Rant: Evil Doer's Strike Again.

[CNCRaymond]

Disclaimer

Ok an edit is needed here to avoid any hard feelings. First and foremost this is just a post. I wish to apologize up front. So please do not take my words to mean that I am a tight *** or a stuck up jerk. In this post I am responded to an attack, and like in any game, intimidation plays a roll. With that in mind, enjoy the read and please if you do get pissed off, take it out on me, and not your animals. (P.S. Nothing in this post is intended to be taken as a personalized attack. I am merely playing the game by the rules set forth in the post to which I am responding. I don't think he meant to come off as a mean person even if that is how his post seemed to present him.)

End Disclaimer



I have to agree with Atrocities, and go one step further; you are deliberately being closed minded and intentionally argumentative. You are attempting to goat him into responding to your rants at your level, and I am proud that he did not take your bait.

However, I have and I am not bit afraid of challenging your warped sources of information. I checked out your links and if the information contained in them is what you’re basing your arguments on, then you have no arguments.

I hope you have some proof to back statements like "I do not like Kerry, as he is nothing more than an opportunistic liar who promises us a better tomorrow but has no intention on delivering", otherwise your gonna come off here as just a ranting loon.

I read your post and I would have to say that you are the one who is coming off as the ranting loon and not Atrocities.

- What makes John Kerry "an opportunistic liar"?
- What proof do you have that John Kerry doesn't intend to fullfill any of the plans he's putting forth on his campaing trail?

What makes John Kerry an opportunistic liar – Well he is lying about his war record for one.

“The fabled and distinguished chief of naval operations (CNO), Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, said -- 30 years ago when he was still CNO -- that during his own command of US naval forces in Vietnam, just prior to his anointment as CNO, young Kerry had created great problems for him and the other top brass, by killing so many non-combatant civilians and going after other non-military targets.

"We had virtually to straight-jacket him to keep him under control," the admiral said. "Bud" Zumwalt got it right when he assessed Kerry as having large ambitions -- but promised that his career in Vietnam would haunt him if he were ever on the national stage.
John Kerry just bet the farm on a fairy-tale Version of his Vietnam service, figuring, no doubt, that it always worked for him before. What he doesn't realize is that huge numbers of veterans who didn't care if he was a Senator from the People's Republic of Massachusetts will crawl across broken glass to keep him from becoming Commander-in-Chief. That battle is now joined.” – Scott Swett, webmaster of WinterSoldier.com (7/31/04)
In 1992, John Kerry came to the defense of Bill Clinton, whose avoidance of service had become a campaign issue for George H. W. Bush. “I'm here personally to express my anger, as a veteran,” Mr Kerry told National Public Radio, “that a president who would stand before this nation in his inaugural address and promise to put Vietnam behind us is now breaking yet another promise and trying to use Vietnam and service in order to get himself re-elected. That is not an act of leadership, that is an act of shame and cowardice.”
POW/MIA Against John Kerry Read what they have to say.

As Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, he and his staff advised Hanoi's communists government how to close POW/MIA cases, with little or no regard for the truth.
In November 1992, members of the Committee, led by Senator John Kerry, traveled to Hanoi. During that visit, Sr. Col. Pham Duc Dai turned over his wartime journal supposedly detailing the ambush, death and burial of four men, from the 196th Light Infantry Brigade. Dai described how he participated in the death and burial of the four Americans.
John Kerry was exuberant in his praise of Vietnamese cooperation. Using the revelations contained in the diary, Kerry called for further U.S. trade concessions to the Vietnamese and he announced that he had gotten an accounting of four men. The problem.... Dai lied. But Kerry never retracted his praise for Vietnamese "cooperation."
On October 26, 1993, Pulitzer Prize winning author Sydney H. Schanberg wrote" "Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, in his haste to carry out his agenda of getting the While House to remove the embargo against Vietnam, has done some extraordinary things. One of his recurring feats has been to try to turn fiction into truth....."
John Kerry had one goal, to close the POW/MIA issue, and open trade with Vietnam.
Our opposition to John Kerry is not based on political motivation. We are the wives, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters and extended family members whose loved ones are the victims of John Kerry's rush to normalization relations with Vietnam.
The John Kerry we know, signs a report stating servicemen were left behind at the end of the Vietnam War, doesn't ask what happened to them, and rewards Vietnam for withholding the truth
John Kerry clearly demonstrated his priorities, placing trade with Vietnam over the truth about servicemen listed as Prisoner or Missing in Action. This is not a trait we want in a Commander-in-Chief.
John Kerry brought the Vietnam War into this campaign. So we say "Bring it On."
All we want is the truth and John Kerry, by his actions, has made this goal far more difficult to reach.
Therefore, it is our intent to make it far more difficult if not impossible for John Kerry to reach his goal.
Dedicated to the defeat of John F. Kerry, we are the families of American Servicemen listed as Prisoner of War or Missing in Action, left behind at the end of America's wars.

And Kerry’s own campaign backtracked on August 24th when they came out and said that Kerry’s first purple heart award, and I quote; “My have been self-inflicted Read More

If you want to read more about what our vets think of John F. Kerry and his military record, just follow one of the 128 links on this site

Kerry portrays himself as a hunter yet he is the:
most anti-gun Presidential nominee in United States history. Since his election to the U.S. Senate in 1984, John F. Kerry has cast 59 votes on issues involving firearms rights and hunting. These votes included votes to ban guns, to impose waiting periods on gun buyers, to financially punish gun manufactures for operating a legal business and to restrict the free speech of Second Amendment advocates.
In addition, Kerry currently is a co-sponsor of S. 1431, which would ban all semi-automatic shotguns, all detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles and many other guns, calling the whole lot "assault weapons."

And it should be noted that his photo op as a he claimed himself to be a hunter, he was using a semi-automatic shotgun. I know the second amendment means nothing to Canadans, but it does mean a lot to us Americans. So please do not begin a debate over this.

More from Kerry’s military voting record.

] Kerry has voted for at least seven major reductions in Defense and Military spending, necessary for our national security:

1) In 1996 - Introduced Bill to slash Defense Department Funding by $6.5 Billion.

2) In 1995 - Voted to freeze Defense spending for 7 years, slashing over $34 billion from Defense.

3) Fiscal 1996 Budget Resolution - Defense Freeze. "Harkin, D-Iowa, amendment to freeze defense spending for the next seven years and transfer the $34.8 billion in savings to education and job training."
4) In 1993 - Introduced plan to cut numerous Defense programs, including:
Cut the number of Navy submarines and their crews
Reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one
Reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force
Terminate the Navy's coastal mine-hunting ship program
Force the retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the Armed Forces in one year.

5) Has voted repeatedly to cut Defense spending, including:
In 1993, voted against increased Defense spending for Military Pay Raise. Kerry voted to kill an increase in military pay over five years.

In 1992, voted to cut $6 billion from Defense.

In 1991, voted to slash over $3 Billion from Defense. Shift money to social programs.

In 1991, voted to cut defense spending by 2%

Voted repeatedly to cut or eliminate funding for B-2 Stealth Bomber

Voted repeatedly against Missile Defense - Weapons Kerry sought to phase out were VITAL in Iraq. "Kerry supported cancellation of a host of weapons systems that have become the basis of US military might-the high-tech munitions and delivery systems on display to the world as they leveled the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in a matter of weeks." (Brian C. Mooney, "Taking One Prize, Then A Bigger One," The Boston Globe, 6/19/03)

Military hardware he felt we no longer need since the "cold war" is past. The money would be better spent on "social" programs. These weapons are now the core of our military might.

F-16 Fighting Falcons.
B-1Bs B-2As F-15 And F-16s
M1 Abrams
Patriot Missile
AH-64 Apache Helicopter
Tomahawk Cruise Missile
Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser

6) During 1980s Kerry And Michael Dukakis joined forces with liberal group dedicated to slashing Defense. Kerry sat on the board of "Jobs With Peace Campaign," which sought to "develop public support for cutting the defense budget..."("Pentagon Demonstrators Call For Home-Building, Not Bombs," The Associated Press, 6/3/88)

7) While running for Congress in 1972, Kerry promised to cut Defense Spending. "On what he'll do if he's elected to Congress," Kerry said he would 'bring a different kind of message to the president." He said he would, "Vote against military appropriations." ("Candidate's For Congress Capture Campus In Andover," Lawrence [MA] Eagle-Tribune, 4/21/72)

"So you can look at all the potential threats of the world, and when you add the expenditures of all of our allies to the United States of America, you have to stop and say to yourself, 'What is it that we are really preparing for in a post-cold-war world?'"
(Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 5/15/96, p. S5061)

I can keep going if you want me too. Kerry has billed himself as the right man at the right time however his Senate voting record proves otherwise. He says he is a hunter, and a war hero, yet the proof shows us otherwise. Kerry stated that “trying to use Vietnam and service in order to get himself re-elected. That is not an act of leadership, that is an act of shame and cowardice.” And what has he done? He has used his questionable Vietnam service record in an attempt to gain election to the White House.

Like what was said, he is an opportunistic liar who doesn't intend to fulfill any of the plans he's putting forth on his campaing trail. To him they are just an ends to a means.

Maybe you hate John Kerry because George Bush hasen't been able to fulfill the promises he made during his campaign in 99/00: George W. Bush: 100 Days of Broken Promises

I remember seeing one of these for Clinton too. I laughed then as well. I read it and nothing in it would make me think he has broken any promises. And you do know that in order to get his policies from paper to practice, they must go through the Senate and House of Representatives. And those bodies sometimes do not always agree with one another. So it is understandable that some pledges are still in the works, while the Senate and House killed others. So Bush technically has not broken any promises. And lets face it; a person’s failures sell more papers than their success.

As for "Kerry has been in the Senate a very long time and he has done nothing of consequence except to get rich", perhaps you should spend less time believeing everything you see on TV, and actually do some research for yourself. You can find John Kerry's Senate record here: John Kerry's Senate Record. It's pretty lengthy, but if you're going to smear Kerry's record or accomplishments, at least make sure you know what you're talking about.

I did read his record, and I posted a lot of it for you to read. And for the record, I am not “smearing” Kerry’s record and lack luster accomplishments for he has done a nice job of that himself when it comes to the issues that I am most concerned about. So do not accuse me as you did Atrocities of such things.

As for the "rich" comment, Kerry's been completely open with his finances. He inherited a good chunk from his parents, but the majority of his current wealth comes from wife.

You can see Kerry's finances here: John Kerry income record

George W Bush was rich (and still is) when he ran for the Presidency in 99/00, but it's Kerry you're siding against. Hmm...

The fact remain that Kerry came from a rich family and he has gotten richer while he has served as a Senator and he has shown absolutely no compassion for people to whom his proposed tax increases would effect.

"To do the right thing over the objections of world opinion"? In other words, as long as George Bush thinks it's right, he'll do what he wants, where he wants, to whomever he wants too? And you feel safe with this man who has the authority to push the big red button that ends all life on Earth? I hope you bought plenty of duct tape.

Well George Bush has the support of many of his people, and if you cared to do some investigating you would have discovered that many other nations supported the war in Iraq just not the ones that had been economically benefiting from Saddam and his regime.

Secondly, your doing exactly what a liberal turn coat, truth bending, spin doctor would do, your warping the meaning of what he did say to fit your own views. You are using conjecture and assuming facts that are not in play. Case in point you say: “ In other words” which clearly means that you are attempting to read into Atrocities statement something that was not there. This proves that you are the ranting loon my friend.

And you feel safe with this man

I know that I do feel safer with Bush in control far more than I would with Kerry given Kerry’s negavtive perpensity toward our armed forces. Kerry has demonstrated his willingness to compermise our safety by voting time and again to cut the budge of our military and intelligence agencies and against giving them the tools that they need to successfully carry out their charters. An example of his “heroic” nature was when he sacrificed the POW’MIA’s of Vietnam for his political agenda. I shudder in absolute fear at the thought of John F. Kerry (The second JFK as he has been called) having his finger on that “big red button.”

"take the war to any nation that would willingly harbor, support, or defend terrorism and or terrorist."

So I guess if, say, an American in Seattle drove a truck full of propane tanks into the Space Needle, we could expect Bush to invade the Washington area with as much vigor as he did Iraq?.

What are you smoking? What a totally frivolous, pointless, and meaningless statement this was.

Unlikely. North Korea posed (and still does) a much bigger threat to the US than Iraq did, yet Bush wanted to go into Iraq. The Bush Administration doesn't care where the terrorists are or might be, otherwise Iraq would have been further down the list of Countries to invade

Um let me clarify something for you, Korea represents a separate and unique threat that when the time comes will not only represent a threat to the US, but to most of Asia as well. When that day comes, the world will respond to the Korean threat as it sees fit. To compare Iraq to Korea is like comparing Apples to peanuts. Your point again is meaningless.

Still believe that Bush truely cares about stopping/ending terrorism?

- AP: Superiors Hindered Terror Prosecutors
- Unmasking of Qaeda mole a security blunder
-

"Iraq is the chosen battleground for this fight against evil. Away from Pakistan and their nuclear weapons of mass destruction, we wage this war of idealism that the right for all people to live free and to live free from tyranny and terrorism is the right thing to do." So apparently Iraq was worse than Pakistan, even though Pakistan has nuclear weapons (as you point out), but Iraq doesn't, and apparently never did? Hmmm...

And would you rather we be fighting these folks near Pakistan where they do have the nuke, or further away where they do not appearently have the nuke? Again you make no sense your argument, correction you’re closed minded rant of little meaningful substance.

CIA Intelligence Reports Seven Months Before 9/11 Said Iraq Posed No Threat To U.S., Containment Was Working

Oh my God I cannot believe you used this site as a reference. What a joke. Get some real facts will you! Progress news and views for a breaking community…. [insert]continuous laugh here[/insert] More like highly subjective and politicalized nonsense. Again, [insert] laugh here [/insert]. Is this the kind of site that you are basing your arguments on? My God you’d be better off just making [censored] up on your own.

Ah, but terrorism is such a broad term. Do you consider Human Rights Abuses terrorism? If so, then you have to call the prisoner abuse going on at Abu Ghraib by the American Military terrorism towards the Iraqi detainees.

A mute point since their actions were not considered terrorism. The sexual humiliation was intended to break the will of the detainees for purposes of questioning. Being forced to endure such humiliation at the hands of a woman would definitely have a negative impact upon their egos and would work well for breaking them down. But alas this is a mute point now so lets move on.

Oh one Last thing, you know that the distinction between Human Rights Abuses and Terrorism are vast. Human rights abuses deal with what Saddam was doing to his own people when he starved, gassed, tortured, killed, imprisoned, and denied them medical attention while presiding over them as their leader. Terrorism on the other hand deals with small Groups of individuals who are determined to kill innocent people to send a message of fear. On the surface they do appear similar, but underneath the surface, they are very much different kinds of horrors.

Oh, but I guess since it's the United States doing it, it's not called terrorism. Hmmm.

Lets face it, your nation simply just doesn’t have what it takes to be a super power so they never will be. And super power envy doesn’t make you a super power. And just out of morbid curiosity, how many war movies have been made about the heroism of your nations military successes during WWI and WWII?

*clap*clap*clap* Well, congratulations are in order then. Hooray for the United States! You've not only invaded a non-threatening country, you've made that country more hazardous for it's own citizens and for the Military presence there. Now that's what I call a plan

If this is all you can say, then I guess you have said nothing.

"However many Americans now believe that most of the European nations lost there stomach to stand up to Saddam and enforce the terms of the cease fire. They felt it was better to simply let him do as he pleased for the Last twelve years" How about providing us with some proof that the European community was allowing Saddam to "do as he pleased.

Why should he? Its obvious to any one who has read your post that your intent would simply be to twist and distort any facts that he would present. No wonder he doesn’t want to respond to you.

What would have happened? Bush, Cheney, and their circle of Oil magnates would have lost a ton of money, and the American economy would take a substantial hit from the conVersion of oil sales from American Dollars to Euros.

You’re the one who is good at making [censored] up, so why don’t you tell us.

Ah, so you're taking the simple minded approach that if one person is good, then the opposing person must be bad. So if I say Bush is bad, that must mean that I think Saddam is good.

Actually from the way I read it, this is exactly the way you meant for him to take it. So he answered you in your own context, and now your attacking him over it.

Hmmm... You see, this is one of the huge flaws with the Republican Party; the view that everything is black or white, good or evil. If you don't Subscribe to Republican beliefs, you get labled as a Liberal, and you sumarily get dragged through the mud. The scarier corner of the Republican Party even believes that if you're not white, then you're not pure.

Well [censored], by your definition of the Republican party, Atrocities and I are both liberals since neither of us fully Subscribe to many of the Republican views. And golly gee, look, here you are attempting to drag Atrocities through the mud.

I don't hold any misguided beliefs that the Democratic Party his it's kooks too, but nothing compares to the ones the Republican Party has.

Your right, both parties suck however, given the choice to live an unarmed slave, or as an armed slave, I choose armed.

Democrats want to protect everyone from their rights and freedoms by passing laws that limit an individuals right to choose. To a democrat there is no personal responsibility for one own actions so long as you can blame it on someone or something else.

Republicans want to protect you from “their” money. They are big business and view the American people as little more than slaves from a renewable resource.

Anyways, back to your first assessment of me. No, I don't like Saddam, nor do I view him as a War Hero. Anyone who takes pleasure in taking away human life deserves whatever fate eventually befalls them.

Bush Mocks Condemed Killer

Oh my God here you are again twisting facts and making [censored] up. Did you even bother to look at that sites URL? ((www.bushkills.com). These folks love to defend convicted murders that have been found guilty of their crimes by a jury of their peers. Convicted being the operative word here. Convicted means that they are guilty of the crime for which they were sent to death row. And you post a link to this site where they say Bush mocked a condemned killer as proof that Bush enjoys watching people die? Man talk about spin doctoring the facts, hell man, you really need to come up with something far more concrete than the ramblings of a bunch of folks who think putting condemned killers to death for there crime is a crime.

Offer us up some real proof. Present us with legitimate facts that support your contention that Bush takes pleasure in murder. Where is your actual evidence, do you have any news reports, videotape, and or printed articles from legitimate sites that prove that Bush has ever taken “pleasure” from the suffering of others? Most likely you do not so again, you are argument is meaningless.

The Taliban I can understand, considering they're the ones who took part in 9/11. But Saddam Hussein?!? I'll repeat this again: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Invading Iraq make the United States the bully in that conflict.

Really, you would call the US the bully? Wow, that is really impressive since Saddam continuously hindered the inspection process, violated the UN cease fire agreements, and deliberately manipulated the process of confirming that he had in fact complied with the terms of the cease fire. You might go as far as to say Saddam brought this upon himself for if he had complied with the UN resolutions and allowed open access to all locations that the inspectors had wanted, then perhaps the world would have believed him when he said that Iraq had now WMD’s. But he didn’t even though he was given chance after chance after chance to comply. Eventually the cycle of his games had to be broken. He was given the chance to leave Iraq and he refused. George Bush was quite clear in his televised statement to Saddam, “Leave Iraq or suffer military action.” He was given far more chances to step down and do the right thing than he deserved, and in the end he chose to put the Iraqi people in harms way. So your argument that Bush is the bully and a war criminal is utterly asinine. Besides, we did have our reasons for invading Iraq; one we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. Again this reason could have been abated only if Saddam would have complied with the UN inspectors, but he didn’t, and Hans Blix (sp) even stated that they, being the UN, had no proof that Saddam had destroyed his known WMD’s, and therefore more likely than not still had them. Poor Saddam, he fell victim of his own stupidity.
Secondly his out right criminal treatment of his own people had gone on for far to long. Taking the food and medicine that was earmarked for his people and selling them on the black market in order to build his personal wealth added to the misery of his people. He was also supporting terrorism in Israel and elsewhere in the world and that fact cannot be denied. Additionally, Saddam, the leader of a hostile country ordered the assignations of a former President of the United States. No in any other part of the world, that would have been considered an act of war.

?!?!?!?!?!?!?! "Armies of darkness"?!?!?!?!?! Atrocities, seriously, is someone pointing a gun to your head and making you type that, cause that's the only way a sane thinking person could come out with that.

I think he was attempting to interject humor into his statement.

Really, who sounds like a bully now..

I think you know what his point was. You are just twisting his words again. I read his post to mean that the US needed to prove to the Arab’s that we could beat one of their bullies at his own game if push came to shove.

And the message, was, what? "Do as we say or we're going to bomb your country into the stone age, and there's nothing the UN can do to stop it"? Or is it "Do as we say or you're population will have to look forward to some good old fashioned American justice (re: torture and dehumanizing at Abu Ghraib)?

Here we go again with your spin doctoring made up crap. The message was clear, and you know it. If they harbored or supported terrorism, we would act.

The United States will be stuck in Iraq for years because of the mess and corruption going on over there. As for "everywhere we go", the US won't be going anywhere else. Afterall, the current Administration got what it wanted: total control of Iraq's oil production and reserves.

Here we go again, one more trip on the Katchoo truth spinner. Dude where is your legitimate proof that all Bush wanted was “total control of Iraq’s oil production and reserves? Do you have any proof that can be supported by fact? And I am not at all sorry to say that half-baked assumptions from less than reputable web sites will not serve as proof. You’re going to have to prove this one the hard way, with true, real, and concrete proof.

What, you still think Bush took the US to Iraq to, what, free the poor Iraqi people?

<insert continuous laugh track here>

I think he does, and here you are condemning him for his support over the publicly acknowledge secondary reason for going into Iraq? Have you no shame? Where in the hell do you get off questioning Atrocities motive? What do you think we went into Iraq for? Just oil? How shallow are you man? My God man, do you honestly believe that the only reason the US went to war with Iraq was over oil? Holly ****t, that has to be the most crackpot conspiracy theory that I have ever heard in my life. I mean it is of epic proportions right up their with the notion that we never landed on the moon.

"Saddam was supporting terrorism by funding it"? Proof please.

He had given money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel for one.


“documents seized by Israel from Yasser Arafat's headquarters in Ramallah and other terrorist operational centers in the West Bank show in extraordinary detail how Iraq has been funding terror and mayhem against Israeli civilians during the Last two years.”
Link

“MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said. He said the information was given to U.S. intelligence officers and that U.S. President George W. Bush expressed his gratitude to a top Russian intelligence official.” Link

“Insight reviewed some 350 pages of Iraq-related documents in both English and Arabic, in addition to hundreds of pages more on financial aid from Saudi Arabia and direct military assistance from Syria and Iran. The evidence of their involvement in Palestinian terrorist operations is massive, direct and overwhelming.”

There are more, many more examples of his ties to terrorism, but this post is already way to long and I have grown tired of reading your post. From what I take from it, your post is nothing more than an instrument designed to incite a war of words. You list questionable web sites as your source material and attack Atrocities fact based evidence by taking it out of context and twisting his meaning. You referred to Atrocities as a ranting loon when in fact it was you who was doing the ranting.

If any one here is a loon, you’d already have my vote.

(This has just been opinion, and who knows, I could be wrong, but not today. )

[Will]

I don't have the time to read through everyone's points and respond to them in full at the moment, but I just had to point out a few things from CNC's post.

First, the endorsements and condemnations of Kerry by various veterans Groups... I consider all of them highly suspect. I've known quite a few war veterans, and one thing nearly all of them had in common was the tendency to exagerrate EVERYTHING they say, even more so when it comes to war stories. Do I think Kerry is a war hero? No, but then again, he actually went to Vietnam, which is more than can be said for Clinton or Bush. Do I think Kerry is a terrible person from all the veterans' stories? Definitely no, as it's already been shown in various media outlets that many of those veterans attacking Kerry didn't serve at the same time Kerry did, and those that were there at the same time, most had either no or very short-lived contact with him. It all sounds to me like one big grudge-match between various camps of veterans. There are probably several veterans that oppose Kerry simply for the fact that he turned war-protester once he returned from duty. And in the end, the whole mess just stinks of political tactics to discount any areas where Kerry could possibly have an advantage over Bush; especially when the possibility of a percieved advantage when it comes to commanding the military is just about all that Bush has when you look at some of the public opinion polls.

Second thing I wanted to point out was the cuts to defense spending that Kerry voted for. I would like everyone to take a careful look at those dates in CNC's points one through five. All after 1991. And when did the Cold War end, everybody? 1991? Right! I really don't see the problem in cutting military spending when all that needed to be done was maintain a portion of the current military hardware, since there was no huge imminent threat to the US. To attempt a very poor analogy, it's like having your house covered in rat traps already, and then after the rats nest kills the fattest rats and the rest run away and disappear from your house, you keep spending money on bait for the rat traps IN ADDITION TO BUYING EVEN MORE TRAPS. It is simply not necessary, the major threat is gone, and the current traps are more than sufficient for any mice that may want to take up residence. And this isn't even getting into the fact that most likely all of those bills had many other provisions in them that would also cause Kerry to vote against. Common, ugly political tactic; present bill where it states that "Every person has rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", then also bundle that with a provision that says people who make less than $10k a year have to pay for and attend poverty counseling sessions, or else pay a $1k/year fine. If someone votes against the bill, the fact that they voted against "Every person has rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is held against them, no mention of other undesirable provisions in the bill.

As for the Cold War years points, joining with Dukakis in a lobbying group dedicated to cutting military spending and the '72 campaign promise to do so, I see this as just a reaction to the huge amounts of spending that were already occuring. It doesn't look like he voted for it at all, and I don't have the time currently to look it up, so I will do so later or hope someone else will to clarify. But without the votes, it just seems to me that he's helping to give voice to dissenters, a vital part of a democracy.

And for the point on opposing missile defense, there are many people that oppose it for the simple fact that it hasn't been demonstrated to actually WORK yet. Money for research on missile defense is fine, and doesn't hinge on Congressional funding, but on the discretionary research budget of the DoD. Funding actual deployments of the technology that fails most of the time is ridiculous.

I'll try to get back to the rest of the stuff later today.

[Atrocities]

Becareful Will, CNC is a Democrate. And if he is voting for Bush this year, that means he's done his homework over the subjects. I have learned a long time ago to never argue with him over politics. Mocho bad mojo.

And honestly, everything is suspect. Katchoo proved that. No matter what your source of information is, someone can always find a another source to say exactly the oposite.

[Katchoo]

Atrocites:

Yeah, I probably did come off as hostile. For some reason I'm getting easily rilled up when discussing Politics lately, especially American Politics. So I apoligize for running at you with a proverbial hatchet.

Atrocities, the one key thing I wanted to know was why you considered Kerry a liar. If your reasons why are the same as CNC's reasons, then that's fine, but if there's another reason, one that I may not have heard about yet, then I would love to hear it. In the end my mind does open up; my stubborn side doesn't keep it closed all the time.



CNC:

Thank you for the links. Since you took the time to post them, I'll take the time to go through them.

[Will]

Ok, most of the rest of the points are highly inflamatory, and don't deal with the issues much, if at all. So I'll go ahead and ignore the rest of it.

And AT, I hold both the Republican and Democratic parties in utter contempt. It's just I usually have less of a problem with Democrats than I do with Republicans, since the idealogical community that I despise the most in the US (conservative Evangelical Christians, eg. those who love their faith so much they want everyone else to have that faith too... or else) tends to overwhelmingly go Republican, and they determine some of their more distasteful (in my view) policies. Most of the Republicans I know who don't put the "neo-conservative" labels on themselves would fit far better in the Libertarian Party, since the Republican leadership has unfortunately been taken over by the so-called neo-conservative elements.

Pretty much my view on the entire military aspect of the candidates is that Kerry has some experience commanding a very small number of soldiers (five at a time, I believe), and none commanding any significant number. Bush has the three and a half years he got as President, and I think he botched most of it.

Afghanistan was pretty much a necessity any way you look at it, he would have been crucified if there wasn't swift action there. Then I think there are two ways to look at Iraq: either it was chosen over other viable targets (such as N. Korea) because there were already other factors aiding in the war attempt (trouble with UN sanctions) as well as it's location close to other Middle-eastern states where it was suspected terrorists were harbored; or, it was chosen because it was a slightly easier target (again because of UN sanctions and the demolishment of the Iraqi military in Gulf War I), control over oil (auto-magically gain the support of probably 25% of the country there), personal grudge over the assasination plot against Daddy, or any of the other conspiracy theories that have floated around. While the conspiracy theory points ARE possible, the first option would have to be the primary reason for any sane person.

So, in my view, immediately after invading Afghanistan, the talk of invading Iraq that came up was Bush mistake #1. Everything before that was pretty much auto-pilot, it would have happened no matter who was President (my opinion, but I don't see how anyone could think differently). The military should have focused on cleaning out Afghanistan and ensuring a stable new government, then moved on to the next target.

Bush mistake #2 was not listening to his military advisors, who knew what they were doing, and sending fewer troops than recommended into Iraq. While the neutralization of Iraq was still swift, it could have gone smoother, and a larger force would have been able to prevent the next mistake...

With Bush mistake #3 being again not listening to his military advisors, and keeping an insufficient police force in Iraq after the "Mission Accomplished" fiasco (I can't see how anyone would think that Bush's little stunt of showing up on the carrier was a smart move, especially considering that it was premature). There were a lot of analogies used for the search for weapons about how Iraq was about the size of California, making searching the entire country difficult. Well, to borrow from that, imagine going into California, and removing all the local police, the CHP, the National Guard, etc., in the state, and replacing them with a vastly smaller force of "police troops", who patrolled mostly in the major cities and the routes between them. What would happen to California then? Well, very quickly, gangs would gain control of large parts of the cities, and small Groups of bandits would have free reign over the rural areas. Which is exactly what is happening in Iraq.

So, Bush has consistently overestimated the abilities of his armies, and consistently underestimated the abilities of his opponents, on his opponents' home ground. With that record, you will forgive me if I do not want to give him a chance to learn from his mistakes, I'll take chances with someone else.

[CNCRaymond]

I know that your post was not directed at me Will, but I would still like to respond to it if you don’t mind. (If you do mind, well then I apologize now for I am going to respond to it.)

I respect your point of view, and although I do agree with much of what you have to say, I do have some questions for you. I would like to know if you are a specialist on the military, their tactics and capabilities? Are you a political specialist and or annalist? Have you ever been in the white house, or have ever sat in attendance during any of the meetings between Bush and his military advisors? Are you privy to special information that the rest of us are not, or are all your points just your opinion and nothing more?

You see, unless you are in the loop, your out of it. And those out of the look love to speculate and arm chair quarterback the choices of those who are in the loop.

You speak of mistakes that Bush has made. Do you have any written proof from any legitimate source that can cohobate your statements? Are you privy to special information that the rest of us are not? Do you have confirmation that Bush has made mistakes from solid military sources that can be quoted and or verified? Or are you more likely or not basing your statements on your own best assumption of the facts at hand?

Facts at hand that are often not complete, lack vital information, and are most likely from subjective sources. Subjective sources being not directly from the source to which they are reportedly reporting on. More often than not they are little more than hearsay and rumor until cohobated. I see no cohabitation of your contention that Bush has made mistakes, therefore I can only conclude that these mistakes you speak of are little more than your opinion of Bush’s performance. However since you are most likely not a military tactical specialist, and are probably not a political annalist, and have no connection to the leaders of our armed forces, I can only surmise that your opinions that the President has made mistakes lack credibility and are little more than your personal beliefs based not on fact, but on personal observations which lack professional credibility. Welcome to the club.

As for the religious aspects of the Republican Party, I don't know, as I have never really paid much attention to them. All I do know is that they have been under attack lately by people who want the words “In God We Trust,” removed from our currency, and the words “Under God” censored from the Pledge of Allegiance. I have read that many people, namely lesbian woman’s Groups and teenage girls, oppose them because they have a strong stance against abortion. I have no facts to back this up, therefore I will not comment on it. I challenge you to do the same, and produce facts to back up your comments.

My “observations” of the Democratic party is that they fear personal responsibility and have historically voted to limit personal freedoms, write laws to protect us from our freedom of choice, and support the corrupt ambulance chasing actions of trial lawyers and their frivolous lawsuits.

Hell look at what they are doing over the Swift Vote adds right now. The Democrats, specifically Kerry's campaign, have dumped over sixty three million dollars worth of negative adds into the president’s lap, and he watered them without fuss. Now here comes the Swift Vote with there two hundred and fifty thousands dollars worth of ads and Mr. Kerry and his Democrat supporters are crying foul. I really just want to yell, "OH GIVE ME A BREAK MR. KERRY AND SUCK IT UP!"

You see the Kerry people love to dish it out, but can't stand to get it back. Do the math, sixty three million dollars to two hundred and fifty thousand. And now they want a court order to stop these vets right to voice their views. What is Kerry afraid of? Is he afraid that the truth will come out, and that truth will be that he manufactured situations and doctored his reports in order to get medals? I think that that is where this controversy is heading and he and his supporters know this so they want to use the courts, and make law, to prevent those who know the truth from ever telling any one of it. That is what the Democrats do. They whine and boo hoo like spoiled rotten children whenever things don't go their way. They lie, they sue, and they do whatever they can to make the light of truth to go away. Again, this is just based upon my personal observations that just so happen to be shared by a great deal of Americans.

Look at what Gore did in 2000; He sued over the results of the election. Fast-forward to day, and you see Kerry and his camp suing to stop adds that put him and his candidacy for the presidency in jeopardy.

As to the spin doctoring that these men, the Swift Vets, are making things up, well I ask you, why would they? What do they possibly hope to gain? Nothing, they are just American veterans who happened to have served with Kerry and they are telling us that he is not the right man for the job. And if history has ever taught us anything, its to listen to our vets.

The majority of our military and are veterans, as well as their families, support Bush. This tells me two things, one he has their confidence, and Kerry does not, and two, they would rather have a man of proven character in office over that of a man who's character is in question.

[Mephisto]

CNCRaymond said:
As to the spin doctoring that these men, the Swift Vets, are making things up, well I ask you, why would they? What do they possibly hope to gain? Nothing, they are just American veterans who happened to have served with Kerry and they are telling us that he is not the right man for the job.

Why would they? Maybe because they don't like Kerry? There are Veterans (also Swift) as far as I know that state the direct opposite of what the Swift Veterans tell you. Why would they make things up? Because they like Kerry and not Bush? Who is right I don't know but it is IMHO a bit far-fetched to say that either of the Vets are objective in their opinion, not subjective.

And if history has ever taught us anything, its to listen to our vets.

I'm no Amercian so can you give me an example where the Vets said something that was not done and that got awfully wrong? Anyway, just being someone who has been in a war doesn't make a person more reliable or wiser then other persons IMHO. I would trust my mother any day with her opinion but she surely isn't a veteran. I have seen my fair share of cruelty, suffering, blood and death as a Paramedic but this doesn't make me more reliable or wiser then other people who haven't. You see my point of view.

The majority of our military and are veterans, as well as their families, support Bush. This tells me two things, one he has their confidence, and Kerry does not, and two, they would rather have a man of proven character in office over that of a man who's character is in question.

Why is it that important that the President has the majority of vote from the military personal? How many people of the police, medical stuff, fire fighters and - most of all - persons who don't get their pay check from a government organisation - prefer Bush over Kerry and vice versa? Why is the job of these persons so important and - for example - not their social standing or something else? Why is the opinion of these persons more important then opinions of other persons? I'm just curios.

[Atrocities]

Ya know, M. Moore makes a compelling arguement with his movie. It does what it is designed to do very well. He points out facts that do make you think, that make you feel, that make you both angery and sad. If he were a lawyer, he would work for Insurance companies defending their guild as sin clients in court, twisting the facts to fit their case and ulitmately putting on the best case for his clients as he could. His movie does that, but it does it with the same intent an insurance lawyer putting on a case.

Now if you happen to sit on the jury, and all you are given is just the one side, Moores sides, you would do what any of us would, you would side with him.

Now if you happen to discover that there is more truth behind what you have been told, a lot more truth, then perhaps your decision would be based upon the whole big picture instead of only the left side of an incomplete frame.

Its a hard call, a very hard call, but in the end, it is a dog eat dog world, and the truth that you choose to believe in may ir may not be right or wrong, but it many seldom if ever be both.

Its a tough call, to vote between a liar, or a lair, both are in it for money, both are rich, and both are men of questionable character.

I will vote for Bush, not because of Iraq, or other, but because of the one thing that Kerry is against that Bush is for. A choice that I feel is more important to me than any other issue on the table. And that really has nothing to do with terrorism, economys, or wars.

In the end, it will be up to the electorial vote, not the popular vote, but the electorial vote, and they vote the way they are paid to. God help us. (Subjective belief, one that may or may not be accurate.)

Its time to make a choice, and each of us know that we will make the right one for us. Lets just hope that in the end, history will show that we chose wisely but it probably won't.

No I am not a big Micheal Moore fan, oh hell, I hate the fat bastard, but the truth is, his movie, although highly subjective and one sided, is worth seeing. Not for its anti Bush sentaments, but for its hidden, all though not dilibrately, story that war is a bad bad thing paid for by lives, human lives.

To that end, I stand corrected on my opinion, although I disagree with the movies one sided view of Bush, his administration, and the war, I can understand why it has earned the respect of many. I do not respect M. Moore, but I cannot argue with his film making genius. He would make a fine defense lawyer and or prosecutor. If only Californa had had him as their prosecutor on the O.J. case.

[Will]

To respond, no, I am not a "specialist" in either politics or military strategy or tactics. Just because I'm not a specialist doesn't deny me an informed opinion on the subject, and most of the information I've seen points to arrogance and overconfidence on the part of the civilian leadership of the military in the Bush Administration. Much of what I know about the military comes from my grandfather (a WWII and Korean War Army veteran) and my father (served in the Navy as a lab tech, stayed in San Diego for entire term of service). What I do know is that the top generals in the armed forces were asking for more troops to help out in Iraq, and the civilian leadership of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et. al., who believed our military to be invincible, denied the extra forces.

I'm really tired at the moment (it's 3:30am local time), so the following google (searched 'military strategy bush generals iraq') links haven't been checked up on much, but at a cursory glance they seem fairly legitimate except for the Last one:
CBS, Gen. Zinni
Washington Post, dissention in senior ranks
Newsweek, President must command
Sun Tzu & Iraq War

On to the rest of it...

Religious aspects: it is far more than "lesbian woman’s Groups and teenage girls" opposing the assult on Roe v. Wade by the religious conservative elements of the Republican Party, and to me the former group you mentioned smacks of the predjudice so prevalant among some Republicans (I know it's a generalization on your part, I hope you don't acually believe that it's a problem with the "queers"). The argument against "In God we Trust" and "under God" in the Pledge do have some merit, as they were only put in to differentiate the US from the "godless Commies" during the Cold War, and it is very close to a government endorsement of religion. Right now, the Supreme Court has decided that it is enough that "God" could concievably cover a wide range of religious beliefs, and thus doesn't imply government endorsement of a specific religion; there are some that say government endorsement of ANY religion at all is going too far, and thus they want the words removed (among the Groups wanting this is Americans United for Seperation of Church and State, headed by, I believe, a reverend). Personally, I don't have a problem with it as long as the words aren't forced (ie, requiring kids to recite, etc), and that's already not legal. But the other major issue that the religious conservatives have been piping up about is homosexual unions. I have yet to hear an argument against this that doesn't in some way appeal to a religious doctorine, and if you can point me to one that doesn't, I would be very appreciative.

Democrats, fearing personal responsibility, etc, etc... well, if it hasn't already been made clear, I don't exactly like the Democrats either; I just usually prefer them to Republicans because they tend to be "progressive". But I can't believe that you think the Republicans are for personal freedoms after the PATRIOT Act, Republicans pushing a second Version of said act, proposals for a constitutional amendment banning homosexual unions, national ID cards and databases, CAPPS I and II... the Republicans are just as Big Government and restricting of freedom as the Democrats, they just do it in different areas of life. You want a party that is for personal freedom AND personal responsibility, go Libertarian (I did).

The Swift Boat veteran ads... I don't know of any credible source that is actually defending the slander in those ads. I mean, how many of those veterans actually did serve with John Kerry (in the sense that most Americans would interpret serve, as in they knew Kerry in Vietnam, not they were in Asia at the same time he was)? I think it was two. And the doctor who "treated" Kerry, but is not mentioned anywhere in the military medical records for Kerry's injuries. The anti-Bush ads at least had some facts behind them, the swift boat ads were just a bunch of old guys with a grudge in my view. Which is why I said that I think all the veterans Groups endorsements and condemnations are highly suspect. I don't believe them one way or the other, they're too biased. And the veterans in America are largely split when it comes to Bush or Kerry, and I get the distinct impression (especially from my grandfather) that most veterans don't like either candidate, they only dislike one more than the other.

[Phoenix-D]

You want some 'real' evil doers, AT? Try this.

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/?q=node/view/78

Summary: the central vote-counting program used by 30 states has a intentional backdoor. Anyone with knowledge of it and access to the machine can change the vote counts. This isn't a bug, it isn't a security flaw. Its a built in fraud subroutine.