posted July 30, 2004 12:25 PM            

NO, I was always under the impression that George W. Bush was never really was interested in politics(to begin with) and that HE himself was led to that approach in his life(thinking that he would run the White House just like his father did), but Rumsfeld and Cheney met up with George Jr. at the White House doors and put forward they're own plans for the country and the world,knowing the fact that they are never going to catch the heat like "little George" would)!

I do feel sorry for the man!

I think that someone with better knowledge of Washington DC and of war(for these times)and can make more of his own decisions(for this present state of the world)would be better fit for president right now!

posted July 30, 2004 05:22 PM            

But feelings without the balance of facts is no way to chose a President, the leader of the free world. Feelings are subject to manipulation and there are those who will engage all the right hot buttons. John Kerry is one such manipulator.

These are the facts about John Kerry and they don't come from feelings, they come from the factual records going back to Vietnam.

John Kerry has almost no military experience. He was a Lieutenant, Junior Grade in Vietnam, where he spent 4 months. John Kerry has no real command experience. The facts about how he earned 3 purple hearts are in question and have been questioned, for one, by his commanding officer and two by reports of the medic who treated him.

Kerry's military record wouldn't be an issue if he wasn't attempting to use it in his campaign. In fact, that's about all you heard last night. You sure didn't hear about his wonderful record in the Senate, nor have you heard him talk about his Senate record anyplace else.

John Kerry is either a liar, or a war criminal, take your pick. He says he participated in war crimes while in Vietnam and that means some of the men standing on the stage with him last night are war criminals too, if you don't think Kerry is a liar.

More than 220 men who served directly with John Kerry, his swift boat peers, including the entire chain of command Kerry reported to and the men he served with on the swift boats have signed a statement which states in essence that John Kerry is wholly unfit to be Commander in Chief of the United States military forces. Kerry had a few vets on the stage with him last night but the overwhelming number of those who served with him say he is "UNFIT TO BE COMMANDER IN CHIEF". These men are not aligned with any political party and come from a broad spectrum of political belief but they are patriots who have the best interests of America in mind.

While true heroes were in North Vietnam prisoner of war camps, they had Kerry's words read and repeated to them. The communists used Kerry's own words to brand them war criminals in attempts to break them.

In Hanoi there is a memorial that contains pictures of some people the communists revere and both John Kerry and Jane Fonda's pictures are in that glass case.

The North Vietnam general in charge of the troops is on record as saying if it hadn't been for Kerry and the other protesters who inflamed the American press and liberal congressional members against the war, North Vietnam would have quit, surrendered. What a testimonial for the war hero John Kerry.

After John Kerry was out of Vietnam and serving in the reserves, he went to Paris.
Paris was the location of the so called peace talks between the US and communist North Vietnam. Kerry was not sent to Paris, he had no official business there and he was not a member of the US negotiating team. John Kerry met, on at least one occasion with a high ranking member of the North Vietnamese negotiating team in Paris. When John Kerry came back to the US, he urged Congress to accept the conditions put forth by the North Vietnamese, which included an American withdrawal from Vietnam and then and only then would the Communists discuss POW's held in their prisoner of war camps. Very nice that John Kerrry would adopt the negotiating position of our enemy.

But, that was 30 years ago. So what is Kerry's record in Congress? As a Senator, he has authored not one (not 1) piece of substantive legislation, in 20 years in the Senate, not one.

He has however said no US troops should be deployed anywhere in the world unless they are under the direct command of UN commanders. Note, not under the command of US commanders and the President of the United States but under UN commanders.

When the Soviet Union was threatening Europe and we had troops there to oppose any invasion, Kerry attempted to declare the area a nuclear freeze zone. In spite of the Soviet General in charge saying if he lined up all the Soviet tanks deployed along the border, end to end, the line would reach all the way to Moscow. Kerry was against deploying tactical nuclear weapons in the area, weapons he knew would never be used because the Soviet Union knew they were there too and those tactical nukes deterred any Soviet plan to overrun Europe. Kerry seems to always be on the side of enemies aligned against the United States.

When Danial Ortega was fomenting communist revolution from Nicaragua and Reagan was chasing sorry Sandinista butts back into Nicaragua, Kerry made an emergency trip to see Otrega. To get Ortega to cease and desist? Hell no. But to give him support and cover. You see, it was Reagan and the US who were the aggressors, not Ortega's Sandanista communists who were attempting to overthrow the sovereign nation of El Saladore and others. At every turn, Kerry has embraced our enemies with open arms.

So, what else has John Kerry done while serving in the Senate of the United States?

He voted against funding the F-16, a fighter that became our front-line interceptor and is still in service, having proved itself with distinction as the fighter of choice for a lot of European nations, Israel and others. This aircraft saw distinguished service in both Gulf wars and Israel used the F-16 to decimate Syrian jet fighters supplied by the Soviet Union. John Kerry voted not to fund it. The F-16 is still a front line interceptor in the US Air Force.

John Kerry voted against funding the F-15, a fighter/intercepter/strike aircraft that for many years was the premier fighter/strike aircraft in the world and was also purchased by European nations and others including Israel. John Kerry voted against funding the F-15. The F-15 is still in service in the US Air Force.

John Kerry voted against the F-14, a carrier based fighter/intercepter/strike aircraft used to protect US carriers. The F-14 is the premiere carrier based fighter/intercepter/strike aircraft in the world, it's still in service with the US Navy. John Kerry voted against the F-14.

John Kerry voted against the B-2 Stealth Bomber. This aircraft is all but invisible to radar which protects our aircrews from enemy fire at the moment they are most vulnerable, when they are over a military target. There is no other aircraft in the world with the stealth technology that can fly into enemy airspace undetected and deliver a heavy, precision guided bomb load. John Kerry voted against the B-2 Bomber. It's still in service with the US Air Force.

John Kerry voted against the B-1B Bomber. This bomber has an enormous range, carries a tremendous bomb load and has a very low radar profile. There is no other aircraft like the B-IB in the world. John Kerry voted against the B-1B. The B-1B is still in service with the US Air Force.

John Kerry voted against the AV-8B Harrier, a vertical takeoff and landing fighter/strike aircraft that's used in short runway or no runway situations. It could take off and does take off from parking lots, grass and dirt fields or just about any place else. John Kerry voted against the AV-8B Harrier. The Harrier is still in service with the US Marine Corp and the US Navy and perhaps the Air Force as well.

John Kerry voted against the F-22. The F-22 is the latest fighter/intercepter/strike aircraft in the US inventory. It's stealthy, agile and is intended to replace some of the F-15's and F-16's. The F-22 is the latest technology and best technology aircraft of it's type in the world. John Kerry voted against the F-22. It's being incorporated into service NOW.

John Kerry voted against the C-17 Globe Master transport. This plane flies just under Mach 1, is capable of take off and landing from only a 3000 foot runway, carries over a quarter of a million pounds of payload and is capable of flying around the world with refueling. The C-17 isn't called the Globe Master for no reason. It's a new generation of military transport plane. John Kerry voted against the C-17 Globe Master. The Globe Master is in service with the US Air Force.

John Kerry voted against the AH-64 Apache Helicopter. The Apache was and still is the premiere tank killing helicopter in the world. It's lethal to tanks and is used against fixed fortified military installations as well. The Apache was a mainstay in both Gulf Wars and decimated Saddam's tank corps. John Kerry voted against the AH-64 Apache. It's still in service with the US Army and perhaps the US Marines too.

John Kerry voted against the Tomahawk Cruise Missile. The Tomahawk is a stand off, ship based missile that can fly almost 1000 miles and strike a target with an accuracy measured at about 3 feet. It's lethal against fixed military installations, carrying a 1000 lb explosive charge. The Tomahawk was used in both Gulf Wars and we all saw the pictures. John Kerry voted against the Tomahawk Cruise Missile. The Tomahawk is still in service with the US Navy.

John Kerry voted against the Patriot Missile. The Patriot is used against incoming missiles like the Scuds employed by Saddam against Israel. It's the only missile interceptor of it's type---or was until Israel in conjunction with the US developed their own version called the Arrow. It had limited success in the first Gulf War and the guidance system and recognition radar was upgraded. It's a qualified success that's still a work in process. John Kerry voted against the Patriot Missile. Patriot batteries are still in service with the US Army.

John Kerry voted against the Aegis Air Defense Cruiser. The Aegis is used to protect our Aircraft carriers and support ships at sea with an array of interceptor missiles, advanced radar and electronic chain guns, cannons which fire 30,000 cannon rounds a minute. It's the most advanced ship of it's type in the world and is deployed with every American Carrier Group in service. John Kerry voted against the Aegis. It's still in service with the US Navy.

John Kerry voted against the M1 Abrams Tank. The M1 is the main battle tank of the US Army and the premiere tank in the world. It's lethal to other tanks as Saddam's tank corp found out. The M1 Abrams proved itself in both Gulf Wars. John Kerry voted against the M1 Abrams tank. It's still in service with the US Army and perhaps the US Marines as well.

This is the John Kerry record on the military and military weapons. Every one of the weapons systems Kerry voted against were the best in the world and proved themselves in the skies and on the battlefield. Every one of these weapons systems is still in use as front-line equipment in the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force.

An enemy of America couldn't have had a worse voting record than John Kerry on funding US military equipment. An enemy would have voted against the best weapons systems in our arsenal, the best in any arsenal and so did John Kerry.

Let me just say that John F. Kerry is UNFIT to be Commander in Chief of US Military forces. The very best I can say about Kerry is that he's totally incompetent in military affairs.

To continue, John Kerry was in the Senate when attacks began against America, both here and abroad. The WTC was attacked in 1993 by terrorists. These other attacks occurred in the 90's. 2 US embassies in Africa were attacked. An apartment building housing US military forces near the Saudi Arabian City of Dhahran was bombed by terrorists. The USS Cole was attacked by terrorists in port in Yemen.

Pretty clear that terrorists are planning and carrying out attacks against the US, so what is John Kerry's answer to a rising tide of terrorism?

John Kerry voted to reduce Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine enlisted and officer personnel. He voted to reduce the Army from 18 divisions to 12, a reduction of 33%.

John Kerry voted to reduce Air Force personnel by 30%
John Kerry voted to reduce Marine personnel by 22,000 Marines.
John Kerry voted to reduce Navy ships from 393 to 312.

At a time when terrorists were striking America, John Kerry decided to reduce US Military Forces.

But what is John Kerry's rhetoric now. NOW Kerry says we should increase our military by 40,000 troops after voting to reduce forces by almost 500,000 troops when evidence was in plain view that we were a target.

At a time when terrorism against the US was rising and we needed every bit of intelligence we could get our hands on, what was John Kerry's decision on intelligence?

John Kerry attempted to reduce the CIA budget, numerous times. At a time when intelligence was crucial, Kerry was in favor of reducing the CIA budget which would have reduced CIA personnel, the very people we depend on to provide information about groups hostile to the United States. The budget cuts Kerry proposed amounted to 7 billion dollars, a proposal that even Ted Kennedy couldn't and wouldn't support.

There are 2 disqualifiers, either of which would disqualify a person from ever being President regardless of any other positives or negatives.

Unfit to serve as Commander in Chief
Giving aid and comfort to America's enemies

John Kerry has proven over and over he is unfit to lead Americas military forces as Commander in Chief and there is absolutely no doubt Kerry gave aid and comfort to our enemies both Communist North Vietnam and the Communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua.

posted July 30, 2004 11:33 PM              

The making of a star
By Diana West
Here's an un-Conventional line of thought: I've sometimes wondered, idly, how it could be that John Kerry had so many pictures of himself from his Navy days in Vietnam. Just four months "in country," as Vietnam vets say, during which time he earned three Purple Hearts, one Silver Star and one Bronze Star, and he comes home with what are reportedly hours — hours! — of 8 millimeter film. Some snips appear in Kerry campaign ads; more show up in the Great Kerry Convention Biopic produced by Spielberg protege James Moll. How did Mr. Kerry do it? http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040729-081713-3397r.htm

posted August 01, 2004 01:43 AM            

His campaign tried, at first to pass it off as something a lot of soldiers did in Nam.

That didn't fly well.

Kerry does have a very nasty record in the Senate. I didn't say anything about all his votes for tax increases or his almost perfect record of voting against tax reductions.

The goodies Kerry is promising during his campaign amount to almost 2 trillion dollars, that's $2,000,000,000,000, a lot of zeros. 2 trillion dollars is almost the value of the GDP of the US for an entire year, the value of all the goods and services output for the US economy.

That's 2 trill in addition to all the other federal spending on everything else we pay for. But not to worry, he's not going to raise taxes except the taxes on the rich. Right! Must be the new math because I can't make his numbers add up.

He wants to raise taxes $477 Billion on the rich.
He wants to do away with the death tax for $135 Billion.
He wants to increase business taxes $46 Billion.

posted August 01, 2004 10:20 AM              

Let me tell you something else, George W. Bush has done a lot to bring troops back home, my cousin after 6 months came home in one piece, and did not sign up for the reserves, and so did many others. Unfortunately, that was Bush's downfall, since there are less troops in Iraq than in the beginning, much of the trouble in that country NOW is the result of that. Isn't that what Kerry meant, when he said the military was stretched too thin? I'm not a military person, but from a civilian perspective the trouble we're having in that country now is directly correlated to when a huge amount of troops came back home. Just a thought since I read this article. I could be very wrong, I'm not sure, I'd like someone to correct me though.

Kerry Says He Plans for Iraq Negotiations -By NEDRA PICKLER

SPRINGFIELD, Ohio - Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry (news - web sites) said he plans to use private negotiations to persuade other heads of state to assist in reconstructing Iraq (news - web sites), but he does not envision sending more U.S. troops there. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040801/ap_on_el_pr/democr ats&cid=694&ncid=716

posted August 01, 2004 03:10 PM              

I agree.

I have been reading-up, and the cutbacks undertaken in the past and the resulting force structure are wholly inappropriate for what's now being asked of the military.
That being said, I'm also disappointed in Rumsfeld's proposals to attempt to shape the Army into a "lighter, leaner" force in its entirety...
having such units in place is necessary in order to execute successful operations against amorphous, scattered targets, but an entire Army with that make-up simply cannot successfully occupy an area once it's been taken. Feet on the ground are needed for that; no short-cuts really work in the long-term, and technology often fails against a dedicated, resourceful foe.

I make no secret of my opposition to this particular Gulf War - to its reasoning, planning, and implementation, past and present - but to go in with our troops effectively hog-tied is a travesty as well.
And, again, I don't care who got us into this predicament - that part's in the past and can't very well be changed - but I do care a great deal about who'll get us out.

posted August 01, 2004 04:38 PM            

Question now is, are you willing to trust a blunderer who voted for every cutback of the military forces and also voted against every major weapons system in our inventory, to be Commander in Chief. If so, why would you? Better yet, how could you?

So, Kerry is now saying he wouldn't cut and run from Iraq and is on the record as wanting to commit 40,000 additional troops to the area. Ummm, 40,000 troops from where?

Question is proxime, given your desire to see the war in Iraq ended, do you believe Kerry is telling the truth or do you think he's lying in an attempt to get himself elected and would cut and run leaving the job in Iraq unfinished?

Do you think Rumsfeld is working within the force structures that "are" available, given US commitments around the world and also structuring forces to meet the terrorist enemy that exists today?

Where do you see a major war developing that would require the massive troop and unit force structures of the past?

The plan was always to get in, get Saddam out, set up circumstances where a representative government could take hold and in the mean time, train Iraqis to take over internal policing of Iraq, giving them training and support. That's being done and there are large numbers of terrorists and insurgents being captured or killed.

There are sufficient US and Coalition forces and equipment in Iraq to flatten every Iraqi city. That isn't the intention and never was. A massive presence there is not helpful. What is lacking is sufficient forces for reasonable troop rotations and that gets back to the 6 missing divisions Kerry voted to eliminate.

That all said, time is on our side and the side of the new government. Iraqi forces are being trained to fight for Iraq and every day they get stronger. In the meantime, the terrorists and insurgents get weaker as their numbers are reduced and their leaders captured or killed.

That's my opinion proxime but you certainly won't hear that on the Network news or on the pages of the NY Times who have an interest in getting the most liberal Senator in the Senate, John Kerry elected. One of their boys. John Edwards is the 4th most liberal Senator based on voting records.

posted August 01, 2004 06:59 PM            

Hehehe, duty calls.......remember it well