posted August 30, 2004 12:22 PM              

My Republican Party believes that budget deficits are stealing from our children. Further, we recognize that budget deficits are a distortion of the free market. My Republican Party believes that while the government certainly must help insure the stability and integrity of the institutions of the free market, the free market itself tended to do the best job of allocating resources and generating value.

Again, we don't hold these beliefs to get elected - we hold them because they are prudent and cautious. Because we believe we have an obligation to pass on to our children a sound and healthy country. Mid- and upper-level jobs are being outsourced in the millions, while our nation's supposedly conservative leadership has outspent any administration in American history and even now is looking for entitlement programs to plunder to finance continued military operations in the Mid-East and Western Asia.

The national debt has spiraled into the trillions while friends of the federal administration are pocketing profits in the billions from the military-industrial complex. Meanwhile, the national economy is no longer measured by its gross national product as it once was when America was a major producer of manufactured goods and foodstuffs; instead, economists produce reports on how well the retail markets are doing at Christmas and Easter to buoy a desperately sagging economy.

Unfortunately, this Administration has abandoned all of the principles that once exemplified the party of Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. The Bush administration is slowly bankrupting our country. The Administration has doubled farm subsidies and is running a massive budget deficit. We have a Republican House, a Republican Senate and a Republican President, and yet spending beyond homeland security has skyrocketed. By any measure, this Administration has abandoned the prudence and caution that were the hallmarks of my Republican Party.

The President likes to talk about his tax cuts. My Republican Party knows the difference between a tax cut and a tax deferral. The $400 billion of government we didn't pay for this year, we - or our grandchildren - will still have to pay for. My Republican Party knows that the ONLY way to cut taxes is to cut spending. Unfortunately, this Administration is throwing money at any interest group it thinks it has a chance of buying votes from. But government spending doesn't hurt less just because it is a Republican writing the checks.

posted August 30, 2004 01:39 PM            

St. Paul, MN – Today, in a remarkable show of support, St. Paul Mayor, Randy Kelly (DFL), announced his endorsement for the re-election of the Bush-Cheney ’04 ticket. Kelly joined Democrat elected officials across the country that supports the re-election of President Bush.

Democrat Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) stated, “I am really pleased Mayor Randy Kelly has joined me in the effort to re-elect George W. Bush. Mayor Kelly knows, as I do, that George W. Bush represents the values of America’s heartland. President Bush is a man Democrats and all Americans can rely on to stand by his commitments to fight terrorism and support our troops. The President is also making sure that working people keep more of their hard earned money and send their kids to schools that give every child a good start in life. These are values that my fellow Democrats and all Americans can support.”

"Today, Mayor Kelly put principle before partisan politics. His bold decision is courageous and a welcome move towards working across party lines," Bush-Cheney ’04 Minnesota Campaign Co-Chair Governor Tim Pawlenty stated. "I salute him and stand alongside him in our efforts to re-elect George W. Bush."

"Mayor Kelly today again proved what I have long known: he is a fine man, whose first priority is not partisanship, but the wellbeing of St. Paul and the entire nation. Mayor Kelly recognizes that jobs are being created and that tax cuts have stimulated that job growth. He has done the same for St. Paul. He also under stands that we are engaged in a war on terror and now is not the time to change horses in mid-stream. The mayor has never been afraid to reach across party lines to get things done. I applaud him for following his conscience and his concrete convictions. This is bipartisanship at its finest,” stated Bush-Cheney ’04 Minnesota Campaign Co-Chair Senator Norm Coleman.

Kelly concluded, “With just over 90 days left before the election I feel extremely confident that the message, priorities, and policies of President George W. Bush will better serve America and the people of Minnesota over the next four years.”

posted August 30, 2004 01:43 PM            

See Y'All in New York
Why I skipped the Boston convention.
BY ZELL MILLER
Saturday, July 31, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

Twelve years ago, I delivered one of the keynote addresses on the first night at the Democratic National Convention in New York. It was a stinging rebuke of the administration of George H.W. Bush and a ringing endorsement of Bill Clinton. This summer I'll again be speaking in New York, but it will be to the Republican Convention that renominates George W. Bush.

Many have asked how I could have come so far in just over a decade. Frankly, I don't think I've changed much at all. At 72, I don't feel much need to change my opinions. Instead, the reason I didn't attend the Democratic Convention in Boston is that I barely recognize my party anymore. Most of its leaders--including our nominee, John Kerry--don't hold the same beliefs that have motivated my career in public service.

In 1992, I spoke of the opportunity and hope that allowed me, the son of a single mother growing up in the North Georgia mountains, to become my state's governor. And I attributed much of my success to the great Democratic presidents of years gone by--FDR (a hallowed man in my home), Truman and JFK. The link these men shared was a commitment to helping Americans born into any condition rise to achieve whatever goal they set for themselves.

I spoke of Americans who were "tired of paying more in taxes and getting less in services." I excoriated Republicans who "dealt in cynicism and skepticism." I accused them of mastering "the art of division and diversion." And I praised Bill Clinton as a moderate Democrat "who has the courage to tell some of those liberals who think welfare should continue forever, and some of those conservatives who think there should be no welfare at all, that they're both wrong." Bill Clinton did deliver on welfare reform, after a lot of prodding from the Republicans who took hold of Congress in 1995. But much of the rest of the promise I saw in his candidacy withered during his two terms in office.

Today, it's the Democratic Party that has mastered the art of division and diversion. To run for president as a Democrat these days you have to go from interest group to interest group, cap in hand, asking for the support of liberal kingmakers. Mr. Kerry is no different. After Hollywood elites profaned the president, he didn't have the courage to put them in their place. Instead, he validated their remarks, claiming that they represent "the heart and soul of America."

No longer the party of hope, today's Democratic Party has become Mr. Kerry's many mansions of cynicism and skepticism. As our economy continues to get better and businesses add jobs, Mr. Kerry's going around America trying to convince people that the roof is about to cave in. He talks about "the misery index" and the Depression. What does he know about either?

And when it comes to taxes and services, you'd be pressed to find anyone more opposed to the interests of middle-class Americans than John Kerry. Except maybe John Edwards. Both voted against tax relief for married couples, tax relief for families with children, and tax relief for small businesses. Now Mr. Kerry wants to raise taxes on hundreds of thousands of small-business owners and millions of individuals. He claims to be for working people, but I don't understand how small businesses can create jobs if they've got to send more money to Washington instead of keeping it to hire workers.

Worst of all, Sens. Kerry and Edwards have not kept faith with the men and women who are fighting the war on terror--most of whom come from small towns and middle-class families all over America. While Mr. Bush has stood by our troops every step of the way, Messrs. Kerry and Edwards voted to send our troops to war and then voted against the money to give them supplies and equipment--not to mention better benefits for their families. And recently Mr. Kerry even said he's proud of that vote. Proud to abandon our troops when they're out in the field? I can hear Harry Truman cussing from his grave.

I still believe in hope and opportunity and, when it comes right down to it, Mr. Bush is the man who represents hope and opportunity. Hope for a safer world. And opportunity for Americans to work hard, keep more of the money they earn, and send their kids to good schools. All the speeches we heard this week weren't able to hide the truth of what today's Democratic Party has become: an enclave of elites paying lip service to middle-class values. Americans looking for a president who understands their struggles and their dreams should tune in next month, when we celebrate the leadership of George W. Bush.

posted August 30, 2004 01:47 PM            

Democratic Supporter's Comments

"I have been a lifelong Democrat, and as a citizen of Massacusetts I come from the place that knows John Kerry best. I will be voting for my first Republican candidate in November. You will be hard pressed to find people even here that say that Kerry would be their first choice as a candidate. He got booed at Fenway Park during the convention! ... I first became disillusioned with the Democrat party during the second Clinton term and then the ignorance of the debate about President Bush's "selection" in 2000 did me in. Most 6th graders should have some knowledge about the Electoral College and how it works, there is no excuse for adults to spread lies about "stolen " elections... For me and my family it is "security stupid." I have every intention of voting for the one person who I believe wants to keep me and mine alive. We are winning the war on terror - no matter what the media says. It takes a grown up to understand that the good things take time and are hard to get. That's what makes them worth it. [I'm] A Massachusetts Democrat for Bush! We really do exist!"
Anne Pardee, Rockport, MA

"I am not a Democrat, but I just wanted to send you [Democrats] a note to thank you for your...[comments]. I'm so hurt by all the ugly things that are being said about President Bush, the Anti-Bush books, the accusations, the movie, even the vulgar jokes. For some people, no matter what he does or doesn't do, he is wrong. I thought I saw a lot of fury against him on display in the 2000 Elections, but it got even worse since then. Can you tell me...why do they hate him so? So then I found ... [this] website and read the comments and they brought tears to my eyes. I drew encouragement from your letters. So may God bless you and give you strength, you Democrats who stand for President Bush this year. You will need it. And I hope you can make a difference among your family and friends. Thank you so much."
Ina Fernandez Waynesville, MO

"I have always been a Democrat. I campaigned for Dukakis at age 15, Clinton while in college and served in the Allegheny County (Pittsburgh, PA)Democratic Party as committeeman. This year there is no doubt that I am supporting George Bush. He is the only candidate in this election with the guts to stand up for our nation. His opponent has failed time and time again in his career in the Senate, when questions of National Security have been posed. Hopefully, the sensible members of the Democratic Party can bring it back to reality. I am very interested in helping out in any way with the campaign."
David Allen, Nashville, TN

"I am a Democrat born and bred (albeit moderate to conservative), and I am truly sick of how my Democratic party has treated this president from the get-go. I have many Democrat friends, and have alienated many of them because I tell them that I don't believe that Bush is as terrible as they make him out to be. He didn't steal the election. That's just the way our election process is and has been. He made the right decisions concerning Afghanistan and Iraq (they would be skewering him right now if he had done nothing), and he seems to be fairly centrist. I don't think he's the best president we've ever had, but he's the right man for this place and time in history. I'll vote for him come November, and pray that it's a landslide this time (for Bush)."
Jeanne Asdourian, Corte Madera CA

"I am a 33 year old registered Democrat, who has voted a straight democratic ticket since I was 18 and cast my first vote for Dukakis. I am proud to support George W. Bush in his campaign for re election in 2004. He has the strength, resolve and courage to lead our country in the global fight against terrorism. When I walk into the election booth on Nov 2, 2004, you can bet my vote will be for our Commander in Chief, George Walker Bush."
Lisa Dierdorf, Manchester, MO

"I am a lifelong Democrat who has always faithfully cast my Presidential vote for the Democratic candidate. However, on the morning of September 11, 2001 I thanked God that the man I voted for lost the election. President Bush's response to terrorism has been very appropriate. The Democratic National Committee's decision to politicize what should be our common struggle - their conscious decision to divide America - is an outrage and I refuse to lend such efforts one iota of support. President Bush is a fine man, a fine leader, and a supurb president for our nation."
David Hull, Rancho Cucamonga, CA

"Lifelong Democrat here, cried the first time I pulled the Republican leaver FOR Bush1 against Clinton. Total supporter of Bush-Cheney! Can somebody please send me a bumper sticker (or two)??"
Katie Holland, Silver Spring, MD

"I'm a registered Democrat from a long line of Democrats. Would not consider anyone but President Bush to continue leading us at this time. His Dedication, Respect, and Commitment to our Country is unsurpassed. May he continue to make the tough decisions and face his critics with honor and style. The Democratic leadership today could take a lesson from this man."
Bonnie George, DeBary, FL

"As a registered Democrat I will vote for Bush. Our enemy is Islamic terrorism not any of our presidents. Bush is on track in this fight and has shown great vigilance and fortitude in the face of ridiculous mudslinging. Democrats need to reflect what happens to an enemy divided, show respect for the office of president and embrace all Americans regardless of their party affiliation as having the same threat to our freedoms."
E. Mc Connell, Hewitt, NJ

"I am a life-long Democrat (albeit a conservative one) and DISPISE where party leaders such as Kerry, Kennedy, Daschele, Pelosi and others have taken it. I have seen and heard Senator Zell Miller on FOX NEWS and have read his exceptional book "No Longer A National Party", and stand in line with him, Ed Koch and many other Dems who will be supporting George W. Bush this Fall. BTW, I went so far as to write in Senator Miller in the Ohio Presidential Primary some months ago. I will miss his leadership in Congress."
James J. Bjaloncik, Stow, OH

"I am a life long, 58 year old Democrat who, until 2000, have always voted the party line and worked on many of a Democratic Campaign. Not since JFK, has a President moved me as much as OUR PRESIDENT has since 9/11. Everyone I know tells me John Kerry is a decorated Vietnam Veteran as you are Joe why would you vote for Bush? My answer to that is simple, "It is not who we were, it is who we have become"."
Joseph A. Sherry, Jersey City, NJ

"I am a born and raised democrat,but this year I am voting for the person I feel has the leadership, the integrity, and the family values that I as a democrat have grown up with. That person is George W Bush. He has brought family values back into our homes, and has shown the courage needed to protect us and our homeland, by taking on these terrorists on their own soil. He says what he means and he does what he says! In my eyes, he is a TRUE American! Go "W" 04! Janet from eastern Ohio(land of democrats and unions)"
Janet Nolan, Tiltonsville, OH

"I am a young Democrat, only 19, and I'm disgusted from the slandering of President Bush by my fellow democrats. I believe President Bush has been a great president and is the best man for the job."
John Inzalaco, Suisun City, CA

"I am a lifelong Democrat and can no longer support my party. I stand firmly behind Pres. Bush in this election."
Peggy Caton, Gatlinburg, TN

"... I am honored to stand squarely with President George W. Bush as he leads America at this defining moment in our history. The road that brought me here today is paved with a lot of frustration, but also a lot of hope. I was born a Democrat and I expect I'll be a Democrat until the day I leave this earth. But I have grown mighty frustrated with the direction my party has taken over the last few years. National Democratic leaders today are moving further and further away from the principles that made our party great... "
Senator Zell Miller, GA
http://democrats4bush.com/demcomments.shtml

posted August 30, 2004 01:52 PM            

YOUNGSTOWN, OH - Earlier today Mayor George McKelvey, Democratic mayor of Youngstown, Ohio, announced his endorsement of President George W. Bush in his reelection bid. At a press conference in Youngstown, McKelvey was joined by Bush-Cheney ’04 Ohio Valley Regional Chair Jo Ann Davidson and said that as a Democrat he is proud to work toward President Bush’s reelection in November.

"Although I have never publicly endorsed a presidential candidate, the significance of this election - an election which I view as the most important of my lifetime - has motivated me to acknowledge my support for President Bush.

"I support President Bush’s proactive approach to the war on terror. He has demonstrated the strong leadership necessary to strengthen our national security. He understands that the war on terror is a war we must win to protect our freedom, for our children, grand children and great grandchildren.

"I support President Bush because I believe that our economy is experiencing a recovery, and that it will continue to improve. It is unfair, at best, to blame President Bush for the devastating impact 9-11 had on the American marketplace. Furthermore, I cannot agree with those who criticize a tax policy which allows the American people to keep more of their own money, allowing them, not the government, to decide how to best spend their money," McKelvey said.

posted August 30, 2004 02:11 PM            

Do you also love the courage of elected Democrats who are going against their own party to endorse and vote for the President?

Does it really matter to you where the information comes from as long as it's true?
Or are you disputing the truth of the statements?

posted August 30, 2004 03:19 PM              

And that goes for all of the articles submitted on this thread, both by you and LS.
I'll not take anything linked to "Republicans for Kerry", "Democrats for Bush", or from GWB's site at face value.
The same holds for Kerry's site, Swift Boat Veteran's for Truth, Green Peace, Exxon, or any other group that can't even pretend impartiality or a lack of interest in the result of actions.

posted August 30, 2004 03:24 PM              

To show that Repubs can think outside the box too, and vote for someone outside their party.

posted August 30, 2004 04:00 PM            

You may disagree with or question their stated reasons for doing so but not the fact that they are.

posted August 30, 2004 04:04 PM              

A single event can be stated or angled so many ways.

But, you're right - those Dems have stated support for Bush.
And some members of the GOP are supporting Kerry.
Such interesting times.

posted September 01, 2004 11:54 AM            

Here's another prominent Democrat, former mayor of one of the most liberal bastions in America who supports and endorsed George W. Bush and his entirely well thought out reasons for doing so. No sinister GOP spin here.

This is the picture of the John Kerry we all know. A man with no firmly held principles he isn't willing to cast to the winds in an attempt to be elected. As a consequence, John Kerry is a man who must never be President of the United States.

Why I Can't Vote for John Kerry
Edward I. Koch
Wednesday, Sep. 1, 2004

In a weekly commentary in February 2002, I announced that I would support President Bush for re-election.

I wrote that I had recently had dinner with two diehard liberal Democrats and told them that if the election were held tomorrow, I would vote to re-elect President Bush. They nearly choked on their appetizers.

I explained that I was supporting the president because he had “made terrorism, which in my view is the greatest threat faced by this country, the number one issue in the world. He put together an unexpected grand coalition against Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, al-Qaida and the warlords of Afghanistan. Most important, he defied the generally held view of American media commentators that Afghanistan would become a quagmire, another Vietnam. Instead, victory was swift and with extraordinarily few American casualties.”

Over the next two years, I reiterated my commitment to the president’s re-election, and this week I endorsed the president at the Republican National Convention. Before introducing Mayor Michael Bloomberg to the assembled delegates, I said: “I know what you’re thinking. What’s Ed Koch doing at the Republican convention? Me. A Democratic district leader in Greenwich Village. Democratic city councilman. Democratic congressman, Democratic mayor. Why am I here? To convert you. But that’s for the next election. This year I’m voting for the re-election of President George W. Bush.”

I cannot support John Kerry, the Democratic candidate, because he wavers too much on issues of fundamental importance:

For example, in explaining his vote in the U.S. Senate in favor of the war against Iraq, Kerry said, “He [Bush] misled every one of us.” After the Democratic convention, President Bush challenged Senator Kerry: “My opponent hasn’t answered the question of whether, knowing what we know now, he would have supported going into Iraq.” Kerry responded, “Yes, I would have voted for the authority.”

Similarly, during his appearances with the other candidates at the first Democratic debate on May 3, 2004, Kerry strongly supported the president’s actions in Iraq, stating, “George, I said at the time, I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam, and when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.”

But on June 18, 2003, the Associated Press reported: “Kerry said Wednesday that President Bush broke his promise to build an international coalition against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and then waged a war based on questionable intelligence. ‘He misled every one of us,’ Kerry said.”

On September 2, 2003, Kerry claimed that he voted “to threaten” the use of force in Iraq. He said, “I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.” Then, on January 6, 2004, when asked by MSNBC "Hardball" host Chris Matthews, “Are you one of the anti-war candidates?” Kerry replied, “I am – yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.”

Kerry more recently told the American public that in fact he would have voted for the war even if he had known at the time of his Senate vote that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Kerry exhibited all the failures of a tortured soul, having to decide which was more important, winning the nomination or doing what was morally right. He chose the nomination.

Kerry’s waffling is not limited to the war against Iraq. Kerry announced to the country that he opposed same-sex marriages and nevertheless would vote in the U.S. Senate against the constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage, his reason being that the Constitution should not be used to deny civil rights to people.

In 2002 he signed a letter opposing a similar amendment. The letter stated: “We believe it would be a grave error for Massachusetts to enshrine in our Constitution a provision which would have such a negative effect on so many of our fellow residents. ... We are therefore united in urging you to reject this Constitutional amendment and avoid stigmatizing so many of our fellow citizens who do not deserve to be treated in such a manner.”

On the other hand, an article in the Boston Globe on February 6, 2004, reported: “Asked if he would support a state constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian marriages, Kerry didn’t rule out the possibility. ‘I’ll have to see what language there is,’ he said.”

Even worse, the Los Angeles Times reported on August 7, 2004, that while in Missouri, Kerry came out in favor of Missouri’s recent amendment to its constitution that states “To be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman.”

According to the Times, a spokesman for the Human Rights Fund, a Washington group that lobbies for gay rights, said Kerry’s support for the Missouri amendment (forbidding gay marriage) was not surprising. ‘This is consistent with what he’s been saying all along,’ Steven Fisher, the group’s communications director, said.”

Again, a tortured soul, having to choose between principle and hopefully winning in the general election to come. He chose winning.

I respect those who have different opinions, but I have little regard for those who bend with the wind, those who vacillate, those who cave to the threats of others. I supported from the beginning the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. I continue to support our armed forces being there. I cannot admire a public official who straddles that issue.

I support the right to same-sex marriages. Gays and lesbians have every constitutional right to equal treatment before the law. I maintain my beliefs before every group. I simply cannot abide the panderer who takes both sides of an issue, thinking no one will notice.

Immediately following my speech at the Republican convention, I was asked by Wolf Blitzer of CNN what I thought of “the president’s statement that the war on terrorism cannot be won.” I was unfamiliar with any such statement, as I had not seen the interview with Matt Lauer of NBC-TV at which it was allegedly made. My mind raced, thinking Blitzer wants me to make some comment that he can use against Bush.

In World War II, one of the great poster statements was “Loose lips sink ships.” That applied to inadvertently giving locations of ships to German submarines. But it applies in a different context to all candidates in an election who let down their guard in responding to smiling reporters lying in wait for gaffes.

I responded to Blitzer, “I’ve neither seen nor heard his comments and won’t comment until I do.” That was fortunate because his comments in context make sense.

The New York Sun reported today, “Interviewed on NBC’s ‘Today’ show, Mr. Bush was asked, ‘Do you really think we can win this war on terror in the next four years?’ Mr. Bush replied, ‘I have never said we can win it in four years.’ NBC’s Matt Lauer rephrased the question: ‘So I’m just saying can we win it? Do you see that?’ Mr. Bush said: ‘I don’t think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.’”

He is right. There will always be someone or some group willing to use terror as a weapon. As President Bush has indicated, the key is to “go after the terrorists and the countries that harbor them.”

While an individual terrorist can always hide in a cave, he or she will have little or no impact on the world if no country is willing to provide weapons or sanctuary. It is a battle that will go on for an extended period of time. President Bush has always said so.

Edward I. Koch is the former mayor of New York City. His commentary for Bloomberg radio is republished here. You can hear his weekly radio show by going to:

www.bloomberg.com/radio.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/9/1/35130.shtml

posted September 01, 2004 12:18 PM              

Eh, I think I'm going to cast my Virginia absentee ballot for Snoopy, anyway. It's a solidly "red" state, so my vote's no big deal.

But, really, think about it!
Snoopy for President...

posted September 27, 2004 02:15 AM              

Jwhop, I can see what you mean about Kerry. He is terrible when it comes to issues. I was for Edwards, myself. I was *shocked* to see Kerry make the Iowa caucus, and everyone just fall in line. At the time, Kerry's campaigners were smearing Edwards, claiming that Edwards had voted for the war but Kerry didn't.

However, I'm still casting my vote for Kerry. Why?

Kerry may be an opportunist, but I would like to see Edwards in the White House, if only as VP. I would also like to see Bush out of office.

At least, Kerry says he is officially against the war, even if he voted for it initially. If he withdraws us from Iraq and gets our troops out of there, then it will have been worth it. Why not Bush? Because I know FOR CERTAIN that Bush will keep us stationed there ad infinitum, no matter what anyone says or does..... he'd just say, "Bring 'em on".

Another example, the gay issue. I think Kerry's record is deplorable. Yet, as a Democrat, he would never *dare* vote *for* a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. In all likelihood, he would probably "leave it up to the states." If he did vote for such a thing, there would be a public hue and cry from his own people to impeach him. Why not Bush? Because not only would Bush vote *for* such an amendment, he PROPOSED THE LEGISLATION! Right from the White House rose garden! He also made some sickening remarks. After that kind of nausea-inducing reinforcement, do you think I'd reelect him? Not I.

So, you see, are we going to vote for the "shady character" Kerry has been made out to be, or are we going to vote for Bush, since no matter how negative his stand on the issues, at least he's "consistent"?

Pardon the analogy, but that's the same sort of thinking that existed in pre-Nazi Germany before the rise of the fuerher?

Anyhow, that's my two cents. Don't like much what's happening in this country. Don't like the choices we're being given. But, I'll pick the lesser of two weevils.

For the record, Kerry's campaign still claims that Kerry did *not* vote for the war in Iraq, and that his voting record has been skewed or even outright lied about. Anyone have any *hard* evidence and not just hearsay in this matter? Thanks.

posted September 27, 2004 11:55 PM              

Quiksilver:

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------

Hey Laff,
All other points about Kerry and Bush duly noted. However, I have to say that at this time, pulling out of Iraq would (in my opinion) actually be doing a great disservice to the people there. We went in

------------------------------------------------------

What about our people, though?

------------------------------------------------------

for a purpose and questionable as some people may think that to be, how would it look to up and leave in the middle of

-------------------------------------------------------

Ahh, reminds me of my favorite British TV show, "keeping Up Appearances." That show is on PBS, by the way

Isn't that basically what Bush and Blair are doing, though? Keeping up appearances, while everything falls apart?

--------------------------------------------------------

political and social chaos - in the midst of warring "tribes" or sects, if you will? Much of the country is still not secure and I just think that no matter what one thinks of the decision to go into Iraq, it's definitely not responsible to go into a chaotic situation and leave an even more chaotic situation behind. We owe the Iraqi people at least some kind of semblance of stablility before pulling out. Again, we

--------------------------------------------------------

That's what we have now, though.... a "semblance of stability". And, that's all we're going to have in the future.

---------------------------------------------------------

might not all agree on the war in the first place but now that it's started, it has to be properly finished. If that means leaving

----------------------------------------------------------

Why'd Bush tell us emphatically that the war is over, then?

-----------------------------------------------------------

troops overseas for a few more months, then I am not against it. If the world perceives

-----------------------------------------------------------

Try a few hundred years, sprinkled with a colorful history of Jihad!

-------------------------------------------------------------

the US as an " international bully" now, I would say they would only feel this moreso if we were to leave the country in more of a state of disarray than it was in when we arrived...

---------------------------------------------------------
Sheeesh. Now I feel so guilty.... like I didn't clean my room......

Actually, quiksilver, with each passing day we spend there, Iraq falls into more and more disarray. They fire on us, we fire on them, and so on. It never stops.

Have you traveled outside the US before? Then you'd know the rest of the world functions just fine without us, thank you very much. They had their sewers, their garbage disposal service, their houses, long before we got there, and they did it all themselves, without our help. They had a right little civilzation going over there. Then, we go over, and shell out their houses, and (this is the part which is hardest to understand) "Hey! We'll clean it up for you! Sorry about such a mess!" Meanwhile dead children lay in their parents arms, and more children with radiation sickness from reduced uranium stumble around in the streets. So they say, "No, thank you, you've done quite enough already, just please go!"

But do we go? Nooooo.... we know best! We're the only ones in the world that know how to run a country!

That's a fair bit of arrogance.... but Americans buy it up like lickety-split.

The longer we stay, the angrier the people will feel. They are tired of being policed. They want to be in control of their own lives.

If you think that all of Saddam's supporters will be gone in a few months (the blink of an eye), they won't be. They'll be there forever, as long as that sentiment remains oppressed.

Who do you think should be running the govt. there? Sunni muslims? Shiites? Split into two countries? Either way, everyone's ****** .

That's riiiight.... we, the impartial Christian observers, will govern them wisely and well, for the next 50+ years, like Tito in Yugoslavia, before he died....

And every day, they will be firing on our troops there, and blowing up car bombs, and we'll be firing back. The people who go over there to rebuild will get their heads chopped up, and so on. See? More and more of a mess, with each passing day, until Iraq permanently resembles a demilitarized warzone slum, picture Yugoslavia, Palestine And (former) East Germany all rolled into one. Is that freedom, or do they care less about that sort of freedom? (More about freedom of religion than freedom of speech, or equality, for example.)

Why can't we be woman enough of a country to admit our mistakes, admit Bush was a mistake, and just get the heck out of there? Let them become a dictatorship. (They have no weapons, so no dictator could rule with as much force now as Saddam did... unless, of course, we send the fool weapons AGAIN.) If we own up to our mistakes, Iraq might not turn out half bad. Heck, they might even just forgive us....

Laff :laugh:

posted September 28, 2004 01:00 AM            

This is the text of the joint war resolution. Read it for yourself.

H.J.Res.114
One Hundred Seventh Congress
of the
United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

Note this is resolution 114.

This is the roll call vote of the Senate on that resolution.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Counts: YEAs 77 NAYs 23
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

Like I said, Kerry is a liar, but if Kerry is your kind of guy, then go for it.

posted September 28, 2004 08:05 PM              

As I said before, Kerry is not, as you put it, "My kinda guy". I was for Edwards. I am supposing the DFL leadership felt Kerry would lead a more aggressive campaign.

You are absolutely right about Kerry, and justified in your views. However, if I had to choose between Bush or Kerry, I will still choose Kerry.

I don't think that makes him "my type of guy" or is a reflection of myself. Politics just doesn't work that way. You do what you can for your country, even when there are restraints in place to prevent it. I am not any less of a person, just because our government is irretrievably corrupt.

JWhop, I get the impression that you care most about being on a winning team. Your presidential candidate is a reflection on yourself. Your self-esteem and ego depends on knowing that your candidate is just and true.

However, Bush is not just and true. He is every bit as much of a liar and flip-flopper as Kerry is. He cut health care funding to the troops, for example, and his administration refused to recognize the dangers of using depleted Uranium in this war, which after-effect on our troops the government refuses to cover, simply because it denies that exposing troops to lethal radioactive waste is harmful in any way.

You know, JWhop, it is just as wholly possible for BOTH candidates to be liars and cheats whose records stink to high heaven. Have you considered that possibility?

You seem cynical in your choice of Bush. Because Kerry is a liar, you say, I will vote for Bush to spite that Kerry. That is like cutting off America's nose to spite it's face, 'cause that nose is our troops in Iraq.

The warzone is contaminated, JWhop. Thousands of soldiers, both men and women, will be exposed.... they will get sick and die young, and generations will suffer in the form of birth defects. That's a cruel and terrible fate. NOt to mention the fact that more Iraqis were killed in the last year by American troops than the resistance. These are innocent bystanders, whether you care or not.

Is there a possiblity of ending this war with Bush in office? No. He has already promised to keep a "peace-keeping force" deployed there for the next 7 years.

Is there a possibility of withdrawing our troops under Kerry? Yes. Why do I think so? Because he is under public scrutiny, he is more likely to be maleable than Bush. His supporters are watching him, and they will object if he goes against his word. Is there a possiblity he will do nothing? Yes, again. Against rising protest, he might sit there and do nothing. Is that what he will do? I don't know.

What I do know is, according to HJ Res 114, which you just showed me, Kerry and the rest of the Senate were lied to, big time. Who do you think knew more about Iraq at the time--Bush or Kerry? Bush is the worst villain in this, since he knew all along.

Besides which, Bush has one of the worst civil rights records in recent history.

This is not a time for cynicism, blame, or fingerpointing. It's time to make a carefully considered decision. Hearsay should be examined, and a decision should be made based on the least harmful of all options. You see, we do what we can.

BTW, JWhop, are you opposed to this war?

Laff

posted September 28, 2004 11:45 PM            

First, you don't know me but if you did, you would know I'm not a joiner, my self image is not tied up in backing a winner or anything else someone else is or does. I do not identify with Bush or any other politician, in fact I don't identify with anyone. Bush happens to be going my way and for that reason and that reason alone, he has my political support.

John Edwards and those like him are the primary reason so many Americans are not covered by health insurance. A rip-off artist of the first water who uses junk science to win cases, junk science he knows is false but is able to sell to juries. Because of John Edwards and those like him, physicians are recommending caesarian sections to women, women who have no reason to consent except on the recommendation of their physicians who are in an $ss covering mode and afraid to be sued. Those jury awards have driven up insurance rates to the point physicians are either giving up certain types of practices, abandoning their practices altogether or putting everything in their wife's names and going without liability insurance. John Edwards is an ambulance chasing shyster. He's also a politician who could not and would not win reelection in his home state of North Carolina...neither will John and John win North Carolina in the general election.

It seems every time someone new comes to this site, we wind up covering old ground and old lies yet once again. You readily admit Kerry is a liar but you went further and said Bush is a liar. Now Laff, I invite you as I have others who have made that statement to back it up. You are invited to post the lie or lies or drop your allegation. I proved Kerry is a liar to you....your turn and I construe the word lie in it's ordinary dictionary meaning and usage.

Where are you getting your information Laff? My information is that Bush has increased military pay more than 20%, increased education benefits for military personnel, improved housing and raised subsidies for military families living off base and expanded health care and job training for military personnel. In fact Laff, most military personnel love Bush and despise Kerry as Kerry will find out in November.

Tell me Laff, is there a liberal indoctrination center where all liberals are fed their daily dose of poop or is there a cloning factory for liberals I haven't heard about....yet? Is there even one liberal who ever bothers to check what comes out of Kerry's mouth for truth or any other BS artist's mouth for that matter?

Depleted Uranium has been used in US tank rounds and 30mm cannon shells since the 1980s. You've turned what "might" be a valid argument into a loser by suggesting Bush "refused" to recognize the danger from the use of DU rounds. Just for your information, those rounds were used in Desert Storm, Clinton used them in Kosovo and Iraq...Cruise missiles are also tipped with DU or at least some of them. Yet you fail to mention Clinton but bash Bush. In any event, the book is still open on the health hazards of using depleted uranium, which is a substance containing only U-238, an alpha emitter, since all the radioactive U-235 has been refined out of the substance....hence depleted.

My vote for Bush will not reflect that Kerry is a liar. Kerry committed treason against the US, gave aid and comfort to America's enemy in Vietnam and is embarked on the same exercise today, giving aid and comfort to the terrorists by his incessant attacks on the military mission in Iraq. Some things never change, people too. Kerry was a traitor then and he is today. Beyond that, Kerry is probably the single biggest threat to America's continued sovereignty. Let's see how this sounds to you. "American military forces should never be deployed anywhere in the world unless they are under the command of United Nations commanders." $crew the utterly corrupt UN and Kerry too.

Well Laff, you must be psychic to know that all those casualties in Iraq are civilians. After all, the terrorists, Baathists and foreign fighters injured or killed ARE in military uniforms...aren't they? They're easily identified as combatants, now aren't they? I guess we'll just have to take your word...and the word of the propaganda artists for that. It seems to me the biggest threat to Iraqi civilians are the terrorists who are blowing them up and firing mortar shells into civilian areas.

I agree, there is NO chance Bush will pull troops out of Iraq until the terrorists are defeated there, there are elections representing the will of the Iraqi people and sufficient Iraqi forces are trained to provide security for Iraq. There is every reason to believe Kerry will not follow through, will turn Iraq over to the terrorists and see to the installation of another radical Islamic theocracy...this time in Iraq. Kerry must never be President. His talking points to the terrorists are to hold on, don't give up and when I'm elected I'll pull the troops out of Iraq and give you the victory you couldn't win on the battle field. Same talking points he stressed to the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese communists with his lying protests of American atrocities in the Vietnam War.

As for the War resolution and Kerry's vote, let me remind you, John Kerry is on the Senate Intelligence Committee....though he never shows up for work, as such, Kerry and every member of the House and Senate saw exactly the same information the President saw, had briefings from the CIA and other intelligence agencies and had access to the intelligence of intelligence services of other nations. Again, state the lie you allege Bush told to induce Congress to declare war. It has been the official policy of the United States that regime change was necessary in Iraq...since 1998.

State with particularity, the rights you've lost as a United States citizen that you had before Bush became President. You shouldn't have any problem with that Laff, you'll find the rights of American citizens in the US Constitution. If it isn't there, you don't have it.

Hearsay should never be a consideration in making important decisions but if you insist, here's some hearsay for you to consider.
John Kerry is an agent of a foreign power or powers. I can't prove that but Kerry would not want me prosecuting him in a court of law with the circumstantial evidence that's on the record, going back to the early 70's and continuing to the present because I could lay out an overwhelming case of his guilt for a jury. A case using only his own words and actions.