Kerry: 'I Can Fight More Effective War on Terror'

[CheapyD]

Kerry: 'I Can Fight More Effective War on Terror'
By Patricia Wilson

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - Democrat John Kerry said on Tuesday he could fight a more effective war on terror than President Bush and vowed to help keep America safe by extending the Sept. 11 commission's work for 18 months.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=4&u=/nm/20040728/pl_nm/campaign_kerry_dc

[MrBadExample]

His speech Thursday should be very interesting.

[E-Z-B]

Bush is fighting terrorism?

(Not since he got distracted with Iraq).

[Squirms]

Way to go, extend a commission that has already cost the taxpayers tons of money, and that has already issued their findings.

[ZarathosNY]

The commision hasn't finished yet. They are supposed to look at how Bush handled the info he got from the CIA after the elections

[DCriminal]

Way to go, extend a commission that has already cost the taxpayers tons of money, and that has already issued their findings.

Way to go. Blindly dismiss a sugestion on the merits that it didnt come out of the mouth of your choosen candidate.

The reason that Kerry would like the commission to stay active is so they can oversee the implementation of their recomendations (particularly intelligence reforms), and to pressure congress into acting swiftly.

[WildWop]

The commision hasn't finished yet. They are supposed to look at how Bush handled the info he got from the CIA after the elections

Why IS that, I wonder? Why can't they criticize the President leading up to an election? The voters have a right to know this sort of thing.

Imagine the stink that will rise if it comes out that Bush was completely BSing the public ... and we find out AFTER he is re-elected. We need to have an accurate picture of what Bush did in office in order to effectively evaluate who we want for President...

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I don't see any point in keeping together a commission that DID and HAS issued its final report.

He gave this same speech yesterday in Norfolk. He claims "If I were preeeesseeeeeeddddeeeennnnttttt" (You know how this would sound.) that he would have started enacting the commissions reforms last week.

Hmmmm, so he would have forced Congress back in session over its long scheduled August vacation. He would have forgone attending his party's national convention and started encating reforms without consult with the FBI, NSA, DIA, CIA, Pentagon, Coast Guard, Customs, Secret Service or any other government agency? How does he know which of the recommendations have been shot down, in the process of being implemented or have been implemented but not publicly so as to disarm our enemies?

Great John, just swell. We'd all be safe if YOU were Ppppprrrrreeeeesssssiiiiidddddeeeenntttttttt by the time NFL training camps broke. So damn disingenuous.

Get back in your sperm suit.
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040727/capt.jey13d07271628.campaign_kerry_jey13d.jpg

[Tromack]

Way to go, extend a commission that has already cost the taxpayers tons of money, and that has already issued their findings.

I'd rather money spent on this, than the travesty that was Whitewater. You probably didn't complain about that though. I don't believe we needed millions of taxpayers dollars to find out that the president had a bj.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Why don't you come back after you've had a chance to discover the real meaning of "obstruction of justice" and do a little bit of history and see what happened to Richard Nixon when he lied under oath mmmmmmkay?

[Tromack]

Why don't you come back after you've had a chance to discover the real meaning of "obstruction of justice" and do a little bit of history and see what happened to Richard Nixon when he lied under oath mmmmmmkay?

I could not care less if anyone, even a president, lied about getting a bj. Bill Clinton is a sleazebag, but he was a good president. Lying about WMD's however, that upsets me.

-Edit unless it was an adulterous relationship I was in. Then I might want to know if my girlfriend had given or gotten oral sex from another man. But then again, I might not. But that is neither here nor there.

[redline]

Does anyone else feel the the war on terrorism might be counterproductive? I mean if we piss enough people off, terrorist organizations from other countries might start committing acts of terrorism against us. IMO terrorism will never be eliminated, so I don't know how much good it is doing us trying to fight it.

[coffman]

Kerry in the "sperm suit" isn't as bad as the picture of Bush picking his nose at a baseball game (or cheerleading when he was in college--->what a wimp).

[Tromack]

Does anyone else feel the the war on terrorism might be counterproductive? I mean if we piss enough people off, terrorist organizations from other countries might start committing acts of terrorism against us. IMO terrorism will never be eliminated, so I don't know how much good it is doing us trying to fight it.

I agree. The war on terrorism cannot be effectively waged as any sort of conventional war. The best way to eliminate terrorism is to try to eliminate any reason for people to become terrorists.

[daikaiju]

Why don't you come back after you've had a chance to discover the real meaning of "obstruction of justice" and do a little bit of history and see what happened to Richard Nixon when he lied under oath mmmmmmkay?


Obligitory Futurama Quote:

"I remember MY body - Pale, flabby....riddled with phlebitis - a good republican body!"
- R. Nixon's head

[ZarathosNY]

Kerry in the "sperm suit" isn't as bad as the picture of Bush picking his nose at a baseball game (or cheerleading when he was in college--->what a wimp).

Or Bush dressing up in a flight suit.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

You apologists still have no idea what the Clinton impeachment was all about do you? I mean it wasn't about a blow job, hummer or a cum stain on a blue dress. It was the fact that a sitting President took an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution then, under oath, lied. That's also called perjury.

Spin it about covering himself, not admitting an affair or whatever it is you need to do to make that Clinton brand Kool Aid taste good. However don't make any mistake that he survived what even the threat of, impeachment, caused Richard Nixon to resign. Clinton's legacy is now cut in stone and in 25 years it will be pretty firm. He took his eyes off the ball of terrorism because of a blow job and the Republican lead Senate was foolish for not conducting an agressive trial to remove him from office.

[ZarathosNY]

Why don't you come back after you've had a chance to discover the real meaning of "obstruction of justice" and do a little bit of history and see what happened to Richard Nixon when he lied under oath mmmmmmkay?

Obstruction of Justice ---- pretty much sums up W's presidency.

[WildWop]

Pittsburgh... EVERY goddamn presidential candidate pulls this sort of shit. It's an election year, of course he's supposed to be flinging promises left and right. Bush is doing the same thing. Remember his campaign speech--I mean, State of the Union address? How many baseless promises were in there? How many things did he promise while campaigning in 2000 that he never came close to seeing through during his term as President? Where's my affordable healthcare? Every President since I've been alive (if not longer) has been eschewing that particular load of crap.

Perhaps you should start taking a more critical look at your own party. Shit stinks no matter what political adgenda you wrap it in. There are certain things you should come to expect from the political process in an election year, and baseless promises are definitely in that list. Get down off your propagandist horse for a bit, will ya.

[E-Z-B]

Why don't you come back after you've had a chance to discover the real meaning of "obstruction of justice" and do a little bit of history and see what happened to Richard Nixon when he lied under oath mmmmmmkay?

Obstuctiion of Justice ---- pretty much sums up W's presidency.

Yeah, why haven't they pursued who leaked the CIA operative to the press? Why? Because he works for Cheney's staff, that's why.

Lying under oath about a b.j. doesn't piss me off as much as lying about going to war with Iraq which cost us 900 of our brothers and sister's lives.

A REAL concern is the genocide that's happening in Sudan right now that bush doesn't give a crap about because Sudan doesn't have oil.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Find me one instance of George W. Bush taking an oath to "Tell the truth, whole truth so help me God." and then lying. That's it... just one.

Since you can't take your half baked flame bait and "shove it".

i'm sticking with the Heinz-Kerry version in honor of the DNC festivities in Boston this week.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

So E-Z-B are you contrasting the genocide in Sudan with the one Clinton did so much about in Rwanda? Careful pot... the kettle is black.

[E-Z-B]

Find me one instance of George W. Bush taking an oath to "Tell the truth, whole truth so help me God." and then lying. That's it... just one.

Since you can't take your half baked flame bait and "shove it".

i'm sticking with the Heinz-Kerry version in honor of the DNC festivities in Boston this week.

That's because he won't. Take the 9/11 commission for example. Instead of testifying like Clinton did, he would only answer questions not under oath, behind closed doors, with no notes allowed, only two commission members present, and with Cheney by his side.

So that's our fearless leader, huh?

[Ikohn4ever]

Clinton's legacy is now cut in stone and in 25 years it will be pretty firm. He took his eyes off the ball of terrorism because of a blow job and the Republican lead Senate was foolish for not conducting an agressive trial to remove him from office.

I think you made a mistake. You accidently put Clinton's name instead of putting our current president. Clinton will be remembered as on of the best presidents of our time. Your are so deep in the republican forrest to even see the trees. At least u give me a daily laugh with your right wing postings of garbage, though u say there is no agenda you are just reporting the news. Bush is a tyrant, he uses his idiocy as a decoy for his actions. Everyone loves the lovable moron, ala Lennie from Mice and Men, there will only be debates about which Bush is worse in 25 years.

[donssword]

It's all talk until he is elected.

[ZarathosNY]

Find me one instance of George W. Bush taking an oath to "Tell the truth, whole truth so help me God." and then lying. That's it... just one.

Since you can't take your half baked flame bait and "shove it".

i'm sticking with the Heinz-Kerry version in honor of the DNC festivities in Boston this week.

How about when he was sworn in as president?

[E-Z-B]

So E-Z-B are you contrasting the genocide in Sudan with the one Clinton did so much about in Rwanda? Careful pot... the kettle is black.

The issue is that Bush was so gung-ho to go after genocide that happened in Iraq 10 or 20 years ago (so he says), that he would rather take a massive dump on the Sudan than lift a finger to help those people getting butchered.

At least Clinton went into the balkans to stop the genocide there under Milosevich. There was no incentive to go in there, like with the oil in Iraq.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Wait a minute.... is he an idiot or a tyrant. Or is he an idiot tyrant backed by someone else? I mean there wasn't one Halliburton or Cheney rant in your post.

I'll give you a break though. I'll give you a chance to list 3 things that makes Clinton one of the best Presidents of our time. That's it.... three. If he's so great that's a no brainer. It's not like I'm looking for 10, just three.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

What about Rwanda? Why did Clinton do nothing about Rwanda? How many millions died while Clinton did nothing? Can you answer that question? Why did Clinton not lift a finger to stop the millions of deaths in Rwanda on his watch? If you're so concerned, I mean compassionately and legitimately concerned about the issue as opposed to blowing political smoke for the sake of message board debate, why can't you begin to accurately address my question?

[E-Z-B]

Wait a minute.... is he an idiot or a tyrant. Or is he an idiot tyrant backed by someone else? I mean there wasn't one Halliburton or Cheney rant in your post.

I'll give you a break though. I'll give you a chance to list 3 things that makes Clinton one of the best Presidents of our time. That's it.... three. If he's so great that's a no brainer. It's not like I'm looking for 10, just three.

a balanced budget, a ban on assault weapons, and the Oslo Peace accords

[E-Z-B]

What about Rwanda? Why did Clinton do nothing about Rwanda? How many millions died while Clinton did nothing? Can you answer that question? Why did Clinton not lift a finger to stop the millions of deaths in Rwanda on his watch? If you're so concerned, I mean compassionately and legitimately concerned about the issue as opposed to blowing political smoke for the sake of message board debate, why can't you begin to accurately address my question?

Yes, Clinton SHOULD have done something, and the Internation Community should have done something too. But they didn't.

But since you're blinded to your party, you will never think anything different then what our Great Leader tells you to think.

[Ikohn4ever]

Wait a minute.... is he an idiot or a tyrant. Or is he an idiot tyrant backed by someone else? I mean there wasn't one Halliburton or Cheney rant in your post.

I'll give you a break though. I'll give you a chance to list 3 things that makes Clinton one of the best Presidents of our time. That's it.... three. If he's so great that's a no brainer. It's not like I'm looking for 10, just three.

1st off clinton was excellent with dealing with foreign allies. He worked well in the middle east and in Europe both eastern and western

2nd Restricting the sale of hand guns

3rd He helped both the WTO and NAFTA come together.

Thats just off the top of my head, I await your right wing response to rebuff or diffuse these claims

[PittsburghAfterDark]

1. The balanced budget isn't the act of a President. The President can't spend a dime. The President can't raise one dime of revenue. All in flow and out flow of government funds is conrolled by Congress. Therefore the balanced budget was the result of the actions of Congress, a Republican Congress at that. Since you don't know how government spending is controlled and revenues are raised I suggest you familiarize yourself with Article I of the U.S. Constitution. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#articlei)

2. The ban on assault weapons. Not permanent. In fact that law is up for renewal because it was only a 10 year law. This law outlawed many weapons of foreign manufacture but allowed their domestic counterpart stay legal. AK-47's and Uzi's were outlawed the AR-15 could remain legal. This law was terribly flawed and again... not permanent and will not be renewed in September.

3. The Oslo Accords may have been monumental as the Camp David Accords were for Carter. However Yasser Arafat completely destroyed any adoption of them therefore they're nothing more than an interesting historical "what if".

Ikon's 3

1st off clinton was excellent with dealing with foreign allies. He worked well in the middle east and in Europe both eastern and western.

I wouldn't call diplomacy an accomplishment. I wouldn't even call Bush 41's ability to put together a coalition for Desert Strom a Presidential accomplishment. It's what the outcome of those alliances did that was historical. I'll give you half a point on this but nothing specific was given, just a general "we all got along" type of thing.

2nd Restricting the sale of hand guns.

Which was already addressed and is actually a detrimental thing as it abridges the second ammendment. These gun laws are going to be sunsetted this fall FYI.

3rd He helped both the WTO and NAFTA come together.

I'll give you this. Even though both treaties were long negotiated they were enacted under Clinton. A very non-leftist claim to fame but I agree entirely.

[CheapyD]

He took his eyes off the ball of terrorism because of a blow job and the Republican lead Senate was foolish for not conducting an agressive trial to remove him from office.

Um, it was the Republicans that were focused on the blow job, not the other way around.

And wasn't it Bush that that took a month long vacation in August (the month before 9/11)? In fact as of August 2001, he spent "42 percent of his presidency "at vacation spots or en route."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A57120-2001Aug10&notFound=true

[bignick]

In the blue corner we have PittsburghAfterDark
, and in the red corner we have CheapyD. Lets have a good clean fight!

[E-Z-B]

1. The balanced budget isn't the act of a President. The President can't spend a dime. The President can't raise one dime of revenue. All in flow and out flow of government funds is conrolled by Congress. Therefore the balanced budget was the result of the actions of Congress, a Republican Congress at that. Since you don't know how government spending is controlled and revenues are raised I suggest you familiarize yourself with Articl I of the U.S. Constitution. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#articlei)

2. The ban on assault weapons. Not permanent. In fact that law is up for renewal because it was only a 10 year law. This law outlawed many weapons of foreign manufacture but allowed their domestic counterpart stay legal. AK-47's and Uzi's were outlawed the AR-15 could remain legal. This law was terribly flawed and again... not permanent and will not be renewed in September.

3. The Oslo Accords may have been monumental as the Camp David Accords were for Carter. However Yasser Arafat completely destroyed any adoption of them therefore they're nothing more than an interesting historical "what if".

The president submits the budget to congress. Much like how bush is submitting a record deficit budget of $400+ billion to congress.

The ban on assault could be extended, but bush will never allow it since he's controlled partly by the NRA

The peace accords were monumental at the time, but since you have hindsight, you can easily say they didn't work. When was the last time I saw bush working for peace in the middle east?

[PittsburghAfterDark]

CheapyD, with all due respect every President and every Congress since dirt, or in Washington's case swamp, had gotten the hell out of Dodge for the entire month of August since Pierre L'Efant laid down the blueprints for the capital. This wasn't something new.

[MrBadExample]

Find me one instance of George W. Bush taking an oath to "Tell the truth, whole truth so help me God." and then lying. That's it... just one.
.

So according to you, a president is not obligated to tell the truth to Americans unless he takes an oath previously? He's free to lie his ass off unless he swears first?

I prefer my president to be honest at all times, but I guess you need that rationale if you vote Republican.

[CheapyD]

The above linked article says:
"News coverage has pointedly stressed that W.'s month-long stay at his ranch in Crawford is the longest presidential vacation in 32 years."

[Indiana]

1. The balanced budget isn't the act of a President. The President can't spend a dime. The President can't raise one dime of revenue. All in flow and out flow of government funds is conrolled by Congress. Therefore the balanced budget was the result of the actions of Congress, a Republican Congress at that. Since you don't know how government spending is controlled and revenues are raised I suggest you familiarize yourself with Article I of the U.S. Constitution. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#articlei)

2. The ban on assault weapons. Not permanent. In fact that law is up for renewal because it was only a 10 year law. This law outlawed many weapons of foreign manufacture but allowed their domestic counterpart stay legal. AK-47's and Uzi's were outlawed the AR-15 could remain legal. This law was terribly flawed and again... not permanent and will not be renewed in September.

3. The Oslo Accords may have been monumental as the Camp David Accords were for Carter. However Yasser Arafat completely destroyed any adoption of them therefore they're nothing more than an interesting historical "what if".

Ikon's 3

1st off clinton was excellent with dealing with foreign allies. He worked well in the middle east and in Europe both eastern and western.

I wouldn't call diplomacy an accomplishment. I wouldn't even call Bush 41's ability to put together a coalition for Desert Strom a Presidential accomplishment. It's what the outcome of those alliances did that was historical. I'll give you half a point on this but nothing specific was given, just a general "we all got along" type of thing.

2nd Restricting the sale of hand guns.

Which was already addressed and is actually a detrimental thing as it abridges the second ammendment. These gun laws are going to be sunsetted this fall FYI.

3rd He helped both the WTO and NAFTA come together.

I'll give you this. Even though both treaties were long negotiated they were enacted under Clinton. A very non-leftist claim to fame but I agree entirely.

You say that the President can't do anything. Well the President's POWER is to VETO bills! President Bush has NOT vetoed one bill since in office. Could it be that he is NOT doing his job!!! He's not doing anything except starting a war with Iraq.

[punqsux]

CheapyD, with all due respect every President and every Congress since dirt, or in Washington's case swamp, had gotten the hell out of Dodge for the entire month of August since Pierre L'Efant laid down the blueprints for the capital. This wasn't something new.

this is historically accurate, however prior to (i believe) the 1920's washington would pretty much shut down in the summer due to the heat. theres no need for this in current days with air conditioning and such, so the "tradition" is somewhat obselete. im not bashing bush for taking a vacation, i mean everyone should take one, but man did he pick a bad time to do so

[MrBadExample]

CheapyD, with all due respect every President and every Congress since dirt, or in Washington's case swamp, had gotten the hell out of Dodge for the entire month of August since Pierre L'Efant laid down the blueprints for the capital. This wasn't something new.

So we wouldn't want to make an exception even if you got a memo titled "Osama bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." I mean Dubya needs his R & R - working more than 58% of the time will kill a man. (oh yeah - that's sarcasm)

[PittsburghAfterDark]

The President doesn't submit the budget to Congress. The President submits what he would like the budget to be to Congress. At which point they negotiate tooth and nail. Or... when the Democrats were in charge and Reagan was President declared the President's budget ideas "DOA!". The negotiations with a Republican congress and vastly increased tax revenues of a hot economy and some semblance of Congressional fiscal responsibility lead to a balanced budget. Clinton by himself did not balance the budget. It is Constitutionally impossible for any President to do so.

Oh good, I'll have to put the NRA down as yet another "evil" group that has the President under its control. You do realize that over 2 million people are members and they are, behind the AARP, the largest "special interest" in the country? Compare that to the >100,000 that populate the NOW and then contrast how both are portrayed and given seats of power.

So in regards to the Oslo Accords we should give Clinton props for being well inentioned as opposed to actually accomplishing things?

[helava]

I'd be inclined to debate PittsburghAfterDark, but see, here's the problem: he's not debatable. Why? To debate with someone, they have to actually be thinking, and expressing opinions. He's not. He's simply reciting the RNC's propaganda and generic spin points. Since he's not concerned with the veracity of his actual claims, you can't debate him.

He is sorta funny, though.

But seriously, come on. Anyone at this point who sincerely supports Bush/Cheney is simply insane.

seppo

[acolyte]

You could publish a memo with that title every day of the year. Frankly, it's on the same level as getting a memo titled "Sun determined to rise in East." Code orange!

[MrBadExample]

You could publish a memo with that title every day of the year. Frankly, it's on the same level as getting a memo that says "Sun determined to rise in East."[/quote]

You do remember that this memo was correct, right?

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Yes, the memo was correct. It could also have been published every day since the first WTC bombing. We ignored that a war had been declared on us because we had no idea how to combat it. Clinton treated it as a legal issue, which I'm not even criticizing, it was just the wrong tactic. No western power that dealt with terrorism was faced with an enemy like Al Qaeda.

The IRA, Red Brigades, Baader Meinhoff and the Basque seperatists all were the template of how the FBI viewed terrorism. Someone operating inside your borders weren't supposed to fly planes into buildings. We had to learn an extremely painful lesson at home but that lesson had been given us in Kenya, Somolia, in Yemen with the USS Cole and in Suaid Arabia with the Khobar Towers bombings.

There's enough blame to go around on 9/11 for it to be laid entirely at the feet of Bush which the 9/11 commision didn't. I'm not even going to lay it at the feet of Clinton because he failed to take bin Laden from the Sudan. Quite frankly I think Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri would have pulled off the attacks even if Clinton would have had bin Laden in custody. No single president can be held accountable for the rise of Islmic fascism.

The roots were laid with our support of the Shah after WW II, arguably. That would pin blame going back generations from Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush. We can realistically say our problems in the middle east have to do with how the region has been forced to develop since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the actions of the British Empire. It's too long and convoluted to pin on even the 2nd half of the 20th century.

[acolyte]

You do remember the text of that memo, right? The year "1998" crops up quite a bit. The last two paragraphs are the meat of the importance. Still, saying "consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks" is far from saying "hijackings cum suicide bombings are imminent," and the FBI indicates that they had ongoing investigations. I'm no fan of long Presidential vacations, but I don't see what the memo should have spurred the President himself to do.

Edit: To be fair, the full text of the memo isn't available for "security reasons," so it's entirely possible (or likely if you're inclined to believe so) that the released version is missing the big information. Also, with hindsight, the embassy call and the "suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks" fit the profile.

[E-Z-B]

I'd be inclined to debate PittsburghAfterDark, but see, here's the problem: he's not debatable. Why? To debate with someone, they have to actually be thinking, and expressing opinions. He's not. He's simply reciting the RNC's propaganda and generic spin points. Since he's not concerned with the veracity of his actual claims, you can't debate him.

He is sorta funny, though.

But seriously, come on. Anyone at this point who sincerely supports Bush/Cheney is simply insane.

seppo

Yeah, I guess you're right. Even just by looking at his avatar, it becomes clear that he's just going to spew RNC propoganda b.s. #-o

He would sooner drop dead than ever admit that his party is wrong on anything. Tom DeLay would be proud.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I just got my check from Halliburton!

Wrong conspiracy theory.

[hulk409]

You do realize, PittsburghAfterDark, that many of the people on these boards are brainwashed college students. Many, or at least some, will learn the shortcomings of socialism as they grow older.

Oh yeah, of course Kerry will be able to fight the war on terror better. He will be able to do everything better than Bush. He just never tells us how exactly he is going to do it.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I know most are students. That's why the world is viewed through an abstract as opposed to absoultes by the majority of them. When Jesus wanted to do his work he went to be with the sinners not the saints.

If I just get one I am indeed a fisher of men.

[E-Z-B]

You do realize, PittsburghAfterDark, that many of the people on these boards are brainwashed college students. Many, or at least some, will learn the shortcomings of socialism as they grow older.


Why? Do we all eventually become greedy warmongers?

[helava]

That's right! Because the world *is* divided into absolutes! You're either with us, or against us! Good or evil! Nuance has no place in our lives, and consideration of complex points is moral relativism! Bad liberals! Bad!

Seriously. Hilarious, you guys are.

And yes, I was a college student at one point. I consider it a point of pride that I was in an environment where I met a tremendous diversity of people whose experiences were radically different than my own. I met people of different ethnicities, backgrounds, economic strata, and sexual orientation. And strangely, bizarrely, I became a better person for it. I mean, brainwashed.

Brainwashed.

Must... eat... brains.

*lurches forward all zombie-like*

Brains...

seppo

[punqsux]

You do realize, PittsburghAfterDark, that many of the people on these boards are brainwashed college students. Many, or at least some, will learn the shortcomings of socialism as they grow older.

Oh yeah, of course Kerry will be able to fight the war on terror better. He will be able to do everything better than Bush. He just never tells us how exactly he is going to do it.

after i graduate could someone remind me to bomb this guys house, after all, thats what adults do in this world with people they dont agree with...right? :roll:

[E-Z-B]

I know most are students. That's why the world is viewed through an abstract as opposed to absoultes by the majority of them. When Jesus wanted to do his work he went to be with the sinners not the saints.

If I just get one I am indeed a fisher of men.

Bush = Christ

:roll:

[helava]

Oh, just to be clear - "socialism" isn't what we're going for, here. But I suppose framing the issue that way puts up a straw man for you, so you call it whatever you want. I mean, I could say, "The majority of right-wing nutcases are just uneducated morons, but they'll grow out of it with exposure to the world. People who undergo a real diversity of experience eventually grow out of Nazism."

Ah, but you're not Nazis, you say! Congratulations, now you see my point.

seppo

[MrBadExample]

I know most are students. That's why the world is viewed through an abstract as opposed to absoultes by the majority of them. When Jesus wanted to do his work he went to be with the sinners not the saints.

If I just get one I am indeed a fisher of men.

Jesus really meant to say "Do unto others before they do unto you."

[helava]

after i graduate could someone remind me to bomb this guys house, after all, thats what adults do in this world with people they dont agree with...right? :roll:

No, see, it's too late. You should have known that he *would* have grown up to be a twit, and killed him several years ago. We can't wait for the smoking gun, which might be a mushroom cloud, after all!

Pre-emption now!

seppo

[punqsux]

after i graduate could someone remind me to bomb this guys house, after all, thats what adults do in this world with people they dont agree with...right? :roll:

No, see, it's too late. You should have known that he *would* have grown up to be a twit, and killed him several years ago. We can't wait for the smoking gun, which might be a mushroom cloud, after all!

Pre-emption now!

seppo

yeah i didnt read that memo, it came over spring break...

[helava]

If I just get one I am indeed a fisher of men.

Ok, so I'll give you an opportunity to throw out a "hook," PAD, and I'll ask you a pretty simple question, placed in some context:

Why should I support Bush/Cheney?

1.) They have extolled the PNAC's neocon philosophy, which the Iraq war has proven to be wrong on nearly every point, from the "fall" of Iraq, to the ease with which a democratic society would rise. Every point the neocon philosophy has expounded has been proven wrong by our actions in Iraq.

2.) The tax cut has provided orders of magniture less job growth than was predicted, and despite giving away so much money we could have created more jobs by using that money to simply employ people at a reasonable wage on public works, we're millions of jobs in the hole, and even the good months of job creation have barely kept up with the growth necessary to break even given population growth.

3.) The tax cut has forced a substantial cut in services, which in many cases, negates any effect of a middle class tax cut, as middle class families must now pay for these services out-of-pocket.

4.) The Bush administration has strongly moved to actually explicitly amend our Constitution to exclude certain segments of our population, giving them *less* equal rights, rather than more.

5.) The Bush administration has shunned the NAACP, becoming the first Presidency in many, many years to fail to address the group at all during a term in office.

6.) The Bush administration inflated claims of WMD in Iraq, they failed to pursue Osama bin Laden, they have peddled knowingly false information, they have been duped by a supposed spy for Iran (where is Chalabi in the news these days, anyway?), and gotten more than 900 of our people killed in a war that was based on entirely false pretenses. Say what you will about Hussein being a bad man, we have historically not "liberated" countries from bad people, except in cases of genocide.

I could go on, but I've gotta get back to work. Still left - the Kyoto Protocol, the damage done to our alliances around the globe, the dissolution of the Israel/Palestine peace process, the weakening of our environmental protections, the recess appointment, circumventing the review process, of extremist judges, etc.

Anyway - the question is pretty simple. Why would you support Bush, knowing what you know about how he has conducted his term in office?

seppo

[magilacudy]

You do realize, PittsburghAfterDark, that many of the people on these boards are brainwashed college students. Many, or at least some, will learn the shortcomings of socialism as they grow older.

Oh yeah, of course Kerry will be able to fight the war on terror better. He will be able to do everything better than Bush. He just never tells us how exactly he is going to do it.

I was trying to stay somewhat neutral and consider both sides equally, but when I read that quote both you and PAD lost all credibility.

What a great argument you have there. Basically "You don't know what you are talking about because you aren't old enough" stalemate.

Also, that quip about Jesus. Personally I think using Jesus in such a political debate is wrong, but since you insist on including him. The reason he chose 'sinners' to work with is because those in power i.e. the rich were too egocentric to change their ways. Jesus desired to flip this status quo.

I find it interesting that one of the biggest arguments against Kerry is 'What will he do to make things better?'. Yet you can ask that about Bush as well. This country desperately needs change; obviously in today's world the rich will stay rich and the poor will stay poor for the most part. That won't change and I'm not advocating revolution, but maybe we can mix up the status quo by voting in someone else besides Bush.

[ZarathosNY]

1. The balanced budget isn't the act of a President. The President can't spend a dime. The President can't raise one dime of revenue. All in flow and out flow of government funds is conrolled by Congress. Therefore the balanced budget was the result of the actions of Congress, a Republican Congress at that. Since you don't know how government spending is controlled and revenues are raised I suggest you familiarize yourself with Article I of the U.S. Constitution. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#articlei)

2. The ban on assault weapons. Not permanent. In fact that law is up for renewal because it was only a 10 year law. This law outlawed many weapons of foreign manufacture but allowed their domestic counterpart stay legal. AK-47's and Uzi's were outlawed the AR-15 could remain legal. This law was terribly flawed and again... not permanent and will not be renewed in September.

3. The Oslo Accords may have been monumental as the Camp David Accords were for Carter. However Yasser Arafat completely destroyed any adoption of them therefore they're nothing more than an interesting historical "what if".

Ikon's 3

1st off clinton was excellent with dealing with foreign allies. He worked well in the middle east and in Europe both eastern and western.

I wouldn't call diplomacy an accomplishment. I wouldn't even call Bush 41's ability to put together a coalition for Desert Strom a Presidential accomplishment. It's what the outcome of those alliances did that was historical. I'll give you half a point on this but nothing specific was given, just a general "we all got along" type of thing.

2nd Restricting the sale of hand guns.

Which was already addressed and is actually a detrimental thing as it abridges the second ammendment. These gun laws are going to be sunsetted this fall FYI.

3rd He helped both the WTO and NAFTA come together.

I'll give you this. Even though both treaties were long negotiated they were enacted under Clinton. A very non-leftist claim to fame but I agree entirely.


The budget gets submitted to Congress by the president. Congress votes on it. The budget that was submitted by Clinton that balanced the budget did not get one Repub vote.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

If the Clinton budgets were not voted on by one Republican they could not have passed for executive signature. Why? Republicans controlled both houses of Congress from 1994-2000. So um.... wrong. I'll address the other 6 points that helava presented in order.

1.) They have extolled the PNAC's neocon philosophy, which the Iraq war has proven to be wrong on nearly every point, from the "fall" of Iraq, to the ease with which a democratic society would rise. Every point the neocon philosophy has expounded has been proven wrong by our actions in Iraq.

I'm also going to tie your 6th statement into this.

6.) The Bush administration inflated claims of WMD in Iraq, they failed to pursue Osama bin Laden, they have peddled knowingly false information, they have been duped by a supposed spy for Iran (where is Chalabi in the news these days, anyway?), and gotten more than 900 of our people killed in a war that was based on entirely false pretenses. Say what you will about Hussein being a bad man, we have historically not "liberated" countries from bad people, except in cases of genocide.

The origins of the information and how it went wrong will be debated for years as the CIA, MI6, the French DGSE and Russian successor to the KGB were all in agreement that Iraq had WMD.

Your questions about Chalabi are well founded. I too would like to know how heavily we relied on his information and that off the INC and if he had any ties with Iranian intelligence.

We haven't ever liberated a country because of genocide. We didn't make war on Germany due to the Holocaust we made war on Germany because they declared war on us. If we were in the business of liberating countries from genocidal governments we would have been in Rwanda, the Sudan today, Cambodia in the 70's and in Russia in the 30's. We have not launched wars for this purpose.

The "ease" of democracy and how would be achieved in Iraq is questionable. I never thought it would be easy and haven't really been privvy to any high level reports about what expectations were to achieving a transitional government into a full fledged working democracy that the Iraqi's were running unquestionably.

I look at today's bombing that killed 70 Iraqi's as a watershed. Not one foreign person was killed. This was someone and some organization clearly making war on the native population. I never expected that and I don't even think the most cynical American observers expected that kind of level of bloodshed not directed at American or foreign forces. I still think there's more to the "uprising" or "rebellion" than has be uncovered.

I may be wrong though. I bought into the 60 Minutes and NY Times stories about how credible Chalabi was.

2.) The tax cut has provided orders of magniture less job growth than was predicted, and despite giving away so much money we could have created more jobs by using that money to simply employ people at a reasonable wage on public works, we're millions of jobs in the hole, and even the good months of job creation have barely kept up with the growth necessary to break even given population growth.

We didn't really "give" away money. This supposes that tax cuts need to be paid for. This supposes that all money is governments and whatever they don't take means what is left and all money in the economy is only there because government hasn't claimed it.

We are down jobs from 2000. Every time this comes up I'm amazed at the basic failure to acknowledge the economic impact of 9/11 which is estimated at $1 trillion. We're about an $11 trillion dolllar economy so let's say 9/11 impacted us by a negative factor of 9%. If the American work force contains 100,000,000 full time jobs, which is low, that means that for a comparable loss we should have lost 9 million jobs due to economic impact. We didn't. We lost a peak of 2.8 million jobs and are a net million down from 2000.

That of course though depends on the reporting methodology you use to gague employment. There are some that factor in work from home, small business and not company payroll jobs that estimate we're actually ahead of where we were when Bush took office. I'm of the belief that we're about 300,000 down from the start. Incidently, we have the same unemployment percentage as when Clinton ran for his second term.

Last but not least tax cuts are a lagging way of cutting unemployment. They will take more than two years to work from legislation to being reflected in employment numbers.

3.) The tax cut has forced a substantial cut in services, which in many cases, negates any effect of a middle class tax cut, as middle class families must now pay for these services out-of-pocket.

What services? What was cut? What programs went through a true cut? Government "cuts" are 95% curbs in the rate of growth. Not cuts. This statement is really too ambiguous for me to attempt to tackle.

4.) The Bush administration has strongly moved to actually explicitly amend our Constitution to exclude certain segments of our population, giving them *less* equal rights, rather than more.

Obviously in reference to gay marriage. Gay marriage is overwhelmingly rejected by the majority of Americans. Without making this an endless gay marriage debate the measure if ever presented to the states would likely pass as having 36 states come out against gay marriage would happen quite easily. Even liberal and tolerant California's proposition to support straight marriage passed by a 60-40 vote.

You can't pin this issue on the president or administration and say it's just them because it's not. The majority and overwhelming majority of the country is against gay marriage.

5.) The Bush administration has shunned the NAACP, becoming the first Presidency in many, many years to fail to address the group at all during a term in office.

I think the last president to not address the NAACP was Harding. However the NAACP is a hatchet job liberal group that has criticized the President in harsh terms for four years.

The African American community supports the Democrats in elections 8 to 1. Despite that George Bush went to the National Urban League convention last week addressed the group that included Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and asked very poignant questions about blind support for one party and point blank asked for the black vote.

There are many groups that represent black Americans and the NAACP is just one of them Bush has also spoken to the Congress of Racial Equality too if I'm not mistaken. To say ignoring one is ignoring 12% of the population is patently absurd. One group does not represent an entire ethnic group.

[helava]

"I never expected that and I don't even think the most cynical American observers expected that kind of level of bloodshed not directed at American or foreign forces."

Really? That's odd. A lot of people knew, prior to invasion, that the Sunnis and the Shiites would be in a pretty violent power conflict if the existing goverment were uprooted. I dunno why you & Bushco didn't know that, but if you even had a marginal understanding of the pre-existing balance of power in Iraq, the fact that destabilizing the region would cause power struggles like this was pretty obvious.

seppo

[helava]

"I bought into the 60 Minutes and NY Times stories about how credible Chalabi was."

Well, the media really fell on their face on this one. A lot of the media sourced their stories on "senior administration officials" who were rarely named. Mostly, as it turns out, a lot of the reporting (particularly from the NYT) came from a single source - Chalabi himself. But it was pretty widely known that this guy was a crook, and was clearly pushing an agenda when feeding us information, PRIOR to our invasion. Again, I'm curious as to why people are so surprised.

seppo

[helava]

I'd like to see a source that even marginally claims Bush's net job loss is anywhere close to breaking even. NOTHING I've read points to that, and though the economic impact of 9/11 is of course not insubstantial, the point is that our *current* job growth is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE smaller than the tax cut people predicted, and his *best* month of job growth, even now, is a pretty s**ty month compared to the previous administration's record.

seppo

[helava]

re: gay marriage - there's a difference between codifying it legally, and amending the Constitution to not only exclude it, but actively prevent states from recognizing it, or even conferring benefits of marriage to civil unions and such. The explicit wording of the amendment is a result of the Republicans in charge right now, and the explicit wording of the amendment was disgusting in that it was explicitly discriminatory.

seppo

[helava]

"Despite that George Bush went to the National Urban League convention last week addressed the group that included Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and asked very poignant questions about blind support for one party and point blank asked for the black vote."

I read the text of his remarks, and laughed out loud. Seriously. Poignant questions? What, exactly, has the Republican party *done* for the African American population? What have they done for gays? Other minorities? Other than lip service, that is? I'm not saying that the black support of the Democratic party is justified - the Dems have screwed the blacks by omission, in many cases, just as they've screwed any number of their constituents. But to say that the black population's support of the Democrats is "blind" is pretty stupid. Compare the two parties, and if you can come up with even a marginally cognizant and valid argument for why a black person, or hell, ANY minority should support the Bush administration, I'll be mightily impressed.

seppo

[dennis_t]

If the Clinton budgets were not voted on by one Republican they could not have passed for executive signature. Why? Republicans controlled both houses of Congress from 1994-2000. So um.... wrong.

Check your facts, PAD. The Clinton budget that ended the deficit was passed in 1993. That was the one with the big tax hike that no Republican would support.

Of course, once they saw Clinton was on the right track and the economy was going gangbusters, the Repubs never tried to cut taxes for the rest of his presidency.

[coffman]

I'd like to see a source that even marginally claims Bush's net job loss is anywhere close to breaking even. NOTHING I've read points to that, and though the economic impact of 9/11 is of course not insubstantial, the point is that our *current* job growth is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE smaller than the tax cut people predicted, and his *best* month of job growth, even now, is a pretty s**ty month compared to the previous administration's record.

seppo

Another first for Bush: Under his watch, the income of Americans has decreased for two consecutive years (2001 & 2002) for the first time since the current tax code was enacted (sometime during WWII). 2002 is the most current information available, so I wouldn't be surprised if the situation was actually worse. This is mostly because of high paying jobs being lost and replaced with Wal-Mart-type jobs. I just can't understand why people want to give this guy another 4 years.

[Quackzilla]

Get back in your sperm suit.
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040727/capt.jey13d07271628.campaign_kerry_jey13d.jpg

You got something against astronauts? All of whom wear a "sperm suit"?
They are the smartest people in the country.

You are such an idiot, someone makes a good point and in response this is all you can come up wih?

[dennis_t]

Get back in your sperm suit.
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040727/capt.jey13d07271628.campaign_kerry_jey13d.jpg

You got something against astronauts? All of whom wear a "sperm suit"?
They are the smartest people in the country.

You are such an idiot, someone makes a good point and in response this is all you can come up wih?

The Repubs are just trying to pull a "Dukakis" on Kerry. Remember when they made fun of Dukakis for riding in a tank with that oversized helmet. It's a cheap shot, which makes it about on par with their usual tactics.

When they start laughing at that codpiece GW wore with his flight suit during "Mission Accomplished," then I'll be impressed.

[icruise]

In a way, I hope the republicans keep focusing on crap like this. It shows how low and desperate they really are. "Look! He's in a funny-looking suit! He can't possibly be president!" Please.

[MrBadExample]

Hey, let's be nice, People. If your candidate was George Bush what other choice would you have?

[E-Z-B]

Why don't you come back after you've had a chance to discover the real meaning of "obstruction of justice" and do a little bit of history and see what happened to Richard Nixon when he lied under oath mmmmmmkay?

Yes, I dug up an old thread to see how events have changed in a year (mostly because I'm bored, waiting for a simulation that I'm running to get done). I found this statement on page 1 from PAD pertaining to Clinton most interesting. Will PAD flip-flop on this when the hammer of justice falls on Bush, Rove, & Cheney's staff?

As evidenced in the last post on page 1, suspicion was always on Scooter Libby.