John F. Kerry

[Alfred]

By HOWIE CARR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email Archives
Print Reprint



February 5, 2004 -- BOSTON

ONE of the surest ways to get the phones ringing on any Massachusetts talk-radio show is to ask people to call in and tell their John Kerry stories. The phone lines are soon filled, and most of the stories have a common theme: our junior senator pulling rank on one of his constituents, breaking in line, demanding to pay less (or nothing) or ducking out before the bill arrives.

The tales often have one other common thread. Most end with Sen. Kerry inquiring of the lesser mortal: "Do you know who I am?"

And now he's running for president as a populist. His first wife came from a Philadelphia Main Line family worth $300 million. His second wife is a pickle-and-ketchup heiress.

Kerry lives in a mansion on Beacon Hill on which he has borrowed $6 million to finance his campaign. A fire hydrant that prevented him and his wife from parking their SUV in front of their tony digs was removed by the city of Boston at his behest.

The Kerrys ski at a spa the widow Heinz owns in Aspen, and they summer on Nantucket in a sprawling seaside "cottage" on Hurlbert Avenue, which is so well-appointed that at a recent fund-raiser, they imported porta-toilets onto the front lawn so the donors wouldn't use the inside bathrooms. (They later claimed the decision was made on septic, not social, considerations).

It's a wonderful life these days for John Kerry. He sails Nantucket Sound in "the Scaramouche," a 42-foot Hinckley powerboat. Martha Stewart has a similar boat; the no-frills model reportedly starts at $695,000. Sen. Kerry bought it new, for cash.



Every Tuesday night, the local politicians here that Kerry elbowed out of his way on his march to the top watch, fascinated, as he claims victory in more primaries and denounces the special interests, the "millionaires" and "the overprivileged."

"His initials are JFK," longtime state Senate President William M. Bulger used to muse on St. Patrick's Day, "Just for Kerry. He's only Irish every sixth year." And now it turns out that he's not Irish at all.

But in the parochial world of Bay State politics, he was never really seen as Irish, even when he was claiming to be (although now, of course, he says that any references to his alleged Hibernian heritage were mistakenly put into the Congressional Record by an aide who apparently didn't know that on his paternal side he is, in fact, part-Jewish).

Kerry is, in fact, a Brahmin - his mother was a Forbes, from one of Massachusetts' oldest WASP families. The ancestor who wed Ralph Waldo Emerson's daughter was marrying down.

At the risk of engaging in ethnic stereotyping, Yankees have a reputation for, shall we say, frugality. And Kerry tosses around quarters like they were manhole covers. In 1993, for instance, living on a senator's salary of about $100,000, he managed to give a total of $135 to charity.

Yet that same year, he was somehow able to scrape together $8,600 for a brand-new, imported Italian motorcycle, a Ducati Paso 907 IE. He kept it for years, until he decided to run for president, at which time he traded it in for a Harley-Davidson like the one he rode onto "The Tonight Show" set a couple of months ago as Jay Leno applauded his fellow Bay Stater.

Of course, in 1993 he was between his first and second heiresses - a time he now calls "the wandering years," although an equally apt description might be "the freeloading years."

For some of the time, he was, for all practical purposes, homeless. His friends allowed him into a real-estate deal in which he flipped a condo for quick resale, netting a $21,000 profit on a cash investment of exactly nothing. For months he rode around in a new car supplied by a shady local Buick dealer. When the dealer's ties to a congressman who was later indicted for racketeering were exposed, Kerry quickly explained that the non-payment was a mere oversight, and wrote out a check.

In the Senate, his record of his constituent services has been lackluster, and most of his colleagues, despite their public support, are hard-pressed to list an accomplishment. Just last fall, a Boston TV reporter ambushed three congressmen with the question, name something John Kerry has accomplished in Congress. After a few nervous giggles, two could think of nothing, and a third mentioned a baseball field, and then misidentified Kerry as "Sen. Kennedy."

Many of his constituents see him in person only when he is cutting them in line - at an airport, a clam shack or the Registry of Motor Vehicles. One talk-show caller a few weeks back recalled standing behind a police barricade in 2002 as the Rolling Stones played the Orpheum Theater, a short limousine ride from Kerry's Louisburg Square mansion.

The caller, Jay, said he began heckling Kerry and his wife as they attempted to enter the theater. Finally, he said, the senator turned to him and asked him the eternal question.

"Do you know who I am?"

"Yeah," said Jay. "You're a gold-digger."

John Kerry. First he looks at the purse.

Howie Carr, a Boston Herald columnist and syndicated talk-radio host, has been covering John Kerry for 25 years.

[Alfred]

Oooops, sorry. Started another thread by accident.

[Alfred]

Sen. Kerry, the "noble statesman" and "highly decorated Vietnam vet" of today, is a far cry from Kerry, the radical, hippie-like leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) in the early 1970s.
Soon after Kerry, as a Navy Lieutenant (junior grade) commanding a Swift boat in Vietnam, was awarded the Silver Star, he used an obscure Navy regulation to leave Vietnam and his crew before completing his tour of duty.
After returing home, he quit the Navy early and changed the color of his politics to become a leader of VVAW. Kerry wasted no time organizing opposition in the United States against the efforts of his former buddies still ducking communist bullets back in Vietnam.
Kerry participated in the so-called Winter Soldier Investigation where his fellow protesters accused his fellow GIs of war crimes.
Kerry's betrayal of American prisoners of war, his blatant disrespect for the families of our missing in action, Vietnam veterans, the military, his support for communist Vietnam and his waffling over the issue of use of force in Iraq proves he is a self promoting Chameleon Senator who cannot be relied on to protect the best interests of the United States.
Although Kerry voted to support military intervention in Iraq he is now claiming that he only approved the threat of force by the United States.
The Constitution for the United States of America declares: "The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."
Read the following and decide for yourself if you trust this man to be our Commander-in-Chief.

Kerry graduated from Yale University in 1966.
Like John F. Kennedy (who served on a World War II patrol boat, PT 109), Kerry sought to do the same. He enlisted in the Navy and became an officer.
After training, Kerry volunteered for Vietnam. He served a relatively uneventful six months, far removed from combat, from December 1967 to June 1968, in the electrical department aboard the USS Gridley, a guided-missile frigate that supported aircraft carriers in the Gulf of Tonkin.
His ship returned to its Long Beach, Calif., port on June 6, 1968. Five months later, Kerry went back to Vietnam, securing an assignment as "swift boat" skipper.
Kerry commanded his first swift boat, No. 44, from December 1968 through January 1969.
While in command of Swift Boat 44, Kerry and crew operated without prudence in a Free Fire Zone, carelessly firing at targets of opportunity racking up a number of enemy kills and some civilians. His body count included-- a woman, her baby, a 12 year-old boy, an elderly man and several South Vietnamese soldiers.
"It is one of those terrible things, and I'll never forget, ever, the sight of that child," Kerry later said about the dead baby. "But there was nothing that anybody could have done about it. It was the only instance of that happening."
Kerry said he was appalled that the Navy's ''free fire zone'' policy in Vietnam put civilians at such high risk.
Kerry experienced his first intense combat action on Dec. 2, 1968. He was slightly wounded on his arm, earning his first Purple Heart.
In late January 1969, Kerry joined a five-man crew on swift boat No. 94 completing 18 missions over 48 days, almost all of them in the Mekong Delta.
Kerry earned his second Purple Heart after sustaining a minor shrapnel wound in his left thigh on Feb. 20, 1969.

On February 28, 1969:
When Kerry's Patrol Craft Fast 94 received a B-40 rocket shot from shore, he hot dogged his craft beaching it in the center of the enemy position. To his surprise, an enemy soldier sprang up from a hole not ten feet from Patrol Craft 94 and fled.
The boat's machine gunner hit and wounded the fleeing Viet Cong as he darted behind a hootch. The twin .50s gunner fired at the Viet Cong. He said he "laid 50 rounds" into the hootch before Kerry leaped from the boat and dashed in to administer a "coup de grace" to the wounded Viet Cong. Kerry returned with the B-40 rocket and launcher.
Kerry was given a Silver Star for his actions.
When later asked about the severity of the wounds, Kerry said that one of them cost him about two days of service, and that the other two did not interrupt his duty. "Walking wounded," as Kerry put it.

In April 1969, having engineered an early transfer out of the conflict because of his three minor wounds, John Kerry left his crew behind and returned home to a sweet assignment as an admiral's aide.

In October 1969, Kerry began to associate with anti-war protestor, Adam Walinsky, a former speech writer for Robert F. Kennedy.
On Jan. 3, 1970, Kerry requested that his superior, Rear Admiral Walter F. Schlech, Jr., grant him an early discharge from the Navy so that he could run for Congress.
Kerry, a decorated veteran who seemed to be a clone of former President John F. Kennedy, right down to the military service on a patrol boat made a 1970 bid for Congress in Massachusetts' Third District.
Three-months later, when it became clear his opponent would get the Democratic Party nomination, Kerry dropped out.


http://www.usvetdsp.com/jf_kerry.htm

[Kev]

CAMPAIGN DRAMA ROCKS DEMOCRATS: KERRY FIGHTS OFF MEDIA PROBE OF RECENT ALLEGED INFIDELITY, RIVALS PREDICT RUIN (http://www.drudgereport.com/mattjk1.htm)





Teresa Heinz Kerry: Financier of the Radical Left (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12187)

:D :D

Tides has also given grant money to the Council for American Islamic Relations. Purportedly a “Muslim civil rights group,” CAIR is in fact one of the leading anti-anti-terrorism organizations within the Wahhabi Lobby. CAIR regularly opposes and demonizes American efforts to fight terrorism, claiming, for instance, that Homeland Security measures are responsible for an undocumented surge in “hate crimes.”

[Kev]

Further reading shows that Matt Drudge who claims to have the world exclusive, was a week late and it was all revealed on this web blog

http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/000780.html

[Kev]

Matt Drudge was also the news source that broke the Clinton/Lewinsky story


and I thought some of you would be tickled pink by this news as i was :(





:)

[Alfred]

Subject: FW: John Kerry

I thought you would be interested in this email from Ed
Morrison and his brother Mike. Ed worked at Triad in the early days and is ex-military. His brother Mike has some interesting first hand experiences in the same area and at the time John Kerry served in Nam. Bill

Subject: Fwd: John Kerry

A VERY interesting article by my brother, Mike (Morrison), who won a
bronze star in Vietnam. I hope this one becomes public.


Bigger things. I've long thought that John Kerry's war record was
phoney. We talked about it when you were here. It's mainly been instinct because, as you know, nobody who claims to have seen the action he does would so shamelessly flaunt it for political gain. So I spent a couple of hours on the internet yesterday, made a bunch of notes, and I'm sending them as an attachment. In addition, look at the website 25thaviation.org/johnkerry/id15htm. Somebody went to a lot of trouble to chronicle Kerry's checkered career.

I was in the Delta shortly after he left. I know that area well. I
know the operations he was involved in well. I know the tactics and the doctrine used. I know the equipment. Although I was attached to
CTF-116 (PBRs) I spent a fair amount of time with CTF-115 (swift boats), Kerry's command.

Here are my problems and suspicions:

(1) Kerry was in-country less than four months and collected, a
Bronze Star, a Silver Star and three purple hearts. I never heard of
anybody with any outfit I worked with (including SEAL One, the Sea Wolves, Riverines and the River Patrol Force) collecting that much hardware so fast, and for such pedestrian actions. The Swifts did a commendable job. But that duty wasn't the worst you could draw. They operated only along the coast and in the major rivers (Bassac and Mekong). The rough stuff in the hot areas was mainly handled by the smaller, faster PBRs.

(2) Three Purple Hearts but no limp. All injuries so minor that no
time lost from duty. Amazing luck. Or he was putting himself in for
medals every time he bumped his head on the wheel house hatch? Combat on the boats was almost always at close range. You didn't have minor wounds. At least not often. Not three times in a row. Then he used the three purple hearts to request a trip home eight months before the end of his tour.
Fishy.

(3) The details of the event for which he was given the Silver Star
make no sense at all. Supposedly, a B-40 was fired at the boat and
missed. Charlie jumps up with the launcher in his hand, the bow gunner knocks him down with the twin 50, Kerry beaches the boat, jumps off, shoots Charlie, and retreives the launcher. If true, he did everything wrong.
(a) Standard procedure when you took rocket fire was to put your
stern to the action and go balls to the wall. A B-40 has the ballistic
integrity of a frisbie after about 25 yards, so you put 50 yards or so between you and the beach and begin raking it with your .50's.
(b) Did you ever see anybody get knocked down with a .50 caliber
round and get up? The guy was dead or dying. The rocket launcher was empty. There was no reason to go after him (except if you knew he was no danger to you just flopping around in the dust during his last few seconds on earth, and you wanted some “daring-do” in your after-action report). And we didn't shoot wounded people. We had rules against that, too.
(c) Kerry got off the boat. This was a major breach of standing
procedures. Nobody on a boat crew ever got off a boat in a hot
area. EVER!
The reason was simple. If you had somebody on the beach your
boat was defenseless. It couldn't run and it couldn' t return fire. It was stupid and it put his crew in danger. He should have been relieved and reprimanded. I never heard of any boat crewman ever leaving a
boat during or after a firefight.

Something is fishy.

Here we have a JFK wannabe (the guy Halsey wanted to court
martial for carelessly losing his boat and getting a couple people killed by running across the bow of a Jap destroyer) who is hardly in Vietnam long enough to get good tan, collects medals faster than Audie Murphy in a job where lots of medals weren't common, gets sent home eight months early, requests separation from active duty a few months after that so he can run for Congress, finds out war heros don't sell well in Massachsetts in 1970 so reinvents himself as Jane Fonda, throws his ribbons in the dirt with the cameras running to jump start his political career, gets “Stillborn Pell” to invite him to address Congress and Bobby Kennedy's speechwriter to do the heavy lifting, winds up in the Senate himself a few years later, votes against every major defense bill, says the CIA is irrelevant after the Wall came down, votes against the Gulf War, a big mistake since that
turned out well, decides not to make the same mistake twice so votes for invading Iraq, but oops, that didn't turn out so well so he now says he really didn't mean for Bush to go to war when he voted to allow him to go to war.

I'm real glad you or I never had this guy covering out flanks in
Vietnam. I sure don't want him as Commander in Chief. I hope that somebody from CTF-115 shows up with some facts challenging Kerry's Vietnam record. I know in my gut it's wildy inflated. And fishy.

Keep smiling,

[Alfred]

This is from a friend of mine who drove similar boats in that same time period.

I've been hearing about this from other vets, and I agree Kerry's story seems, to be charitable, fanciful. First of all, the Swift boats were not used much at all on the rivers for several reasons. They were slower than the PBR's, drew way too much water (about 4' 6" with a full load) compared to the PBR's 18", and had a tall silhouette which made them easy targets. When Swifts did venture into the rivers, they stayed pretty much in the middle of the wider channels. Beaching one was considered not very smart because, with their great draft, they could easily become stuck in the mud, and would be sitting ducks. Service on the Swift's was miserable, boring, and uncomfortable, and their crews did occasionally get injured or killed, but THREE Purple Hearts in less than four months pushes the limits of credibility. As for Kerry's Silver Star, well, on PBR's NOBODY would ever leave the boat during a firefight, especially for something stupid like capturing a rocket launcher. A Silver Star seems rather excessive for the stunt Kerry supposedly pulled, especially when it unnecessarily endangered not only himself, but the boat and crew, as well. Kerry's story sounds odd, to say the least. You yourself know that someone knocked down by a .50 caliber round is not going to jump up again

As you and I know, career officers are always anxious to get combat experience on their records to enhance their future prospects and it is not unknown for officers to put each other in for medals on the slightest pretext as a "professional courtesy." There were a few "hot doggers", guys trying to build a reputation as warriors, or get their names in the paper, in every outfit; it would certainly appear that Kerry was involved in something similar during his four months in Nam.

I haven't read his book, "Tour of Duty", but what I have heard about it from other vets is that it's full of BS about what he supposedly witnessed or heard about from other Americans in Viet Nam. I do know that his testimony to Congress as a Viet Nam Veteran Against the War, was full of the lies and propaganda the Left put out about "atrocities" committed by our men over there. As someone who was there for at least four months, he would have had to know that was false, so I know he perjured himself before Congress. Personally, I can never forgive that or the fact that he consorted with a traitor like Hanoi Jane.

[Sana]

Originally posted by Kev
Matt Drudge was also the news source that broke the Clinton/Lewinsky story


and I thought some of you would be tickled pink by this news as i was :(





:)




~Hey I love reading the Drudgereport.com, I also love BBC, ABC, Haretz Daily, Sauditimes, and Fox News. Just to name a few.~

[Kev]

JOHN KERRY:

I dont know if this is possibly shades to come of Kerrys campaign but on the TV Show "Inside Edition" they have just shown a photo of Jane Fonda and John Kerry together and the photographer himself is saying that this photo is doctored, and explains how easy it is to doctor one.

If memory serves me right, I have seen I believe a couple of photos of the two of them either together, or one with him sitting a few rows behind her?

Anyway, if anyone in a different time zone than I here in Toronto can catch this show at 7PM, you will see for yourself this pathetic attempt I assume it is to take the heat of his association with Jane Fonda.


Fake Photo of John Kerry & Jane Fonda Together: (http://)

When a photo of Presidential hopeful John Kerry and anti-war activist Jane Fonda emerged, some thought it could be a damaging blow to his campaign. But the photo was a fake and Inside Edition shows you how you can’t believe everything you see.

[Kev]

Great Reading About Kerry (http://www.danegerus.com/weblog/Right.asp?svSubject=JFKerry)


There is a very funny opener on this weblog:
Colonic Conservatism for those Who's Ignorance Tilts Left

:D

Kerry: Working Both Sides Of The Fence (http://powerlineblog.com/)

Working both sides of the fence

Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe finds that John Kerry's position[s] regarding Israel's security fence are a further manifestation of his inability to take a consistent stand and his general lack of political courage. Jacoby notes:

"Last week the Jerusalem Post reported that Kerry strongly defended Israel's controversial security fence as 'a legitimate act of self defense.' He said 'the fence only exists in response to the wave of terror attacks against Israel,' and insisted that the International Court of Justice in the Hague has no authority to pass judgment on it. Yet just a few months ago, Kerry gave every indication of being firmly against it. 'We don't need another barrier to peace,' he told the Arab American Institute in October. 'Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israelis' security over the long term, increase the hardships to the Palestinian people, and make the process of negotiating an eventual settlement that much harder.'"

Jacoby concludes that "this may be the first time that a politician has literally come down on both sides of the fence. It can't be a comfortable position. But it's the one in which Kerry can all too often be found."


This article however, IMO is the BEST ONE yet about Kerry!
:confused:

Kerry's Dirty Diplomacy (http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6230)


Special Report
Kerry's Dirty Diplomacy
By George Neumayr
Published 3/2/2004 12:07:27 AM


To most sentient observers, Aristide is an obvious Marxist crook and thug. To John Kerry, he is "Father Aristide." That's what Kerry quaintly called the brutal strongman in a 1994 New York Times op-ed, even though Aristide had been sacked from the Salesian order several years earlier after the Vatican grew weary of his preaching in favor of Marxist violence.

In that 1994 op-ed, Kerry played the apologist for Aristide. "Father Aristide may not be perfect (what elected leader is?), but we have never discarded whole democracies because of an individual leader," Kerry wrote. "Moreover, he has already demonstrated his willingness to compromise, agreeing to share power with a broad-based coalition with safeguards for everyone's rights."

Here Kerry was trying to pass off a thug as a conciliatory priest. Aristide was a known inciter of "necklacing," the practice of throwing flaming tires around opponents' heads. He had compiled a voluminous record as an abuser of human rights. Kerry, nevertheless, had a weakness for the defrocked priest.

A dissenting Catholic himself, Kerry sympathized with Aristide's attempts to turn Catholicism into communism under the guise of "liberation theology." Which explains why Kerry even to this day whines about conservative criticism of Aristide's liberation theology. Last week Kerry accused the Bush administration of "a theological and ideological hatred" of Aristide. "It goes back to the liberation theology that he preached earlier in his career," Kerry said. "It's part of the right's attitude about Aristide."

Joseph Kennedy, another dissenting Catholic with a soft spot for liberation theologians, invited Aristide to his 1993 wedding in Massachusetts. Kerry was at the wedding too. Kennedy, then a Congressman, must also have regarded Aristide as still "Father Aristide," as he had the exiled thug deliver one of the wedding readings, according to the Boston Globe.

How did these Democrats manage to overlook Aristide's abuses? In part, because they were too busy looking at his skin color. Kerry ever so subtly played the race card in Aristide's favor in his New York Times op-ed by writing of "deep-seated hatreds between the small, wealthy ruling mulatto elite, which is in league with the military, and the poor, largely uneducated, which make up 90 percent of the population." In other words: Aristide isn't part of that odious "ruling mulatto elite" but a champion of the black underclass, so America has a duty to restore him to power.

Kerry, with great urgency, wrote about the need to restore Aristide to power through U.S. military might -- a stance that appears ludicrous in light of his go-slow diplomacy over the last few years. Was he pandering to the vocal Haitian-American community in Boston? For whatever reason Kerry was in rush-to-war mode on behalf of Aristide, writing that "nothing has worked -- not diplomacy, not tighter sanctions, not a partial naval embargo." Kerry wasn't going to stand for "Haiti's military thugs," who "continue to thumb their noses at the United States." He worried that "our credibility as a world leader is at stake."

Haiti's military leaders, Kerry wrote, "must now be put on notice that we're prepared to take all steps necessary to restore democracy and prove to all renegade elements that we mean what we say." He waived away objections by saying that diplomacy without force is feckless: "Failure to threaten to use force now would significantly increase the probability that diplomacy will fail. In the end, we'd wind up where we are today: unprepared and with a weak hand." He even fended off the "prospect of a Vietnam-like quagmire" by suggesting that after propping up Aristide Haiti wouldn't be America's problem anymore. The international community would nurse Haiti along: "The presence of a neutral, civilized power will allow Haiti to rebuild its political institutions, its schools and its health system, and provide some cooling-off time."

"Father Aristide," no pacifist himself, must have been pleased with this advocacy, especially since Kerry, along with every other Senator briefed by the CIA, knew of his established reputation as a near-demented rabble-rouser. Even as Kerry was writing about "military thugs" in need of an American beating, the CIA (as news reports from that period show) was providing the Senate with evidence that Aristide was a thug himself who, if returned to power, would wreak havoc on Haiti again.

With typical gall, Kerry now blames a crisis he helped create with his pro-Aristide advocacy on Bush. Did Bush call for the restoration of a known inciter of necklacing to power in Haiti? No, Kerry did.

George Neumayr is managing editor of The American Spectator.





A Leftist specialty: seeing nuances where there are none - seeing 'shades of gray' where that is only black and white

[RichardP]

Originally posted by Kev
Great Reading About Kerry (http://www.danegerus.com/weblog/Right.asp?svSubject=JFKerry)


There is a very funny opener on this weblog:
Colonic Conservatism for those Who's Ignorance Tilts Left

:D

Kerry: Working Both Sides Of The Fence (http://powerlineblog.com/)




This article however, IMO is the BEST ONE yet about Kerry!
:confused:

Kerry's Dirty Diplomacy (http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6230)






A Leftist specialty: seeing nuances where there are none - seeing 'shades of gray' where that is only black and white

John Kerry can do more flip-flops than a trained seal. One minute he is all for the President’s war on terror; the next, he’s sounds like the appeaser that he really is. The media will crown him as the upcoming Messiah… or a Renaissance, the ‘new improved’ Camelot. The mass-media loves Kerry; they bubble with orgasmic delight, when he wins a primary. No doubt, his military record is more than a tad stretching of the truth.
America has been looking for someone to fill J. F. Kennedy’s shoes for decades; Bubba Clinton was to be that man… cigars all around, folks, if we swallow this media hyperbole.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.zoa.org/pressrel2004/20040303a.htm


All Four of Kerry's Possible Candidates for U.S. Envoy
To Arab-Israeli Talks Are Biased Toward Arabs

NEW YORK- All four of the reported candidates for a future position of U.S. envoy to Arab-Israeli negotiations have records of pro-Arab bias, the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has warned.

The New York Times reported on March 1, 2004, that U.S. Senator John Kerry has mentioned former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and former Mideast envoy Dennis Ross as possible choices for the post. Previously Senator Kerry also named former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker as additional candidates.

* SANDY BERGER - IMPLICITLY JUSTIFIED ARAB VIOLENCE: Berger, who served as National Security Adviser in the Clinton administration, is remembered for his statements implicitly justifying Palestinian Arab violence against Israelis. In a speech he gave at Tel Aviv University on May 21, 2000, Berger said that Palestinian Arab violence was not only a "curse," but also "a blessing" because it might speed up the negotiating process. In a similar vein, Berger said before a meeting of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations on July 31, 2000, that "If there is no agreement, we may be sadder and bloodier, but then maybe they'll be prepared to make a deal." (Washington Times, Aug.4, 2000) Berger's remarks were strongly criticized by Jewish leaders, and sixteen Members of Congress signed a letter of protest.

* JAMES BAKER - "JEWS FORGET INSULTS AS SOON AS THEY SMELL CASH": His frequent public condemnations of Israel earned Baker a reputation as the most anti-Israel Secretary of State in U.S. history. In 1992, Baker even used a four-letter obscenity when referring to American Jews who disagreed with his pressure on Israel. Jerusalem Post editor David Bar-Illan revealed that Baker once remarked, "Don't worry, Jews remember the Holocaust, but they forget insults as soon as they smell cash." N.Y. Post, March 6, 1992)

* DENNIS ROSS - "HIS VISION OF PEACE RESTS ON PRESSURING ISRAEL": After serving as James Baker's right-hand man in the Bush administration, Ross became chief U.S. envoy to the Arab-Israeli talks in the Clinton administration. He frequently pressured Israel to make one-sided concessions and almost never criticized the Palestinian Arabs' constant violations of the Oslo accords. An investigative report in The New Republic (July 8, 1996) concluded that Ross's vision of a Mideast peace agreement "rested on pressuring Israel," and even after Baker left office, Ross "wound up executing Baker's anti-Israel agenda." In October 2003, Ross brought three officials of Yasir Arafat's terrorist Fatah movement to Washington, where he presented them as moderates and arranged for them to meet with Members of Congress and journalists.

* JIMMY CARTER - WAS "BUOYED BY THE INTIFADA": During his presidency, Carter frequently pressured and criticized Israel. After leaving the office, Carter continued to exhibit a strong pro-Arab bias. A 1998 book (The Unfinished Presidency) by Prof. Douglas Brinkley, director of the Eisenhower Center at the University of New Orleans, concerning Carter's post-presidential activities, revealed that Carter was "buoyed by the Intifada [and] passed on to the Palestinians through Arafat, his congratulations" (p. 247); Carter privately believes "that the Israeli government ran an apartheid state" (p. 239); Carter claims that Yasir Arafat has been "unfairly maligned in the Western press" (p. 121); and Carter "drafted on his home computer the strategy and wording for a generic speech Arafat was to deliver soon for Western ears" (p. 341).

ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said: "For there to be any chance of facilitating a durable and meaningful peace, a U.S. envoy must have an appreciation of the importance of the Israel-America alliance so that the Arabs understand from the beginning that the U.S. will not join them in pressuring Israel for one-sided concessions. In addition, the U.S. envoy must recognize that the Palestinian Arabs have consistently violated all of the agreements they previously signed with Israel, and that the Palestinian Authority does not accept Israel's right to exist as demonstrated by its official maps, letterhead, and school textbooks, which show "Palestine" replacing all of Israel. None of these four candidates meet those basic criteria."

[Mediocrates]

But then on the other hand......


GEORGE WASHINGTON was the first President to write to a synagogue. In 1790
he addressed separate letters to the Touro Synagogue in Newport, RI, and to
Mikveh Israel Congregation in Savannah, GA, and a joint letter to
Congregation Beth Shalom, Richmond, VA, Mikveh Israel Philadelphia, Beth
Elohim, Charleston, S. C., and Shearith Israel, New York. His letters are
an eloquent expression and hope for religious harmony and endure as
indelible statements of the most fundamental tenets of American democracy.

THOMAS JEFFERSON was the first President to appoint a Jew to a Federal
post. In 1801 he named Reuben Etting of Baltimore as US Marshall for Maryland.

JAMES MADISON was the first President to appoint a Jew to a diplomatic
post. He sent Mordecai M. Noah to Tunis from 1813 to 1816.

MARTIN VAN BUREN was the first President to order an American consul to
intervene on behalf of Jews abroad. In 1840 he instructed the U.S. consul
in Alexandria, Egypt to use his good offices to protect the Jews of
Damascus who were under attack because of a false blood ritual accusation.

JOHN TYLER was the first President to nominate a U.S. consul to Palestine.
Warder Cresson, a Quaker convert to Judaism who established a pioneer
Zionist colony, received the appointment in 1844.

FRANKLIN PIERCE was the first and probably the only President whose name
appears on the charter of a synagogue. Pierce signed the Act of Congress in
1857 that amended the laws of the District of Columbia to enable the
incorporation of the city's first synagogue, the Washington Hebrew
Congregation.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN was the first President to make it possible for rabbis to
serve as military chaplains. He did this by signing the 1862 Act of
Congress which changed the law that had previously barred all but Christian
clergymen from the chaplainry. Lincoln was also the first, and happily the
only President who was called upon to revoke an official act of
anti-Semitism by the U.S. government. It was Lincoln who cancelled General
Ulysses S. Grant's "Order No. 11" expelling all Jews from Tennessee from
the district controlled by his armies during the Civil War. Grant always
denied personal responsibility for this act attributing it to his subordinate.

ULYSSES S. GRANT was the first President to attend a synagogue service
while in office. When Adas Israel Congregation in Washington D.C. was
dedicated in 1874, Grant and all members of his Cabinet were present.

RUTHERFORD B. HAYES was the first President to designate a Jewish
ambassador for the stated purpose of fighting anti-Semitism. In 1870, he
named Benjamin Peixotto Consul-General to Rumania. Hays also was the first
President to assure a civil service employee her right to work for the
Federal government and yet observe theSabbath. He ordered the employment
of a Jewish woman who had been denied a position in the Department of the
Interior because of her refusal to work on Saturday.

THEODORE ROOSEVELT was the first President to appoint a Jew to a
presidential cabinet. In 1906 he named Oscar S. Straus Secretary of
Commerce and Labor. Theodore Roosevelt was also the first President to
contribute his own funds to a Jewish cause. In 1919, when he received the
Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts while President to settle the
Russo-Japanese War, Roosevelt contributed part of his prize to the National
Jewish Welfare Board.

WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT was the first President to attend a Seder while in
office. In 1912, when he visited Providence, RI, he participated in the
family Seder of Colonel Harry Cutler, first president of the National Jewish
Welfare Board, in the Cutler home on Glenham Street.

WOODROW WILSON was the first President to nominate a Jew, Louis Dembitz
Brandeis, to the United States Supreme Court. Standing firm against great
pressure to withdraw the nomination, Wilson insisted that he knew no one
better qualified by judicial temperament as well as legal and social
understanding, confirmation was finally voted by the Senate on June 1,
1916. Wilson was also the first President to publicly endorse a national
Jewish philanthropic campaign. In a letter to Jacob Schiff, on November 22,
1917, Wilson called for wide support of the United Jewish Relief Campaign
which was raising funds for European War relief.

WARREN HARDING was the first President to sign a Joint Congressional
Resolution endorsing the Balfour Declaration and the Palestine Mandate
supporting the establishment in Palestine of a national Jewish home for the
Jewish people. The resolution was signed September 22, 1922.

CALVIN COOLIDGE was the first President to participate in the dedication of
a Jewish community institution that was not a house of worship. On May 3,
1925, he helped dedicate the cornerstone of the Washington, D.C. Jewish
Community center.

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT was the first President to be given a Torah as a
gift. He received a miniature Torah from Young Israel and another that had
been rescued from a burning synagogue in Czechoslovakia. [Note: "burning
synagogue in Czechoslovakia" may be redundant. Burning synagogues in
Czechoslovakia used to be an Olympic sport. In fact, one of the torahs in
the Fort Collins synagogue was rescued from a burning synagogue in Prague,
buried in the ground for safe-keeping, then repurified and sent to London,
then here. - CHC] Both are now in the Roosevelt Memorial Library in Hyde
Park. The Roosevelt administration's failure to expand the existing refuge
quota system ensured that large numbers of Jews would ultimately become
some of the Holocaust's six million victims. Fifty-six years after
Roosevelt's death, the arguments continue over Roosevelt's response to the
Holocaust.

HARRY S. TRUMAN, on May 14, 1948, just eleven minutes after Israel's
proclamation of independence, was the first head of a government to
announce to the press that "the United Stated recognizes the provisional
government as the de facto authority of the new state of Israel." Truman
was also the first U.S. President to receive a president of Israel at the
White House - Chaim Weizman, in 1948 and an Ambassador from Israel - Eliahu
Elat in1948. With Israel staggering under the burdens of mass immigration
in 1951-1952, President Truman obtained from Congress close to $140 million
in loans and grants.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER was the first President to participate in a
coast-to-coast TV program sponsored by a Jewish organization. It was a
network show in 1954 celebrating the 300th anniversary of the American
Jewish community. On this occasion he said that it was one of the enduring
satisfactions of his life that he was privileged to lead the forces of the
free world which finally crushed the brutal regime in Germany, freeing the
remnant of Jews for a new life and hope in Israel.

JOHN F. KENNEDY named two Jews to his cabinet - Abraham Ribicoff as
Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, and Arthur Goldberg as
Secretary of Labor. Kennedy was the only President for whom a national
Jewish Award was named. The annual peace award of the Synagogue Council of
America was re-named the John F. Kennedy Peace Award after his
assassination in 1963.

JIMMY CARTER in a number of impassioned speeches stated his concern for
human rights and stressed the right of Russian Jews to emigrate. He is
credited with being the person responsible for the Camp David Accords.

GEORGE H.W. BUSH in 1985 as Vice President had played a personal role in
"Operation Joshua," the airlift which brought 10,000 Jews out of Ethiopia
directly to resettlement in Israel. Then, again in 1991, when Bush was
President, American help played a critical role in "Operation Solomon", the
escape of 14,000 more Ethiopian Jews. Most dramatically, Bush got to the
U.N. to revoke its 1975 "Zionism is Racism" resolution.

Consider the last two officeholders:

BILL CLINTON appointed more Jews to his cabinet than all of the previous
presidents put together.

George W. BUSH is the first president since Herbert Hoover who has no Jews
in his cabinet at all.

[RichardP]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
But then on the other hand......


GEORGE WASHINGTON was the first President to write to a synagogue. In 1790
he addressed separate letters to the Touro Synagogue in Newport, RI, and to
Mikveh Israel Congregation in Savannah, GA, and a joint letter to
Congregation Beth Shalom, Richmond, VA, Mikveh Israel Philadelphia, Beth
Elohim, Charleston, S. C., and Shearith Israel, New York. His letters are
an eloquent expression and hope for religious harmony and endure as
indelible statements of the most fundamental tenets of American democracy.

THOMAS JEFFERSON was the first President to appoint a Jew to a Federal
post. In 1801 he named Reuben Etting of Baltimore as US Marshall for Maryland.

JAMES MADISON was the first President to appoint a Jew to a diplomatic
post. He sent Mordecai M. Noah to Tunis from 1813 to 1816.

MARTIN VAN BUREN was the first President to order an American consul to
intervene on behalf of Jews abroad. In 1840 he instructed the U.S. consul
in Alexandria, Egypt to use his good offices to protect the Jews of
Damascus who were under attack because of a false blood ritual accusation.

JOHN TYLER was the first President to nominate a U.S. consul to Palestine.
Warder Cresson, a Quaker convert to Judaism who established a pioneer
Zionist colony, received the appointment in 1844.

FRANKLIN PIERCE was the first and probably the only President whose name
appears on the charter of a synagogue. Pierce signed the Act of Congress in
1857 that amended the laws of the District of Columbia to enable the
incorporation of the city's first synagogue, the Washington Hebrew
Congregation.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN was the first President to make it possible for rabbis to
serve as military chaplains. He did this by signing the 1862 Act of
Congress which changed the law that had previously barred all but Christian
clergymen from the chaplainry. Lincoln was also the first, and happily the
only President who was called upon to revoke an official act of
anti-Semitism by the U.S. government. It was Lincoln who cancelled General
Ulysses S. Grant's "Order No. 11" expelling all Jews from Tennessee from
the district controlled by his armies during the Civil War. Grant always
denied personal responsibility for this act attributing it to his subordinate.

ULYSSES S. GRANT was the first President to attend a synagogue service
while in office. When Adas Israel Congregation in Washington D.C. was
dedicated in 1874, Grant and all members of his Cabinet were present.

RUTHERFORD B. HAYES was the first President to designate a Jewish
ambassador for the stated purpose of fighting anti-Semitism. In 1870, he
named Benjamin Peixotto Consul-General to Rumania. Hays also was the first
President to assure a civil service employee her right to work for the
Federal government and yet observe theSabbath. He ordered the employment
of a Jewish woman who had been denied a position in the Department of the
Interior because of her refusal to work on Saturday.

THEODORE ROOSEVELT was the first President to appoint a Jew to a
presidential cabinet. In 1906 he named Oscar S. Straus Secretary of
Commerce and Labor. Theodore Roosevelt was also the first President to
contribute his own funds to a Jewish cause. In 1919, when he received the
Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts while President to settle the
Russo-Japanese War, Roosevelt contributed part of his prize to the National
Jewish Welfare Board.

WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT was the first President to attend a Seder while in
office. In 1912, when he visited Providence, RI, he participated in the
family Seder of Colonel Harry Cutler, first president of the National Jewish
Welfare Board, in the Cutler home on Glenham Street.

WOODROW WILSON was the first President to nominate a Jew, Louis Dembitz
Brandeis, to the United States Supreme Court. Standing firm against great
pressure to withdraw the nomination, Wilson insisted that he knew no one
better qualified by judicial temperament as well as legal and social
understanding, confirmation was finally voted by the Senate on June 1,
1916. Wilson was also the first President to publicly endorse a national
Jewish philanthropic campaign. In a letter to Jacob Schiff, on November 22,
1917, Wilson called for wide support of the United Jewish Relief Campaign
which was raising funds for European War relief.

WARREN HARDING was the first President to sign a Joint Congressional
Resolution endorsing the Balfour Declaration and the Palestine Mandate
supporting the establishment in Palestine of a national Jewish home for the
Jewish people. The resolution was signed September 22, 1922.

CALVIN COOLIDGE was the first President to participate in the dedication of
a Jewish community institution that was not a house of worship. On May 3,
1925, he helped dedicate the cornerstone of the Washington, D.C. Jewish
Community center.

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT was the first President to be given a Torah as a
gift. He received a miniature Torah from Young Israel and another that had
been rescued from a burning synagogue in Czechoslovakia. [Note: "burning
synagogue in Czechoslovakia" may be redundant. Burning synagogues in
Czechoslovakia used to be an Olympic sport. In fact, one of the torahs in
the Fort Collins synagogue was rescued from a burning synagogue in Prague,
buried in the ground for safe-keeping, then repurified and sent to London,
then here. - CHC] Both are now in the Roosevelt Memorial Library in Hyde
Park. The Roosevelt administration's failure to expand the existing refuge
quota system ensured that large numbers of Jews would ultimately become
some of the Holocaust's six million victims. Fifty-six years after
Roosevelt's death, the arguments continue over Roosevelt's response to the
Holocaust.

HARRY S. TRUMAN, on May 14, 1948, just eleven minutes after Israel's
proclamation of independence, was the first head of a government to
announce to the press that "the United Stated recognizes the provisional
government as the de facto authority of the new state of Israel." Truman
was also the first U.S. President to receive a president of Israel at the
White House - Chaim Weizman, in 1948 and an Ambassador from Israel - Eliahu
Elat in1948. With Israel staggering under the burdens of mass immigration
in 1951-1952, President Truman obtained from Congress close to $140 million
in loans and grants.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER was the first President to participate in a
coast-to-coast TV program sponsored by a Jewish organization. It was a
network show in 1954 celebrating the 300th anniversary of the American
Jewish community. On this occasion he said that it was one of the enduring
satisfactions of his life that he was privileged to lead the forces of the
free world which finally crushed the brutal regime in Germany, freeing the
remnant of Jews for a new life and hope in Israel.

JOHN F. KENNEDY named two Jews to his cabinet - Abraham Ribicoff as
Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, and Arthur Goldberg as
Secretary of Labor. Kennedy was the only President for whom a national
Jewish Award was named. The annual peace award of the Synagogue Council of
America was re-named the John F. Kennedy Peace Award after his
assassination in 1963.

JIMMY CARTER in a number of impassioned speeches stated his concern for
human rights and stressed the right of Russian Jews to emigrate. He is
credited with being the person responsible for the Camp David Accords.

GEORGE H.W. BUSH in 1985 as Vice President had played a personal role in
"Operation Joshua," the airlift which brought 10,000 Jews out of Ethiopia
directly to resettlement in Israel. Then, again in 1991, when Bush was
President, American help played a critical role in "Operation Solomon", the
escape of 14,000 more Ethiopian Jews. Most dramatically, Bush got to the
U.N. to revoke its 1975 "Zionism is Racism" resolution.

Consider the last two officeholders:

BILL CLINTON appointed more Jews to his cabinet than all of the previous
presidents put together.

George W. BUSH is the first president since Herbert Hoover who has no Jews
in his cabinet at all.
Thanks Mediocrates, excellent points: that said, Clinton would have appointed an organ-grinder, if he felt in any way, that it would boost his polls. Not to say that, I don’t find the “GW” info more than disconcerting. Although, I still believe, the Democrats will be week-kneed not only with the war on terror, but within the alliance with Israel. The latter being of my utter most concern; and one’s importance does not override the other.
If Clinton had been in office during 9/11, do you believe he would have been effective as Commander-in-Chief? This is not to say that Bush has not made blunders, as that would be totally unfounded and a lie. Unlike you, I have little faith in the Democrats; however, time will tell and I truly hope I’m wrong, if and when Kerry becomes Commander-in-Chief… thanks for the information; disturbing to say the least!

[Kev]

http://horowitzwatch.blogspot.com/


But.....as much as I love Horowitz's site, here is an interesting fact consideirng he recently posted information about Kerrys wife who had contributed to Cair, etc etc................




An editor of FrontPage calls Teresa Heinz-Kerry the "bag lady for the radical left," citing the Heinz Foundation's contributions to the Tides Foundation and the Tides Center, a massive philanthropic clearinghouse.
In an interesting attempt to throw some dirt via two degrees of separation, FPM notes Tides' contributions to groups such as the National Lawyers Guild and the Quakers. (To be fair, Tides does obviously give a great deal of money to left-liberal groups such as Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club, and People for the American Way.) But it is FPM's focus on the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) that forms the meat of their argument; Heinz-Kerry's relation to the Heinz Foundation, the Heinz donations to Tides (though their $4 million in total contributions pales next to the $40 million the Pew Charitable Trust reportedly gave Tides in 1996 alone), and Tides' donations to groups like CAIR mean Heinz-Kerry is affiliated with "one of the leading anti-anti-terrorism organizations."

One can quibble as to the placement of CAIR on the political spectrum, though I have sympathy for those who have little sympathy for it. (I do not pretend to reflect the political sympathies of other contributors to this blog.) But looking at the numbers shows that Tides, let alone the Heinz Foundation, is hardly a core pillar of CAIR's strength. Yet Tides does show up as a much stronger advocate on the other side of the geopolitical spectrum.

According to their Form 990 filings, in 2002, the Tides Foundation disbursed $5,000 in funds to CAIR, out of a total of $58,885,008 -- .008% of their total outlay.

Between 1998 and 2002, however, Tides also gave $31,149.31 to the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, an organization that has a significantly different worldview than CAIR:

Israel is facing an increasingly difficult and painful period, in which our Israeli brothers and sisters are bombarded daily with terror attacks, which have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent men, women, and children, and the wounding of thousands more. We stand in solidarity with Israel and her people, in support of her right to exist as a Jewish State and her right to self-defense as she confronts daily atrocities committed by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and those connected to the Palestinian Authority, in addition to numerous other terrorist organizations.
The JCPA conveys both to the Bush Administration and to the United States Congress appreciation for their firm commitment to Israel’s security.

So, does this mean that Teresa Heinz-Kerry is six times as supportive of Israel and Sharon's policies than she if of the Palestinians and Arafat? Perhaps FPM could provide a follow-up: "Theresa Heinz-Kerry: Staunch Supporter of Pro-Israel Advocates."

[Mira~]

Dear Mr. Kerry;

After spending only four months in the country of Vietnam, you testified before Congress in 1971 with these exact words about incidents you say you witnessed: "They personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blew up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Viet Nam."

Spread that on a farmer's field where it will do some good. I spent a year there in 1968-69 in a combat arms unit. I was a Field Artillery Forward Observer in an Infantry company and I saw combat every day until I was wounded. When I returned from the hospital, I was assigned to an artillery battery. I saw brave men fight and die; I saw brave, good men pass out all their rations to hungry kids, build churches and schools, donate to orphanages, cry silently at the sight of villagers slaughtered by North Vietnamese, but I never saw anything approaching the war crimes that you happened to witness as your boat sped by villages on the river bank. If you witnessed atrocities and did not report them, you are guilty of aiding and abetting. If you lied, you are simply unfit for leadership at any level. The most serious incident I witnessed was a young sergeant who grabbed the arm of a Vietnamese woman during a village search. An older, more experienced noncommissioned officer knocked the sergeant to the ground and told him, somewhat forcefully, that that woman was someone's mother and would be treated with respect. That's it, Kerry, that's my confession - I didn't report the incident.

I have children, and my children have children. They will, perhaps, stumble upon your words, much as one might stumble upon a pile of dog droppings. I do not relish the thought of having to explain that your "experiences" are either a bald-faced lie, or you belong to that less-than-1% of Viet Nam veterans who committed war crimes/atrocities. Either way, your words do great harm to the institution of the Senate, my home state of Massachusetts, the Armed Services in which I proudly served for 27 years, and the very country that you aspire to lead.

Is it true that you single-handedly prevented a vote on a Senate version of H.R. 2833, the Viet Nam Human Rights Act of 2001 - a bill that passed the House by a vote of 410-1? There are many who believe that our failure to speak decisively on that issue cost the lives of thousands of Montagnard tribesman in Viet Nam. Where do you stand on H.R. 1587, the Viet Nam Human Rights Act of 2003? Will you support a parallel bill in the Senate? Is it true that you served as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on MIA/POW Affairs and in that role you fought hard to limit the expenditure of funds to investigate sightings or search for remains? You have, I believe, been a steadfast, staunch and vocal advocate for normalizing relations with Viet Nam. Could it be that your beloved first cousin, Mr. Forbes, CEO of Colliers International, recently signed a contract with Hanoi worth billions of dollars?

Any truth to the rumor that you didn't really fling your "hard-earned" military medals over the White House fence in a juvenile fit of pique as you say you did, but rather, you threw your roommate's medals instead?

I know dozens of retired military professionals. None of them support you - there is a reason for that. They all served honorably and well, and they all believe that you did not. I know war heroes, and your, sir, are no war hero.

-- Glenn Lackey


http://www.theoptimate.com/2041/wrapper.jsp?PID=2041-15&CID=2041-030304A

[TheyAre]

George W. BUSH is the first president since Herbert Hoover who has no Jews in his cabinet at all.

So?

That is the question that really needs to be asked here.

So?

What's your point? Is it a requirement that there be a Jew in the cabinet?

It is this kind of whining that turns majorities against minorities. The eternally-privileged complex. The all-too-common liberal diatribe of 'Pander to minorities or you're racist.'

So what if there are no Jews in Bush's cabinet? He has done more for Israel in a little over 3 years in office than was done during the entire Clinton Administration.

[Mediocrates]

It's simply a point to make. Whatever Bush has done, symbolic or otherwise, make no mistake about it: this administration's objectives upon Israel are strictly for the aims of this administration's own agenda.

Bush photocopied the Saudi plan and called it the Quartet's Roadmap.

Bush pressures Israel at every corner to not build the fence.

Bush technically does not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

And so on. In that sense Bush is no more in Israel's corner than Nixon was. To this administration Israel is a foil with which to further their own goals real and imagined.

[Alfred]

Setting Straight Kerry’s War Record

By Thomas Lipscomb
The New York Sun | March 1, 2004

Senator Kerry recently wrote a letter to President Bush complaining, “You and your campaign have initiated a widespread attack on my service in Vietnam, my decision to speak out to end that war,” and warning, “I will not sit back and allow my patriotism to be challenged.”

In the absence of any evidence from Mr. Kerry of an attack from the Bush campaign, Mr. Kerry seems to have originated his own doctrine of “pre-emption.” How valid are his concerns?

No one denies Mr. Kerry’s four bemedaled months in “Swiftboats” or his seven-months’ service as an electrical officer on board the USS Gridley, during its cruises back and forth to California, or even his months as an admiral’s aide in Brooklyn, before he was able get out of the Navy six months early to run for office.

Taking a look at Mr. Kerry’s much-promoted Vietnam service, his military record was, indeed, remarkable in many ways. Last week, the former assistant secretary of defense and Fletcher School of Diplomacy professor, W. Scott Thompson, recalled a conversation with the late Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt Jr. that clearly had a slightly different take on Mr. Kerry’s recollection of their discussions:

“[T]he fabled and distinguished chief of naval operations,Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, told me — 30 years ago when he was still CNO —that during his own command of U.S. 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 straitjacket 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.” And this statement was made despite the fact Zumwalt had personally pinned a Silver Star on Mr. Kerry.

Mr. Kerry was assigned to Swiftboat 44 on December 1, 1968. Within 24 hours, he had his first Purple Heart. Mr. Kerry accumulated three Purple Hearts in four months with not even a day of duty lost from wounds, according to his training officer. It’s a pity one cannot read his Purple Heart medical treatment reports which have been withheld from the public. The only person preventing their release is Mr. Kerry.

By his own admission during those four months, Mr. Kerry continually kept ramming his Swiftboat onto an enemy-held shore on assorted occasions alone and with a few men, killing civilians and even a wounded enemy soldier. One can begin to appreciate Zumwalt’s problem with Mr. Kerry as commander of an unarmored craft dependent upon speed of maneuver to keep it and its crew from being shot to pieces.

Mr. Kerry now refers to those civilian deaths as “accidents of war.”And within four days of his third Purple Heart, Mr. Kerry applied to take advantage of a technicality which allowed him to request immediate transfer to a stateside post...........

[Alfred]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

George W. BUSH is the first president since Herbert Hoover who has no Jews in his cabinet at all.

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




But he has two blacks on his council. Doesn't that count? :)

Maybe he was having a hard time finding real, conservative Jews..:)

[Donna]

Originally posted by Alfred
Setting Straight Kerry’s War Record

By Thomas Lipscomb
The New York Sun | March 1, 2004

Senator Kerry recently wrote a letter to President Bush complaining, “You and your campaign have initiated a widespread attack on my service in Vietnam, my decision to speak out to end that war,” and warning, “I will not sit back and allow my patriotism to be challenged.”

In the absence of any evidence from Mr. Kerry of an attack from the Bush campaign, Mr. Kerry seems to have originated his own doctrine of “pre-emption.” How valid are his concerns?




Is a clear-cut case of premature attackulation.

[Alfred]

Originally posted by Donna
Is a clear-cut case of premature attackulation.


Now THAT was an excellent post!!!!!

The battle is just begun--

by the way, by his own definition, Kerry may be a war criminal. You know, executing a wounded VC (viet cong)


:) :) :)

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Alfred
But he has two blacks on his council. Doesn't that count? :)

Maybe he was having a hard time finding real, conservative Jews..:)


Richard Perle, David Frum and Paul Wolfowitz notwithstanding. That is, if you believe that whole 'shadow government' thing.

[Kev]

It's simply a point to make. Whatever Bush has done, symbolic or otherwise, make no mistake about it: this administration's objectives upon Israel are strictly for the aims of this administration's own agenda.


Exactly why I dont understand how people can suggest that Bush has been good for Israel.
I dont believe he has been...............unless those wiser than I can suggest he has just been giving lip service all along to Tony Blair, who I understand has been the real force behind Bushs pushing for the dreaded roadmap.

Am I right in suggesting it was the Conservative party in Britain that only agreed to back Blair if he pushed Bush towards the Road Map................which we all, or at least mostly understand would have been a disaster for Israel?



That said...............I dont know if we all read the same sites or not but I just saw this and found it amusing!

Kerry Helped Viet Nam Beat US (http://www.alittlemoretotheright.com/journal/00001104.html)



John F(ing) Kerry may not actually be able to be credited with the leadership in Congress that he claims, but he can be credited with the US being driven out of Viet Nam, according to the Vietnamese general in charge of military operations at the time.

The North Vietnamese general in charge of the military campaign that finally drove the U.S. out of South Vietnam in 1975 credited a group led by Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry with helping him achieve victory.

In his 1985 memoir about the war, Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap wrote that if it weren't for organizations like Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Hanoi would have surrendered to the U.S. - according to Fox News Channel war historian Oliver North. [source]


This is a story deserving of wide coverage. I hope all conservative bloggers pick up on this one...





Which I suppose first originated here:

Gen. Giap: Kerry's Group Helped Hanoi Defeat U.S. (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/10/222651.shtml)



Gen. Giap: Kerry's Group Helped Hanoi Defeat U.S.

The North Vietnamese general in charge of the military campaign that finally drove the U.S. out of South Vietnam in 1975 credited a group led by Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry with helping him achieve victory.

In his 1985 memoir about the war, Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap wrote that if it weren't for organizations like Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Hanoi would have surrendered to the U.S. - according to Fox News Channel war historian Oliver North.

That's why, he predicted on Tuesday, the Vietnam War issue "is going to blow up in Kerry's face."

"People are going to remember Gen. Giap saying if it weren't for these guys [Kerry's group], we would have lost," North told radio host Sean Hannity.

"The Vietnam Veterans Against the War encouraged people to desert, encouraged people to mutiny - some used what they wrote to justify fragging officers," noted the former Marine lieutenant colonel, who earned two purple hearts in Vietnam.

"John Kerry has blood of American soldiers on his hands," North said.





David Frum

I have seen quotes by Frum which although show he has a love for Israel, his first love is for America and he does NOT back Israels right to self defense............er, well, he does to a point but ONLY to a point, only as long as it does not inflame the Mid East any more than it is now..............which is akin to saying he doesnt allow them too much room to move!

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by Kev
Exactly why I dont understand how people can suggest that Bush has been good for Israel.
I dont believe he has been...............unless those wiser than I can suggest he has just been giving lip service all along to Tony Blair, who I understand has been the real force behind Bushs pushing for the dreaded roadmap.

Am I right in suggesting it was the Conservative party in Britain that only agreed to back Blair if he pushed Bush towards the Road Map................which we all, or at least mostly understand would have been a disaster for Israel?



That said...............I dont know if we all read the same sites or not but I just saw this and found it amusing!

Kerry Helped Viet Nam Beat US (http://www.alittlemoretotheright.com/journal/00001104.html)






Which I suppose first originated here:

Gen. Giap: Kerry's Group Helped Hanoi Defeat U.S. (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/10/222651.shtml)




David Frum

I have seen quotes by Frum which although show he has a love for Israel, his first love is for America and he does NOT back Israels right to self defense............er, well, he does to a point but ONLY to a point, only as long as it does not inflame the Mid East any more than it is now..............which is akin to saying he doesnt allow them too much room to move!


I think Bush wants to show Islam that he’s impartial trying to stay neutral in what he sees as a conflict between two parties. If I recall correctly promises were also made that he would implement a Roadmap to Peace in the ME in exchange for support in the Liberation of Iraq.

I don’t think a negotiated settlement that’ll bring ever lasting peace will ever be achieved in the ME it simply cant be done.

My feeling is that it’s likely that Bush will end up a one term President partly because he underestimated the Arabs. Pulling bin Laden out of a hat would certainly increase his popularity but it wouldn’t assure a victory unless it was a month or so before the election.

I see him as a weathervane President that’s most likely viewed as an impotent idiot by the Palestinians. For the millionth time “Arafat must do better”!

Anyways the beginning of the end of western civilization may start when Kerry is elected President in November.

[I am David]

Anyways the beginning of the end of western civilization may start when Kerry is elected President in November.

That actually sounds kinda funny :-|

[Kev]

My feeling is that it’s likely that Bush will end up a one term President partly because he underestimated the Arabs.


Oh how I hope that your instincts are dead wrong! :eek:

I dont believe he has even begun to fight yet! ;-)


Again I cant say if anyone saw the fantastic speech by Tony Blair yesterday?

If not, its a MUST read..............

The Threat of Global Terrorism - Why Sept. 11 made Iraq's liberation necessary. (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004783)

Saturday, March 6, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST Editor's note: Mr. Blair delivered this speech in his constituency yesterday morning

I wont post it here as it is fairly long and I fear many may have seen it already so with respect for unnecessary bandwith being used, if you havent read this, please follow the url given.


Its a great shame Bush wasnt as eloquent as Tony Blair! :(

[Kev]

It tiurns out, that this story, A 1985 memoir Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap wrote if it weren't for Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Hanoi would have surrendered to the US isnt much of anything but an URBAN legend! :(

And its been quoted on almost all of the conservative Blogs!

A few weeks ago in a column about Kerry, I referred to what has turned out to be an "urban legend." Specifically, based on a "news" item that appeared on NewsMax.com (http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_8268.shtml)



A few weeks ago in a column about Kerry, I referred to what has turned out to be an "urban legend." Specifically, based on a "news" item that appeared on NewsMax.com, I repeated a reference to a volume of memoirs supposedly published by North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap in 1985 as the source of an assertion by Colonel Oliver North. After a reader requested a reference to Giap's 1985 "Memoirs," I did research that convinced me no such volume exists. For that matter, I haven't been able to verify through Fox News that Colonel North actually made the comments he is said to have made and which I repeated. My apologies to Colonel North and to WashingtonDispatch.com readers for including inadequately verified material in my piece on Kerry.




More at above URL, but I just wanted to clear up some apparent misinformation that was posted earlier.

[NewsGuy]

Kerry's flip-flop on Arafat:



Kerry Shifts His Views on Arafat
Democratic Presidential Candidate Kerry Says His Views on Palestinian Leader Arafat Have Shifted

The Associated Press



TAMPA, Fla. March 9 — John Kerry says he no longer considers Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to be a statesman, but rather "an outlaw to the peace process" in the Middle East who has been rightly shuffled aside.
In a 1997 book, Kerry described "Arafat's transformation from outlaw to statesman." But in an interview with The Associated Press on Monday he said he no longer views Arafat favorably.

"Obviously, Yasser Arafat has been an impediment to the peace process," said Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee-in-waiting. "He missed a historic opportunity and he's proved himself to be irrelevant."

The Bush administration has ruled out dealing with Arafat, a veteran Palestinian activist, claiming he is tainted with terror against Israel, a close U.S. ally. In peace process, the administration has dealt only with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and other senior Palestinian officials appointed by Arafat.

Referring to the Palestinian leader as a statesman would be potentially damaging in Florida, which has a heavy Jewish population and a Democratic primary Tuesday. Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas also hold primaries Tuesday.

"He was (a statesman) in 1995," Kerry said, recalling frequent White House meetings between Israeli and Palestinian leaders in search of peace in the Middle East.

"He blew his opportunity in 1999, 2000," Kerry said. "As far as I'm concerned, he's an outlaw to the peace process."

ABCNews.com (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040309_115.html)

[I am David]

A flip flop to you, a well thought out change of opinion over the course of 7 years to someone whos not politically biased.

[RichardP]

Originally posted by I am David
A flip flop to you, a well thought out change of opinion over the course of 7 years to someone whos not politically biased.

Ironic that his change of mind came, as he is now the Democrat contender for the White House: moreover in need of the Jewish vote. Oops, hell, then there will be the Arab vote; flip, or should that be flop a coin, Kerry? :confused:

[I am David]

Mabye if one wasnt so dead set against opposing the Democrat/Kerry automatically, one wouldnt "see" these "flip/flops" so often. Just a suggestion.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by I am David
Mabye if one wasnt so dead set against opposing the Democrat/Kerry automatically, one wouldnt "see" these "flip/flops" so often. Just a suggestion.

Yes, many of these flipflops are fantasies of conservative Republicans, such as this one:

Likely Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry has repeatedly slammed President Bush for not getting the cooperation of European allies before attacking Iraq last year.

But in 1997, Kerry praised President Clinton for preparing to attack Iraq by deploying ships, aircraft and troops over the objections of France and Russia.

In a November 1997 audiotape broadcast by WABC Radio’s Monica Crowley on Monday, Kerry painted Clinton as resolute for putting U.S. war plans against Baghdad in motion.

“The president has, in effect, put military action on the table,” he told CNN’s “Crossfire.”

“Secretary Cohen canceled his trip, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff canceled a trip, troops are deployed, the aircraft carriers are being brandished. There’s no misunderstanding here about where the United States is prepared to go,” the Massachusetts Democrat assured.

Kerry praised the Clinton White House for thumbing its nose at our European allies.

“Clearly the allies may not like it,” said the top Democrat, before suggesting that France and Russia were spineless.

“Where’s the backbone of Russia, where’s the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity?” he railed.

Kerry also praised the White House for giving the United Nations the brush-off.

“The [Clinton] administration is leading. The administration is making it clear that they don’t believe that they even need the U.N. Security Council to sign off on a material breach because the finding of material breach was made by [U.S. weapons inspector Richard] Butler.”

Kerry defended President Clinton’s go-it-alone war plan as the best way to protect U.S. national security, telling “Crossfire,” “I think the United States has always reserved the right and will reserve the right to act in its best interests.”

John Flipping/Flopping Kerry (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/9/105907.shtml)

[I am David]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Yes, many of these flipflops are fantasies of conservative Republicans, such as this one:



John Flipping/Flopping Kerry (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/9/105907.shtml)

Yeah, the only difference is that Clinton didn't actually go to war then did he ;)

Notice Kerry saying "Putting military action on the table".

Kerry's stance really hasnt changed today, he still thinks the same of allies who protest to the war on a conceptual basis, but blames Bush for not having the Allies share cost of the war.

Basically what your doing is comparing Kerry's reaction to the mere beggings of one Iraq war, with his reaction to an entire war, the before and after, which is pretty unfair.

Again, another imagined "flip flop"

[Alfred]

Oh we are just starting:)

We have a good 30 years of flip flops, shooting wounded soldiers, Jane Fonda, Gold digging, I am for this...I am against that...

This will be fun.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by I am David
Yeah, the only difference is that Clinton didn't actually go to war then did he ;)

Notice Kerry saying "Putting military action on the table".

Kerry's stance really hasnt changed today, he still thinks the same of allies who protest to the war on a conceptual basis, but blames Bush for not having the Allies share cost of the war.

Basically what your doing is comparing Kerry's reaction to the mere beggings of one Iraq war, with his reaction to an entire war, the before and after, which is pretty unfair.

Again, another imagined "flip flop"

No, the above quote shows Kerry praising Clinton for exactly the same stance he criticizes Bush for.

Likewise, Liberals approve of Clinton avoiding the draft and Kerry serving, while treating Bush's service in the National Guard as shameful.

It's about changing your positions for political expediency. It's about hypocrisy.

Your excuse that Kerry was right because Clinton didn't actually "go to war" is hilarious. Kerry didn't know when he uttered those words whether Clinton would go to war or not.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by I am David
A flip flop to you, a well thought out change of opinion over the course of 7 years to someone whos not politically biased.

There's no such thing for politicians as "a well thought out change of opinion over the course of 7 years." It's only a matter of what the polls say in the past few weeks or months, especially when a candidate lacks real values to begin with.

I think that after Kerry's statements about the need to further appease America's Arab enemies and the need to kowtow to our European adversaries, many Jews were turned off to the Democratic party in general and to Kerry and Dean in particular. So now it's time for Kerry to try to shore up whatever Jewish support he can get.

I'm actually pleased to see that the Democrats are getting the message that their Clintonian terrorism appeasement strategy is costing them voters.

[I am David]

Your excuse that Kerry was right because Clinton didn't actually "go to war" is hilarious. Kerry didn't know when he uttered those words whether Clinton would go to war or not.

Not really. If you listen to Kerry before the start of this Iraq war, He is as big an advocate as anyone, and sounds much the same as he did with Clinton. But if Clinton had actually gone to war without building up a strong coalition, Kerry would have given the same critisizm to Clinton.

There's no such thing for politicians as "a well thought out change of opinion over the course of 7 years." It's only a matter of what the polls say in the past few weeks or months, especially when a candidate lacks real values to begin with.

If you didnt notice, Politicians are humans and can change their minds. It is unfair to assume that every change in Kerry's stance is due to political motivation, not to mention ridiculous. I would rather have a politician like Kerry who waffles a bit on issues but gets it right in the end, then a stubburn, unthinking, and misleading "straight talker" like Bush who doesnt care how true his speaches are and makes policies that are sometimes blatently to the detriment of this country.

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by I am David
Not really. If you listen to Kerry before the start of this Iraq war, He is as big an advocate as anyone, and sounds much the same as he did with Clinton. But if Clinton had actually gone to war without building up a strong coalition, Kerry would have given the same critisizm to Clinton.

Really? Like he did here: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/9/105907.shtml

[I am David]

That's the article I was originally responding to...

[Alfred]

This election will be interesting.. I would imagine that Kerry believes he has the Jewish and Black vote locked up. So you may see him being more "balanced" vis a vis the Arabs.

A more interesting question is who will be his VP. I don't think Hillary will be the VP as she wants Kerry to lose and for her to save the party in 2008. Hillery would be a bad VP for Kerry because 1) she will wear the pants in the administration, 2) you have Bill lurking around (literally:)), 3) she will outshine Kerry on just about any personality test, 4) two hard core Liberals would never win. Not a good VP choice

Look for Clark, Edwards, Lieberman, or some democratic governer. I don't see any Blacks or Latino democrats that would help his ticket...at least at the moment.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by I am David
Not really. If you listen to Kerry before the start of this Iraq war, He is as big an advocate as anyone, and sounds much the same as he did with Clinton. But if Clinton had actually gone to war without building up a strong coalition, Kerry would have given the same critisizm to Clinton.

If you didnt notice, Politicians are humans and can change their minds. It is unfair to assume that every change in Kerry's stance is due to political motivation, not to mention ridiculous. I would rather have a politician like Kerry who waffles a bit on issues but gets it right in the end, then a stubburn, unthinking, and misleading "straight talker" like Bush who doesnt care how true his speaches are and makes policies that are sometimes blatently to the detriment of this country.

Now you claim Kerry said the French and Russians were spineless, and Clinton correctly thumbed his nose at the UN Security Council, because had Clinton gone to war he would have demanded "a strong coalition."

Sure, politicians are human and have a right to change their minds based on new information or soul searching. But changing your mind depending upon the audience or opponent is dishonest.

You will say anything--no matter how illogical, contradictory or contrived--to excuse Kerry's flipflops. Clearly, a severe case of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Get well soon. :D

[I am David]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Now you claim Kerry said the French and Russians were spineless, and Clinton correctly thumbed his nose at the UN Security Council, because had Clinton gone to war he would have demanded "a strong coalition."

Sure, politicians are human and have a right to change their minds based on new information or soul searching. But changing your mind depending upon the audience or opponent is dishonest.


I'm saying that Kerry's position was little different this time around than it was before a supposed war with Clinton. If you look at the facts, which I have pointed out, you will see this to be true.

And in refrence to politicians changing their opionion, yes it is wrong to do it based on audience, and mabye he did say something slightly different based on audience, but if that's all your going to look at in refrence to this issue, then you seriously need to rethink your political priorities, or mabye biases, eh?

You will say anything--no matter how illogical, contradictory or contrived--to excuse Kerry's flipflops. Clearly, a severe case of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Get well soon. :D

Not so, in fact I believe Kerry to be the biggest politician of anyone in this race. He definetly flip flops, and I think even falsely states his true opinion in some cases (Gay marriage), but I'd rather have someone in power who knows whats rights and misleads a little to get in power to do what is right, than someone like Bush who misleads to do whats wrong and selfish. But I'll let you have your little name calling games and let you think I'm some Die Hard liberal who hates Bush because Gore lost in 2000, or something of that order :rolleyes:

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by I am David


Not so, in fact I believe Kerry to be the biggest politician of anyone in this race. He definetly flip flops, and I think even falsely states his true opinion in some cases (Gay marriage), but I'd rather have someone in power who knows whats rights and misleads a little to get in power to do what is right, than someone like Bush who misleads to do whats wrong and selfish. But I'll let you have your little name calling games and let you think I'm some Die Hard liberal who hates Bush because Gore lost in 2000, or something of that order :rolleyes:

"He definitely flipflops... and falsely states his true opinion... and misleads a little to get in power."

In other words, he is a liar and you heartily approve.

You can have the last (false) word.

[Kev]

Clearly, a severe case of Bush Derangement Syndrome


I don't know how old you are David, although I suppose that really isn't important, but I have spoken to many Libertarians, especially in the 20-27 or so year age group and your responses about Kerry are exactly what I have also heard from all of them.

I too believe the above suffer from a severe case of Bush Derangement Syndrome and I cant for the life of me understand how any Jew in their right mind could possibly vote for Kerry even understanding that Bush is far from perfect.

[I am David]

If I have a severe case of Bush Derangment syndrome, then you and ibrodsky have a severe case of Democratic Derangment syndrome. Although, I would prescribe a much stronger medication to cure it ;)

Look, I'm no "Libertarian", No Democrat, I don't even like a lot of the core Democratic values. But I am someone who has come to terms with the ugly truth of George W. Bush and someone who doesn't buy the pretty, but false picture Republicans have made of him as being some compassionate person who is fighting the tough war on terror and leading this country in the right direction. I don't buy that "Iraq was a threat even though it had no weapons stockpiles", I don't buy that the're doing enough to counter the threat of Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia, and N.K. I don't buy that the president is great on national security when he is so clearly ignoring such serious threats.

Nor can I somehow ignore how horrible he is in other areas. He is letting companies get worse on worse in enviromental standards, for no reason other so they can get a slightly higher profit. He makes tax breaks that are queastionable from the beggining, but then asks them to be permanent even though the've done nothing in over 3 years. Oh and to top it all off, he has the nerve in his speaches to make it as if his tax breaks are the cause of a booming and recovering American economy even though that is absolutly false.

You say Bush is far from perfect. Well every president is, inc. John Kerry if he was one. The problem is that Bush is horrible , and so far from just a simple "good" president its a joke. But I understand why you support George Bush. You have fallen for the lame arguments I have mentioned before. Yeah, "Bush's tax cuts will help because the wealthy create all the jobs so giving tax cuts will help to". That's the type of argument people who support Bush will buy just like that. Nevermind that's an incredible oversimplification of things, and quite illogical. Let's just believe it because they said it and it agrees with what I believed before :rolleyes: .

Your overall impression of Bush is just plain innacurate. To get a better picture of the situation, it only requires opening EVERYTHING you believe to be true up scrutinization, and rethinking every assumption you made. I was able to go from Pro-George W. Bush, from anti-George W. Bush with that kind of open mind. Mind you, I was only pro Bush believing the same lame, over simplified arguments that I mentioned before.

[I am David]

For Ibrodsky:

"He definitely flipflops... and falsely states his true opinion... and misleads a little to get in power." In other words, he is a liar and you heartily approve. You can have the last (false) word.

First of all, I don't know where in the world you got that I "heartily" aprove of any flip flops or lies of his. Did you just add that to make your argument seem better?.

Secondly, you seem to content to make anything possibly negative done by John kerry out to be practically the end of the world, all the while not investing any real mental energy invistagating anything wrong George Bush has done. If anyone has political Bias, its you.

[Alfred]

oooops, already posted this earlier.

[Kev]

I am David


Here is a quote I read from a Libertarian which sums up for me, their ideals but NO WHERE do I see how they plan to fight terrorism?

Please enlighten me..........It also seems odd to me, for one so anti abortion that you would be a Libertarian, I cant quite grasp the connection for you.



We do believe in

* End to prohibitions on drug use
* End to prohibitions on pornography and sexual conduct
* End to foreign intervention and military conscription
* The repeal of all laws interfering with the right to commit suicide
* Opposition to involuntary commitment or treatment in a mental institution
* Free market ownership of airwave frequencies
* End to the taxation of privately owned real property
* Opposition to all laws at any level of government restricting, regulating, or requiring the ownership, manufacture, transfer, or sale of firearms or ammunition.
* Opposition to all laws requiring registration of firearms or ammunition.
* The right to trade includes the right not to trade -- for any reasons whatsoever; the right of association includes the right not to associate (essentially advocates the repeal of all anti-discrimination legislation).
* Families and households are private institutions, which should be free from government intrusion and interference.
* Abolition of welfare
* Dramatic reductions in both taxes and government spending
* An end to deficit budgets

We are not so much a conservative movement as we are a freedom movement. We believe that giving the individual the most personal choice and the government the least possible power, we acheive harmony.

We believe the federal goverment has the power to coin money, deliver the mail, and declare war. Thats it. All other powers enumerated to the states. Basically the federal goverments role is maintain security.

But this doesn't mean a huge military. All we want is the national guard, coast guard, and various highly trained special forces troops we could send to the UN as peacekeepers should they need it. No real standing army at all. Also a complete pull out of all troops from our bases across the world, and an end to foreign aid to countries with decent economies. I see nothing wrong with aid to Peru or Kenya, but do Germany and Israel really need free money? They can handle themselves just fine.

laisez faire capitalism is the order of the economy, low regulation leads to more competition and who wins? The consumer, not the CEO. Our country would be a country of trade, of manufactoring. Why should everything say made in china? People need jobs here, lets make it here. The US should be the merchant of the world

We also support gay marrige, abortion, privately owned assault weapons, blanket drug legalization, and other freedom issues.

I believe we combine the social conscience of the liberal with the business mind of the fiscal conservative(not neocon scum like bush)

The principle here is choice. Its all in the Wealth of Nations folks, Adam Smith outlined this economic model. Low regulations cause competition, competition drives prices down and standards up, this means the consumer wins, not the rich CEO.

I might support limited goverment intervention if monopoly becomes a problem







Essentially it's a strict literal interpretation of the US Constitution and adhering to the Jeffersonian ideal of gov't.

As an example a libertarian would believe that abortion should be legal BUT Roe v Wade was wrong and should be overturned since it was judicial legislation.

Libertarians believe that the Second Ammendment means exactly what it says so that all state local or federal laws prohibiting law abiding citizens from owning whatever firearm they choose is unconstitutional.

Similarly libertarians believe that the Fifth Ammendment means exactly what it says so that for the Gov't to force you to fill out an income tax return and waive your 5th Ammendment rights or face jail is unconstitutional as.

www.cato.org could give you some more ideas, John Stossel would be an example.

But what it boils down to is ask any question about society and politics and if you answer on the side of less gov't and more freedom for the individual you're apt to be a libertarian (or classical liberal or conservative the distinctions can get more blurry on the right than on the left since the right favor's individualism more)

[Kev]

More and last from above post:




The central problem with libertarianism is it's advocacy of the idea that that one can separate one's political views from any philosophical and ideological framework. The libertarians start with the idea that force should only be used in retaliation, or the "N" principle (non-initiation-of-force). The problem is not that this principle is false (it is not), but that they treat it as an axiom of politics: as an (arbitrary) starting point, one that does not have to be argued for or supported on any specific philosophical grounds.

To a consistent libertarian, it does not matter why you claim to support liberty, only that you do (or claim that you do). As a consequence, the libertarian movement (and the Libertarian party in particular) ends up being an "umbrella movement" which collects under it a hodgepodge of people, all of whom claim to advocate what they call "liberty," but whose ideas of what liberty actually consists of in practice can differ so radically that it is impossible to identify a genuinely coherent libertarian position on many issues. For example, the LP platform declines to have an official position for or against abortion, and even includes language that makes room for anarchism as a legitimate LP position. ("Since governments, when instituted..." as though the institution of government were rationally optional -- a clear concession that anarchism is not beyond the pale.)

Because of their explicit "umbrella approach," the movement has had a history of accepting anarchists, pacifists, and all sorts of other nutcases as legitimate advocates of their views. The best example of this that I can think of were the prominent libertarians (eg. Harry Browne) who spoke out after 9-11, blaming "American Imperialism" for the provoking the attack.

As Objectivist Peter Schwartz cogently observed many years ago, the Libertarian insistence on rejecting the need for a foundational philosophy for their political views itself actually constitutes and indicates a particular type of philosophy. When one declines on principle to offer fundamental reasons for one's views, but rather assumes that they can simply be asserted arbitrarily, one is acting on a subjectivist, whim-worshipping philosophy. This leads to a kind of emotionalist hostility toward authority per se (and government authority in particular) that permeates much of the libertarian movement. And it's one of the reasons why Ayn Rand described libertarians as "Hippies of the Right."

These, among others, are the reasons why no consistent and self-respecting Objectivist will touch Libertarianism with a ten foot pole. So if you ever hear Ayn Rand described as a "libertarian" thinker, be warned: it's clueless BS.

[David_in_NYC]

In the US today, libertarianism has no consistent definition. The Libertarian Party politics, as you have noted, range from constitutionalism to anarchism.

I believe that true libertarianism means minimalism of government - government should do only what it must do, and nothing else.

Of course, even within that guideline there is still room for a very wide range of opinion. I, for example, believe that when pre-emptive war is necessary for self-defense, then it is part of what the government must do, in order to fulfill its reason for existence, which is to defend the freedom of the citizens of the nation. Enemies killing our people clearly abridge those rights, and thus it is the duty of the government to prevent it from happening, if at all possible. A libertarian state need not be isolationist.

I, for the life of me, can't figure out what the big problem is with Bush that replacing him with John Kerry would solve. On what issue does Kerry have a better policy than Bush? Heck, on what issue, besides a love for raising taxes, does Kerry even have a consistent position to begin with?

[I am David]

Kev, when did you conclude that I was a Libertarian? :confused:

David_In_NYC

I, for the life of me, can't figure out what the big problem is with Bush that replacing him with John Kerry would solve. On what issue does Kerry have a better policy than Bush? Heck, on what issue, besides a love for raising taxes, does Kerry even have a consistent position to begin with?

Heh, that's just the kind of nonsense that I was talking about. John Kerry neither "loves" to raise taxes or is inconsistent on core issues. Kerry was accused of flip flopping on issues like Iraq, the patriot act, and NAFTA. Yet his position on these issues is rock solid. Don't let the Republicans fool you, most of what they say in respect to John Kerry vs George Bush is just plain wrong, or extremely exagerated, simplified, or cherry picked. It's amazing.

George Bush for your other answer, is putting in policies that will eventually destroy the enviroment for minor corprate profit increases. He puts in place a tax cut that is not based on logic, which creates a huge deficit that could be catastrophic later on, and even when he sees it doesnt work, he wants to make it permanent. He is weak on the war on terror, hes not adressing Iran,Saudi Arabia, Syria like he should, as serious threats that pose a significant danger to us. He's just using the "terror war" as a political driving point to get him re-elected, even though hes not really doing a good job on that. (Though on the surface, without thinking, most people think he is because of Afganistan and Iraq).

Oh and don't forget support of Israel that only exists when Bush doesn't have to take much political heat for it.

So yeah Bush has many problems.

[David_in_NYC]

Originally posted by I am David
Heh, that's just the kind of nonsense that I was talking about. John Kerry neither "loves" to raise taxes or is inconsistent on core issues. Kerry was accused of flip flopping on issues like Iraq, the patriot act, and NAFTA. Yet his position on these issues is rock solid. Don't let the Republicans fool you, most of what they say in respect to John Kerry vs George Bush is just plain wrong, or extremely exagerated, simplified, or cherry picked. It's amazing.


What are Kerry's positions on Iraq, the USA PATRIOT Act, and NAFTA?

[Donna]

Originally posted by David_in_NYC
What are Kerry's positions on Iraq, the USA PATRIOT Act, and NAFTA?

I was going to ask the same.

Just how will Kerry be tougher in handling terrorism?

[Kev]

David_in_NYC
I Am David


Hmmm, Im sorry, it is possible I am confusing the two of you and will do a search a bit later to see which one of you it is that I was thinking of as being a Libertarian.

[David_in_NYC]

Originally posted by Kev
David_in_NYC
I Am David


Hmmm, Im sorry, it is possible I am confusing the two of you and will do a search a bit later to see which one of you it is that I was thinking of as being a Libertarian.

Two Davids on an "Israel Forum" - what a stunning coincidence! ;)

[TheyAre]

It must be nice living in a fantasy world...

Oh and don't forget support of Israel that only exists when Bush doesn't have to take much political heat for it.

I didn't believe it was possible for a statement to be as spurious as this. Bush has been the least active U.S. President in Israeli affairs ever. An active U.S. stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict always favors the Palestinians, because America is not going to get into a real fight with Europe over Jerusalem. This means that Washington, whenever it gets intimately involved, toes the European terrorist apologist line. The best thing the U.S. can do for Israel is to protect it from the Arab and Arabist European bloc at the UN, keep the aid flowing, and leave everything else the hell alone. Bush has done this. His Administration's halfhearted platitudes about the security fence and Sharon's unilateral peace plan show that Bush does not want to get back in the middle of the conflict, and feels that Ariel Sharon is handling it just fine at the moment.

George Bush for your other answer, is putting in policies that will eventually destroy the enviroment for minor corprate profit increases. He puts in place a tax cut that is not based on logic, which creates a huge deficit that could be catastrophic later on, and even when he sees it doesnt work, he wants to make it permanent. He is weak on the war on terror, hes not adressing Iran,Saudi Arabia, Syria like he should, as serious threats that pose a significant danger to us. He's just using the "terror war" as a political driving point to get him re-elected, even though hes not really doing a good job on that. (Though on the surface, without thinking, most people think he is because of Afganistan and Iraq).

Thanks for revealing your massive ignorance concerning the American war on terror.

The populace of the United States of America does not have the will to go into Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria like we should and spend the next two decades turning them into Westernized societies. The chances of such an adventure succeeding anyway are depressingly low.

I just have to laugh at this. You're saying that George W. Bush is fighting the war on terror ineptly?

Bush's strategy against Islamic terrorism has worked brilliantly. Brilliantly. I have to hand it to Paul Wolfowitz and Rummy. Would you care to actually back up your ridiculous statement about how Bush is losing the war on terror?

Let's review, kiddies, since apparently we've forgotten.

Since September 11th, 2001, the United States and her allies have:

1. Shut down or frozen the assets of dozens of Muslim 'charities' that embezzled money to terrorists.
2. Frozen hundreds of millions of dollars headed for terrorists.
3. Killed the number 3 man in Al-Qaeda (Mohammed Atef)
4. Captured the number 4 man in Al-Qaeda (Abu Zubaydah)
5. Captured the operational planners for 9/11, including the "CEO" of Al-Qaeda (Ramzi bin AlShibh and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed)
6. Killed or captured over 2/3 of Al-Qaeda's leadership.
7. Denied Al-Qaeda its base in Afghanistan.
8. Denied terrorists their most visible "legitimate" ally: Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein exemplified Arab anti-Americanism. He defied the Great Satan for 12 years and got away with it. We took him out.
9. Captured or killed 45+ of the top 55 most-wanted Iraqis ("Deck of cards").
10. Turned Pakistan (or at least Pervez Musharraf) from a potential enemy to an (if uneasy) friend. Without Pakistan's help, Zubaydah would not be in custody, Mohammed and AlShibh would not be in custody, and any chance at all of capturing Ayman Al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden would not exist.
11. Turned Syria and Saudi Arabia from potential enemies into fearful potential enemies. Assad got the message. Saud got the message. Of course, Saud didn't get the message until a few buildings in Riyadh got blown up by Al-Qaeda, but he got the message.
12. Scared the living hell out of Muammar Qaddafi to the point where he begged Britain and Italy for a way to keep the U.S. from coming after him.
13. The level of international cooperation in the war on terror is of a kind not seen since the Second World War. Every government on the planet (save a few like North Korea's) is cooperating in the effort to eliminate terrorist cells, halt their funding, and arrest or kill their leaders.

Either you can deal with the situation as you'd like it, or you can deal with it as it is. It is completely unfeasible to invade Saudi Arabia and Syria when you can invade Iraq and get Saudi Arabia and Syria to cooperate with you.

without thinking

Something you seem to do a lot of.

[I am David]

TheyAre.

What your saying with Israel is that previously low expecations with Israel excuse Bush's lackluster support of it. It doesn't. I frankly don't care what passed united states presidents have done, for one because it doesnt matter, and for two because this intifada is radically different and more serious than the first. That's a weak argument. It simply isn't acceptable to condemn Israel when it suites George W. Bush, and praise it when it suits him as well. He isn't a true "ally". And what's up with barring Israel from Iraq contracts along with France and others, and forcing Israeli companies to find round about ways of getting contracts? Just an example.

Your argument on the terrorism is weak to. Your argument as a whole is this: The US public just doesn't "have the will" to "go into Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia", therefore, we shouldnt even try to do "what we should" in the war on terror. In addition, you have cherry picked what the Bush Admin HAS done, all the while ignoring the "massive" plethora of things that it HASNT done.

Heres why your argument is incorrect, it doesnt matter if the US public cant stomach invading 3 more countries. First of all we don't have to actually invade (though it may come to that), but we should put serious pressure and threats on those countries (prefferably one at a time, and in different amounts) so that we have a hope of actually controlling the situations. Secondly, should we allow Iran to develop an arsanel of nuclear weapons, and means to deliver them, just because YOU estimate the US public wont "have the will" to do that? It's funny because that seems to be exactly the type of thing Clinton would think. (AKA "terrorist apeaser").

The Bush Admin has been repetedly ignoring the threats from all those countries, all the while Iran is getting dangeriously close to having a working nuclear bomb. I'm sorry but this is simply a serious Issue that needs dealing with IMMEDIATLY, and your fanatical love of George W. Bush isnt going to prove that wrong. This, is why Bush has been failing the war on terror, because hes been ignoring so many serious threats. That list you gave of what he's done sounds nice, but the truth is that if he was doing a good war on terror, that list would be 10 times as long..., so I'm looking at that list right now and thinking its pathetically short.

I suppose when New York or LA gets nuked with a bomb *stolen* from Iran, you will still claim that the Bush Admin has done a "brilliant job" on the war on terror? eh? Oh well the "populace" just "didnt have the will", so we really count have done anything to stop it. Great job excusing George W. Bush for letting things get out of hand.

[David_in_NYC]

Hey mate, you find out what Kerry's position on those issues is, yet? I'm still wondering...

[Alfred]

Originally posted by David_in_NYC
Hey mate, you find out what Kerry's position on those issues is, yet? I'm still wondering...


David: are you looking for today's position....last years position or perhaps next month's position.

You must be more precise when speaking of Kerry.

[David_in_NYC]

Originally posted by Alfred
David: are you looking for today's position....last years position or perhaps next month's position.

You must be more precise when speaking of Kerry.

I'm just waiting for him to tell me what he thinks Kerry's position on any of those issues are; then I can do a simple Google search and find a Kerry quote that advocates an opposite position, as a method of demonstrating to I_am_David that he is being taken for a sucker by a smooth politician.

[I am David]

Hey mate, you find out what Kerry's position on those issues is, yet? I'm still wondering...

NAFTA: Good Idea, bad execution because the rules that were supposed to be enforced arent, so bad things are becoming as a result of it.

Patriot Act: Same deal really, good concept, bad in execution.

Iraq: Kerry considered Iraq a threat and wanted to deal with it, he simply disagrees with the president on how the president went about it. Kerry did vote for the resolution because he agreed with what the resolution said. Basically, Kerry says the president didn't really hold true to the resolution as much as he could have. (e.g, the president has a long list of countries on the Iraq coalition, but the fact is the mass majority of troops are American, and most of the funding is payed by America on what should be a completely international effort)

Not really rocket science ;)

--

That Kerry wafles on issues is a myth perpetrated because Kerry consideres the full complexity of the issue, and explains it fully. As a result, his full position may even be somewhat hard to remember if you dont pay attention. As a result, his distorted positions have an easy time spreading through the media/GOP, etc.

[Mediocrates]

About 1% of all so called high tech jobs have been 'exported'.

[David_in_NYC]

Well, here's proof of his waffling on Iraq, as a starter



And that is why we must take action against this dictator. Regime change has been an American policy under the Clinton administration, and it is the current policy. I support the policy. I think Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that's why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him. (Source: Salon.com, "In their own words," October 11, 2002; NPR, "All Things Considered," March 19, 2003.)

[I am David]

Ask if that statistic matters to the hundred-fifty thousand odd programmers out of work because of Job exportation. Not to mention, the exportation isn't stopping any time soon.

Also, if you look at the amount of programming jobs lost, I think the statistic will be a lot higher too. Don't quote me on that though.

[I am David]

And that is why we must take action against this dictator. Regime change has been an American policy under the Clinton administration, and it is the current policy. I support the policy. I think Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that's why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him. (Source: Salon.com, "In their own words," October 11, 2002; NPR, "All Things Considered," March 19, 2003.)


This is exactly what I was talking about. This isn't waffling at all. I never denied, nor did Kerry, that he didnt want to hold saddam Hussein accountable and eventually change the regime. The only thing Kerry disagrees with is how it is done, with how many foreign troops, aid, and political support. Kerry just thinks we could have had more international support in the war. What's so hard to understand about that?

[David_in_NYC]

And here's the full detail on his statements with regards to Iraq:

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.17925/article_detail.asp

It would be impossibly Clintonian to say that Kerry's comments on record are anything but full support of an invasion to remove Hussein.

[David_in_NYC]

Originally posted by I am David
This is exactly what I was talking about. This isn't waffling at all. I never denied, nor did Kerry, that he didnt want to hold saddam Hussein accountable and eventually change the regime. The only thing Kerry disagrees with is how it is done, with how many foreign troops, aid, and political support. Kerry just thinks we could have had more international support in the war. What's so hard to understand about that?

You need to read the rest of his quotes.

It is utterly disingenuous to support "regime change" and condemn the only possible method of removing the regime - a historically unparalleled success, at that.

[I am David]

Right, Kerry DID support the war in Iraq, conceptually. He thought it should be done. So those quotes don't contradict a thing. He only thinks we could have done it in a safer, more effective way that cost Us less money and spread the burrden out, etc. How hard is that to understand? How many more times will you find quotes with Kerry saying he supported the concept of war, even though that doesnt contradict anything?

[David_in_NYC]

Originally posted by I am David
Right, Kerry DID support the war in Iraq, conceptually. He thought it should be done. So those quotes don't contradict a thing. He only thinks we could have done it in a safer, more effective way that cost Us less money and spread the burrden out, etc. How hard is that to understand? How many more times will you find quotes with Kerry saying he supported the concept of war, even though that doesnt contradict anything?

I understand that it's a hell of a lot easier to criticize than to be in the decision-maker's seat. What specifically could have been done better?

[I am David]

It is utterly disingenuous to support "regime change" and condemn the only possible method of removing the regime - a historically unparalleled success, at that.

You dont get it, he didnt condemn the only possible method at all. He's simply saying we could have done it in a way where we didnt have to burdern almost the full cost (adding to our massive deficit), and where 500+ American soldiers might not have died in the post war period. Theres nothing wrong with supporting war, but then later critisizing someone for how they went to war. It's a very simple concept.

[I am David]

Originally posted by David_in_NYC
I understand that it's a hell of a lot easier to criticize than to be in the decision-maker's seat. What specifically could have been done better?

There's nothing magical I, or Senetor Kerry could say that would answer that question to satisfy you. The only answer is that we could have been a lot less hasty in our buildup to the war, and exausted every single way in which we could have been better prepared for the war. You may think we did everything perfectly, that We couldnt have gone to war better prepared. But that idea is patently ridiculous, there is Always more you can do, to be better prepared, and when you are dealing with the lives of human beings, and the potential for de-stabalizing the middle east, you dont fool around with rushing to war.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by I am David
Ask if that statistic matters to the hundred-fifty thousand odd programmers out of work because of Job exportation. Not to mention, the exportation isn't stopping any time soon.

Also, if you look at the amount of programming jobs lost, I think the statistic will be a lot higher too. Don't quote me on that though.


Ahem, This is what I do for a living for more than a quarter century. Skill up or get out is the watchword. Always has been. Those programming jobs are commodity code crunchers, device driver writers, help desk monkeys and the like. Generally those are subcontractor jobs and many of them

TaAAAA DaAAAAAA, are H1B visa a.ka. foreign worker jobs now.

In a wicked twist of fate recently there was a job fair in silcon valley for 2000 jobs in Bangalore. Everyone one of them was filled the first day by Indian programmers working here on visas. They were more than happy to take 90% pay cuts to move back.

[David_in_NYC]

Originally posted by I am David
You dont get it, he didnt condemn the only possible method at all. He's simply saying we could have done it in a way where we didnt have to burdern almost the full cost (adding to our massive deficit), and where 500+ American soldiers might not have died in the post war period. Theres nothing wrong with supporting war, but then later critisizing someone for how they went to war. It's a very simple concept.

Name one war the US has ever fought that had so few casualties.

You have any idea how many allied soldiers died in the occupations of Germany and Japan? Quite a few. In fact, the peaceniks at that time were braying for us to get out of Germany, in 1946, in nearly the exact same terms the peaceniks use now about Iraq.

As far as the cost... 9/11 cost us many many times what the Battle of Iraq cost us.

What you're describing is a position of pure, unaccountable hypocrisy. There's stuff I would have done differently too, but I accept that fact that I was not in the position of having to take responsibility for those decisions, and that the end result of those decisions was a historically unprecedented success.

[I am David]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Ahem, This is what I do for a living for more than a quarter century. Skill up or get out is the watchword. Always has been. Those programming jobs are commodity code crunchers, device driver writers, help desk monkeys and the like. Generally those are subcontractor jobs and many of them

TaAAAA DaAAAAAA, are H1B visa a.ka. foreign worker jobs now.

In a wicked twist of fate recently there was a job fair in silcon valley for 2000 jobs in Bangalore. Everyone one of them was filled the first day by Indian programmers working here on visas. They were more than happy to take 90% pay cuts to move back.

So what's your point? O___o. Yes I know certain programming jobs are foreign worker jobs now, and I know those jobs can be called something specific such as "driver programmers", but what does that prove? :-|

Also, its not that American programmers are less skilled, its that Indian programmers can do the Job for 1/4 the cost or something similar.

[Mediocrates]

BTW for the past decade I personally have had a job that requires only a phone and a broadband link. I could live literally anywhere on earth if I chose to. My employer knows this and yet my job hasn't been 'outsourced' to Mumbai. Not to polish my own apple so much, but you can't simply replicate my skill set at "Bengalis-R-Us" at any price let alone a smal fraction of it you think you pay people there.

The problem is not job movement it's skill stagnation. When Americans pour the effort they spend on keeping crummy jobs here and instead direct at education that will create new jobs that haven't even been thought of yet then you will see Americans getting and keeping jobs here.

[I am David]

Originally posted by David_in_NYC
Name one war the US has ever fought that had so few casualties.

You have any idea how many allied soldiers died in the occupations of Germany and Japan? Quite a few. In fact, the peaceniks at that time were braying for us to get out of Germany, in 1946, in nearly the exact same terms the peaceniks use now about Iraq.

As far as the cost... 9/11 cost us many many times what the Battle of Iraq cost us.

What you're describing is a position of pure, unaccountable hypocrisy. There's stuff I would have done differently too, but I accept that fact that I was not in the position of having to take responsibility for those decisions, and that the end result of those decisions was a historically unprecedented success.

Weak argument: Just because the casualties were low, and costs low, RELATIVE to other wars, does not mean we could not have still drastically reduced the costs for both in this war. And that has nothing to do with hypocrisy.

[David_in_NYC]

Originally posted by I am David
Weak argument: Just because the casualties were low, and costs low, RELATIVE to other wars, does not mean we could not have still drastically reduced the costs for both in this war. And that has nothing to do with hypocrisy.

Really? How could we have reduced costs for this war?

[I am David]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
BTW for the past decade I personally have had a job that requires only a phone and a broadband link. I could live literally anywhere on earth if I chose to. My employer knows this and yet my job hasn't been 'outsourced' to Mumbai. Not to polish my own apple so much, but you can't simply replicate my skill set at "Bengalis-R-Us" at any price let alone a smal fraction of it you think you pay people there.

The problem is not job movement it's skill stagnation. When Americans pour the effort they spend on keeping crummy jobs here and instead direct at education that will create new jobs that haven't even been thought of yet then you will see Americans getting and keeping jobs here.

I agree with this. But that still doesnt mean that there isnt some unfairness going on. Believe it or not, companies do outsource Programming Jobs just because of cost. It's not the fault of a programmer here that lost their job, its just the company deciding they want to pay less to get it done.

[I am David]

Originally posted by David_in_NYC
Really? How could we have reduced costs for this war?

By spreading the cost amongst many nations, if we had taken the time and effort to get as much financial backing as we could. For starters, we also could have gone in with every soldier protected by Ceramic vests, instead of having only a few protected by what their families could buy them. That would have reduced deaths right off the bat. We also didnt have to use cluster bombs that are left unexploded, resulting in innocent deaths (as Britian did). Just a few things off the top of my head that even still are significant.

[David_in_NYC]

Originally posted by I am David
By spreading the cost amongst many nations, if we had taken the time and effort to get as much financial backing as we could. For starters, we also could have gone in with every soldier protected by Ceramic vests, instead of having only a few protected by what their families could buy them. That would have reduced deaths right off the bat. We also didnt have to use cluster bombs that are left unexploded, resulting in innocent deaths (as Britian did). Just a few things off the top of my head that even still are significant.

1) We had at least 54 nations contribute. That's "many".

2) John Kerry voted against the funding for the operation, including the armored vests, putting him in no position to decry the Bush admin. for not supplying them.

3) You can't have it both ways... either you can use all the weapons at your disposal, including cluster bombs, or you can accept that not using them will incur higher casualties. You seem to think that cluster bombs exist for pure spite. The UK got Basra, which was all but abandoned by Saddam's forces, and there would have been no point to using clusters there.


I can see that you have zero education with regards to war history and operations. There is no war in the history of mankind in which so much territory was taken in so little time with so few casualties. Our total casualties in the entire battle, to date, are less than a third of the casualties we experienced on 9/11/2001.

... and we still haven't even touched on the subject of Kerry's support for the war on Serbia, which wasn't authorized by the UN and was in fact illegal by our own laws in the US (it required Congressional authorization which was never granted, or even requested), in which we did all the work and paid all the bills.

If I were you, I would give up trying to defend Kerry's record. Even if you could twist your brain enough to try and make some consistent rationale out of it, what's there to say that what he says today will be what he will do tomorrow?

[I am David]

Originally posted by David_in_NYC
1) We had at least 54 nations contribute. That's "many".


54 nations, but if you look at the facts, America is still burdening most of the cost and troop deployment. I'm not talking about symbolic gestures, I'm talking about a serious load beeing taken off the back of the American taxpayer and troops.


2) John Kerry voted against the funding for the operation, including the armored vests, putting him in no position to decry the Bush admin. for not supplying them.

Are you talking about the $87 billion? We're talking about before the war, and yes, John Kerry has every right, weather he voted for the $87b or not, to critisize Bush for not making sure we had Ceramic vests on everyone of our soldiers before war.

3) You can't have it both ways... either you can use all the weapons at your disposal, including cluster bombs, or you can accept that not using them will incur higher casualties. You seem to think that cluster bombs exist for pure spite. The UK got Basra, which was all but abandoned by Saddam's forces, and there would have been no point to using clusters there.

You misunderstood, there are cluster bombs that are safe to civilians after battle, there is no reason why we couldnt have used those, as Britian did.


I can see that you have zero education with regards to war history and operations. There is no war in the history of mankind in which so much territory was taken in so little time with so few casualties. Our total casualties in the entire battle, to date, are less than a third of the casualties we experienced on 9/11/2001.

Again, lame argument, whats your point? Are you just talking about how great our military acheivment was? Theres no reason why we couldnt have reduced the casualties and costs further, no matter how low you think they were. Again, in relative terms, the costs were low, but in absolute terms, extremely high. 500 deaths is too high no matter where you have it.

[David_in_NYC]

Originally posted by I am David
54 nations, but if you look at the facts, America is still burdening most of the cost and troop deployment. I'm not talking about symbolic gestures, I'm talking about a serious load beeing taken off the back of the American taxpayer and troops.



Are you talking about the $87 billion? We're talking about before the war, and yes, John Kerry has every right, weather he voted for the $87b or not, to critisize Bush for not making sure we had Ceramic vests on everyone of our soldiers before war.



You misunderstood, there are cluster bombs that are safe to civilians after battle, there is no reason why we couldnt have used those, as Britian did.



Again, lame argument, whats your point? Are you just talking about how great our military acheivment was? Theres no reason why we couldnt have reduced the casualties and costs further, no matter how low you think they were. Again, in relative terms, the costs were low, but in absolute terms, extremely high. 500 deaths is too high no matter where you have it.


Name one war that the US has ever engaged in that you support, then.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by I am David
Also, its not that American programmers are less skilled, its that Indian programmers can do the Job for 1/4 the cost or something similar.

It's about 1/10th actually. And its not about individual skills. It's about the skills required to a do this job or that. It doesn't matter what you or I are capable of doing. What does matter is that there is a strong need for very advanced skills, education and ability. Imagine if you will there was a demand to build a hundred Hubble Space Telescopes each one a hundred times more advanced than what we have today. Imagine if you will an initiative to develop a firewall infrastructure one million times more powerful than what we have today. That will require advanced skills and it will create jobs that haven't been dreamed of yet.

[I am David]

Originally posted by David_in_NYC
Name one war that the US has ever engaged in that you support, then.

I'v supported a lot of wars, but I also probably have harsh critisism for each of those despite that. In each case we could have done a better job and saved more lives just by being more intelligent and planning better.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by I am David
I agree with this. But that still doesnt mean that there isnt some unfairness going on. Believe it or not, companies do outsource Programming Jobs just because of cost. It's not the fault of a programmer here that lost their job, its just the company deciding they want to pay less to get it done.

Partially yes partially no. It's also, if not the fault certainly the responsibility of said programmer to make him or herself not a commodity.

Let me give you an example. In 10 years there may be very few radiologist MDs in this country. Today that is one of the highest paid specialties. Yet technology has made it possible for MDs in China to read x-rays with as good or better clarity and accuracy. One would not say that radiologists are bad at their job or worse than their counterparts in Asia. One would say that radiologists relied on a mode of getting their jobs done that is obsolete.

[David_in_NYC]

Originally posted by I am David
I'v supported a lot of wars, but I also probably have harsh critisism for each of those despite that. In each case we could have done a better job and saved more lives just by being more intelligent and planning better.

If you're going to have "harsh criticism" no matter what happens, why should anyone consider you anything but an irredeemable whiner?

[I am David]

Originally posted by David_in_NYC
If you're going to have "harsh criticism" no matter what happens, why should anyone consider you anything but an irredeemable whiner?

Because mabye the critism is valid? :rolleyes:

Just because every war had something wrong with it, and killed more people than was necesary (I.E. we could have avoided them by being more intelligent), does not mean we should not strive to improve our future wars.

It's not whining if its legitimate, and saving innocent lives when its more than possible is always legitimate.

Sorry, but your just grasping at straws now, that was a ridiculous argument.

[I am David]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
In 10 years there may be very few radiologist MDs in this country. Today that is one of the highest paid specialties. Yet technology has made it possible for MDs in China to read x-rays with as good or better clarity and accuracy. One would not say that radiologists are bad at their job or worse than their counterparts in Asia. One would say that radiologists relied on a mode of getting their jobs done that is obsolete.

True, but if the case was that it was only equally good in China, and we have Americas best interests in mind, is it not fair to keep the jobs here?

The trick is weighing the value of exporting jobs vs. keeping them. We should measure each situation individually and see if its more benificial to export the jobs, or more benificial to keep them.

In some cases, exportation of some jobs is definetily a plus, allowing a company to expand, create more jobs, new products, etc. In other cases however, all it does is create windfall profits for the company, no reall long term benefit, all the while leaving thousands without a high paying job here at home.

[Mediocrates]

What is a windfall and why is that necessarily bad?


....Look that won't help the radiologists but will someone, including you feel bad for the suddenly unemployed $400,000 per year radiologists and their golf pros? See it's important to separate economics from class problems.

[I am David]

What I mean is, is it worth it to export the jobs overseas, leaving many people unemployed here, without any real benifit? I mean sure its one thing to export the jobs if we can see a benifit, but if theres not, shouldnt we do something to stop that exportation?

....Look that won't help the radiologists but will someone, including you feel bad for the suddenly unemployed $400,000 per year radiologists and their golf pros? See it's important to separate economics from class problems.

Mabye not ;), But I also think that many are more like $70,000 per year programmers who have a family and good standard of living to support. :)

[David_in_NYC]

Originally posted by I am David
Because mabye the critism is valid? :rolleyes:

Just because every war had something wrong with it, and killed more people than was necesary (I.E. we could have avoided them by being more intelligent), does not mean we should not strive to improve our future wars.

It's not whining if its legitimate, and saving innocent lives when its more than possible is always legitimate.

Sorry, but your just grasping at straws now, that was a ridiculous argument.

You didn't start this line of argument with the purpose of "striving to improve our future wars", you started it with attempting to justify Kerry's self-contradictions on the war.

This is called "moving the goalposts", a common logical fallacy. I will refrain from imputing dishonesty, since it seems more likely that you've simply been brainwashed.

How many too many soldiers did we lose liberating the Jews of Europe from the Nazi death camps? And how many soldiers did we lose liberating the Iraqis from the Ba'athist death camps?

We saved 25 million people who were the hostages of a brutal police state. We have found to date over 600,000 Iraqis in mass graves - and that's just what we've found so far (and we're digging up new bodies every day). Saddam's regime killed an average of 119 people every single day for over 23 years, most of them likely innocent. That's approximately 42,000 Iraqi lives that have been saved from the depredations of Saddam and his thugs, thanks to the noble sacrifice of 500 US soldiers.

And while we're at it, how about the war in Libya? What war in Libya, you say? Exactly. We won the war in Libya without having to commit a single soldier or fire a single shot. Any criticism for that? Should we have gotten UN approval to accept Qadafi's capitulation?

Think about it. Ask yourself if it's really innocent lives you're worried about. If it is, then you must vote for George Bush in November.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by I am David
Because mabye the critism is valid? :rolleyes:

Just because every war had something wrong with it, and killed more people than was necesary (I.E. we could have avoided them by being more intelligent), does not mean we should not strive to improve our future wars.

It's not whining if its legitimate, and saving innocent lives when its more than possible is always legitimate.

Sorry, but your just grasping at straws now, that was a ridiculous argument.


http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA449.htm

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA471.htm

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA469.htm

[I am David]

Originally posted by David_in_NYC
You didn't start this line of argument with the purpose of "striving to improve our future wars", you started it with attempting to justify Kerry's self-contradictions on the war.

This is called "moving the goalposts", a common logical fallacy. I will refrain from imputing dishonesty, since it seems more likely that you've simply been brainwashed.

How many too many soldiers did we lose liberating the Jews of Europe from the Nazi death camps? And how many soldiers did we lose liberating the Iraqis from the Ba'athist death camps?

We saved 25 million people who were the hostages of a brutal police state. We have found to date over 600,000 Iraqis in mass graves - and that's just what we've found so far (and we're digging up new bodies every day). Saddam's regime killed an average of 119 people every single day for over 23 years, most of them likely innocent. That's approximately 42,000 Iraqi lives that have been saved from the depredations of Saddam and his thugs, thanks to the noble sacrifice of 500 US soldiers.

And while we're at it, how about the war in Libya? What war in Libya, you say? Exactly. We won the war in Libya without having to commit a single soldier or fire a single shot. Any criticism for that? Should we have gotten UN approval to accept Qadafi's capitulation?

Think about it. Ask yourself if it's really innocent lives you're worried about. If it is, then you must vote for George Bush in November.

I didn't start the line of argument to justify Kerry's self contradictions, in fact I was explaining to you his true position, which you havent refuted yet. As far as improving future wars, yes, its basically the same argument as saying we could have done a better job in Iraq. We could have done a better job there and saved innocent lives. I gave you very good examples off the top of my head. It doesnt take a genius to see we could have done better. Therefore, no fallacy, no "goal post switching", my argument has been rock solid from the start, as John Kerry's on this issue.

As far as your WWII analogy, my critism for that war is not preparing for war soon enough so we could have saved some of those 12 million+ who died in the holocaust.

Again, refering to Iraq, your just saying what a good job we did whilst ignoring how we could have done better. How long will you keep this up and ignore your own faulted argument? I'm just saying a lot of those 500+ US soldiers did not have to die, as well as numerous Iraqi civilians. As I said before, that's not exactly rocket science.

As for Libya, The same thing would have happened if we Attacked Iraq more prepared and didnt have as many people die.:rolleyes:

So yes, I will be voting for John Kerry because I care about innocent lives, and he doesnt say "Wowowow we did so good in this war it doesnt matter if we could have done better! Its just important that we did good i dont care if those people didnt have to die!!!!",....Like you are basically saying :rolleyes:

[David_in_NYC]

All you're really saying is that you're not mature enough to accept that some people die in war. You are so far from qualified to discuss how to improve war strategy, you don't even know how embarassed you should be about those comments. The battle of Iraq will be studied for centuries as the epitome of successful war strategy top to bottom.

And I can't believe you have the gall to say we should have gotten started on WW2 sooner to save lives... the reason we didn't get involved in WW2 sooner was because of people saying the exact same thing you have repeatedly said here: that war isn't worth the casualities.

[I am David]

All you're really saying is that you're not mature enough to accept that some people die in war. You are so far from qualified to discuss how to improve war strategy, you don't even know how embarassed you should be about those comments. The battle of Iraq will be studied for centuries as the epitome of successful war strategy top to bottom.

Your just ignoring the argument again. It has nothing to do with not being able to accept that people die in war. It has everything to do with saving lives where its possible. That's a very simple concept. All I'm saying is we could have saved lives, but we didnt. That's something to be critisized. What's so hard to understand about that?


And I can't believe you have the gall to say we should have gotten started on WW2 sooner to save lives... the reason we didn't get involved in WW2 sooner was because of people saying the exact same thing you have repeatedly said here: that war isn't worth the casualities.

Ok, quote me where I said the war wasnt worth the casualties, why dont you? I have the "gall" to say we should have gotten started on WW2 sooner because it could have saved millions of lives. Do you disagree with that argument or are you just going to continue making up false arguments on how I contradict myself?

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by David_in_NYC
You didn't start this line of argument with the purpose of "striving to improve our future wars", you started it with attempting to justify Kerry's self-contradictions on the war.

This is called "moving the goalposts", a common logical fallacy. I will refrain from imputing dishonesty, since it seems more likely that you've simply been brainwashed.

How many too many soldiers did we lose liberating the Jews of Europe from the Nazi death camps? And how many soldiers did we lose liberating the Iraqis from the Ba'athist death camps?

We saved 25 million people who were the hostages of a brutal police state. We have found to date over 600,000 Iraqis in mass graves - and that's just what we've found so far (and we're digging up new bodies every day). Saddam's regime killed an average of 119 people every single day for over 23 years, most of them likely innocent. That's approximately 42,000 Iraqi lives that have been saved from the depredations of Saddam and his thugs, thanks to the noble sacrifice of 500 US soldiers.

And while we're at it, how about the war in Libya? What war in Libya, you say? Exactly. We won the war in Libya without having to commit a single soldier or fire a single shot. Any criticism for that? Should we have gotten UN approval to accept Qadafi's capitulation?

Think about it. Ask yourself if it's really innocent lives you're worried about. If it is, then you must vote for George Bush in November.
_______________________
I froth, therefore I am
Apparently not all froth is bad. Froth on!

[David_in_NYC]

Originally posted by MichaelC
Apparently not all froth is bad. Froth on!

Isn't it astonishing how even after informed about how many lives we saved directly (not to mention how many lives are saved from not having Saddam funding killers and armies), by invading, someone can still oppose the war on the ground that more lives could be saved?

There's only one word for that sort of cognitive dissonance: Stalinist.

"A single death is a tragedy, but a million deaths is a statistic."

[I am David]

Originally posted by David_in_NYC
Isn't it astonishing how even after informed about how many lives we saved directly (not to mention how many lives are saved from not having Saddam funding killers and armies), by invading, someone can still oppose the war on the ground that more lives could be saved?

There's only one word for that sort of cognitive dissonance: Stalinist.

"A single death is a tragedy, but a million deaths is a statistic."

You still misunderstand. One can oppose how the war was brought about and still support it in concept. Its not as if I, or JK, oppose the war in concept, rather its that we both critisize the president for not saving lives when he could have, as well as other things.

Tell me, what is wrong with this? Are you saying that just because overall, the war was good, the president should be immune to critisizm? Are you saying that just because your happy with how the war went, we shouldnt critisize the president so that mabye, next war around, we can do an even better, safer job? Again, its pretty amazing how you can continue to deny that such a simple argument is valid.

[Kev]

Here is a post in favour of Kerry and I am interested in comments against it if possible please.

Yeah Yeah David, I know You Will Love This one! :D



Which Leader would the Terrorists Prefer, Kerry or Bush?




Terrorist's choice: GEORGE WILSON BUSH

Why?
1. His sham "Mideast Democratic Initiative" is about to deliver Iraq to Iran, a member of the "axis of evil." Shiites are majority populations in areas where 90% of all Mideast oil is located. By next February, Iran will have a Hizbollah-Corridor to Israel and be in a position to undermine US energy security.

2. His coverup of Saudi involvement in terror financing, provides a window of opportunity to end-run the pseudo restrictions on terror financing. His government is a party to squelching the 9-11 lawsuit. His father still takes Saud money, and allowed that enemy to finance a library in his name.

3. He has done nothing pro-active against either the genocide mosques (90% of which received Saudi financing through the World Muslim League) in America, and even pays the ISNA's university front group - MSA - to act as consultants to the State Department, notwithstanding the genocide khutbah that issues from MSA directed "Jumuah" sessions at US colleges, every Friday evening.

4. Even though Islamofascists started the war on America, he made "Debaathization" Order #1 (literally) in Iraq, while allowing Islamofascist clerics to both direct murder incitement against American troops under the CPA, and to carry out the murders, with near impunity.

5. He pronounced that "islam is peace" after consultation with American muslims who had direct ties to the terrorists. He intentionally exhonerated these terrorists, by reducing the enemy to persons who allegedly "hijacked" islam, notwithstanding the implications of islamic jihad ideology and obligations.

6. He made the "islamic Republic of Pakistan" his principal ally in his nominal war on terror, notwithstanding Paki support for Taliban and Kashmir terror groups. After provincial assemblies in Balochistan and North West Frontier Province held silence vigils for a Paki who slaughtered 2 CIA employees, he ordered Ambassador Nancy Powell to go to the jihad provinces to thank the terrorist leaders of the Muttahida-Majlis-e-Amal for their participation in the sham "democracy." In addition, he has done absolutely nothing to assist besieged non-muslim states like Russia, China, Phillipines, and India. In service to the ISNA, his State Department is attacking the counter-terror methodology in those potential allies, on human rights grounds.

7. He drove steal into the enemy's back by predicting that the nominal counter-terror war could last "10 years." Americans have already taken a $1,000,000,000,000 hit in order to protect $200 billion in US capital investments in Saudi Arabia. His Defense Minister, Rumsfeld, also predicted that the war would be a long "SLOG," notwithstanding the fact that there are quick-fix methods that would cost next to nothing, and would have popular support by overwhelming majorities in the Free World. Al-Qaida knows it has 10 years to prepare for nuclear-jihad against America.

8. When the National Alliance was poised to liquidate Taliban and its tribal allies, he forced a status quo armistice, which legitimated reconstituted Talibanism in Afghanistan. He even backed the neo-Talibani's "islamic constitution," which poses extreme hardships on women, and allows general conscription in islamic jihad.

9. His "Faith Based Initiatives" suicide pill, legitimates piecemeal shariah in America. Muslims are using that indulgence to campaign for "muslim personal law" as their moral-social standard of conduct. He is preparing America for legalized: wife-beating (obligatory in the unholy koran); rape (4 adult male muslim witnesses required to convict); compulsory veiling; muslim sovereignty over parts of America, under the "dar-islam" principle; prison indoctrination by Islamofascist clerics; spousal abandonment at sole male discretion (a muslim pig need only say 3 times, "I divorce thee."); sex based inheritence proportionality; pedophilia (islam's ersatz 'prophet" married a 6 year old girl, and shariah obligation of "sunna" - following Mohammed's perverse example, obliges muslim males to marry pre-pubescent girls; extermination of homosexuals; sexual mutilation (muslim removal of female erectile tissue); anti- Secularism (muslim perversity will be protected as an exercise of freedom of religion, and critics will be subject to Hate-Law enforcement).

10. His failure to even attempt to effectively counter Euro-dhimmism, even though electoral defeat of said dhimmis would enhance American security. He has not taken a single positive step to assist the growing counter-terror consensus in Europe. He even challenges their Secularism.

11. His chiliastic belief in anti-Secular unity among Jews, Muslims and Christians, pleads respect for muslims and tolerance of their degenerate beliefs and practises. Evidence that muslim murder-cultist do not accept the other bona fide religions, as Abrahamite in nature, does not impact on his alcohol warped brain.






#36 (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=10151_Who_Gets_the_Terrorist_Vote#comments)

[David_in_NYC]

Originally posted by I am David
You still misunderstand. One can oppose how the war was brought about and still support it in concept. Its not as if I, or JK, oppose the war in concept, rather its that we both critisize the president for not saving lives when he could have, as well as other things.

Tell me, what is wrong with this? Are you saying that just because overall, the war was good, the president should be immune to critisizm? Are you saying that just because your happy with how the war went, we shouldnt critisize the president so that mabye, next war around, we can do an even better, safer job? Again, its pretty amazing how you can continue to deny that such a simple argument is valid.

The criticism that Bush didn't save as many lives is disingenuous coming from the same crowd that did everything it could to preserve the murderous Hussein regime, which was snuffing out innocent lives of men, women, and children alike, with a level of brutality that would make any decent man sick.

This is the same crowd that didn't want to go to war in the first place, that was just fine with Hussein murdering over 100 people a day.

[I am David]

Originally posted by David_in_NYC
The criticism that Bush didn't save as many lives is disingenuous coming from the same crowd that did everything it could to preserve the murderous Hussein regime, which was snuffing out innocent lives of men, women, and children alike, with a level of brutality that would make any decent man sick.

This is the same crowd that didn't want to go to war in the first place, that was just fine with Hussein murdering over 100 people a day.

No its not the "same crowd" at all. Kerry was a staunch supporter of the war in Iraq. Why would you say that? We arent talking about any "crowd" here, just Kerry, remember? (and you blame me for "goal post switching" :rolleyes: ). So actually, its not disengenuous at all for Kerry to blame Bush for not sending our troops into Iraq properly protected, or using weapons more safe for civilians, or making sure that America doesnt have to burdern almost the entire cost of the war, etc. That is valid criticism, and criticism should not be pushed aside because overall things went well. There is nothing wrong with that kind of criticism as it can save lives later on.

Look, there's nothing difficult about that concept. Bush did many things wrong going to war, and if someone like Kerry wants to criticism Bush for those wrong things that he did, its perfectly valid, considering he was a supporter of going to war. Do you still have trouble understanding that?

[David_in_NYC]

Originally posted by Kev
Terrorist's choice: GEORGE WILSON BUSH

Why?
1. His sham "Mideast Democratic Initiative" is about to deliver Iraq to Iran, a member of the "axis of evil." Shiites are majority populations in areas where 90% of all Mideast oil is located. By next February, Iran will have a Hizbollah-Corridor to Israel and be in a position to undermine US energy security.

2. His coverup of Saudi involvement in terror financing, provides a window of opportunity to end-run the pseudo restrictions on terror financing. His government is a party to squelching the 9-11 lawsuit. His father still takes Saud money, and allowed that enemy to finance a library in his name.

3. He has done nothing pro-active against either the genocide mosques (90% of which received Saudi financing through the World Muslim League) in America, and even pays the ISNA's university front group - MSA - to act as consultants to the State Department, notwithstanding the genocide khutbah that issues from MSA directed "Jumuah" sessions at US colleges, every Friday evening.

4. Even though Islamofascists started the war on America, he made "Debaathization" Order #1 (literally) in Iraq, while allowing Islamofascist clerics to both direct murder incitement against American troops under the CPA, and to carry out the murders, with near impunity.

5. He pronounced that "islam is peace" after consultation with American muslims who had direct ties to the terrorists. He intentionally exhonerated these terrorists, by reducing the enemy to persons who allegedly "hijacked" islam, notwithstanding the implications of islamic jihad ideology and obligations.

6. He made the "islamic Republic of Pakistan" his principal ally in his nominal war on terror, notwithstanding Paki support for Taliban and Kashmir terror groups. After provincial assemblies in Balochistan and North West Frontier Province held silence vigils for a Paki who slaughtered 2 CIA employees, he ordered Ambassador Nancy Powell to go to the jihad provinces to thank the terrorist leaders of the Muttahida-Majlis-e-Amal for their participation in the sham "democracy." In addition, he has done absolutely nothing to assist besieged non-muslim states like Russia, China, Phillipines, and India. In service to the ISNA, his State Department is attacking the counter-terror methodology in those potential allies, on human rights grounds.

7. He drove steal into the enemy's back by predicting that the nominal counter-terror war could last "10 years." Americans have already taken a $1,000,000,000,000 hit in order to protect $200 billion in US capital investments in Saudi Arabia. His Defense Minister, Rumsfeld, also predicted that the war would be a long "SLOG," notwithstanding the fact that there are quick-fix methods that would cost next to nothing, and would have popular support by overwhelming majorities in the Free World. Al-Qaida knows it has 10 years to prepare for nuclear-jihad against America.

8. When the National Alliance was poised to liquidate Taliban and its tribal allies, he forced a status quo armistice, which legitimated reconstituted Talibanism in Afghanistan. He even backed the neo-Talibani's "islamic constitution," which poses extreme hardships on women, and allows general conscription in islamic jihad.

9. His "Faith Based Initiatives" suicide pill, legitimates piecemeal shariah in America. Muslims are using that indulgence to campaign for "muslim personal law" as their moral-social standard of conduct. He is preparing America for legalized: wife-beating (obligatory in the unholy koran); rape (4 adult male muslim witnesses required to convict); compulsory veiling; muslim sovereignty over parts of America, under the "dar-islam" principle; prison indoctrination by Islamofascist clerics; spousal abandonment at sole male discretion (a muslim pig need only say 3 times, "I divorce thee."); sex based inheritence proportionality; pedophilia (islam's ersatz 'prophet" married a 6 year old girl, and shariah obligation of "sunna" - following Mohammed's perverse example, obliges muslim males to marry pre-pubescent girls; extermination of homosexuals; sexual mutilation (muslim removal of female erectile tissue); anti- Secularism (muslim perversity will be protected as an exercise of freedom of religion, and critics will be subject to Hate-Law enforcement).

10. His failure to even attempt to effectively counter Euro-dhimmism, even though electoral defeat of said dhimmis would enhance American security. He has not taken a single positive step to assist the growing counter-terror consensus in Europe. He even challenges their Secularism.

11. His chiliastic belief in anti-Secular unity among Jews, Muslims and Christians, pleads respect for muslims and tolerance of their degenerate beliefs and practises. Evidence that muslim murder-cultist do not accept the other bona fide religions, as Abrahamite in nature, does not impact on his alcohol warped brain.


Boy this is a big chunk of naivete... I'm amazed that anyone is able to swallow it whole.

Some brief replies... this isn't worth taking too much time:

1) Reading the new Iraqi Constitution should dispel any illusions that we are handing Iraq over to a Shiite theocracy. Also, it is pretty silly to suggest we're handing it over to Iran at the same time we are building the case to destroy the regime there.

2) The Saudi financing wasn't covered up. The person who wrote that is basically ignoring the enormous economic price we would pay by going after S.A. with guns blazing. Each of the problem nations requires a different solution. One solution was appropriate for Iraq, a different one is appropriate for Saudi Arabia, a different one for Libya, yet another for Pakistan, and so on.

3) Read the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

4) The Ba'ath Party is the Nazi party of the Islamic world. It's actually a direct descendant thereof. Not being Islamist themselves was no barrier to funding Islamist terror against Israel, and it is foolish to believe it would be a barrier to funding Islamist terror elsewhere.

5) When Bush said "Islam is a religion of peace", that was an order, not a statement.

6) total ignorance of the facts of the matter... worthless blather

7) see #6 - quick fixes, my hindquarters.

8) If he had let the N.A. do everything they wanted to, the libs would now be screaming about his complicity in genocide. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

9) Um, no, sorry... that's happening in Canada, not the USA.

10) George Bush is President of the USA, not of Europe. Europeans need to grow up and take responsibility for their own actions.

11) worthless blather


The post you reproduced here is an archetypical example of how a brainwashed person thinks... self-contradiction is no bar to assertion; facts are irrelevant.

[Kev]

The post you reproduced here is an archetypical example of how a brainwashed person thinks... self-contradiction is no bar to assertion; facts are irrelevant


Thank you for your response for I admittedly, as a Canadian haven't really followed your elections closely, fact for fact but have often just gone on gut instinct and liked Reagan, Bush....disliked Kennedy, Clinton, Carter, etc..............but I will admit, at the risk of appearing naive that my recent interest has only come about in the last few years, since on or about 1999 when it began to heat up in Israel again.


I too don't like Kerry, but occasionally I do see a post such as that one, and just want to have it deconstructed and blown apart, if for no other reason than to ensure for myself that I AM backing the right man, although, as a Canadian, this support is merely vocal.

[ibrodsky]

Back to Kerry, the liar.

He and other Democrats claim that our biggest mistake with Iraq was acting alone. Here is how we acted "unilaterally":

Following are the foreign contingents occupying Iraq, with their current strengths:

1. United States: 130,000
2. Britain: 9,000
3. Italy: 3,000
4. Poland: 2,460
5. Ukraine: 1,600
6. Spain: 1,300
7. Netherlands: 1,100
8. Australia: 800
9. Romania: 700
10. Bulgaria: 480
11. Thailand: 440
12. Denmark: 420
13. Honduras: 368
14. El Salvador: 361
15. Dominican Republic: 302
16. Hungary: 300
17. Japan: 240 (rising to 550 by the end of March)
18. Norway: 179
19. Mongolia: 160
20. Azerbaijan: 150
21. Portugal: 128
22. Latvia: 120
23. Lithuania: 118
24. Nicaragua: 113
25. Slovakia: 102
26. Czech Republic: 80
27. Philippines: 80
28. Albania: 70
29. Georgia: 70
30. New Zealand: 61
31. Moldova: 50
32. Estonia: 31
33. Macedonia: 37
34. Kazakhstan: 25

In addition to the U.S., there are close to 25,000 troops representing 33 countries.

So you can see, Kerry and the Democrats are liars, and are depending on the average person's ignorance and the media's barely disguised support to get away with it.

[I am David]

It's not a lie to consider our invasion force 'not properly multilateral'. It's not a fact, it really is up to personal definition what a real multilateral force is. Its incorrect to call someone a liar over that.

[I am David]

All politicans are liars, including Bush, and Kerry, and everyone else. Instead of accusing Bush a liar, and reveling in your sorry pity right wing paranoa on how the media is against Republicans, why don't you actually do some reall debating and re-evaluate your positions a couple times. You could learn something ;)

[I am David]

Great argument.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by I am David
All politicans are liars, including Bush, and Kerry, and everyone else.

Great argument for supporting Kerry.

Are you two related by any chance? :D

[I am David]

That's NOT an argument at all for supporting Kerry. I wasn't trying to do that though....I was just making an individual argument in response to yours :rolleyes:

I love stating the obvious (not)

[I am David]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Are you two related by any chance? :D

I was going to ask the same thing about you and Bush :eek:

[Alfred]

I teach my children to never trust ANY politician...and to watch them like a hawk. But to NEVER believe any Democrat.

[David_in_NYC]

Originally posted by I am David
It's not a lie to consider our invasion force 'not properly multilateral'. It's not a fact, it really is up to personal definition what a real multilateral force is. Its incorrect to call someone a liar over that.

If it is just personal opinion, why did we hear the Left braying about multilateralism for months and months? Since when is the definition of "multilateral" a matter of one's whim? You ever notice that once you start defining words, so that they mean the same thing every time you use them, the Democrat point of view no longer adds up?

The similarity to your quoted statement and the following passage from Alice in Wonderland (http://sundials.org/about/humpty.htm) should frighten you:

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

[I am David]

I was refering to the definition of a "real multilateral force", not "multilateralism" itself. Obviously theres a difference.

[David_in_NYC]

Originally posted by I am David
I was refering to the definition of a "real multilateral force", not "multilateralism" itself. Obviously theres a difference.

Psst... there's only one country in the world with the ability to project significant military force beyond its borders without outside assistance... you get one guess which that is. We should not defend ourselves because Europe has gotten weak and lazy?

[I am David]

That has nothing to do with the argument.

[David_in_NYC]

Originally posted by I am David
That has nothing to do with the argument.

Actually it does, since it's a key fact exposing that your proposed alternatives are grounded in escapist fantasy, and not the reality on the ground that responsible leaders have to face when making decisions.

[Mediocrates]

So bottom line, whats the problem with Kerry?

Don't trouble me with your assessment or your guess of the inner workings of the man. Just break it down for me in political terms plain and simple. And please don't waste my time comparing him to JFK and then complaining he's too liberal. JFK was less liberal and more hawkish than Nixon. I have no problem with that.


Thanks.

[I am David]

Originally posted by David_in_NYC
Actually it does, since it's a key fact exposing that your proposed alternatives are grounded in escapist fantasy, and not the reality on the ground that responsible leaders have to face when making decisions.

Thats incredibly ridiculous. I thought I had explained about 20 times so far theres nothing "escapist" about my/Kerry's support for the war. It's like I've never posted at all, your perfectly content with refuting imaginary arguments that I never made once. I personally don't understand that thought process.

[I am David]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
So bottom line, whats the problem with Kerry?

Don't trouble me with your assessment or your guess of the inner workings of the man. Just break it down for me in political terms plain and simple. And please don't waste my time comparing him to JFK and then complaining he's too liberal. JFK was less liberal and more hawkish than Nixon. I have no problem with that.


Thanks.

If your asking for an objective opinion from Bush-lovers, I doubt you'll get it. They use arguments like "hes a tax and spend liberal" (rather than the much better "borrow and spend" that Bush is :rolleyes: ), Or that he "gutted the defense budget" (thats a myth perpetrated by Bush himself, who then uses that as an argument for why Kerry's "wrong on defense"). Or mabye they'll say hell "raise taxes for Americans" even though he would only return the taxes to pre-Bush level for the top %2 of Americans, to counter the soaring deficit which would one day likely become catastrophic (which have not worked to well it seems, and most people already knew they wouldnt).

Then ofcourse there's the one we've been arguing about here, that he flip flops,well at least Kerry misleads a whole lot less than Bush, and if you understand his positions you should see he doesnt really flip flop (case in point Iraq).

Oh and like you mentioned, sometimes they use as an argument, "He's a liberal" :rolleyes:

[ibrodsky]

Statement by Bush-Cheney '04 Campaign Chairman Governor Marc Racicot
Wed Mar 17 2004 10:20:54 ET

ARLINGTON, VA --"Yesterday on a conference call arranged by Sen. Kerry's campaign, former Gov. Howard Dean blamed the deaths in Spain on President Bush and the War on Terror. The attacks were caused by a global terror network that not only struck Spain, but also killed in the United States, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Bali. If Senator Kerry understands the nature of this threat and the need to take on terror, then he should immediately repudiate these troubling comments, and stop all efforts on behalf of his surrogates to blame America for these attacks."

END

Source: Drudge Report (http://www.drudgereport.com)

[David_in_NYC]

Kerry voted to kill, among other things:

B1/B2 bombers
MX missile
Patriot antimissile system
F15/F16 fighters
AEGIS
... and a whole bunch of other stuff that was crucial to winning the Cold War.

Also, he tried to cut the CIA budget by 1.5 billion in 1995 - two years after the first WTC bombing.

And I should add, he's completely unreliable. There's no telling whether he will hold a position consistently from day to day. He will tell anyone anything that he thinks they want to hear.

[I am David]

Its misleading to say he cut those programs for one because you dont understand what those votes were actually for. Many of them may not have been to kill the programs, but to only have them done in a way that wasnt a giveaway to defense companies.

For example, that $1.5 billion that Kerry voted to cut, was about 1% of the intelligence budget, and was all money that was accumulated and wasnt being used. Minor cuts like that go on with both parties and are all part of the regular handling of goverment. For example, only a few months later, the republicans voted to cut the intelligence by $3.8 billion.

You should have a real understanding of those votes before you go shooting of that that proves hes weak on defense and "unreliable".

[Mediocrates]

The intelligence budget is 30% of the total defense budget? Sounds high.

[ibrodsky]

Kerry's wife has been linked to CAIR, a national Muslim organization linked to terrorism. (Two of CAIR's leaders have been arrested for involvement with terrorism and other CAIR leaders and allies have a long history of making statements supportive of, or at least ambiguous towards, terrorism):

Teresa Heinz and CAIR
March 17, 2004
Teresa Heinz and CAIR. The wife of the Democratic candidate for president of the United States, John Kerry, appears to be giving money to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an organization I have for two years characterized as standing "on the wrong side in the war on terrorism." Here's the connection:

The Capital Research Center, an agency that tracks non-profits and charities, indicates that the Howard Heinz Endowment (which Teresa F. Heinz chairs) gave some $4 million to the Tides Center during the period 1998-2001, or about $1 million a year. In addition, the Vira I. Heinz Endowment (where Teresa sits on the board) gave $75,000 to the Tides Foundation in 1998.

(Heinz Endowment funds going to Tides have come under intense media scrutiny of late, prompting Tides to post a press release on the topic on March 11, 2004; but CAIR has not been part of the discussion until now.)

The Tides Center and the Tides Foundation both make up part of what are called the "Tides Family of Organizations" (leave it to the far left to use the word family in this way), as is Groundspring.org.

CAIR is among the organizations Tides has announced it is "privileged" to support.

So here is the unfortunate linkage: John Kerry—Teresa Heinz—Heinz Endowments—Tides Family of Organizations—CAIR. (March 17, 2004)

All material on this site ©1980-2004 Daniel Pipes. Site built and maintained by Grayson Levy.

Source: Teresa Heinz and CAIR (http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/202)

[David_in_NYC]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Kerry's wife has been linked to CAIR, a national Muslim organization linked to terrorism. (Two of CAIR's leaders have been arrested for involvement with terrorism and other CAIR leaders and allies have a long history of making statements supportive of, or at least ambiguous towards, terrorism):



Source: Teresa Heinz and CAIR (http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/202)

Ah that's the right button... there are so many, I guess I was so concerned with my own priorities (i.e. survival, truth) that I forgot to mention his ties to anti-semitism.

Did you hear that Malathir endorsed him today? His campaign then released a statement that they didn't want foreign endorsements, believe it or not... as if the whole flap these past two weeks about him claiming to have met foreign leaders who were pulling for him never happened.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by David_in_NYC
Ah that's the right button... there are so many, I guess I was so concerned with my own priorities (i.e. survival, truth) that I forgot to mention his ties to anti-semitism.

Did you hear that Malathir endorsed him today? His campaign then released a statement that they didn't want foreign endorsements, believe it or not... as if the whole flap these past two weeks about him claiming to have met foreign leaders who were pulling for him never happened.

And as Charles Johnson noted, he threw in an anti-Semitic remark at no extra charge:

“I think Kerry would be much more willing to listen to the voices of people and of the rest of the world,” Mahathir, who retired in October after 22 years in power, told The Associated Press in an interview.

“But in the U.S., the Jewish lobby is very strong, and any American who wants to become president cannot change the policy toward Palestine radically,” he said.

-- His Islamo-Nazi excellency, Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by David_in_NYC
Ah that's the right button... there are so many, I guess I was so concerned with my own priorities (i.e. survival, truth) that I forgot to mention his ties to anti-semitism.


Actually David, CAIR is committed to killing real white people, like you, too. So hike up ya burqa girlfriend and lay on your stomach.

[David_in_NYC]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Actually David, CAIR is committed to killing real white people, like you, too. So hike up ya burqa girlfriend and lay on your stomach.

No frickin' surprise to me. CAIR and their Tranzi allies can come and get me when I run out of ammo. Long live the 2nd Amendment!

[Mira~]

http://www.mightyrighty.com/images/osama3.jpg

[Alfred]

:)

Ah, another rich, spoiled kid gone bad.

[Kev]

Thanks Mira, I was hoping someone would post a jpeg or gif along those lines. :)

Alfred, I don't want to change the topic here so lets leave it here but as someone who grew up with a lot of "rich kids" and who saw many die from drug overdoses....but yet many more succeed, one common theme I saw with the children that died were parents with enormous wealth who were far too busy for their children and placated them with money.

When a child receives $22 million for his 21st birthday, I am sorry, how many children of that age should ever be given that type of money to begin with nor, how many children who grow up expecting it develop themselves completely?
From what I have seen, not too many.

The children that I did see develop well were generally made to understand at a very early age that they would be expected to forge their own way in the world, although that might mean a bit of help, but not much more.
If not at least until they were decades older and already an adult that had proven himself.

Although not religious myself I don't deny that I believe it offers a better foundation for children and had I had children, I would have made a serious effort to open my ears and eyes to religion if not for the same reasons some might do so, but for the sake of my children only.
But as funny as that may sound, I would have been far more inclined to go the way of Judaism then my own ( dont laugh )
In fact I did begin to convert in 1987 but after 3 classes only decided it didnt feel serious enough to me and I was made to feel as if it was a sham in order to get married which wasnt the reason I was doing it.

But thats neither here nor there so I dont want to change the TOPIC of this thread but it tends to annoy me when I see people make claims that suggest that all children of money turn out bad.

Aside from Usama of course!


But lets leave this here for risk of diluting the thread topic

[Alfred]

I was refering specifically to the picture of Osama. You know, Kerry and Osama both gone bad?

But I hear that the following are supporting Kerry so far.

Osama
Syria
North Korea
Iran
Genghis Khan the 114th
I am David
France
The new and improved Spain
Germany
Ted Kennedy
Red China
The Netherlands
Belgium
Koffi (who got the money?) Anan
The UN

[Alfred]

THIS JUST CAME OUT FROM WASHINGTON:

(AP)

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE JOHN F. KERRY, AFTER HIS TUMBLE ON THE SKI SLOPES OF SUN VALLEY, HAS PUT HIMSELF IN FOR A PURPLE HEART.

MANY ARE STARTING TO CRITICIZE KERRY FOR PUTTING HIMSELF IN FOR A PURPLE HEART CITING THAT HE WAS NOT IN A COMBAT SITUATION AND THAT HE WASN'T IN A WAR. KERRY HAS REPLIED THAT "WE ARE IN A WAR...THE WAR ON TERRORISM...WHICH BUSH IS FAILING...BESIDES I AM STILL FIGHTING THE VIET NAM WAR, IN WHICH I WAS A GREAT HERO. ADDITIONALLY, THE SECRET SERVICE AGENT WHO KNOCKED ME DOWN WAS ARMED....AND I COULD HAVE BEEN HURT HAD THAT BAD GUN GONE OFF"

FURTHER COMMENTARY FORTHCOMING.

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Alfred
I was refering specifically to the picture of Osama. You know, Kerry and Osama both gone bad?

But I hear that the following are supporting Kerry so far.

Osama
Syria
North Korea
Iran
Genghis Khan the 114th
I am David
France
The new and improved Spain
Germany
Ted Kennedy
Red China
The Netherlands
Belgium
Koffi (who got the money?) Anan
The UN

:D
Add me to the list.
Oh wait, I'm already represented under "The Netherlands"

[I am David]

Alfred, you forgot "Half of the United States voting population" under supporters for Kerry, in which I would be included ;)

[Mediocrates]

Yes for better or worse this next election will be yet another dead heat alley fight contested in a gaggle of courtrooms. Bet on it.

[RichardP]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Yes for better or worse this next election will be yet another dead heat alley fight contested in a gaggle of courtrooms. Bet on it.

Sadly, the prediction of yours is bang on! :confused:

[David_in_NYC]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Yes for better or worse this next election will be yet another dead heat alley fight contested in a gaggle of courtrooms. Bet on it.

No it won't. By the time this is said and done it will resemble Reagan-Mondale.

[Alfred]

This is a must-see picture of John Kerry and the foreign leaders who support him

:) :) :)

http://www.assaultweb.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=42;t=016073;p=0

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Alfred
This is a must-see picture of John Kerry and the foreign leaders who support him

:) :) :)

http://www.assaultweb.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=42;t=016073;p=0

Pathetic.

[Ahava]

AIPAC says John Kerry is "almost perfect" with regards to Israel. Just mentioning it.

[David_in_NYC]

Originally posted by Ahava
AIPAC says John Kerry is "almost perfect" with regards to Israel. Just mentioning it.

In other words, he told them what he thought they wanted to hear. No relation to what he actually might do. At the same time he is also saying that we should let the unambiguously anti-semitic UN make the big decisions.

Thanks but no thanks.

[Ahava]

Originally posted by David_in_NYC
In other words, he told them what he thought they wanted to hear. No relation to what he actually might do. At the same time he is also saying that we should let the unambiguously anti-semitic UN make the big decisions.

Thanks but no thanks.

I do not think AIPAC is so stupid to be that easily misled.

[TheyAre]

No one ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of [insert group here].