street228

quote: I don't like Bush either Takvah, but he is a LOT better then Kerry, and I will hold my nose and vote for him. poor jag, backpeddling as fast as bush

quote: I said the same things myself Street, or were you not reading? quote: THe debate was a draw, = "NOT the same thing"

quote: There is NO WAY for you tell if he has those sources or not, again you're making an opinion without evidence to support it quote: I for one won't allow POLITICS to blur the real issue. Bush and his policies have been horribly misguided and it's time for the people to rise up and demand a change. AMEN!!!! quote:I understand the fact that Saddam had WMD's,

For Those Who Are Still Undecided Madeline Salocks When George W Bush became president, I feared that this man was in way over his head. But despite that trepidation, and even with the suspect vote count, I figured the jury was still out. However, as the disturbing facts have piled up week by week over the past 3 and a half years, my fears have been far more than confirmed. I now feel that we have an administration with no conscience. And no measure of feel-good images, upbeat promises, spin-doctoring, or smoke and mirrors can erase his record. I do agree with Dick Cheney however on just one point - this next election may be one of the most important in our nationÔÇÖs history. And therefore I appeal to anyone still considering voting for Bush - please take a few minutes to consider the following questions. How can the Bush administrationÔÇÖs invasion of a country that never attacked the US, and the deception of the American public to rally support ever be justified? The deceptions began with statements linking Al Qaeda with Iraq, and with enough repetition over time, Bush succeeded in leading many to believe Iraq was involved in the 9/11attack. Then, to frighten people into believing the world was in imminent danger, Bush asserted that Iraq was rapidly producing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Of course, never mind that the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq had found nothing. Then, Bush asserted that the US must invade Iraq in order to liberate their people from Saddam Hussein. Of course, never mind other countries around the world with ruthless dictators, or those posing a real threat in terms of WMD - such as North Korea, barely on BushÔÇÖs radar. And along with these rationalizations, Bush assured that there would be a strong international coalition, and that our forces would be greeted with ÔÇÿflowersÔÇÖ. The reality is that no Iraq involvement in 9/11 has ever been established. The 9/11 commission reported in June 2004 that ÔÇ£it found no ÔÇÿcollaborative relationshipÔÇÖ between Iraq and Al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.ÔÇØ [Washington Post 6/17/04] And the reality is that no WMD (or the means to create them) have been found in Iraq. In January 2004, David Kay stepped down as leader of the weapons search in Iraq, stating that he believed there were no Iraqi stockpiles to be found [Reuters 1/23/2004]. And the reality is that the ÔÇÿcoalitionÔÇÖ is not a true coalition - the non-US troops have been a tiny fraction of the total troops, and many have pulled out. And the reality of the Iraqi reception has been anything but flowers. The Iraq invasion and occupation have been a disastrous mess with continued warfare and no end in sight. Were plans and exit strategies at least in place? Apparently not. Even some who originally supported the Iraq invasion now recognize the incompetence of this operation. Furthermore, a lot of information has surfaced about numerous pre-invasion warnings that were provided but ignored by the Bush administration. And meanwhile, Osama Bin LadenÔÇÖs name is not even mentioned by this administration anymore. How is that possible? So Bush lied to the American people in order to recklessly wage an unjustified war. Why? Two words ÔÇô oil, and domination. And for how long was this war plan in the works? The answer is most likely found in ÔÇÿThe Project for the New American CenturyÔÇÖ, a neo-conservative organization that has recommended expansion of US dominance in the world - including the overthrow of Saddam Hussein - since the 1990ÔÇÖs. And some of its key members just happen to be Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. It is true that Saddam Hussein was known to be a ruthless dictator, but he was at least contained, and other approaches should have been used to work toward his removal. The terrible tragedy is that this lie has now lead to the death of over 1000 troops and many thousands of Iraqi citizens. To see updates on the troop and Iraqi death tolls, see the following websites respectively: http://icasualties.org/ and http://www.iraqbodycount.net/.. Polls show 4 out of 5 Iraqis oppose the U.S. occupation [Washington Post 5/13/04]. If you were an Iraqi citizen, how would you feel surrounded by continuous destruction, violence, and death? It is also not surprising that troop morale has sunk to new depths, with a suicide rate 35 percent higher than elsewhere [Newsweek 4/2/04]. If you were a soldier, how would you feel being asked to put your life on the line for a lie? In Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore tried to ask congressmen a fundamental and critical question ÔÇô ÔÇ£Would you send your own son or daughter to fight in Iraq?ÔÇØ. If you are still considering voting for Bush, please ask yourself that simple question, ponder its significance, and be completely honest with yourself. To me, the reckless rush to a war on lies constitutes more than sufficient reason to jettison Bush from the White House - regardless of anything else. But in fact, his record fails on every front. If you are still undecided, please read on. How can the Bush administrationÔÇÖs response to 9/11, and the war on terror be viewed as anything but complete ineptness? Though Bush initially sent troops to Afghanistan where Bin Laden and Al Qaeda groups were known to be hiding, he soon shifted focus away from those efforts in order to invade a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, thereby spreading our forces thin and allowing more terrorist camps to survive and even thrive. Does this sound like a focused resolve to ÔÇÿsmoke outÔÇÖ Al Qaeda to you? Consider too that now, with our dismal approval rating around the world, the global team effort necessary to combat terror worldwide will require far more effort and persuasion. Then (hard to believe, but true), Bush fought the creation of the 9/11 commission. In fact, it is uncertain if the commission would ever have come into existence had it not been for pressure from family members of the 9/11 victims. Bush also opposed the creation of a cabinet agency for homeland security until Congress passed legislation creating it. Furthermore, Bush cut funds for state and local homeland security, fire departments, and first responder training, and has left airports, shipping ports, chemical plants, nuclear power plants, and other sensitive areas under-protected. Does this sound like a focused resolve to shore up holes in national security to you? What good is accomplished with those ÔÇÿorangeÔÇÖ alerts? Nothing - unless you happen to count improved revenues for duct tape manufacturers as an accomplishment. The sole purpose of those alerts seems to be the generating of fear. A fearful public is a weaker public, more susceptible to suggestion and manipulation. (Also, interestingly, timelines have shown a correlation between the alerts and low points in BushÔÇÖs approval rating.) Note that twenty six former diplomats and military commanders (some having served in key positions under Reagan and Bush senior) issued a joint statement that Bush has damaged our nationÔÇÖs security and should be defeated [LA Times 6/13/04]. And not surprisingly, most Americans now say that our nation is less safe from terrorism [uSA Today 6/24/04]. How do you feel about the special ties at the top of the Bush administration rife with cronyism, corruption, and corporate greed? Are you disturbed at the long-standing personal and financial relationship between the Bush family and the Saudi royal family with its large holdings in this country? Were you shocked at the confirmed reports that dozens of Saudis ÔÇô including members of the Bin Laden family itself ÔÇô were allowed to leave this country just a couple of days after 9/11? Consider that the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were themselves Saudis ÔÇô what does that say? Do the hurried exit and the omission of any inquiry sound like the decision of truth and justice seekers? Or, does it sound more like the decision of good old oil boys concerned only with corporate interests, the rich and powerful, and cronyism? What about Cheney and Halliburton? Are you disturbed that Cheney, while receiving ÔÇÿdeferred compensationÔÇÖ from Halliburton and possessing more than 433,000 stock options in Halliburton [CNN 1/23/04], brazenly proceeds to grant no-bid contracts to Halliburton in Iraq? Could this be viewed as anything but unfair practice and a conflict of interest? And to add insult to injury, what about allegations from former Halliburton employees such as ÔÇ£the abandoning of an $85,000 truck because of a flat tire, paying $45 for a case of soda, and providing laundry service for a cost equivalent to $100 per 15-pound bagÔÇØ? [Houston Chronicle 6/15/04] And now we learn that ÔÇ£Halliburton has failed to account for $1.8 billion of work in Iraq and KuwaitÔÇØ. [Forbes.com 8/11/2004] Does the term war profiteering come to mind? And do you ever wonder why we donÔÇÖt hear about any big reconstruction contracts going to Iraqi companies? Does it bother you to know that former Enron CEO Kenneth Lay has been a long-time friend and backer of Bush, and that Enron executives have attended many White House events and have been contacted on many occasions regarding national energy policies ÔÇô including advice on administration posts? How about Ahmad Chalabi, insider with Pentagon officials who was considered important enough to be seated behind Laura Bush at the 2004 State of the Union? This Bush ÔÇÿfreedom fighterÔÇÖ buddy is now under investigation for leaking damaging military secrets to Iran. How about the Bush administrationÔÇÖs lack of concern with jobs in this country? Sadly, Bush has become the first president since Hoover to preside over a net loss of jobs - over a million. So clearly, tax cuts for the rich do not stimulate jobs. (DoesnÔÇÖt Bush remember that Reagan already tried that trickle-down theory and it didnÔÇÖt work?) Furthermore, the Bush administration clearly does not care about keeping jobs here, blocking legislation that would offer incentives for companies to keep jobs in this country, and refusing to repeal tax loopholes that reward companies for moving jobs out of the US. And itÔÇÖs not just fewer jobs. ItÔÇÖs also less pay. A recent survey by the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that ÔÇ£almost two-thirds of displaced workers had taken another job at lower pay (30%) or remained jobless (35%)ÔÇØ. And ÔÇ£for those lucky enough to land a new full-time job, the median pay rate fell from $681 per week in their old job to $572 per week in their new job.ÔÇØ [www.jobwatch.org] Just recently we have learned too that Bush is trying to disallow overtime pay for many workers. If you are actually better off than 4 years ago, you are in a small privileged minority. How about the Bush administrationÔÇÖs contempt for the environment? A friend to polluters, Bush has weakened protections against toxic mercury, weakened restrictions on power plants (the largest source of US global warming pollution contributing 40% of carbon dioxide emissions), weakened enforcement of clean water laws, weakened controls on factory farms and livestock waste (thereby allowing greater contamination of rivers and groundwater), weakened controls on mining waste, and weakened safeguards for park lands. And always a buddy to big oil, Bush has made drilling of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (established in 1960 by President Eisenhower) a top priority, despite US Geological Survey (USGS) and National Academy of Sciences reports warning that such drilling would harm wildlife and cause widespread environmental damage, USGS estimates that it would have little or no impact on oil imports, as well as the polls showing opposition by the American public. Other national treasures where Bush is pushing for energy drilling include the Alaskan coast, the California coast, the Rocky Mountains, the Padre Island National Seashore in Texas, various areas of the desert southwest including sites bordering on national parks, and more. At the same time, the Bush administration has done nothing to cut down on the countryÔÇÖs oil dependence, enforce fuel economy standards, or support new clean energy sources. But Bush misleads the public over and over - for example, claiming that his ÔÇÿClear Skies InitiativeÔÇÖ would cut air pollution by 70% over the next 15 years, while the White House and EPA's own analysis shows that the plan will result in more pollution than if we simply enforce the existing Clean Air Act. [www.environment2004.org] Note that four thousand scientists including 48 Nobel Prize winners ÔÇô with ties to both democratic and republican administrations - have signed a statement opposing the Bush administration for ÔÇ£misusing, suppressing and distorting scientific adviceÔÇØ [AP 8/15/2004]. In the words of President Nixon, who established the Environmental Protection Agency and signed the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act and the United Nations Environment Program Participation Act, ÔÇ£We hold the Earth its environment and its resources--in trust for future generations. We must not violate that trustÔÇØ. Bush is violating the trust. And remember that assaults on the environment can be insidious ÔÇô the effects are not always obvious until it is too late. Does the Bush administration respect and support our troops? I donÔÇÖt think so. Sure, talk is cheap and Bush can easily say things like, "We're doing everything we can to protect the troops, and it's important for their loved ones to understand that." But the reality is that the troops have been spread thin, have had to serve extended tours of duty, and have been woefully under-equipped. How infuriating has it been to hear stories such as families having to raise the money to provide their soldier sons or daughters with body armor? How depressing was it to hear that the Bush 2004 budget proposed a 14% cut in funds to military family housing/medical facilities? And what about BushÔÇÖs ban on news cameras from photographing the ceremonies held when coffins of U.S. troops are removed from planes in the United States? ShouldnÔÇÖt it be known to all Americans the price in lost lives that we are paying for the Bush administrationÔÇÖs arrogant and irresponsible military adventurism? Does the Bush administration respect our veterans? I donÔÇÖt think so. The Bush administration has supported rescinding lifetime health benefits for World War II and Korean War veterans. [boston Globe 12/22/2002]. The Bush administration has opposed changing the Disabled Veterans Tax that currently reduces retirement pay by disability pay, dollar for dollar, for full military career veterans. [Knight-Ridder 7/27/2003] And veteran leaders and a VA workers union have voiced strong criticism of Bush's fiscal 2005 budget plan, asserting that ÔÇ£the budget would only worsen the backlog in processing disability claims, reduce the number of VA nursing home beds just as the number of veterans who need long-term care is swelling, and force some veterans to pay a fee simply to gain access to the VA health care system.ÔÇØ [Washington Post 3/3/2004] What about BushÔÇÖs ties to the smear campaign regarding John KerryÔÇÖs Vietnam service? A top lawyer in the BushÔÇÖs reelection campaign admitted to advising the so-called ÔÇÿSwift Boat Veterans for TruthÔÇÖ [Washington Post 8/25/2004]. Large funding for the ÔÇÿSwift BoatÔÇÖ group has come from Texan Bob Perry, a longtime Bush supporter. Then there was retired Air Force Col. Ken Cordier, a member of the Bush-Cheney campaign veterans' steering committee who appeared in the Swift Boat fabrications. And just recently some more dots have been connected: Retired naval Rear Admiral William L. Schachte Jr, backer of the Swift Boat fabrications, has been found to be a ÔÇ£long-standing supporter of President Bush and a lobbyist whose client FastShip Inc. recently won a $40 million grant from the federal government.ÔÇØ [Washington Post 8/31/2004] How these people have the nerve to trash a decorated war hero who had the courage to serve in Viet Nam (and then the courage to speak out on how wrong that war was) is unbelievable. And BushÔÇÖs failure to condemn those lies shows him as once again the taker of the low road. If Bush were a man of integrity, and if he respected veterans, he would have immediately condemned the Swift Boat ads, just as John McCain requested. How about the Bush administrationÔÇÖs disregard of health care? Under the Bush watch, the cost of health care and health insurance has steadily risen, and the number of uninsured has skyrocketed. And when the Bush Medicare initiative made it illegal for the government to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry, prescription drug prices remained costly and the drug companies were given a green light to profit by an extra $139 billion. From the Wallstreet Journal on BushÔÇÖs Medicare Drug Plan: ÔÇ£Corporate lobbying groups are emerging as winnersÔǪÔÇØ In addition, the Bush administration has ÔÇ£overturned or blocked dozens of important workplace protections and weakened job safety programs, leaving workers in dangerÔÇØ [www.ufcw.org] How about the irresponsible fiscal policies resulting in the current 422 billion dollar record deficit? In contrast, recall that under the Clinton administration, the government balanced the budget and began running surpluses to the point where they were able to make payments on the long-term national debt. What a painful reversal we have had under Bush. ÔÇ£After only three years in office, President Bush may be headed to the record books as one of the biggest spending presidents." [National Journal's Congress Daily, 01/29/04] ItÔÇÖs a case of out of control credit card spending on a massive scale, the equivalent of looting the treasury. Would you choose these people to handle your personal finances? (If you want to see how the Bush deficit affects your particular state, see web page http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/2005budget/.. And if you want to see the national debt increasing by the minute as well as the share of that debt owed by each citizen, see web page http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/.) How about BushÔÇÖs famous education slogan turned empty promise - ÔÇÿNo Child Left BehindÔÇÖ? Are you concerned with the report that federal budgets have not come close to funding the amount specified by the act? In 2003, the bipartisan National Governors Association voted to label Bush's ÔÇÿNo Child Left BehindÔÇÖ (NCLB) Act an unfunded mandate. Funding has been $8 billion short of the levels prescribed. Furthermore, ÔÇ£Bush recently asked Congress to cut funding for NCLB in the 2004 federal budget by an additional $300 million. That means that the burden for implementing NCLB will ultimately fall on the cash-strapped states and localities.ÔÇØ [Miami Herald 11/15/2003] ItÔÇÖs more difficult to go to college now too. Federal and state budget cuts have caused the largest tuition increases at public colleges and universities in a decade, and Bush has now proposed a change that would deny Pell grants to 84,000 students. How about those tax cuts that were supposed to give everyone such a boost? This was a major deception. According to a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office, ÔÇ£The average after-tax income for people in the top 1 percent of income earners climbed 10.1 percent, while that of those in the middle 20 percent climbed 2.3 percent, and that of those in the bottom fifth only 1.6 percent.ÔÇØ [Washington Post 8/13/04] BushÔÇÖs tax cuts were not for you and me - they were for the wealthy. And they have not resulted in jobs, so can you name any other way in which they have benefited the country? I have not heard of anything. Besides, I ask ÔÇô why would the wealthiest people need a tax break? ShouldnÔÇÖt those who have benefited most from the opportunities our country offers give back a little more? (Note too that John Kerry has only proposed rolling back the tax rates on the rich to the level of a couple years back. Do you think people earning over 200K per year were having such a tough time back then?) How could anyone accept the Bush administrationÔÇÖs disastrous human rights policies? Take the Abu Ghraib prison torture scandal - characterized by beatings, tauntings, and sexual humiliations where, according to the Red Cross, the majority of the prisoners were in fact innocent of any crime. And given the scale of these horrors, who could really be duped into believing this was just ÔÇÿa few rogue bad applesÔÇÖ? No, the scale is clearly indicative of an organized policy. According to a Newsweek investigation, ÔÇ£Bush, along with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft, signed off on a secret system of detention and interrogation that opened the door to such methods. This was an approach that they adopted to sidestep the historical safeguards of the Geneva Conventions, which protect the rights of detainees and prisoners of warÔÇØ [Newsweek 5/24/2004]. Remember that the same Geneva Conventions also protect captured US soldiers. These protections cannot be safeguarded when the US itself refuses to abide by the convention. Do you not worry that under the Bush administration, civil liberties and basic democratic principles are being eroded? Sadly, the growing list of diminishing rights includes: detaining citizens indefinitely without access to counsel, permitting the taping of attorney-client communications, permitting the monitoring of library withdrawals and internet communications, and putting forward a plan to amend the Constitution that mandates withholding of rights from a specific group. What do you think about the Bush notion (with some help from the media) that dissent is somehow unpatriotic? BushÔÇÖs famous line ÔÇÿYouÔÇÖre either with us or youÔÇÖre against usÔÇÖ, besides being indicative of simplistic thinking, implicitly promoted the notion that dissent was unpatriotic, and his remark seemed to grip and intimidate people for a long time. It is frightening to hear such an attack on one of the essential aspects of a democracy ÔÇô freedom of speech and dissent. And since we supposedly live in a democracy ÔÇô where openness should rule over secrecy, it is disturbing to hear that the Bush administration has exhibited a ÔÇ£penchant for secrecy that has been striking to historians, legal experts and lawmakers of both partiesÔÇØ [NY Times 1/3/03]. For example, in late 2001, Ashcroft announced a new policy in regard to the Freedom of Information Act where federal agencies are encouraged to reject requests for documents if there is any legal basis available for the rejection, in contrast to the earlier Clinton policy of making documents available (even if a legal basis existed for rejection) as long as their release posed no danger. Like the environmental erosions, these erosions of liberties can also be insidious. You might not notice them until you are personally affected. Does the Bush administration reject dirty tactics? No. Of course, lying to wage an unjustified war is as low as it gets, but there have been other kinds of dishonest tactics that are worth mentioning. For example, take the publicizing of an undercover CIA agent, the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Joseph Wilson had investigated claims that Iraq purchased materials for WMD from Niger, and had concluded in March 2002 that the claims were unfounded. But this counterindicated BushÔÇÖs aim to rush to war, so Bush evidently chose to ignore the report, proceeding in his State of the Union address the following January to insist that Iraq sought unanium in Niger. Then, in July of 2003 when Wilson made public his earlier findings, it was just a matter of days when, according to the Washington Post, ÔÇ£two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife." Such identification of a CIA operative is a criminal act, and can be punished with up to ten years in federal prison. The syndicated columnist who leaked the identity (and why a columnist would do this I do not understand) stated that the sources were 2 senior Bush administration officials. [Washington Post 9/28/2003] Have you heard of any heads rolling so far on that one? And what about those single moments that can sometimes speak volumes? There was BushÔÇÖs famous photo op where he had the audacity to appear on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit, proclaiming ÔÇÿMission AccomplishedÔÇÖ. How ludicrous and offensive was it that this man with his questionable military service (and mysteriously lost military records) would have the nerve and bravado to make such an appearance, prancing around the ship as if he were some sort of military hero? In retrospect, given the continuing disaster in Iraq, it was more than ludicrous and offensive ÔÇô it was fraudulent. Could anyone see that image and conclude that this man has a firm grip on reality and is mindful of his words and actions? How about the April 2004 press conference where Bush was asked to cite any mistake he had made since 9/11, and all he could do was to stand there tongue-tied for an embarrassingly long time. Of course, Bush is famous for his verbal deficiencies. And truth be told, I often get the distinct impression with his awkward pauses and misspeaks that he does not even understand half of the scripts he delivers. But this was more than embarrassing ÔÇô it was frightening to see that Bush has so much arrogance and so little capacity for self-examination that he could not admit to a single mistake. Could anyone view that moment and conclude that this man can think and evaluate? Who could watch without serious doubts BushÔÇÖs famous ÔÇÿdeer in the headlightsÔÇÖ expression as he sat for several minutes in an elementary school classroom after being advised of the 9/11 attack? Could you envision any previous president with such a look on his face at such a critical moment? And could you imagine any previous president not immediately politely excusing himself, and hastening to do his job when faced with such a crisis? Could anyone see that image and actually conclude that this man is a leader? And here is one that was not publicized much, but struck me all the same. At a dinner/slide show for journalists, as pictures were displayed showing Bush looking around the oval office, he would joke, "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be here somewhere", or "Maybe under here?" An Iraq war veteran, not amused, understandably had this to say, "War is the single most serious event that a president or government can carry its people into. This cheapens the sacrifice that American soldiers and their families are dealing with every single day."[bBC News 3/26/2004] Do you think that if one of BushÔÇÖs loved ones was facing combat in Iraq, he would be as inclined to make those ÔÇÿjokesÔÇÖ? As John Kerry commented, this is indicative of how out of touch this president is. Is Bush presidential? There are many characteristics I want in a president, but some of the key traits that come to mind include honesty, courage, intelligence, curiosity about the nation and the world, the ability to handle complexity, the ability to think clearly and critically and to make sound well-informed decisions, responsiveness, the ability to communicate effectively and to speak extemporaneously, and a deep compassion and concern for every American citizen and indeed for the citizens of the world. Do you share this list? If so, where has Bush demonstrated these traits? I cannot find a single example. You might say, ÔÇ£Yes, but we are in a war, and you cannot change horses in mid stream.ÔÇØ I say to the contrary. If a disaster course has been set, you must change horses in order to avoid being swept down the river and over the waterfall. Or, do you simply like this president because he appears to be a regular everyday ÔÇÿfolksyÔÇÖ kind of guy that spends time doing things like you do? If so, I ask ÔÇô is that an important criterion for a weighty and serious position of great consequence such as president of the United States? Or, have you supported Bush because of his supposed religious leanings? If so, I ask - why should a personÔÇÖs religion be a determining factor for the presidency? But even if you insist that aspect is still important to you, I ask ÔÇô what have you seen in this president that shows you he lives the values of a man of faith? Or, have you always voted Republican and you cannot see departing from the tradition? If so, I would ask you to consider whether the values of this current Republican party are really in your best interest anymore, and indeed whether its values are still in line with what was traditionally considered republican (surely you cannot say that the traditional republican value of ÔÇÿfiscal responsibilityÔÇÖ is demonstrated by the Bush administration). Sometimes change is not only good but crucial. Are you one of those that say, ÔÇ£ItÔÇÖs a lost cause because the republicans and democrats are all the same.ÔÇÖ They are not the same. There is a huge difference in this election. Look at the facts, and do not be influenced by that myth. Are you perhaps supporting Bush because of his stand against the much discussed issue of stem cell research? If so, I would ask you to read Ron ReaganÔÇÖs eloquent speech at website http://www.doctorsandnursesforkerry.org/tr...gan_at_demo.htm.. But if that does not convince you, then at least think about the relative weight of that single issue against the weight of the multitude of Bush administration failures. Or, you might say, ÔÇÿI keep hearing about John Kerry being such a flip-flopper. I want a leader with strong resolve.ÔÇÖ If so, realize that the ÔÇÿflip-flopÔÇÖ idea has been part of an attack machine. The consummate flip-flopper is Bush, and you can see this clearly if you compare his claims against his record. A good web page with some of these comparisons is Claim vs Fact at http://www.americanprogress.org/site/apps/...JRJ8OVF&b=45294 . The Bush administration has no conscience and is breaking this country. The way they have been allowed to run amuck is astonishing. How has this happened? I suppose many were asleep at the wheel (though fortunately many are now waking up). But more importantly, I think that after 9/11, many people were anxious to believe we had strong leadership, and put their complete faith in the president. In fact, when you ponder that trust and support, it is especially devastating the way Bush has let the country down. Expect from Bush a sea of sunny optimistic assurances, platitudes, slogans, and heart-warming stories over the next couple months ÔÇô the type of production you saw at the RNC. They might even sound good to you on the surface, but realize that these are scripted sound-bites. Do not give Bush a pass as he avoids discussing his record and acts as if he would be starting out fresh. When you look at BushÔÇÖs performance over the past 4 years as compared to what he said in 2000, how can you possibly trust in what he says he will do in the future? After all, wasnÔÇÖt it Bush himself who said, ÔÇ£Fool me once, shame on ÔÇö shame on you. Fool me ÔÇö you can't get fooled againÔÇØ? (Although I believe he was actually trying to say ÔÇÿFool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.ÔÇÖ) The wisdom of this little slogan is one thing on which I agree with Bush, and it should guide us all in voting this coming November. Do not be fooled again! And who knows, as we get closer to the election, Bush might even do something that gives the appearance things are on track. But watch out for any eleventh hour last-ditch efforts. Look at his record and HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE. John Kerry is the only candidate with a realistic chance to beat George W Bush. If you see his website at www.johnkerry.com, you will see many plans to bring the United States greater security, greater prosperity, and greater respect. Included are such things as setting a goal of 20% energy based on renewals by 2020; more investment in hydrogen research, clean coal, and efficient vehicle production; reductions in health care and prescription drug costs; a ÔÇÿschoolÔÇÖs open till 6ÔÇÖ initiative with after-school programs; college tuition tax credits; increased port, border, and vulnerable target security; increased support of first defenders; a new community defense service; intelligence service reform; creation of 10 million new jobs and closure of incentives for outsourcing; support of the Fairness Act to reverse damage to civil liberties; reversal of current environment-hostile policies, and new commitments and comprehensive new policies for environmental protection; the securing of nuclear weapons and a cleanup of bomb material within 4 years; internationalization of the security and reconstruction effort in Iraq; and much much more. And another point to remember about John Kerry that cannot be overemphasized is this ÔÇô John Kerry knows first hand what it means to go to war. Bush and Cheney, in contrast, know only about escaping military service, and they seem to find it easy to put other peopleÔÇÖs kids in harmÔÇÖs way. Kerry has offered to report for duty as president. And I donÔÇÖt know about you, but I am grateful that someone with KerryÔÇÖs background, ability, and vision is willing to take on this massive mess the Bush administration has created. Madeline Salocks

We know that distortions abounded in the Vice President's contribution to the Cheney-Edwards debate on Tuesday. But one moment that hasn't received much attention is Dick Cheney's revealing misuse of the 1980s civil war in El Salvador. Observers of Latin American affairs were shocked and awed when the Vice President cited the conflict as a parallel for the current predicament in Afghanistan: "Twenty years ago we had a similar situation in El Salvador," Cheney said. "We had a guerilla insurgency controlled roughly a third of the country, 75,000 people dead. And we held free elections. I was there as an observer on behalf of the Congress... And as the terrorists would come in and shoot up polling places as soon as they left, the voters would come back and get in line and would not be denied their right to vote. And today El Salvador is a [whole] of a lot better because we held free elections... And [that concept] will apply in Afghanistan. And it will apply as well in Iraq." The most relevant fact that the Vice President omits here is that the 75,000 people were killed not by the guerillas, but by the government that Cheney was supporting and its paramilitary death squads. The second most relevant fact is that the 1984 elections were widely recognized as a farce, with a long line of genuine opposition candidates already having been killed off and with the U.S. spending $10 million to manipulate the outcome. That this is the model for exporting democracy says a lot about what the neoconservatives have in store for us. In truth, if El Salvador is a whole of a lot better off today, it is because the movement against the government continued. A UN Truth Commission, mandated as part of the country's 1992 peace accords, affirmed a reality that the Reaganites steadfastly denied then and prefer to forget today. The Commission found the FMLN guerillas responsible for 5% of human rights violations and the Armed Forces responsible for 90%, with the remaining 5% undetermined. The New York Times commented upon the release of the report: "A United Nations Truth Commission now confirms what the Reagan Administration sought to cloud--that terrible crimes were perpetrated in freedom's name by the armed forces of El Salvador. ... The report identifies a former Defense Minister as one of the senior officers who ordered the killing of six Jesuit priests in 1989. It names another Defense Minister as among those who tried to cover up the murder of four American churchwomen. It finds that Roberto D'Aubuisson, the right-wing politician and hero to Senator Jesse Helms, ordered the murder of Archbishop Romero." The Times' columnist Anthony Lewis concluded: "[T]he United States spent $6 billion supporting a Salvadoran Government that was dominated by killers. We armed them, trained their soldiers and covered up their crimes." The landmark report of the UN Commission is available on-line at: While John Kerry is complicit in the invasion of Iraq, he made some important stands in the 1980s denouncing U.S. sponsorship of human rights abuses in both El Salvador and Nicaragua. The right wing's continuing anger at these stances makes for interesting reading, as it mimics Cheney in drawing exactly the wrong lessons from Central American history. A prime example: Hugh Hewitt's recent defense of the bloody, illegal Contra War in The Weekly Standard . Hewitt claims that Senators Kerry and Harken, by visiting Nicaragua in 1985, were "appeasing" Sandinista Daniel Ortega, whom he calls one of "America's enemies." The quotes from the time that Hewitt uses to evidence this supposedly damning charge in fact show someone with a considerably more lucid view of the region's politics than those in power, then or now: "If you look back at the Gulf of Tonkin resolution," Kerry said, "if you look back at the troops that were in Cambodia, the history of the body count, and the misinterpretation of the history of Vietnam itself, and look at how we are interpreting the struggle in Central America and examine the CIA involvement, the mining of the harbors, the effort to fund the Contras, there is a direct and unavoidable parallel between these two periods of our history." Even as the neocons continue to warp their meaning, the parallels continue. With Cheney holding up as exemplary the record of U.S. intervention in Central America, we can be sure that "crimes in freedom's name" is a concept that will apply well into the future. -- Mark Engler, a writer based in New York City,

KERRY WINS THE DEBATE HANDS DOWN Ceci Connolly: ÔÇ£It almost seemed as if the President ran out of material about two-thirds of the way through the debate.ÔÇØ [Fox News, 9/30/04] Mark Shields: ÔÇ£I thought the president tired clearly in the end.ÔÇØ [CNN, 9/30/04] William Kristol: "I don't think he did as much as he could have to really make the fundamental case for the Bush conduct on the war on terror." [Fox News, 9/30/04] CBSNews.com: "Mr. Bush appeared perturbed when Kerry leveled some of his charges, scowling at times and looking away in apparent disgust at others." [CBSNews.com, 9/30/04] Mark Whitaker: "I think Kerry won on style in this debate." [CNN, 9/30/04] Jeff Greenfield: "John Kerry looked as presidential as the president." [CNN, 9/30/04] Joe Scarborough: "As far as the debate goes, I don't see how anybody could look at this debate and not score this a very clear win on points for John Kerry." [MSNBC, 9/30/04] Joe Scarborough: "It was John Kerry's best performance ever." [MSNBC, 9/30/04] Kate OÔÇÖBeirne: "I thought the President was repetitive and reactive." [NationalReview.com, 9/30/04] Jonah Goldberg: "The Bush campaign miscalculated on having the first night be foreign policy night." [NationalReview.com, 9/30/04] "Bush appeared perturbed when Kerry leveled some of his charges, scowling at times and looking away in apparent disgust at others." [Washington Post, 9/30/04] John McCain: "I think that Kerry did a good job." [MSNBC, 9/30/04] David Gergen: ÔÇ£There were times toward the end, especially in the last half, when he seemed tired. It almost seemed like...he didnÔÇÖt want to be there at times.ÔÇØ [CNN, 9/30/04] David Gergen: ÔÇ£John Kerry was the one who had the most to prove and I think he proved it. And that was that heÔÇÖs knowledgeable about international affairs and he can make his points in a concise, compelling way.ÔÇØ [CNN, 9/30/04] Jorge Ramos: ÔÇ£Talking about style and substance, I think we have a race right now.ÔÇØ [CNN, 9/30/04] Jorge Ramos: ÔÇ£When President Bush was looking at his notes and moving his papers, well those were very awkward moments, visually I think those moments might have a negative impact on President Bush.ÔÇØ [CNN, 9/30/04] Mark Shields: ÔÇ£I think credibility was there at the core, and the president could not admit that he had made mistakes or miscalculations.ÔÇØ [CNN, 9/30/04] Alan Colmes: ÔÇ£I think Sen. Kerry, tonight, did a very good job, clearly stating his position.ÔÇØ [Fox News, 9/30/04] Howard Fineman: "I think he had about 35 minutes of material for a 90 minute debate, and he kept having to do the same stuff over again." [MSNBC, 10/1/04] STREET: "PETE AND REPEAT WERE SITTING ON A FENCE...PETE GOT KNOCKED OFF....WHO WAS LEFT?"

Reality No. 1: His rationale for invading Iraq now summarily discounted and polls continuing to show he's losing ground, Bush faces an unpredictable town-hall terrain, hostile questions on the war and a revived Democratic challenger, who shellacked him in Miami and is nothing if not an accomplished "closer." Bush might as well call in sick.

Personal Message from George Soros Why We Must Not Re-elect President Bush Prepared text of speech delivered at the National Press Club, Washington, DC, September 28, 2004 Download the speech: PDF version | Word doc This is the most important election of my lifetime. I have never been heavily involved in partisan politics but these are not normal times. President Bush is endangering our safety, hurting our vital interests and undermining American values. That is why I am sending you this message. I have been demonized by the Bush campaign but I hope you will give me a hearing. President Bush ran on the platform of a "humble" foreign policy in 2000. If we re-elect him now, we endorse the Bush doctrine of preemptive action and the invasion of Iraq, and we will have to live with the consequences. As I shall try to show, we are facing a vicious circle of escalating violence with no end in sight. But if we repudiate the Bush policies at the polls, we shall have a better chance to regain the respect and support of the world and to break the vicious circle. I grew up in Hungary, lived through fascism and the Holocaust, and then had a foretaste of communism. I learned at an early age how important it is what kind of government prevails. I chose America as my home because I value freedom and democracy, civil liberties and an open society. When I had made more money than I needed for myself and my family, I set up a foundation to promote the values and principles of a free and open society. I started in South Africa in 1979 and established a foundation in my native country, Hungary, in 1984 when it was still under communist rule. China, Poland and the Soviet Union followed in 1987. After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, I established foundations in practically all the countries of the former Soviet empire and later in other parts of the world and in the United States. These foundations today spend about 450 million dollars a year to promote democracy and open society around the world. When George W. Bush was elected president, and particularly after September 11, I saw that the values and principles of open society needed to be defended at home. September 11 led to a suspension of the critical process so essential to a democracy - a full and fair discussion of the issues. President Bush silenced all criticism by calling it unpatriotic. When he said that "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," I heard alarm bells ringing. I am afraid that he is leading us in a very dangerous direction. We are losing the values that have made America great. The destruction of the twin towers of the World Trade Center was such a horrendous event that it required a strong response. But the President committed a fundamental error in thinking: the fact that the terrorists are manifestly evil does not make whatever counter-actions we take automatically good. What we do to combat terrorism may also be wrong. Recognizing that we may be wrong is the foundation of an open society. President Bush admits no doubt and does not base his decisions on a careful weighing of reality. For 18 months after 9/11 he managed to suppress all dissent. That is how he could lead the nation so far in the wrong direction. President Bush inadvertently played right into the hands of bin Laden. The invasion of Afghanistan was justified: that was where bin Laden lived and al Qaeda had its training camps. The invasion of Iraq was not similarly justified. It was President Bush's unintended gift to bin Laden. War and occupation create innocent victims. We count the body bags of American soldiers; there have been more than 1000 in Iraq. The rest of the world also looks at the Iraqis who get killed daily. There have been 20 times more. Some were trying to kill our soldiers; far too many were totally innocent, including many women and children. Every innocent death helps the terrorists' cause by stirring anger against America and bringing them potential recruits. Immediately after 9/11 there was a spontaneous outpouring of sympathy for us worldwide. It has given way to an equally widespread resentment. There are many more people willing to risk their lives to kill Americans than there were on September 11 and our security, far from improving as President Bush claims, is deteriorating. I am afraid that we have entered a vicious circle of escalating violence where our fears and their rage feed on each other. It is not a process that is likely to end any time soon. If we re-elect President Bush we are telling the world that we approve his policies - and we shall be at war for a long time to come. I realize that what I am saying is bound to be unpopular. We are in the grip of a collective misconception induced by the trauma of 9/11, and fostered by the Bush administration. No politician could say it and hope to get elected. That is why I feel obliged to speak out. There is a widespread belief that President Bush is making us safe. The opposite is true. President Bush failed to finish off bin Laden when he was cornered in Afghanistan because he was gearing up to attack Iraq. And the invasion of Iraq bred more people willing to risk their lives against Americans than we are able to kill - generating the vicious circle I am talking about. President Bush likes to insist that the terrorists hate us for what we are - a freedom loving people - not what we do. Well, he is wrong on that. He also claims that the torture scenes at Abu Graib prison were the work of a few bad apples. He is wrong on that too. They were part of a system of dealing with detainees put in place by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and our troops in Iraq are paying the price. How could President Bush convince people that he is good for our security, better than John Kerry? By building on the fears generated by the collapse of the twin towers and fostering a sense of danger. At a time of peril, people rally around the flag and President Bush has exploited this. His campaign is based on the assumption that people do not really care about the truth and they will believe practically anything if it is repeated often enough, particularly by a President at a time of war. There must be something wrong with us if we fall for it. For instance, some 40% of the people still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected with 9/11 - although it is now definitely established by the 9/11 Commission, set up by the President and chaired by a Republican, that there was no connection. I want to shout from the roof tops: "Wake up America. Don't you realize that we are being misled?" President Bush has used 9/11 to further his own agenda which has very little to do with fighting terrorism. There was an influential group within the Bush administration led by Vice President Dick Cheney that was itching to invade Iraq long before 9/11. The terrorist attack gave them their chance. If you need a tangible proof why President Bush does not deserve to be re-elected, consider Iraq. The war in Iraq was misconceived from start to finish -- if it has a finish. It is a war of choice, not necessity, in spite of what President Bush says. The arms inspections and sanctions were working. In response to American pressure, the United Nations had finally agreed on a strong stand. As long as the inspectors were on the ground, Saddam Hussein could not possibly pose a threat to our security. We could have declared victory but President Bush insisted on going to war. We went to war on false pretences. The real reasons for going into Iraq have not been revealed to this day. The weapons of mass destruction could not be found, and the connection with al Qaeda could not be established. President Bush then claimed that we went to war to liberate the people of Iraq. All my experience in fostering democracy and open society has taught me that democracy cannot be imposed by military means. And, Iraq would be the last place I would chose for an experiment in introducing democracy - as the current chaos demonstrates. Of course, Saddam was a tyrant, and of course Iraqis - and the rest of the world - can rejoice to be rid of him. But Iraqis now hate the American occupation. We stood idly by while Baghdad was ransacked. As the occupying power, we had an obligation to maintain law and order, but we failed to live up to it. If we had cared about the people of Iraq we should have had more troops available for the occupation than we needed for the invasion. We should have provided protection not only for the oil ministry but also the other ministries, museums and hospitals. Baghdad and the country's other cities were destroyed after we occupied them. When we encountered resistance, we employed methods that alienated and humiliated the population. The way we invaded homes, and the way we treated prisoners generated resentment and rage. Public opinion condemns us worldwide. The number of flipflops and missteps committed by the Bush administration in Iraq far exceeds anything John Kerry can be accused of. First we dissolved the Iraqi army, then we tried to reconstitute it. First we tried to eliminate the Baathists, then we turned to them for help. First we installed General Jay Garner to run the country, then we gave it to Paul Bremer and when the insurgency became intractable, we installed an Iraqi government. The man we chose was a prot├®g├® of the CIA with the reputation of a strong man - a far cry from democracy. First we attacked Falluja over the objections of the Marine commander on the ground, then pulled them out when the assault was half-way through, again over his objections. "Once you commit, you got to stay committed," he said publicly. More recently, we started bombing Falluja again. The Bush campaign is trying to put a favorable spin on it, but the situation in Iraq is dire. Much of the Western part of the country has been ceded to the insurgents. Even the so-called Green Zone (a small enclave in the center of Baghdad where Americans live and work) is subject to mortar attacks. The prospects of holding free and fair elections in January are fast receding and civil war looms. President Bush received a somber intelligence evaluation in July but he has kept it under wraps and failed to level with the electorate. Bush's war in Iraq has done untold damage to the United States. It has impaired our military power and undermined the morale of our armed forces. Before the invasion of Iraq, we could project overwhelming power in any part of the world. We cannot do so any more because we are bogged down in Iraq. Afghanistan is slipping from our control. North Korea, Iran, Pakistan and other countries are pursuing nuclear programs with renewed vigor and many other problems remain unattended. By invading Iraq without a second UN resolution, we violated international law. By mistreating and even torturing prisoners, we violated the Geneva conventions. President Bush has boasted that we do not need a permission slip from the international community, but our actions have endangered our security - particularly the security of our troops. Our troops were trained to project overwhelming power. They were not trained for occupation duties. Having to fight an insurgency saps their morale. Many of our troops return from Iraq with severe trauma and other psychological disorders. Sadly, many are also physically injured. After Iraq, it will be difficult to recruit people for the armed forces and we may have to resort to conscription. There are many other policies for which the Bush administration can be criticized but none are as important as Iraq. Iraq has cost us nearly 200 billion dollars -- an enormous sum. It could have been used much better elsewhere. The costs are going to mount because it was much easier to get into Iraq than it will be to get out of there. President Bush has been taunting John Kerry to explain how he would do things differently in Iraq. John Kerry has responded that he would have done everything differently and he would be in a better position to extricate us than the man who got us in there. But it won't be easy for him either, because we are caught in a quagmire. It is a quagmire that many predicted. I predicted it in my book, The Bubble of American Supremacy. I was not alone: top military and diplomatic experts desperately warned the President not to invade Iraq. But he ignored their experienced advice. He suppressed the critical process. The discussion about Iraq remains stilted even during this presidential campaign because of the notion that any criticism of our Commander-in-Chief puts our troops at risk. But this is Bush's war, and he ought to be held responsible for it. It's the wrong war, fought the wrong way. Step back for a moment from the cacophony of the election campaign and reflect: who got us into this mess? In spite of his Texas swagger, George W. Bush does not qualify to serve as our Commander-in-Chief. There is a lot more to be said on the subject and I have said it in my book, The Bubble of American Supremacy, now available in paperback. I hope you will read it. You can download the chapter on the Iraqi quagmire free from www.georgesoros.com If you find my arguments worth considering, please share this message with your friends. I would welcome your comments at georgesoros.com . I am eager to engage in a critical discussion because the stakes are so high. Contents copyright ┬® 2004 by George Soros. All rights reserved. Privacy policy. This message is paid for by George Soros and is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. www.georgesoros.com

JAQUAR, be sure to explain to the whole community, YOU are the reason I discontinued my MULTIPLAY SERVER, and Ill NEVER come back to this community., nor waste any more time or money fooling with this whole escapade I really am fed up with this forum. As EVERY SINGLE thing I have posted, since I have been here..has only gotton my character ATTACKED by a complete idiot Ass Hole, who NEED be LEASHED. I am completely fed up, with the utter STUPIDITY of ONE moderator, and his OFFENSIVE and childish attacks. PERIOD. 3000AD obviously condones, if not encourages this type of behavior, so Im through. Been fun all. I am outta here for good!!

your so twisted, its pathetic....Truly reminds me of bush. No body is running from your puny ass

stop trying to speak for me jag, and mind your own business. ABSOLUTLY NOTHING i say, is even remotely connected to your resolution, as to what I mean; Thus, you have no clue as to how I contrive my ultimate dicisions, and what makes my points valid. Your arguments are nothing but offensive attacks on anyone with opposing opinion, and Ill not discuss ANY points you make. so kiss off

poor jag, gonna raise his kids, in a fashion where they too will have no idea, what reality is, or how to deal with it. Yes, BUSH is a LIAR, and EVERYTHING he has relayed to the American population has been and IS a LIE. Sorry your not smart enough to see it. BELEIEVE A LIE AND BE DAMMNED....more power to you and your kind

quote:And Dark, I understand the whole school of thought you are presenting;however, it is NOT the only one, and there is evidence for several interpretations, as to the whole of the argument, I do concede And Dark, do not misunderstand me. I am aware, of where we disagreee and do not, but I cannot seem to get a word in edgewise here, without the JAG attack confusing the whole of any discussion, I have ever tried to have in this forum. It makes it very difficult to discuss ANY issue rationally. I KNOW this is the reason, so many avoid this part of the forum with a passion. I too thought to do that, but I refuse to be run of by a ________ _________"(use your imagination to fill in the blanks)

Jag, your utter stupidity is amazing. You dont know me, nor do you have an inkling, as to what i refer. I refuse to argue, and your preconcieved notions that you have exclusive understanding to the ideals presented. Your argument is total BULL, but based on the established school of thought which Dark has accurately referred. My discussions DO NOT include you, and your self promoted idea of kowledge. I know this bothers you to some radical degree. As there has not been one post, i have made since attending this forum, you have not shown your utter stupidity, in your attempt to trash. so give it up and go back to playing with your little yellow duck. Oh...and Tell your daddy I said hi, but am really disappointed in the development of his childs education.... On second thought, dont, Ill tell him myself!!! And Dark, I understand the whole school of thought you are presenting;however, it is NOT the only one, and there is evidence for several interpretations, as to the whole of the argument, I do concede

heard it all befoe dark, and Mathoo, consider yourself lucky on your warnings, you obviously live in a more relaxed state. But dont imagine for a second, the strictness will never touch your isolated part of the country. The ZERO tolorance mentality is far reaching and has encompassed many states, where the population thought they were free of its domain. There are literally hundreds of thousands of americans, who have lost their voting status to bogus insignificant offences, reclassified as felony crimes. and poor jag, still lost in his arrogant illusion of self importance, may as well play with himself, as I am not playing anymore

quote: these days you can have your rights revoked for something like Driving on a suspended license or less. I know a man who lost his right to vote, his drivers license..and faced 20 years in the state pen, just for taking his dying wife to the hospital, in a car that was unregistered an uninsured. His primary insured/registered car had broken down during this emergency, so he used an old running car, he had stored in the garage. (2001- I am sure, this VICTIM says "thank you bush for your communist mentality, and your promotion of ZERO tolorance dogma!!") quote: The problem with the current system is that it is all too easy to become a criminal. I HEAR YOU!! yeah, I know. Just say NO to reckless killing and invasions of another country...and your deemed a supporter of terrorisim!!! with the twisted mentality, of the followers of BUSH, It wouldnt surprise me if THAT would be enough to be a CRIMINAL..by 2008 quote: DUI is not a felony, but it is a "crime". In MOST STATES, DUI , is IN FACT, a felony conviction. In the state of SOUTH CAROLINA, driving a car with lapse of INSURANCE, is a FELONY CONVICTION, as of January 2001. more and more misdemeanor offences have become reclassified as FELONY. Hell, President clinton smoked POT. NOW mere possesion of 1 seed, would be a felony in 23 states. where as up to an OUNCE of weed was a misdemeaner offense,in 43 states prior to 1993. not to argue...but every state is different, and radical changes have come into effect, since the first BUSH administration...in a whole range of areas, where peopl ARE loosing their rights to vote.

quote:A genuine Democracy is a wish for suicide. This is a REPUBLIC, NOT a Democracy Nomad, and has never claimed, NOR should have EVER wanted to be a Democracy. Utter rediculousness!! The ONLY reason, a true democracy was not established at the time of the succession, was due to three very specific points. 1) at the time, few americans were educated enough to understand the workings of government. ..I for one, am an educated American, who is fed up with, and sick of being referred to as ignorant by a group of radical idiots, bred from the lower educational standards of the late 70's and early 80's generation. 2)lack transportation, and slow information distribution, deemed it necessary for a representative form of government to be implimented, at the time Now MOOT points, in the established base. Now there is an ABSOLUTE necessity for change in this area, for further progression toward the INTENDED purpose, of establishing a GOVERNMENT: FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE: described within the constitution. This PROVES, a true democracy was the original INTENT, but not practical within the time period, in which it was established. 3) A true democracy, had NEVER been concieved, nor implimented PRIOR to the established constitution. And those which had been tried throughout history, were not Availiable for comparrison, by the founding fathers. They simply had NOTHING to base a government structure on, other than that which they were familiar. All three of these points, AND the points you have stated(which I quoted) Make any and ALL or your radical misconceptions complete RUBBISH. I fear, more education within these matters would only serve to add to your confusion. Not that there is no hope, for those willing to learn...but first, one must be willing to observe things in an objective perspective. This is something, I do not feel your physiological brain, is capable of doing; however, in this I could be mistaken

quote:Why is it that the most important part of the article is at the end? Oh, that's right, because MOST people don't read an entire article, they read the first few paragraphs and move on. not true, bush...err I mean Jag, MOST people are smarter, and more attentive, than you give them credit. as for the end being the most important,,,not hardly, your reading comprehension forgets to acknowledge this line, held with in it: quote: according to the senior administration officials. and how ANYONE can give any credibility to ANYTHING this administration says... is totally beyond me. FACT: There is not ONE thing, this administration has related to the american public, which is not buried in OUTRIGHT LIES!!

You continue to call my observations Rhetoric, how confused you must be to your own opinions, you call facts? what a twisted moron Here are some MORE facts, as to what a LIAR you continue to represent: Meeting Was Not First for Cheney, Edwards By LIZ SIDOTI CLEVELAND (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday night that the debate with Democratic Sen. John Edwards marked the first time they had met. In fact, the two had met at least three times previously. Cheney made the remark while accusing Edwards of frequent absences from Senate votes. ``Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight,'' Cheney told Edwards during the debate. On Feb. 1, 2001, the vice president thanked Edwards by name at a Senate prayer breakfast and sat beside him during the event. On April 8, 2001, Cheney and Edwards shook hands when they met off-camera during a taping of NBC's ``Meet the Press,'' moderator Tim Russert said Wednesday on ``Today.'' On Jan. 8, 2003, the two met when the first-term North Carolina senator accompanied Elizabeth Dole to her swearing-in by Cheney as a North Carolina senator, Edwards aides also said. Edwards didn't forget their prayer-breakfast meeting. The Democratic vice presidential candidate noted the discrepancy at a post-debate rally in a Cleveland park, calling it an example of Cheney ``still not being straight with the American people.'' ``The vice president said that the first time I met Senator Edwards was tonight when we walked on the stage. I guess he forgot the time we sat next to each other for a couple hours about three years ago. I guess he forgot the time we met at the swearing in of another senator. So, my wife Elizabeth reminded him on the stage,'' Edwards said as the crowd roared. According to Edwards' staff, Cheney replied, ``Oh, yeah.'' ``She reminded him about the truth,'' Edwards told the crowd, ``and come November, we're going to remind him that the American people do not want four more years of George W. Bush.''

quote:President Bush and VP Cheney are sill doing thier jobs, yeah, just like they have been doing for the past 4 years... I would just like to know when Bush's JOB title, included, TERRORISING the american public with LIES and misrepresentation of facts and creating division throughout this country, unequaled since the civil war. Since when, is the President, doing his job, in declaration of war on 3rd world powers, who have no ability to defend themselves, and INVADING 3rd world countries... who NEVER attacked the UNITED STATES? go ahead and explain your ideas, I promise, I will not even offer a rebuttle toward your lame "bush propaghanda" disputes. Why? because, there is NO JUSTIFICATION, nor is there a LIE you or bush can concieve, which would relieve Him, or his supporters, of the responsibility and the BLOOD upon their hands.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a final report to be made public Wednesday, investigators will conclude that Saddam Hussein didn't possess stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction at the time of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Based in part on interviews with Saddam, the report from the CIA-led Iraq Survey Group also will conclude that he wanted to acquire weapons of mass destruction because he believed they kept the United States from going all the way to Baghdad during the first Gulf War. Saddam also believed they stopped an Iranian ground offensive during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, the senior administration officials said. The report also will find that Iraq made strenuous efforts to evade U.N. sanctions and pursued an aggressive strategy to try to get them lifted, which included subverting the U.N. oil-for-food program, the senior administration officials said -- adding that the report will name names of individuals and countries that illegally did business with Saddam. Other U.S. officials confirmed to CNN Tuesday that the report from the Iraq Survey Group will cite evidence that Iraq's intelligence agency used clandestine labs to manufacture small quantities of biological weapons in recent years, although probably for use in assassinations, rather than mass casualty attacks. An official with knowledge of the report declined to specify what kind of biological weapons were involved. The information was first reported Tuesday by the New York Times. The Iraq Survey Group's final report, which will run between 1,200 to 1,500 pages, will be presented to Congress Wednesday by Charles Duelfer, who has been leading the effort to search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq since January, when his predecessor, David Kay, resigned. White House spokesman Scott McClellan argued Tuesday that the report's findings support the military action taken by President Bush, even though stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction have not been found. "I think the report will continue to show that [saddam] was a gathering threat that needed to be taken seriously, that it was a matter of time before he was going to begin pursuing those weapons of mass destruction," McClellan said. But the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., said that before the war "we were told about mushroom clouds and stockpiles. Stockpiles. If we are told about traces (of weapons) and intentions, that's not what we were told before the war." Harman, who said she has not seen the report, said she expects the "new evidence" on Iraqi WMD programs to be about "traces of weapons from 1985" and not anything dramatically new. Senior administration officials who have seen the report said it will conclude that Saddam Hussein was pursuing an aggressive strategy to subvert the oil-for-food program and get out from under U.N. sanctions through illegal financing and procurement schemes. Once U.N. sanctions were lifted, Saddam intended to reconstitute his WMD programs, the report will conclude, according to the senior administration officials. To that end, the Iraqi dictator bought illegal materials to better position the regime to restart those programs, the report will say. According to the senior administration officials, the report will also find that Saddam directed his Foreign Ministry to put in place a strategy to end sanctions, aimed at U.N. Security Council members and international public opinion. As part of those efforts, the report will find that Saddam personally approved the recipients of an oil voucher distribution system, which was designed to influence other nations and individuals to lift the U.N. sanctions and help him import prohibited material, the senior administration officials said. The report will include names of individuals and countries that did business with the Iraqi regime through the oil-for-food program, both legally and illegally. The senior administration officials would not provide names of those businesses but did say that American, French, Russian and Polish businesses are mentioned.

quote: I know I am late (as usual) but Street I need to ask you. Was you attack on Jaguar staged to avoid the question as to whether or not you are the author of your thread? It seems familiar to me..... good god!!! if you would follow all the post where jag and i discuss anything, you would be aware of the reality of things..... good luck with your lives people..sheeesh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [ 10-02-2004, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Cmdr Chavik ]

It appears the guru has spoken..which cancels out all truth, but bush truth...

Not to worry, if bush wins, I promise all you radical republicans, I'm leaving your America, and denouncing my citizenship....belgium looking pretty good about now...

I'm down to a dancing bannna, ooooh i feel so young!!!!