Gop Convention

[NWA/AMT]

The U.N.'s resolutions (17?) were ignored by Saddam for many years while corrupt European politicians were profiting from kickbacks and bribes under the Oil for Food Program, which Saddam used to build more palaces (but which liberals/Bush-bashers/Blame America Firsters/etc had no problem with...

Like, for instance, the Halliburton Company of Houston, Texas which in 1998 and 1999 sold Saddam $23.8 Million worth of oil drilling equipment. At the time Halliburton was led by one Richard 'Dick' Cheney.

In December, 2002, when Iraq delivered the documentation to the UN Security Council which was required by UN resolution 1441, documentation detailing the history of its weapons programs, the 11,800 page document was seized by staffers from the Bush administration. When the documentation was returned to the UN, over 8,000 pages had been removed and have not been seen since.

Someday people will realize that it's not the so-called 'Liberals" that have been lying to them...

Source: Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows Of Empire, 2004, Henry Holt and Company, New York

 

[MrAeroMan]

The scariest thing about Bush is that, IMHO, he honestly believes that his way is the only way.

Doesn't that sound familiar??

 

[ITRADE]

Can't we all just get along?

 

[sentrido]

Giving "Bushy" a pass? What's he guilty of? Relying on CIA intelligence and repeating the same things Dems said in the late 90s about what Saddam had re WMD? There obviously were/are WMD supplies. He didn't kill thousands of his own citizens (Kurds) with bug spray. Something happened to the stuff he had. Destroyed/hidden/sent to Syria/whatever.

"The president, unimpressed by the presentation of satellite photographs and intercepts,
pressed Tenet and McLaughlin, saying their information would not "convince Joe Public"
and asking Tenet, "This is the best we've got?" Woodward reports.

According to Woodward, Tenet reassured the president that "it's a slam dunk case" that
Saddam had weapons of mass destruction."

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/18/woodward.book/

Now Tenet's assertion that it was a "slam dunk case"( which is something he doesn't remember saying by the way) Doesn't change the evidence that Mr. Bush had before him. We didn't really know what Saddam had did we? No. But somehow they still made the case. Trust us, we KNOW HE HAS THEM! Forget Osama! its of to topple Saddam!

We should just try to control their ability to kill Americans in this country. Unlike many Dems, I don't think we need to wait for thousands of American to die before we can take action.

Where does this come from? When was Iraq coming to get us?

Bush's preemption policies are just fine with me and the main reason I support him. The religious tone and/or justification with some of his policies are a turnoff, but he's basically a good person with an excellent sense of right and wrong. Not as much hesitation and hand-wringing as with some of the Dems who look at 50 sides of every issue and sometimes can't see the forest for the trees. You know the ones who I'm talking about. After 9/11 they look in the mirror and ask what we did to deserve this, what changes we can make so the terrorists (or the French/German/U.N.) won't be mad at us.

No I don't know who your talking about. Please tell us who. Who looked at 50 sides? What are you talking about here? We invaded Afghanistan, the country that supported the people who attacked us. Everybody in the world supported this. Who was worried about making the terrorists "mad" at us?

Bush looks at the situation and tells it like it is. The terrorists are evil madmen and we'll do what we have to to defend ourselves and our way of life. We don't need anybody's permission to do that. I think McCain would have done the same. With Gore, who knows? Anybody strange enough to get up at a post-impeachment pep rally and call Clinton one of the greatest Presidents of all time, or claims to have invented the internet or says Love Story was based on he and Tipper, or makes the shrill statements he did the other day, isn't fit to be President.

Who said we need permission to do anything? You really think Kerry wont do something to defend our nation without permission? Please back that up. Who knows what anybody else would have done, but I still wouldn't have supported it.

Well I heard his shrill statements the other day. And even though I don't agree with everything he said, He made complete sense. Makes me wonder what "version" you heard. If you heard it at all.

For what it matters, Gore never claimed that he invented the internet, or that Love Story was based on he and Tipper.

Re Kerry, while I feel it was admirable for him to have signed up for military service and risked his life in Nam (compared with Clinton who signed up for the reserves and then pulled all kinds of crap to weasel his way out of it),

see Dick Cheney.

The truth is I really don't care what anybody did to avoid the war. I do have to give Clinton props for pulling it off from the poor side of the tracks though.

I don't support the statements he made after his service about his fellow veterans and what they did. Btw, I didn't even go to the references you cited because I heard and saw what he said during his testimony at Congressional hearings and prefer to believe my own eyes and ears rather than Democrat "spin". Oh yeah, before you try to blast me for it, I am a veteran (Nam era active-duty non-reserve Army service, but didn't get sent to Nam, plus my son is in the military.)

Well I am going to blast you for it. The reference i sited was a TRANSCRIPT. THATS ALL. PLEASE TELL ME HOW YOU SPIN A TRANSCRIPT. At least now we know what kind of an open mind you bring to the debate. Maybe i should have put Zell's name next to it. I also heard and saw his testimony with my own eyes. I also saw him debate Mr. O'Neill.

Please find it in you heart to go to the reference i sited and tell us here specifically what about it you disagree with.

To quote:"
We are here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We're here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatrick, and so many others? Where are they now that we, the men they sent off to war, have returned? These are the commanders who have deserted their troops. And there is no more serious crime in the laws of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded. The marines say they never even leave their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They've left the real stuff of their reputations bleaching behind them in the sun in this country...."

SEEMS TO ME HE IS BLAMING THE LEADERSHIP. NOT THE SOLDIERS.
Im very curious to hear your interpretation.

Re Spain, Al Qaeda wanted to send a message that if you support the Americans, we're gonna bomb you. They did it to the Spanish and they buckled. It wasn't the BS their government gave them. They just figured, if we don't get rid of our leaders, the terrorists will bomb us more. That won't work here, but I fear the terrorists will try. There'll be some hand-wringing liberals who'll figure we better do what Al Qaeda wants so they'll stop killing us. However, they would have voted for Kerry anyway. But the undecided middle, even some conservatives who don't care for Bush's spending habits and immigration policies re Mexico, will make damned sure they vote for Bush. With the exception of Joe Leiberman, the Dems aren't real strong when it comes to national security. Or at least that's the perception, which is all that really matters.

I already addressed this, your simply restating your case with nothing to back it up. Im calling it here. God forbid there is another major attack, Bush gets re-elected easy. By the way, who the hell are these Liberals that want us to do what Al Qaeda wants? Please back that statement up. By the way, backing that up means do more than just repeat it again.

Despite what you said, Kerry has said many times that we should get U.N., French and German cooperation before we act, at least in Iraq. He must still believe that, unless he's flip flopped (maybe he voted for it before he voted against it ).

Where? He said we should have gotten a real coalition (which we might have been able to do if there was any real evidence of WMD's, or if Saddam had anything to do with 911). That may have included the UN, NATO, France , Germany. I don't recall him saying we needed them or their Permission.

Yea, He voted for it before he voted against it, Just like Bushy vetoed it before he didn't. But you wont complain about bush putting a Tax cut for the rich before our troops in Iraq. Will ya?

I never said he supported what Jane Fonda said, but when you appear at rallies for a cause and she's in the picture with you supporting the same cause, you get tarred with the same brush.

Wow. So what Brush do we paint Rummsfield with?

Re "Great American" for Kerry, I'm more demanding than you. I would never use that same label to describe both he and McCain because they're worlds apart in what they went through (and what they said after their military service) . I'm not going to hold it against Bush for bashing McCain during the primaries because that's politics. I still prefer McCain, but accept Bush and definitely prefer him to Kerry or any Democrat (except perhaps Zell Miller, but he's not an option).

Nice! Bush get a pass again!

Re Halliburton, if you think they're making out like bandits, buy their stock. Oh yeah, I forgot. It's only been between 20 and 32 the past year (29.55 now), so apparently the Democrat's claims re their profits aren't recognized by Wall Street. Or are all their vast profits going into some secret hoard unknown to Wall Street and the SEC?

%33 in a year? You don't think thats a huge profit? What are you smoking!

I'm not voting for Bush because of a true scumbag like Clinton. But the fact that people like Gore and Kerry supported/defended/idolized Clinton does influence my vote. They put their party before their country. I can't expect ANY politician to reflect my views 100%, so Bush's pro-life anti-gun control don't bother me all that much. I mainly like his strong support of national security, and pro-Israel/anti-terrorism views. The hand-wringing liberals and anti-Semitic bigots like Sen Hollings (D-SC) or Rep Moran (D-VA) (who aren't even chastised by the Democratic Party, which is supposedly against discrimination and bigotry, but I guess that doesn't include hating Jews) can KMA.

Yea, and the Republican party has cleansed itself of its Bigots and Racists. Thats why the confederate flag became an issue in 2000? If your looking for moral purity in a party, Please let me know when you find it.

 

[Fly]

However, they would have voted for Kerry anyway. But the undecided middle, even some conservatives who don't care for Bush's spending habits and immigration policies re Mexico, will make damned sure they vote for Bush. With the exception of Joe Leiberman, the Dems aren't real strong when it comes to national security. Or at least that's the perception, which is all that really matters.

Not according to the polls. Bush is in trouble Read it here.

At this stage in the presidential race - five months before Election Day - the incumbent typically highlights his own accomplishments while the challenger tries to undercut the White House occupant. That's not the case this year in a campaign that political analysts say could be the most negative yet.

"Bush is going full blast against Kerry," said John Geer, a Vanderbilt University professor who has studied 40 years of presidential campaign ads. "It's somewhat surprising, but it's not unlike what we've seen from previous incumbents who've been in trouble."

Recent polls show Bush's approval ratings at the lowest point of his presidency, with some in the low 40s. Two of the most negative presidential advertising campaigns were in 1992 and 1980, years in which two incumbents - George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter - lost re-election

 

[mweiss]

What's rather odd about this election season is it appears each candidate is trying as hard as he can to shoot himself in the foot. Never have I seen a race where both leading candidates are racing to the bottom of approval ratings.

 

[jimntx]

What's rather odd about this election season is it appears each candidate is trying as hard as he can to shoot himself in the foot. Never have I seen a race where both leading candidates are racing to the bottom of approval ratings.

Agreed. I suppose it's a good thing that "NONE OF THE ABOVE" is not a choice on the ballot. I think that NOTA would win without a run-off this year.