"I don't know who to vote for?"

donmurray · May 27, 2004

I believe the "Washington Post" has the latest news on how GWB plans to "help" veterans next year.

Mkue · May 27, 2004

Don, that "eye" is really creepy :) :coollook:

julieftRN · May 28, 2004

There's a new spot taking Bush to task for ignoring the needs of AMERICANS while pursuing fame and fortune in the Middle Eastern desert. That one points up some of the issues he's completely blown off, like jobs and improving access to health care for the 40+ million Americans who are uninsured.
Now, I don't decide who to vote for by the ads, but this one, which ends with "Shouldn't Bush make AMERICA a top priority?" gets to the point with minimal B.S.
Then again, I'm not sure I want Bush to turn his attention homeward......everytime he does, we get things like the overtime bill, or the mess with Medicare, or more ridiculous hoops to jump through at the airport. :stone

This is exactly what I dont understand...First liberals say that he is making enemies with everyone, then you say he is in the middle east "pursuing fame and fortune"...which one is it??? And you honestly think Bush isnt making America his top priority and that there are no jobs??? Where are you getting your facts??? Then you say Bush focusing on the American people would be a bad thing because of "more ridiculous hoops to jump through at the airport", what in the world do you want? Dont you want safety? Or do you just want to blame the Bush administration if we have another attack because it doesnt sound like you want him to try to protect us americans.Sounds like your flip floping to me.

Mkue · May 28, 2004

This is exactly what I dont understand...First liberals say that he is making enemies with everyone, then you say he is in the middle east "pursuing fame and fortune"...which one is it??? And you honestly think Bush isnt making America his top priority and that there are no jobs??? Where are you getting your facts??? Then you say Bush focusing on the American people would be a bad thing because of "more ridiculous hoops to jump through at the airport", what in the world do you want? Dont you want safety? Or do you just want to blame the Bush administration if we have another attack because it doesnt sound like you want him to try to protect us americans.Sounds like your flip floping to me.

I've read that some people don't want to be bothered with airport checks and are totally against profiling of passengers. I've even heard and read people are mad about being warned of possible terrorists attacks. Can you imagine, even after 9/11 and the 9/11 Commission focusing on why the public was not warned of terrorist attacks, there are individuals who cried about our Govt not warning us of the 9/11 attacks, those same individuals are mad that they are being warned NOW of possible attacks..

I think it would be very dangerous to have someone like Kerry who flip/flops so often as a President, our security would be at risk and also Kerry wants to do away with the Patriot Act which has enabled us to better share information of terrorist activity. Kerry's plan to fight terrorism is essentially giving firefighters overtime pay, that is his plan to fight terrorism.

Peeps Mcarthur · May 28, 2004

I've lived in America all of my life.

I have never been without healthcare coverage or a job for more than a month. For most government assistance I made too much money, even working in a fast food joint or I was the wrong race. I've enjoyed some great benefits from this country that got me over rough spots in my life even though I was at a disadvantage. There was a time in my life when I actualy lived in my car and fed myself from scraps off the plates I washed.

People in this country HAVE all the benefits they need NOW. They have more available to them than I did.

That could be why healthcare is not such an issue with the current administration.

This is a good exercise in twisted logic.

Mkue · May 28, 2004

Thanks for the clarification. At this point, with regard to the concept of honesty and which administration would be better for our troops however, I have far more questions about Bush's agenda for Iraq than I do about Kerry's medals for bravery.

Actually Kerry and Bush have similar agendas for Iraq, they both want to stay the course in Iraq. Kerry has stated he would send more troops to Iraq and also Kerry wants to hand everything over to the UN which many experts believe would be a mistake. Of course Kerry could change his mind or reverse his statement.

Bush wants to see stability in Iraq and wants to stay the course. He has allowed the UN to be involved in the interim government of Iraq on June 30th. I don't believe Bush as well as many experts on Iraq believe that the UN should take total control, the UN has it's own problems with the Oil-for-food scandal they are investigating now.

I think with either Bush or Kerry as President in office we would have the same problems with the insurgants/terrorists/radicals, those who do not want peace in Iraq. I believe it's just a matter of wearing down those insurgants.

For myself I have a problem with Kerry's "no plan" to fight terrorism. Kerry wants to do away with the Patriot Act which I support, this Act has better enabled us to share terrorist activity information prior to 9/11. Kerry's non plans to fight terrorism are not pro-active enough for me as a voter, everything he is planning is after the fact, after we are bombed.

Owney · Jun 7, 2004

For myself I have a problem with Kerry's "no plan" to fight terrorism. Kerry's non plans to fight terrorism are not pro-active enough for me as a voter, everything he is planning is after the fact, after we are bombed.

"Fighting a Comprehensive War on Terrorism"

Remarks by Senator John Kerry at the Ronald W. Burkle Center for International Relations

February 27, 2004--University of California at Los Angeles--As Prepared for Delivery

It's an honor to be here today at the Burkle Center - named in honor of a good friend and one of America's outstanding business leaders.

Day in and day out, George W. Bush reminds us that he is a war President and that he wants to make national security the central issue of this election. I am ready to have this debate. I welcome it.

I am convinced that we can prove to the American people that we know how to make them safer and more secure - with a stronger, more comprehensive, and more effective strategy for winning the War on Terror than the Bush Administration has ever envisioned.

As we speak, night has settled on the mountains of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. If Osama bin Laden is sleeping, it is the restless slumber of someone who knows his days are numbered. I don't know if the latest reports - saying that he is surrounded - are true or not. We've heard this news before.

We had him in our grasp more than two years ago at Tora Bora but George Bush held U.S. forces back and instead, called on Afghan warlords with no loyalty to our cause to finish the job. We all hope the outcome will be different this time and we all know America cannot rest until Osama bin Laden is captured or killed.

And when that day comes, it will be a great step forward but we will still have far more to do. It will be a victory in the War on Terror, but it will not be the end of the War on Terror.

This war isn't just a manhunt - a checklist of names from a deck of cards. In it, we do not face just one man or one terrorist group. We face a global jihadist movement of many groups, from different sources, with separate agendas, but all committed to assaulting the United States and free and open societies around the globe.

As CIA Director George Tenet recently testified: "They are not all creatures of bin Laden, and so their fate is not tied to his. They have autonomous leadership, they pick their own targets, they plan their own attacks."

At the core of this conflict is a fundamental struggle of ideas. Of democracy and tolerance against those who would use any means and attack any target to impose their narrow views.

The War on Terror is not a clash of civilizations. It is a clash of civilization against chaos; of the best hopes of humanity against dogmatic fears of progress and the future.

Like all Americans, I responded to President Bush's reassuring words in the days after September 11th. But since then, his actions have fallen short.

I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the War on Terror; I believe he's done too little.

Where he's acted, his doctrine of unilateral preemption has driven away our allies and cost us the support of other nations. Iraq is in disarray, with American troops still bogged down in a deadly guerrilla war with no exit in sight. In Afghanistan, the area outside Kabul is sliding back into the hands of a resurgent Taliban and emboldened warlords.

In other areas, the Administration has done nothing or been too little and too late. The Mideast Peace process disdained for 14 months by the Bush Administration is paralyzed. North Korea and Iran continue their quest for nuclear weapons - weapons which one day could land in the hands of terrorists. And as Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld has admitted, the Administration is still searching for an effective plan to drain the swamps of terrorist recruitment. The President's budget for the National Endowment for Democracy's efforts around the world, including the entire Islamic world, is less than three percent of what this Administration gives Halliburton - hardly a way to win the contest of ideas.

Finally, by virtually every measure, we still have a homeland security strategy that falls far short of the vulnerabilities we have and the threats we face.

George Bush has no comprehensive strategy for victory in the War on Terror - only an ad hoc strategy to keep our enemies at bay. If I am Commander-in-Chief, I would wage that war by putting in place a strategy to win it.

We cannot win the War on Terror through military power alone. If I am President, I will be prepared to use military force to protect our security, our people, and our vital interests.

But the fight requires us to use every tool at our disposal. Not only a strong military - but renewed alliances, vigorous law enforcement, reliable intelligence, and unremitting effort to shut down the flow of terrorist funds.

To do all this, and to do our best, demands that we work with other countries instead of walking alone. For today the agents of terrorism work and lurk in the shadows of 60 nations on every continent. In this entangled world, we need to build real and enduring alliances.

Allies give us more hands in the struggle, but no President would ever let them tie our hands and prevent us from doing what must be done. As President, I will not wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake. But I will not push away those who can and should share the burden.

Working with other countries in the War on Terror is something we do for our sake - not theirs. We can't wipe out terrorist cells in places like Sweden, Canada, Spain, the Philippines, or Italy just by dropping in Green Berets.

It was local law enforcement working with our intelligence services which caught Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramsi Bin al Shibh in Pakistan and the murderer known as Hambali in Thailand. Joining with local police forces didn't mean serving these terrorists with legal papers; it meant throwing them behind bars. None of the progress we have made would have been possible without cooperation - and much more would be possible if we had a President who didn't alienate long-time friends and fuel anti-American anger around the world.

We need a comprehensive approach for prevailing against terror - an approach that recognizes the many facets of this mortal challenge and relies on all the tools at our disposal to do it.

First, if I am President I will not hesitate to order direct military action when needed to capture and destroy terrorist groups and their leaders. George Bush inherited the strongest military in the world - and he has weakened it. What George Bush and his armchair hawks have never understood is that our military is about more than moving pins on a map or buying expensive new weapons systems.

America's greatest military strength has always been the courageous, talented men and women whose love of country and devotion to service lead them to attempt and achieve the impossible everyday.

But today, far too often troops are going into harm's way without the weapons and equipment they depend on to do their jobs safely. National Guard helicopters are flying missions in dangerous territory without the best available ground-fire protection systems. Un-armored Humvees are falling victim to road-side bombs and small-arms fire.

And families across America have had to collect funds from their neighbors to buy body armor for their loved ones in uniform because George Bush failed to provide it

The next President must ensure that our forces are structured for maximum effectiveness and provided with all that they need to succeed in their missions. We must better prepare our forces for post-conflict operations and the task of building stability by adding more engineers, military police, psychological warfare personnel, and civil affairs teams.

And to replenish our overextended military, as President, I will add 40,000 active-duty Army troops, a temporary increase likely to last the remainder of the decade.

Second, if I am President I will strengthen the capacity of intelligence and law enforcement at home and forge stronger international coalitions to provide better information and the best chance to target and capture terrorists even before they act.

But the challenge for us is not to cooperate abroad; it is to coordinate here at home. Whether it was September 11th or Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, we have endured unprecedented intelligence failures. We must do what George Bush has refused to do - reform our intelligence system by making the next Director of the CIA a true Director of National Intelligence with real control of intelligence personnel and budgets. We must train more analysts in languages like Arabic. And we must break down the old barriers between national intelligence and local law enforcement.

In the months leading up to September 11th, two of the hijackers were arrested for drunk driving - and another was stopped for speeding and then let go, although he was already the subject of an arrest warrant in a neighboring county and was on a federal terrorist watch list. We need to simplify and streamline the multiple national terrorist watch lists and make sure the right information is available to the right people on the frontlines of preventing the next attack.

But we can't take any of those steps effectively if we are stuck with an Administration that continues to stonewall those who are trying to get to the bottom of our September 11th intelligence failures. Two days ago, the Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert refused the request of the bipartisan 9-11 commission for just a little more time just to complete their mission. This after the Commission has had to deal with an Administration that opposed its very creation and has stonewalled its efforts.

He didn't hesitate to pick up the phone and call Denny Hastert to ram through his Medicare drug company benefit or to replace a real Patients Bill of Rights with an HMO Bill of Goods. This President told a Republican fundraiser that it was in the "nation's interest" that Denny Hastert remain Speaker of the House. I believe it's in America's interest to know the truth about 9-11. Mr. President, stop stonewalling the commission and stop hiding behind excuses. Pick up the phone, call your friend Denny Hastert and tell him to let the commission finish its job so we can make America safer.

Third, we must cut off the flow of terrorist funds. In the case of Saudi Arabia, the Bush Administration has adopted a kid-glove approach to the supply and laundering of terrorist money. If I am President, we will impose tough financial sanctions against nations or banks that engage in money laundering or fail to act against it. We will launch a "name and shame" campaign against those that are financing terror. And if they do not respond, they will be shut out of the U.S. financial system.

Fourth, because finding and defeating terrorist groups is a long-term effort, we must act immediately to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. I propose to appoint a high-level Presidential envoy empowered to bring other nations together to secure and stop the spread of these weapons. We must develop common standards to make sure dangerous materials and armaments are tracked, accounted for, and secured. Today, parts of Russia's vast nuclear orificenal are easy prey for those offering cash to scientists and security forces who too often are under-employed and under-paid. If I am President, I will expand the Nunn/Lugar program to buy up and destroy the loose nuclear materials of the former Soviet Union and to ensure that all of Russia's nuclear weapons and materials are out of the reach of terrorists and off the black market.

Next, whatever we thought of the Bush Administration's decisions and mistakes - especially in Iraq - we now have a solemn obligation to complete the mission, in that country and in Afghanistan. Iraq is now a major magnet and center for terror. Our forces in Iraq are paying the price everyday.

And our safety at home may someday soon be endangered as Iraq becomes a training ground for the next generation of terrorists.

It is time to return to the United Nations and return America to the community of nations to share both authority and responsibility in Iraq, and take the target off the back of our troops. This also requires a genuine Iraqi security force. The Bush Administration simply signs up recruits and gives them rudimentary training. In a Kerry Administration, we will create and train an Iraqi security force equal to the task of safeguarding itself and the people it is supposed to protect.

We must offer the UN the lead role in assisting Iraq with the development of new political institutions. And we must stay in Iraq until the job is finished.

In Afghanistan, we have some NATO involvement, but the training of the Afghan Army is insufficient to disarm the warlord militias or to bring the billion dollar drug trade under control. This Administration has all but turned away from Afghanistan. Two years ago, President Bush promised a Marshall Plan to rebuild that country. His latest budget scorns that commitment.

We must - and if I am President, I will - apply the wisdom Franklin Roosevelt shared with the American people in a fireside chat in 1942, "it is useless to win battles if the cause for which we fight these battles is lost. It is useless to win a war unless it stays won." This Administration has not met that challenge; a Kerry Administration will.

But nothing else will matter unless we win the war of ideas. In failed states from South Asia to the Middle East to Central Africa, the combined weight of harsh political repression, economic stagnation, lack of education, and rapid population growth presents the potential for explosive violence and the enlistment of entire new legions of terrorists. In Saudi Arabia and Egypt, almost sixty percent of the population is under the age of 30, unemployed and unemployable, in a breeding ground for present and future hostility. And according to a Pew Center poll, fifty percent or more of Indonesians, Jordanians, Pakistanis, and Palestinians have confidence in bin Laden to "do the right thing regarding world affairs"

We need a major initiative in public diplomacy to bridge the divide between Islam and the rest of the world. For the education of the next generation of Islamic youth, we need an international effort to compete with radical Madrassas. We have seen what happens when Palestinian youth have been fed a diet of anti-Israel propaganda. And we must support human rights groups, independent media and labor unions dedicated to building a democratic culture from the grass-roots up. Democracy won't come overnight, but America should speed that day by sustaining the forces of democracy against repressive regimes and by rewarding governments which take genuine steps towards change.

We cannot be deterred by letting America be held hostage by energy from the Middle East. If I am President, we will embark on a historic effort to create alternative fuels and the vehicles of the future - to make this country energy independent of Mideast oil within ten years. So our sons and daughters will never have to fight and die for it.

Finally, if we are going to be serious about the War on Terror, we need to be much more serious about homeland security. Today, fire departments only have enough radios for half their firefighters and almost two-thirds of firehouses are short-staffed. We should not be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them down in New York City. We need to put 100,000 more firefighters on duty and we need to restore the 100,000 police on our streets which I fought for and won in 1994 but which the Bush Administration has cut in budget after budget.

We need to provide public health labs with the basic expertise they need but now lack to respond to chemical or biological attack. We need new safeguards for our chemical and nuclear facilities.

And our ports - like the Port of Los Angeles - need new technology to screen the 95 percent of containers that now enter this country without any inspection at all. And we should accelerate the action plans agreed to in US-Canada and US-Mexico "smart border" accords while implementing new security measures for cross border bridges. President Bush says we can't afford to fund homeland security. I say we can't afford not to.

The safety of our people, the security of our country, the memory of our brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, neighbors and heroes we lost on September 11th call on us to win this war we did not seek.

And our children's future demands that we also do everything in our power to prevent the creation of tomorrow's terrorists today. Maybe there's no going back to the days before baggage checks and orange alerts. Maybe they're with us forever. But I don't believe they have to be. I grew up at a time of bomb shelters and air raid drills. But America had leaders of vision and courage in both parties. And today, the Cold War is memory, not reality.

I believe we can bring a real victory in the War on Terror. I believe we must, not only for ourselves but for all who look to America as "the last best hope of earth." I believe we can meet that ideal - and that's why I'm running for President.

Mkue · Jun 7, 2004

so finally Kerry has decided that he best start talking about the war on terror, the war he has denied exists and has criticized Pres. Bush for discussing terror and terrorists. It's a little too late IMO, my candidate has been focused on terrorists for quite some time and has never denied there is a war on terror. I also don't believe Kerry is all that sincere about fighting terrorism and securing our nation, he sings with a different choir everyday.

Owney · Jun 8, 2004

so finally Kerry has decided that he best start talking about the war on terror, the war he has denied exists and has criticized Pres. Bush for discussing terror and terrorists. It's a little too late IMO, my candidate has been focused on terrorists for quite some time and has never denied there is a war on terror. I also don't believe Kerry is all that sincere about fighting terrorism and securing our nation, he sings with a different choir everyday.

mkue,

How can you say FINALLY if you read the date, 27 February? How can you say that Kerry "sings with a different choir every day" if you look at Junior's flip-flops, especially his flip-flop on Homeland Security?

'Steadfast' Bush's amazing flip-flops

By Dan Payne | June 5, 2004

BUSH-CHENEY team likes to say president is "steadfast." And John Kerry is "flip-flopper." But Senator Kerry is bolted to floor compared to Bush. President Bush is no more steadfast than Tony Soprano is faithful.

Never burdened by reality, Bush says departing CIA chief George Tenet did "superb job." That assumes Tenet's job was to fail miserably to anticipate 9/11 and to goad Bush into going to war under false pretenses. Bush doublespeak is matched only by his amazing flip-flops, which are underreported. Armchair Strategist aims to fix this, with help from Center for American Progress, liberal (There, I said it!) think tank.

Bush can't get enough of Chalabi. Chalabi cons Bush's neocons into toppling Saddam; sits behind Laura Bush at State of Union speech; always looks marvelous in custom-made $1,000 suits. US paid him $335,000 a month for "intelligence."

US troops raid Chalabi's house. US soldiers raided Chalabi's home and seized documents and computers. (Hope they didn't wrinkle his suits.) While on US payroll, told Iran that US had cracked code for Iran's secret communications. Time magazine says, "The US's abandonment of Chalabi may prove to be the most head-snapping reversal of all."

Bush called Osama number one priority. "There's an old poster out West that says, `Wanted: Dead or Alive.' . . . The most important thing is to find Osama bin Laden. It's our Number One priority. We will not rest until we have found him." (Sept. 13 and 16, 2001.)

Now Bush doesn't care about him. "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important." (March 13, 2002.)

Cheney: We will be greeted as liberators. On "Face the Nation" Cheney predicts war in Iraq will "go relatively quickly." On "Meet the Press," says "things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." (March 16, 2003.)

Bush: That's Cheney's story, and I'm sticking with it.

On Feb. 7, 2004, Tim Russert asks: "It's now nearly a year, and we are in a very difficult situation. Did we miscalculate how we would be treated and received in Iraq?"

Bush: "Well, I think we are welcomed in Iraq." (Pentagon reports 820 US troops killed in Iraq and 4,682 injured, June 3, 2004.)

Bush opposes Department of Homeland Security. Former press secretary Ari Fleischer says Bush told Congress, "There does not need to be a Cabinet-level Office of Homeland Security." (White House press briefing, Oct. 24, 2001.)

Bush supports Department of Homeland Security. "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America." (June 6, 2002.)

Bush: Al Qaeda and Saddam same. "You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." (Sept. 25, 2002.)

Bush: Saddam had no role in 9/11. "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." (Sept. 17, 2003.)

Bush acrobatics on 9/11 commission. Bush was against creating commission, then for it. Against National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice testifying, then for it. Against testifying himself, then for it. Said he'd testify only for one hour. Then said no time limit but had to have Cheney along -- to keep their stories straight.

Bush says president should talk OPEC into lower prices. "The president ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots . . . The president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." (Jan. 26, 2000.)

But not this president. With gas prices soaring, President Bush refuses to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." (Miami Herald, April 1, 2004.)

Bush then: gay marriage is state issue. "The states can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." ("Larry King Live," Feb. 15, 2000.)

Bush now: for constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." (Feb. 24, 2004.)

Flip-flops, ad nauseam. Against nation-building, then for it. Found WMD, then lost them. Against McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, then signed it into law. Tariffs? Not gonna have 'em; puts 'em on steel, then lifts 'em. Mocks Al Gore's idea for hybrid fuel car; calls for $1.3 billion to develop one. For extending ban on assault weapons in 2001; now against it.

Fashion idea for DNC conventioneers: Bush flip-flop shoes. If it flips, wear it.

Dan Payne is a Boston-based media consultant who worked on John Kerry's Senate campaigns and for Michael Dukakis during the 1988 presidential primaries. His column appears regularly in the Globe.

:rotfl:

julieftRN · Jun 8, 2004

mkue,
bush: al qaeda and saddam same. "you can't distinguish between al qaeda and saddam when you talk about the war on terror." (sept. 25, 2002.)
bush: saddam had no role in 9/11. "we've had no evidence that saddam hussein was involved in sept. 11." (sept. 17, 2003.)quote"
no,
you cant distinguish between them when you talk about the war on terror, and no, sadaam was not involved in 9/11 but that doesnt mean that he is not a "terrorist"...i dont understand why that you think that is flip floping. that is the simple facts.
quote:
bush says president should talk opec into lower prices. "the president ought to get on the phone with the opec cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots . . . the president of the united states must jawbone opec members to lower the price." (jan. 26, 2000.)
but not this president. with gas prices soaring, president bush refuses to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." (miami herald, april 1, 2004.)"
hasnt gas dropped twice in the past 2 weeks???? it has in my country which im sure is your country. :uhoh21:

Blackcat99 · Jun 9, 2004

Oh dear. Now I really don't know who to vote for as president. Are there any military heroes out there who can tell me who they are voting for? I appreciate all the messages sent but I get confused easily. Thanks

wjf00 · Jun 10, 2004

so finally Kerry has decided that he best start talking about the war on terror, the war he has denied exists and has criticized Pres. Bush for discussing terror and terrorists. It's a little too late IMO, my candidate has been focused on terrorists for quite some time and has never denied there is a war on terror. I also don't believe Kerry is all that sincere about fighting terrorism and securing our nation, he sings with a different choir everyday.

Didn't Dubbya start out opposing the homeland defence department? Looks like a flip flop to me.