July 29, 2004
Dividing America: Day 3
“This [convention] is a very, very important infomercial that every American should watch.” -Al Franken
I have to give the Democrats credit for controlling themselves so well these three days. The partisan rhetoric has been toned down. Hidden. Forced way down into that deep dark place within their hearts where no one is supposed to know it’s there. Sure, you and I glimpse the face behind the mask in every speech, but can you imagine what they might have said without any restraint?
Hope is on the way... there are two more conventions coming up in New York after this one. One in Madison Square Garden and one outside of it. One is the real hope and the one outside of it is the real face of liberalism, not the mask of psuedo-centrism this democratic convention seeks to put forth.
To be sure the tightly scripted convention has all but eviscerated the substance of what the Democratic Party stands for. We have to strain to hear any concrete promises. The generic, "We will do it better," and, "they [Republicans] are hateful and negative," is fine for some. But I'd like details. Like how much higher my taxes are going to be when they give me the peace of mind of knowing, like John Kerry, that I won't have to worry about money anymore.
Or that I can finally rest easy knowing that my freedom and security are no longer at risk because John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, is at the helm of State.
Tonight, we stand with those freedoms at risk and our security as citizens in question.I have come here tonight to say, that the only choice we have to preserve our freedoms at this point in history is to elect John Kerry the president of the United States. Al Sharpton
I am still waiting to learn who John Kerry is and what he plans to do if he were elected. Democrats are making sure that nothing of substance is said at their convention except that Republicans are dividing America.
EDWARDS: But what have we seen? Relentless negative attacks against John. So in the weeks ahead, we know what's coming, don't we?AUDIENCE: Yes.
EDWARDS: ... more negative attacks -- aren't you sick of it?
AUDIENCE: Yes.
EDWARDS: They are doing all they can to take the campaign for the highest office in the land down the lowest possible road.
But this is where you come in: Between now and November, you, the American people, you can reject the tired, old, hateful, negative politics of the past. And instead you can embrace the politics of hope, the politics of what's possible because this is America, where everything is possible.
Which brings me to an observation: What does, "Uniting America," look like? It looks a lot like the New Deal to me.
One thing I do know is that there is no free lunch. Someone has to pay. John and John keep saying that it will just be the rich who pay for all of this new spending, but you and I know that the more they take the more they will spend. Everything is possible only when you are spending someone else's money.
By pretending to be going positive they are throwing away the only tool in their toolbox. How long can they promise in generic platitudes without being asked exactly how they will pay for their 'Uniting of America'?
...We have a plan that will offer all Americans the same health care that your senator has......We can give our schools the resources that they need...
...John Kerry and I believe that we shouldn't have two different economies in America: one for people who are set for life...
...And we will invest in the jobs of the future and in the technologies and innovation to ensure that America stays ahead of the competition...
...First, we're going to help you pay for your health care...
...We're going to help you cover the rising costs of child care...
...If your child -- if your child wants to be the first in your family to go to college, we're going to give you...
...We can also do something about 35 million Americans who live in poverty every day...
...we have children going to bed hungry? We have children who don't have the clothes to keep them warm? John Edwards
$$$
Posted by Eric Simonson at July 29, 2004 03:32 AMYou didnt listen to the whole speach? Or did you just choose to ignore the part where John Edwards said that the tax cut for the wealthiest 2% of America would be repealed to pay for our military, our schools, and our healthcare. In Western Europe they pay high taxes and they are happy, well educated, and healthy. Its unheard of in this day and age for a teenager to be the first person in his family to be going to college. And I know what you are going to say… If Europe is so good why dont I move there. Well Im an American just like you are, so if you dont like living in a country were everyone is given the same oppurtinity to make a life for themselves, and people who have fallen through can pick themselves up again, well then move to a 3rd world country where you will never have to pay a cent of taxes for as long as you live.
Frankly speaking, during a war a decorated war veteran would certainly make a better leader than someone who cant even provide proof that he showed up for his excuse for not going to the war.
Posted by: Dem at July 29, 2004 03:51 AMEdwards has this short statement on the subject of paying for it all.
we’ll roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, close corporate loopholes, and cut government contractors and wasteful spending.
He does list more proposed spending than revenue/savings but this is just the convention so there aren’t going to be many specifics.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at July 29, 2004 07:38 AMMaybe the should emulate Bush and come up with a fictitious account of how they are going to come up with the money, then just run up a big deficit.
Posted by: Woody Mena at July 29, 2004 07:45 AMDem:
First, Bush has provided enough information to show he served. You take the absence of information as proof that he did not, though of course its only proof that some information is absent. Have you taken the same logic path for Sandy Berger and concluded him guilty of stealing documents and hiding evidence, since the documents in question are missing?
Secondly, I have little issue with Kerry having served in Viet Nam for those 4+ months. But I dont think that 4+ months of service as a junior lieutenant over 30 years ago qualifies him for President, any more than my 2 years as a pizza delivery boy qualifies me for being CEO of Pizza Hut.
I’m not denigrating Kerry’s service—-it was honorable and valorous. But I am more concerned with the 30+ years SINCE he was in Viet Nam than I am with his 4 months there. His voting record and his actions in those 30 years are what qualify him to run for President, and are what should be evaluated.
God forbid that I be disqualified for some future management position simply because on July 18, 1979, I delivered a pizza that was not quite hot enough.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 29, 2004 07:59 AMWell Im an American just like you are, so if you dont like living in a country were everyone is given the same oppurtinity to make a life for themselves, and people who have fallen through can pick themselves up again
I believe the Declaration of Independence claims that the three unalienable rights are 1)life, 2)liberty, and 3)the pursuit of happiness. In fact, I’m sure of it. I’m not so arrogant as to think that little Johnny down the street can’t do anything with his life without my help. Do you know why I know this? Because I have done it without anyone else’s help, as has John Edwards. With the exception of one payment (one fourth of a semester, thanks Mom!), I worked my way through college and paid for it on my own. John Edwards did the same thing. The more money the government takes away from it’s citizens, the less common it will become to hear someone talk of working their way through college on their own. But I guess that’s the whole point, isn’t it?
Frankly speaking, during a war a decorated war veteran would certainly make a better leader than someone who cant even provide proof that he showed up for his excuse for not going to the war.
Why don’t any of you on the left come up with some proof that he wasn’t where he was supposed to be? This is America, where people are innocent until proven guilty. Or is it just Liberal America where that rule of law applies?
Posted by: Dale Thompson at July 29, 2004 08:31 AMWell Im an American just like you are, so if you dont like living in a country were everyone is given the same opportunity to make a life for themselves, and people who have fallen through can pick themselves up againI believe the Declaration of Independence claims that the three unalienable rights are 1)life, 2)liberty, and 3)the pursuit of happiness. In fact, I’m sure of it. I’m not so arrogant as to think that little Johnny down the street can’t do anything with his life without my help. Do you know why I know this? Because I have done it without anyone else’s help, as has John Edwards. With the exception of one payment (one fourth of a semester, thanks Mom!), I worked my way through college and paid for it on my own. John Edwards did the same thing. The more money the government takes away from it’s citizens, the less common it will become to hear someone talk of working their way through college on their own. But I guess that’s the whole point, isn’t it?
You know, the Constitution says something to the effect that we should establish domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare. So maybe in defining how our government should establish and promote the rights of the citizenry to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the Constitution complements the Declaration of Independence by listing more specifics.
In any population, there will never be 100% of anything. You can’t expect some platitude to solve everyone’s problems. In plans as convoluted as needed to manage one’s life, there is never 100% perfect execution. No matter what we do or don’t do in federal policy, there will still be a percentage of the population that will require assistance despite their individual efforts.
In providing for the general welfare, the government is the perfect agent in assisting those who suffer from the impartial and unexpected machinations of capitalism in the hopes of increasing the percentage of the population who will lift themselves out of economic hardship and continue to build the wealth of the nation. This doesn’t take away from anyone’s individual effort, which is still the most essential component to any success.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at July 29, 2004 09:11 AMWe can never really know what challenges the next President will face or how Kerry will perform. But we do know that Bush is responsible for the longest string of Presidential error in the history of this country. Terrorism is up worldwide, our economy is in the tank because of deregulation, outsourcing and corruption in Wall Street and the tax system. The situation in the middle East is worse than ever, with Sharon killing as fast as he can. Worst of all Bush’s chronies have profited from war, while our soldiers and innocent Iraqi’s has paid with their limbs and lives. These idiots/profiteers will spend as much as WWII while increasing hatred worldwide. Terrorism is no excuse for war crimes, from the initial invasion of Iraq to the debasing of innocent prisoners. Send the chickenhawks, Bush & Cheney to Iraq and let this country grow again.
Posted by: bayviking at July 29, 2004 09:50 AMBayviking-
You obviously didn’t get the memo. You are to be positive and optimistic this week. Upon acceptance of the nomination by Mr. JFK, you may return to being yourself!
Posted by: George at July 29, 2004 10:33 AMEric, why don’t you come right on out and show the real face of conservatism- Oh, you already have? How do regard our talk of unity, of patriotism, of our dedication to the War on Terror, and our compassion for those who sacrifice so much for those who serve in it?
With suspicion, mistrust, and cynicism. You present half of America as being a threat to the other half. You treat our allies as enemies, our dissenters as disloyal to this country, and people who express wholehearted support the war on terror as two-faced liars.
Between you and Martin, nothing we say comes through. Do you think it might be the case, that we believe what we say, and say what we believe? That when we speak of middle class squeeze, we might do so from experience rather than naivete? It is one thing to hold firm beliefs, it is quite another to hold prejudiced judgments about what they believe. We should, as political adversaries, be able to walk into a room together and come out of it with some kind of agreement as to what to do about a political issue. Our political differences should not raise questions that weren’t organic to the problem to begin with, but instead allow us to take different sides of the issues.
We forgot how to do that, and it was to your advantage that we did, because of the strong beliefs the Republicans had. But it wasn’t to this Republic’s advantage, because the very driving principle of democracy is error control. We’re supposed to challenge you, call you out on things. We’re supposed to be the ones that keep this country’s government from becoming a church of political orthodoxy.
As are you. Right now, though, yours are the people who continue to keep your hold on power, even as the flaws in your use of it have become obvious. We’re here to keep you honest, to keep you seeking after the necessary persuasive and factual strength our democracy needs to function. We will be wrong at some point, and the nation will need you to call us on it. But we both will do a disservice to our country if we or our parties choose merely along political lines. We must recognize that the conflict on election day must not be between a greater and a lesser evil, but a lesser and a greater good.
My feeling, and what’s drawn me to the Democratic Party for the last decade, is that the Democrats are more focused on dealing with the world on a factual basis, rather than an ideological. It may not have been true in the past, might not be true in the future, but for now, I believe the Democratic party to have the most clearheaded policy.
But that can change. I can change. I will change if I find myself arguing more from emotion than from fact to defend my parties policy. That will change if I begin to lose sympathy with my party’s actions. I will first, of course, ask for change, and hope that enough others raise their voices for it, but I will not stay with a party that I cannot morally stomach.
That’s why I didn’t stay with the Republican party. I could no longer tolerate the mean-spirited rhetoric and anything-goes approach to political tactics. When the Democrats become this bad, I’ll switch parties.
For the time being the Republican party has not shown the respect for the facts vs. their theories, nor the statesmanlike reserve manners and character that would be required for me to feel at home back in their ranks. I cannot, with the facts I see before me, come to the conclusion that Bush is a good president.
If Bush had maintained the good will of 9/12, here and abroad, found the WMDs in Iraq, found Osama in Afghanistan, and left Iraq a peaceful and restored nation, I might not have switched parties, but I might have voted for him. These past years, for me, have been a test for Bush, of his worthiness to be a war president, to be Commander in Chief. I’ve seen no substantial evidence to tell me that Bush has passed that test. I know it’s expecting a lot, but if Bush didn’t want a lot expect of him, he shouldn’t have sought leadership of the free world.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 29, 2004 10:52 AMWhy don’t any of you on the left come up with some proof that he wasn’t where he was supposed to be?
We know where he was. He was working for one of his Daddy’s buddy’s senate campaigns.
If you have any information proving he actually served his time, you could claim $10,000. So far, there haven’t been any takers.
I hope the Republicans stay with the cynicism theme. It’s exactly what America wants to hear.
Increasing taxes only takes money out of the system and will stagnate the economy. I would rather have more money to spend and stimulate the economy than paying for someone I have never met to go to college. Especially after providing for my own family.
It is mind boggling to me how Dems always call it the “wealthy”. Al Sharpton calls the wealthy any one that can provide for his own family! Imagine that! John and John call it anyone making $200,000 a year. I have a news bulletin for these 2 Johns. After providing for a family of 5, food, clothing, medical co-payment, braces, the list goes on and on so I won’t bore you with the details, you hardly have money left over to pay for anyone else’s health insurance or their college tuition for that matter.
Raising taxes to pay for promises is political propaganda! Which the sheep minded people blindly believe and give standing ovations to.
As for Bush’s record in the service. Why don’t we know the circumstances around John-John’s purple hearts after only 4 months of service in Vietnam. He sure wants to get a lot of mileage out of that 4 month Vietnam tour and I for one would like the details behind his wounds. They couldn’t have been all that debilitating since he was out protesting with Jane-Jane as soon as he got home. Other than a piece of shrapnel and a scratch that I keep hearing rumors of, I know nothing of the circumstances of his wounds. It would be nice to see the true story. Especially since Kerry’s folks kept going after Bush’s records even his dental records.
And Stephen,
“That’s why I didn’t stay with the Republican party. I could no longer tolerate the mean-spirited rhetoric and anything-goes approach to political tactics. When the Democrats become this bad, I’ll switch parties.”
You apparently did not hear Al Sharpton last night!
“My feeling, and what’s drawn me to the Democratic Party for the last decade, is that the Democrats are more focused on dealing with the world on a factual basis, rather than an ideological. “
What’s factual about promises that can not be kept?
If you can’t thrive on 200K a year even with a family of five, then you should hand your expenses over to an accountant. (Not you in particular MAW.)
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at July 29, 2004 11:35 AM> Al Sharpton calls the wealthy any one that
> can provide for his own family!
You just made that up. He never said that.
> John and John call it anyone making
> $200,000 a year.
That sounds pretty darn wealthy to me. Is that not a fair definition of wealthy to you?
> Raising taxes to pay for promises is
> political propaganda!
First, the Democrats aren’t proposing raising taxes on anyone except the wealthy (see definition above).
Raising taxes on the wealthy to get our country out of Bush’s insane spiraling deficits isn’t political propaganda. It’s a refreshingly rational plan that will actually work for everyone concerned, for all Americans including the wealthy Americans who will pay more than they do now.
> You apparently did not hear Al Sharpton
> last night!
What did Al Sharpton say that you think was “mean-spirited”?
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at July 29, 2004 11:37 AM> But I dont think that 4+ months of service as
> a junior lieutenant over 30 years ago
> qualifies him for President, any more than my
> 2 years as a pizza delivery boy qualifies
> me for being CEO of Pizza Hut.
Things you do when you are young, even 30 years ago, should reflect on your character. I’m not talking about individual minor occurrances, of course, like being late delivering a pizza or helping a blind person cross the street. If, 30 years ago, you snorted a pile of coke at a frat party, or made an unpatriotic statement at a protest, I would probably not hold it against you. I would not hold you in any particularly high esteem, either, if 30 years ago you worked in a soup kitchen one day or helped someone change their tire on the highway. I’m talking about those ongoing activities and life-changing decisions that define who you are and that do, in fact, define the nature of your character.
If, for example, you got paid for delivering pizzas for two years but in fact you never actually showed up for work and got away with it because your dad was friends with senior executives at Pizza Hut, that would of course reflect negatively on the nature of your character.
If, on the other hand, you risked your life many times to save the lives of Pizza Hut customers while delivering pizzas in a free-fire zone, that would reflect quite strongly on your character.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at July 29, 2004 11:52 AMGeorge-
Thanks for the joke. My favorite part of the paper is the funnies.
CF-
Like twenty years of falling down drunk, coking and womanizing while shirking guard duty qualifies Shrub! But, it’s his performance that is so scary; income down, corruption up, fake war with real war crimes. The most astonishing thing is 40% believe anything they are told.
CF,
>>You just made that up. He never said that.>>
I made up nothing. I heard it with my own ears during a political debate. Of course I can not source it because no one reported it. But I nearly fell out of my chair when he was asked the question… “What do you call wealthy” His actual response was “anyone that can take care of his or her own”. I know I heard it, too bad you didn’t. Or maybe you did and chose to ignore it like you do most things Dems claim they can do.
>> If you can’t thrive on 200K a year even with a family of five, then you should hand your expenses over to an accountant. (Not you in particular MAW.)>> comment by Joe>>
>>That sounds pretty darn wealthy to me. Is that not a fair definition of wealthy to you?>>
You obviously have not had to raise children. I raised 4 as a single parent and got nothing from the government and chose not to because the government owes me nothing. Nothing at all! I chose to take care of myself. That my friend is the American way. Nothing you get for free is appreciated. Nothing! It is just taken for granted and leaves you expecting more and more. And keeps you from achieving more.
I have no problem with helping people out temporarily. But give me a break, paying for things they should be paying for themselves! I don’t think that comes under “promoting the general welfare”. But apparently you do! There is a word for it. It is called the redistributing the wealth. Which is what the Dems and you want. Not to earn it like my parents and grandparents did, and for it to be there with no accountability.
>>First, the Democrats aren’t proposing raising taxes on anyone except the wealthy (see definition above).>>
If you think that making $200,000 a year and paying for the well being of 3 children, especially when most likely both parents have to work to earn that much, makes you wealthy you are in for a big surprise my friend. Especially when you are asking these hard working people to pay more taxes to pay for someone else’s health insurance and college education when you are trying to save for your own children’s education and well being. Tell me again, how is that fair!
They always say ‘the wealthy’. Doesn’t it make you curious as to where that magical line of wealthy is?
>>What did Al Sharpton say that you think was “mean-spirited”? >>
You couldn’t have seen the speech or you would not have said this. For his information, more Republicans voted for civil rights than Dems. I still have pictures in my mind of George Wallace standing on the steps of the University of Alabama for goodness sakes. And Senator Byrd, the Grand Master of the KKK. Why do Dem’s get a pass all the time? The KKK was full of Southern Democrats. Spoken by a person that was born in the South, me. And exactly what have the Dems done for Blacks, nothing but promises.
JC Watts said it exactly right when he said that Jesse Jackson defines compassion as how many people there are on welfare. And JC’s definition of compassion is how many people do not need welfare. 2 totally different views on how to get to the same objective.
>> Raising taxes on the wealthy to get our country out of Bush’s insane spiraling deficits isn’t political propaganda. It’s a refreshingly rational plan that will actually work for everyone concerned, for all Americans including the wealthy Americans who will pay more than they do now.>>
Need I remind you again of the Reagan tax cuts that drove the economy in the 90’s to eliminate a 4 or 5 trillion-dollar national debt? Or maybe you are just not old enough to remember. I am! Maybe you should check it out if you are not! Taking money out of the pockets of the population and giving it to a government and all its beaurocracy is the insane thing here. Tax money simply does not get to its intended target. It will stagnate the economy. You’re a smart kid. Figure it out yourself. It’s not rocket science.
CF
>>If, on the other hand, you risked your life many times to save the lives of Pizza Hut customers while delivering pizzas in a free-fire zone, that would reflect quite strongly on your character.
-Cf>>
I believe he got his last Purple Heart from a scratch he received from shrapnel. If not, then he should open up his records.
That aside, my opinion of his character comes from his protests and accusing American soldiers of all the atrocities he testified to under oath to the Senate Committee. That my friend makes him a liar. Because now he admits that he did not do it himself but rather he heard of them! Quite a testimony of character, don’t you think? Maybe lying under oath is in order here. A trait not unlike other high profile Dems.
We all should not forget his medals (or ribbons, which was it again) he threw over the White House fence. Another magical act because they are proudly on display in his office.
The King of Flip-Flops. Talking the Talk and Walking the Walk, in flip-flops of course.
Increasing taxes only takes money out of the system and will stagnate the economy. I would rather have more money to spend and stimulate the economy than paying for someone I have never met to go to college. Especially after providing for my own family.
What you have failed to mention, or choose to ignore, is that while federal taxes have come down, state and local taxes have sky rocketed, and those that havent are just borrowing more and more money from reserves that dont exist aka Deficit. Bill Clinton said it perfectly on Monday. We are running record deficits and borrowing from Japan and China so that millioniares can get a 5000 dollar refund. This administration is a disgrace to everything fiscal responsible conservatism stands for. If you disagree then please I would love to hear from you.
Posted by: Nick at July 29, 2004 12:41 PMNo problem BV. Please feel free to continue telling us what you really think of GW (the hec with Terry McAliffe)!
Posted by: George at July 29, 2004 12:52 PM> I believe he got his last Purple Heart from a
> scratch he received from shrapnel. If not,
> then he should open up his records.
I cannot believe these two myths - correction, lies - are still going around. This was settled months ago, MAW. Whatever Republican smear campaign web site you are reading for your news apparently hasn’t gotten the memo.
> Because now he admits that he did not do it
> himself but rather he heard of them!
Again, you are apparently the victim of Republican misinformation and lies. In his original Senate testimony, he did, in fact, attribute the accusations to other people. He never changed his story. Countless right-wing slander sites to this day omit key clauses and sentences from the full quotation just to paint Kerry as a liar, but the his words are actually perfectly benign and accurate if you read the full excerpt:
Several months ago, in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit—the emotions in the room, and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.They told stories that, at times, 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.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at July 29, 2004 01:00 PMAs a matter of fact MAW, I know a few families of more than 3 children (5 to 11 kids actually; being in Utah it’s easy), and none of them make over 200K a year and they manage quite well. Certainly this is just ancedotal evidence but then again the poverty level for a family of four is around 18K a year. So let’s see: 18K for a family of four, 200K for a family of five? I concede that 18K figure for a family of four is ridiculous but you can quadruple it and still get nowhere close to 200K a year.
My suggestion was serious. If you can’t manage a family of five on 200K a year, just hire an accountant. The cost will be more than worth it.
And just because you don’t appreciate assistance, doesn’t mean others won’t. A significant portion of my childhood was funded by an Air Force pension and Social Security and I am extremely grateful.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at July 29, 2004 01:01 PMNick,
Well let me try to make this as simple as possible.
If you make $200,000+ a year or you are a small business owner making that amount and have to pay more taxes, then how is that money available to put back into the economy to buy more goods and services? A process that puts people to work, creates jobs and stimulates the economy.
Putting other people to work is the operative phrase here. Putting people to work means a thriving economy that stimulates business and the purchases of goods and services. People making over $200,000 a year are not going to put in under their pillow. They will spend it! Get it! Everybody benefits. It’s not rocket science. In fact it has happened, many times. Why do you suppose Socialism simply does not work?
Must be hard for Dems to understand. Entitlements without accountability, that they understand!
As far as what I don’t understand, how again is the Federal Government responsible for the mishandling of revenues at the state and local level? Why don’t you explain that one.? Apparently you don’t live in this great Socialist Experiment called California. We have suffered here from irresponsible Democrats at the state level and it is ruining this state. Just look here if you want more proof. Companies leaving California because the have plucked the Golden Goose dry by taxing and imposing more and more restrictions on business. While you are explaining, please explain to me how taxing businesses help anything except to raise prices or have them take the path of least resistance by moving out of the state. Dems love jobs and hate employers. You can not have it both ways my friend.
Need I remind you again of the Reagan tax cuts that drove the economy in the 90’s to eliminate a 4 or 5 trillion-dollar national debt? Or maybe you are just not old enough to remember. I am! Maybe you should check it out if you are not! Taking money out of the pockets of the population and giving it to a government and all its beaurocracy is the insane thing here.
If I remember correctly tax cuts are meant to provide a short term immediate recovery so claiming Reagans tax cuts as evidence for the 90s economy is a bit questionable. Especially when you remember that there was another administration in between them. Why didnt the economy roar between 1988 and 1992?
Tax money simply does not get to its intended target. It will stagnate the economy. You’re a smart kid. Figure it out yourself. It’s not rocket science.
I would love to hear you explain the difference between tax refunds and trickle down. Im not as smart as you are.
Trickle-down doesn’t work, MAW. As evidenced by the US Census data showing share of aggregate wealth over the past 25 years increasing for the top 20% while decreasing for the other 80%. What exactly is trickling down?
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at July 29, 2004 01:18 PMJoe, Joe, Joe,
Since when does managing quite well make you wealthy! It means you are getting by, NOT WEALTHY! That is the sham here and you don’t get it! They use that word WEALTHY and it is yellow journalism and as I stated earlier, political propaganda.
Tell me again why a family has to struggle to get by and/or “manage quite well” to pay for another’s education or health insurance. Under what system is that fair? Oh yes of course, Socialism. How could I forget?
You failed to answer my question!
Try “managing quite well” especially here in California. Dream on if you wish, but not everybody lives in Utah! Nor can or want to!
As far as what I don’t understand, how again is the Federal Government responsible for the mishandling of revenues at the state and local level? Why don’t you explain that one.?
Well when the Federal government promises to give a school 10 dollars but only gives it 5 then it falls upon the state and the county to either find 5 from somewhere else or cut costs… music programs, sports programs, and afterschool porgrams to reduce operating costs to make up the 5 dollars they were underfunded. It is obviously socialistic ideals for kids to learn music, art and sports in school. I mean in true capitalism they should be on the streets selling drugs after school, taking their fair part in the world economy.
Posted by: Nick at July 29, 2004 01:21 PMSorry, that should read, “aggregate income”.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at July 29, 2004 01:24 PMThis Convention is making me CRANKY!
How much more smarmy idealism is going to be ladled out by the Democrat puppetmasters this week, because I, for one, have had enough. They must really take everyone in the viewing audience for dopes. Let’s think about it. First, drink a cup of coffee and then turn off the tube, close your eyes and remember…
Roosevelt and Johnson are both dead and socialism has failed to replicate anywhere in the world the condition of unbridled entrepreneurship that exists in America where invention and risk-taking have made “privileged” Americans the envy of people everywhere. (Which, by the way, is a condition the Democrats seem awfully proud of—with good reason, of course—Kerry and Edwards made their money the old fashioned way—well, Edwards did, anyway.)
And speaking of money… Where’s the dosh really going to come from to pay for all of this crap—the federal government (i.e. you and me)? “Hope is on the way!” You bet it is, just hang on to your wallets when it gets here.
Reagan was criticized for his so-called “voodoo economics”. This is TRUE BLUE economics (catchy, eh, John? You can use it, no charge) But it only sells in places that still think Al Gore would have made a great president.
And who really thinks that there are so-called allies out there that will jump in and save our backsides in Iraq. Let’s face it—our allies are there, NOW.
Sorry to say, folks, it’s not the wild 90s anymore, and neither is there a Bill Clinton in the White House with billions of walking around money to spread all over Europe and the third world. This president doesn’t need to be liked. He just wants to protect America and Americans and he’s put his reputation on the line to do so. This easy road for our fair weather friends in Europe is to simply sit it out in case he fails. Then to say, I told you so.
So, I wonder, why isn’t Kerry calling for a cease fire and a premature evacuation? Why isn’t he saying, “I told you so?” Because he is nothing but a blubbering, flip-flopping politician. He has no real convictions (at least none that he’s willing to go on record with). He has only idealistic rhetoric and appeasement for anyone and everyone (the puppetmasters have him convinced that this is a winning strategy).
But I for one am not going to be fooled. One America, two Americas—they can paint any word pictures they want. I am saving my applause for when the truth is revealed and when the speeches get around to pointing out how the real problems in this country and this world are going to be addressed, resolved with consensus and paid for.
Two Johns, two loads of crap-laden rhetoric. I’ll tell you what we do in our house when the johns get filled up with crap. We flush…
MAW wrote:
> If you think that making $200,000 a year and
> paying for the well being of 3 children,
> especially when most likely both parents
> have to work to earn that much, makes you
> wealthy you are in for a big surprise my
> friend.
Good lord! I am stunned. Based on 2002 Census Department numbers, only 18% of American familes make over $100,000/year. I would assume that the percentage making over $200,000 year would be even less than that, but hey, let’s pretend that it’s the same. By your reasoning, then, 82% of American families are unable to make ends meet?
Did you know that, according to the same numbers, 11 million American families make less than $20,000 a year? That’s 15% of all American families who, according to your world view, make only one tenth of the cost it takes to raise a family.
If what you say is true, that one needs to make $200,000/year to raise a family, then we truly live in a pathetic country indeed. I know that some Americans are having a hard time making ends meet, but according to you we are practically a third world nation!
But I think it’s more likely that you have a radically distorted view of the world, of family economics, and of the American people. Are you buying your children SUVs, designer clothes, and diamond rings or something? You must live in a gilded world, MAW. Two Americas indeed.
-Cf
CF,
FYI, I lived through the 60s, I was busy raising 4 children, mostly on my own during that time. I witnessed the anti war protests personally. Did you? I assume you are speaking from experience such as I am.
In my opinion, anti war protests and his statements got many soldiers killed in Vietnam unnecessarily. These protests I witnessed for myself every night on the news and not some Republican Rag as you put it. I did not then, nor do I now approve of his tactics.
As for Kerry’s Purple Heart records. Have they been made public? I have not read nor do I read Republican smear web sites. I listen a lot to talk radio and cable news. I have not heard any explanation as to what the nature of his wounds were except for some ambiguous remarks that the last one was from a scratch he received from shrapnel that he brought to a doctor and asked that he report it so he could go home. I would really like to know how someone could get wounded 3 times in 4 months and come home without any debilitating side effects. Doesn’t that make you wonder. It does me. So please direct me to a WEB site that can verify his wounds. All I have heard is that he will not release them.
CF wrote
>>If what you say is true, that one needs to make $200,000/year to raise a family, then we truly live in a pathetic country indeed. I know that some Americans are having a hard time making ends meet, but according to you we are practically a third world nation!>>
We live in a country that gives you the opportunity to make $200,000 a year and not a country that has people sit around and figure out how to take it away from you and give it to someone else.
And no SUV here for my children or diamond rings or designer clothes. You keep forgetting, I lived it. I raised 4 children, fed and clothed them, put braces on their teeth, put them in after school sports, (ask any parents that experienced that, it is not cheap) paid for their little putt putt cars, gave them money for their fund raising activities, paid for knee operations… I could go on and on….. What I also gave them was the sense that they and they alone are responsible for their own well being. No, I could not send them to law school or medical school, but I raised them with a deep sense of pride in their own abilities and not to count on the government as a means to provide for them. They too did it on their own.
And explain to me again how I am responsible for people having children and not using this great country to find the opportunities to pay for them themselves. I fail to hear that in your reply, only that they can not make it. No rationalization for why it should be others that pay for it. If you want to pay for than you do it. I am too busy taking care of my own. I assume you have a family of course. Otherwise you would know first hand.
Posted by: MAW at July 29, 2004 01:53 PM> I witnessed the anti war protests
> personally. Did you?
I never said anything about any 1960’s anti war protests. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.
> So please direct me to a WEB site that can
> verify his wounds. All I have heard is that
> he will not release them.
I already did. Click the “Read ‘em and weep” link above. What the heck, I’ll save you the trouble of scrolling: here’s the link.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at July 29, 2004 01:53 PMHooray for DJ..
And Nick,
The Bush Administration has almost doubled the amount of money going to local schools and very little gets to the schools. What you don’t understand, and I repeat, when the Federal Government gets involved, at that level by the time it gets to its intended recipient it has been stripped away by all the Beaurocrats in the process. That is why Dems want this stuff, not to get it to the schools because the Federal Government is the last place to start but to feed their pet projects. It will never get there! It has to be done at the local level.
Here in California, the Dems do not want their pet projects taken away. So what is their solution? Take it away from the local governments that provide law enforcement, schools, art and music, playgrounds etc., etc., etc.. It is the arrogance here in California that you should study. A prime example of Democrats in action and what will happen to the country if this philosophy takes hold at the Federal level.
Keep on dreaming!
PS. Pay attention to what DJ wrote about. She speaks volumes.
How do you know when a Democrat wants to a take your money? Answer, their mouth is moving!
CF
I tried the link as you suggested. Still could not find the medical records related to his wounds.
No you didn’t say anything about anti war protests, I did. A result that Kerry willingly took part in along with Jane-Jane that may have caused the deaths of many American GI’s.
Again, pleas send that WEB of his medical records pertaining to his wounds. I really want to know so I can put it to rest once and for all.
Dem- For your information the united states has higher rates of people going on to terciery education than Britain. right now 60% of high schoolers go on to some kind of college be it 2 or four year institutions. In Britain (which I believe is in Europe) has a figure closer to 50%. The arogance to assume that everyone goes to college is ignorant of reality and I think underlying that assumption is the belief that the only way to get ahead is to go to college which is not 100% true.
Posted by: Miguel at July 29, 2004 02:35 PMMAW, I’m not sure what you’re looking for besides what’s on the John Kerry web site. There’s enough there to verify to me that he didn’t fake his wounds.
“LTJG KERRY SUFFERED SHRAPNEL WOUNDS IN HIS LEFT THIGH WHEN PCF 94 CAME UNDER FIRE UNDER INTENSE HOSTILE [illegible] AND ROCKET FIRE … TREATED BY MO ABOARD USCGC MACHUSETTS (WHEC 44) AND RETURNED TO DUTY…”“LTJG KERRY SUFFERED SHRAPNEL WOUNDS IN HIS LEFT BUTTOCKS AND CONTUSIONS ON HIS RIGHT FOREARM WHEN A MINE DETONATED CLOSE ABOARD PCF-94 … TREATED BY MEDICAL OFFICER ABOARD USCGC SPENCER (WHEC-360 AND RETURNED TO DUTY WITH COASTAL DIVISION ELEVEN”
He was wounded in intense combat. They patched him up, wrote these “spot reports”, and then sent him straight back to duty, just like they have done with tens of thousands of Americans who also earned their Purple Hearts the same way - by shedding their blood for our country.
Do you want to see his X-Rays or something? Do you need to see a medical photo of his buttocks or the scars on his arms?
Are you willing to ask the same of other veterans with Purple Hearts?
Are you willing to ask EN2 Thorson, who suffered similar wounds to Kerry on the same day (20 Feb 1969), to also show you his scars? Or LTJG Hildreth, who also suffered shrapnel wounds and was also, like Kerry returned to duty? Or HM2 Lindquist? Or RD3 Gonzales? Or HBME Langhofer, who was shot and returned to duty? I suggest that you read the documents yourself, and see how Kerry’s wounds are just like those of the men with whom he served. I can’t do everything for you.
I get the feeling you folks won’t be satisfied unless he pulls his pants down at the convention tonight and shows you the scars.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at July 29, 2004 02:48 PMMiguel, you have to remember that your typical high school graduate in Europe is equivalently educated with your typical college graduate in America.
American College = European High School
American Graduate School = European College
Also, in Europe many students go to vocational schools instead of colleges, which makes comparing the two systems a little more difficult.
Our systems are a little different. Our top colleges and universities are of course the best in the world, and I’ll put our best high school students up against Europe’s best any day. But America’s high schools are in general so far behind these days that most of America’s colleges are essentially just remedial high school. The joke among college kids today is to call college “Grade 13”. My European friends laugh at the idea that Algebra I is actually taught in most American colleges.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at July 29, 2004 02:58 PMDon’t get me started on Education!
First of all, I paid full whack for my kids to get their 4 year degrees—and thankfully, they are both gainfully employed now. But I do have the battle scars…
Secondly, I would never disparage education—the more the better in my opinion, though there are an awful lot of educated buffoons running around this vast nation of ours, but that is another topic.
But, seriously folks, college is a four year deferrment from reality where there’s more partying than studying. But… as long as its paid for with someone else’s money, why not party on, dude?
Also, please note that most jobs coming on the scene in today’s economy do not require a college degree. Rather the majority of projected jobs will require a skill that is best gained in apprenticeship programs in the trades, or vocational schools, etc. Yet, 70 to 80% of graduating seniors still prefer (and are going to) college. (A statistic that is not helping to convince universities that they better wake up and gaze into the tea leaves themselves, BTW)
So if college isn’t necessarily going to get jobs for our kids, why are we spending all this money? And why on God’s earth would we have the government pay for everyone to get a four year degree. Oh, it’s because they’re doing it in Sweden, I see. AND THEIR INCOME TAXES ARE 70%
You want college paid for—do it yourself, or borrow the money, or better yet, have your kid work for it. Like John Kerry, I did my tour of duty in that particular part of the world (though I did not go back in and make an 8MM reenactment of the highlights). I have no wish to do yours.
Posted by: D.J. Vallone at July 29, 2004 03:28 PMDemocrats, Liberals, Progressives,
We waste our time trying to reason with these Republicans.
In Cambridge just the other day Michael Moore called the The Bush Administration HATE - RIOTS. And the term fits not only the Administration, but practically everyone who will support Bush this November.
Through hell or high water these people are going to defend this inept administration despite the glaring evidence that Dubya has been one of the worst presidents we have ever had - with the economy, with foreign policy, with the environment, with education, with job creation, with homeland security and to top it all off, with sending our soldiers to die or be maimed in an unnecessary war without an exit strategy because of their greed.
These people are hate-riots because although they claim to love the country, they seem to hate at least half of the people who vote (those of us on the Left) as well as those who don’t vote (a sizable portion of the American population) who tend toward being poor, disenfrancised and apathetic.
Their list of hate will very often include one or more of the following:
Pacifists, Gay people, immigrants, the poor, the uneducated, atheists and agnostics, Muslims, Budhists or people of any other religion they’re unfamiliar with. Often you will find that they are racist, zenophobic and misogynistic as well. And while they often claim to be religious they ignore a basic commandment like “Thou shalt not kill” by supporting the death penalty or by thinking that there is nothing wrong with sending American soldiers off to fight and die in a pre-emptive war without a damn good reason.
They claim to love freedom yet see nothing wrong with denying many people their basic civil rights. Nothing wrong in wanting to deny women freedom over their own bodies. Nothing wrong in the Patriot Act which is a complete gutting of American freedom and privacy as we have known it since writing of the Constitution.
These people are all so tiresomely unenlightened and/or ignorant. If their hateful rhetoric wasn’t so insulting and irritating, I might feel sorry for them. Because the real truth is, all this hatred they carry around is rooted in _fear_ - which makes them weak-minded and weak-spirited as a result.
But I take heart by periodically reminding myself that despite what many will say here, and despite what Fox news and other networks would like us to believe, these people are thankfully _not the majority_ in America today.
CF
What you just told me was that he got scratches and a bruise, was patched up and sent back on 2 occasions. The 3rd I assume was the same.
I want to see his medical records. Why won’t he release them?
Not interested in other veterans. They are not running for President and trying to convince us that he is a brave soldier and using it as a tribute to his ability to keep us safe. Especially after his voting record in the Senate for the past 2o years.
As for pulling his pants down, I would not want that, then I could not see his flip-flops..
Adrienne,
You forgot Communists in your salutation. (Democrats, Liberals, Progressives and Communists)
Why do you make assumptions that Republicans hate everyone? Isn’t that a little presumptuous on your part?
Anyone that uses Michael Moore as a reference point certainly tells me something about that person’s character. But Michael Moore is a whole different subject.
Bush has doubled education spending. The economy is back on track after inheriting it from Clinton along with corporate scandals and an attack on our own soil, nuclear buildup in North Korea. The foreign policy you speak of that led us to 9/11 worked really well, didn’t it. Our so-called allies like France and Russia take money from children in Iraq for food and medicine and call it the Oil for Food program. And these are our friends???
What basic civil right exactly have you lost? I am a woman and I haven’t lost any civil rights. But maybe you could explain in detail which right you no longer have. I am curious. And the Patriot Act. I assume you have an example of all the people that have been persecuted under the Patriot Act.
But of course, you are so enlightened that your response is to insult others if they do not agree with you and call them racists, unenlightened and/or ignorant.
Please don’t throw out accusations and not back them up with specifics. If I want fairy tales I will go to the movies. Better yet, I will go see Fahrenheit 911. That’s good for a laugh.
> I want to see his medical records. Why
> won’t he release them?
You keep saying that. What are you talking about? You want to see X-rays? Prostate biopsies?
It seems to me that you’re asking him to release the kinds of records no other politician in history has ever been asked to release. Bush, for example, has never done what you are asking Kerry to do, and he’s the President! Cheney, who’s had four heart attacks and may well die any day as far as we know, hasn’t released that stuff either. Why should Kerry?
> What you just told me was that he got
> scratches and a bruise, was patched up
> and sent back on 2 occasions.
So a “SHRAPNEL WOUND” is a scratch, eh? He still has shrapnel in his left thigh you know. Just a scratch indeed. That’s pretty cold-blooded of you.
In any event, a light shrapnel wound is all it takes to get a Purple Heart, even if you are patched up and returned to duty right away. Lots of soldiers get Purple Hearts for the exact same kinds of wounds. If you question Kerry’s Purple Hearts then you are questioning tens of thousands of other Americans’ Purple Hearts, plain and simple. That’s what I mean by “cold-blooded”.
> Not interested in other veterans. They are
> not running for President and trying to
> convince us that he is a brave soldier
The fact that he volunteered for combat duty in the first place should be enough to prove his bravery to any reasonable American, but in case that’s still not enough for you, in case you think that volunteering for combat duty isn’t a mark of true courage, then you may want to spend a few minutes reading about John Kerry’s BRONZE STAR or his SILVER STAR. They don’t give those out lightly, you know. The only people who get Silver Stars and Bronze Stars are people with extraordinary courage and heroism. Do you doubt that?
> Especially after his voting record in
> the Senate for the past 2o years.
Ah, now we’re back on planet Earth. That’s about the only thing you’ve said about John Kerry that even begins to have any legitimacy. If you want to find something to criticise Kerry for, talk about his political record. Stop using his military record, which is stunning and without blemish, as a tool to drag Kerry and tens of thousands of other veterans through the mud just to acheive your political goals.
You’ll just have to live with the fact that John Kerry can talk about his military record as much as he wants and there’s not a darn thing you can say about it.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at July 29, 2004 04:34 PMCF,
I’m not the one bringing up his service in Vietnam. He is and making an 8mm films about it. Which I hope to see tonight.
If he was able to go back to duty after the first 2, then why not after the 3rd. Could it be that he had all he needed to be called a hero. Excuse me if I do not call him a hero. Excuse me if I find his actions after leaving Vietnam and coming home to lead anti-war protests a little bit distasteful. Excuse me if after watching all the divisiveness in the country in the 60s, a direct result of his actions. Yes, it disgusted me then and it disgusts me now when I think about it.
And yes, his voting record shows exactly who he is and my dear friend, I do not call him a war hero. To do that would denigrate the memory of thousands that got shrapnel and wanted to go back or those that paid the ultimate price or lost limbs. These are the real heros, not someone that got scratches. I have the ultimate respect for soldiers, because it is the soldier that gives us the right to do what we are doing now. Too bad he doesn’t or his voting record would have reflected it. That’s where the rubber meets the road. In his voting record. He can’t hide that.
It follows that he has never had to run a company or even earn a living in the traditional way and it disgusts me that he lives like a king because he married well. Not once but twice. He is a kept man and I have little to no respect for a man or woman for that matter that lives off the fortunes of others.
He may be your hero, he is not mine. And sadly enough for you, there are a lot of people out there that feel the same as I do. Especially when he uses it to flaunt himself and pretend to be able to protect us when everything else he does points the other way. You may be fooled. But I am not my dear friend.
I am through posting today. Maybe tonight… Keep the faith. I enjoy our conversations….
How can anyone not love politics. The Dem’s would be trashed if they were overtly and partisanly opposed to Bush, and here, they are indicted for hiding their real, deep, dark, secretly held partisan oppositon to Bush. It is truly a hilarious human activity at times as perspectives shape reality instead of the other way around.
Posted by: David R Remer at July 29, 2004 05:19 PMMAW said You forgot Communists in your salutation. (Democrats, Liberals, Progressives and Communists)
It’s worse than just defending this administration, Adrienne. They will also portray any hint of humanity and compassion toward our fellow man as if it were Stalin reincarnate. The slightest mention of helping the poor is attacked as if the price of such a venture is their first born. They muster all of their intellectual might to come with arguments like 200K a year is near poverty. That taxes cause the economy to stagnate. That shrapnel wounds are a scratch and a bruise. Then they will turn around and demand extensive evidence for any claim that opposes their narrow view.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at July 29, 2004 05:23 PM> If he was able to go back to duty after
> the first 2, then why not after the 3rd.
Because, like thousands of other veterans who made the exact same choice, it is his right to leave the combat zone after 3 wounds.
> the memory of thousands that got shrapnel
> and wanted to go back
It is a rare soldier indeed who, after three combat wounds, “wants” to go back. Kerry isn’t quite that brave, I suppose, but he’s a hell of a lot braver than 99% of us, a hell of a lot braver than George Bush. But I guess you think that the Silver and Bronze stars are given out by the Pentagon to just any old jerks.
> He is a kept man and I have little to no
> respect for a man or woman for that matter
> that lives off the fortunes of others.
You mean like President Bush?
> It follows that he has never had to run
> a company or even earn a living in the
> traditional way
Yes, Bush ran several companies - into bankruptcy, that is! Bush has spent many long stretches of his adult life with no job whatsoever, living off his family fortune, drinking like a frat boy through his twenties, and through his thirties, drinking even while raising his children, while Kerry pursued a sober career in public service.
I’m done posting, too! All the best,
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at July 29, 2004 05:26 PMMAW wrote:
You forgot Communists in your salutation. (Democrats, Liberals, Progressives and Communists)
How silly of me. Yes, American Communists too, of course.
Its nice that we live in a free country where all are allowed to hold their own political views, yes?
MAW:
“Why do you make assumptions that Republicans hate everyone? Isn’t that a little presumptuous on your part?”
Not from where I stand. The post above about flushing the two Johns is a perfect example of the hatred I feel oozing from the Republican Party these days.
MAW:
“Anyone that uses Michael Moore as a reference point certainly tells me something about that person’s character. But Michael Moore is a whole different subject.”
And anyone who questions John Kerry’s patriotism and his right to a purple heart after being in a swift boat in Vietnam, and his credentials to run this country after being a Senator for many years does likewise.
I’m not one who likes beating my head against a brick wall so I’ll delete everything until this:
“What basic civil right exactly have you lost? I am a woman and I haven’t lost any civil rights. But maybe you could explain in detail which right you no longer have. I am curious.”
I was not speaking from a personal point of view for I am also a woman, I am white and I am straight. I was referring to denying gay people who love each other the right to get married in a civil ceremony that the goverment and the state will recogize. I was also thinking about the votes of many people (and the overwhelming majority of these were black people) in the state of Florida that never got counted in the last election.
MAW:
“And the Patriot Act. I assume you have an example of all the people that have been persecuted under the Patriot Act.”
That’s just the trouble - no one knows what information they are gathering, or what people they are detaining without access to a lawyer, and who knows what else now that the Patriot Act has been passed. It needs to be repealed. We no longer live in a democracy unless we have open government.
MAW
“But of course, you are so enlightened that your response is to insult others if they do not agree with you and call them racists, unenlightened and/or ignorant.”
I have many friends who are Republicans who consider themselves conservative-type thinkers. None of those people do I consider Hate-riots and it just so happens that none of them are going to vote for Dubya this time around. This is because they don’t think he’s conservative - they think he’s out of control with his deficit spending, and the fact that he went to war with flimsy evidence makes him a dangerous and inept leader. I was putting those hate-riot people in a special class by themselves, see.
MAW:
“Please don’t throw out accusations and not back them up with specifics.”
I believe I just did.
“If I want fairy tales I will go to the movies. Better yet, I will go see Fahrenheit 911. That’s good for a laugh.”
I guess you’d have to be a hate-riot then.
When I saw Fahernheit 9/11 I cried - so did many other people (some of them quite audibly) in the audience. I lost a friend in the north tower on 9/11 and I was very disturbed by much of the rest of that movie, especially regarding the soldiers and their families.
For everybody making little negative side remarks about Farenheit 9/11, I would encourage you to watch an episode of the Bill O’Reilly Show. Now if you want a show devoted to lies, personal attacks and a complete and utter lack of journalistic professionalism and/or integrity [for which so many ignorant Americans blame Michael Moore] BILL O’REILLY IS YOUR MAN!
In fact, on the issue of “dividing america” the entire right wing media is the leading culprit in this phenomena. Bill Clinton was absolutely correct when he said the Republican Party “need(s) a divided America.” What is sad to me is that, these “journalists” who, by profession, are supposed to present unbiased facts and let the people decide what and how to think for themselves, are attacking EVERYTHING the democrats say b/f they can even complete their sentences.
Within minutes of Clinton’s speech Monday night, fat-boy extraordinaire Tim Russert and Mr. Tupee’ Tom Brokaw were eating his speech alive! And that was not the worst part…what was worst is that they were doing it with the self-proclaimed biased of having conservative interests.
If that’s not a bunch of bull***t, what is?
Also, this Right Wing media conspiracy, which some of you Bush-nutz will adamantly deny, extends beyond the DNC. It is now embedded into the very fabric of America’s news sources. Its sad! Its scary! it’s like we’re living out some twisted fiction novel of a band of elites taking over the world thru extreme PROPAGANDA…or at least the most powerful nation in the world…
Posted by: Kapone at July 29, 2004 06:03 PMDavid,
Dems never get trashed. Just ask Trent Lott, Newt Gengrich, and Jack Ryan. What Dems gets trashed?
Senators’ Dodd and Byrd didn’t for doing no more or less than Trent Lott? And Jack Ryan, a little competition and the press went after him because of the public’s right to know and out weighs the interest of the child. How compassionate is that? How pathetic.
And Joseph,
Why can’t I be compassionate in my own way? Why do I need the Federal Government to be compassionate for me? Taking my money and spending the way they want takes away my right to be compassionate so don’t preach to me about being compassionate.
And apparently you can not read. I never said 200K was poverty. What I said is I don’t buy that Democratic spin that it is wealthy. Get it WEALTHY. You can buy that, I don’t. Especially coming from Dems that are truly wealthy by the luck of who they married and want to take other peoples money to pay for their programs so they won’t have to. GET IT! It’s the biggest scam of them all. All of them want to make sure they are not accountable, so they take other people’s money and call it compassion….
And CF,
If Bush’s money came through connections and family, name one family that doesn’t benefit from connections like that at any level. Probably even yourself. Tell me you don’t use connections. So how does that make him a kept man? Yes he ran companies into bankruptcy as you say, but at least he tried. And yes, you are correct, Kerry is not that brave! But he wants us to think he is.
I am sure you will watch with baited breath, Kerry’s 8mm recreation of his historic and brave service in Vietnam tonight. All an attempt to make us feel that he, and he alone can keep us safe. Again, I remind you of his voting record. That is a more honest interpretation of who and what he is and what he represents.
Adrienne,
You may not have heard Al Gore spouting how he betrayed this country, or possibly Ted Kennedy spewing his hatred about he lied to us, he lied, for Ted Kennedy of all people. Who spent less time trying to save a drowning woman than it took for him to write his hatred speech about Bush. And then there are the comparisons to the Taliban by Mfume and/or J. Bond. Or possibly the NAACP and the James Byrd AD that insinuated that Bush killed her father for a second time when he didn’t sign a hate crime bill. And please don’t forget that paragon of virtue Michael Moore, who distorts and lies about everything. GIVE ME A BREAK! WOW, I could go on and on about the level of hatred that has consumed the Democratic Party. It is NO SECRET! It’s called anybody but Bush and most of them don’t like Kerry either.
I guess you didn’t see Al Sharpton’s or Ted Kennedy’s speech or watch any of the speeches at the Dems Convention. It could be called the Bush Bashing Festival. God help us all if the Republicans resort to that type of vitriol when they have their Convention. I have faith they have more class than that.
You still failed to give me an example of anybody, just one that has been abused by the Patriot Act. I am still waiting. And guess what, I have friends that are Democrats and they are voting for Bush. So what the heck does that mean. Bush has 93% of the Republican vote. Kerry’s support on Dems side is around the 80% level.
So if you take pride in throwing out accusations without facts or anything to support them that tells me a lot about where you are coming from.
If you use Unfarenheit 911 to support your claims I could spend an entire post on how Michael Moore distorts the truth. Starting with ushering out the Bin Laden family before the September 13, though he didn’t say it, he implied it. He also implied that Bush sent soldiers into Afghanistan to build a pipeline. I say that with all credulity I can muster.
I would not see The Hunting of a President or the Clinton Chronicles because a film designed to distort does just that. I have more respect for the truth, apparently you don’t. But it does gets a lot of foolish people to believe whatever they see.
And you Kapone,
You must have everybody rolling on the ground if you think the media is slanted to the right. We are talking CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS and 90% of the printed press here, all slanted left and they make no bones about it. You have got to be kidding with that one. Especially Brokaw, who makes no bones about his leftist point of views. They have gotten so bad that Moveon.org has tried to file an injunction to keep FNC from using Fair and Balanced. They can’t stand that there is one right leaning news channel. It kills them that there may be a different opinion.
MAW said Why can’t I be compassionate in my own way? Why do I need the Federal Government to be compassionate for me? Taking my money and spending the way they want takes away my right to be compassionate so don’t preach to me about being compassionate.
You can be compassionate in your own way. And if it’s to a properly chartered charitable organization, it’s tax deductible, too.
The federal government works upon the foundation of our constitution which clearly states in its preamble that the government should promote the general welfare.
And apparently you can not read. I never said 200K was poverty. What I said is I don’t buy that Democratic spin that it is wealthy. Get it WEALTHY.
I said, “near poverty,” to be precise. And yes, I was exaggerating. I think a family of five with a household income of 200K a year has more than enough to afford their taxes as well as modern necessities, conveniences, and luxuries. No matter how menacing you might portray the tax code, it doesn’t tax anyone perpetually downward into lower brackets or bankruptcy.
Especially coming from Dems that are truly wealthy by the luck of who they married and want to take other peoples money to pay for their programs so they won’t have to.
Don’t start begrudging the rich their money. ;) And since they are in the tax brackets that will see a tax increase, I think saying it’s “their money” is apt. Bill Clinton put it very well by contrasting the preservation of his tax cut with those social services cut in exchange. As he said, those who got $5,000 back from the tax cuts would gladly pay it back for better homeland security and to keep children in health and education programs.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at July 29, 2004 08:50 PMJB
I do contribute to tax deductible charities. And you can give back your tax cut or pay a higher tax rate if you choose. Give it to the Federal Government, I am sure they know how to spend it better than you do. This way at least half of it will get to its intended target.
What Bill Clinton said was that he got his tax break and he was happy until he figured out that all of you paid for it. Did he inhale this time? It was his money not theirs.
It’s a laugh that you should think I begrudge the rich. Did you inhale this time?
…you can give back your tax cut or pay a higher tax rate if you choose. Give it to the Federal Government, I am sure they know how to spend it better than you do. This way at least half of it will get to its intended target.
I have no problem with only 50% of my tax dollars spent on social entitlements actually reaching those in need. It’s better than nothing. Actually, it sounds pretty reasonable given how decrepit everybody says the system has become. Sure, the system needs some work, but it shouldn’t be abandoned, it should be improved.
What Bill Clinton said was that he got his tax break and he was happy until he figured out that all of you paid for it. Did he inhale this time? It was his money not theirs.
The way we “paid for it,” as Clinton described, has been through cuts in social services. Since we were all (in theory) given a tax cut, the “cost” isn’t so much my money as it is our loss.
I think reasonable people can see that “their” money is not simply a product of themselves. Any success has a context, a community that supports and drives that success. No man an island sort of thing. Those of us who manage through luck, hard work, and dedication to achieve substantial success and wealth, should feel proud to give back to the communities and to the nation that have provided us with the opportunity and the encouragement to succeed. Paying taxes is a noble duty, not a corrupt burden. Bill Clinton was trying to get across that he, as a wealthy citizen, is willing to send his tax break back to get those lost services back because he understands this simple premise.
It’s a laugh that you should think I begrudge the rich. Did you inhale this time?
It was a joke; I’m glad you laughed.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at July 30, 2004 12:25 AMAdrienne wrote
>>And anyone who questions John Kerry’s patriotism and his right to a purple heart after being in a swift boat in Vietnam, and his credentials to run this country after being a Senator for many years does likewise. >>
I don’t question anyone’s patriotism (Not even yours Adrienne) or his right to a Purple Heart. What I question is his post war activities that divided this country, an activity that many Vets to this day resent. What I wanted to know was the extent of his wounds. Don’t you? So I found out, 3 scratches and a bruise. That cleared it up for me!
Bayviking wrote
>>Like twenty years of falling down drunk, coking and womanizing while shirking guard duty qualifies Shrub! But, it’s his performance that is so scary; income down, corruption up, fake war with real war crimes. The most astonishing thing is 40% believe anything they are told>>
Adrienne, you wrote
>>Not from where I stand. The post above about flushing the two Johns is a perfect example of the hatred I feel oozing from the Republican Party these days.>>
So Adrienne, Oh! I’m sorry, Dems don’t talk like that, only Reps do. It is hard to keep that in mind after all the Bush bashing this week and you call the flushing John jokes bad. After Bayviking’s post. He is right about one thing people will believe anything. Even OP-ED pieces like Fahrenheit 911. I know you fell into that one hook line and sinker.
Adrienne wrote
>>I was not speaking from a personal point of view for I am also a woman, I am white and I am straight. I was referring to denying gay people who love each other the right to get married in a civil ceremony that the goverment and the state will recogize. I was also thinking about the votes of many people (and the overwhelming majority of these were black people) in the state of Florida that never got counted in the last election.>>
Well guess what! I am white, and a strait woman that dated a black man for 20 years. My best friends are lesbians; we go jet skiing and partying together. So tell me again how expecting a mayor from San Francisco to obey the law and not give marriage licenses out illegally is denying anyone their civil rights? Don’t even go into the Florida thing and that thing about denying black people the right to vote, because again you speak about something you know nothing about. Volumes have been written on this subject and well scrutinized. Still doesn’t stop the whining and crying from Dems. They even use it in their campaign speeches to fire up the masses. Doesn’t matter if there is any truth in it. They just get a pass on saying it.
>>That’s just the trouble - no one knows what information they are gathering, or what people they are detaining without access to a lawyer, and who knows what else now that the Patriot Act has been passed. It needs to be repealed. We no longer live in a democracy unless we have open government. >>
And yes, there is a boogey man in every corner. Again, there must be thousands of people that have been wrongfully detained or investigated because of the Patriot Act. Silly me, I believe that Richard Reed was a victim of the Patriot Act. Harmless deed that was, trying to light his foot on fire and blow up a plane. Can’t have us trying to protect us from people blowing up planes now can we?
MAW,
Well 100 years ago it would have been illegal for you to date a black man. And it wouldnt just have been the unspoken rules, it would have been written down in plain and simple english in state law books. For the ordinary person the civil rights that we have now would have been unimaginable. Change had to start somewhere and somehow. So I appluad that mayor from San Francisco fighting to change a law he feels discriminates against others. 100 years from now people will look at our history with a different pair of eyes. And he will most certainly be a hero.
It is a sad state of affairs we live in today when a man who volunteers to risk his life for his country in a hostile country during war is questioned on his motives. We all know what a hypocrite is, so I would say to anyone who belittles what Kerry did… go to Iraq for half a year, come back with three purple hearts, a bronze and silver star then lay all the pile of shit you want on him until then focus on other things to attack him on.
His actions led to the division of the country… He came back from Vietnam a changed man. His eyes were opened and he stood up for the truth. It wasnt him that divided america, it was the politicians that sent young men off to vietnam to their death that divided america. Too many Americans had died for a cause unfamiliar to them. And to this day Vietnamese people still suffer the effects of war, land mines amputate children almost everyday and chemical agents that we dont know about continue to inflict their toll on unborn Vietnamese children. And people who had the courage to speak out were branded unpatriotic and dividers. Something that is clearly still going on to this very day.
> So tell me again how expecting a mayor from
> San Francisco to obey the law and not give
> marriage licenses out illegally is denying
> anyone their civil rights?
The FMA isn’t about that. It’s about permanently forbidding any states from passing laws making gay marriage legal. It’s about pre-emptively denying gay people civil rights that society is already headed towards giving them.
To understand it, here’s an analogy: Marriage between blacks and whites was illegal in most of America well into the 1960’s. Imagine if the mayor of Little Rock Arkansas started doing interracial marriages. And then imagine that Johnson or Kennedy then backed a constitutional Amendment to ban the states from passing laws permitting interracial marriage.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at July 30, 2004 08:27 AMMAW-
Let’s put all political considerations aside. I was once willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt on the War on Terror. The condition was that he fight it well.
Osama, Dead or Alive? Currently, very alive, still able to lead his army of terrorists. We may have him on the run, but people like him spent years in Afghanistan living on the run. They’re use to it. Meanwhile Al Quaeda and its newly independent subsidiaries have wasted little time in again imposing their reign of terror on the western world.
Meanwhile, we’re in a war that kept no WMDs out of the hands of terrorists, and really destroyed no serious terrorist presence. In fact, it’s created it, where it did not exist before. By rather reasonable standards, that being the reduction in terrorist forces, this war has backfired. I’m not sure how else to characterize an increase in terrorist activity that has not abated in the past months.
We no longer have close relations with precisely the countries we need to be working through. The French and the Germans are in a prime position to monitor the transit of terrorists towards our nation. It’s worth mentioning that Mohammed Atta, however dubious connections to Czechoslovakia and agents of saddam are, was known to have resided in Hamburg.
Additionally, the nations around the Middle East that serve as conduits and breeding grounds for terrorists are in the worst position to help us. Not having our fingers in these pies will cost us dearly. It is only logical that we intercept terrorists plotting against us overseas, before they find their way here. Not having the cooperation of many of these countries will only hamper that.
Truth is, we are not the only free agent in the world, and our ability to overrule people’s sovereignty has its limits, especially if we are intent on a rational foreign policy. Rational being, at the very least, not invading every country when we don’t get our way.
We have a great deal of muscle, but we also have our limits. Do you think having our resources strained to their limits sounds like a good idea? Systems where resources are strained to their limits are systems in danger of being compromised by small problems. When the airline industry does things on the cheap by using one plane to do a sequence of flights, it runs the risk that a snowstorm or other inevitable problem with the weather will get in the way of many such sequences, causing delays and cancellations to pile up in seemingly unrelated areas.
So too, does an attempt to fight wars on the cheap sometimes backfire. If your speedy armored division outruns its own supply line, or lacks the parts to maintain the vehicles, your transformation of warfare will indeed occur- from winners to losers. It also doesn’t help that we were unable to seal Iraq’s borders, and pacify the population right there, right at the beginning, so there would be no question of the continuation of law and order. Instead, we stand by as we send the signal that we have no interest in taking care of the mundane issues of that kind.
It seems economical, but it only seems that way. We are running out of bullets because we’ve had to fight guerilla and urban warfare on a consistent basis for the last year. That 90 billion dollar budget supplemental that Kerry voted against in final form was a strong indication of just how badly the Defense Department had screwed up on planning for the war, like the 60 million dollar supplemental he did vote for before that. You don’t go 150 billion dollars overbudget when everything is going according to plan.
Bush opposed the Homeland Security Department, right up to the moment Joe Lieberman proposed it. Bush opposed the formation of a commission to investigate the worst terrorist attack on our soil in our entire history. There’s still little word of any progress of hardening our shores against terrorist attacks. The people who do the TSA searches are still the undereducated diptwads who let the Hijackers on board the plans that became manned cruise missiles.
And Afghanistan. For the life of me, I could not understand why my president would not send our soldiers to fight there, and then, once there, send them after Osama Bin Laden with a vengeance until he was caught. I definitely don’t understand why we didn’t finish with Afghanistan before considering any other major war. One thing after another.
How can I reasonably support Bush for re-election? I’ve seen little evidence that Bush has really gotten Al Quaeda on the ropes. I’ve little evidence that his people haved waged an effective war on terror.
I’m not going to let him have another four years of this kind of performance. No Ma’am.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 30, 2004 11:51 AMMAW wrote:
A whole lot of angry invective - and in two separate posts, I see. Must’ve hit a nerve…
I only see two things to reply to.
MAW:
“You still failed to give me an example of anybody, just one that has been abused by the Patriot Act.”
I think you need to do some reading regarding this subject before you start trying to defend it.
The Patriot Act _itself _is an abuse to all of us - notwithstanding any American they already have or will one day abuse with its power. It is completely and totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL - an undermining of all our ideas of American freedom, privacy, justice and open government. It breaks four, possibly five amendments to the Constitution, and so it must be repealed if we still wish to call what we have a democracy, rather than a dictatorship.
MAW:
“My best friends are lesbians; we go jet skiing and partying together. So tell me again how expecting a mayor from San Francisco to obey the law and not give marriage licenses out illegally is denying anyone their civil rights?”
I find these two sentences not only unbelievable, but hilarious!
I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, and I attended four of those weddings that Mayor Gavin Newsom had the guts to allow to take place before the Terminator shut him down. They were lovely, happy affairs - one of the weddings involved a couple who had been together for twenty five years.
I believe in civil rights for _all_ Americans. And I am certain that only a hate-riot would propose an amendment to the Constitution which is based on a denial of civil rights.
Stephen,
Thanks for your comments from 11:51AM. That’s one of the best summaries I’ve seen of the problems of the Bush administration
Posted by: LawnBoy at July 30, 2004 12:42 PMChris and Nick,
Nobody here is talking about not giving Gays and Lesbians the right to get married. I mentioned it solely because Adrienne has decided that all Republicans are HATE-RIOTS based on Michael Moore’s description of them.
>> Their list of hate will very often include one or more of the following:
Pacifists, Gay people, immigrants, the poor, the uneducated, atheists and agnostics, Muslims, Budhists or people of any other religion they’re unfamiliar with.>>
Doesn’t that disturb any of you that some of you think that this is the opinion of half the population? WELL IT ISN’T! How does she know about what anyone else hates or likes for that matter.
I don’t hate anybody. Let me make that clear right away and to top it off, I don’t know any other Republicans that do either. Sorry, we don’t fit in your little box of small minded people like you wish in order to further your point.
What disturbs me about Gavin Newsome and the San Francisco marriage debaucle is the fact that he, just as you all accuse George Bush of doing, circumvents the law (yes I know, people didn’t die.. don’t need to hear on that one either) and snubs the majority in California and does what he pleases. I have posted on other occasions that I am neutral on the death penalty and on gay marriages. Enough said on that.
Adrienne,
I am still waiting for you to give me an example of all these people that have had their rights violated. And don’t cut and paste someone else’s comment and then not reference the author. A little sophomoric I might add. Besides, one could probably make a case that there is no constitutional authority for a lot of things. Such as all the entitlements we see today. Show me the constitutionality for those things and don’t use ‘promote the general welfare’ , that could be debated.
And guess what, I have been to gay weddings myself. So no points here on that one. To quote a great American…. There you go again! With your Hate-Riot comment, a little duplicitous. And yes, they are beautiful and happy occasions, that was not my point.
See my comment above to Chris and Nick.
Lawnboy and Stephen,
Hold on to your lawn chair lawn boy. I am still working on my response to Stephen.
Stay tuned. Film at 11.
Posted by: MAW at July 30, 2004 04:20 PMShow me the constitutionality for those things and don’t use ‘promote the general welfare’ , that could be debated.
MAW, would you also like to debate that “provide for the common defense” means it’s unconstitutional to have a standing army?
MAW wrote:
“I am still waiting for you to give me an example of all these people that have had their rights violated.”
There is an old union slogan: An injury to one is an injury to all.
MAW:
“And don’t cut and paste someone else’s comment and then not reference the author. A little sophomoric I might add.”
As my Scottish grandfather would say: Madame, what are you on about now?
Go back and look at your own posts - I never cut and pasted someone elses comments - only your own.
MAW:
“Besides, one could probably make a case that there is no constitutional authority for a lot of things.”
Like I said, do some reading regarding the powers the Patriot Act gives to the Justice Dept. and law enforcement. And while your at it, refresh yourself on the Bill of Rights - especially the first fourteen amendments to the Constitution and then decide what _you_ think.
MAW:
“Such as all the entitlements we see today. Show me the constitutionality for those things and don’t use ‘promote the general welfare’, that could be debated. “
Everything can be debated, however, you have not engaged me sufficiently for me to continue this
discussion.
Okay, MAW, let’s hear this semantic analysis on what “promote the general welfare” means to the design and function of the federal government. Is the word, “welfare” is too vague? What does the word, “general” apply to? Do you have some alternate definition for the word, “promote?”
Or maybe you doubt the relevance of the preamble itself? Maybe you feel it has no bearing on federal policy? Do you consider it just lofty rhetoric?
Maybe we can just rewrite the preamble to suit this “Why should I care?” attitude:
We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice criminal punishments, ensure domestic capital tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings profits of our liberty, for ourselves and our posterity…
MAW, if you’re serious about finding out more about the USA PATRIOT Act. We covered that here a while back.
Joseph,
Does that include Corporate Welfare also?
AP and Adrienne,
Does this include treatment of Drug traffickers or just terrorists?
Lawnboy and Stephen,Hold on to your lawn chair lawn boy. I am still working on my response to Stephen.
Stay tuned. Film at 11.
Posted by: MAW at July 30, 2004 04:20 PM
MAW,
Did you forget about this? Or did you post it in another thread? I’ve been waiting.
Posted by: LawnBoy at August 2, 2004 01:25 AMActually lawnboy, (love that name) I was working on it and my computer froze and I lost a lot of stuff I had been working on since my last save. Frustration and fatigue set in. You know how that goes. So you might check later if things don’t get too hectic tonight I might pull up what I had and try to reconstruct it if I can get my thoughts together again. Check later.
Posted by: MAW at August 2, 2004 10:09 PMStephen,
Lawnboy may have enjoyed your comments. I found them quite boring and could dispute them all. But what the heck, let me give it a try.
You have figured out precisely how not to fight the war on terrorism. But just like all the dissertations proffered by anyone critical of the war, they never really address what should have been done. Oh yes, I am aware that he should have waited for the official blessings of the UN, meaning pass another resolution. But just who are we kidding? We both know what Kerry and his band of merry Democrats (Joe Lieberman excluded and Zell Miller but he doesn’t count along with a few others, very few) mean when they refer to their talking points about waiting for more multi-national support. Code word for France, Germany and Russia.
We all know now that this simply never would have happened. Not only was Chirac overtly opposed to taking any action against Saddam Hussein, he was actively engaged in enlisting the support of other nations to join with him. We have already discussed the reasons why Western Europeans hate Americans and have opinions of us that make any soap opera look tame in comparison and more like an episode from the Jerry Springer show. And least of all, the Michael Moore books that portray Americans as big stupid and dumb and his present portrayal of our current President combined with the Clinton years filled with numerous peccadilloes make delightful tabloid fodder and delight movie going audiences in Cannes. Setting aside that for now I will address your other issues,
Meanwhile, we’re in a war that kept no WMDs out of the hands of terrorists, and really destroyed no serious terrorist presence.We really don’t know this. We can all agree that we have not found any to date. But exactly what does it take for any of the group of lefties posting on this board to determine that he was a dangerous man.
The following is a portion of David Kay’s address on the activities of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:
Iraq’s WMD programs spanned more than two decades, involved thousands of people, billions of dollars, and were elaborately shielded by security and deception operations that continued even beyond the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The very scale of this program when coupled with the conditions in Iraq that have prevailed since the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom dictate the speed at which we can move to a comprehensive understanding of Iraq’s WMD activities.
We need to recall that in the 1991-2003 period the intelligence community and the UN/IAEA inspectors had to draw conclusions as to the status of Iraq’s WMD program in the face of incomplete, and often false, data supplied by Iraq or data collected either by UN/IAEA inspectors operating within the severe constraints that Iraqi security and deception actions imposed or by national intelligence collection systems with their own inherent limitations.
The result was that our understanding of the status of Iraq’s WMD program was always bounded by large uncertainties and had to be heavily caveated.With the regime of Saddam Husayn at an end, ISG has the opportunity for the first time of drawing together all the evidence that can still be found in Iraq — much evidence is irretrievably lost — to reach definitive conclusions concerning the true state of Iraq’s WMD program
That being said is it so difficult for anyone to understand the concept that we went into Iraq because we simply did not know if we had them or not, but were reasonably certain that he had something to hide. His actions alone were enough to raise reasonable doubts. Reports of inspectors not allowed into any of his palaces, waiting for hours before being allowed to go into facilities. Suspicions later arose that France was sending information to Iraq as to when and where inspectors were going to be the following day. Were you and I listening to news reports on different planets? This was certainly clear to me.
But the left latches on to this and says Bush lied, he deceived us, he mis-led us. He is a traitor, worse than Hitler, he sent young boys and girls to die. Responsible Democrats never rebuke the vitriol that spews from entertainers, government officials and Senators and it is absolutely abhorrent. Need I go on?
We no longer have close relations with precisely the countries we need to be working through. The French and the Germans are in a prime position to monitor the transit of terrorists towards our nation.
I disagree. France and Germany will always, inspite of their public view of us will always be active in helping us combat terrorism. It is just plain naïve of you to think otherwise. They will not join us in a collaborative effort to help us in Iraq, that is a given. But on an intelligence level it would be foolish for them to not assist the world in this endeavor.
Eastern block countries have never shown the animosity towards us that Chirac and Schroeder have displayed to our UN ambassadors and state officials. They in fact welcome us with open arms most likely because the fall of the Iron Curtain is still fresh in their minds. They too will take an active part in intelligence gathering and in some cases participation in Iraq.
Additionally, the nations around the Middle East that serve as conduits and breeding grounds for terrorists are in the worst position to help us. Not having our fingers in these pies will cost us dearly. It is only logical that we intercept terrorists plotting against us overseas, before they find their way here. Not having the cooperation of many of these countries will only hamper that.
And just today credit goes to Pakistan with the capture of Muhammed Naeem Moor Khan whose computer was a treasure chest of information. Pakistan’s complicity in this war on terror is not derived from Afghanistan alone, but is engaged in the wider war on terror that President Bush is engaged in. As are other Middle Eastern countries, such as Saudi Arabia. Maybe because they are now actively embroiled in fighting the proverbial alligator themselves and it is in no small part because of our presence in Iraq that they are under attack today by these insane extremists that only want us dead.
Tanzanian born Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was arrested in Islamabad for his role in the bombing of embassies in East Africa. Abu Abbas, mastermind of the Achille Lauro in 1985 is now in custody.
Syria and Jordan are more active in being perceived as supporters rather than detractors. Libya has given up their quest for WMDs, Bush’s policy to engage China and Japan to pressure North Korea. Scores of Al Qaeda operatives have been captured and they are clearly on the run. And best of all I no longer have to hear our esteemed former President continue to state “ we will hunt them down and bring them to justice”. Just how long were we supposed to take these acts of terror and continue to trust the former Administration to do the right thing? That being, actively pursuing terrorists that are sworn to kill us and in the process were doing just that. They considered us weak and we would not strike back. Except to blow up a camel or an aspirin factory. That was their opinion of us then. I don’t think it is now however. The message is clear and just the way I like it. There is no equivocation in President Bush’s message to terrorists. We will hunt you down and bring you to justice. And this time they know we mean it.