ttp://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-kerry28sep28,1,684193.story
EDITORIAL
How Dare Kerry Speak Up

September 28, 2004

The suggestion that terrorists support Sen. John F. Kerry for president is ugly, but basically silly. The suggestion that Kerry supports the terrorists is flat-out disgusting. President Bush has allowed surrogates to spread the former idea, but he himself has helped to promote the latter. Last week, Bush declared that Kerry's criticism of him and his Iraq policy "can embolden an enemy" and called Kerry "destructive" to the war on terror.

Since election day 2000 and through his first term, Bush has talked a better game of democratic values than he has played. And he is not one for nuances in any event. But the point here is not subtle: The right to criticize the policies of those in power is not just one of democracy's fringe benefits; it is essential to making the democratic machinery work. And questions of war and peace — dead young Americans, dead Iraqis, a radicalized Middle East, billions of dollars: Was it worth all this? — are the ones that need democracy the most. Why would any president even wish to plunge this country into war and keep it there without a level of support from the citizenry that is strong enough to survive the obvious counterarguments?

Bush's own campaign strategy has put the events of 9/11 and their aftermath at the center of this election. The president asks to be reelected based on the claim that his response to that event has been a success. It would be convenient for him if any challenge to this notion were considered beyond the pale. Increasingly convenient, in fact, as the word "success" seems less and less applicable. But Bush's convenience is not what this election is about.

This attempt to delegitimize criticism rather than rebut it comes as part three of a three-part Republican strategy. (At least we hope there are only three parts.) Part one was the first wave of Swift boat ads (and the ridiculous hoo-ha around them), raising questions about Kerry's Vietnam service. From there it was an easy leap to part two, the second Swift boat wave and the accompanying fuss about Kerry's leadership of the Vietnam antiwar movement. Part three drives it all home: As during Vietnam, so during Iraq. The guy is still at it, disloyally attacking his own country in wartime and giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

As this page noted during the second Swift boat attack, the Vietnam antiwar movement (or at least the part of it Kerry was associated with) was the essence of patriotism, trying to rescue our country from a terrible mistake and to prevent the waste of any more young lives. Those who attack Kerry today for opposing the war back then overlook the fact that the country came to agree with him. If Kerry and others had refrained from criticism out of a crude notion of patriotism and a misguided "respect" for American troops, many more of those troops would be long dead today.

Kerry's position on Iraq is not a model of clarity and consistency. His critique of the Bush policy has the tang of opportunism. But he is more right than wrong, certainly more right than Bush, and in any event more within his rights to make the argument than Bush is in trying to suppress it. And, as with Vietnam, the nation's policy is gradually shifting Kerry's way. Would Bush have made even the halfhearted efforts of recent weeks to share the burden and direction of the war with the United Nations if he hadn't been looking over his shoulder at the Democratic candidate for his job? To accuse Kerry of aiding the enemy while taking his advice is despicable.

Compared with Kerry, George W. Bush is a coward. This is not a reference to their respective activities during Vietnam. It refers to the current election campaign. Bush happily benefits from the slime his supporters are spreading but refuses to take responsibility for it or to call point-blank for it to stop. He got away with this when the prime mover was the shadowy Swift boats group. Will he get away with it when the accusers are his own vice president, high officials of his own administration (Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage) and members of Congress from his own party (House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert or Sen. Orrin Hatch)? The answer is yes: Based on recent experience, he probably will get away with it.

And I quote--"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." Translated to English, it says, "Fool me once, shame on you--fool me twice, shame on me." And this looks like a political article to me, Tom. Stirring it up, are you?

"Last week, Bush declared that Kerry's criticism of him and his Iraq policy "can embolden an enemy" and called Kerry "destructive" to the war on terror."

This just shows what a scumbag Bush is. I happened to catch part of Meet The Press in my car on Sunday (thank you Air America). Here is what General John Abizaid had to say. General Abizaid is commander of the U.S. Central Command and in charge of the war in Iraq.

MR. RUSSERT: General, I know you don't want to be involved in politics, but we are in the middle of a presidential campaign and I want to get your reaction to some of the charges and countercharges from your standpoint on the ground. John Kerry said "This is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." President Bush says those comments embolden the enemy and send the wrong message to the troops. Do you believe that the debate about Iraq in this country emboldens the enemy and sends the wrong message to the troops?

GEN. ABIZAID: Tim, I believe that debate in our country is what our country is all about. And if we're successful out here, debate will be part of the future of Afghanistan, it'll be part of the future of Iraq and it will be part of the future of all of the Middle East. As a matter of fact, as I look around the Middle East, we're going through a revolutionary times right now and debate is happening everywhere. So that there is a debate is certainly a good thing for the peoples of the region. That there's a debate back home is a good thing for our people.

How do you like that?! Thank you General Abizaid. Fuck off, George Bush.

Oops. Link to transcript:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/6106292/

Check C-Span right now--Rep. Adam Schiff is discussing the PDEA....and I have to go in a few minutes. Somebody fill me in later.

I missed it, but I've got a bad feeling the House just passed the PDEA--anybody got anything yet? Tom????

The idea that George Bush skipped out on the national guard is ugly. The suggestion that president bush has not fullfilled his commitment is flat-out disgusting.

Senator Kerry wants Bush to support his service record, but doesn't chime in when its his turn to support the president's just as honorable service record.

You can't count on kerry.

He is two-faced and inexperienced and doesn't deserve to be president.

The idea that George Bush skipped out on the national guard is TRUE. The suggestion that president bush has not fullfilled his commitment is flat-out TRUE.

How come you haven't yet been hit by a car because you're walking around with blinders on.

interesting.... each side claims the other doesn't know the facts. There's only one right view and it depends who you're talking to at the time as to what it is

"Senator Kerry wants Bush to support his service record, but doesn't chime in when its his turn to support the president's just as honorable service record."

What kind of wacky tabacky have you been smokin'? Comparing Kerry's service record with Bush's is like comparing a Porshe with a Pinto. Kerry was IN VIETNAM. Bush wasn't. Medals aside, nothing more needs to be said.

I just cant believe that on semptember 10th 2001 we were all calling this man a moron. There was even a television show based in his idiocy (thats my bush!). we all laughed as every phrase that came out of his mouth was a gem of mental deficiency. He was dan quale revisited. Now, as he still fumbles and his retardation shines through the amazingly well written speeches handed to him, republicans cling to the desparate hope that the one they have been rooting for is not the moron that I know they suspect he is. stop living a future regret, republicans. you are all too smart not to suspect that you may have made the wrong choice 4 years ago and are about to again.

I find it amusing that the media talks about how the "soccer moms" have become the "security moms" and voting for George Bush because they are worried about their children's future. They ought to be more concerned about their kids being drafted and used as fodder in dubya's war machine.

"Comparing Kerry's service record with Bush's is like comparing a Porshe with a Pinto. Kerry was IN VIETNAM. Bush wasn't. Medals aside, nothing more needs to be said."

I think it's funny that, during the 8 years of the Clinton presidency, the democratic mantra in regard to his alleged draft-dodging was that military service is not a pre-requisite for the presidency. And yet, it appears to be Kerry's sole qualification for it.

I don't understand why the press has let Baghdad Bush off. Have they been paid off. They never press anything about him.

Not Baghdad Bob anymore
Now Baghdad Bush

And Bush's is...?

Sorry, my question was for mystlw, concerning prerequisites for the presidency. 'Cause I don't see any for Bush at all.

"Clause 5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States"

Article II Section I Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States. the only prerequisites required for president.

i'm glad to be with Code on this election, vote BADNARIK, or atleast for a 3rd party!

"Sorry, my question was for mystlw, concerning prerequisites for the presidency. 'Cause I don't see any for Bush at all."

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that I endorse Bush, only that I found the Democrats' about-face amusing. In the interest of fairness, here's a slam on the Republicans: It's absolutely horrifying to me that this administration awarded Halliburton no-bid contracts in Iraq, and I don't understand why there hasn't been a greater outcry.

Frankly, there's a ridiculous amount of stupidity in both parties (though, conversely, both have their better qualities too), and I personally don't see a candidate in this race that I would be happy with as leader of this country.

George Bush makes the "security moms" feel secure because of his folksy, cocksure manner. They're dumb broads who are too busy working out at the gym or cooking apple pie for the family to have a clue of what is really going on. Security moms - please drive your SUV's into the nearest bridge abutment post haste.

The general consensus among intelligence experts seems to be that the Iraq war has made the US less safe as opposed to more safe. For example, a senior CIA official with 20 years experience excoriated the Administration in a book titled "Imperial Hubris" under the name "Anonymous" (real name - Michael Scheuer). Here is what he said in an interview on CNN:

BLITZER: Did the war against Saddam Hussein in Iraq help or hurt the overall war against terror?

ANONYMOUS: In terms of Osama bin Laden, I wrote in the book it was a Christmas gift of really epic proportions, something that you would always ask your parents for, but you would never really expect to get.

Our invasion of Iraq really went a long way toward validating many of the claims he has made over the past decade. For example, he's always claimed that we intend to occupy any country that has oil in it in the Muslim world. And, of course, Iraq has the second largest reserves. He's also said that we were ready and able and willing to smash any Muslim government that tried to defy the United States, and certainly we took Saddam apart.

And he's always claimed that we would smash any entity that threatened Israel or blocked the expansion of Israel. And so in many ways the invasion of Iraq was made to order as validation for his rhetoric, not validation from the Western point of view. But to his listeners in the Muslim world, the claims he made were largely validated by that action.

http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/23/wbr.00.html

Agreed. Peace. The PDEA passed in the House today, by a voice vote. On to the Senate, I guess, but what happened to Boucher not letting it get out of committee? What happened? I only caught the end of it on C-Span, did anybody else happen to catch it?

mroop--I really resent that. You can't group people together like that. And you know better. I am a mom, not a soccer mom, and certainly not a security mom, so back off. I've been called worse in my life, but the only thing I hate worse than "dumb broad" is "dumb blonde." Back off the name-calling, please.

Here's my 2 cents:
Fuck off, you liberal wankers!

Carla, GWB received an honorable discharge, so it is a FACT that he met his service obligations.

Jonh Kerry will not release his USN medical records in full, so we don't have the FACTS.

The Islamofascists do, indeed, endorse Kerry, at least the ones who have been interviewed by al-Jazeera.

APPEASEMENT WILL NOT END THE TERROR, YOU IDIOTS!!!!!!

WE MUST KILL EACH AND EVERY ISLAMOFASCIST WHEREVER WE MAY FIND THEM!!!!!!


And who has pledged to do just that??

George W. Bush, that's who!!!!!!!

"The Islamofascists do, indeed, endorse Kerry, at least the ones who have been interviewed by al-Jazeera."

Link please! I have a link for you, although I do not vouch for the authenticity of the document:

Al Qaeda Endorses Bush

After calling a truce with Spain, Al Qaeda terrorists have thrown their support behind George Bush for president.

In a statement sent to Arabic language daily al-Hayat, the Al Qaeda-linked Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades claimed it preferred bumbling stupidity over cunning genius, and that it is impossible to find a leader "more foolish than the AWOL Bush, who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."

"Americans must NOT vote for Kerry," the message continued. "Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization. The last thing we terrorists want is a Vietnam war hero like Kerry, who will bring peace and prosperity to the whole world, and turn the American people into complacent sheep with affordable health care and good jobs. We prefer terror and violence - and because of this we desire Dumbya to be elected - or should we say: we prefer him to STEAL the election again."

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2004/03/al_qaeda_endors.html

I shall continue not to make any comments on our political scene.

Thank you.

~Code

"mroop--I really resent that. You can't group people together like that. And you know better."

Any "security mom" who votes for Bush based upon nothing more than a vague fuzzy notion that Bush makes her feel safe is indeed a dumb broad. I assume my definition does not apply to you.

Come on Code, things are heatin' up today. PDEA, Induce, Islamofascists, and soccer moms all in one article!!! How can you resist?

mroop--You got that right! I hope I'm not the exception, but I wouldn't vote for Bush for dogcatcher. And I'm not picking on dogcatchers...

I posted a note on my blog, located at http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com about this new perspective I have on religion and politics, and I hereby do
reiterate my assertion that religion and politics are alike in that the cause people to think with their emotions and not their brains, and that both are faith based, and no amount of logical reasoning can cause a fan of one political camp to see the fallibilities in their own star.

Thank you.

~Code

"I hope I'm not the exception"

I hope so too. I saw a bunch of security moms at the diner interviewed on TV last week and it was damn scary. Just so you don't think I am limiting my bashing to the women, I'm sure you would find the same thing amongst men in the parking lot of your nearest professional football game.

Both can be discussed in a mature way, but people have to realize that you can't make stupid statements you can't back up (see mroop's post above), and if you can't back it up, you shouldn't state it as a fact, but as an opinion (see Suitably Twisted, also above). And both sides of most arguments have some merit, it is the job of the debaters to make their points in a positive manner (see Carla, above----just kidding!!!!!).

mroop, I understand what you mean, just giving you a hard time. I've run into the same thing myself, and cannot understand it myself. I am always surprised at what people believe. "Surprised" is not the word--"flabbergasted" is more like it.

Ruby Ridge. If we hadn't gone in an innocent mom and child wouldn't have been killed.

Waco Texas. If the government hadn't gone in to disarm the cult many innocent children wouldn't have died in the fire that the Branch Dividians set themselves

World War Two. If the Allies hadn't fought, and just made peace with Hitler and Musolini, all the millions of innocent people in most of the german and Japaneese cities would've surivived. Those killed in concentration camps are an internal matter like the Sudan and Ethiopia.

Revolutionary War... If a minority of American colinists hadn't stiiod up and accepted British rule Thousands would've lived and the land wouldn't have been ravaged by war.

When a family member stands up for children that is being abused and the abuser attacks the credibility of the family member, even acusing that member of molesting the child to divert attention from himself (I personally have seen that happen) which destroys the whole family relationship one could say it would be better to say nothing.

the list can go on and on.

Whenever anyone, any authority, any country stands up to something or someone who is doing wrong or evil, Chaos almost always follows. Are we less safe? of course we are there is no such thing as a safe war. we could just sit on our hands (like the UN) and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk. Peace at any price just leads to a worse situation in the long run.

I just decided that my posts polarize the site too much and that, there is NO logical argument that will, or CAN convince those who disagree with me, no matter what evidence I present, to change their opinion. I noticed that I generated a lot of personal animosity against me, and that is fine if it accomplished something, but it didn't. It did not generate light, just heat. It did not cause an epiphany, just animosity, and I felt the ad hominem attacks were not only out of hand, but unjustified. I have tried, as far as possible to stay on good terms with most people here (there being a few exceptions), but I realize that there are people who cannot disagree without becoming disagreeable. So, that's fine. I will vote, but as for this site, I refuse to keep trying to talk myself hoarse (virtually) when it is a waste of time.

Einstein said that one definition of insanity, is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

In my tenure here, I have posted article and post after article and post that, in my humble opinion, gave factual reasons for my side of things. These only fanned the flames of resentment for what "I was doing to the site". That's ridiculous, but, obviously is something a certain portion of people believe.

I know some people like me here, and some dislike me, and that is life.

However, I respect Larry too much to do something that will in any way, hurt his site. I may not always agree with Leflaw for everything he does, but he does try to do good things here, and I am damned if I will be the one to bring problems by expressing my political sentiments.

I respect Tom more than I can say, and yes, I respect Bill Evans, though I disagree with him very much politically.

I must say this. I respect people who I think legitimately give a damn about the working man, about the average Joe who barely makes it week to week, about the enlisted grunt in the Army, or Marine in the Corps (Semper Fi guys and gals).

I do not respect people who seem to only want to attack via ad hominem attacks, and gripe, and kvetch, and complain, but never build their own sites, nor do anything of any consequence to make life better in our country.

There is nothing wrong with complaining, but for God's sake, DO SOMETHING BUT COMPLAIN!

I know that Tom and Larry give of themselves, and they sacrifice time, money, and more, to fight for the rights of independent musicians. I know this site, for many closely associated with it...is a labor of love and dedication.

And, for that reason, because I am a guest, albeit a slightly more vocal one, I am going to save my political venom for the sites I built and maintain and for my five blogs.

So, especially today, when I would love to wade in, out of deference to DMusic and Boycott-riaa, I will shut the "F" up about what I think.

Tom and Larry...I love you guys...keep ROCKIN'

~as Da Ali G sez....

RESPECT....aiiiiiieeeettttee!
Peace

~CodeWarrior

Thank You.

I'm not voting for Bush, but when people (such as the LA Times) compares him to Kerry, it almost makes me want to vote for him.

No one follows the Constitution anymore anyway. There is already talk of changing the qualifications to run for President so that non-born Americans (Arnold) can run.

There are two Constitutional experts running for President, and their names are not Bush and Kerry. It's Michael Peroutka (Constitution Party) and Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Party). Too bad Bush and Kerry are too afraid to debate them.

"Peace at any price just leads to a worse situation in the long run."

Who said anything about peace at any price? We are talking about the most effective way to defeat the terrorists. The experts will tell you that the Iraq war has radicalized the Muslim world and is creating more terrorists than it is killing. It has also damaged our relations with governments around the world, which reduces our ability to effectively fight the enemy. No one is saying peace at any price. The question is how do you win.

A spate of articles has come out recently that say an occupying power has NEVER defeated an insurgency movement. That is what we are now fighting in Iraq.

You might find this article instructive:


http://lewrockwell.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Why+We+Cannot+Win+by+Al+Lorentz&expire=&urlID=11692279&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.com%2Forig5%2Florentz1.html&partnerID=10

Why We Cannot Win
by Al Lorentz

Before I begin, let me state that I am a soldier currently deployed in Iraq, I am not an armchair quarterback. Nor am I some politically idealistic and naïve young soldier, I am an old and seasoned Non-Commissioned Officer with nearly 20 years under my belt. Additionally, I am not just a soldier with a muds-eye view of the war, I am in Civil Affairs and as such, it is my job to be aware of all the events occurring in this country and specifically in my region. ...

Here are the specific reasons why we cannot win in Iraq.

First, we refuse to deal in reality. We are in a guerilla war, but because of politics, we are not allowed to declare it a guerilla war and must label the increasingly effective guerilla forces arrayed against us as "terrorists, criminals and dead-enders."

This implies that there is a zero sum game at work, i.e. we can simply kill X number of the enemy and then the fight is over, mission accomplished, everybody wins. Unfortunately, this is not the case. We have few tools at our disposal and those are proving to be wholly ineffective at fighting the guerillas.

The idea behind fighting a guerilla army is not to destroy its every man (an impossibility since he hides himself by day amongst the populace). Rather the idea in guerilla warfare is to erode or destroy his base of support.

So long as there is support for the guerilla, for every one you kill two more rise up to take his place. More importantly, when your tools for killing him are precision guided munitions, raids and other acts that create casualties among the innocent populace, you raise the support for the guerillas and undermine the support for yourself. (A 500-pound precision bomb has a casualty-producing radius of 400 meters minimum; do the math.)

I will say this. Today I happened to talk to two kids, one was an 18 year old male and his 16 year old sister. I asked the male if he intended to vote, and he said yes. I asked him if his friends were talking about voting and he said no. I asked him why, and he said they just don't care, and don't see how voting matters. I asked the 16 year old if her friends were interested in politics, and she said no, and I asked why, and she said they just don't think it matters, and don't care.

Maybe it doesn't matter, hell, I don't know. And, these were just two young kids living, as I do, in the sticks here in Texas. But, I recall when I was younger, and there was this argument that went something like this, if I can be drafted and die for my county, why can't I vote? They lowered the voting age.
But, what good did it do for the kids to fight to lower the voting age from 21 to 18, if they don't utilize the franchise.

good point

"But, what good did it do for the kids to fight to lower the voting age from 21 to 18, if they don't utilize the franchise."

This might make you feel better:

Political experts expect increase in young voters

http://www.showmenews.com/2004/Sep/20040912News031.asp

Unprecedented Number of Young Voters Register to Vote in Key Battleground States

http://www.newvotersproject.org/www.newvotersproject.org/battlegroundreg

Thanks mroop...that did raise my spirits a bit.

Thank You

We had this story in the Miami Herald today, too.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/9778836.htm
I just hope all this means they will vote when November rolls around.

ShadowMom...I wish there were more ladies like you out there!

"But, what good did it do for the kids to fight to lower the voting age from 21 to 18, if they don't utilize the franchise."

Perhaps if the system were changed, more people would be motivated to vote. The way that it is currently leads to a "just more of the same" dread.
I have a non-American online friend who is amazed at how little variety there is in our political system. He equates it to Coke-vs-Pepsi, when it should be about beer-vs-wine.

Personally, I'd like to see a an extra option placed on ballots: "none of the above". I believe that people who are disillusioned with the system, and wouldn't ordinarily come out to vote, would turn out by the millions to be able to cast a vote of no confidence.

ShadowMom...I just posted an interesting article at my blog
at codewarrrioz.blogspot.com on a topic close to this one.

"None of the above." But then who would we blame??? I may go with George and vote for Dave Barry this time. And Code, convert one by one by one... and thank you.

Code--the URL was not found. Make it easy for me, please!

""None of the above." But then who would we blame???"

See, the point would be that if "none of the above" gathers the most votes, they all parties much toss out their current candidates and offer us new ones, until someone eventually wins. If nothing else, maybe it would lead to more civil campaigns.

mystlw, usually I'm an optimist--that's why I have such a hard time believing people do some of the horrid things they do. But in this case, no. There's too much power and too much MONEY involved in this. And I'm not sure you can use the word "civil" anymore when you are speaking about politics.

Every Time I come here I just see the same names and the same rhetoric.

Code, Carla, and mroop don't you all have real jobs or is this your life.

Get a job people and get a life!!! This website would be better without you all.

Go home if you don't like the company.

mystlw I love that idea except showmom is right. there's too many power brokers behind the candidates. under our constitution even if 75% vote none of the above the election would be decided by the other 25%. What I would like to see if a grass roots effor to rally around a third pary candidate and elect them. that'll really get their attentions

ShadowMom: This is the site: http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com/

Have you read George Ziemann's thoughts today?
http://www.azoz.com/

kerry started the whole vets against him thing back when he dissed them at the end of the vietnam war and its been simmering ever since. when he came off as the big bad soldier reporting for duty crap at the convention he opened a whole can of worms and now he is trying to blame the republicans for something he opened the door wide open on . instead of standing on his senate record (?) the reporting for duty thing enraged alot of vets and thats whats going on. you are giving the republicans to much credit if you think they are behind it , sure they are glad it happened but kerry has no one to blame but himself thats called freedom of speach and the freedom of those you speak to to react.

GetAJobPeople- I work ten hours a day and have an hour commute...instead of just jumping on the couch and watching tv and being indoctrinated, I come here for an hour or so, sometimes more and update my blogs and sometimes my main site. So, I have a job Slick, you got one? If so, great. Get a better attitude!

LOL...hey guys, little mr. GetAJobPeople sez the site would be better without us. Hmmmm....do tell!

LOL..."it" just joined today and thinks the site would be better without us...Guess that means we must leave, right?
LOLOLOL.......

"GetAJobPeople
Type: DMember
Status: Non-Subscriber
Points: 7
Member Since: Sep 28, 2004
Last Seen: Offline - 0s "

hey getajob i dont see eye to eye with most people here but i do respect everyone and if we all saw things the same way it would be pretty boring . if they dont have a job more luck to them lol i would like to retire myself .

Well, Code, he certainly added a lot to it, didn't he?

Lachatte--I try to visit George's site every day, but he doesn't always update it. Thanks for the reminder. I like his top ten story...

lol...yeah, Mr. BigShot....NOT...guess his mommy made him get off the 'puter.

I think at this point, I am a troll magnet.

Hunh. Did GetAJobPeople just join this site to tell us that?

I visit George's site too and like his stories. George is a good writer...we may not see eye to eye, but he does hang in there and keeps fighting....good for George sez I.

Apparently, you, me and mroop are the ones he really dislikes...guess we should all sit down and cry (lolololololol...side hurts from laughing....ROFL, LMAO....lol)

"so it goes"-Vonnegut

Check out what W's home town paper in Crawford, Texas had to say about his candidacy.

Kerry Will Restore
American Dignity
2004 Iconoclast Presidential Endorsement

Few Americans would have voted for George W. Bush four years ago if he had promised that, as President, he would:
• Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefits.
• Cut Medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans’ benefits and military pay.
• Eliminate overtime pay for millions of Americans and raise oil prices by 50 percent.
• Give tax cuts to businesses that sent American jobs overseas, and, in fact, by policy encourage their departure.
• Give away billions of tax dollars in government contracts without competitive bids.
• Involve this country in a deadly and highly questionable war, and
• Take a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the history of the United States, creating a debt in just four years that will take generations to repay.
These were elements of a hidden agenda that surfaced only after he took office.
The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda.
Today, we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry, based not only on the things that Bush has delivered, but also on the vision of a return to normality that Kerry says our country needs.
Four items trouble us the most about the Bush administration: his initiatives to disable the Social Security system, the deteriorating state of the American economy, a dangerous shift away from the basic freedoms established by our founding fathers, and his continuous mistakes regarding terrorism and Iraq.
President Bush has announced plans to change the Social Security system as we know it by privatizing it, which when considering all the tangents related to such a change, would put the entire economy in a dramatic tailspin.
The Social Security Trust Fund actually lends money to the rest of the government in exchange for government bonds, which is how the system must work by law, but how do you later repay Social Security while you are running a huge deficit? It’s impossible, without raising taxes sometime in the future or becoming fiscally responsible now. Social Security money is being used to escalate our deficit and, at the same time, mask a much larger government deficit, instead of paying down the national debt, which would be a proper use, to guarantee a future gain.
Privatization is problematic in that it would subject Social Security to the ups, downs, and outright crashes of the Stock Market. It would take millions in brokerage fees and commissions out of the system, and, unless we have assurance that the Ivan Boeskys and Ken Lays of the world will be caught and punished as a deterrent, subject both the Market and the Social Security Fund to fraud and market manipulation, not to mention devastate and ruin multitudes of American families that would find their lives lost to starvation, shame, and isolation.
Kerry wants to keep Social Security, which each of us already owns. He says that the program is manageable, since it is projected to be solvent through 2042, with use of its trust funds. This would give ample time to strengthen the economy, reduce the budget deficit the Bush administration has created, and, therefore, bolster the program as needed to fit ever-changing demographics.
Our senior citizens depend upon Social Security. Bush’s answer is radical and uncalled for, and would result in chaos as Americans have never experienced. Do we really want to risk the future of Social Security on Bush by spinning the wheel of uncertainty?
In those dark hours after the World Trade Center attacks, Americans rallied together with a new sense of patriotism. We were ready to follow Bush’s lead through any travail.
He let us down.
When he finally emerged from his hide-outs on remote military bases well after the first crucial hours following the attack, he gave sound-bytes instead of solutions.
He did not trust us to be ready to sacrifice, build up our public and private security infrastructure, or cut down on our energy use to put economic pressure on the enemy in all the nations where he hides. He merely told us to shop, spend, and pretend nothing was wrong.
Rather than using the billions of dollars expended on the invasion of Iraq to shore up our boundaries and go after Osama bin Laden and the Saudi Arabian terrorists, the funds were used to initiate a war with what Bush called a more immediate menace, Saddam Hussein, in oil-rich Iraq. After all, Bush said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction trained on America. We believed him, just as we believed it when he reported that Iraq was the heart of terrorism. We trusted him.
The Iconoclast, the President’s hometown newspaper, took Bush on his word and editorialized in favor of the invasion. The newspaper’s publisher promoted Bush and the invasion of Iraq to Londoners in a BBC interview during the time that the administration was wooing the support of Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Again, he let us down.
We presumed the President had solid proof of the existence of these weapons, what and where they were, even as the search continued. Otherwise, our troops would be in much greater danger and the premise for a hurried-up invasion would be moot, allowing more time to solicit assistance from our allies.
Instead we were duped into following yet another privileged agenda.
Now he argues unconvincingly that Iraq was providing safe harbor to terrorists, his new key justification for the invasion. It is like arguing that America provided safe harbor to terrorists leading to 9/11.
Once and for all, George Bush was President of the United States on that day. No one else. He had been President nine months, he had been officially warned of just such an attack a full month before it happened. As President, ultimately he and only he was responsible for our failure to avert those attacks.
We should expect that a sitting President would vacation less, if at all, and instead tend to the business of running the country, especially if he is, as he likes to boast, a “wartime president.” America is in service 365 days a year. We don’t need a part-time President who does not show up for duty as Commander-In-Chief until he is forced to, and who is in a constant state of blameless denial when things don’t get done.
What has evolved from the virtual go-it-alone conquest of Iraq is more gruesome than a stain on a White House intern’s dress. America’s reputation and influence in the world has diminished, leaving us with brute force as our most persuasive voice.
Iraq is now a quagmire: no WMDs, no substantive link between Saddam and Osama, and no workable plan for the withdrawal of our troops. We are asked to go along on faith. But remember, blind patriotism can be a dangerous thing and “spin” will not bring back to life a dead soldier; certainly not a thousand of them.
Kerry has remained true to his vote granting the President the authority to use the threat of war to intimidate Saddam Hussein into allowing weapons inspections. He believes President Bush rushed into war before the inspectors finished their jobs.
Kerry also voted against President Bush’s $87 billion for troop funding because the bill promoted poor policy in Iraq, privileged Halliburton and other corporate friends of the Bush administration to profiteer from the war, and forced debt upon future generations of Americans.
Kerry’s four-point plan for Iraq is realistic, wise, strong, and correct. With the help from our European and Middle Eastern allies, his plan is to train Iraqi security forces, involve Iraqis in their rebuilding and constitution-writing processes, forgive Iraq’s multi-billion dollar debts, and convene a regional conference with Iraq’s neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq’s borders and non-interference in Iraq’s internal affairs.
The publishers of the Iconoclast differ with Bush on other issues, including the denial of stem cell research, shortchanging veterans’ entitlements, cutting school programs and grants, dictating what our children learn through a thought-controlling “test” from Washington rather than allowing local school boards and parents to decide how young people should be taught, ignoring the environment, and creating extraneous language in the Patriot Act that removes some of the very freedoms that our founding fathers and generations of soldiers fought so hard to preserve.
We are concerned about the vast exportation of jobs to other countries, due in large part to policies carried out by Bush appointees. Funds previously geared at retention of small companies are being given to larger concerns, such as Halliburton — companies with strong ties to oil and gas. Job training has been cut every year that Bush has resided at the White House.
Then there is his resolve to inadequately finance Homeland Security and to cut the Community Oriented Policing Program (COPS) by 94 percent, to reduce money for rural development, to slash appropriations for the Small Business Administration, and to under-fund veterans’ programs.
Likewise troubling is that President Bush fought against the creation of the 9/11 Commission and is yet to embrace its recommendations.
Vice President Cheney’s Halliburton has been awarded multi-billion-dollar contracts without undergoing any meaningful bid process — an enormous conflict of interest — plus the company has been significantly raiding the funds of Export-Import Bank of America, reducing investment that could have gone toward small business trade.
When examined based on all the facts, Kerry’s voting record is enviable and echoes that of many Bush allies who are aghast at how the Bush administration has destroyed the American economy. Compared to Bush on economic issues, Kerry would be an arch-conservative, providing for Americans first. He has what it takes to right our wronged economy.
The re-election of George W. Bush would be a mandate to continue on our present course of chaos. We cannot afford to double the debt that we already have. We need to be moving in the opposite direction.
John Kerry has 30 years of experience looking out for the American people and can navigate our country back to prosperity and re-instill in America the dignity she so craves and deserves. He has served us well as a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and has had a successful career as a district attorney, lieutenant governor, and senator.
Kerry has a positive vision for America, plus the proven intelligence, good sense, and guts to make it happen.
That’s why The Iconoclast urges Texans not to rate the candidate by his hometown or even his political party, but instead by where he intends to take the country.
The Iconoclast wholeheartedly endorses John Kerry.




http://news.iconoclast-texas.com/web/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm

Hats off to twoby2...and I am not making any political statements

posted the article in my blog, and gave credit to twoby2.

We are the biggest threats....we get voted off the island.

...lol

No you don't, carla--GetaJob does--and he's gone. Love the article from the Iconoclast, too. I really wanted to send him back to Texas, but I guess they don't want him anymore.

"What I would like to see if a grass roots effor to rally around a third pary candidate and elect them. that'll really get their attentions"

Since I haven't been able to decide which major-party candidate was the lesser of the two evils I was actually considering voting Nader, not because I think he's electable but to send a message to the other parties. However, as of yesterday two recent incidents have motivated me to make a choice. I'm not happy with having to choose either candidate, but it's what I'm going to do.

Nobody's really happy with either candidate, but aside from our own personal vendetta here, ya gotta vote fer sumbudy, dontcha?

OK...lemme say this,....and it is NOT political

I voted for the first time in the Gore-Bush election.

Prior to that, I never voted and people would ask me why not, since I had strong political opinions. My answer was something I heard long ago...and that was..." I don't want to encourage them."

I also never saw anyone I really wanted to vote FOR.

At that time, the majority of people did NOT vote.

I saw that as saying to the system that they either did not feel they had a legitimate choice in the candidates, did not acknowledge the authority of this government to hold elections, or were too lazy to go out and vote. Thus, the silent "NON-VOTE" said something to me about the majority of people not taking part in the process.

So, after 50 years, I voted, and watched the returns. I saw the majority of citizens (popular vote...the "vox populi) that voted, voted as I did, and the other side won anyway.

"so it goes"-Vonnegut

"I also never saw anyone I really wanted to vote FOR."

This, as I see it, is the greatest problem. When the majority of those who vote aren't voting FOR a candidate so much as AGAINST another, what does that say about the system? Millions of voters sit out the elections for lack of an alternative means to express thier displeasure with the current system and candidates. But where is it engraved in stone that this is the system that we MUST settle for? Why can't it be changed? Why can't we work toward a political system that's actually centered on "the people"?

Please consider supporting the Socialist Equality Party. Libertarianism and other third-party movements offer a false sense of social justice.

Bill Van Auken is the candidate I proudly endorse. He brings intelligence, honest, bluntness, and integrity to his presidential campaign, something that Bush, Kerry, Nader, and other false hopes fail to offer. PLEASE learn more about the SEP.

Help change the world. Support Bill Van Auken and the SEP. http://www.wsws.org/

mystlw:

The defining characteristic of socialism is that is emphasizes the common good, unlike capitalism, which rewards selfishness, greed, and corruption.

As a socialist, I believe that the power of humanity working as one is the greatest power we have available. But as long as the capitalist socioeconomic system remains in place, this can never happen.

Consider supporting the SEP.

in oregon the democratic sec of state decided for us that we cant have nader on the ballot even though we had the signitures . after a judge ruled he over stepped his autority bradbury appealed it to his supreme court and they over turned the judge's ruling . so even if we want a third party they wont let us have it ! http://www.kxl.com/ArDisplay.aspx?SecID=13&ID=42934

here is more but its all a discrace http://www.kxl.com/ArDisplay.aspx?SecID=13&ID=43077

sorry disgrace

i am so happy i found this site i finally have a place to voice my opinions and just b.s around with some inteligent people,so codewarrior my fellow texan,shadowmom,and the rest of the regulars i look forward to talking more withyou all.

"in oregon the democratic sec of state decided for us that we cant have nader on the ballot even though we had the signitures ."

The Democrats here in Ohio are fighting Nader's eligibility. He was on the ballot, then he was off, some signatures were invalidated, and frankly, I'm not sure where it stands as of now.

Here's the sad thing: Ohio has been referred to as "Ground Zero" of the 2004 campaign. We're getting visits from candidates or their families about twice a week (it's really getting ridiculous). Nader is the only candidate who hasn't been draining state and community resources by sucking up to Ohioans who, after the election, will go right back to being a "flyover state".

therealjdawg - welcome aboard and thanks !

~Code

"Comparing Kerry's service record with Bush's is like comparing a Porshe with a Pinto. Kerry was IN VIETNAM. Bush wasn't. Medals aside, nothing more needs to be said."

"I think it's funny that, during the 8 years of the Clinton presidency, the democratic mantra in regard to his alleged draft-dodging was that military service is not a pre-requisite for the presidency. And yet, it appears to be Kerry's sole qualification for it. "

I couldn't agree with you more mystlw!! Very good point, thanks for the reminder. Funny thing is, it was BUSH that made military service an issue by allowing the Swift Boat group to perpetrate lies. Bush did so to avoid issues like the Economy, and Health Care.

Of course the Democrats couldn't take the high road, could they? They had to make their own lies with phony memos about Bush's service, didn't they?

How do you know the Republicans didn't fabricate the memo to set up CBS?

Code, I think you came into this voting thing at a very strange turn of events, and hopefully it won't be repeated..hopefully with this election, there will leave no doubt as to who is in control. The last four years have been awful because half the country still think Gore is, or should have been President.

Yeah, pepe, the half that voted for him.

Interesting thought carla60626...

I don't, nor do I pretend I do. I thought it was just an interesting observation that occurred.

For that matter, maybe the Republicans wanted to set up Dan Rather....

Who knows....

I have a few questions and a observation I would like to make.

First, for Carla, Tom, and Codewarrior: Why is it okay for Bill Clinton to have dodged the draft and avoid Vietnam and it is not for George Bush to use guard service to do the same?

To the conservatives: Why is is okay for Bush to have used the Guard to avoid going to Vietnam and wrong for Clinton to dodge the draft?

Why is it okay for Moveon.org to make infmammatory ads attacking Bush and wrong for the Swiftboat veterans to attack Kerry?

Why is is wrong for Fox news to have a conservative bias in its reporting yet there has been little outcry from Dan Rather and CBS News using forged documents as their primary source for their attack on Bush?

I'm not trying to go after any one side but I have been puzzeled how both the democrats and republicans switch their positions depending on which parties candidate is in office. My observation is that both John Kerry and George Bush, Democrats and Republicans, mainstream liberals and conservatives, have one large word in common........ HYPOCRISY

sorry, I meant Inflammatory not infammatory. And here I am, a high school teacher.

"He is two-faced and inexperienced and doesn't deserve to be president."
I agree... W is a two-faced idiot and shouldn't be president anymore.





Experience has nothing to do with it... you can't get experience without experiencing something.

I do believe that part of the requirement of being President should be time served in the military. I have a problem with the fact that this president smilingly signed papers sending young men and women to die and then headed for one of MANY vacations to his ranch in Texas. If our soldiers are fighting in and dieing in a war(s) then their commander should be at his post, and this commander has hardly been there. Guess that's the National Guard mentality in him. It makes me sick. And as for the National Guard... anyone who was in or knows someone who was in Vietnam, the National Guard was a haven for the rich boys to hang out while the poor boys were dieing in jungles. Anyone who has been in the military or knows someone in the military since Vietnam, knows the National Guard is a haven for gung-ho's who the military won't accept. Take a good look at the one's on trial now for torturing POWs in Iraq... inbreds.
Have more respect for draft dodgers, than those rich spoiled brats who got daddy to call his political buddies and get his kid in the National Guard. One has guts and stood up for themselves, the other is a coward.

So, Skippy:

Are you implying that all those who served in the guard are cowards?

"Why can't we work toward a political system that's actually centered on 'the people'?"

We'd have to throw out the entire Constitution and start over to accomplish this, a move which Jefferson should be performed every generation and no one has yet realisticly considered.

For the record, there were Air National Guard units who were called up during Vietnam.

Floowing the seizure of the USS Pueblo on 24 January 1968, President Lyndon Baines Johnson issued a Presidential Executive Order mobilizing eight tactical fighter squadrons and three tactical reconnaissance squadrons with support elements. Thirty-six hours later 1,076 officers and 8,102 airmen were on federal active duty. Four of those tactical fighter squadrons went directly to Vietnam.

120th TFS, CO ANG joined the 35th TFW at Phan Rang and entered combat on 5 May 1968. It was followed by the 174th TFS, IA ANG, with the 37th TFW at Phu Cat AB, and by the 136th TFS, NY ANG, and 188th TFS, NM ANG as Tuy Hoa AB. In the end 22,745 Guardsmen served on active duty during the Vietnam Conflict.

George Bush served with the 111th Fighter Squadron, Texas Air National Guard. According to "The United States Air National Guard," by Rene J. Francillon, the unit was assigned to Air Defence Command from 1960 until 1980. During the period Lt. Bush served, the unit flew F-102 Delta Daggers, a missile armed intercepter that was unsuitable for the air-to ground work being done in Vietnam. The USAF tried using the F-102 in Vietnam as a fighter but quickly pulled them back as the threat of Vietnamese bombers flying south did not materialize. The question therefore is would Bush have flllowed his unit if it had been mobilized? I firmly believe he would have or he would have been court martialed.

As for the National Guard being a haven for gung-ho the military wouldn't accept. That, sir is a downright lie and slander to those who serve.

In fact, the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve have some of the most experience pilots in the military as many pilot who finish their required commitment to the USAF, USMC, and USN join the Guard for extra pay and flying time. Joe Foss, the Marine ace from World War Two retired as a general from the Air National Guard.

I was on active duty when Clinton was in office and I can tell you that the man did not have the respect of my comrades.

One other point, there are many pilots in the Air National Guard today who earned their wings flying combat missions over South East Asia with the USAF and USN.

"Are you implying that all those who served in the guard are cowards?"
If you think I'm wrong, then please show me. That's all I have heard about for over 30 years, even from people I know who were in the guard. A man I used to work with told me how ashamed he was. His parents were wealthy and had friends in politics and got him in the National Guard when he turned 18 in 1969 (he didn't do well in school and couldn't get into a university). One of his best friends in high school wasn't wealthy, he ended up in Vietnam and was killed.


" ...I have been puzzeled how both the democrats and republicans switch their positions depending on which parties candidate is in office"
More like which party has control of the senate & house floor. The Republicans got pissed after Bush Sr. lost to Clinton and it started getting worse from there... both sides.
You did forget one:
Why did the Republicans spend over 60 million dollars investigating Clinton's sex life, while at the same time told people to leave Newt alone after it was discovered that he openly lied to a Congressional Committee and then boasted about lieing?

"During the period Lt. Bush served, the unit flew F-102 Delta Daggers, a missile armed intercepter that was unsuitable for the air-to ground work being done in Vietnam."
How convenient. So you are now saying they also made sure he ended up in a unit that was guaranteed never to get called up.

Also, there is a huge difference between National Guard and Reservists. Reservists are considered part of the main military.

"The question therefore is would Bush have flllowed his unit if it had been mobilized?"
The real question is if this squadron had been capable of being used in combat would he have been assigned to this unit?

"In fact, the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve have some of the most experience pilots in the military"
Oh yes, so highly trained that TWO different groups from the National Guard disobeyed orders NOT TO FIRE and dropped bombs on friendlies in Afganistan. You're right, nicely trained and in no way gung-ho.

Oh, and that's mame to you.

Why should anyone vote for John Kerry if he is unwilling to give up his seat in Congress? He must not be all that confident in himself. We need a president with confidence and that's not John Kerry.

Since were pulling soldiers out of retirement, let's send John Kerry into Iraq and he can train the troops himself. Have him put his 3 purple hearts to good use and put him to the test.

It's true that a lot got deferments or joined the Air National Guard so they would not go. I do not see anything wrong with that. What gets me is when they do not do their duty. Being AWOL is not being at your post. You do not run a campaign for someone running for office when you should be at your post. As for the swift boat ads they are a bunch of lairs. They investigate what happen before you receive your medals. Oh by the way I served from 69-73 U.S. Army

They never give up their seats to run for office R. or D. They should be made to give them up.

First off why should we be pulling ex military out retirement in the first place?
Send in the reg military not the guard in.
That what they joined up to do.

"Why should anyone vote for John Kerry if he is unwilling to give up his seat in Congress? "
He doesn't have to give up his seat unless he wins.

I want to have the money I have been investing in Social Security when I retire. If we elect Bush again he will privatize it. I've lost enough money in my 401K plan due to the market, I don't want to loose any more.
I do believe that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, since Nader doesn't stand a chance of winning a mayoral race in Bum-F*** Land. Not to mention Nader isn't the man he was years ago. He is the true flip-flop man.
Kerry may not be the best of the best, but he's definately the best and the safest of the choices given. I do believe, judging at how desperate they have gotten about getting more troops, that if Bush wins he will try to bring back the draft... what does he have to lose, it's not like he'll be needing the popular vote ever again.
Even Reagan believed strengthen our military, but military use is not the best answer.


At the beginning of last year, I believed in Bush, I believed him regarding Iraq, etc. I think he used the emotions of this nation against us and forced us to rally behind him. I will not vote for anyone who has no shame or dignity. I will not stand behind anyone who would use a persons emotions to take advantage of them. The latest statements he and Cheney have made... telling people that voting for Kerry is a vote for terrorism and that if Kerry becomes president this country will be attacked like never before... is beyond acceptable. They are resorting to fear to get the vote. If this was a court room, they would be charged with threatening witness'. And apparently they have forgotten that Kerry wasn't president on Sept 11, 2001. If this is the game they want to play then how's this... If Gore had become president, would he have listened to the warnings? Would 9/11 have happened? If it had happened, would it have been as devistating as it was? Unfortunately, we will never know. All we know is, the person who was president, didn't listen. We cannot have someone as our leader, who refuses to listen to warnings of possible strikes against our country. We cannot have someone as our leader who is willing to flush down the toilet the very thing that makes us who we are... THE CONSTITUTION, THE BILL OF RIGHTS, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, RIGHT TO VOTE.

"Oh by the way I served from 69-73 U.S. Army"
Thank you.

"in oregon the democratic sec of state decided for us that we cant have nader on the ballot even though we had the signitures .... so even if we want a third party they wont let us have it ! "

The signatures wasn't the only thing that Nader needed. The Sec of State was protecting Oregon laws. Regardless of whether he's demo or repub, he was doing his job by supporting the law that was passed by the people of Oregon.

This is one of the reasons why I believe Nader has lost all of the credibility he ever had. There are rules to being put on a ballot. Most are different from state to state. Nader waited til the last minute, knowing he had little or no chance of getting on the ballots, in the majority of the states. Then he wastes tax payers dollars filing law suits. I believe the only reason he joined the campaign was because Kerry was showing a strong force in possibly defeating Bush and Nader's billionaire supporters, who are also supporters of Bush, talked him into it. It's been proven that many wealthy Repubs and long time supporters of Bush are putting money behind Nader, and not because they believe in Nader. Most of the people who voted for Nader in 2000 would have voted for Gore if Nader had not been on the ballot. And this has now become a tactic.

Nader is a turn-coat. He used to stand up for the little guy and he used to be against corporations. But now he takes their money and barks when they hold a bone out in front of him. He is no longer a good representative of the little guy, and he definately is no longer a good representative of third party candidacy.

"They never give up their seats to run for office R. or D. "

Didn't Bob Dole give up his seat when he ran for President? Or am I not remembering correctly?

Whatever our differences, I support the guys and gals in the military. I have a friend in Iraq now, and know two more.

I pray they ALL come home safe and sound, and someday war will be over. No one really wins in war, just some folks lose more than others...though the victor thinks they won, both sides lose people.

To everyone IN the armed services now, and those who have served our country, I salute you and thank you for your service to our country.

~Code

Mike2212 you have said so elequontly (forgive my spelling) what most of us middle of the road independents have been trying to say and getting criticized for it. careful though there are those here that feel "if you don't agree with us, you must be a conservitive or Bush lover"

Funny thing, when I supported Clinton in the 90's (mainly because of the same hateful viciousness on the republicans part that I now see in the democrats) I was called a left winged liberal.

@compmore: did you happen to read Charles Krauthammer's recent column on the Kerry camp's attempts to scare Australia into leaving the coalition? It's an interesting read, and more than a little scary.

compmore is right. I also supported clinton just because of the likes of rush limburger. I've been called everything from a bleeding heart to a nazi and the truth is I've been a registered independent for going on 23 years.

Here's what scares me the most. The average joe is going to lose in this election. it doesn't matter who the president is, you me, everyone who doesn't have a PAC is going to lose. you could pick which one you want to screw you by flipping a coin because there really isn't any difference between them.

I can't stand bush. I think he's an idiot. but I've seen what the democrats have in store for us and that's just as bad.

The reason I'm voting for Nader is because the more support a third party can garner now the more it helps them down the road. I've given up on the immediate future. hopefully within 10 years or so the current idiots will have pissed the world off to the point where we are willing to make a change.

no is there a link for it?

Why is it okay for Bill Clinton to have dodged the draft and avoid Vietnam and it is not for George Bush to use guard service to do the same?

It's not the military service that's the issue. The difference is that GWB started a ridiculous war, pretends he's fighting a war on TARA, and allows his supporters to attack someone who served in combat and then had the guts to protest the war.

And, thank you, veterans for your service.

"no is there a link for it?"

Sometimes this link give me the editorial, sometimes it tells me I have to register.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45794-2004Sep23.html

Legal justification for charging GW with treason:

Anyone who provides disinformation to Congress has committed a felony. If the provider is a U.S. government official intent on starting a war, it could amount to treason.

captdunsel...don't you see the infinitely worse harm another 4 years of Bush can do?
Support a 3rd party in the next election. This one is too important.
Honestly, I think the terrorists may literally try to nuke us because George Bush has inspired and instigated such hatred for our country. Kerry will at least try to work with the other countries in this world. GWB is a renegade cowboy -- nothing for this country to be proud of.

But it's your choice, I won't bring it up again.

...don't you see the infinitely worse harm another 4 years of Bush can do?

sorry but no.

Support a 3rd party in the next election. This one is too important

that's said every election. a third party win will take a course of many elections

by the way, not to be "political", but part of the Patriot Act was ruled unconstitutional today.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_5359.shtml
"Judge Strikes Down Key Part of Patriot Act
By Staff and Wire Reports
Sep 29, 2004, 15:39
Email this article
Printer friendly page

A key part of the Patriot Act, a central plank of the Bush Administration's war on terror, was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge on Wednesday, in the latest blow to U.S. security policies.
U.S. District Judge Victor Marreo ruled in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the power the FBI has to demand confidential financial records from companies that it can obtain without court approval as part of terrorism investigations.

The legislation bars companies and other recipients of these subpoenas from ever revealing that they received the FBI demand for records. Marreo held that this permanent ban was a violation of free speech rights.

In his ruling, Marreo prohibited the Department of Justice and the FBI from issuing special administrative subpoenas, known as national security letters. But he delayed enforcement of his judgment pending an expected appeal by the government. The Department of Justice said it was reviewing the ruling.

The ruling was the latest blow to the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that terror suspects being held in U.S. facilities like Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, can use the American judicial system to challenge their confinement. That ruling was a defeat for the president's assertion of sweeping powers to hold "enemy combatants" indefinitely after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The FBI first received power to get customer records in 1986 legislation, but its power to obtain confidential data was greatly expanded by the Patriot Act -- a controversial law the Bush administration pushed through Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks to help it battle terrorism.

The ACLU argued that the anti-terrorism laws give the FBI unconstitutional power to demand sensitive information without adequate safeguards.

The judge agreed, saying the provision "effectively bars or substantially deters any judicial challenge."

"Such a challenge is necessary to vindicate important rights guaranteed by the Constitution," Marreo said."

"Support a 3rd party in the next election. This one is too important."

This isn't an option for some of us. In fact, today's newpaper states that Nader is off the ballot in my state. Again.

"part of the Patriot Act was ruled unconstitutional today."

Hmmm...didn't Kerry vote for that? Or was that BEFORE he voted against it?

So, it boils down to two candidates who both supported a hideously bad piece of legislation. No wonder so many of us are underwhelmed this election.

code.... HORRAY!!!!!!!!

no I see the infinately worse harm of a democratic agenda.

1. Fuck the UN. they have no business or place in our elections. Further the whining bitch democrats who can't do anything more than cry because "Bush cheated" sound like a bunch of kids on a playground. If they addressed the concerns the people have and quit caving in to special interests Bush would be history in a 50 state landslide.

2. Bill Clinton signed the DMCA

3. Bill Clinton Did nothing about Bin Laden.

4. I pay enough in taxes.

5. The first time I heard the "terrorists" refer to us as "The Great Satan" was Nov 4th 1979 and Jimmy Carter (D) was president (and I didn't have to look that up on google) They've been trying to bring us to our knees since.

6. Bill Clinton bombed the shit out of the former Yugslavia and a lot more people died there than in Iraq.

7. JFK outright challenged the Soviets to a fight.

8. Lyndon Baines Johnson... (shudder) wrought hell upon the young men of the 60's and 70's so he could keep selling worthless assed p.o.s. helicopters to the army.

this list goes on and on.

no. I've had enough. it's time for a change. the democrats can't pull their head out of their ass so they don't get my support. the republicans will cut their own throats soon enough. right now is the time for the country to see that neither of these parties is doing us any good but we are powerless to make a real choice. it's going to take something like this that is so polarizing that people will be forced to choose something else.

and by the way code I submitted that article as a news item.

and since I'm ranting I have to say this.

I've read some nasty things about codewarrior lately and I've read his responses and I'll say this.

I admire Code. I think I'm probably not on the same page with him on a lot of my political beliefs but I enjoy reading his submissions just because he's clearly got some good Ideas and he can speak his mind without making personal attacks (usually) against anyone. I can respect anyone and their opinion as long as they don't try to make this a personal bully pulpit. but some of the people who have written in here and put up some of the crap that's been said lately haven't learned that.

here's a thought. if you don't agree with someone, argue with them intelligently and repectfully. open discourse is always a good thing. but the name calling and the personal attacks are bullshit. if you can't control yourself then keep quiet.

unless it's me then I reserve the right to be an asshole.

and what happened to my big sandwich?

(for those who are fans of The Simpsons)

For those who "style" themselves as conservatives, I recommend you check some true patriots and conservatives, with whom I agree on most things except abortion. Check out Alex Jones (in my former city, Austin) at:
http://www.inforwars.com
http://www.prisonplanet.com
http://www.prisonplanet.tv
listen to his show 11 am -2 pm M-F at
http://www.gcnlive.com/monday-friday.htm
and
and John Stadtmiller also of the Austin area (Round Rock, where Dell Computer headquarters are located) , found of the Republic Broadcasting Network..at
http://www.rbnlive.com

These two guys are definitely NOT pro-Bush, but they are truly conservatives, not this Neo-con bull!

If you believe in the second amendment, control of the borders, supporting our troops, against the UN, against globalism, against the RIAA, you will feel right at home with them (except, in my case, I support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, and they are foursquare against it).

That's not me being political, but I consider them the true conservatives, not Karl Rove and his band of ne'er do wells!

now it's time for the water closet and a glass of warm milk before bed. you kids keep the noise down to a dull roar.

captdunsel- We probably agree more than you know.

If you're ever out here in the sticks in Texas, I would consider it a great honor if we could have coffee and talk. I really appreciate what you say, even when we disagree, you're a standup guy!

~Code

code, I'm actually from west texas originally (Denver City). I still have family back there and friends in Arlington and Tyler. I'll let you know the next time I get back that way.

capt....sent you a note

Carla, you wrote "The difference is that GWB started a ridiculous war, pretends he's fighting a war on TARA, and allows his supporters to attack someone who served in combat and then had the guts to protest the war. "

Okay, to follow up that question: How is that different from Bill Clinton starting a war without the sanction of the UN over Kosovo. In this action, we were supporting the KLA, a terrorist organization, and responding to mass killings. Yet, when we finally occupied Kosovo, there were no mass graves to be found. Did Clinton lie to the the American people as well? I guess what I'm trying to say is that is appears that one side become indigent only when the other is in power. As long as it's their boy (ie the Democrats for Clinton 1992-2000 or Republicans for Bush) in power, then it's allright. Once again both parties are hypocrits.

Some of us believe the US should take care of internal problems before meddling in other nation's stuff...there are 45 million without healthcare, and more lose their jobs every day...that's not to say that it is the government's business to make sure everyone has a job or health care, but it damn sure is more their business to build up America, rather than to spend billions of dollars bombing another country, and then billions more rebuilding it...and having our people dying over there, while there are kids who go to bed hungry in the USA nightly, and Veteran's often can't get a job in the country they risked their life defending!

You said it, Code. Clean up your own house first before you criticize others for the shape theirs is in. I think it's an abomination that children anywhere in the world go to bed hungry at night, but particularly here where there is so much, while the rich get richer. How many billionaires are there here now? And children are on the verge of starvation...now THAT is a sin.

There was mass genocide going on in Bosnia at that very moment, not 20 years ago like in Iraq. The U.S. was asked to help there. There is some kind of revisionist history going on that Kosovo didn't need help or that people weren't being raped and slaughtered (not like 20 years ago in Iraq).
Bush claimed that Iraq presented an imminent threat to the U.S. That was NOT true.
So why don't we do something in Sudan? Bush doesn't care about that situation.

"How convenient. So you are now saying they also made sure he ended up in a unit that was guaranteed never to get called up."

Yeah, you just go on believing that. While you are at it, be sure to throw in every pilot who was assigned to Air Defence Command (Active duty USAF, AFRES, and ANG) as making sure they would never have to go to Vietnam. Be sure to include those servicemen who were assigned to Germany. Of course during that period of time there was also something else going on, I believe the history books called the Cold War. For some reason some people actually thought that there was an ongoing threat from Soviet bombers. Those interceptor units were the front line against any Soviet attack should it occur.



"Oh yes, so highly trained that TWO different groups from the National Guard disobeyed orders NOT TO FIRE and dropped bombs on friendlies in Afganistan. You're right, nicely trained and in no way gung-ho.

Actually, that sounds more like poor leadership on the part of the commanders of those units. The Air National Guard has over 188,000 members and you want to taint the entire organization on the actions of those pilots. For every hot dog, there are a lot more professional officers on duty. For example, my neighbor in Birmingham flew RF-4s with the 106th TRS, AL ANG and recently retired as a Colonel. Prior to entering the Guard, he flew F-4s with the Navy.

Also, in every war friendly fire incidents take place. Especially when air firces are staging close support missions close to ground troops. During the breakout from Normandy, American bombers missed their aiming points and dropped their bombloads on top of an American unit, causing hundreds of US casualties and that was just one incident. There were other friendly fire incidents during Korea and Vietnam. One particular incident was shown in the movie "We Were Soldiers" in which an F-100 dropped a load of napalm on a US mortar position. I hate to tell you this, but there will always be such incidents in any war.

"Oh, and that's mame to you."
I have no idea what that means but I was active duty USAF 1990-1991 and reserves 1991-2000.

Just to make one more comment on poor leadership you can look at the prison scandal. I was talking to my father about it. He had just retired out of the reserves as a colonel with two tours of duty commanding a rifle platoon and company with the 1st Cav 1966-1967, 1969-70) and made the comment that his unit would not have allowed that to occur. Of course, every officer in the 87th MAC above the rank of major had seen combat in Vietnam. The abuse of prisoners went on because the leadership could not control their soldiers.

Dole's cool grace under pressure at the RNC, and his strong record of leadership on Capitol Hill prompted President Gerald Ford in 1976 to pick Bob Dole as his running mate.

Although Ford and Dole lost the presidential election to Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale, Dole's drive for success kept him moving up the ranks of leadership in the Senate.

Why did not give up his seat then. I think he thought if he did not make it he still had the senate. Now the last time he was ready to step down if he did not make it and retire.

Earlier in this thread, ShadowMom wrote:
"Nobody's really happy with either candidate, but aside from our own personal vendetta here, ya gotta vote fer sumbudy, dontcha?"

Don't give the major parties the satisfaction of your vote.
If more people voted for a third party, eventually we might begin to anticipate some better 'viable' choices for candidates. But as long as a significant number of disgruntled voters across America (and I'm not referring specifically to anybody in our membership) content themselves to still plod along with a "lesser of two evils" mantra, things won't stand much chance to improve.

Carla:

You are referring to the Bosnian conflict where I believe 25,000 Muslims were murdered under the nose of Dutch UN peacekeepers. Clinton got us involved in Bosnia as a result of the Dayton Accords in 1995. The deployment was supposed to last but a year.

I was referring to Clinton leading a bombing campaign against Kosovo in 1999. Supposidly, the Serbs were killing Kosovars but there are no mass graves.
Don't forget that as far as the Sudan is concerned, even the UN is dragging it's feet.

Clinton was wrong in kosovo he lied about. But Bush also lied about Iraq. Which still doesn't make it right. If he went after the terrorist. I would have no problem with it. But he did no such thing.We are now in a guerrilla war over there. With the bath party running the show. It will be a long time before we can even get out.

Baath party (spelling)

As a follow up to the article I posted yesterday by Sgt. Lorentz:

Why We Cannot Win
by Al Lorentz


http://lewrockwell.printthis.clickability.com /pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Why+We+Cannot+Win+by +Al+Lorentz&expire=&urlID=11692279&fb=Y&url=h ttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.com%2Forig5%2Flor entz1.html&partnerID=10

Lorentz is now under investigation by the military:

Operation American Repression?

An Army officer in Iraq who wrote a highly critical article on the administration's conduct of the war is being investigated for disloyalty -- if charged and convicted, he could get 20 years.

http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/salon37.htm

"So why don't we do something in Sudan? Bush doesn't care about that situation."

So, the fact that Clinton did nothing about the genocide in Rwanda means that he didn't care about THAT situation?

"But Bush also lied about Iraq."

Didn't Kerry and Edwards sit on the Senate Committee for Intelligence? Didn't they have access to the same intelligence reports as Bush? Didn't they both vote for the war?

it's amazing how political bias sees only one set of facts instead of weighing the pros and cons of all the facts, for and against their position

I guess that's why we need debate, not to change the minds of those debating but to help present all sides to those undecided.

Agreed, compmore. But from what I heard this morning on ABC News, we are not going to get much of a real debate this evening from the two presidential candidates. Their attorneys fought over the height of the podium, the temperature, follow-up questions, etc. Bush and Kerry have rehearsed for this. It will last for 90 minutes. One of the only things that they were NOT given control over is the camera angle.
I am prepared for a frustrating 90 minutes of bull****!

As to Bush and his kind I am just hoping people out there get this bum out. If one just looks at his pass and what he has done to Mother earth, education and a host of other things too numerous to mention. Just step back for one moment and remember how the world was with us after 9/11. And now, we are very much alone in Middle East. I just hope folks out there do some reading and stop believing what this guy (George II) is saying is simply not true at all.
Still Pickin’
Bill H.

good point comp.


and.. ooooh the presidential debate. What a waste of time. It should be an argument, followed by a fight to the death. Winner gets the seat.

Pistols at ten paces turn and fire. To many rule of engagement.

rules

"Einstein said that one definition of insanity, is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. "

Well, that's not insanity. That's particle physics. You smash protons together a million times and they just bounce off each other or do "normal" things. But then the millionth time, they do something totally unexpected. Otherwise, all the particle accelerators would just close up shop for good, there being nothing new to ever ever learn.

Sorry, just trying to add a little levity.

But seriously, Code, some of the "evidence" you bring to the forum here against your nemesis Mr. Bush is good evidence, and then some of it really doesn't stand up to courtroom standards -- like your "psychoanalysis" of Bush done from afar (by divination, apparently). So, when we see one of your Bush-bashing rants here, we start to think you're from the Dan Rather school of journalism, and then half-dismiss it, knowing the source.

Whether you continue to post on those subjects is entirely up to you, but I tend to agree that it is pointless to try to educate the anencephalic. Ever see Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" segment? Lots of those folks are college grads.

We're doomed, we're doomed.

"Some of us believe the US should take care of internal problems before meddling in other nation's stuff...there are 45 million without healthcare, and more lose their jobs every day.."

OK, I don't have health insurance. Boo hoo. Does that mean I haven't got health care? Of course not. I go to the doctor, when needed, which isn't often, because allopathic remedies usually don't agree with me and aren't effective for me.

So this 45 million without health care is a bogus figure from the start. If I have an emergency, if my arm gets cut off in an auto wreck, they aren't going to leave me on the side of the road. I will be getting health care.

What they mean is that 45 million people don't have the kind of health care that liberals think we should have -- the kind we can bill other people for. The kind that reduces personal choice, increases government control.

So that's the whole part of the problem, correctly stated.

also, there is the problem of perfectly good remedies for disease which are equivalent in effectivenss to patent medicines (and with fewer side effects to boot), but which are not FDA approved, because no one can make obscene profits on them.

Not to mention the 100,000+ people killed due to preventable medical mistakes every year. And you want to give people MORE access to health care so the doctors can kill an even greater number through malpractice and sloppy drug management? People worry about 1000 soldiers killed in Iraq when we have a 100 times greater holocaust being perpetrated on us at home through the medical profession killing people inadvertently, and because of sloppiness. Maybe priorities are just a bit disordered.

"I think it's an abomination that children anywhere in the world go to bed hungry at night, but particularly here where there is so much, while the rich get richer."
I agree. This has gone on for years. We send 100's of millions and even billions of dollars to other countries to help them, but what do they do for the homeless right here.
But I guess that's the hypocrisy of our history...
Our forefathers got together, wrote the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution, then went home to have their black slaves serve them dinner.
During the 1960s we imposed sanctions, etc against South Africa for their treatment of blacks there, while our own law enforcement was beating blacks to death just being black.
It will continue.


"Didn't Kerry and Edwards sit on the Senate Committee for Intelligence? Didn't they have access to the same intelligence reports as Bush? Didn't they both vote for the war?"
Yes they did. And like many people, including that freak Bill OReilly, they admitted that the evidence that was shown was believable and therefore they supported it. But what good is evidence when all that you see if false? Aren't we raised to believe that we would never attack another country without proper provocation?
For years I wondered why we didn't "finish the job" during the first Gulf War. We had the bastard in our sights. Now it is obvious: Iraq would turn into another Afganistan or Iran. And that just where it's heading.

"And like many people, including that freak Bill OReilly, they admitted that the evidence that was shown was believable and therefore they supported it."

Bush had access to the same information and made the same mistakes of believing it and acted accordingly. funny how Kerry and Edwards are just innocent dupes and Bush lied and INTENTIONALLY mislead the public

"But I guess that's the hypocrisy of our history..."

Personally, I think it's hypocritical to tout the benefits of democracy and freedom, and proceed to act as if only Americans deserve it. Who decided that the hungry children in the U.S. are any more important than the hungry children elsewhere? Where is it written that because WE have the freedom to protest our government the people of Iraq are not entitled to that same right? And who says that American lives are more important that Iraqis' lives?

I'm disappointed that so many people are more concerned with American suffering (and lives lost in Iraq) than anyone else's.