Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: MrLars on August 12, 2004, 10:10:46 AM
-
....well, he's onboard with the Swiftvets but it seems he likes to question and start false rumors about other peoples service.
If you guys believe him now, what about when he tried the same BS with GHWB? Are you going to belive Mr. Samply's contention that GHWB bailed out prematurley and left his crew to die as steadfastly as you belive his statements about John Kerry?
http://www.usvetdsp.com/story46.htm
-
Lets talk about something of substance, say...Kerry's voting record in the Senate the last 20 years. Shall we? I mean really...4 months in 'Nam, is that all he's going to the election booth with? Or do you want to continue to be a Kerry-Apologist?
-
lol Lars you struck a nerve.
(....damage control!! ..... talk not about what Lars brought up, weeeeeeee..... Call people names (apologist).... Quickly change the subject ....!! )
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Lets talk about something of substance, say...Kerry's voting record in the Senate the last 20 years. Shall we? I mean really...4 months in 'Nam, is that all he's going to the election booth with? Or do you want to continue to be a Kerry-Apologist?
dig into it rip, dont ignore it. I wanna hear more.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Lets talk about something of substance, say...Kerry's voting record in the Senate the last 20 years. Shall we? I mean really...4 months in 'Nam, is that all he's going to the election booth with? Or do you want to continue to be a Kerry-Apologist?
Nice dodge
-
LOL, the dodgers are calling the dodgers, dodgers. This can only get better as the election gets nearer...
As Bush said Tuesday..."you still have 84 days..." ;) (82 now I believe).
Keep avoiding that senate tenuer! :D
When my copy of "Unfit for Command" arrives, I'll have plenty of facts for you to examine. :lol
-
Read Flyboys
what a tard
it does show he is not politically motivated
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Or do you want to continue to be a Kerry-Apologist?
I think that we should get the Kerry-Apologists to face off with the Bush-Apologists and have this out...
...wait a minute... we already have...
-
Yeah, I wanna know if the Lt (jg) or the 1 Lt has the necessary military experience to run the US.
They both served.
Bush has had the actual job for 3+ years. Kerry's had 20+ years in the Senate.
Let's see.... do we want to decide the Presidency based on their incredibly high rank in the US military and all the vast responsibility they held as Lieutentants?
Or should we decide based on what Bush has done/not done in the last 3+ years as POTUS and what Kerry has done for the last 20+ years as the Junior Senator from Massachusetts?
-
"Or should we decide based on what Bush has done/not done in the last 3+ years as POTUS and what Kerry has done for the last 20+ years as the Junior Senator from Massachusetts?"
Absolutely. Howeve IMO a candidates character and integrity (or lack of) is vitally important to making ones decision too.
So. What do you think of the article that Lars posted?
-
Originally posted by Westy
"Or should we decide based on what Bush has done/not done in the last 3+ years as POTUS and what Kerry has done for the last 20+ years as the Junior Senator from Massachusetts?"
Absolutely.
Okay, lets discuss Kerrys last 20 years in the senate then!
Flip Flopped On Trade With China
In 1991, Kerry Supported Most-Favored Trade Status For China. “Sen. John Kerry said yesterday that he is breaking party ranks to support most-favored-nation trade status for China … ‘I think the president has some strong arguments about some of the assets of most-favored-nation status for China,’ Kerry said.” (John Aloysius Farrell, “Kerry Breaks Party Ranks To Back China Trade Status,” The Boston Globe, 6/15/91)
In 2000, Kerry Voted In Favor Of Permanent Normal Trade Relations With China. (H.R. 4444, CQ Vote #251: Passed 83-15: R 46-8; D 37-7, 9/19/00, Kerry Voted Yea)
Now Kerry Criticizes The Bush Administration For Trading With China. “Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said on Monday Americans workers were paying the price for President Bush's weak stance on trade with China and other countries. … On the bus tour, Kerry singled out the Bush administration's handling of trade with China and said that country was manipulating its currency.” (Caren Bohan, "Kerry Pledges Aggressive Trade Stance," Reuters, 4/26/04)
Flip-Flopped On Iraq War
Kerry Voted For Authorization To Use Force In Iraq. (H.J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted Yea.)
In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President’s Action In Iraq. KERRY: “George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.” (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03)
Kerry Later Claimed He Voted “To Threaten” Use Of Force In Iraq. “I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Announcement Of Presidential Candidacy, Mount Pleasant, SC, 9/2/03)
Now, Kerry Says He Is Anti-War Candidate. CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it’s been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?” KERRY: “I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 1/6/04)
Flip-Flopped On Eliminating Marriage Penalty For Middle Class
Kerry Said He Will Fight To Keep Tax Relief For Married Couples. “Howard Dean and Gephardt are going to put the marriage penalty back in place. So if you get married in America, we’re going to charge you more taxes. I do not want to do that.” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 10/23/03)
Said Democrats Fought To End Marriage Penalty Tax. “We fought hard to get rid of the marriage penalty.” (MSNBC’s “News Live,” 7/31/03)
But, In 1998, Kerry Voted Against Eliminating Marriage Penalty Relief For Married Taxpayers With Combined Incomes Less Than $50,000 Per Year, Saving Taxpayers $46 Billion Over 10 Years. (S. 1415, CQ Vote #154: Rejected 48-50: R 5-49; D 43-1, 6/10/98, Kerry Voted Yea)
-
Flip-Flopped On Patriot Act
Kerry Voted For Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357-66 in the House. (H.R. 3162, CQ Vote #313: Passed 98-1: R 49-0; D 48-1; I 1-0, 10/25/01, Kerry Voted Yea)
Kerry Used To Defend His Vote. “Most of [The Patriot Act] has to do with improving the transfer of information between CIA and FBI, and it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on September 11th.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Town Hall Meeting, Manchester, NH, 8/6/03)
Now, Kerry Attacks Patriot Act. “We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time. I’ve been a District Attorney and I know that what law enforcement needs are real tools not restrictions on American’s basic rights.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Iowa State University, 12/1/03)
Kerry Took BOTH Sides On First Gulf War
Kerry Took BOTH Sides In First Gulf War In Separate Letters To Same Constituent. “Rather than take a side--albeit the one he thought was most expedient--Kerry actually stood on both sides of the first Gulf war, much like he did this time around. Consider this ‘Notebook’ item from TNR’s March 25, 1991 issue, which ran under the headline ‘Same Senator, Same Constituent’: ‘Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war.’ --letter from Senator John Kerry to Wallace Carter of Newton Centre, Massachusetts, dated January 22 [1991] ‘Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush’s response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf.’ --Senator Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31 [1991]” (Noam Scheiber, “Noam Scheiber’s Daily Journal of Politics, The New Republic Online, 1/28/04)
Flip-Flopped On Gay Marriage Amendment
In 2002, Kerry Signed Letter “Urging” MA Legislature To Reject Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage. “We rarely comment on issues that are wholly within the jurisdiction of the General Court, but there are occasions when matters pending before you are of such significance to all residents of the Commonwealth that we think it appropriate for us to express our opinion. One such matter is the proposed Constitutional amendment that would prohibit or seriously inhibit any legal recognition whatsoever of same-sex relationships. We believe it would be a grave error for Massachusetts to enshrine in our Constitution a provision which would have such a negative effect on so many of our fellow residents. … We are therefore united in urging you to reject this Constitutional amendment and avoid stigmatizing so many of our fellow citizens who do not deserve to be treated in such a manner.” (Sen. John Kerry, et al, Letter To Members Of The Massachusetts Legislature, 7/12/02)
Now, In 2004, Kerry Won’t Rule Out Supporting Similar Amendment. “Asked if he would support a state constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian marriages, Kerry didn’t rule out the possibility. ‘I’ll have to see what language there is,’ he said.” (Susan Milligan, “Kerry Says GOP May Target Him On ‘Wedge Issue,’” The Boston Globe, 2/6/04)
Flip-Flopped On Attacking President During Time Of War
In March 2003, Kerry Promised Not To Attack President When War Began. “Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts … said he will cease his complaints once the shooting starts. ‘It’s what you owe the troops,’ said a statement from Kerry, a Navy veteran of the Vietnam War. ‘I remember being one of those guys and reading news reports from home. If America is at war, I won’t speak a word without measuring how it’ll sound to the guys doing the fighting when they’re listening to their radios in the desert.’” (Glen Johnson, “Democrats On The Stump Plot Their War Rhetoric,” The Boston Globe, 3/11/03)
But Weeks Later, With Troops Just Miles From Baghdad, Kerry Broke His Pledge. “‘What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States,’ Kerry said in a speech at the Peterborough Town Library. Despite pledging two weeks ago to cool his criticism of the administration once war began, Kerry unleashed a barrage of criticism as US troops fought within 25 miles of Baghdad.” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Says Us Needs Its Own ‘Regime Change,’” The Boston Globe, 4/3/03)
Flip-Flopped On Death Penalty For Terrorists
In 1996, Kerry Attacked Governor Bill Weld For Supporting Death Penalty For Terrorists. KERRY: “Your policy would amount to a terrorist protection policy. Mine would put them in jail.” (1996 Massachusetts Senate Debate, 9/16/96)
In 1996, Kerry Said, “You Can Change Your Mind On Things, But Not On Life-And-Death Issues.” (Timothy J. Connolly, “The ‘Snoozer’ Had Some Life,” [Worcester, MA] Telegram & Gazette, 7/3/96)
But, In 2002, Kerry Said He Supported Death Penalty For Terrorists. KERRY: “The law of the land is the law of the land, but I have also said that I am for the death penalty for terrorists because terrorists have declared war on your country.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 12/1/02)
Flip-Flopped On No Child Left Behind
Kerry Voted For No Child Left Behind Act. (H.R. 1, CQ Vote #371: Adopted 87-10: R 44-3; D 43-6; I 0-1, 12/18/01, Kerry Voted Yea)
But Now Kerry Is Attacking No Child Left Behind As “Mockery.” “Between now and the time I’m sworn in January 2005, I’m going to use every day to make this president accountable for making a mockery of the words ‘No Child Left Behind.’” (Holly Ramer, “Kerry Wants To Make ‘Environmental Justice’ A Priority,” The Associated Press, 4/22/03)
Kerry Trashed NCLB As ‘Unfunded Mandate’ With ‘Laudable’ Goals. “Kerry referred to [No Child Left Behind] as an ‘unfunded mandate’ with ‘laudable’ goals. ‘Without the resources, education reform is a sham,’ Kerry said. ‘I can’t wait to crisscross this country and hold this president accountable for making a mockery of the words “no child left behind.”‘“ (Matt Leon, “Sen. Kerry In Tune With Educators,” The [Quincy, MA] Patriot Ledger, 7/11/03)
Flip-Flopped On Affirmative Action
In 1992, Kerry Called Affirmative Action “Inherently Limited And Divisive.” “[W]hile praising affirmative action as ‘one kind of progress’ that grew out of civil rights court battles, Kerry said the focus on a rights-based agenda has ‘inadvertently driven most of our focus in this country not to the issue of what is happening to the kids who do not get touched by affirmative action, but … toward an inherently limited and divisive program which is called affirmative action.’ That agenda is limited, he said, because it benefits segments of black and minority populations, but not all. And it is divisive because it creates a ‘perception and a reality of reverse discrimination that has actually engendered racism.’” (Lynne Duke, “Senators Seek Serious Dialogue On Race,” The Washington Post, 4/8/92)
In 2004, Kerry Denied Ever Having Called Affirmative Action “Divisive.” CNN’s KELLY WALLACE: “We caught up with the Senator, who said he never called affirmative action divisive, and accused Clark of playing politics.” SEN. KERRY: “That’s not what I said. I said there are people who believe that. And I said mend it, don’t end it. He’s trying to change what I said, but you can go read the quote. I said very clearly I have always voted for it. I’ve always supported it. I’ve never, ever condemned it. I did what Jim Clyburn did and what Bill Clinton did, which is mend it. And Jim Clyburn wouldn’t be supporting it if it were otherwise. So let’s not have any politics here. Let’s keep the truth.” (CNN’s “Inside Politics,” 1/30/04)
-
Flip-Flopped On Ethanol
Kerry Twice Voted Against Tax Breaks For Ethanol. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #44: Rejected 48-52: R 11-32; D 37-20, 3/23/93, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #68: Motion Agreed To 55-43: R 2-40; D 53-3, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea)
Kerry Voted Against Ethanol Mandates. (H.R. 4624, CQ Vote #255: Motion Agreed To 51-50: R 19-25; D 31-25, 8/3/94, Kerry Voted Nay)
Kerry Voted Twice To Increase Liability On Ethanol, Making It Equal To Regular Gasoline. (S. 517, CQ Vote #87: Motion Agreed To 57-42: R 38-10; D 18-32; I 1-0, 4/25/02 Kerry Voted Nay; S. 14, CQ Vote #208: Rejected 38-57: R 9-40; D 28-17; I 1-0, 6/5/03, Kerry Voted Yea)
On The Campaign Trail, Though, Kerry Is For Ethanol. KERRY: “I’m for ethanol, and I think it’s a very important partial ingredient of the overall mix of alternative and renewable fuels we ought to commit to.” (MSNBC/DNC, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Des Moines, IA, 11/24/03)
Flip-Flopped On Cuba Sanctions
Senator Kerry Has Long Voted Against Stronger Cuba Sanctions. (H.R. 927, CQ Vote #489, Motion Rejected 59-36: R 50-2; D 9-34, 10/17/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 955, CQ Vote #183: Rejected 38-61: R 5-49; D 33-12, 7/17/97, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1234, CQ Vote #189, Motion Agreed To 55-43: R 43-10; D 12-33, 6/30/99, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2549, CQ Vote #137: Motion Agreed To 59-41: R 52-3; D 7-38, 6/20/00, Kerry Voted Nay)
In 2000, Kerry Said Florida Politics Is Only Reason Cuba Sanctions Still In Place. “Senator John F. Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat and member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said in an interview that a reevaluation of relations with Cuba was ‘way overdue.’ ‘We have a frozen, stalemated, counterproductive policy that is not in humanitarian interests nor in our larger credibility interest in the region,’ Kerry said. … ‘It speaks volumes about the problems in the current American electoral process. … The only reason we don’t reevaluate the policy is the politics of Florida.’” (John Donnelly, “Policy Review Likely On Cuba,” The Boston Globe, 4/9/00)
Now Kerry Panders To Cuban Vote, Saying He Would Not Lift Embargo Against Cuba. TIM RUSSERT: “Would you consider lifting sanctions, lifting the embargo against Cuba?” SEN. KERRY: “Not unilaterally, not now, no.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/31/03)
Kerry Does Not Support “Opening Up The Embargo Wily Nilly.” “Kerry said he believes in ‘engagement’ with the communist island nation but that does not mean, ‘Open up the dialogue.’ He believes it ‘means travel and perhaps even remittances or cultural exchanges’ but he does not support ‘opening up the embargo wily nilly.’” (Daniel A. Ricker, “Kerry Says Bush Did Not Build A ‘Legitimate Coalition’ In Iraq,” The Miami Herald, 11/25/03)
Flip-Flopped On NAFTA
Kerry Voted For NAFTA. (H.R. 3450, CQ Vote #395: Passed 61-38: R 34-10; D 27-28, 11/20/93, Kerry Voted Yea)
Kerry Recognized NAFTA Is Our Future. “‘NAFTA recognizes the reality of today’s economy - globalization and technology,’ Kerry said. ‘Our future is not in competing at the low-level wage job; it is in creating high-wage, new technology jobs based on our skills and our productivity.’” (John Aloysius Farrell, “Senate’s OK Finalizes NAFTA Pact,” The Boston Globe, 11/21/93)
Now, Kerry Expresses Doubt About NAFTA. “Kerry, who voted for NAFTA in 1993, expressed some doubt about the strength of free-trade agreements. ‘If it were before me today, I would vote against it because it doesn’t have environmental or labor standards in it,’ he said.” (David Lightman, “Democrats Battle For Labor’s Backing,” Hartford Courant, 8/6/03)
Flip-Flopped On Double Taxation Of Dividends
December 2002: Kerry Favored Ending Double Taxation Of Dividends. “[T]o encourage investments in the jobs of the future - I think we should eliminate the tax on capital gains for investments in critical technology companies - zero capital gains on $100 million issuance of stock if it’s held for 5 years and has created real jobs. And we should attempt to end the double taxation of dividends.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At The City Club Of Cleveland, 12/3/02)
May 2003: Kerry Said He Opposed Ending Double Taxation Of Dividends. “Kerry also reiterated his opposition to the Republican plan to cut taxes on stock dividends. ‘This is not the time for a dividends tax cut that goes to individuals,’ he said.” (“Kerry Says Time Is On Dems’ Side,” The Associated Press, 5/8/03)
Flip-Flopped On Raising Taxes During Economic Downturn
September 2001: Said Should Not Raise Taxes In Economic Downturn. “The first priority is the economy of our nation. And when you have a downturn in the economy, the last thing you do is raise taxes or cut spending. We shouldn’t do either. We need to maintain a course that hopefully will stimulate the economy. . . . No, we should not raise taxes, but we have to put everything on the table to take a look at why we have this structural problem today. . . .[Y]ou don’t want to raise taxes.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 9/2/01)
We Should “Absolutely Not Raise Taxes.” “Well, I think it’s very clear what I favor because we voted for it early in the spring, which was the Democratic budget alternative that had triggers in it where you didn’t wind up spending money you don’t have. It had a smaller tax cut but more tax cut for a stimulus, which is what we need. So you ask me, what do we need now? Yes, we need additional stimulus. We should absolutely not raise taxes. We should not cut spending. What we need to do is drive the economy of this country. The economy is the number one issue. It is the most important thing we should focus on.” (CNN’s “Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields,” 9/8/01)
April 2002: Said He Wanted Larger Tax Cut And Was “Not In Favor Of” Repeal. CNN’s TUCKER CARLSON: “Senator Kerry . . . [many Democrats] [g]et a lot of political mileage out of criticizing [President Bush’s tax cut], but nobody has the courage to say repeal it. Are you for repealing it?” KERRY: “It’s not a question of courage. . . . And it’s not an issue right now. We passed appropriately a tax cut as a stimulus, some $40 billion. Many of us thought it should have even maybe been a little bit larger this last year … [T]he next tax cut doesn’t take effect until 2004. If we can grow the economy enough between now and then, if we have sensible policies in place and make good choices, who knows what our choices will be. So it’s simply not a ripe issue right now. And I’m not in favor of turning around today and repealing it.” (CNN’s “Crossfire,” 4/16/02)
December 2002: Flip-Flopped, Would Keep Tax Cuts From Taking Effect. NBC’s TIM RUSSERT: “Senator . . . should we freeze or roll back the Bush tax cut?” KERRY: “Well, I wouldn’t take away from people who’ve already been given their tax cut … What I would not do is give any new Bush tax cuts.” … RUSSERT: “So the tax cut that’s scheduled to be implemented in the coming years …” KERRY: “No new tax cut under the Bush plan. . . . It doesn’t make economic sense.” … RUSSERT: “Now, this is a change …” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 12/1/02)
Called For Freeze Of Bush Tax Cuts In Favor Of Year-Long Suspension Of Payroll Taxes On First $10,000 Of Personal Income. “Kerry said Bush’s tax cuts have mainly benefited the rich while doing little for the economy. Kerry is proposing to halt Bush’s additional tax cuts and instead impose a yearlong suspension of payroll taxes on the first $10,000 of income to help the poor and middle class.” (Tyler Bridges, “Kerry Visits Miami To Start Raising Funds,” The Miami Herald, 12/7/02)
-
I think it has absolutely nothing to do with this election.
What do you think?
-
Flip-Flopped On Small Business Income Taxes
Kerry Voted Against Exempting Small Businesses And Family Farms From Clinton Income Tax Increase. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #79: Motion Agreed To 54-45: R 0-43; D 54-2, 3/25/93, Kerry Voted Yea)
Three Months Later, Kerry Voted In Favor Of Proposal To Exclude Small Businesses From The Increased Income Tax. (S. 1134, CQ Vote #171: Motion Rejected 56-42: R 43-0; D 13-42, 6/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea)
Kerry Claimed He Fought To Exempt Small Businesses From Income Tax Increases. “I worked to amend the reconciliation bill so that it would … exempt small businesses who are classified as subchapter S corporations from the increased individual income tax.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 6/29/93, p. S 8268)
Kerry Flip-Flopped On 50-Cent Gas Tax Increase
In 1994, Kerry Backed Half-Dollar Increase In Gas Tax. “Kerry said [the Concord Coalition’s scorecard] did not accurately reflect individual lawmakers’ efforts to cut the deficit. ‘It doesn’t reflect my $43 billion package of cuts or my support for a 50-cent increase in the gas tax,’ Kerry said.” (Jill Zuckman, “Deficit-Watch Group Gives High Marks To 7 N.E. Lawmakers,” The Boston Globe, 3/1/94)
Two Years Later, Kerry Flip-Flopped. “Kerry no longer supports the 50-cent [gas tax] hike, nor the 25-cent hike proposed by the [Concord] coalition.” (Michael Grunwald, “Kerry Gets Low Mark On Budgeting,” The Boston Globe, 4/30/96)
Flip-Flopped On Leaving Abortion Up To States
Kerry Used To Say Abortion Should Be Left Up To States. “I think the question of abortion is one that should be left for the states to decide,” Kerry said during his failed 1972 Congressional bid. (“John Kerry On The Issues,” The [Lowell, MA] Sun, 10/11/72)
Now Kerry Says Abortion Is Law Of Entire Nation. “The right to choose is the law of the United States. No person has the right to infringe on that freedom. Those of us who are in government have a special responsibility to see to it that the United States continues to protect this right, as it must protect all rights secured by the constitution.” (Sen. John Kerry [D-MA], Congressional Record, 1/22/85)
Flip-Flopped On Litmus Tests For Judicial Nominees
Kerry Used To Oppose Litmus Tests For Judicial Nominees. “Throughout two centuries, our federal judiciary has been a model institution, one which has insisted on the highest standards of conduct by our public servants and officials, and which has survived with undiminished respect. Today, I fear that this institution is threatened in a way that we have not seen before. … This threat is that of the appointment of a judiciary which is not independent, but narrowly ideological, through the systematic targeting of any judicial nominee who does not meet the rigid requirements of litmus tests imposed …” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 2/3/86, p. S864)
But Now Kerry Says He Would Only Support Supreme Court Nominees Who Pledge To Uphold Roe v. Wade. “The potential retirement of Supreme Court justices makes the 2004 presidential election especially important for women, Senator John F. Kerry told a group of female Democrats yesterday, and he pledged that if elected president he would nominate to the high court only supporters of abortion rights under its Roe v. Wade decision. … ‘Any president ought to appoint people to the Supreme Court who understand the Constitution and its interpretation by the Supreme Court. In my judgment, it is and has been settled law that women, Americans, have a defined right of privacy and that the government does not make the decision with respect to choice. Individuals do.’” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Vows Court Picks To Be Abortion-Rights Supporters,” The Boston Globe, 4/9/03)
Flip-Flopped On Federal Health Benefits
In 1993, Kerry Expressed Doubts That Federal Employees Health Benefits System Worked Well. “Hillary Rodham Clinton today offered a fresh description of one of the most confusing elements of the Administration health care plan, the health insurance purchasing alliances, saying they would let all Americans choose coverage in the way members of Congress do. … Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said he was not sure that the Federal program worked all that well.” (Adam Clymer, “Hillary Clinton Says Health Plan Will Be Familiar,” The New York Times, 12/8/93)
Kerry Expressed Personal Dissatisfaction With His Coverage Through Federal Program. “Earlier this month, when Hillary Rodham Clinton came to Boston and vowed that average Americans would get as good coverage as that enjoyed by their senators and representatives, Sen. John F. Kerry told Clinton that he thought the country could do better. The Massachusetts Democrat said he was thinking, among other recent disasters, of his $500 dental bill for treatment of an abscessed tooth. ‘Because it was done in the dentist’s office, rather than the hospital, they didn’t cover it. So they were urging me to go spend twice as much in a hospital,’ said Kerry, who is covered by BACE, the Beneficial Association of Capitol Employees.” (Ana Puga, “Lawmakers Talk Health Care,” The Boston Globe, 12/19/93)
Now, On Campaign Trail, Kerry Is Enthusiastic About Health Care He Receives As Senator. “As a U.S. Senator, I could get the best health care in the world. Most people aren’t so lucky, and we need to change that. That’s why my plan gives every American access to the same kind of health care that members of Congress give themselves. … Because your family’s health care is just as important as any politicians’ in Washington.” (Sen. John Kerry, “Affordable Health Care For All Americans,” Remarks At Mercy Medical, Cedar Rapids, IA, 12/14/03)
Kerry: “I’m Going To Make Available To Every American The Same Health Care Plan That Senators And Congressmen Give Themselves …” (Sen. John Kerry, AARP Democrat Candidate Debate, Bedford, NH, 11/18/03)
Flip-Flopped On Tax Credits For Small Business Health
In 2001, Kerry Voted Against Amendment Providing $70 Billion For Tax Credits For Small Business To Purchase Health Insurance. (H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #83: Rejected 49-51: R 48-2; D 1-49, 4/5/01, Kerry Voted Nay)
Now, Kerry Promises Refundable Tax Credits To Small Businesses For Health Coverage. “Refundable tax credits for up to 50 percent of the cost of coverage will be offered to small businesses and their employees to make health care more affordable.” (“John Kerry’s Plan To Make Health Care Affordable To Every American,” John Kerry For President Website, http://www.johnkerry.com, Accessed 1/21/04)
-
Flip-Flopped On Health Coverage
In 1994, Kerry Said Democrats Push Health Care Too Much. “[Kerry] said Kennedy and Clinton’s insistence on pushing health care reform was a major cause of the Democratic Party’s problems at the polls.” (Joe Battenfeld, “Jenny Craig Hit With Sex Harassment Complaint - By Men,” Boston Herald, 11/30/94)
But Now Kerry Calls Health Care His “Passion.” “Sen. John Kerry says expanding coverage is ‘my passion.’” (Susan Page, “Health Specifics Could Backfire On Candidates,” USA Today, 6/2/03)
Flip-Flopped On Welfare Reform
In 1993, Kerry Voted To Kill Bipartisan Welfare Work Requirement. In 1993, Kerry and Kennedy voted against a welfare-to-work requirement that was supported by many Democrats, including Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Harry Reid (D-NV):
Fiscal 1993 Supplemental Appropriations - Welfare Work Requirement. “Moynihan, D-N.Y., motion to table (kill) the D’Amato, R-N.Y., amendment to sharply cut federal welfare administration aid to states that do not, within a year, require at least 10 percent of their able-bodied welfare recipients without dependents to work. The required workfare participation rate would be increased by 2 percent a year until 50 percent were working.” (H.R. 2118, CQ Vote #163: Rejected 34-64: R 1-42; D 33-22, 6/22/93, Kerry Voted Yea)
But In 1996, Kerry Voted For Welfare Reform. (H.R. 3734, CQ Vote #262: Adopted 78-21: R 53-0; D 25-21, 8/1/96, Kerry Voted Yea)
Flip-Flops On Stock Options Expensing
Kerry Used To Oppose Expensing Stock Options. “Democratic Senator John F. Kerry was among those fighting expensing of stock options.” (Sue Kirchhoff, “Senate Blocks Options,” The Boston Globe, 7/16/02)
Kerry Said Expensing Options Would Not “Benefit The Investing Public.” KERRY: “Mr. President, the Financial Accounting Standards Board … has proposed a rule that will require companies to amortize the value of stock options and deduct them off of their earnings statements … I simply cannot see how the FASB rule, as proposed, will benefit the investing public.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 3/10/94, p. S2772)
But Now Kerry Says He Supports Carrying Of Stock Options As Corporate Expense. “On an issue related to corporate scandals, Kerry for the first time endorsed the carrying of stock options as a corporate expense. The use of stock options was abused by some companies and contributed to overly optimistic balance sheets. Kerry applauded steps by Microsoft Corp. to eliminate stock options for employees and said all publicly traded companies should be required to expense such options.” (Dan Balz, “Kerry Raps Bush Policy On Postwar Iraq,” The Washington Post, 7/11/03)
Flip-Flopped On Medical Marijuana
Kerry Said His “Personal Disposition Is Open To The Issue Of Medical Marijuana.” “Aaron Houston of the Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana said that just a month ago Mr. Kerry seemed to endorse medical marijuana use, and when asked about the content of his mysterious study, said, ‘I am trying to find out. I don’t know.’ Mr. Kerry did say his ‘personal disposition is open to the issue of medical marijuana’ and that he’d stop Drug Enforcement Administration raids on patients using the stuff under California’s medical marijuana law.” (Jennifer Harper, “Inside Politics,” The Washington Times, 8/8/03)
But Now Kerry Says He Wants To Wait For Study Analyzing Issue Before Making Final Decision. “The Massachusetts Democrat said Wednesday he’d put off any final decision on medical marijuana because there’s ‘a study under way analyzing what the science is.’” (Jennifer Harper, “Inside Politics,” The Washington Times, 8/8/03)
Flip-Flopped On Burma Sanctions
In 1995, Kerry Was Against Burma Sanctions. “‘I question whether isolation is a successful means of promoting political change,’ Kerry told a constituent in a 1995 letter justifying his opposition to a Burma sanction bill.” (Geeta Anand, et al., “Menino Gets Ahead Of Himself, Starts Contemplating Third Term,” The Boston Globe, 5/18/97)
But Now Kerry Supports Burma Sanctions. “In his 1996 reelection campaign, Kerry, after Governor William F. Weld took up the cause, was badgered by advisers into shifting his position. But as he eyes a presidential campaign and the Burma sanction movement gains credibility, Kerry … describes the Burma regime as a ‘semi-criminalized dictatorship … which should not be treated with respect by other nations, but should be instead subject to limitations on travel, investment, and access to the most developed nations.’” (Geeta Anand, et al., “Menino Gets Ahead Of Himself, Starts Contemplating Third Term,” The Boston Globe, 5/18/97)
Flip-Flopped On Military Experience As Credential For Public Office
Kerry: Service Should Not Be “Litmus Test” For Leadership. “Mr. President, you and I know that if support or opposition to the war were to become a litmus test for leadership, America would never have leaders or recover from the divisions created by that war. You and I know that if service or nonservice in the war is to become a test of qualification for high office, you would not have a Vice President, nor would you have a Secretary of Defense and our Nation would never recover from the divisions created by that war.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/08/92, p. S17709)
But Now Kerry Constantly “Challenges The Stature Of His Democratic Opponents” Over Their Lack Of Military Service. “And more than ever, Mr. Kerry is invoking his stature as a Vietnam veteran as he challenges the stature of his Democratic opponents -- none of whom, he frequently points out, have ‘worn the uniform of our country’ -- to withstand a debate with Mr. Bush on national security.” (Adam Nagourney, “As Campaign Tightens, Kerry Sharpens Message,” The New York Times, 8/10/03)
Flip-Flopped On PACs
Kerry Used To Decry “Special Interests And Their PAC Money.” “‘I’m frequently told by cynics in Washington that refusing PAC money is naive,’ Kerry told his supporters in 1985. ‘Do you agree that it is “naďve” to turn down special interests and their PAC money?’” (Glen Johnson, “In A Switch, Kerry Is Launching A PAC,” The Boston Globe, 12/15/01)
But Now, Kerry Has Established His Own PAC. “A week after repeating that he has refused to accept donations from political action committees, Senator John F. Kerry announced yesterday that he was forming a committee that would accept PAC money for him to distribute to other Democratic candidates. … Kerry’s stance on soft money, unregulated donations funneled through political parties, puts him in the position of raising the type of money that he, McCain, and others in the campaign-finance reform movement are trying to eliminate.” (Glen Johnson, “In A Switch, Kerry Is Launching A PAC,” The Boston Globe, 12/15/01)
Flip-Flopped On $10,000 Donation Limit To His PAC
When Kerry Established His PAC In 2001, He Instituted A $10,000 Limit On Donations. “A week after repeating that he has refused to accept donations from political action committees, Senator John F. Kerry announced yesterday that he was forming a committee that would accept PAC money for him to distribute to other Democratic candidates … The statement also declared that the new PAC would voluntarily limit donations of so-called soft money to $10,000 per donor per year and disclose the source and amount of all such donations.” (Glen Johnson, “In A Switch, Kerry Is Launching A Pac,” The Boston Globe, 12/15/01)
One Year Later, Kerry Started Accepting Unlimited Contributions. “Senator John F. Kerry, who broke with personal precedent last year when he established his first political action committee, has changed his fund-raising guidelines again, dropping a $10,000 limit on contributions from individuals, a cap he had touted when establishing the PAC. The Massachusetts Democrat said yesterday he decided to accept unlimited contributions, which has already allowed him to take in ‘soft money’ donations as large as $25,000, because of the unprecedented fund-raising demands confronting him as a leader in the Senate Democratic caucus.” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Shifts Fund-Raising Credo For His Own PAC,” The Boston Globe, 10/4/02)
Flip-Flopped On Using Personal Funds In 1996 Race
In 1996, Kerry And Weld Established $500,000 Limit Of Personal Wealth To Be Used In Senate Campaign. “In 1996, Kerry and Weld gave their already noteworthy Senate race added significance by establishing a spending cap. The candidates agreed to spend no more than $6.9 million from July 1 through the election. Weld ended up spending $6.6 million and Kerry $6.3 million. One key element of the agreement limited the candidates to spending $500,000 in personal wealth, a clause Weld favored because Kerry is married to a millionaire, Teresa Heinz.” (Glen Johnson, “In Kerry’s Plan For A Pac, The Resolution Of Opposites,” The Boston Globe, 12/18/01)
Kerry Broke Agreement By Spending $1.2 Million Over Limit. “[P]ost-election reports showed a last-minute infusion of $1.7 million from Kerry’s wife, heiress Teresa Heinz. … [K]erry denied that his campaign violated its agreement. The money had been loaned--not contributed--by his wife, he explained. ‘There was nothing in the agreement that restricted us from taking a loan … and we paid it back in $1,000 and $2,000 chunks.’” (“Global Ecology Lobby Rocked By Defection,” Political Finance, The Newsletter, 1/02)
-
Flip-Flopped On Israel Security Fence
October 2003: Kerry Calls Fence “Barrier To Peace.” “And I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government’s decision to build a barrier off the green line, cutting deeply into Palestinian areas. We do not need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israel’s security over the long- term, they increase hardships to the Palestinian people, and they make the process of negotiating an eventual settlement that much harder.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks Before Arab American Institute National Leadership Conference, Dearborn, MI, 10/17/03)
February 2004: Kerry Calls Fence “Legitimate Act Of Self-Defense.” “US Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the frontrunner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, described Israel’s construction of a security barrier as a ‘legitimate act of self defense’ after Sunday’s suicide bombing in Jerusalem, clarifying a position he took in October when he told an Arab American audience, ‘We don’t need another barrier to peace.’” (Janine Zacharia, “Kerry Defends Security Fence,” The Jerusalem Post, 2/25/04)
Flip-Flop-Flipped On Ballistic Missile Defense
Kerry Called For Cancellation Of Missile Defense Systems In 1984 And Has Voted Against Funding For Missile Defense At Least 53 Times Between 1985 And 2000. (“John Kerry On The Defense Budget,” Campaign Position Paper, John Kerry For U.S. Senate, 1984; S. 1160, CQ Vote #99: Rejected 21-78: R 2-50; D 19-28, 6/4/85, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1160, CQ Vote #100: Rejected 38-57: R 6-45; D 32-12, 6/4/85, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1160, CQ Vote #101: Rejected 36-59: R 1-49; D 35-10, 6/4/85, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1160, CQ Vote #103: Rejected 33-62: R 28-22; D 5-40, 6/4/85, Kerry Voted Nay; H.J. Res. 465, CQ Vote #365: Motion Agreed To 64-32: R 49-2; D 15-30, 12/10/85, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4515, CQ Vote #122: Ruled Non-Germane 45-47: R 7-42; D 38-5, 6/6/86, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2638, CQ Vote #176: Motion Agreed To 50-49: R 41-11; D 9-38, 8/5/86, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2638, CQ Vote #177: Rejected 49-50: R 10-42; D 39-8, 8/5/86, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1174, CQ Vote #248: Motion Agreed To 58-38: R 8-37; D 50-1, 9/17/87, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1174, CQ Vote #259: Motion Agreed To 51-50: R 37-9; D 13-41, With Vice President Bush Casting An “ Yea “ Vote, 9/22/87, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2355, CQ Vote #124: Motion Agreed To 66-29: R 38-6; D 28-23, 5/11/88, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2355, CQ Vote #125: Motion Agreed To 50-46: R 38-7; D 12-39, 5/11/88, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2355, CQ Vote #126: Motion Rejected 47-50: R 38-6; D 9-44, 5/11/88, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2355, CQ Vote #128: Motion Rejected 48-50: R 6-39; D 42-11, 5/11/88, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2355, CQ Vote #136: Motion Agreed To 56-37: R 9-34; D 47-3, 5/13/88, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2355, CQ Vote #137: Motion Agreed To 51-43: R 38-5; D 13-38, 5/13/88, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4264, CQ Vote #251: Motion Rejected 35-58: R 35-9; D 0-49, 7/14/88, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4781, CQ Vote #296: Motion Agreed To 50-44: R 5-39; D 45-5, 8/5/88, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1352, CQ Vote #148: Motion Agreed To 50-47: R 37-6; D 13-41, 7/27/89, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #202: Rejected 34-66: R 27-18; D 7-48, 9/26/89, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #213: Adopted 53-47: R 39-6; D 14-41, 9/28/89, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2884, CQ Vote #223: Adopted 54-44: R 2-42; D 52-2, 8/4/90, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2884, CQ Vote #225: Motion Agreed To 56-41: R 39-4; D 17-37, 8/4/90, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2884, CQ Vote #226: Motion Agreed To 54-43: R 37-6; D 17-37, 8/4/90, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 5803, CQ Vote #319: Adopted 80-17: R 37-6; D 43-11, 10/26/90, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4739, CQ Vote #320: Adopted 80-17: R 37-6; D 43-11, 10/26/90, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1507, CQ Vote #168: Rejected 39-60: R 4-39; D 35-21, 7/31/91, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1507, CQ Vote #171: Motion Agreed To 60-38: R 40-3; D 20-35, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1507, CQ Vote #172: Motion Agreed To 64-34: R 39-4; D 25-30, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1507, CQ Vote #173: Rejected 46-52: R 5-38; D 41-14, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #207: Motion Agreed To 50-49: R 38-5; D 12-44, 9/25/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2403, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 61-38: R 7-36; D 54-2, 5/6/92, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 4990, CQ Vote #108: Adopted 90-9: R 34-9; D 56-0, 5/21/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 3114, CQ Vote #182: Motion Rejected 43-49: R 34-5; D 9-44, 8/7/92, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 3114, CQ Vote #214: Rejected 48-50: R 5-38; D 43-12, 9/17/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 3114, CQ Vote #215: Adopted 52-46: R 39-4; D 13-42, 9/17/92, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 5504, CQ Vote #228: Adopted 89-4: R 36-4; D 53-0, 9/22/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1298, CQ Vote #251: Adopted 50-48: R 6-36; D 44-12, 9/9/93, Kerry Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 63, CQ Vote #64: Rejected 40-59: R 2-42; D 38-17, 3/22/94, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1026, CQ Vote #354: Motion Agreed To 51-48: R 47-6; D 4-42, 8/3/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1087, CQ Vote #384: Rejected 45-54: R 5-49; D 40-5, 8/10/95, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1087, CQ Vote #397: Passed 62-35: R 48-4; D 14-31, 9/5/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #399: Passed 64-34: R 50-3; D 14-31, 9/6/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2126, CQ Vote #579: Adopted 59-39: R 48-5; D 11-34, 11/16/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #608: Adopted 51-43: R 47-2; D 4-41, 12/19/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1635, CQ Vote #157: Rejected 53-46: R 52-0; D 1-46, 6/4/96, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1745, CQ Vote #160: Rejected 44-53: R 4-49; D 40-4, 6/19/96, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1745, CQ Vote #187: Passed 68-31: R 50-2; D 18-29, 7/10/96, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 936, CQ Vote #171: Rejected 43-56: R 2-53; D 41-3, 7/11/97, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1873, CQ Vote #131: Motion Rejected 59-41: R 55-0; D 4-41, 5/13/98, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1873, CQ Vote #262: Motion Rejected 59-41: R 55-0; D 4-41, 9/9/98, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2549, CQ Vote #178: Motion Agreed To 52-48: R 52-3; D 0-45, 7/13/00, Kerry Voted Nay)
Kerry Then Claimed To Support Missile Defense. “I support the development of an effective defense against ballistic missiles that is deployed with maximum transparency and consultation with U.S. allies and other major powers. If there is a real potential of a rogue nation firing missiles at any city in the United States, responsible leadership requires that we make our best, most thoughtful efforts to defend against that threat. The same is true of accidental launch. If it were to happen, no leader could ever explain not having chosen to defend against the disaster when doing so made sense.” (Peace Action Website, “Where Do The Candidates Stand On Foreign Policy?” http://www.peace-action.org/2004/Kerry.html, Accessed 3/10/04)
Now Kerry Campaign Says He Will Defund Missile Defense. FOX NEWS’ MAJOR GARRETT: “Kerry would not say how much all of this would cost. A top military adviser said the Massachusetts Senator would pay for some of it by stopping all funds to deploy a national ballistic missile defense system, one that Kerry doesn’t believe will work.” KERRY ADVISOR RAND BEERS: “He would not go forward at this time because there is not a proof of concept.” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 3/17/03)
Flip-Flopped On 1991 Iraq War Coalition
At The Time, Kerry Questioned Strength Of 1991 Coalition. “I keep hearing from people, ‘Well, the coalition is fragile, it won’t stay together,’ and my response to that is, if the coalition is so fragile, then what are the vital interests and what is it that compels us to risk our young American’s lives if the others aren’t willing to stay the … course of peace? … I voted against the president, I’m convinced we’re doing this the wrong way …” (CBS’ “This Morning,” 1/16/91)
Now Kerry Has Nothing But Praise For 1991 Coalition. SEN. JOHN KERRY: “In my speech on the floor of the Senate I made it clear, you are strongest when you act with other nations. All presidents, historically, his father, George Herbert Walker Bush, did a brilliant job of building a legitimate coalition and even got other people to help pay for the war.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 1/11/04)
Flip-Flopped On View Of War On Terror
Kerry Said War On Terror Is “Basically A Manhunt.” “Kerry was asked about Bush’s weekend appearance on ‘Meet the Press’ when he called himself a ‘war president.’ The senator, who watched the session, remarked: ‘The war on terrorism is a very different war from the way the president is trying to sell it to us. It’s a serious challenge, and it is a war of sorts, but it is not the kind of war they’re trying to market to America.’ Kerry characterized the war on terror as predominantly an intelligence-gathering and law enforcement operation. ‘It’s basically a manhunt,’ he said. ‘You gotta know who they are, where they are, what they’re planning, and you gotta be able to go get ‘em before they get us.’” (Katherine M. Skiba, “Bush, Kerry Turn Focus To Each Other,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2/13/04)
Two Weeks Later, Kerry Flip-Flopped, Saying War On Terror Is More Than “A Manhunt”. “This war isn’t just a manhunt – a checklist of names from a deck of cards. In it, we do not face just one man or one terrorist group. We face a global jihadist movement of many groups, from different sources, with separate agendas, but all committed to assaulting the United States and free and open societies around the globe.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At University Of California At Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 2/27/04)
-
Flip-Flopped On Funding For Our Troops In Iraq
Kerry Pledged To Fund Reconstruction With “Whatever Number” Of Dollars It Took. NBC’S TIM RUSSERT: “Do you believe that we should reduce funding that we are now providing for the operation in Iraq?” SEN. JOHN KERRY: “No. I think we should increase it.” RUSSERT: “Increase funding?” KERRY: “Yes.” RUSSERT: “By how much?” KERRY: “By whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win. It is critical that the United States of America be successful in Iraq, Tim.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/31/03)
Then Kerry Voted Against Senate Passage Of Iraq/Afghanistan Reconstruction Package. “Passage of the bill that would appropriate $86.5 billion in fiscal 2004 supplemental spending for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would provide $10.3 billion as a grant to rebuild Iraq, including $5.1 billion for security and $5.2 billion for reconstruction costs. It also would provide $10 billion as a loan that would be converted to a grant if 90 percent of all bilateral debt incurred by the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein has been forgiven by other countries. Separate provisions limit reconstruction aid to $18.4 billion. It also would provide approximately $65.6 billion for military operations and maintenance and $1.3 billion for veterans medical care.” (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted Nay)
Kerry Later Claimed: “I Actually Did Vote For The $87 Billion Before I Voted Against It.” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Blasts Bush On Protecting Troops,” The Boston Globe, 3/17/04)
Flip-Flopped On Tapping Strategic Petroleum Reserve
In February 2000, Kerry Said Release Of Oil From Strategic Petroleum Reserve Would Not Be “Relevant.” “Without being specific, Kerry, a key member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, suggested the US could retaliate economically in other trade areas. He also said he does not want a release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. A release ‘is not relevant. It would take months for the oil to get to the market,’ he said.” (Cathy Landry, “US Energy Chief Warns Of Gasoline Crisis,” Platt’s Oilgram News, 2/17/00)
Now, In March 2004, Kerry Called For Stop In Filling Strategic Petroleum Reserve To Reduce Prices. “Kerry would pressure oil-producing nations to increase production and temporarily suspend filling the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, according to campaign documents. ... ‘The Bush administration has put the SPR fill program on automatic pilot without regard to the short-term effect on the US market,’ the campaign documents said. ‘The program needs better management ... Kerry would temporarily suspend filling SPR until oil prices return to normal levels.’” (Patricia Wilson, “Kerry To Offer Plan To Reduce Record Gasoline Prices,” Reuters, 3/29/04)
Flip Flopped On Internet Taxation
In 1998, Kerry Voted To Allow States To Continue Taxing Internet Access After Moratorium Took Effect. Kerry voted against tabling an amendment that would extend the moratorium from two years to three years and allow states that currently impose taxes on Internet access to continue doing so after the moratorium takes effect. (S. 442, CQ Vote #306: Motion Rejected 28-69: R 27-27; D 1-42, 10/7/98, Kerry Voted Nay)
In 2001, Kerry Voted To Extend Internet Tax Moratorium Until 2005 And Allow States To Form Uniform Internet Tax System With Approval Of Congress. (H.R. 1552, CQ Vote #341: Motion Agreed To 57-43: R 35-14; D 22-28; I 0-1, 11/15/01, Kerry Voted Nay)
Kerry Said “We Do Not Support Any Tax On The Internet Itself.” “We do not support any tax on the Internet itself. We don’t support access taxes. We don’t support content taxes. We don’t support discriminatory taxes. Many of us would like to see a permanent moratorium on all of those kinds of taxes. At the same time, a lot of us were caught in a place where we thought it important to send the message that we have to get back to the table in order to come to a consensus as to how we equalize the economic playing field in the United States in a way that is fair.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/15/01, p. S11902)
-
And the topic dies from the weight of yet another of Ripsnorts cut & pasted "walls'o'text."
Toad. Should the election be decided on this one issue? By all means no. It should be included in ones decision IMO. Kerry's service and Bush's "service" are just pieces that make up the character of each of those two candidates. Exposing who the people are behind the mud throwing and stink making is relevant IMO as it reflects on those who they are working for. Even if indirectly and there's no visible sign of the masters strings.
I cannot find fault with Kerry's but I can with Bush's. We've been thru this before. I simply still do not find Bush an honorable, truthful man in the least
Kerry has had a lame Senate career. While Bush had a failed career in business and lately one even worse as a president.
I think Kerry is self interest serving, career politician and promises much he has no credible hope of delivering on.
My position on removing Bush from office is strictyl linked to his performance OTJ and his alliances. There is no WAY I am voting for Bush.
Kerry with his latest remark about how he'd have gone into Iraq too really canned any chance he may have had of getting my vote.
I find it very hypocritical there are those who eagerly slander a Vietnam vet who saw combat and spoke out against it but defend an administration lead by a president who skipped out on Vietnam via connections and his VP who spent enourmous energies fighting and expanding his deferments to avoid it too. Leadership that never saw a second of combat but have sent hundreds of Amercians to die in Iraq under the pretext of that invasion being part of the war on terrorism.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Read Flyboys
what a tard
it does show he is not politically motivated
So then, you belive his BS about GHWB? What about what he said about McCain?
Yeah, he's an equel opportunity prettythanghat.
-
Originally posted by Westy
The topic dies from the weight of yet another of Ripsnorts cut & pasted "walls'o'text."
Yep, kill the thread with facts and data, and they come out swinging with insults...
As they say in soccer...
GOAL![/SIZE]
-
Originally posted by MrLars
So then, you belive his BS about GHWB? What about what he said about McCain?
Yeah, he's an equel opportunity prettythanghat.
didn't say i believed or agreed with it
-
"goal"
??
A Rhesus monkey could cut&paste a wall of irrelevant text like that but I'll give credit where it is due and that is he could never shout GOAL as skillfully as you can afterward.
There. That's an insult. Calling what you post a C&P wall'o'text wasn't. It's honestly what you're known for these days.
-
Like that 'Born agin Christan' moron never flip-flop's ... he just pulls out 'born agin christan' and all is forgiven .. you guys are morons; pot calling the kettle black.
AT least Kerry thinks and doesn't blindly follow policy .. flip-flopping is a good thing in the end ..... but guess your too short sighted too see that.
It means he can admit he's wrong before it's too late .. unlike the current White House.
Ya Bush never "flip-flop's" LMAO ...... didn't he used to be pro-choice? Pretty big flip IMHO. That's an easy one....there's pleanty more for Boosh ....
-
1997 article about someones daddy has zero to do with an election in 2004 - so sry :)
-
Read the 1st supposed flip flop on China trade. Anyone who would call that a flip flop is short on reading comprehension skills.
-
Thanks MrLars.. I have never heard that story on BushSr.. Excellent character witness though. Wonderful family they got there...
-
Originally posted by MrLars
....well, he's onboard with the Swiftvets but it seems he likes to question and start false rumors about other peoples service.
If you guys believe him now, what about when he tried the same BS with GHWB? Are you going to belive Mr. Samply's contention that GHWB bailed out prematurley and left his crew to die as steadfastly as you belive his statements about John Kerry?
http://www.usvetdsp.com/story46.htm
As you guys allways say when we bring up clinton.........GHWB is not running for President!
Not sure I see your math here. One guy makes smear remarks about past presidents so the entire groups coments should be completly discounted.
KEEP DIGGIN! :aok
-
Originally posted by Manedew
Like that 'Born agin Christan' moron never flip-flop's ... he just pulls out 'born agin christan' and all is forgiven .. you guys are morons; pot calling the kettle black.
AT least Kerry thinks and doesn't blindly follow policy .. flip-flopping is a good thing in the end ..... but guess your too short sighted too see that.
It means he can admit he's wrong before it's too late .. unlike the current White House.
Ya Bush never "flip-flop's" LMAO ...... didn't he used to be pro-choice? Pretty big flip IMHO. That's an easy one....there's pleanty more for Boosh ....
I think the Repubs got it wrong here. Kerry doesnt flip flop. He just makes one set of statements to one set of voters....than one set of statements that completly contradicts the first to an entirly different set of voters.
95% of his base do not support the war in Iraq..........He would never have won the primarys had he shown support for it then......Now he knows he cant get the swing votes unless he does support it.....but he still has to go with his base.
Thats not flip flopping at all. NOPE not one bit
-
Rip, would you please explain the changes made to the bills between votes? You know...context.
I was just wondering if you even know the changes made between votes. I realise it's much easier for you to just cut and paste a smear campaign against Kerry while on Boeing's time.
-
Originally posted by MrLars
....well, he's onboard with the Swiftvets but it seems he likes to question and start false rumors about other peoples service.
If you guys believe him now, what about when he tried the same BS with GHWB? Are you going to belive Mr. Samply's contention that GHWB bailed out prematurley and left his crew to die as steadfastly as you belive his statements about John Kerry?
http://www.usvetdsp.com/story46.htm
Well this certainly proves that swift boat vets group is a Bush family front to attack Kerry. Thanks for the link lars!
-
President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief
July 7, 2004
From the beginning, George W. Bush has made his own credibility a central issue. On 10/11/00, then-Gov. Bush said: "I think credibility is important.It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations." But President Bush's serial flip-flopping raises serious questions about whether Congress and foreign leaders can rely on what he says.
1. Social Security Surplus
BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]
...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]
2. Patient's Right to Sue
GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [Salon, 2/7/01]
...CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush, 10/17/00]
...PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE "To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits ‘would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [Washington Post, 4/5/04]
3. Tobacco Buyout
BUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM... "They've got the quota system in place -- the allotment system -- and I don't think that needs to be changed." [President Bush, 5/04]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL SUPPORT FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO QUOTAS "The administration is open to a buyout." [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04]
4. North Korea
BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]
5. Abortion
BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]
...BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE "I am pro-life." [Governor Bush, 10/3/00]
6. OPEC
BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES... "What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00]
...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]
7. Iraq Funding
BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004... "We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]
...BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 "I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops." [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]
8. Condoleeza Rice Testimony
BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'... "Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]
...BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: "Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony." [President Bush, 3/30/04]
9. Science
BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE..."I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good." [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE "60 leading scientists—including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents—issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels." [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]
10. Ahmed Chalabi
BUSH INVITES CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS...President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03]
...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI'S HOUSE "U.S. soldiers raided the home of America's one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers." [Washington Post, 5/20/04]
11. Department of Homeland Security
BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]
12. Weapons of Mass Destruction
BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]
...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons.And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]
-
13. Free Trade
BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03]
14. Osama Bin 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]
15. The Environment
BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]
...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]
16. WMD Commission
BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]
...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04]
17. Creation of the 9/11 Commission
BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]
18. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission
BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04]
...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04]
19. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony
BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04]
...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]
20. Gay Marriage
BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]
...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]
21. Nation Building
BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]
...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]
22. Saddam/al Qaeda Link
BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]
...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]
23. U.N. Resolution
BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03]
...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]
24. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict
BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03]
25. Campaign Finance
BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]
...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02]
-
HAHAHA! Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia lie...you won't find this on prime time news ;)
http://instapundit.com/archives/017139.php
NOTHING ON THE KERRY/CAMBODIA STORY in either the New York Times or the Washington Post this morning -- I just searched both sites. Even though the Kerry Campaign has now admitted that Kerry's oft-repeated stories about being in Cambodia on Christmas Day, 1968 aren't true. The Post did find the time to condemn the Swift Boat vets, though, without admitting that one of their charges has already been borne out.
Nice candidate you have there MrLars.:rofl :aok
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Rip, would you please explain the changes made to the bills between votes? You know...context.
I was just wondering if you even know the changes made between votes. I realise it's much easier for you to just cut and paste a smear campaign against Kerry while on Boeing's time.
LOL, you digested the information yet? I did, and was paid for it. :D
-
Nice job Rip. Well done.
Thorns
-
Originally posted by Toad
Or should we decide based on what Bush has done/not done in the last 3+ years as POTUS and what Kerry has done for the last 20+ years as the Junior Senator from Massachusetts?
Or what he did running Texas
EDUCATION under George W. Bush:
Out of 50 states, TEXAS scored:
3rd from Last in High school completion. (2)
15th from Last in Teacher salaries when he became "Gov." (1)
13th from Last in Teacher salaries at beginning of 2nd term. (1)
From '89 to '99 average teacher salaries went DOWN 1.1%
(in constant $'s) !
Dead Last in Teacher salary plus benefits. (1)
SAT (combined math & verbal scores ) (13):
Score of 995 = 7th from Last in 1996
Score of 995 = 6th from Last in 1997
Score of 995 = 7th from Last in 1998
FAMILY VALUES under George W. Bush:
Out of 50 states, TEXAS rates:
Dead Last in # of poorest counties in country. (3)
2nd from Last in # of children living in poverty. (3)
2nd from Last in # of children without health insurance. (3)
Highest number of people stripped of Medicare benefits (10)
Dead Last in % of poor working parents without insurance. (3)
2nd from Last in % of population without health insurance. (3)
6th from Last in Child support collections (3)
5th from Last in Teen Birth Rate. (4)
3rd from Last in Hunger Rate.
3rd from Last in Per capita funding for public health. (4)
4th from Last in Delivery of social services. (4)
6th from Last in # Mothers receiving prenatal care. (9)
CULTURE under George W. Bush:
Out of 50 states, TEXAS rates:
3rd from Last in Quality of Life in Texas
(Spending for parks and recreation) (7)
3rd from Last in Spending for the arts. (7)
5th from Last in Public libraries and branches. (8)
3rd from Last in Affordable Housing (12)
7th from Last in Home ownership (2)
Dead Last (i.e. highest) homes insurance rates in the nation (11)
4th from Last in Spending for police protection(12)
3rd from Last in Quality of place to raise children. (9)
(was 22nd from Last BEFORE Bush!)
Teen drug use - down nationally, but up 30% in Texas. (5)
Teen smoking - down nationally, NOT in Texas (5)
Dead Last (i.e. highest) # of executions (per capita) (11)
ENVIRONMENT under George W. Bush:
Out of 50 states, TEXAS rates:
Dead Last in # of Smog days.
Dead Last in Pollution released by manufacturing plants. (6)
Dead Last in Pollution by industrial plants.
in violation of Clean Air Act. (6)
Dead Last in Greenhouse gas emissions. (6)
2nd from Last in Spending for the environment. (7)
3rd from Last in Spending for parks and recreation. (7)
5th from Last in Water Resources Protection.
God bless you, TEXAS, if YOU were happy
with such a governor. The rest of the country
would have been eternally grateful to you
for keeping him there !
Sources:
(1) National Education Agency.
(2) U.S. Department of Education Office
of Educational Research and Development.
(3) U.S. Bureau of Census, Current Populations Trends.
(4) U.S. Dept. Health and Human Services:
National Center for Health Statistics.
(5) 1998 Texas School Survey of Substance:
Use Among Students: Grades 7-12, Texas.
Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse.
(6) U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution and Prevention .
(7) Texas Observer.
(8) Statistical Rankings by State.
(9) Children's Rights Council.
(10) Families USA
(11) National Association of Insurance Commissioners
(12) U.S. Bureau of Census, State Government Finances 1998
(13) College Examination Board
-
Mrlars.......bush and sampley
I believe this should be answered, after all I am one who truthfully says, liberials dont answer questions,and only a very small percentage of you have.
Ted samplys name doesnt ring a bell, nor have I read a lot about this subject as I have others.
I can see a lot of holes in the article, and if gwb was running for president you bet I would research it.
Can we assume that gwb didnt wake up and say ..today I want to bail out ..so then, the quote, bushes plane only one that didnt come back means what? He shot his own plane up with his 45?
Parachutes fail today even,so are any of you going to say that is impossible? I glean from the article that they were not flying high ,in which case avengers did not fly tight formation as they made a great slow target. Standard doctrine...vt 51 flew or only wanted to fly missions close to water...they flew when and where they were told,end of story.
The avenger not like other bombers, pilots radio contact almost only way to know about 2 crewmen. RO/N and gunner had eye to eye contact yes. Story in 1982 only slightly differed,writer left that out ,nah not important 2 words.Yes turret gunner saw pilot of trailing plane well,but that is all he saw.
There was not an[ absolute] Moral obligation, to put any plane in water. How would the finback know what happened over target?
Come on guys, youve flown enough in here, not real but not bad, I have had my 26 torn up and made it back,other times I have 1 good hit and plane starts slow dive to right and I cant do anything about it.
Know one knows what happened, but for sure he was hit hard enough to go down,might have know from location of hit they were dead,pilot can not get to 2 crewmen in avenger.If engine on fire duh it could have exploded any time . Other than that I would have to do a lot of reading, and he isnt running for president.
Now of the many questions I have asked with out answers Ill try an easy one.
1 Who was president in dec. of 68 ?
2 How could kerry have been in Cambodia being shot at and be in a swift boat. At that time period you did NOT go in to cambodia with very very noisy boat much less 3 or 4 of them,unless you wanted to commit sucide . Where are the other boat crews ,to as you say here,,to prove they were in cambodia ?
-
God bless you, TEXAS, if YOU were happy
with such a governor. The rest of the country
would have been eternally grateful to you
for keeping him there !
HEY! Don't blame Texas. The carpetbagger is from Connecticut. I voted for Ann Richards and Gary Mauro.
-
SIXPENCE......
GEES six everyone of those sources are really lefties. Oh well to each his own....want to answer the 2 questions or just talk about others that dont?
-
Kerry was either lying or mistaken about his location in Dec. 1968..... maybe.
Johnson was the President in dec. 1968.
Anything else I can help you with demaw1? It would seem you need answers to questions you should be able to answer yourself.
Now here's one or two for you.
1. If the "Christmas in Cambodia" story is untrue, does that call Kerry's entire tour in VN into question?
2. Do you have the same critereon for the Swifties? One lie and the whole book gets the boot?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Do you have the same critereon for the Swifties? One lie and the whole book gets the boot?
That would depend on whether the authors wish to represent me in government.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
SIXPENCE......
GEES six everyone of those sources are really lefties. Oh well to each his own....want to answer the 2 questions or just talk about others that dont?
This is interesting..
"On Christmas in 1968, we were close [to Cambodia]. I don't know exactly where we were. I didn't have the chart. It was easy to get turned around with all the rivers around there. But I'll say this: We were the farthest inland that night. I know that for sure." - Jim Wasser (Kerry's 2nd in Command PCF-44)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
So when does the civil war start?
I wonder which side the us military will support...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I wonder which side the us military will support...
Neither. Most of the military will take off their uniforms and walk away. Some smaller groups may remain organized but if there is no civilian leadership anymore.....no more miltary.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Nice candidate you have there MrLars.:rofl :aok
Gee, I just wonder where GWB was at that time? Do you have proof he wasn't buggering some transvestite in the back room of the 'Leather n' Chaps' bar in downtown Tijuana? I thought not.
Operations in Cambodia were illegal, but we went in anyway. Told NEVER to admit incursions and many times we didn't know when we crossed the border if at all.
Try to get any retired Generals or Admirals to admit we went into Cambodia and I bet you'll get many conflicting opinions, most of which will deny it happened except in just a few isolated instances.
Finaly, if this is the tact you want to take trying to dennegrate Mr. Kerrys service to this country then go for it! What you'll do is just keep his years of service to this country in Americans mind and the contrast to GWB's service will become clearer the more the right pounds on him.
Your Cod, GWB just said last night the JK served honorably and that scumbag O'Neil had to admit that JK's action running into the jungle was 'courageous'.
It would be best if the right focused on the issues that are important to this country instead of trying to smear a VN Vet, a tact that even has VN Vets pissed at JK's anti war actions pissed.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Neither. Most of the military will take off their uniforms and walk away. Some smaller groups may remain organized but if there is no civilian leadership anymore.....no more miltary.
Really?
All the thousands of tanks and planes and other weapons will just dissapear?
-
You would think the fact that he served only 4 months and still has all of his parts today would be enough to set off red lights in most peoples' heads.
Oh well, I'm sure that the guilt he feels about it is debilitating enough. Hopefully his billions of dollars can asuage the guilt. Maybe that's why he's all about giving back to the poor. If he wasn't such a lucrative politician he'd be a mere a millionair by the time he dies at the rate that he gives to the world.
-
Hey Rip, did you read John Rasmussen's editorial in the Wall Street Journal Tuesday?
-
Well, it's just great that the only topic folks can find to discuss in this election is a 30+ year old war.
The political puppet masters must be pleased.
No one's talking about where this country goes if Bush continues for 4 more years. Where he will lead us, how his policies will effect our daily life, economy, health care, etc.
No one's talking about where one of (if not the most) liberal Senator will lead us, how his policies will effect our daily life, economy, health care, etc.
Oh no... we want to dissect yet again a misbegotten war that the politicians fubar'ed beyond all recovery.
WTG!
We're certainly getting the President we deserve, no matter who wins. Because we obviously don't derseve much.
-
And thats why everyone should join me in not voting.
-
Wrong, Grun.
You need to vote.
It won't happen, but imagine the consternation and resultant change in BOTH political parties if a disgusted American electorate put a Libertarian in the Oval Office. And how much damage could a Libertarian do, considering the House and Senate would still be under the traditional control of the Dems and Reps.
Even a strong showing by a third party would probably give the two "tarditional" parties pause to think.
-
Originally posted by Toad
It won't happen.
Even a strong showing by a third party would probably give the two "tarditional" parties pause to think.
Yep wont happend.
Perot got 20% of the poular vote in 92. It changed nothing.
Take a long walk in the park, take a long lunch, stay home, be with your family, work a bit more, whatver, just stay away from the polls on election day..
-
Then you should have a piping hot cup of STFU, and refrain from b!+ch!ng about anything. Failing to vote is failing to take part in the system. If you don't make an effort to make the system work, then you don't have the grounds to b!+ch.
-
Voting would be simplified if it was made public knowledge what corporations the candidates work for. Of course clarity and transpearancy would greatly complicate any political campaign. The system is at a point now where simplification is considered counterproductive.
Does the popular vote even matter in every state ? I don't even know. Shows how long ago I stopped giving a damn.
-
I disagree. I think the both parties changed a bit in order to capture some of Perot's base.
You can be certain that if they see no threat, you'll get more of the same in 4 years.
Take a long walk in the park, take a long lunch, stay home, be with your family, work a bit more, whatver, just stay away from the polls on election day..
[/b]
I imagine there's a lot of guys that would like to take a long walk in the park, take a long lunch, stay home, be with their family, work a bit more, whatver. Unfortunately, they're in military cemeteries, places where they ended up while ensuring YOU would have the right to vote.
I believe folks that don't vote dishonor those that sacrificed all, from the American Revolution to the present.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I imagine there's a lot of guys that would like to take a long walk in the park, take a long lunch, stay home, be with their family, work a bit more, whatver. Unfortunately, they're in military cemeteries, places where they ended up while ensuring YOU would have the right to vote.
I believe folks that don't vote dishonor those that sacrificed all, from the American Revolution to the present.
HEAR! HEAR!
"Under each of those crosses and star of davids lies a young man who gave all of his tomorrows for your today."
-
Well, it's just great that the only topic folks can find to discuss in this election is a 30+ year old war.
The political puppet masters must be pleased.
No one's talking about where this country goes if Bush continues for 4 more years. Where he will lead us, how his policies will effect our daily life, economy, health care, etc.
No one's talking about where one of (if not the most) liberal Senator will lead us, how his policies will effect our daily life, economy, health care, etc.
Oh no... we want to dissect yet again a misbegotten war that the politicians fubar'ed beyond all recovery.
WTG!
Absolutely - emotion sells and issues are confusing and boring. Sadly, that's what works in consumer marketing and a candidate is no different, really, than a tube of hemorrhoid cream or a new BMW. At least in the old days they would give you some free whiskey for you vote, now it's all about generating enough hate and fear to drive your perspective voting base to the polls and hope more of yours show up than theirs.
Charon
-
Toad and Charon.....30 year old war.
I am going to tell all of you why this is being discussed now.
1 My SON will most likely be involved,I do not want him to serve under a johnson clone. Kerry has already said within 6 months he would pull troops out. You morons,no matter what, they will now fight for at least that long to see what will happen.
He isnt even president yet and he has blood on his hands.General Giap commander vn. forces said....We were ready to surrender several times, and would have had it not been for the anti-war protest in America. He went on to name some groups and a few people...kerry was one of those people.
I figure most of you for having some smarts,If you want proof look it up, but as informed as most of you seem to be on both sides you must have known this.
Those that are really liberal vets, this doesnt at least make you take a second look? You honestly think that was a good thing to tell the enemy? And you wonder why we talk about it..Some of us have or will have sons and daughters in harms way,while you cyber warriors will be sitting here as I am .
I beg you dont give the military another johnson and mcnamera.....They are there give them who they want as cic.
-
Demaw,
While I'm sympathetic to some of that, the bottom line is that dragging up the VietNam war does no good.
It simply doesn't resonate as a major issue with this electorate. In other words, this election won't be decided on who did or did not go or not go to VietNam.
If go / no go was THE determining factor with this electorate, Clinton would not have won over Bush Sr and Dole, would he?
If go / no go was THE determining factor with this electorate, Bush Jr would not have won over Gore?
VietNam is a sideshow; it's the sleight of hand the magician is using to keep us from seeing what he's really doing, who he really is.
In the Kerry camp, they gather vets and put Big John in a leather Navy flight jacket......... BECAUSE HIS HANDLERS don't want to talk about and certainly don't want you thinking about his 20+ years in the Senate with only a few bills that bear his name, and absentee record that would make any school kid blush and a liberal voting record that is MOST CERTAINLY in the top 10 most liberal Senator class.
In the Bush camp, they allow this media fixation on VietNam because HIS HANDLERS don't want to talk about and certainly don't want you thinking about a suck-egg economy, no Osama-in-jail pictures and a US death toll in Iraq approaching 1000.
Look, I'm a Viet-era vet. I think Bush probably did use his connections to land a good Guard slot. So what; he served. In my class of 55 guys at UPT (1973), some of them Zoomies, there was ONE "Guard Guy". When we all found out about the GREAT deal he found for himself, the prevailing sentiment was that he was one smart dude. We didn't consider him a "coward" or any less of a man for "going Guard". That's just stupid BS. Most guys expressed the wish that they had known about the "Guard deal", because most guys didn't.
Kerry? He went, he served. Medals? Sometimes they're given out cheap; check Lyndon Johnson's Silver Star story sometime. But MOST of the time they're EARNED. There's enough guys saying Kerry earned his to give it a pass; let it go.
My brother-in-law earned the SS in VietNam. I asked him about it one time. His whole answer was about two sentences. Something like "When I did it, it seemed the only way out of the situation. When it was over, I thought it was the stupiedest thing I had ever done. I still think it was the stupidest thing I ever did." So was he a hero? He didn't think so; he thought he was lucky to be alive.
What all of us SHOULD be doing, confronted for the second straight time with two less than stellar choices for the highest office in the land, is to try and FORCE them to talk specifics. We need to know their plans for the terrorists, the economy, health care, etc. NOT the "spin doctored platitudes".. nope, get them to come out with simple declarative sentences that we can beat them over the head with later.
Myself, I'm SICK of getting offered this type of candidate by BOTH SIDES.
I'm voting Libertarian I think. I may do that the rest of my life. This procession of party puppets has got to stop.
-
Yup.... divide and conquer.... Well said Toad.
-
Hey, Nash......... it's FRIDAY NIGHT!
You going with a dry or wet fly tonight?
;)
-
Gonna watch for a bit... But chances are I'll go with a dry...
If the lunkers aint hitting I'll tie on an emerger and drag her deep. :D
Hey, it's Friday night and it keeps me off the streets. Besides, it's the last night before holidays.... so you won't have Nash to kick around anymore, and I am not a crook.
What do Toads like to chew on, anyways?
-
Originally posted by Nash
What do Toads like to chew on, anyways?
Tie on a good slab of smoked brisket or a smoky BBQ Baby Back rib and slow drift it past me in a deep riffle of pale ale. I'll hit it every time.
Enjoy the weekend bud!
-
Toad
I'd save the gas if I were you ...
skerry scares me, not just his looks either .. this country would look weak as a liberal canadian if he won and that would embolden the cheekboness who live to hate us
I am doing everything in my power to make sure that does not happen
you may want to reconsider before you throw your vote away
-
Hey Eagler....
Congratulations! Florida has swung semi-solidly into the Kerry column! I didn't think this would happen, to be honest. This may change, but for now I give a hearty salute to you and your people.
(holy - looks like Kerry snagged Ohio as well... That's huge... )
-
TOAD.....little misunderstanding...
Vietnam ,go/no go is not my personal point.I am well informed his record in the senate. I do not fault anyone on vietnam except those that went to Canada.
Simply put I would not vote for Kerry because of his record.I have always been for the under dog so to speak,when people started comparing bush to hitler and stalin,that went over the top for me and I started paying attention and reading.
I paid attention to kerry and vietnam because I knew for a fact he wasnt in cambodia in 68. You ever hear a swift boat run much less 3 or 4 of them? At that time cambodia was theirs, all theirs . And if he tried to go into cambodia in 68 he would not be here .I promise you not one of those swiftys would have gotten a half mile inside cambodia.
So again for personal reasons I paid attention.I heard his whole testamony before congress, read what the good general giap said about him.
My conclusion,Oh boy did he lie about cambodia,that one I know, and I believe he lied about 1 purple heart,dont care about the rest. After hearing his talk before congress and reading about him and now he loves the military?
You said you were in the military in 73, I hope it was a good experiance for you,yet you must remember johnson,mcnamara..55000 dead for nothing, and a couple of those my friends, and 1 badly wounded cousin, and another wounded, not as bad, but it was the million dollar wound.
Kerry is worse then them,and you are going to vote for nader??.
Whatever bush is, until just lately, he let the military fight,with the weapons we have. I dont care about the economy or anything else right now,but it looks like America is going to put a lieing fool in as cic in the middle of a war, a man with no character at all. God have pity on our armed forces, while we sit here on our tulips safe. Been there done that.
-
Guess we just have a different opinion on "wasted vote".
I think voting for either Kerry or Bush is a waste.
What we need is CHANGE. You won't get that with either the Dem or the Rep.
Count on it.
In any event, those of you seeking to help defeat Kerry would be far more effective if you focused on his Senate career rather than the VietNam aspect. His "short tour", his "Winter Soldier adventures" and the harping on his "Purple Scratches" just don't resonate with this electorate. In fact, all that does is make him a "victim" to a lot of folks, just like poor Bill was victimized when he lied to all our faces.
Engage on his record. It's where he's vulnerable and where you at least look serious.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I think voting for either Kerry or Bush is a waste.
And voting for anyone else is pointless. Best not to vote..
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
And voting for anyone else is pointless. Best not to vote..
Disagree....
Not voting (yet being quite politically aware) leads to yet another series of boring and misleading stories about the "apathetic population" that bombards us every 4 years.
If enough of you vote for something else - *anything* else - the story would then become one of a "nation-wide sense of thirst"...
And being good capitalists, you must know that where there is a demand....
-
In other words, you're too lazy to even TRY to change things. You don't like Bush or Kerry? Won't vote for either one? Then TELL them party bosses....... go vote for someone else.
How tough is it to go to the polls?
Tough as freezing at Valley Forge, ya think?
Tough as climbing Marye's Heights maybe?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Not voting (yet being quite politically aware) leads to yet another series of boring and misleading stories about the "apathetic population" that bombards us every 4 years.
As if anyone cares....:rolleyes:
-
Well, I have no will to start a new political movement at this time, so I will content myself with just not voting...
Basically, for now, I have given up trying to change other people...
and no it isnt tough to go to that little booth and vote, but why? My vote means nothing unless there are millions of other identical votes. Which means a serious political movement. With that in mind, plese see above.
-
I just think it's misleading, Holden. Who cares if anyone cares.
Grun isn't some slouch who can't be arsed to vote. But he sure enough will be categorized as such.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
and no it isnt tough to go to that little booth and vote, but why? My vote means nothing unless there are millions of other identical votes. Which means a serious political movement. With that in mind, plese see above.
1. There are a few other races on the ballot besides the Presidency. You going to give Boxer a free pass? What about local issues/candidates?
2. Your implication is that your vote means nothing unless "your side" wins; you want to be voting with millions of other identical votes. What a cop-out. You DID watch all the recounts of the 2002 Florida results right? It came down to a few hundred ballots. Anyway, if you go vote for either Bush or Kerry, you'll be voting with "millions of other identical votes"; not much of a criteria is it? Here's an idea....... go vote for what you think is right. Heck, I give you permission to write me in for Prez. ;)
3. Again, good people paid in blood to grant you this right and obligation. Do them the honor of acknowledging their sacrifice.
-
I'm voting Libertarian I think. I may do that the rest of my life. This procession of party puppets has got to stop.
You know, I always went the "don't waste a vote" route. But you've really started me thinking about this. It would be the more honest vote for me as well.
Charon
-
Do it, man.
Vote Kermit in if nothing else apeals to ya.
You will not win, and I heard Kermit died sometime in the late nineties... But your vote *will* say something.
Maybe sometime down the road you'll get someone on the ballot more to your liking. That won't happen if ya continue to let the current left/right have an unfettered grip on the possibilities.
-
I was thinking of starting an Apatheistic Procrastinistic Anarchist party, but I really don't care if I get around to getting it organized.
-
Mark me down as being passionately ambivalent to that idea.
-
Listen guys vote, even if it is for....gulp....kerry. Why? because it is important to you, and to the country ,and to your grandkids .So what if nothing is different, voting gives you more power than any gun can.
Listen to yourselves, as I have said narcissism is alive and well , oh my, no one is as smart and good as I am, well I am not going to put my self out, If I am going to vote , I will vote for the biggest fool of them all. It has to change because I say so or I wont vote. Nothing but I ,I , I, I. It has been said, it will only take one generation to lose all of our freedoms,everything we shed our blood for, for 200+ years. One day you will be telling your grandkids what America was like when she was free.
Why do you think it has come to this point? Maybe because the people lost interest in voting cause they wew to busy.
Ah forget it we deserve what we get.
-
yep, vote the wrong person in outa the two choices and things will change, just hope we'll be around in 4 years to fix it ...
if A or B isn't what you are looking for, choose C in 4 years - after C has that time to sell himself to enough to make a diff (get a moore-on to make ya a movie) - now its just throwing your vote away
demaw - rather them flush their vote on some "principal vote" than give it to skerry where it might make a difference if somehow it gets close
a vote for skerry is a vote for the terrorists - if you wanna believe it or not... as that is the way they, the terrorist, will view it - just as they view any widely reported opposition to Iraq by our peace nik/admin haters
-
Grunherz.
You have to vote. Your vote does count because everyone's vote counts. If you don't vote one day, they (the enemies of freedom) will come and revoke your right to vote. If you protest 'I know my rights!'. They'll say 'You have no rights except those we allow you.' Then they'll shoot you because free speech goes along with the right to vote.
Democracy is a like a muscle; it must be exercised to make it strong.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
You said you were in the military in 73, I hope it was a good experiance for you,yet you must remember johnson,mcnamara..55000 dead for nothing, and a couple of those my friends, and 1 badly wounded cousin, and another wounded, not as bad, but it was the million dollar wound.
Interesting you neglect Nixon, the one serving as President 69-74. Wouldn't be because he was a Republican? Our Vietnam "Policing Action" was pushed by both sides. I may be reading you wrong here but it appears you want to put blame squarely on the Democrats yet you seem to be ignoring the Republicans in this.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Interesting you neglect Nixon, the one serving as President 69-74. Wouldn't be because he was a Republican? Our Vietnam "Policing Action" was pushed by both sides. I may be reading you wrong here but it appears you want to put blame squarely on the Democrats yet you seem to be ignoring the Republicans in this.
Ike sent the first advisors, and 8 servicemen died on his watch. Kennedy continued the policy, and this policy resulted in 187 deaths of American servicemen.
Johnson sent the first combat troops and ecalated the body count by 35,955. Nixon began the pull out, losing 11,614 in 1969.(that is 4,970 less than '68, LBJ's last year)
In all six years of Nixon's watch, we lost 21,040. That's 14,915 less than LBJ's 5 years.
It can be argued that LBJ is responsible for many of the deaths in 69 and beyond as (using a sports analogy) he was the pitcher of record, and Nixon was a long reliever.
If you want to be mad at a president over Vietnam, LBJ is your man.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
...the body count by 35,955.
...began the pull out, losing 11,614
... we lost 21,040. That's 14,915 less than LBJ's 5 years.
Jesious... And people are bracing for Iraq's 1,000th.
God is not my father. Jesus was my brother. That's just horrible, useless and dumb.
-
Agreed Nash but history shows worse.
General Pickett lost 1,000 in the first 500 yds.
-
Saburos.....lbj
Insert scream here.....You are talking about politics.....another scream. Going to give you some facts boy,and I dont need links to back them up.
1 The military did not lose that war.If we had followed the battle plan kennedy had we would have been out in a year or less.
2 good ole boy johnson and dumb face tied the hands of military so bad it stunk. He ran it from washington,made fighter/bombers go on mission with half ordiance,might do to much damage. Our pilots watched the russians build sam sites ,and were not allowed to bomb them. I know all about the wild weasel program, guess what, we knew where most were being built before they were finished. . Well mr smartie pants ask all most any pilot from that time why they didnt fire there sams at us on engress to target but waited until egress.
3 Wouldnt allow navy to blockade harbour, wouldnt allow air power to bomb harbours. [ by the way nixion did at end,and kennedy was going to at beginning.]
4 opps to much time on air. Body counts were 2 fold .1 to show Americans what ratio of kills were , but to also make sure we didnt kill to many in a specific place.[ could be said better]
How would you like to take a piece of ground and keep it? sorry not in this war...er police action. How about taking same piece of ground 10 times in 1 year, and walking away from it, so they can refortify each time. Oh ya, how about have them realing from bombing ,and then stopping it to talk peace while they are replacing war material. I know, how about taking the rifles away from the truck drivers because when attacked they would fight back and were killing to many vc.
You moron you dont know nothing.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Johnson sent the first combat troops and ecalated the body count by 35,955. Nixon began the pull out, losing 11,614 in 1969.(that is 4,970 less than '68, LBJ's last year)
In all six years of Nixon's watch, we lost 21,040. That's 14,915 less than LBJ's 5 years.
It can be argued that LBJ is responsible for many of the deaths in 69 and beyond as (using a sports analogy) he was the pitcher of record, and Nixon was a long reliever.
If you want to be mad at a president over Vietnam, LBJ is your man.
The thing is, is it isn't just one man responsible for that fiasco. You misunderstood what I stated. By your logic, we can blame Nixon for losing the war then. After all it was he who had a "secret plan to end the war" which I believe he commenced in '70. We won all our battles, why give it up then?
No, not a single man is to blame for the Vietnam War. The war was born out of ignorance and arrogance of those not knowing of the Vietnemese history. It wasn't a Republican or Democrat issue, as much as you Republican supporters want to paint the Democrats.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Saburos.....lbj
Insert scream here.....You are talking about politics.....another scream. Going to give you some facts boy,and I dont need links to back them up.
1 The military did not lose that war.If we had followed the battle plan kennedy had we would have been out in a year or less.
2 good ole boy johnson and dumb face tied the hands of military so bad it stunk. He ran it from washington,made fighter/bombers go on mission with half ordiance,might do to much damage. Our pilots watched the russians build sam sites ,and were not allowed to bomb them. I know all about the wild weasel program, guess what, we knew where most were being built before they were finished. . Well mr smartie pants ask all most any pilot from that time why they didnt fire there sams at us on engress to target but waited until egress.
3 Wouldnt allow navy to blockade harbour, wouldnt allow air power to bomb harbours. [ by the way nixion did at end,and kennedy was going to at beginning.]
4 opps to much time on air. Body counts were 2 fold .1 to show Americans what ratio of kills were , but to also make sure we didnt kill to many in a specific place.[ could be said better]
How would you like to take a piece of ground and keep it? sorry not in this war...er police action. How about taking same piece of ground 10 times in 1 year, and walking away from it, so they can refortify each time. Oh ya, how about have them realing from bombing ,and then stopping it to talk peace while they are replacing war material. I know, how about taking the rifles away from the truck drivers because when attacked they would fight back and were killing to many vc.
You moron you dont know nothing.
Well I tried to be polite with you but guess that's out of the window, you IDIOT.
I can just imagine you playing chess, getting check-mated but whining you didn't lose cause you have all your pieces still. We lost that war, Vietnam won it. It cost them 1.1 million troops and 2 million civillian deaths. News for you MR. Clueless, wars aren't won by bodycounts alone, but by goals. We made the mistake of catagorizing those Nationalists as Communists. We had the weaponry and the technology hence the high Vietnamese casualties.
Their goal was to unify Vietnam and be free of foreign occupation. They've been successful against the Chinese, French, etc., and they were successful against us. They won, we lost. Short of wiping out 3/4 of their population wouldn't change that. That's what happens to invaders/occupiers. World history is full of failures. In closing perhaps you need to read different sources.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
It wasn't a Republican or Democrat issue, as much as you Republican supporters want to paint the Democrats.
I didn't misunderstand SaburoS. I was just pointing out that Johnson's policy was the one we followed to get into the mess. Nixon didn't initiate a immediate pull out, as he when thru the "Peace with Honor" and "Vietnamization" of the conflict.
Just by casualty figures alone, LBJ was 62% responsible for VN.
It isn't a partisan political thing, it's just history. Blame Ike if you want, he is the guy in charge at the inception.
-
Saburo,
Get a copy of A Better War by Lewis Sorley (Amazon has it).
Very well researched AND documented, it will challenge what you've been told about how we "lost" VietNam.
-
SABURO........
You threw politeness out the window way back when....
You did not address anything I said,where did I say anything about bodycounts having anything to do with winning the war?
We lost that war? Really so general Giap himself is a liar, wow the general of the armies of north vietnam himself lied about why they didnt surrender when they wanted to.
Your post is so outlandish and nowhere is it based in fact. If johnson had followed Kennedys battle plan we would have won in less than a year with vietnam suffering maybe 1/8th the wounded and dead they ended up with.
That post is so far beyond the pale its unbelieveable, and from a rug rat that has no idea what vietnam was like or about.
Ok, give me your other sources, Ill read them.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
SABURO........
You threw politeness out the window way back when....
Really, perhaps you show me. I didn't start with the personal attacks. I responded to yours. As a matter of fact I ignored your first negative personal comments. I decided not to respond further in our previous discussion as it is a waste of time. We are so far apart on the issues. At best your position is on wishful thinking.
Originally posted by demaw1
You did not address anything I said,where did I say anything about bodycounts having anything to do with winning the war?
You inferred it in your argument. The "we won every battle" argument crowd uses the body count as their crutch for the war being winnable.
Originally posted by demaw1
We lost that war? Really so general Giap himself is a liar, wow the general of the armies of north vietnam himself lied about why they didnt surrender when they wanted to.
You're insinuating we didn't? Let's see here. We were instrumental in dividing Vietnam into a North and South in '54. There was to be a democratic vote of unification by the Vietnamese in '56. The US was against it knowing full well we'd lose.
When we finally withdrew, Vietnam was united into one. They reached their goal, we didn't. That is called LOSING by us and WINNING by Vietnam. Like it or not, that's history - no matter how you look at it.
Educate me on how we didn't lose that war.
When was Giap going to surrender? He didn't against the French, he didn't against us.
Wishful thinking of the what might of happened. We lost, that's what REALLY happened, no matter how you want to spin it. That's the problem of some that don't recognize history. Doomed to repeat it.
Originally posted by demaw1
Your post is so outlandish and nowhere is it based in fact. If johnson had followed Kennedys battle plan we would have won in less than a year with vietnam suffering maybe 1/8th the wounded and dead they ended up with.
Where do you come up with this nonsense? This wasn't a war of conquest where civillian casualties didn't matter. Only in that instance would we have won after wiping out most of their population. Then what? What value would Vietnam hold? Not enough natural sources to sustain an occupation. How would Vietnam be "won"? You think that the freedom of planting our flag in another country would be enough to constitute winning? Never mind the attacks our occupation soldiers would go through.
Originally posted by demaw1
That post is so far beyond the pale its unbelieveable, and from a rug rat that has no idea what vietnam was like or about.
Obviously, you don't. Rug rat now eh? Amazing, just amazing. BTW, you want to have a discussion with or without insults?
Just amazing your style of "discussing" an issue. You don't get your way you act like a big blubbering, whiny child. You've been the rug rat. You want to continue? I'll respond in kind (as I have).
Originally posted by demaw1
Ok, give me your other sources, Ill read them.
I'm going by memory going back over two decades ( I'm 42). How about you look up on your own. Choose some sites that don't agree with your opinion, maybe you'll learn something new (I doubt it though as you're set in your ways).
-
Originally posted by Toad
Saburo,
Get a copy of A Better War by Lewis Sorley (Amazon has it).
Very well researched AND documented, it will challenge what you've been told about how we "lost" VietNam.
Toad,
Thanks for the heads up on that book. I'll be looking for it. Unfortunetly too busy for the time being, though.
-
Vietnam!
One of my favourite subjects.
Both of you are right. The VC definately and you can make a case that the NVA were nationalist. Ho Chi Minh fought the Japanese for the OSS in WWII. It was agreed that Vietnam would be a free and independant country. Mistake number one by Washington was in not keeping that promise.
After WWII the French put us on the spot by not following the allied agreement made during Yalta. All conquered territories and former colonies would be freed or set on the path of independance. Thus began the French Indochina War. Keeping our word with Ho would have meant going to war with France.
Vietnam was divided into North (communist) and south (royalist) by the Paris Peace accords ending that war. 5 years later, at reunification election time, the communist were going to win the election hands down. Ho Chi Minh had actually done something with his 5 years time. The Royalist, Diem, played on the French Riveria, and south fractionalized into petty warlords fighting for territory.
We backed the warlords and Diem.
The South Vietnamese government was a fiasco. Mistake Number 2 by the civilian administration was in not straightening the South Vietnamese Government out.
Under the Kennedy administration and previous ones the war was fought mainly by covert means and Military Assistance to the South Veitnamese. Hindsight is 20 -20. We should have kept it at that. We were winning. Slowly but surely we were winning.
I have to go to work and will finish this up. Good discussion guys.
Watch out though, We ARE making the SAME mistakes in Iraq that we made in Vietnam. I will explain why and how later.
-
SUBAROS
If you will remember subaros, a few threads back, I told you I had always treated you with respect and was wondering why all the name calling when I wasnt even talking to you.
For your info I wasnt refuring to body counts as a won or lost thing..but as a stupid thing to do, be it for showing the country we were winning or for making sure we didnt kill to many of the enemy.When nixon became president and kissinger found out about the reason for body counts he said he never wanted to hear about them again. Also general giap did say everything I said he said.
Now I have news for you, we didnt lose in vietnam, johnson administration and war protesters did . If we would have been given the ability to fight from the begginning ,when I was in kindergarden,it would have been over by the time I was in 1 st grade.
Crumpp is right, you can blame that war on France, you can blame so much on that stupid nation for so many things, but you wont cause you cant see evil if it is slaping you in the face. No to so many like you America is the evil one. Dont even try,you have to many post to deny what you think about America.
BTW After America left 3 million cambodians died killed by communist...I cant wait to see how you twist that one, if you even respond.
-
Crumpp I for one would like to read whatever you write ,agree or not ,so I hope you finish.
thanks demaw.
-
Now I have news for you, we didnt lose in vietnam, johnson administration and war protesters did .
Your absolutely right. It is starting again in Iraq too. Not due to Bush, he is actually been a great Commander -n- Chief. Certainly not due to Rumsfeld either. If you have to place blame, then it rest's squarely on the Politics of the US Army and the media.
Facts are Bad News sells Newspapers, not "we are doing great but set backs can be expected". This fuels the "fast food" culture of America who want a quick and easy victory. Counter-Insurgency warfare is neither quick nor easy. The successful ones have taken decades to win and have been fought on the sly out of public view. The Media is creating the perception we are losing when in fact we are not.
Right now, we are beginning to hear the cry of "more troops" in Iraq. This is a bad thing. Conventional troops are not trained for this type of warfare. They are a broadsword designed to fight other large conventional forces. They did outstanding against the Iraqi Army in the largest and fastest armored thrust the world has ever seen.
This type of warfare requires a careful application of force, an understanding of the culture, and of humanity in general.
Example:
In Afghanistan there was a grenade attack. A little boy came up and tossed a grenade in the back of a parked Hilux Pick-up truck. The US Soldiers bailed out and nobody was hurt. The little boy was immediately detained. Nobody yelled at him, it was obvious he was just as scared and shaken by the experience as the soldiers. He was put in the back of another truck out of sight and given some candy and comfort. When he came out, the little boy spotted the man who gave him the grenade and pointed him out. He was immediately detained. The little boy was then taken to his parents who were NOT happy he was involved in the violence. They were extremely grateful that their child was protected; he was in the end, as all children are, innocent. Some twisted adult gave him the grenade to "play a trick" on the Americans.
I was talking to a young soldier, a good kid who just returned from Fallujah. They also experienced a young child throwing a grenade someone had given him in a crowded market. Their company commander was killed when the grenade went off. The little boy ran off into the crowd that quickly scattered as the entire company opened fire. I asked the kid what they were shooting at, he didn't know, everybody was just scared and shooting at "the enemy" simply because the guy next to them was shooting. That is the correct reaction IF another unit attacks you. After a few minutes, when no return fire was experienced, the order to cease-fire was given. Everyone was scared and angry. Their company commander had been a good officer and a good man.
The average man living in Fallujah just wants to live his life in peace and keep his family safe. He might not like the Americans but he is not picking up a gun to fight. Basically he is sitting on the fence hoping not to be caught in the middle. Now with US bullets flying through his living room, it won't take him long to decide the best course of action is to pick up a gun and stop them. The insurgents won that engagement. Not only did they kill a good man, but they helped to erode any popular support.
Large conventional forces unwittingly create insurgents just by the nature of their operations. The cry for "More Troops" = MORE INSURGENTS = More fighting.
Now the flipside is that most of the "insurgents" at this point are not Iraqi's. They are other Arabs who have come to "fight the infidels". Many of them are AQ or AQ wantabees. Good thing for us, I would rather fight them in Iraq than in the United States.
Crumpp
-
Crumpp.....
I would need more explanation about politics of army before making up my mind on that one.Sadly I think I know what you mean.
Not that it matters, but I put the blame on the media, and the left in this country. How can any sane person not know that if we were not fighting in iraq right now, we would be fighting here,right here.
Isreal is a fortress compared to America ,and America can never be safe, even if we had a 3 million man army stationed here.
Just to many places to hit.
I agree bush has been a good cic,leting them fight with out hands tied, but I disagree on policy now. You are right about the military being wrong for mission now but what choice do we have?
What I see that is the same as vietnam, is tied hands again, and pretending only a certain faction is the enemy. The biggest problem is Iran,she is sending the insurgents and weapons and money. Another harbour we cant hit. Holy city? mosque? hiding behind and in. Well they arent the first ones to do that.Fight and talk,fight and talk,dont shoot here or there,sound familar?
I think bush knows in his heart what has to be done, but the pressure from the world, combined with the left,demos, and media , he just cant overcome it.
I know we are not strong enough to hit iran yet,but we are wasting time in iraq, I say, If we arnt going to kill badr ,take the others out, then It is time for our sons and daughters to come home.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
SUBAROS
If you will remember subaros, a few threads back, I told you I had always treated you with respect and was wondering why all the name calling when I wasnt even talking to you.
I just checked back 17 pages of threads. Until this thread did I retaliate with name calling responding to yours. You're mistaken. Go ahead and prove me wrong. Sheesh, we can't even get our facts straight in such a simple matter of who insulted who. You expect us to come to an agreement on a complex issue such as Vietnam? Again, show me where I started with the name calling. You won't because you can't because I didn't.
Originally posted by demaw1
For your info I wasnt refuring to body counts as a won or lost thing..but as a stupid thing to do, be it for showing the country we were winning or for making sure we didnt kill to many of the enemy.When nixon became president and kissinger found out about the reason for body counts he said he never wanted to hear about them again. Also general giap did say everything I said he said.
Now I have news for you, we didnt lose in vietnam, johnson administration and war protesters did . If we would have been given the ability to fight from the begginning ,when I was in kindergarden,it would have been over by the time I was in 1 st grade.
What exactly do you mean when you refer to us as winning every battle? What criteria do you use?
How did we win Khe Sahn, for example?
Man, we're going around in circles here. Unless you're speaking for the Vietnamese, your statement of not losing the Vietnam War is false. We, the USA lost that War. We had no clear cut goal. We treated that country as a pawn in the big scheme of things. Most of the Vietnamese didn't want to be a part of it. They didn't want their country carved up into two.
LOL, it was the militarily conservative Johnson that gave in to many demands to increase our military presence in Vietnam. Yeah, his so called "experts" let him down. We agree on a lot in this area actually. Too bad, many that had the President's ear didn't know enough of Vietnam's history to offer an effective plan.
Originally posted by demaw1
Crumpp is right, you can blame that war on France, you can blame so much on that stupid nation for so many things, but you wont cause you cant see evil if it is slaping you in the face. No to so many like you America is the evil one. Dont even try,you have to many post to deny what you think about America.
No, we have to blame that war on us, no one else. We should of had the balls to not back France. We should of had the foresight to open diplomatic relations with Vietnam rather than trying to divide it. We dropped the ball big time.
There you go again, somehow I hate America? Is that what you're insinuating? If so, how about you get a grip on reality? You're lost.
Originally posted by demaw1
BTW After America left 3 million cambodians died killed by communist...I cant wait to see how you twist that one, if you even respond.
Are we talking about the Khmer Rouge led by Pol Pot that massacred over a million of its own Cambodian citizens 75-79. The Vietnamese that went in there to depose his regime in '79?
Twist it?
How in the world does this prove we didn't lose the Vietnam War?
-
It is on page 13, under demaw thread.
Yours was said in a very sardonic way,mt did his normal,and rpm went with standard put down words. Because it was very personal to me[ for 2 reasons,] and I found out it had already started, I became very up set. Now as to what I would do to a soldier, returning with a different view. I would do the same for that soldier as any other. If you noticed, I retracted rpm from post after I saw what he said he would do if he was there.
-
Wow, still fighting over Vietnam guys? C'mon get over it. It was not our finest hour, but it is past. I think every American is now capable of supporting the troops without supporting the reason they are fighting. Wherever that may be.
For instance, I would not support an invasion of Argentina. But, I would hope the troops kicked bellybutton doing it and little or no casualties were incurred.
-
I think every American is now capable of supporting the troops without supporting the reason they are fighting. Wherever that may be.
Yes, but you tread a fine line. If you going to go to war, then go to war.
We tend to think of every past conflict as a series of events leading to an inevitable end. In fact that is not case. The path ahead is muddy and confusing. Nothing is certain and victory only occurs because men have the will to risk their futures for a cause they believe is just. That's why you went to war in first place. One wins a war by simply having more will than the enemy to win it in the end. Never forget life does not occur in a vacuum. The majority of Americans supported Bush going to war in Iraq before we went. Just as in the Vietnam War the majority of Americans supported us entering that conflict. AQ is counting on Vietnams shadow to influence our will to fight.
Casting doubt about the reasons for going to war AFTER the fact and during the conflict only erodes the will to fight and lends heart to the enemy. How Americans feel about the cause directly effects the troops who are putting their lives on the line for that cause. It makes the conflict longer. Argue about the reasons for going to war during the peace afterwards. If we lose, then all that has been accomplished is young lives snuffed out and lost for no good reason.
Crumpp
-
Well Said, Mr. Crumpp.
-
Well said Crumpp
That is why I fight it so hard, if there is a reason to put the whole gov. in jail .....after the war is over great do it. All the bellyachein now is hurting them over there,just read a couple of letters being sent home if you have access.
-
I think everyone supported going to Afghanistan. Iraq was a different story, and still is. Whether it was bad intel or something else, the reason we stopped focus on OBL and switched to Iraq has been proven false. I do believe SH was a bad man and needed removal, but we have allowed OBL to continue breathing and plotting.
That is my complaint. We should have completed our mission against Al-Queda before opening a new front. Who knows what may have happened if we paraded OBL to the world like we did SH. Heck, I might have voted Bush.
-
SaburoS and Crumpp...
Well said.
MacMAW
SFC U.S. Army (Ret.)
1975 ~ 1995
-
RPM....OBL...
We know where obl is. He is in pakistan near the border.
Not far from where their army has been doing a little fighting.
Pakistan has denied us permission to cross her borders to get him. If we wanted to get him,ya we could. I have listen to defence people from nixon, ford, carter,reagan,clinton and bush administration say this. [paraphase]
Pakistans leader is just hanging on, if we went in to get him, the radical muslims could rise up and overthrow the goverment. There seems to be millions of them in Pakistan, several million around obl.
Obl would then be in control of Pakistans nukes. It is possible that some of them can hit us under right conditions. They said they could not prove it but believe it is possible.
We are not strong enough to go into Pakistan and end up fighting 80 million arabs yet.
. India said if the radicals took over, they would not hesitate to attack with nukes as they fear them. Israel said the same thing ,but didnt use the word nukes, just said they would use everything at their disposal.
For me if left and right agree on this one point then I am not going to argue otherwise.
So we know where he is and isnt, and he gets his medical treatments from pakistan.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
It is on page 13, under demaw thread.
Yours was said in a very sardonic way,mt did his normal,and rpm went with standard put down words. Because it was very personal to me[ for 2 reasons,] and I found out it had already started, I became very up set. Now as to what I would do to a soldier, returning with a different view. I would do the same for that soldier as any other. If you noticed, I retracted rpm from post after I saw what he said he would do if he was there.
How about you just plain quote it and post it here. Show me. What's the thread's title and what was the post#? I don't see a "demaw thread" (I even went back 29 pages to search).
Understand this. If I ever come out and insult someone without cause, you can bet that I'll be the man about it and apologize. I do when I'm wrong. I try to make it right.
But you also understand that I don't like being insulted with personal attacks when it isn't warranted.
You opened up in this thread and I retaliated.
You show me where:
Originally posted by demaw1
If you will remember subaros, a few threads back, I told you I had always treated you with respect and was wondering why all the name calling when I wasnt even talking to you.
Again, show me and everyone here where I resorted to the "name calling" insults against you "a few threads back"(at the time of your post).
If I'm wrong about this, you'll get my apologies as that's what a man does when he's wrong.
I'm not wrong in this case though. Prove it.
This leads me to wonder of two things about you:
1) Will you respond with the proof (or are you going to continue to dance around and keep being vague)?
2) After you realize that you're wrong, will you be a man about it and apologize?
If you're wrong, you owe me one.
I guess we'll see.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
. Kerry has already said within 6 months he would pull troops out. .
Could you please show some links to the above statement?
-
Here's one for you. I think you can pursue it from the leads there.
Democrat Says He Would Reduce U.S. Troops Within 6 Months (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48708-2004Aug7.html)
Kerry and Rubin also are detailing a new Iraq policy to "significantly" reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq during the first six months of a Kerry administration. In an NPR interview Friday, Kerry said: "I believe that within a year from now, we could significantly reduce American forces in Iraq, and that's my plan." His comments took several aides by surprise. Until the interview, Kerry's stated policy was to significantly reduce troops by the end of his first term.
He's addressing the VFW in Cinncinnatti tonight. A lot of "trial balloon" statements have been floated. You'll have to wait and see what he actually says.
Now for fun, check this out; it's one reason why I have a bit of tough time with Kerry:
Kerry stumbles over Iraq
New York Daily News ^ | 8/15/04 | Michael Goodwin
Posted on 08/15/2004 7:28:36 AM PDT by kattracks
You say you've been following the presidential campaign and are very interested in the candidates' positions on Iraq. Okay, then, answer me this: Which of the following statements did John Kerry make about bringing American troops home if he's elected?
A) He sees a big withdrawal in his first term.
B) He sees a big withdrawal in his first year.
C) He sees a big withdrawal in his first six months.
D) All of the above.
The answer is D - and now you know the problem in trying to figure out where the Democrat stands. Kerry made all those statements in the last two weeks in different interviews and news conferences.
Forget red and blue states - color me confused.
Kerry's Iraq position also morphed in another important way. Initially, he called a first-term reduction a "plan." By the end of the dizzying descriptions, the six-month withdrawal had become "a goal."
The one consistency was his caveat that any changes on American strength mostly depended on getting allies to pony up forces.
Hey, wait a minute. That basically means none of the reductions would happen unless France, et al., agree to send troops. Fat chance of that happening.
All of which leaves Kerry's plan full of conditional holes, and thus no real plan at all.
Maybe it's Kerry who is confused about Iraq. In theory, you can't blame him. "Between Iraq and a hard place" aptly describes the American dilemma. Lots of the candidate's fellow countrymen are confused, too.
But Kerry is running for President. And when your party says you're the man, you are required to have more answers than the average Joe.
Kerry offered another Iraq answer last week, but it only further muddied the waters. Taunted by President Bush about whether he would still vote for the war authorization knowing what he knows now about weapons of mass destruction, Kerry said yes.
Bet your bottom dollar Bush was as shocked as millions of Kerry's supporters. Only Bush was smiling shocked - he basically got Kerry to endorse the invasion again - while the anti-war crowd that makes up a huge chunk of the Dem establishment couldn't be happy.
Remember that 80% of the delegates at the Boston convention said the war was a mistake. And now their candidate seemed to be saying something else entirely.
Kerry's war room was quick to try to explain the nuances - Kerry felt Bush had no plan for winning the peace - but the damage was done. By week's end, even Kerry aides were admitting he had walked right into a clever Bush trap.
And the Bushies weren't done scoring points. The President, whose meanings are clear even when his syntax isn't, seized on Kerry's timetables to say, rightly, that any talk of withdrawal would undercut efforts to stabilize Iraq.
Vice President Cheney seized on another strange Kerry comment - that he would run a "more sensitive" war on terror. That was like lobbing a big fat softball right down the middle, and Cheney clubbed it with a mocking tone. A "sensitive war," he said, was not the right response to the thugs who killed 3,000 Americans. Pow!
Kerry's missteps made for a bizarre week, but it's only August. And many polls, such as one showing him up by 7 points in Florida, suggest the election is his to lose.
But Vince Lombardi was talking about football, not the Oval Office, when he said winning is everything. In political terms, a Kerry victory based mostly on anger at Bush would not prepare the country for the difficult choices ahead.
That means Kerry better get a grip on himself now and decide where he truly stands on Iraq and the war on terror. For soon enough, confusion will be unforgivable.
Originally published on August 15, 2004
-
Don't know what all the fuss is about two Doofuses running for President.
( Or is the plural of Doofus Doofi???)
-
Saburos, look at my last post in vets,moderates,conservatives..
I brought it to front page. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Saburos, look at my last post in vets,moderates,conservatives..
I brought it to front page. Thanks.
Originally posted by demaw1
SUBAROS.......answer.....
I do hope you will read my post above.
1 5:18 pm
2 5:29 pm
3 5:51 pm
4 10:43 pm
5 11:51 pm.
It will maybe clear this up a little, and you will see that even in anger I will apologize if one is in order.
I do hereby formally apologize to Subaros, as it is warranted.
I dont know how I got him mixed up with Pongo, but be assured I did. Subaros had nothing to do with that particular thread.
Thanks demaw.
Last edited by demaw1 on 08-18-2004 at 05:09 PM
Apology accepted. Thanks for being a man about it.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Here's one for you. I think you can pursue it from the leads there.
Democrat Says He Would Reduce U.S. Troops Within 6 Months (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48708-2004Aug7.html)
Demaws implication is that we will completely pull out. Your link shows that he is wrong.
-
I think the important thing to note is the Kerry is all over the map on troop withdrawal from Iraq. Even he doesn't know what he wants.
Which ties in perfectly with him offering Korea as a place to start when considering other troop withdrawals and then blasting Bush a few weeks later for announcing troop withdrawals from Korea. Again, he's all over the map.
Kerry's just another shameless politician and the most liberal one in the Senate at that.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Lets talk about something of substance, say...Kerry's voting record in the Senate the last 20 years. Shall we? I mean really...4 months in 'Nam, is that all he's going to the election booth with? Or do you want to continue to be a Kerry-Apologist?
2nd tour Rip
-
"I dont know how I got him mixed up with Pongo, but be assured I did. Subaros had nothing to do with that particular thread." -demaw
Same avatar.
-
Flip Flop
"The War on Terror Cannot be won" dubya
"We can win the war on Terror" Dubya
Originally posted by Ripsnort
As they say in soccer...
GOAL![/SIZE]