our craziness because the Soviets were a threat. The Soviets are gone now. There is no reason for France, Germany, or any other nation to follow us reluctantly. So what happens if we still start trying to push them around, or use muscle to get what we want? Bandwagon theory says that in a unipolar world, nations that feel threatened will united against the superpower (that's us). And historically, and logically, this theory hold up.
I don't know about you, but I don't want North Korea, Iran, China, and Syria working together to proliferate nuclear weapons, share intelligence, and start uniting against us. But, most importantly, I don't want Germany's, France's, Spain's, Italy's, and Canada's mistrust to grow out of control. If this happens we might find ourselves alone in future terrorist attacks or future agressions. You might believe that's comforting; I don't find it comforting at all. The United States might be able to do many things alone, but that also means carrying the military, economical, and moral burden all by ourselves, and when that happens superpowers become ex-superpowers (just ask Britain).

Clinton didn't read memos; he, instead, read the entire reports. Clinton was a hell of a reader and felt like he needed to read everything. So, yes, Clinton didn't ask for daily briefings, but that's because he read the reports that landed on his desks, even if they were hundreds of pages long. Every president has his style; Clinton's dealt more with reading, Bush's with talking to people face to face. I'm not saying one way was better, but Clinton at least held meetings about terrorism and attempted to put information together. Again, Bush didn't even hold his first meeting on terrorism until September, EIGHT MONTHS after his inaguaration. And again, Clinton had told Bush that terrorism, and specifically, Al-Queda was America's greatest threat and issue.

Yes he did - when I worked at the White House, his news report was always twice the size of everyone else's because he wanted it single paged so he could pull sections out and work on them seperately.

But Clinton and Bush aren't the same President, and you can't compare the two. The briefing was two pages long, and - as I said before - was delivered to him personally by George Tenet. There were enough people in the room that if someone had said "Mr. President - this is an imminent threat and we need to do something about it right now," I think he would have done it.

So basically the argument that the President's opponents make is that you have a President who didn't care a lick about terrorism and ignored repeating warnings about al Qaeda - and then they turn around and argue that he got repeated warnings about Iraq (which were wrong) and took action took quickly before they were verified.

Either way, he's screwed. And neither way is truly fair.

And look at it from this perspective: During the first 8 months of Bush's presidency there were no terrorist attacks against the US or our interests. During the 8 years of the Clinton presidency you had:

The first WTC bombing,
Oklahoma City
Riyadh (that killed 5 American military advisors)
Khobar Towers
The Embassy Bombings
The USS Cole bombing.

Of course Clinton held meetings about it - he had to.

Bush wasn't elected as a foreign policy president. Even with all of these events, it wasn't an issue in the 2000 election. So if you're going to blame Bush for being lax, I think everyone single one of us deserves a share of that blame.

Clarke did quit his post before 9/11 and istead of dealing with the intelligence committee took some post dealing with the internet (he stated that he couldn't handle the negligence among the intelligence community and Bush's staff). Obviously, books aren't written in days, nor can you just go up to Congress and say, hey, I want to speak with you guys for a moment. So it's unfair to criticize Clarke who tried more than anyone to bring the facts to light.

It's not unfair to criticize Clarke - once he turned partisan, and wrote a book, his record becomes fair game.

First, he hadn't resigned before 9/11. He didn't take the cybersecurity job until later, and he was still Chairman of the Counter-terror Security Group until he resigned in January 2003.

Clarke is one of those guys who COULD have gone up to Congress and said "Hey I want to speak to you for a minute".

But again - he was the counter-terror czar, and all of the events that I listed above also took place place on his watch. If anyone should have been paying attention to foreign terror and making sure that the President and the senior cabinet members took it seriously, it was him. And if he felt that they weren't doing so before 9/11, he easily could have done what he did prior to 9/11.

All of Clarke's behavior indicates to me that he had a guilty conscience, and didn't want to accept that he had a role in the intelligence failures that led up to 9/11. So he quit the government service, and instead of trying to work through the right channels to get things fixed, he ran to the press, wrote his book and tried to play the pseudo-celebrity.

Those types of John McCain style antics don't buy much credability in my book.

And while it's true that we've helped the Old World in many instances, we've also treated them as secondary actors for most of the time we've been in power. France and England had no say during the Cuban missile crisis, even though a war surely would have led to their mutual destruction as well. Countries used to tolerate our craziness because the Soviets were a threat. The Soviets are gone now. There is no reason for France, Germany, or any other nation to follow us reluctantly. So what happens if we still start trying to push them around, or use muscle to get what we want? Bandwagon theory says that in a unipolar world, nations that feel threatened will united against the superpower (that's us). And historically, and logically, this theory hold up.

I agree. Which is why nature abhors a unipolar world. And the shift is coming. It's fairly obvious that soon the two world superpowers will be the United States and China.

I don't agree that we have treated them as secondary actors. Everything we do is passed through our allies - they may not get veto power over it, but we inform them of everything that we do, and for the most part, they usually back us up. France and Germany had their own internal reasons for not wanting to go to War in Iraq - France had some sketchy deals with the Iraqis (see the front page of todays Washington Times) and Germany had local elections where Gerhard Schroeder shrewdly recognized that if he played the anti-US card, he could unite some of the further left sections of the populace behind him and it enabled him to come from behind in a race he shouldn't have won.

And, for the record, the reason the Cuban Missile Crisis started was because we had deployed Pershing missiles in Turkey to PROTECT EUROPE against the Soviets, and their response was positioning missiles in Cuba. So, again, the US was threatened directly because of our indirect support for Europe. I don't think it's too much to ask for them to simply not interfere - they didn't need to send troops, but they could've not spent so long grandstanding for the folks back home.

I don't know about you, but I don't want North Korea, Iran, China, and Syria working together to proliferate nuclear weapons, share intelligence, and start uniting against us. But, most importantly, I don't want Germany's, France's, Spain's, Italy's, and Canada's mistrust to grow out of control. If this happens we might find ourselves alone in future terrorist attacks or future agressions. You might believe that's comforting; I don't find it comforting at all. The United States might be able to do many things alone, but that also means carrying the military, economical, and moral burden all by ourselves, and when that happens superpowers become ex-superpowers (just ask Britain).

I don't want them to do that either. I don't think they will, either. Iran is in a precarious situation - we've got troops stationed on either side of them and they've got a fairly pro-Western youth movement in the country. North Korea is as impotent as ever - they bluster and threaten, but it's to conceal the fact that they are trying to negotiate with us to get food aid. They couldn't feed an army in the field, much less fight it. Syria is in the same position as Iran, and China has no love for North Korea, but they do display some a stark capitalistic desire to sell anything to anyone. And that's why I view them as our largest geopolitical rival, but not as an enemy yet.

And we didn't do anything alone. This is what confounds me. There was a large coalition (larger than the first gulf war) that included many of our long-standing allies like Great Britain, Italy, Poland and many other nations. Just because France, Germany and Russia didn't join us didn't mean we went it alone.

Apparently, Bush promised to get the international community involved, and to only declare war if it were the only option. Unfortunately, the President's words to Congress are classified (unless I am mistaken, and if so, does anyone have a link to it?) so we may never know for a fact what the Bush administration said to Congress in order to get their vote for authority.

Well, we did get the international community involved. The coalition we built was large, and we had a unanimous UN resolution that gave us permission to use force if Hussein didn't comply.

I think everything he said to Congress he said to the American people.

I don't think that the President felt that we had time to sit around and wait for Saddam to give access to our inspectors. He had had over a decade to provide the access he was required to provide. I don't think there were any other options.

Well, we did get the international community involved. The coalition we built was large, and we had a unanimous UN resolution that gave us permission to use force if Hussein didn't comply.

I think everything he said to Congress he said to the American people.

I don't think that the President felt that we had time to sit around and wait for Saddam to give access to our inspectors. He had had over a decade to provide the access he was required to provide. I don't think there were any other options.
Saddam was providing all the access that was necessary and the inspectors were doing a comendable job.

"we had a unanimous UN resolution that gave us permission to use force if Hussein didn't comply"

Who is "we"? Who is "us"?

When you figure that out, you might be able to realize that the US erred in her use of force.

Well, we did get the international community involved. The coalition we built was large, and we had a unanimous UN resolution that gave us permission to use force if Hussein didn't comply.
That is indeed an disputed question. Most international lawyers say that 1441 did not include a legitimation to use force. It didn´t explicitly say so. So many of those international law experts say that the US needed another resolution which gives it authorisation to do so. One reason Blair was pushing for that since he considered the legal basis of 1441 as dubious as well. Since there was none their was according to the dominant opinion of international lawyers no legal basis for the action. There is a minority opinion which disagrees to that. And on that disputed legal basis the United States and Britain based their decision to invade Iraq.
And that was also the reason for many disputes internationally in the Iraq crisis, as there was no consensus for this action. Only four countries in the Security council (out of 15) saw it as justified at the end: only those countries - Spain, UK, US and Bulgaria - supported a resolution which was explicitly authorising the use of force.
The US is actually arguing that it acted in self defense and that it has the right to use preventive strikes whenever it deems it to be necessary.
The Iraq war was much more disputed than the intervention in Afghanistan and the coalition for it was much smaller though.

That is indeed an disputed question. Most international lawyers say that 1441 did not include a legitimation to use force. It didn´t explicitly say so. So many of those international law experts say that the US needed another resolution which gives it authorisation to do so. One reason Blair was pushing for that since he considered the legal basis of 1441 as dubious as well. Since there was none their was according to the dominant opinion of international lawyers no legal basis for the action. There is a minority opinion which disagrees to that. And on that disputed legal basis the United States and Britain based their decision to invade Iraq.
And that was also the reason for many disputes internationally in the Iraq crisis, as there was no consensus for this action. Only four countries in the Security council (out of 15) saw it as justified at the end: only those countries - Spain, UK, US and Bulgaria - supported a resolution which was explicitly authorising the use of force.
The US is actually arguing that it acted in self defense and that it has the right to use preventive strikes whenever it deems it to be necessary.
The Iraq war was much more disputed than the intervention in Afghanistan and the coalition for it was much smaller though.
To add more weight to your post, I offer a link to what was happening at the Security Council level before the actual invasion took place. Although it is a timeline that goes to January 2004, start at the day the invasion began (March 20, 2003), and scroll down.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/page/0,12438,793802,00.html

Here is a sample from the day before the invasion:

March 19 2003

Government aide David Kinley confirms he has resigned, bring the total of government casualties over Iraq to nine. With 170,000 coalition troops massed on the Kuwaiti border, coalition aircraft bomb military targets in Iraq to 'soften up' the country's defences ahead of a US and British invasion.

The foreign ministers of Germany, France and Russia condemn the impending military action in strong terms, saying that the use of force against Iraq has not been approved by any UN resolution.

Rationalize, justify as much as you like, my opinion of the US was dramatically altered on March 20, 2003, and millions of others around the world share the same sentiment.

Saddam was providing all the access that was necessary and the inspectors were doing a comendable job.

"we had a unanimous UN resolution that gave us permission to use force if Hussein didn't comply"

Who is "we"? Who is "us"?

When you figure that out, you might be able to realize that the US erred in her use of force.

We = the coalition of states who removed Saddam
Us = the coalition of states who removed Saddam

At the time, they included:

Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan

That's not the US acting unilaterally.

The US is actually arguing that it acted in self defense and that it has the right to use preventive strikes whenever it deems it to be necessary.

This is true, and we are permitted to do this under the United Nations Charter.

And I grant that the move to do so was disputed, but nonetheless, there has been no action taken by the United Nations against any of the coalition members. There has been no condemnation from the UN, no trade embargoes, no sanctions.

But you're missing the point - people continually say that US acted unilaterally, and there's is ample and continued evidence that this is simply not true.

So basically, you're spitting on our dead soldiers here by claiming that they died for no reason.

They thought they had a reason. If they didn't, they wouldn't have gone.

Think before you type. Even if you disagree with the Iraqi war, you have to admit that there are millions of people who are better of now than they were before it happened. And I think those soldiers would say that bringing hope to those who have none was a good enough reason to lay down their life.
if the truth is spitting then i guess thats what i did

it is a soldiers duty to obey orders and to be willing to die doing so

its OUR duty to make sure they dont die needlessly

it makes me sick to think that we have let our soldier down by having them invade iraq. they are brave competent men and women who have done and continue to do a good job in very difficult circumstances.

it does no good to pretend that we have done a wonderful thing just to make everyone feel better about the needless death of 1000+ soldiers. all it does it insure that the number will rise.

To add more weight to your post, I offer a link to what was happening at the Security Council level before the actual invasion took place. Although it is a timeline that goes to January 2004, start at the day the invasion began (March 20, 2003), and scroll down.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/page/0,12438,793802,00.html

Here is a sample from the day before the invasion:

March 19 2003

Government aide David Kinley confirms he has resigned, bring the total of government casualties over Iraq to nine. With 170,000 coalition troops massed on the Kuwaiti border, coalition aircraft bomb military targets in Iraq to 'soften up' the country's defences ahead of a US and British invasion.

The foreign ministers of Germany, France and Russia condemn the impending military action in strong terms, saying that the use of force against Iraq has not been approved by any UN resolution.

Rationalize, justify as much as you like, my opinion of the US was dramatically altered on March 20, 2003, and millions of others around the world share the same sentiment.

Why?

What about our actions were so totally wrong that they wipe away the last 100 years of American support for Europe, Canada and our allies?

No nation has the right to tell another that what they view as a threat to their national security is wrong - even the US hasn't gone so far as to violate any states' sovereignty (at least, to my knowledge).

And frankly, I am frustrated with our government's lack of willingness to punish those allies of ours who deliberately attempted to interfere in our efforts to remove Saddam. If we were as evil as many aboard believe us to be, why wouldn't we have done that?

Why?

What about our actions were so totally wrong that they wipe away the last 100 years of American support for Europe, Canada and our allies?

No nation has the right to tell another that what they view as a threat to their national security is wrong - even the US hasn't gone so far as to violate any states' sovereignty (at least, to my knowledge).

And frankly, I am frustrated with our government's lack of willingness to punish those allies of ours who deliberately attempted to interfere in our efforts to remove Saddam. If we were as evil as many aboard believe us to be, why wouldn't we have done that?
the UN was created for a reason, TO PREVENT SHIT LIKE THIS. the UN being corrupt is only 50% relevant. lets not to mention the fact the ONLY reason ANYONE in america supported the Iraq excursion was because bush LIED and convinced the american populace that iraq was tied to al-quieda

stick that in your pipe and smoke it

We = the coalition of states who removed Saddam
Us = the coalition of states who removed Saddam

At the time, they included:

Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan

That's not the US acting unilaterally.
Yes you have listed "your" coalition members, however the "we" and the "us" is supposed to mean the United Nations, especially the Security Council. The US argument to attack Saddam was weak at best, especially since the UN inspectors were IN Iraq going over these claims of WMD.

BTW, the US violated Article 10 of the UN Resolution 1441:

10. REQUESTS all member states to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programs or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

Bush got impatient because the UN was NOT finding ANY WMD and the window of opportunity to seize Iraq was closing.

This is true, and we are permitted to do this under the United Nations Charter.
And I grant that the move to do so was disputed, but nonetheless, there has been no action taken by the United Nations against any of the coalition members. There has been no condemnation from the UN, no trade embargoes, no sanctions.
But you're missing the point - people continually say that US acted unilaterally, and there's is ample and continued evidence that this is simply not true.
The US is stating itself the right to act unilaterally. You could hear that we clearly at the Republican convention for example.
And regarding the UN. The UN main body is the Security Council. It has five permanent members: The US, Britain, France, Russia and China. All those members have a veto right. So quite frankly spoken those countries are immune from any sanctions anyway.
And the US is too important for the world to even consider that. Even France is soo important that it would be stupid and economically damaging to impose sanctions against it. It would also result in a trade dispute with the EU since trade policy is an EU issue.
Such things are only instruments against small and unimportant countries.
Globalisation creates many interdependies between countries. I see that as a positive development. Countries who are dependent on each other are less eager to go to war with each other.
The most problems exist with countries of the world who are for many reasons not part of this system or who are seeing the rise of extremist tendencies.
I see more geostrategic considerations of the US as a reason for the wall - especially its new domino-theory regarding the Middle East. I don´t believe in this theory though but I have to say that Iraq is a good base in the region for future missions if the US consideres them necessary. Saudi-Arabia wasn´t stable enough anymore. So: I actually see that as the main reason for this mission. Well: Wolfowitz admitted that very openly after the war.
So, why shouldn´t I believe him?

This is true, and we are permitted to do this under the United Nations Charter.

And I grant that the move to do so was disputed, but nonetheless, there has been no action taken by the United Nations against any of the coalition members. There has been no condemnation from the UN, no trade embargoes, no sanctions.

But you're missing the point - people continually say that US acted unilaterally, and there's is ample and continued evidence that this is simply not true.
The UN Charter did NOT give you permission to attack Iraq because the US was NOT under attack from Iraq.

There was condemnation from many UN nations for the invasion, and from the Secretary General as well.

Many of the countries that tagged along were afraid not to due to economic dependence from the US. The US even promised Turkey financial support if the US could use their country as a staging ground, which ultimately was denied.

Here's a question for the liberals: why do you support John Kerry? What will he do that qualifies him for the Office of President of the United States? After this post, I do not want to see anyone using the words Bush, Badnarik, Dubya, Nader, Cheney, Halliburton, Vietnam, or Voltron.

Well, I am going to defy what you said and say:

Anyone but Bush.

if the truth is spitting then i guess thats what i did

it is a soldiers duty to obey orders and to be willing to die doing so

its OUR duty to make sure they dont die needlessly

it makes me sick to think that we have let our soldier down by having them invade iraq. they are brave competent men and women who have done and continue to do a good job in very difficult circumstances.

it does no good to pretend that we have done a wonderful thing just to make everyone feel better about the needless death of 1000+ soldiers. all it does it insure that the number will rise.

Setting others free never consitutes a "needless death". No matter what the reasoning, no one can argue that those in Iraq are better off without Saddam than with him. No one can argue that the world is not better off without Saddam then with him.

We have done a good thing over there, but your inability to recognize it is extremely disenheartening.

Our soldiers are not draftees. They are volunteers. They decided they wanted to serve, so saying "they had no choice" is BS. They didn't have to enlist. And they didn't have to reenlist when their terms came up - but most of them did.

I would be interested to see the reaction a solider would give you if you came up and told him that you were sorry that his comrade died in this needless war. If you left with your jaw still intact, I'd be surprised.

We = the coalition of states who removed Saddam
Us = the coalition of states who removed Saddam
.
You listed a bunch of countries who were given manly diplomatic support: if you look at the ground you see that the US, Britain and Australia were taking the action with a little support of Poland.
After the war some countries sended a few troups - many under the umbrella of the UN resolutions which were passed. Though most didn´t sent combat troups but units who are helping for the reconstruction.
The US is having most of the burden. And Britain.
But it was your choice, so you shouldn´t complain about it.
I personally don´t care what the US is doing in the Middle East.
I however don´t see a convincing strategy for the "reshaping of the region".

Setting others free never consitutes a "needless death". No matter what the reasoning, no one can argue that those in Iraq are better off without Saddam than with him. No one can argue that the world is not better off without Saddam then with him.

We have done a good thing over there, but your inability to recognize it is extremely disenheartening.

Our soldiers are not draftees. They are volunteers. They decided they wanted to serve, so saying "they had no choice" is BS. They didn't have to enlist. And they didn't have to reenlist when their terms came up - but most of them did.

I would be interested to see the reaction a solider would give you if you came up and told him that you were sorry that his comrade died in this needless war. If you left with your jaw still intact, I'd be surprised.
the more sensible soldiers see it as an ignorant stupid war. it was NOT fought to "save the peasants" it was not fought to "save the world from saddam" it was fought on the LIE that saddam was working with al-quieda which was somehow the only terrorist threat to the united states

Why?

What about our actions were so totally wrong that they wipe away the last 100 years of American support for Europe, Canada and our allies?

No nation has the right to tell another that what they view as a threat to their national security is wrong - even the US hasn't gone so far as to violate any states' sovereignty (at least, to my knowledge).

And frankly, I am frustrated with our government's lack of willingness to punish those allies of ours who deliberately attempted to interfere in our efforts to remove Saddam. If we were as evil as many aboard believe us to be, why wouldn't we have done that?
Is that what you want to do? Punish your "allies"?

Another reason to vote for Kerry for sure.

Ahhhh the "either you are with us or against us" attitude? Clearly our government was going to give every opportunity for the UN inspectors the chance to do their job and they were doing their job well.

THIS EXPLAINS

WHY KERRY? LINK-

http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/

http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/

http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/


this is just for attention.. anyone is better than moron bush and his bunch of selfish militeristic meglomaniacs...

Setting others free never consitutes a "needless death". No matter what the reasoning, no one can argue that those in Iraq are better off without Saddam than with him. No one can argue that the world is not better off without Saddam then with him.

We have done a good thing over there, but your inability to recognize it is extremely disenheartening.

Our soldiers are not draftees. They are volunteers. They decided they wanted to serve, so saying "they had no choice" is BS. They didn't have to enlist. And they didn't have to reenlist when their terms came up - but most of them did.

I would be interested to see the reaction a solider would give you if you came up and told him that you were sorry that his comrade died in this needless war. If you left with your jaw still intact, I'd be surprised.
time will tell if they are better off or not. look what happened in yugoslavia after tito died

yes they wanted to serve our country, god bless them for that. it is their duty to obey order and to die doing so if that is what it takes.

that is why WE must make sure that when they have to die, it is for a damned good reason.

my broken jaw would not change the fact that we invaded iraq on a lie. we didnt need invade and every death fall on US because we allowed it.

The UN Charter did NOT give you permission to attack Iraq because the US was NOT under attack from Iraq.

There was condemnation from many UN nations for the invasion, and from the Secretary General as well.

Many of the countries that tagged along were afraid not to due to economic dependence from the US. The US even promised Turkey financial support if the US could use their country as a staging ground, which ultimately was denied.

The UN charter specifically states that any state that has been attacked has the right to self-defence:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations ...

Now, of course the argument you will use is that the United States was not attacked by Iraq.

On one level you are correct - the attacks made on September 11th were not sponsored by Iraq. But American policy is that if you are state with ties to international terror, you represent a threat to us and we will not wait until we are attacked again to respond.

On another level, which hasn't been argued (could be), we have been constantly attacked by Iraq, through their attacks on our aircraft patrolling the northern and southern no-fly zones. Now you can also argue that those were illegal, but 1441 specifically discusses them, lending them the patina of legality from a strictly UN perspective.

But in any event, the UN Charter is not a suicide pact. Global terror presents a clear and present danger to the United States. Not doing our utmost to remove it - including removing sympathetic governments - would be negligent.

Sentient Non-Idiots For Kerry
Repubs pick a fight about Vietnam while Bush ruins America right now? Is the nation drunk?

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Friday, August 27, 2004


And isn't it funny how at least 13 members of Congress have actually requested that the United Nations monitor this year's U.S. presidential election, just because, just in case, just to ensure there's no voter rolling and election rigging and chad hanging and outright shameless Florida reaming like last time? And isn't it even more funny how, when firebrand U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown, from Florida, brought the issue up on the floor of Congress, she was actually shouted down by the Republicans, scolded that she was out of order and told her comments should be stricken from the record?
And they all screamed and stomped and huffed and puffed and said no way should there be any oversight of this year's election, even though there is indeed a gross pile of mounting evidence that there's nothing stopping BushCo from simply stealing the election all over again. Isn't that funny?
It's enough to make you laugh 'til you gag. And choke.
And move to Canada.
And isn't it hilarious how the absolute worst thing the Right has been able to dredge up about John Kerry is that he might sort of maybe have exaggerated some facts about his various Vietnam medals and acts of and valor and deeds of astounding heroism, which is sort of like saying well sure you saved 10 babies from that burning building, but jeez, you were wearing special shoes at the time and by the way couldn't you have saved 11? Traitor!
And how hard should we guffaw while we note that, as Kerry was volunteering in Vietnam and earning his medals and risking his life in the most volatile and ugly and pointless and lethal and hideous war in American history unless you count Iraq, which you really really should, Dubya was "serving" in the Air National Guard, which we all know translates to mean "hangin' down in Tijuana slamming tequila shooters and annoying the waitresses, all while praising Jesus that he had a daddy who could keep him away from scary complicated violent stuff."
Whoa. Let me take that back. That was totally out of line and inappropriate and disrespectful of our fine incoherent president, and I have absolutely no proof that Dubya was such an embarrassment, such an incompetent AWOL serviceman. Very sorry.
After all, as I've mentioned in this column before, no one really knows what Bush was doing all those blurry, gin-soaked years in the National Guard. No one knows, because all of Dubya's military-service records just recently disappeared from Pentagon archives. Poof! Just like that! And then some of the missing payroll records were magically "found" again, though they still don't answer any questions regarding Bush's whereabouts that year. Imagine! Isn't it funny? What a thing.
So, let's see: Bona-fide war hero turned incredibly articulate, educated, gifted Vietnam War protester and respected senator on one side, alcoholic AWOL failed-businessman born-again pampered daddy's boy evangelical Christian on the other. Is this really the contest? Bush slugs gin and tonics like Evian while Kerry is accused of ... what again? Not being incredibly heroic enough? Wow.
This is not, apparently, a hallucination. Kerry really is being forced to defend his well-documented war record, despite how all the proofs are there, in public view, on the candidate's own Web site, with nothing to hide and for all to see, whereas Dubya was (and still is) a famously inept embarrassment to the military, and is being forced to defend nothing about his own spoiled spoon-fed life, as he humiliates the nation at every utterance and attacks Kerry (and, by extension, John McCain) via GOP-sponsored henchmen while large chunks of his own embarrassing records have just, um, "disappeared."
What, too bitter? Resentful? Too much like I advocate stringing Karl Rove up by his large intestine and slapping him with a rainbow flag until he cries? All apologies.
Hey, it happens. Sometimes you just gotta purge. Vent. Let it all out. Because, really, it all makes you ask: Is everyone on drugs? Mass delusional? Are we just blind? Or is the vicious GOP spin machine really that powerful? Why, yes, yes, it is. And isn't it just the funniest thing?
But, wait, there's more. The GOP is also accusing Kerry of a nasty bout of "flip flopping" on a handful of issues. Griping that he's changed his mind on a few key pieces of legislation, not the least of which is his support for war on Iraq. And the USA Patriot Act.
Which is, you know, sort of true. But, then again, not really, not considering how nearly every single congressperson was equally duped by the vicious GOP war machine, the outright WMD lies and BushCo's post-9/11 propaganda and the invidious USA Patriot Act midnight ream-through. Hell, Kerry was just as misled as the rest of us. Is Kerry culpable for his own choices and for making errors in judgment and for not always being absolutely flawlessly progressive in his decisions? Hell, yes. But does his record of such errors pale in comparison to Bush's mile-high ream of lies and flip-flops and outright slaps in the face of your humanity? Oh my God yes, yes, it does.
But lo, let us not hold back any longer. Let us now laugh out loud, hold our sides in pain, gasp for air as we look at the BushCo "flip flop" record, in sum. Let us observe the short list of issues about which BushCo has either completely reversed his position, or has simply openly lied to the nation about to further his administration's shockingly small-minded, self-serving corporate agenda:
The creation of the 9/11 commission. The Iraq WMD investigation. The Israeli/Palestine conflict. Nation building. Same-sex marriage. Veterans' benefits. The value of Osama bin Laden. The Saddam/al Qaeda link. North Korea. The U.N. vote on Iraq. "Mission accomplished." Ahmed Chalabi. Steel tariffs. The Department of Homeland Security. Campaign-finance reform. Energy policy. Hybrid cars. The deficit. Assault weapons. Abortion. Science. Global warming. The environment.
And the list, as they say, goes on. And on. And on.
It's a masterful deflection by the GOP spin doctors, really, away from Bush's truly appalling record of flagrant deceit and his title as the hands-down worse environmental president in the history of the United States, toward Kerry's much more highly respected record, wherein he has, among other accomplishments, earned the highest possible rating from various international environmental groups.
And, finally, isn't it funny -- in a nauseating, soul-mauling sort of way -- that 52 American soldiers have died in BushCo's completely useless little Iraq war just this month alone. How very touching, their noble sacrifice. Too bad Bush doesn't care. Let us just laugh and laugh at how the media barely covers these pedestrian, boring deaths anymore, instead allowing the GOP to turn the debate into one about a miserable, lost war that happened nearly 30 years ago, all while U.S. soldiers continue to die every day, right now, for no justifiable reason whatsoever.
Yes, let us laugh until we cry. Let us note how the Bush-induced death toll is now up to 964 U.S. soldiers -- a staggering 855 above the total since the infamous, insulting "Mission accomplished" quip -- which is, if the GOP plays it just so, right on track to reach 1,000 U.S. dead by the time the Republican convention kicks into high gear. What fun!
And that 1,000th soldier will fall in abject pain, his or her life utterly wasted for a cause that never really existed, that no one actually believes in, that was all built on a lie to begin with. And he or she will die just as all the war hawks and all the right-wing homophobes and all the cigar-chompin' corporate CEOs gather in New York and pop their champagne and cheer the true triumvirate o' GOP happiness: God, guns and money.
Yes, it's enough to make you laugh out loud. Until you don't.

? Thoughts for the author? E-mail him.
? Mark's column archives are here
Mark Morford's Notes & Errata column appears every
Wednesday and Friday on SF Gate, unless it appears on
Tuesdays and Thursdays, which it never does. Subscribe
to this column at sfgate.com/newsletters.
_________________

You listed a bunch of countries who were given manly diplomatic support: if you look at the ground you see that the US, Britain and Australia were taking the action with a little support of Poland.
After the war some countries sended a few troups - many under the umbrella of the UN resolutions which were passed. Though most didn´t sent combat troups but units who are helping for the reconstruction.
The US is having most of the burden. And Britain.
But it was your choice, so you shouldn´t complain about it.
I personally don´t care what the US is doing in the Middle East.
I however don´t see a convincing strategy for the "reshaping of the region".

I listed our coalition partners. There is much more that these governments can do then simply providing troops - we don't need troops. American and British soliders are the finest in the world. Diplomatic support, food aid to Iraq, monetary support, etc. - all of that is what those states are providing, and they are proof that we are not "going it alone". Even if it were merely the US and the UK we would not be acting unilateraly.

At some point, the bar can't be moved any higher. You say we acted alone, I point out our allies, you say "well they didn't really help", I point out that they have. You can't argue that the US did this with no support because the facts demonstrate that we didn't.

What would you expect to see in a strategy for reshaping the region?

The UN charter specifically states that any state that has been attacked has the right to self-defence:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations ...

Now, of course the argument you will use is that the United States was not attacked by Iraq.

On one level you are correct - the attacks made on September 11th were not sponsored by Iraq. But American policy is that if you are state with ties to international terror, you represent a threat to us and we will not wait until we are attacked again to respond.

On another level, which hasn't been argued (could be), we have been constantly attacked by Iraq, through their attacks on our aircraft patrolling the northern and southern no-fly zones. Now you can also argue that those were illegal, but 1441 specifically discusses them, lending them the patina of legality from a strictly UN perspective.

But in any event, the UN Charter is not a suicide pact. Global terror presents a clear and present danger to the United States. Not doing our utmost to remove it - including removing sympathetic governments - would be negligent.
brians room isnt even reading hes just spoutong off random bullshit

iraq had NO provable ties to al-quieda, much less "synonymous" with them.

oh please, yes lets remove sympathetic governments that support terrorism: lets do it in order or support to
1) afghanistan
2) pakistan
3) egypt
4) sudan
5) iran
6) palestine
7) you can say israel too, i consider them no more than terrorists


dont try making up bullshit explanations unless you want reality thrown in your face, but iguess it doesnt much matter if your not paying attention

Setting others free never consitutes a "needless death". No matter what the reasoning, no one can argue that those in Iraq are better off without Saddam than with him. No one can argue that the world is not better off without Saddam then with him.
Explain to me how Iraq is "FREE"? The US has installed a puppet regime that has to follow the economy raping "Bremer's Orders", and everything is supported by a 150,000 US troops still stationed and STILL bombing Iraq. Now how are these people FREE?

We have done a good thing over there, but your inability to recognize it is extremely disenheartening.
The way it was done, is NOT a good thing.

Our soldiers are not draftees. They are volunteers. They decided they wanted to serve, so saying "they had no choice" is BS. They didn't have to enlist. And they didn't have to reenlist when their terms came up - but most of them did.
Did most of them re-enlist?

I would be interested to see the reaction a solider would give you if you came up and told him that you were sorry that his comrade died in this needless war. If you left with your jaw still intact, I'd be surprised.
So offering condolences is okay but tacking on the word "needless" would earn someone a broken jaw in the land of FREE speech?

the more sensible soldiers see it as an ignorant stupid war. it was NOT fought to "save the peasants" it was not fought to "save the world from saddam" it was fought on the LIE that saddam was working with al-quieda which was somehow the only terrorist threat to the united states

So any soldier who thinks that what we did over there was the right thing, no matter what the reasoning behind it was is "non-sensible"?

No one ever said that we went to war because Saddam and Al-Qaeda were working together. That implication has been drawn, and there is evidence of contact between the two, but mostly the contact was Al-Qaede asking for help and Iraq saying no.

The reasoning given behind the war was that Iraq presented a threat to us because 1.) They supported global terror 2.) They were actively pursuing WMD technology 3.) They already had WMD technology, in contravention of UN security council resolutions and 4.) They have used them in the past. #1 is true, and confirmed. I think it's safe to say that #2 is true - there's ample evidence that Saddam was trying to get WMD technology. #3 has not been confirmed, but we don't have any evidence that he didn't have WMD and absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence. But I'll concede this point and say he didn't have WMD. #4 is demonstrably true as well.

For simply those reasons, we were justified to remove him.

The "freeing of the peasants" was touted as an additional benefit to removing Saddam. I'm not trying to say that the War in Iraq was a humanitarian mission. What I am saying is that no matter how valid our reasons for going to war were, the end result was better than the pre-war status quo.

Saying Bush lied is an unfair oversimplification.

the UN was created for a reason, TO PREVENT SHIT LIKE THIS. the UN being corrupt is only 50% relevant. lets not to mention the fact the ONLY reason ANYONE in america supported the Iraq excursion was because bush LIED and convinced the american populace that iraq was tied to al-quieda

stick that in your pipe and smoke it

The UN was created to stop global wars like World War I and World War II from happening again.

It is completely unequipped to handle terrorism.

And please point out to me where the President has ever said definitvely that Iraq was tied to Al-Qaeda. You can't, because he hasn't. Cheney has said he believes there was a link, and that there was evidence that Iraq and Al-Qaeda have had interactions, but no official that I am aware of has ever said that it was proven, nor has anyone ever tried to claim that Iraq was complicit in 9/11.

And I don't smoke.

Yes you have listed "your" coalition members, however the "we" and the "us" is supposed to mean the United Nations, especially the Security Council. The US argument to attack Saddam was weak at best, especially since the UN inspectors were IN Iraq going over these claims of WMD.

BTW, the US violated Article 10 of the UN Resolution 1441:

10. REQUESTS all member states to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programs or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

Bush got impatient because the UN was NOT finding ANY WMD and the window of opportunity to seize Iraq was closing.

Hold on a sec. What do you mean the opportunity to "seize" Iraq? We didn't annex Iraq. It's not a US terroritory. It's not applying for statehood. We removed Saddam, and we turned control back over to the Iraqis.

The "we" and "us" doesn't have to mean the Security council. The UN has an extremely poor record of handling disputes between member states. Just look at Africa, look at the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Technically, the USSR should have been expelled from the UN for its invasion of Afghanistan because they broke about 15 sections of the charter. But they weren't.

We had been working and allowing UNMOVIC and the IAEA to handle the inspections in Iraq for nearly a decade - after 9/11 we simply could not afford to let them drag on indefinitely.

I believe that we did cooperate with UNMOVIC and IAEA. I am sure, however, that we did not provide all the material we had, because we didn't want to compromise our sources - this is the problem with intelligence. You get too afraid of losing the source, so you never use the data. This is a lapse, and I can't justify it. So it looks like you've got me on that one.

Is that what you want to do? Punish your "allies"?

Another reason to vote for Kerry for sure.

Ahhhh the "either you are with us or against us" attitude? Clearly our government was going to give every opportunity for the UN inspectors the chance to do their job and they were doing their job well.

No - that's what I PERSONALLY want to do. But I'm not President, so I can't do that. Bush has specifically NOT done that, which is what I disagree with him on. He is of the opinion, apparently, that our allies can be fairweather friends - accepting our aid and trade, but ignore us when we need their assistance, or at least their neutrality.

The inspectors WEREN'T doing their jobs well - if they had done it well, they wouldn't have taken 10 years to do it.

Sentient Non-Idiots For Kerry
Repubs pick a fight about Vietnam while Bush ruins America right now? Is the nation drunk?

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Friday, August 27, 2004



Why Kerry Will Lose The Election
VIEW FROM THE RIGHT

Adam Sparks, Special to SF Gate
Monday, August 9, 2004


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




John Kerry will lose this election, and he will do so decisively. The defeat will go down as perhaps the only thing this candidate has ever done decisively.

We've just seen a four-day infomercial called the Democratic National Convention, where everyone put on his or her smiley face; Democrats were having a love fest. It was a sea change from their previous campaigning: For starters, they wouldn't even directly criticize the president -- all that vile Bush bashing of the last few months turned into gentle speeches with nary a mention of him. Secondly, the vehemently pacifist and rabidly anti-war party did a 180 degree turn around and created the most militaristic show since Eisenhower landed in Europe.

Kerry, saying he's "reporting for duty," greeted Americans in the most macho, Republican kind of way with a crisp salute. Then Kerry's fellow Vietnam veterans, who, like him, served on the U.S. Navy's "swift boat" patrol craft, swarmed the podium. Finally, Kerry's war-hero service was retold to make sure Americans know he's really fit for service as commander in chief.

Yet the casual observer could see through the cracks in the veneer. That tired old huckster, the Rev. Al Sharpton, of Tawana Brawley hoax fame, was given a prime-time speaking spot in which to share his insight. He was a tough act to follow, but radical propagandist filmmaker and all-around hate monger Michael Moore, seated beside former President Jimmy Carter, was given the place of honor.

Not Much Bounce


Let's be serious; the convention was a grand flop. Following the event, polls were all over the place: Some showed no postconvention increase for Kerry at all, and others had a bounce so small it was within the margin of error. But the most seriously devastating of all them all was the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. In that survey of likely voters, President Bush led Kerry 50 percent to 46 percent. Ouch -- that's gotta hurt. A Newsweek survey did show some good news for Kerry, who picked up a few points in that vote. The bad news? It was the most dreadful showing of any postconvention bounce in the decades since the newsmagazine began measuring such shifts.

The Associated Press reported that its analysts say Bush is leading in electoral votes today. The weeks following the convention should be the high point of any candidate's campaign, so that's another sad marker.

Liberal New York Times syndicated columnist Maureen Dowd said it best: Kerry's nautical theme made the convention look like a goofy scene from "Gilligan's Island." You know you've got problems when you can't shore up the Left.

A Convoluted Message

This was Kerry's moment in the sun to introduce himself to Americans and talk about issues. Yet it was quite difficult among all his rhetoric to figure out what he was for or against, or what he would do differently. If he has not defined himself by now to the American people, any new self-definitions revealed as Election Day nears will be a day late and a dollar short.

During the primary campaign, Kerry joined running mate John Edwards in opposing Iraq liberation. They were both influenced by the Deaniacs, or, more accurately, former presidential contender Howard Dean's formidable fund raising and momentum, which he earned primarily by declaring how much he just hated the liberation of Iraq. The fact that both of the "me-too"s, Edwards and Kerry, voted for military intervention in Iraq was a minor detail to be papered over: They were misled. But do we really want folks in the White House who are so easily duped?

Kerry has clearly indicated he was always against the war, but that was after his vote in favor of the war, but not for war funding, which should not be understood as support, and in any case he would have done it much differently. His concern is now a lack of any real coalition and U.N. support, but when the United States had the backing of the United Nations and a real international presence in Desert Storm after Iraq invaded Kuwait, Kerry voted against that intervention. That information should clear it up for all those undecided voters who really wanted to know.

On abortion, he's about the same: He's voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion, but he has recently declared his belief that life begins at conception. That pronouncement should get everyone on both sides of the issue to vote for him. At least we all know he's a man of his convictions, and not just poll driven, like those other big-haired, arrogant-looking politicians. Bush once characterized Kerry's popularity by saying, in effect, of course he's popular, adding, "He's been on every side of every issue." Kerry has no cohesive message.

A Confusing Vietnam Record

Kerry has been using his "hero" status as one of his finest achievements. But, as with much of what he does, he sends mixed messages. He proudly brings out his handful of Vietnam veterans and recalls his heroics, but, earlier, he testified before Congress and wrote in his book, "Tour of Duty," that he committed war crimes, and so did most of his comrades.

On swift-boat missions in Vietnam, Kerry wrote, "we established an American presence in most cases by showing the flag and firing at sampans and villages along the banks. Those were our instructions, but they seemed so out of line that we finally began to go ashore, against our orders, and investigate the villages that were supposed to be our targets.

"We discovered we were butchering a lot of innocent people, and morale became so low among the officers on those swift boats that we were called back to Saigon for special instructions from Gen. Abrams," he added. "He told us we were doing the right thing. He said our efforts would help win the war in the long run. That's when I realized I could never remain silent about the realities of the war in Vietnam."

Pity the poor guy who has to reach back 35 years to show America just how great he is. And he does so very selectively: There's no mention of all his medal ribbons tossed with contempt over the White House fence for the same war he now fondly remembers. He brought a cast of sailors out with him on the convention podium and keeps a contingent with him at all times while campaigning, either to show Americans just how patriotic he is or to remind us incessantly that he served a grueling four months in Vietnam. For whatever reason, it's pathetic. The peaceniks know all about his antiwar theatrics; he needn't highlight those attributes. He's now going after the swing voter who respects America military strength and may have or have had family members in the service. In Kerry's world, you really can be all things to all people.

Forget the showboating -- no pun intended -- let's look at the record. Kerry received three Purple Hearts, and, after four months of duty, he requested permission to get the heck out of there. However, retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, who ran the swift-boat campaign in Vietnam and now leads a group of fellow officers calling themselves the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, countered Kerry, saying, "I do not believe that John Kerry is fit to be commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter of judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all absolute tenets of command.

"Only one of his 23 fellow officers in charge from Coastal Division 11 supports John Kerry," he added. "Overall, more than 250 swift-boat veterans are on the record questioning Kerry's fitness to serve as commander in chief. That list includes his entire chain of command -- every single officer Kerry served under in Vietnam. The Kerry game plan is to ignore all this and pretend that the 13 veterans his campaign jets around the country and puts up in five-star hotels really represent the truth about his short, controversial combat tour."

You needn't go back 35 years to Vietnam to see what Kerry's all about. Just check out his voting record in the Senate, where he's been for the past 19 years. Can you name one piece of legislation he carried? Don't worry; neither can anyone else.

As Bush said following the convention, "After 19 years in the United States Senate, my opponent has had thousands of votes, but very few signature achievements." That's not leadership. Where's his big health-care initiatives, or his education or environmental improvement? Talk is cheap. What has he done that's so memorable, besides marry two extremely rich women?

Making Health Care Safe for Trial Lawyers

A centerpiece of Kerry's campaign is to make access to drugs and medicine affordable, but, when you hear the word affordable, hold on to your wallets. It means a health-care system that will rely on billions of dollars of tax increases to prop up. But, taking a page from John Edwards' "two Americas," as far as Kerry's concerned, only the rich should pay the taxes. But don't relax yet; "the rich" includes anyone with a job. Increasing taxes for just the wealthiest 1 percent, or even the richest 10 percent, will not pay for a singe-payer health-care system, which would cost several trillion dollars annually and would federalize one-fifth of the economy.

Edwards has a lot of experience in the health-care industry. He became one of the nation's richest trial lawyers by winning record jury verdicts and settlements in cases alleging that botched treatment of women in labor caused infants to develop cerebral palsy, a brain disorder that causes motor-function impairment and lifelong disability. In these trials, Edward would often rely on junk science before North Carolina juries, claiming that a doctor's momentary hesitation in deciding whether to perform a cesarean section on a mother caused the brain damage. Edwards sometimes channeled a child's thoughts in the courtroom, saying, in the case of a fetus about to be born, "I'm having problems. I need out." This would be touching showmanship for the Psychic Friends Network, but not for the White House.

The real damage was not to babies such as that one, but to taxpayers, who now have to foot the bill in higher medical costs due to increased premiums or who find that, because of prohibitively expensive malpractice insurance, there are now far fewer practicing obstetricians. To add insult to injury, we have to suffer through Edwards, one of the richest senators, lecturing us on how there are two Americas, and "ain't that a darn shame?" Just what America needs -- a trial lawyer just a heartbeat away from the White House.

History on Bush's Side

No war president has ever lost an election in the United States, and it's unlikely this will be the case now. Until recently, the Democrats uttered a great deal of rhetorical propaganda about their contention that Bush "lied" about the war of liberation in Iraq: He lied about intelligence; he lied about WMDs. He lied, lied, lied. Everyone from the head of the Democratic Party to Michael Moore has delivered this mantra for the last three years.

Now that the bipartisan 9/11 Commission has come out with its final report, which vindicated the president, you don't hear that much about lies anymore. The report says there were no lies. Bad intelligence, yes; lies, no. Unfortunately, much of the damage has been done, as Bush's "lies" have now become an urban legend, ingrained in the minds of many.

The 9/11 Commission's report, which involved the investigation and review of tens of thousands of pages of secret documents and interviews of hundreds of key witnesses, found not a single lie.

Now that Kerry can't rely on Bush as liar, he will need to come up with a novel new game plan. It'll be hard, but maybe he could have Edwards channel the baby Jesus telling people whom to vote for. Short of that, nothing will work.

----------------------------------

brians room isnt even reading hes just spoutong off random bullshit

What am I not reading? I read everything you had to say - what little of it there was.


iraq had NO provable ties to al-quieda, much less "synonymous" with them.

Iraq had contact with Al-Qaeda. This is proven. But as I have said 3 times now, Iraq rebuffed Al-Qaeda's attempts to negotiate with them. But there was contact.

No one is saying that there WERE provable ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, certainly not the president.

Yes, there is a large portion of our population that for some reason thinks that Al-Qaeda and Iraq are linked. There's also a large segment of the population who keep the Backstreet Boys touring. I can't explain that either.

And I never said Iraq was "synonymous" with them. I said that Iraq was "sympathetic" to global terror - particularly Hamas and Hezbollah in Israel.

And I'm the one not reading?

oh please, yes lets remove sympathetic governments that support terrorism: lets do it in order or support to
1) afghanistan
2) pakistan
3) egypt
4) sudan
5) iran
6) palestine
7) you can say israel too, i consider them no more than terrorists

Afghanistan doesn't promote terror anymore. Pakistan needs work - I don't like them, and they were no better than the Taliban. After we catch bin Laden we can address them. Egypt and Sudan we are already working with. Iran definitely needs to be addressed, and it appears we're moving to deal with them. Palestine doesn't exist. Israel, in my opinion, isn't a terrorist state but I'm not even going to start that argument.

dont try making up bullshit explanations unless you want reality thrown in your face, but iguess it doesnt much matter if your not paying attention

The only BS that is being injected into this argument is from you - I've yet to see a shread of logical explanation or documentation to substantiate any of your claims that Bush has "LIED" about Al-Qaeda/Iraq ties to convince America that they're there.

Let's keep this argument civil, shall we?

So any soldier who thinks that what we did over there was the right thing, no matter what the reasoning behind it was is "non-sensible"?

No one ever said that we went to war because Saddam and Al-Qaeda were working together. That implication has been drawn, and there is evidence of contact between the two, but mostly the contact was Al-Qaede asking for help and Iraq saying no.

The reasoning given behind the war was that Iraq presented a threat to us because 1.) They supported global terror 2.) They were actively pursuing WMD technology 3.) They already had WMD technology, in contravention of UN security council resolutions and 4.) They have used them in the past. #1 is true, and confirmed. I think it's safe to say that #2 is true - there's ample evidence that Saddam was trying to get WMD technology. #3 has not been confirmed, but we don't have any evidence that he didn't have WMD and absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence. But I'll concede this point and say he didn't have WMD. #4 is demonstrably true as well.

For simply those reasons, we were justified to remove him.

The "freeing of the peasants" was touted as an additional benefit to removing Saddam. I'm not trying to say that the War in Iraq was a humanitarian mission. What I am saying is that no matter how valid our reasons for going to war were, the end result was better than the pre-war status quo.

Saying Bush lied is an unfair oversimplification.

thats of course what they say now, but everyone not on the rpeublican side of the lie will admit that no one wouldve agreed if that was the original reasoning

Why Kerry Will Lose The Election
VIEW FROM THE RIGHT

Making Health Care Safe for Trial Lawyers

A centerpiece of Kerry's campaign is to make access to drugs and medicine affordable, but, when you hear the word affordable, hold on to your wallets. It means a health-care system that will rely on billions of dollars of tax increases to prop up. But, taking a page from John Edwards' "two Americas," as far as Kerry's concerned, only the rich should pay the taxes. But don't relax yet; "the rich" includes anyone with a job. Increasing taxes for just the wealthiest 1 percent, or even the richest 10 percent, will not pay for a singe-payer health-care system, which would cost several trillion dollars annually and would federalize one-fifth of the economy.




Question, where is the basid that the riches taxes won't pay anything?
Why does the right say its not just the rich when Kerry and everyone who has seen and heard him talk abut the plan knows it is.
Why would anyone with a job be rich: are the poor just the homeless? Though some homeless might have a job so its impossible to be non-rich usually.
You said billions of dollars and yet you changed it to trillions instead when it was a lie to say trillions? Choose your words or are you trying to flip flop republicans?
A couple countries have the health care system and don't spend trillions maybe you could ask them why?

Anyway, its just lies and false premises from the right.

No one is saying that there WERE provable ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, certainly not the president.
Cheney did then changed it to there weren't he diesn't remember saying that. Then MSN I think showed him the clips and then he didn't answer. Then he changed it back to their were provable ties.

Let's keep this argument civil, shall we?

You are asking a lot there. Chess Squares has blinders on. he can only see one thing.... "Bush Bad!" "Kerry Good!"

Good luck arguing with him, he has no sources and just rambles on like a drunken frat guy bragging about how he got Mary Sue back home to drop her knickers.

Explain to me how Iraq is "FREE"? The US has installed a puppet regime that has to follow the economy raping "Bremer's Orders", and everything is supported by a 150,000 US troops still stationed and STILL bombing Iraq. Now how are these people FREE?

The "puppet regime" has the support of most of the Iraqi populace. They will hold their own elections in Jnauary. They have full control over everything inside their borders, including the US troops stationed there.

Our troops are responding to attacks on them - they are not conducting offensive operations, and any operations that are being conducted are being done in cooperation with Iraq National Guard units.

They are free from the fear of Saddam. They are free from the fear that speaking out of line will result in the GSD (the Iraqi Secret Police, modeled after the East German Stasi) will come in the night and take them away. They are free to live their lives they way they want to now. They are free to practice their religion without oppression (the Baathist Sunnis didn't get along with the Shiites, the Kurds, and other religions in the state). The Kurds are free to live and govern themselves without worrying about Saddam's death squads and poison gas attacks.

The way it was done, is NOT a good thing.

There has rarely been a war with as few casualties as the Iraq War. More people died in one rifle volley during the Civil War than have died to date in Iraq. The first Gulf War had fewer, but we didn't remove Saddam (the Saudis held us back).

The rebuilding is going well, and while I agree that America could have had a better game plan for managing the peace, I think things are going as well as can be expected in an area of the world that has been so repressed for so long.

Did most of them re-enlist?

Yes.

So offering condolences is okay but tacking on the word "needless" would earn someone a broken jaw in the land of FREE speech?

Free speech is a big responsibility. Think of it this way - if your best friend died next to you over there, would you want to think of him as hero who died setting people free, or as a poor dumb sod who got killed for no good reason?

You do have the freedom to say anything you want (basically), but you bare the responsiblity for what you say. If it leads to a smack in the head, you may want to think twice before being so callous.

You are asking a lot there. Chess Squares has blinders on. he can only see one thing.... "Bush Bad!" "Kerry Good!"

Good luck arguing with him, he has no sources and just rambles on like a drunken frat guy bragging about how he got Mary Sue back home to drop her knickers.

Hey - not all of us drunk frat guys ramble. :)

The UN was created to stop global wars like World War I and World War II from happening again.

It is completely unequipped to handle terrorism.

And please point out to me where the President has ever said definitvely that Iraq was tied to Al-Qaeda. You can't, because he hasn't. Cheney has said he believes there was a link, and that there was evidence that Iraq and Al-Qaeda have had interactions, but no official that I am aware of has ever said that it was proven, nor has anyone ever tried to claim that Iraq was complicit in 9/11.

And I don't smoke.
ooh, good job hypocrite, your covering your ass horribly. you either a, have no idea what im talking about which is the war with iraq, or b, are bad at covering your ass.


you just told me iraq was not fought for terrorism, but then say the UN wasnt created to handle terrorism. but it IS handled to stop the random unapproved attack and take over of random nations. and if you look at the excuse people give that it was ok for america to go, congress agreed to it, then it was perfectly ok for germany to invade poland, germany agreed to it after all.

No - that's what I PERSONALLY want to do. But I'm not President, so I can't do that. Bush has specifically NOT done that, which is what I disagree with him on. He is of the opinion, apparently, that our allies can be fairweather friends - accepting our aid and trade, but ignore us when we need their assistance, or at least their neutrality.

The inspectors WEREN'T doing their jobs well - if they had done it well, they wouldn't have taken 10 years to do it.
there job is to go in periodically and look for banned weapons, ITS SUPPOSED TO TAKE FUCKING YEARS, why dont you go lern what you are talking about and come back

thats of course what they say now, but everyone not on the rpeublican side of the lie will admit that no one wouldve agreed if that was the original reasoning

I disagree.

Saddam Hussein has never been popular, and there was a broad feeling that we should have removed Saddam in 1991 when we had the chance.

I would propose that Bush could have gone up in front of the American people and said "We need to remove Saddam because we should've done it in 1991 and I'm tying up the loose ends" and he would've gotten a majority of the public behind him.

Granted - he would've gotten no international support, but that's not the point. He would've had public support either way.

No one is saying that there WERE provable ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, certainly not the president.

Yes, there is a large portion of our population that for some reason thinks that Al-Qaeda and Iraq are linked. There's also a large segment of the population who keep the Backstreet Boys touring. I can't explain that either.

And I never said Iraq was "synonymous" with them. I said that Iraq was "sympathetic" to global terror - particularly Hamas and Hezbollah in Israel.
the president declared that al-queda was SYNONYMOUS with saddam hussein, and ill be damned if i can find the transcript or the video clip the daily show used of it








The only BS that is being injected into this argument is from you - I've yet to see a shread of logical explanation or documentation to substantiate any of your claims that Bush has "LIED" about Al-Qaeda/Iraq ties to convince America that they're there.

Let's keep this argument civil, shall we?
consult polls, see how many people believe iraq was working with al-queida, he skillfully LIED and persuaded the people through indirect lies and misled them to believe iraq was sponsoring al-quieda

I disagree.

Saddam Hussein has never been popular, and there was a broad feeling that we should have removed Saddam in 1991 when we had the chance.

I would propose that Bush could have gone up in front of the American people and said "We need to remove Saddam because we should've done it in 1991 and I'm tying up the loose ends" and he would've gotten a majority of the public behind him.

Granted - he would've gotten no international support, but that's not the point. He would've had public support either way.
but thats not what he did, he misled the people to believe he was involved with al-quieda and thats how we got in iraq

ooh, good job hypocrite, your covering your ass horribly. you either a, have no idea what im talking about which is the war with iraq, or b, are bad at covering your ass.


you just told me iraq was not fought for terrorism, but then say the UN wasnt created to handle terrorism. but it IS handled to stop the random unapproved attack and take over of random nations. and if you look at the excuse people give that it was ok for america to go, congress agreed to it, then it was perfectly ok for germany to invade poland, germany agreed to it after all.

Please point out to me where I said that Iraq wasn't fought for terrorism. What I have said, and I have been consistent in saying it, is that the Iraq war was fought because Iraq was a sponsor of global terror and that they were pursuing weapons of mass destruction and that in today's world, we can't afford to wait until they actually attack us to take action.

The United Nations was NOT designed to combat terrorism. It was specifically designed to ensure that global wars like World War I and World War II do not happen again. The UN is made up of nation-states. It is wholly unequipped to deal with a non-state threat against it's members.

The Charter specifically allows its member states to respond to attacks in self-defence when they have been attacked. As I said before (and this is thin, I admit, but it's enough for legal grounds) Iraq had been attacking our forces in the no-fly zones for years, and we viewed them as a threat to us for their support of global terror. That's justification enough.

And if the UN is so designed to stop "unapproved attack and take over of random nations" where were they during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1980? Where were they during the North Vietnamese invasion of South Vietnam? Where were they during Argentina's assault on the Falklands? Where were they during the multiple wars in Africa?

And your analogy between the US removing Saddam and Germany invading Poland is ridiculous.

"you cannot [differentiate] between al-qaeda and saddam when you are talking about the war on terror"

http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/indecision2004/index.jhtml
"words are louder than actions"