Democrats & Liberals: Archives

It’s a great article, Al, but, I wouldn’t change careers to high dollar ticket item sales, if I were you. :-)

We’ll see about that. If Kerry wins on Tuesday, I may be forced to take full credit ;^)

Dear Kerry fan,
Your blog is very organized yet there are many questions you should ask yourself as well.

I too discuss liberal viewpoints with collegues of mine and rarely reach a solid conclusion.

Rather than taking the position of so many liberals that Bush is the worst leader in U.S. history, ask yourself some of your own questions about Kerry.

Does voting to support a war without knowing the facts a characteristic of a good leader?…No

Never admitting weakness is a fundamental part of a good leader. President Bush is resolute in his decisions good or bad. Think about this, you are a soldier being led into battle and after the battle where you have lost thousands of men, your leader says, “Men, I’d like to apologize for sending you into battle…I was wrong.” Would that hurt or help the leader maintain command of his troops when he needed them again to fight.

The fact is that no one knows if what the U.S. is doing is right or wrong yet. The U.S. occupied Germany for seven years after WWII ended. A war of this magnitude doesn’t end over night. You are probably saying the war was improperly planned which is true with any war. The fact is that a plan goes bad when the first bombs drop.

If you get a chance, read up on theories of war…(The Art of War by Sun-tzu) You might learn that in circumstances such as the threat the U.S. faces today, meaning the enemy doesn’t have a uniform nor a clear base, it is paramount to not crouch back and wait to be attacked before taking the offensive.

Before voting I would ask someone to base their decision on the most important issue to them and vote for the candidate they think will do the best in regards to that issue.

Your blog sounds like Kerry rhetoric to me and your arguments can’t be proven valid or sound. There are many things Kerry might be better at than Bush, but you failed to touch those because Kerry has not told you what they are yet. He is running on his WAR HERO record which is in question. Don’t forget, a good commander doesn’t need to be a war heroe. I’m sure you loved Clinton and he outright dodged the draft. At least Kerry took five…FIVE…five…student deferrels to try to stay out of Vietnam just like every other rich kid.

Think harder next time, Kerry is no answer, just admit that you hate republicans and would find any argument that would help support your own beliefs against any republican.

Your post seems to hold the tone that you are right and everyone else is wrong voting Bush…That my friend is egocentrism and will not fly to long with your liberal friends…Thanks wish I had more time!

Al:

It really comes done to one issues and one issue only. Would you support a person who believes in partial birth abortion?

De, would you support a person who says they oppose partial birth abortion, and then doesn’t do anything to ensure that the bill banning the procedure would pass a constitutional test, thus ensuring its demise. Kerry has stated that he does not support the procedure, but requires that any law passed be constitutional. Meaning that exceptions are made to safeguard the life of the mother.

Bush and the Republicans require that abortion stay as a wedge issue.

They will throw you a bone to keep you happy, and then avoid doing anything that would really reduce the number of abortions in the country.

Partial birth abortion strips the veil away. As I understand it (and I am no doctor and willing to be corrected if I am wrong) the baby emerges alive and is killed before making it all the way out. How can this ever be acceptable? If the baby came all the way out, could abortionist then just kill it? So having feet inside, you are liable to have your skull crushed. Get those feet out and you end up in the incubator. If the procedure is required because the life of the mother is in danger, give the kid a chance. The baby finally comes out no matter what. How does killing her make the mother healthier?

Jack, you can get informed here.

Dear all,

My eyes well up with tears when I try and fathom how Americans can have such blinkered perspectives as to believe that Bush is the leader that America needs. Four years has gone past and George Bush has not only destroyed your country, he has destroyed the world.

How can it be that after experiencing four years of tremendous, if not embararssing, blunders, Americans can still believe that Bush is the insuperable President the country needs? The proof and debris of his foreign policy is littered all around you. One would think that in light of the disaster that Bush is, any rational (and thinking) individual would be running in the opposite direction. I simply cannot fathom how people who support Bush can exist.

Looking ahead and imagining if George Bush does win, there will be another four years of stagnation. There will be more suffering. I look forward to ‘Breaking News’ flashing across CNN and BBC again. Humanity will not progress.

I do not wish to criticise George Bush as a human being. I am sure he is a wonderful individual, father, husband. Unfortunately, he is not a good leader. Your country is the greatest superpower in the world and in history. It is without a doubt, a great nation. How can you allow a very simple simpleton to lead your country? I have never encountered a more unintelligent human being. This is a tragic irony. I read his profile and was shocked to see how dismal his life has been. He has had no achievements which one would expect a President to have had. I am horrified and once again, cannot understand how there exists people who believe that George Bush can be their President.

I believe that intelligence is the most basic quality that a leader must possess. George Bush has a dull mind, and this explains his poor eloquence as thought is the substance of speech. If this is so, any Tom, Dick or Harriet can be the President of the United States. Simply surround yourself with exceptionally intelligent and talented aides and script writers. They will do the thinking for you. They will do the job for you.

I was equally stunned when I found out that George Bush in 2000 did not know who General Musharaff was. Intelligence may or may not be built on knowledge, but whichever the case, George Bush is greatly lacking in both.

I also gather that academics from both sides of the Atlantic, in general, - learned, intelligent and thinking individuals - do not support Bush. There have been countless petitions by university professors and distinguished academics that denounce George Bush and in particular, his foreign policy. Unfortunately, this community only make up a small portion of society. What does this suggest about the people who support George Bush?

Open your eyes and escape from the narrow confines of your mind. Get out of that tiny space where your great country resides.

To quote Walpole, ‘The world is a tragedy to those who feel, a comedy to those who think’.
Please find the relevance as you feel/think fit.

Cheers from London

I would like to ask - please - to stop the partisan bickering and let’s concentrate on what’s important. Both parties agree that human life is precious. Let us bow our heads in silence and prayer for the 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq caused by the invasion and war of President Bush and his Administration. Nono of us, in the safety of North America, can comprehend the suffering of the Iraqi people. God help, and forgive, us all.

Specifically, jack, an anecepheltic child (sp?) can have a head cavity completely filled with 2 gallons of fluid (no brain). A c-section would be more harmful to the mother than an induced delivery, however the head off the child is too large to get through the birth canal. In this scenario, the procedure you described would be used.

I believe the rate of this sort of issue is 1 in 80,000 births (in terms of this exact scenario, where the head is so large it represents a health risk to the mother). Anecephaly itself is 7 in 10,000 pregnancies. It is usually diagnosed rather late.
http://www.ascensionhealth.com/ethics/public/issues/anencephaly.asp

Also “partial birth abortion” is not really a medical procedure. D&X is a medical procedure, and sometimes it is performed in the way you described. The prelavancy is unkown.

And Al is right, John Kerry does not support the procedure, but believes there should be an exception made when there is harm to the mother. (As in the above scenario)

Other issues are Potter’s Syndrome (lack of kidneys and sometimes entire urinary tract) (1 in 8000 births). The prevelance of Anecephaly has been reported as 7 in 10,000 pregnancies. It is reported in 3 in 10,000 births.

There are a host of other disabilities that are “incompatable with life”. As far as children who are born and die of “congenital malformations” the rate is 1.38 in 1000. I would guess that an additional 1.4 in 1000 are aborted. So we’re talking around 3 in 1000 pregnancies where individuals are carrying a child whose biology has made them incompatible with life. Sad.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr50/nvsr50_04.pdf
Julia

Julie is right,

Both parties do agree that human life is important, and we can both come together by concentrating on that. Child abuse effects millions of children every year, and case law currently focuses on the rights of the families above the rights of the child. I have a close family friend that changed the law in Mississippi so that a little girl (3 years old) who was repeatedly beaten by her mother’s boyfriend, who suffered a skull fracture and multiple bone fractures, would be permanently removed from that environment. (Mississippi used to focus on re-uniting families as compared to focusing on what’s best for the child). Her story is the tip of the iceberg. This is something we can move forward on, in a united manner, right now.

This is an administrative, nuts and bolts, legal issue, and it takes leadership from our legislators to get it done. If we can focus all of this energy on the problem of abused children, how great could the world be? Policy for abused children should focus on solutions that are best for the child.

Julia

Thanks for the information. The abortion issue troubles me, but I really can’t come down on either side. I think President Clinton said it best, that abortion should be legal, safe and rare. No matter what, it is a gruesome thing and should be discouraged, but I don’t vote based on that single issue and I wish our supreme court was not being held hostage to it.

Kurt,

With the wealth of information available to you on the very Internet you’re reading this post from, your claim that John Kerry’s stated positions are a mystery, is pathetic.

My usual response is to point you to johnkerry.com/issues for such info, and usually there is no response afterward.

You see, the more we offer up such substantive debate articulating why Kerry must be elected, those dismissing it has Bush or Republican-hating tend not to stick around.

Dear Al:

There are only two more days before the election and I have one request to make before you pull that lever, punch that card, push that button or touch that screen. Please, please, please just think it over one last time.

Thought about it. Not changing my mind.

Bert

Bert

I have been to Johnkerry.com. I am just cynical, I guess. For example John Kerry will:

Launch And Lead A New Era Of Alliances
The threat of terrorism demands alliances on a global scale - to utilize every available resource to get the terrorists before they can strike at us. As president, John Kerry will lead a coalition of the able - because no force on earth is more able than the United States and its allies.

Does this mean anything? It would be great, but it is a lot like me saying I plan to pitch for the Boston Red Sox. If I could do it, it would be great. I am reminded of the Spartan answer to Phillip of Macedonia (I can’t help it; I studied classics.) Phillip sent a message to the Spartans. “If you do not submit at once,” “I will invade your country. And if I invade, I will pillage and burn everything you hold dear. If I march into Laconia, I will level your great city to the ground.”

The Spartans answered with one word “IF”

I think we can all answer John Kerry in the same Laconic manner. His record doesn’t let to other conclusions.

Thanks for taking the time out to think jbd.

To All,

It is such a shame that the whole outcome of this election lies soley on the basis of getting Bush out of office, as opposed to picking the best candidate for the position. It is such a shame Bush had to face 9/11; terrorism at such a level that no other President had ever have to deal with. There was nothing Bush could turn to for guidance, and so the decisions he made, yes they may appear misguided, but what else could he do? He needed to show the American population that he was at least doing something to, for lack of a better word, ‘avenge’ those victimes of 9/11. I am firmly against Bush however, I just feel sorry for him. His mistakes over the past four years cannot be overlooked, the main ones (in my opinion) being-

- Cut funding into renewable energy sources by 50%
- Pushed through the tax cut, 43% of which goes to the wealthiest 1% of Americans
- Cut $15.7 million from prgrams dealing with child abuse and neglect.

Actually, there are so many. His main crime since he has been in office has been against the environment, what with drilling for oil in Alaska and shutting down investigationns into renewable energy sources, it is a suprise we are not all currenty wearing Factor 1,0000 sun block.

I am not suggesting that Kerry will be a better President than Bush, I am simply saying that with all the mistakes Bush has made, do we really want to give him the chance to make so many more?

John Kerry has spent 20 years in the US Senate. Can anyone name 4 significant legislative accomplishments during that 20 years. It really should not be that difficult to come up with one every 5 years for such a great and glorious leader.

As for mention of the tax cuts, I would like to know how many on the left who feel that the cuts were a tremendous blunder have continued to pay at the pre-cut rates. I can assure you that the IRS would be happy to accept your continued donations. As for my tax cut you can leave it alone thank you.

The tax cuts are what has the economy headed in the right direction. We are finally starting to recover from the down-turn that started during the later months of the Clinton administration. This down-turn was deepened by the 9-11 attacks. The Bush tax cuts stimulated the economy just as the Reagan tax cuts stimulated the economy in the 80’s.

Does killing 100,000 Iraqis make us safer and promote that “culture of life”?

Al, in response to this statement take a look at this from the US Agency for International Development. I would say that Sadam was much more dangerous to Iraqi citizens than coalition bombings.

http://www.usaid.gov/press/speeches/2004/sp040317.html

As for the Lancet Study where your 100,000 claim comes from I would ask if you have reviewed the study or are simply parroting Democratic Talking Points.

I have reviewed the Lancet Study because so many on the left have been throwing the 100,000 number around. What I found is that these are estemates based on a sampling and interviews with family members. For your information below are numbers taken directly from the Lancet Study.

Population of Iraq (est.)= 23,293,000
Study population = 7,868
Post invasion deaths among study pop. = 142
Accident or Natural Causes = 69
Total Violent Deaths = 73
Under 15 years old = 28
Men 15 - 59 = 38
Women 15 - 59 = 5
Over 60 = 2

I will grant that more than doubling the Accident or Natural Causes death rate total is disturbing. However, when you dig into the Lancet Study further you come accross a definition of Violent Death. “Violent Deaths were defined as thowe brought about by the intentional acts of others.”

So the estimates of 100,000 based on the ratios within this study of less than 0.034% Iraqi population also includes those killed by the Insurgent Bombings. There have been numerous reports of Iraqi civilians killed by these murderous car bombings.

In any war there will be unfortunate civilian casualties. I would just pray that in the future as these estimates are published, the left would talk reality rather than spinning the numbers to denegrate the service of our pilots and leadership.

Did Bush meet your expectations of how a Commander-in-chief should behave on 9/11? Did you just continue what you were doing after finding out about the second plane crashing?

You damn right he did!

President Bush was in a room full of grade school children. Was he supposed to panick these children? He continued his reading for 7 minutes while his aides worked behind the sene to determine what was happening.

Before you start harping on Bush for not responding in the manner of a Commander-in-Chief, you better look at the quote from your guy on the Larry King Show.

KING: Where were you on 9/11?….

KERRY: I was in the Capitol. We’d just had a meeting — we’d just come into a leadership meeting in Tom Daschle’s office, looking out at the Capitol. And as I came in, Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid were standing there, and we watched the second plane come in to the building. And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think, and then boom, right behind us, we saw the cloud of explosion at the Pentagon. And then word came from the White House, they were evacuating, and we were to evacuate, and so we immediately began the evacuation.

The second plane hit the World Trade Center at 9:03 the plane hit the Pentagon at 9:38. So Kerry just sat there for 35 minutes. He did not try to call an emergency meeting of the Foreign Relations or Transportation Committess that he was a member of. He just sat there 35 minutes.

35 minutes of inaction compared to 7 minutes, I guess that makes Bush 5 times the leader Kerry is.

jack,

Your take on the quote from Kerry’s website was very disingenuous and silly, whereas you could’ve responded on how Bush’s ‘go it alone policy’ would be more successful. Besides militarily obliterating the insurgents, you continue to have no idea (or plan) on establishing this democratic utopia in Iraq.

I concede, Kerry’s Senate record is not stellar, yet who would have a better grasp on how to govern? Someone who spent 20 years in the Senate, or barely a two term Governor who ran the Texas Rangers previous to that?

No matter how often we continue to ask you Bush supporters to defend his record, and articulate a second term agenda, it’s back to Kerry-bashing.

In Maureen Dowd’s book Bushworld he is described as an ‘injustice collector’. In practice, that means no second chances for those who challenge or for those who fail to fall in line with the Bush Doctrine. The IAEA, Scott Ridder, Hans Blixs and David Kay all fit into that group, resulting in their warnings and pleas being intentionally ignored.

And, what were the results?

Does killing 100,000 Iraqis make us safer and promote that “culture of life”?

I don’t know, but how about liberating 22 million more?

Is never admitting you are wrong a sign of strength or weakness?

At least we know WHAT he is doing, unlike Kerry. One minute he’s endorsing the war, the next minute he’s condemning it.

Has the President done a good job allocating and directing the resources of the country to meet all of the threats the country faces?

Yes, including threats that you know nothing about, being a civilian.

Can you really consider it a tax cut when your share of the deficit went up by more than twice the average “cut”?

How can you honestly condemn someone for having a deficit during 1) War 2) Several natural disasters 3) West Coast Port workers strikes (which cost 1 BILLION dollars a DAY to our economy) and 4) Bankruptcy of Enron?

Should a President lead us to war when he does not know all the facts? Should he stop trying to learn the facts after he goes into the war? Did Bush know all the facts?

Anyone who asserts that one must know ALL of the facts before taking action is doomed to never take action.

Amen at Kirk for a logical post. Words that come out of John Kerry’s mouth = what the people want to hear. What would it have looked like if Kerry had said, “I’m made of iron, and the death of 3000 innocent civilians didn’t phase me at all! I stood right up and declared war on terrorism!” No, he had to show his compassionate, thoughfull side…by sitting around doing nothing for 35 minutes. Bush read to children… and then he was the catalyst to the US response that dismantled two regimes and overran two countries. Which response was more effective hm?

Kerry’s record less than stellar? Come on! You want five things, here we go:

1) Normalizing relations with Vietnam while resolving the issue of Vietnam MIA’s.
2) Rewriting the National Fisheries act and establishing fishing policies, rewriting ocean polution control measures, and the marine mammal protection act, as well as being involved in the global warming issue and the clean air act. (I think the ocean issue is huge).
3) Persuading Clinton and the White house to fund the 100,000 policemen drive.
4) Wrote flood insurance laws for the country. (I know, boring sounding. But really impressive and important. And well written.)
5) Fighting for the rights and compensation of Vietnam Commandos, and actually succeeding.

That’s just off the top of my head. All you have to do is actually LOOK INTO HIS HISTORY AND SEE WHAT HE’S DONE.

This really bugs me. I can’t decide if it’s a strength or weakness that no one knows how many things Kerry has done. Maybe it will help him get across the partisan divide (since no one really seems to know him).

Whatever.

If you want 10 more, I’ll give you ten more.

Julia

Julia,

1) Would these be the same MIA’s that Kerry was denegrating as war criminals during his Senate testimoy and “The New Soldier”?

2) Can’t really comment on this because I do not know about the legislation. Do you have Senate Bill numbers? What I can say though is that heating the 5 mansions and fueling the Kerry private jet can not be helping the clean air.

3) Unfortunately Clinton and the White House could not fund anything. Congress is the one who holds the purse strings. Besides, if you look at the records there were never 100,000 new police officers. Another slight of hand.

4) Your right boring. I said significant.

5) See number 1

You left one major Kerry sponsored bill off your list. The bill to gut $7 Billion from the Intelligence Budget following the first Trade Center Bombing. Thank God this was even too liberal for Ted Kennedy to support.

You see, the reason I have to ask some one to list his accomplishments is that John Kerry never offers any of his accomplishments for evidence of his leadership abilities. the only thing he has to offer is his 4 months in Viet Nam period end of story.

My stepfather spent 3 tours of duty in Viet Nam not just 4 months. So, if that is John Kerry’s major evidence of leadership my dad should already be president.

I think the reason he doesn’t offer up anything from his past is he does not want anyone to “LOOK INTO HIS HISTORY AND SEE WHAT HE’S DONE.”

John Kerry never gets on the stump and says I did this or I did that so you should vote for me. Instead he just attacks our current president. He ducks and dodges past quotes and tries to justify the position du-jur.

I do not agree with everything Bush has done but, I am sorry, I can not vote for someone just because he says I can do better. If he has nothing else to stand on then he will remain in the Senate as far as I am concerned.

So the estimates of 100,000 based on the ratios within this study of less than 0.034% Iraqi population also includes those killed by the Insurgent Bombings. There have been numerous reports of Iraqi civilians killed by these murderous car bombings.

I just needed to correct a math error from my statement above. The actual percentage is 0.0034%. Which makes the 100,000 number even more suspect.

So Kirk:

The second plane hit the World Trade Center at 9:03 the plane hit the Pentagon at 9:38. So Kerry just sat there for 35 minutes. He did not try to call an emergency meeting of the Foreign Relations or Transportation Committess that he was a member of. He just sat there 35 minutes.

35 minutes of inaction compared to 7 minutes, I guess that makes Bush 5 times the leader Kerry is.

I see you find it valid to compare the action of someone who is commander-in-chief. Someone who is at the top of the command chain, to someone who is not in the command chain. In this situation, Kerry did everything he was supposed to do, exactly on time. This was: don’t panic, do nothing, and then evacuate calmly.

And if you don’t Bush’s lack of response should be surprising to us, you can see that it was surprising to Osama:

“We had agreed with the general emir, Mohamed Atta, that he would carry out all the attacks within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration would be able to react,” said bin Laden, referring to the hijackers’ leader. “It never occurred to us that the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would leave 50,000 of his citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone.”

He continued, “It appeared to him [Bush] that a little girl talking about her goat and its butting was more important than the airplanes and their butting of the skyscrapers. That gave us three times the required period to carry out the operations, thank God.”

Never admitting weakness is a fundamental part of a good leader.

Kurt, you mention Sun Tzu, so you should know that statement goes against his teachings: “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

Bush has refused to admit, analyze, and correct his mistakes: he doesn’t know himself. Bush has consistently misrepresented the goals of the enemy (“They hate us for our freedoms”): he doesn’t know the enemy.

Bush is making one of the classic military blunders. There are a couple apt words to descrie Bush’s refusal to acknowledge failures and facts: hubris and vanity.

President Bush is resolute in his decisions good or bad. Think about this, you are a soldier being led into battle and after the battle where you have lost thousands of men, your leader says, “Men, I’d like to apologize for sending you into battle…I was wrong.”

Eisenhower wrote an apology letter on the eve of D-Day, in case he was wrong and the invasion failed. That earned him a lot of respect.

To make a mistake and not admit it is moral cowardice.

Partial birth abortion is NEVER done for the welfare of the mother. Think about it, you have a baby who is viable (meaning if it’s born right now it will most likely live) and you vaginally delivery only the head and then cut the base of the skull and pull out the brain and then deliver the rest of the body. Hmmmm…how is that protecting the welfare of the mother? If she’s well enought to push out the baby, why can’t the baby be put up for adoption? Partial birth abortion is murder no matter what excuse you use for it!

Al,

Wow, are you adding Osama to the list of Democratic mouth pieces? And I thought using Michael Moore’s verbal diareah was a reach.

Bert

We have a two man race. That is why I mention John Kerry’s lack of policy.

I think Bush has done a good job, in the war on terror, Afghanistan, Iraq, the economy. I don’t like particular aspects of each, but overall I think it is a good record. Like it or not, it is a record we all can judge. We will never agree. I see Iraq as a qualified success that will improve next year. I expect you disagree.

John Kerry has a long record in the Senate and before too. If you look at it, he is anti-defense, vacillating and liberal. That is what I see, at least. I want to judge both men, as much as possible, on what they have done, not what they say they will do. On that basis, I choose Bush.

If Kerry articulated a great vision, I might consider that, but he doesn’t. On his webpage and in his statements, Kerry essentially says that he will just be better than Bush. His record and personality does not make me confident that he could.

There are two “direction” differences I detect. In social security Kerry wants to keep the current system. Bush wants to allow private investment. In economics, Kerry favors an income society and Bush favors an ownership society. I can well understand that both sides appeal, but I am with Bush.

Michele, “partial birth abortion” is often done when the baby is already dead. If it is “Never” done to protect the health of the mother then it shouldn’t have been any problem to put the qualifier in the bill to allow in only in the case when the life of the mother is at risk. Since it “Never” occurs, this would have eliminated the procedure and passed the constitutional test. Since the Republicans blocked this amendemnt, we can only assume they wanted the bill thrown out by the court in order to keep “partial birth abortion” alive as a wedge issue.

If you look at it, he is anti-defense, vacillating and liberal. That is what I see, at least.

If you’re not one of the 45 million Americans who don’t have a healthcare program, you may want to check out the vision coverage, Jack.

Kerry has been pretty centrist in his voting record since the early 90s, and he’s consistently voted for bigger defense and intelligence budgets.

There are also far more than two “direction” differences. Kerry’s energy plan focuses more on alternative energy His environmental policy… well, let’s just say, Kerry has one and Bush doesn’t. Kerry’s economic policy is based on actual actionable items, rather than Bush’s faith-based policy of just hoping the economy improves. Kerry’s foreign policy is multilateral, rather than unilateral. Dang, I could go on and on, but you can read about it for yourself.

Al Maline,
How can you abort a baby that is already dead??? It’s not abortion. The Liberal’s meaning of “well-being of the mother” doesn’t mean her life is in danger. They mean she says if I have to give birth to a baby I will be depressed and my social life will be over…yadda yadda
Why can’t these women have an abortion in the first trimester? Why wait until the baby is viable??? I don’t agree with abortion unless the woman was raped or her life is in jeopardy, but I NEVER will believe in partial-birth abortion.

Kirk,

Kerry was also one of the key architects of anti-money-laundering provisions in the Patriot Act designed to deny financing for terrorist. He was good at it because he already had extensive experience hunting down criminal financing operations before, and so he knew what kind of legislation needed to pass so we could be effective on that. Arguably, the freezing of terrorists funds has done more to make us safer than any other action in the last 3 years.

1) I think it proves where Kerry’s heart is that he succeeded on this issue, and it doesn’t serve your argument to say it’s worthless b/c he was also an anti-war protester. What kind of point is that? Kerry continually, throughout his Senate career, stood up for vets and tried to fix the Vietnam issue, and he suceeded on both counts. He’s done a lot more for vets than the majority of legislators. You asked for his history as a senator, and ‘m giving it to you. Kerry didn’t CREATE the anti-war movement. He didn’t CREATE the anti-soldier wave of feeling. He came home after the war and it was already there. He got off the plane, and no one was happy to see him. Then he stood up and he said that the politicians had let him down. That the policies they pursued in Vietnam that continued to harm the civilian population, was letting the soldiers down, and turning public opinion against them. And it was. There are plenty of generals that agree with Kerry’s assesment today. McNamara, the architect of the war, agrees with Kerry’s assesment. The end of Kerry’s speech was that he hoped this would be a turning point, a point where soldiers could stand up and be proud of their service, because politicians were pursuing honorable policies.

Anyway, if you want to see more about Kerry’s Senate career, just look here:

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/senate.html

Julia

Al:

In regards to partial birth abortion and the “health of the mother” clause, I believe there are those who want that clause very broadly stated. If broadly stated enough, a physician (who favors choice) could simply state that an abortion is necessary for the health of the mother. That health issue could be her blood pressure rising insignificantly, could be her mental state, could be almost anything.

I have no problem with abortion when the mother’s life is at stake. I dont have a problem when the mother’s health is in serious danger. But the “health issue” is being used as a pawn. The anti abortion people want it so precise as to not allow late term abortions, while the pro choice people want it so loose as to allow an abortion for nearly any physical ailment. Neither side is correct if they try to use the issue as an agenda.

As far as Kerry is concerned, its evident to me that based on his record, he prefers to stick close to the middle ground. Some would call this sitting on the fence. Given the choice between a man of action, and a man of inaction, I choose the man of action.

Al, I appreciate your post urging people to think before they vote. Hopefully, they have done so before your last minute urging. If they havent, then its possibly too late to really understand either man. I for one have stopped listening to the campaigns and the media, since at this point, its all last moment blather. I’ve done my homework, identified the issues important to me, and reached my conclusions.

Oh great idea Julia, go to his website. How about you pull in some independent information not tied to the horse’s mouth eh? For example, NRA’s fact sheet on Kerry’s personal war agains responsible citizen’s ownership of firearms.

http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=162

Here is a more comprehensive list that is not endorsed by John Kerry. Why anyone would cite a website controlled by the very candidate they are citing factual information for astounds me. Bias anyone?

http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/cgi-bin/membervotes.cgi?&lang=&member=MAJR&site=congressmerge&address=&city=&state=&zipcode=&plusfour=&fullvotes=1

Semper,

If you can find an unbiased website that isn’t so complex and boring as to be unreadable, that gives an overview of Senator Kerry’s career, then I’d be glad to point people to that website. Biased, hah. Please point me to a non-boring unbiased site that talks about what George Bush accomplished in Texas as governor. The ones that are comprehensive are biased for George Bush. It’s just the way the world works. Apparently, reporters are no longer intrested in compiling this information, so we’re all left to do the best we can.

John Kerry was a co-founder of the Vietnam Veterans of America and is a lifetime member, through this organization he has continued to further the interests of all veterans. Incidentally, this was the original Vietnam organization that John Kerry was involved with, an organization that got absolutely nowhere with the press b/c it wasn’t “spectacular” enough. Apparently health services for vets isn’t “cool” enough for our press. Don’t blame Kerry for the shallow nature of the American press and the public:

http://www.vva.org/

If you’re going to bring up the NRA, then I’ll bring up the AARP:

http://www.aarp.org/legislative/elections/presidential/Articles/a2004-10-04-presidentialresponses.html#social

Notice that Bush refused to answer the majority of questions that AARP posed. Looks like if you think AARP is an organization that does good research, you’d vote for Kerry.

Also, look at any environmental site. They’re all for Kerry.

Julia

The Democrats have a stronger agenda that is more inclusive and would even benefit republicans. The platform that Senator Kerry present is a more thorough approach to winning the war on terror and keeping us safe here in the US. If you check his record over the last few decades, he has remained a man of dignity and resolve. His records is not soiled with corruption, side business deals and unethical affilations as is President George W. Bush. In all due respect, the President do have some qualities that will benefit us, but in the long run, we will be spending 15-30 years cleaning the mess he would have made in 8 years, if he was re-elected. We must be proactive this time around and trust that the team Senator Kerry put together will work to ensure we move forward in this country and return to the “leaders” we once were internationally.

Kirk, you imply that the Hopkins research as reported on The Lancet is not sound due to an inadequate sample size. I refer you to an article on Alternet by John Tirman:

“But the estimate by the Hopkins team is sound in terms of how the data has been gathered and what it says about the casualty rate. A sample of 988 households with more than 7,800 people, in a country of 25 million, is a sizable sample. By comparison, pollsters in this country, using similar techniques of sampling (so the people interviewed in aggregate represent the demographics of the country as a whole), consider a sample of 1,500 people in a country of 280 million to be adequate for extrapolation and reliable results. Wherever possible, too, the researchers verified claims of fatalities with documents. A larger sample would be worthwhile, and as in any important empirical research, it would be useful to repeat the data collection to compare results. But the method is sound.”

You may not like the news that 100,000 people have died because of a senseless war. At least I would hope that it would tweak something in your conscience. Perhaps something about the true nature of evil and who/what evil is. But please play fair with your statistical analysis.

Leader of the Free World? - Hey, Where’s Our Vote

Recently polls were conducted in numerous countries around the world asking a representative sampling of people if they would vote for Bush or Kerry. The overwhelming vote outside of the US would go to Kerry. Over 70% would not vote for Bush.

Of course people like me in Canada can’t vote for the US president and, well, that’s unfair. We hear constant reference to the President of the USA as the “Leader of the Free World” and that the country’s mission is to spread freedom and democracy. But that rings very hollow to those of us in Canada, Europe, Australia, much of South America and Asia and parts of Africa, who make up the majority of the “Free World”. Simply put, it is very undemocratic to claim to be the leader of people who have not elected you! By claiming to represent us we feel like George Washington and the US founding fathers must have felt towards England regarding taxation without representation. And yes US decisions are affecting our lives, taxes, government polcies etc.

Outside of the US we don’t feel the war in Iraq has made the world a safer place. The majority of us feel the unprovoked attack on Iraq gave extremist Islamic organizers an organizing tool for recruiting more people into violence. It has been an alienating war for people all over the Islamic world. Attacking Iraq under the banner of spreading freedom and democracy has associated all the rest of us in the “free world” with attacks on Islamic citizens. As a result we have all become potential targets of the rage that war has produced. How have our desires for safety been represented when a US war in our name puts us in greater danger?

We were appalled by the death of the 3000 people in terrorist attacks in the US. We also mourn the civilians who died in decades of terrorist attacks in Ireland, Nicaragua, and Congo etc. In other words, it looks to the rest of us like your country is over-reacting. Thank goodness England didn’t deal with the IRA by bombing all of Ireland and then, while the guns were out, bombing France, their traditional enemy.

US citizens need to look outside of their own frightening experience to understand why so much of the rest of the world finds the Bush administration to be unelectable on the world stage. They isolated themselves from the majority in the free world by telling us “you’re either with us or against us”, in a war against a country that had not attacked any of us or you. It was a diplomatic tragedy for Bush to label his allies as enemies, and we hope we aren’t being considered “against you” badly enough to warrant an invasion! You see, your president makes us nervous.

So, as a friend, not a foe, from the “free world”, who would love the world to be a safer, more democratic, economically stable place, I have a request: Vote as if the majority in the free world needs representation in this election. Don’t vote Bush back in.

Valerie
Your neighbour (where we spell differently and pronounce the last letter of the alphabet “zed” - but don’t shoot us for it!)

Hey, semper. I think FactCheck.org just debunked those NRA claims.

BTW, if Kerry was against the 2nd amendment (he’s not), how is that worse than Bush’s war on the 4th and 5th amendments?

Julia,

Kerry didn’t CREATE the anti-war movement. He didn’t CREATE the anti-soldier wave of feeling. He came home after the war and it was already there.

No John Kerry did not come home after the war. John Kerry came home during the war after 4 months in Viet Nam. He used an obscure Navy regulation that allowed someone with 4 Purple Hearts to request a transfer to a non-combat duty station.

John Kerry missed less than 2 days of duty with those 3 Purple Hearts. So, he was obviously very seriously injured. Once back from Viet Nam, John Kerry was assigned as an Aide to an Admiral in the US. He then put in for an early release from his active duty obligation.

When John Kerry testified before the Senate he said

they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam, in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Under the Uniform Military Code of Justice as an officer in the US Navy John Kerry was duty bound to identify any military personnel committing such war crimes and to see that Court Martial Charges were filed. Since John Kerry did not do this he broke the law not to mention his moral obligation to see the perpetrators of such deeds punished.

Steven J. Pitkin a Special Forces Viet Nam veteran was at the “winter Soldier Investigation and denies that he was witness to these war crimes even though he was pressured by Kerry to testify that he had.

In a sworn affidavit filed last Tuesday, Pitkin said.

“During the Winter Soldier Investigation, John Kerry and other leaders of that event pressured me to testify about American war crimes, despite my repeated statements that I could not honestly do so. … Kerry and other leaders of the event instructed me to publicly state that I had witnessed incidents of rape, brutality, atrocities and racism, knowing that such statements would necessarily be untrue.”

John Kerry was also present at a meeting of “Viet Nam Veterans Against War” the militant anti-war group he helped found where discussion of assassination of setting Senators was discussed.

Kerry at first denied attending the November 1971 meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) in Kansas City, Mo. But according to FBI files obtained by CNSNews.com, Kerry was in attendance at the 1971 meeting that included talk of possibly assassinating U.S. senators. VVAW members discussed targeting then-Senators Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, John Tower of Texas and John Stennis of Mississippi because of their continuing support for the Vietnam war.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200403%5CNAT20040324a.html

Again if Kerry was present as the FBI says he was and his spokes person later admitted, then he was again legally and moral obligated to report such discussions to law enforcement. Once again John Kerry turned his back on his responsibility.

How could we ever expect anyone in the military to serve under a Commander-in-Chief who blatantly disregards the Military Code of Justice, coerces false testimony and disregards civil / criminal law?

My dad spent 3 tours in Viet Nam fighting for the right of John Kerry to call him a war criminal? John Kerry is not worthy of the office of Commander-in-Chief.

Maybe you can explain why John Kerry has never signed Form 180, allowing the defense department to open all his military files? George Bush has.

Julie,

The data on cause of death was based on subjective data not imperical data.

Within clusters, an attempt was made to confirm at least two reported non-infant deaths by asking to see the death certificate. Interviewers were initially reluctant to ask to see death certificates because this might have implied they did not believe the respondents, perhaps triggering violence. Thus, a compromise was reached for which interviewers would attempt to confirm at least two deaths per cluster.

A Cluster by the way is a grouping of 30 Households with an assumed 7 people per household.

So, the “interviewers” not researchers took peoples word for the reported deaths. They did ask to see two death certificates but did not insist on seeing proof of the cause of death.

Buried deep within the report is the following statement.

Many of the Iraqis reportedly killed by US forces could have been combatants. 28 of 61 killings (46%) attributed to US forces involved men age 15-60 years. It is not clear if the greater number of male deaths was attributable to legitimate targeting of combatants..

Based on the text of the report there is the possibility of serious flaws in the data leading to grossly overstated causualty count. For the same period covered by the report www.iraqbodycount.net listed a number between 13,000 and 15,000.

Again, I say look at the US Agency for International Development site.

http://www.usaid.gov/press/speeches/2004/sp040317.html

And you will see that even at the outside chance that there were 100,000 deaths, it is a much smaller death rate than caused by Sadam himself.

Finally using a sample of 1,500 people in the US to estimate the possible percentages in an election is exponentialy different than using such a small subjective sampling to make the unprovable claim that we have killed 100,000 civilians.

Bert,
You really couldn’t have proven my point any better. I remember emphasizing the point that Kerry will not SAY what his plans are. I have been to the website and read the well thought out rhetoric his staff has assembled into the website. Kerry also points people to his website which I find terribly humorous. Im sure if he tried articulating any of his plans for a plan to have a plan he would just end up arguing against himself. Still no answer to my other claims though..Huh?

American Pundit,
You really took that part literally if you are trying to apply Sun-tzu teachings to G.W. the person. Keep in mind the operation in Iraq is not over. Your people act as if we have lost a war. I don’t believe I have heard any apologies from Kerry for his blunders thus far either. If I get Bush to apologize for something will you and your liberal friends vote for him or respect him more. No and no. You like to hate him just the way he is. Does anyone really know the enemy? We know everything but what they look like I would say and that is the trouble. Great line out of Sun-tzu though. You answered my argument with a new one though.

In a recent press conference, George Bush was asked if he had made any mistakes during his presidency. He couldn’t come up with any off the top of his head. So I compiled a little video to refresh his memory.

Before you vote Republican, check out GEORGE BUSH: MISTAKEN at www.hategun.com

If I get Bush to apologize for something will you and your liberal friends vote for him or respect him more. No and no.

Of course we won’t vote for him. He’s a failure. I expect an apology for making us less safe, and then his resignation.

I would respect him for it, though. Like I said, not admitting mistakes is moral cowardice. that’s something most people learn at a very early age.

As a “war president”, Bush is a failure by any measure.

I would like to express a few thoughts about the political process as I see it. I am not affiliated to any party and would never accept to be a part of this “fun”.

First of all, it is sad that so many people consider a vote for Kerry more as a vote against Bush as a vote for anything. In France, there was a real protest vote against the right (equivalent to the republicans) and the left (the democrat’s part of the spectrum) when they almost chose as president a far-right candidate as president. Is there much of a difference between Bush and Kerry? They are both supported by big business to do their will. If only Kerry would move a little more left than holding hands with Bush (barely left of Bush), Mr Nader would never get any votes at all. It’s because most people have never heard of the Green Party, and that Ralph Nader is painted as a bad influence, capable of working against the interests of Kerry that Kerry is so popular and Bush (although I see no reason for that) are so popular. Weren’t given the choice to choose anyone else.

Now, if I could give John Kerry (a little late, I admit) a suggestion, he should have responded to the “liberal” criticism in this way … “If you call me liberal as an insult, you don’t know what you are talking about. Liberal comes from the same origin as Liberty. Calling me a liberal as an insult is also an insult against the liberty of people to be free and in a democracy. Besides, the monument in New York harbor isn’t the ‘Statue of Conservative’ or Statue of Republican’, but rather Statue of Liberty. We’ve seen with the Patriotic Act how liberties and freedoms given to us by the founding fathers are things that are foreign to you. Not only that, but anything foreign to the United States is foreign to you. I’ve gotta tell you, Georges, that while the USA is the best place on the planet to live, it isn’t all there is.”

If he did that, I’d vote for him. As it is, I think I’d rather vote either for the Green Party or for Ralph Nader !!

American Pundit,

Of course we won’t vote for him. He’s a failure. I expect an apology for making us less safe, and then his resignation.

What kind of Michael Moore kool-aid have you been drinking? I seem to remember several attacks occuring during the Clinton years. With presidend Bush finally striking back at these murderous thugs has resulted in no attacks since 9-11.

How does that make us less safe?

If Osama can’t stick his head out of his hole for fear of having it blown off, he can’t attack us now can he? If you look at a transcript of the recent Osama tape you will se that he says if you respect our freedom and do not attack us we will not attack you. I think this is an attempt by Osama to get our troops off his tail so he can come up for air.

If Osama can’t stick his head out of his hole for fear of having it blown off, he can’t attack us now can he?

There have been plenty al Qaeda attacks around the world since we invaded Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has grown, become more effective, and operates freely in Afghanistan and Pakistan. There are reports of al Qaeda operatives slipping across the Mexican border. And the alert system is still at orange for DC and NY.

The CIA and State Dept. have acknowledged that we are less safe. You should, too.

…he says if you respect our freedom and do not attack us we will not attack you. I think this is an attempt by Osama to get our troops off his tail so he can come up for air.

Except that our troops aren’t on his tail. He’s operating freely in Afghanistan and Pakistan. What he said is just part of bin Laden’s image as a pious and humble defender of Islam. It’s the same message he’s always had, that he is waging a ‘defensive’ jihad. He doesn’t want to hurt us - we’re making him.

Kirk, you’re a really good example of why it’s important that President Bush makes sure Americans are informed about the nature of the threat we face. If we don’t know who the enemy is and what his goals are, it’s hard to make informed decisions and participate intelligently in our democratic process.

Great post Al! I especially liked these points:

“Does killing 100,000 Iraqis make us safer and promote that “culture of life”? Perhaps having more and more Americans lose their health insurance and slip into poverty might actually cause more abortions.” *** I wonder if the so-called “pro-lifers” are as much so as they think?

“Is never admitting you are wrong a sign of strength or weakness?” ***As you know, Bush has changed positions many times. He just won’t admit it.

“Do you feel that the environment should be sacrificed for short-term corporate profits?”
*** When Justice Rehnquist’s medical problem was announced, it sent a chill down my spine. If Bush is re-elected, he will probably appoint three new Supremes who will be completely anti-environmental…that’s scarier than any Halloween monster!

American Pundit,

Can yo please explain how we “made” Osama attack us? Was it by supporting them in their war against the Soviet Union or was it by defending Muslims in Bosnia / Kosovo? Or maybe it was by President Bush coming out as the only President to publicly support a Palestinian state?

The Spanish caved and elected their version of John Kerry when they were attacked. I would venture to say that the Spanish are now less safe than before. They have mistakenly followed the Bush 41 and Clinton model of meek response in the face of brutal murderous terrorists. Unfortunately they will likely suffer the same increasing frequency and ferocity of attacks, until they get a backbone and like George Bush stand up to these Bullies.

Can you cite back-up for your statements that the CIA and State Dept. have said we are less safe?

How about support for the “operating freely in Afghanistan and Pakistan”? If he was operating freely why has no one laid eyes on this guy for over a year?

As for your claim that Osama is a..

pious and humble defender of Islam. It’s the same message he’s always had, that he is waging a ‘defensive’ jihad. He doesn’t want to hurt us - we’re making him.

You are the exact kind of Neville Chamberlain voter Osama is praying for. If you have ever studied the radical wing of Muslim religion (and from your statement I can’t believe you have) you will know that their goal is a Muslim world devoid of Christianity. You are correct though, he does not want to hurt us. He wants to KILL us.

The English during the late 1930’s and early 1940’s bore a striking resemblence to the left in the US today. If we just play nice then maybe the bad man will leave us alone. Neville Chamberlain was wrong, and the English populace was wrong. It took a leader like Winston Churchill who did what was not popular and faced down the threat.

Thank God, George Bush is much more a Churchill and not a Chamberlain.

I wonder how many people called for us to battle only Japan after Pearl Harbor. After all Germany did not attack us Japan did so why should we go after Germany? Germany was tied to Japan just as Iraq was tied to Terror.

I shudder at the thought of a Kerry presidency. If this is the Wrong War at the Wrong Place and the Wrong Time, why do surveys show the military overwhellmingly supporting Bush over Kerry? The link to the USA Today article below shows the military support at 4-1 for President Bush.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-bush-troops_x.htm

These are the troops being shot at, if for no other reason youon the left should be deferring to their wishes to have George Bush as a Commander-in-Chief.

Not only are they supporting Bush with their vote, they are doing it with their enlistment. The link below is to an article discussing enlistment / re-enlistment rates.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_numbers_041404,00.html?ESRC=airforce-a.nl

Swallow your anti-Bush bias and support your Patriotic men / women in uniform by giving them their choice of a true Commander-in-Chief.

Kirk is right about the military. My husband is in the Air Force and most of our family members are all retired military and we all vote for Bush. I’m sickened that anyone in the military would vote for Kerry.

Kirk,

Thanks for the research, but I think you failed to see the larger point I was trying to make. The deaths may be overstated - or they may be understated as well, since Falluja was excluded from the sample - we have no way of knowing. My point though is, whether it’s 100,000 or is found later to be merely 60,000. These are people, not numbers. I was simply trying to awaken some sense of moral shame or moral outrage at this needless loss of life.

Whether you feel safer or not is besides the point. Of course you are not safer - did you check out the points made by the Chinese today? - America is far less safe. The point is your country waged a pre-emptive (not even a preventive) war that caused thousands of people to lose their lives. It then turned out the war wasn’t even pre-emptive, there was no justifiable reason for it at all. It was a trumped-up march to war from the time Bush took office. Bush and his cabal are war criminals and they should hang his head in shame.

“Bush and his cabal are war criminals and they should hang his head in shame.”

Reading this over, I see it didn’t come out right. Sorry, I didn’t mean to advocate violence…

Julie,

Just want to clear up one point you made. Yes Falluja was included in the estimation of the 100,000. In fact if you read the entire report you will see that on page 6 the report states

…a neighborhood that was so severely affected by the war that it represents virtually none of the population and thus has skewed the mortality estimate too high. The results from Falluja merit extra consideration in this regard.

Once again I will state that according to the US Agency for International Development, the Iraqi’s are better off with us there than having Sadam in power. This holds true even if the numbers in the Lancet report are understated by 100%.

As for the War Criminal charge, please read my post above in response to Julia. John Kerry is the one who admitted to being a War Criminal in Senate testimony. Not to mention being present at a meeting where the assasination of three setting US Senators was discussed. John Kerry did not report these discussions to law enforcement which is both illegal and immoral.

To Everyone Here,

Thanks for the past few days. This has been a very stimulating and thought provoking exercise. Just wish I had found this blog sooner.

While I seriously doubt that many minds were changed, I do hope that at least it made each of us look deeper into our own reasoning for how we intend to vote.

The mostly civil discourse is good for the process. I did learn that there are kool-aid drinkers on both sides of the debate. We need to continue to work to try and educate these people before we find our next Ted Kazinski.

However, all in all this has been a good experience. I say let the best man win and then let us all fall in to support him as a unified nation for four more years. Sorry, I couldn’t resist.