| « An afternoon at Emerald Downs and Ikea | Home | Why no one's buying tickets for the Olympics » |
Latest Entries
On the Set at the Toyota Commercial Filming
Dick Stein Reading The Tacomiad (and other fab audio!)
Photos ~ Frost Park Chalk Off #30
Mon. August 16, 2004, 10:49am PDT
Our negative president
A quote from a May 31, 2004 Washington Post ad about how negative the Bush campaign has been:
"Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush's campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads -- or 27 percent of his total. The figures were compiled by The Washington Post using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group of the top 100 U.S. markets. Both campaigns said the figures are accurate."
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3222-2004May30.html
If this was written then, how much more has been spent now? Mr. Bush would be an easy target but Kerry is choosing the high road to talk about the good he'll do once in office. Bush has little to show for his time in office and would rather spend his campaign time and money distorting facts and figures from John Kerry's distinguised history in the senate. Let's see... Who has more experience in government here?
Although it's pretty clear where my vote will be going this November, I don't discourage any commentary on this sort of issue. Please let me know what you think. Politics is about dialog and I'm sure as heck willing to listen... as long as you're willing to listen to me.
Comments (29) | To Top
8/16/2004 @ 12:52pm
I don't believe we'll ever see political campaigns function without these "negative ads" in our lifetimes at least. It's the nature of the beast right now it seems.
But we do know that John Kerry and George Bush do have some clear differences. Just the fact that John Kerry is pro-choice and Bush is pro-life make it an easy call for someone like me with a pro-life viewpoint. I feel that focusing on where the canidates stand on the issues is much less ugly than the personal attacks. So why do you support Kerry, apart from the fact that you don't like Bush? What about his record and his plan for the future make him your canidate?
by Bush in 04!
8/16/2004 @ 1:01pm
And how does the fact that "Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads" equate into Kerry "choosing the high road to talk about the good he'll do once in office"?
by Bush in 04!
8/16/2004 @ 3:31pm
Negative ads certainly aren't going anywhere but I tend to think a campaign that puts out well of half of their ads as negative is a bit much. I would be interested to see more updated figures on that, however.
The issues do matter and that's why I think paying attention to the conventions (yes I will be listening in to most of the speeches of the RNC in two weeks, as I did the DNC a few weeks ago) and having debates really tells us who these candidates are and what they and their party stands for. The thing about commercials is, negative or positive, I mute them. If I can focus my attention on something like a speech or debate I'll do that knowingly rather than be blind-sided by some flashy ad that I'm bound to ignore whether for a political candidate or for the latest sports drink.
I think John Kerry's record as a wartime soldier makes him far more suited to understand the process of war and the plight of the soldiers more than a National Guardsman who had trouble showing up for duty and who never fired a weapon under the shadow of a war. I also think John Kerry's experience in the senate is important because he knows the processes and people in Washington that will allow him to work better with everyone around him. Outsiders like Bush can do well too by coming in with fresh ideas but I don't believe that was done with the "compassionate conservatism" that was promised us four years ago. The political divide in this nation is intense and I believe it's because Bush has brought so many extreme policies and people to the table that he's no longer speaking to all Americans. John Kerry's past voting record in the senate is important not because he's a "flip flopper" but because, as with any human being, times and minds change and with that so should the voting record of any senator sensitive to that. They represent the people and if the people's perspective or ideals shift so should the votes of anyone we elect.
Thanks for the comments. This is good stuff!
by KevinFreitas
8/16/2004 @ 3:34pm
Well, 'Bush in 04' like YOU said, we'll never see a campaign without 'negative ads'. So, I think it's a common expectation that both sides will have them. What tells me that Kerry is taking the high road is the shear difference in the amount of them: 49,050 vs. 13,336?! C'mon. Whoever has that kind of time to devote to such a focus obviously has (besides the money) motivation.
by Cassioposa
8/16/2004 @ 6:31pm
Every ad can be considered negative by the "other party". But from what I've seen, Bush slings mud and Kerry merely states the facts. The Bush administration has been a travesty to this nation from the time he set foot on Washington D.C. soil. He has been a puppet for the power mongers. And, if he cared for life thousands would not have died in 9/11 and hundreds more children in Irag would be alive today. Open you minds and see the whole picture. This is too big of a decision to nit-pick on one issue.
by The Watcher
8/17/2004 @ 2:29am
Okay, I'll try to respond to this point by point Kevin...
You basically said Kerry's record in wartime makes him great while Bush's National Guard record make him weak. I believe both of those thoughts have been debated quite a bit by people such as the Swift Boat Vets denying Kerry's heroism and the Republicans denying the statements made about Bush's service. Therefore, doubts have been placed in peoples minds about both canidates but I really don't think the critisisms hold up for either person. Here's one article in regards to Bush's service:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040211-121217-6595r.htm
The article mentions how during the 1992 election of Clinton, Kerry said "it was time to stop re-examining how people did or did not serve during the Vietnam War". I suggest we stick to his advice in this case.
Secondly, you say that Kerry's service in the senate gives him experience with D.C. but so does Bush's service as president these past four years. In fact, I would say Bush has more experience when it comes to being president.
Now do you really think the political divide in this nation will change if Kerry or anyone else for that matter were elected? I don't. I also don't believe that having a leader vote according to the polls all the time is better than one with convictions. Sometimes the majority is wrong and we need a leader who can do what is right. Take slavery for example. But if your worldview does not include a belief in right and wrong, good and evil, then you might prefer a canidate who gets blown about in the political winds.
So there's more food for thought. Thanks for debating with me.
by Bush in 04!
8/17/2004 @ 7:01am
I could certainly set aside the Vietnam issue since I'm really too young to have experienced any of it. But aside from that Kerry knows, despite any support or criticism therein, what it's like to a soldier on the ground during wartime. What Bush knows of war is a couple secret visits to troops in Iraq to share some Thanksgiving turkey or a Christmas gift. Although I don't agree with this war or any war I do think if the American people want someone who really knows what war is they should give Sen. Kerry a look rather than someone who's simply moving little pieces around on a board a la Risk.
Bush certainly does have more experience as President. Damn, you got me there! ;) I don't think a senator should wistfully blow his/her votes around according to every popular blip that comes along either. There extremes with everything but I don't believe that any senator should be required to stand for something just for the sake of consistency in a voting record in case they happen to run for President someday. Elected officials are servants of the people. Sure they have to sort through the fluff and figure out what the real issues are but that doesn't mean they vote according only to their own adgenda or convictions. I also have perhaps more trust in the voting public and not the institutions put in place to "protect" us from ourselves (e.g. the electoral college). I do believe most Americans voted for the other guy last time around. As Republicans are fans of smaller government shouldn't you want fewer road blocks standing in the way between your choice and the results produced in government?
The political divide exists and will always whether it's a two or more party system. It can change in it's amplitude, however, if we get a President who's willing to be far more open to alternative ideas and world views than I believe Bush has been. Simply sprinkling some tax cuts like magic pixie dust over the American peoples' heads won't make our spirits fly but actually listening to all the voices and ideas out there certainly will.
While we're setting aside things how about we not invoke the slavery issue in this and, as far as I can see it, we have no right even assuming we know what slaves in this country went through. We're typing on our computers from comfortable desk chairs in air conditioned buildings that we probably drive to and from at will to either make or spend money.
So within this divided between Republicans and Democrats why is it that Republicans are seen as more religious/faithful/whatever than Democrats? I simply don't see it.
Whew, this is tiring stuff. My gears are turning. Cheers!
by KevinFreitas
8/17/2004 @ 7:21am
I've had this idea for a while and it's fresh in my head with the above discussion taking place:
Wouldn't it be great to have representitives (official or otherwise) from Kerry's and Bush's campaigns to debate the issues in towns and cities across America? Open forums where the audience could as questions and where the debaters wouldn't be putting their political careers on the line with every word they utter. Discussions like we're having here to help people truly define their political desires and encourage them to express that in words and with votes. Since I work at PLU I thought getting in touch with the college Republican and Democrats groups to see if they'd be willing to hold something like this on the PLU campus.
Too ideal? Not if everyone pledges to keep a cool head on their shoulders. After all, no one can listen if everybody's yelling.
by KevinFreitas
8/17/2004 @ 10:50am
Oh boy, why are Republican's seen as more religious/faithful? That's a good question. Let me try to answer it. First off I would like to use the word support instead of religious and say there are several reasons the evangelical Christian community in America favors the support of the Republican party over the lack of support from the Democrats. For starters, take the ten commandments. Obviously these hold a special place in the heart of Christians but that they also have a strong historical significance as part of the creation of our nation's laws based upon the Judeo-Christian philosophy. Liberal judges have taken steps to remove the ten commandments along with liberal groups like the ACLU while conservatives defend the right to display them. The pledge of allegiance is another thing that has been in court lately regarding whether or not God can be said as part of the pledge. It is not the conservatives who are trying to remove God from the pledge. Likely the next battle will be to take "In God We Trust" off of our money. More politicized issues include abortion and gay marriage. You know that more religious people side with the pro-life stance and want to protect traditional marriage between a man and woman.
Bush has reached out to the people with his faith-based initiative and has a reputation for being a genuine born-again Christian. Kerry on the other hand wants to keep his faith a private matter. Evangelical Christians believe that God calls for them to be open and share their faith. In the Bible, Luke 8:16 speaks about sharing the good news of God like this, "No one lights a lamp and hides it in a jar or puts it under a bed. Instead, he puts it on a stand, so that those who come in can see the light." I don't really know what Kerry believes but know that I appreciate Bush's openess.
I imagine you must be thinking about that battle cry of the liberals, "we must have separation of church and state". I would encourage you to read this article first:
http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html
It does a good job of explaining where I'm coming from on the matter. Then let me know your response. I look forward to it.
And I think your idea about debates being held more frequently by representatives of each party would be a good thing. Too many people don't even think about what matters but vote based on trivial things such as appearance. Do you remember hearing statistics about how many women found Clinton attractive?
by Bush in 04!
8/17/2004 @ 11:18am
No, but I heard recently from someone that their friend thinks about Bush when she's in bed with her boyfriend. That's so wrong for so many reasons. I have to go now so I can purge that image from my mind with a ray gun.
More later...
by KevinFreitas
8/17/2004 @ 8:45pm
Nothing worse than self righteous bible thumpers that call themselves patriots.
by The Watcher
8/19/2004 @ 8:51am
The one thing I don't appreciate about Bush's openness on religion is that he appears to tout Christianity as the "American Way", and rarely (if ever) mentions any other form of religion in a positive light. I come from a Christian background, but I could never imagine speaking to or for the country where I would promote my faith and not recognize other spiritual perspectives that make our country wonderfully diverse. Kerry's focus on keeping his religion a private matter, makes me feel more comfortable having a faith that may not be exactly what his is. I won't feel abandoned or "Un-American" for that, or that someone is trying to sell me on a popular religious perspective. And I'm sure a rather large majority of Americans would appreciate such respect for diversity.
by Cassioposa
8/20/2004 @ 9:45am
Cassioposa, I would be interested to know what your personally believe about Jesus Christ, having come from a Christian background. Do you feel Bush has really promoted his faith without recognizing other spiritual perspectives? I know that I’ve heard him recognize people of different faiths on several occasions. After 9/11 he spoke about the difference between the peaceful Muslims and the radical terrorists who held an extreme version of Islam. Can you explain to me what you view as the line between promoting a religion and using your freedoms of speech and religion to speak about your beliefs?
An interesting fact for you... (the numbers mentioned are approximately what I remember) I heard a conservative speaker on the news mention that Bush has said the name of Jesus Christ 16 times during his public speaking in office while Clinton said Jesus Christ nearly 50 times in public speaking while in office. He was making the point that there is a double standard that says its okay for a Democrat to speak about his belief in Christ while a Republican doesn't share the same privilege. I do have to agree that Clinton was not attacked for his displays of faith in Christ. But there also seems to be a double standard held against Christianity versus other religions. If a public figure was a Muslim who was very proud of his faith and quoted from the Koran regularly, would people react the same as they do toward a Christian? People may claiming I lack tolerance for believing that Jesus Christ is the only Way, Truth, and Life and that no one comes to the Father except through the Son. But if that is the true reality, do I not lack compassion if I don’t share the good news that Jesus saves?
Obviously I’m getting sidetracked from our politically discussion into one more about faith but that is where my passion really is. Thanks for your thoughts and for considering mine.
by Bush in 04!
8/21/2004 @ 11:54am
Every religion is a "belief system" for those who need a comfort zone and are unable to deal with life without some light at the end of the tunnel. Every war that has been fought has had to do with religious and cultural power struggles. I have a belief system. It is called the TRUTH. I can prove mine because it is based only on facts. I believe in the future and know that TRUTH will prevail. Politics mixed with religion makes a potent poison for any nation. A nation with good morals does not have to be a religious nation. It needs only to respect life, take care of its young and old and believe in equality, unequivocally. By the way, Bush is not in my future because he does not respect the truth.
by The Watcher
8/22/2004 @ 2:25pm
The thing is that we elect a President to represent us as a people to speak for us and to make decisions for us. So shouldn't our president be someone who encompasses all our ideals not just christian ones? A President who wants you to know who he is in order for you to elect him and in addition wants to symbolize all Americans to the rest of the world is a President I want. That is a person who would be modest about their own beliefs in order to fufill a role speaking for all Americans. I don't feel comfortable having a President display his own beliefs all the time, he alienates a large percent of the U.S. that way and is not doing the job we elected him to do which was speak on all our behalf.
by Stephie
8/23/2004 @ 12:01am
Watcher,
I also believe in the truth. Please consider this webpage and let me know how your definition of TRUTH might be different than the explaination of absolute truth given here.
http://www.absolutetruth.net/truth/
Stephie,
Which ideals would you like to see encompassed that are not part of the Christian ones? And could you please give me an example of something Bush has done to display his own beliefs which has made you uncomfortable? If you're saying that displaying Christian beliefs alienates a large percent of the U.S. then I have to disagree with you. The U.S. is still a Christian nation with the large majority of its people claiming to be Christians.
"There is no such thing as a pluralistic society; there will always be one dominant view. Someone's morality is going to be taught -- but whose? Secular Humanism is a religion that teaches that through Man's ability we will reach universal peace and unity and make heaven on earth. They promote a way of life that systematically excludes God and all religion in the traditional sense. That Man is the highest point to which nature has evolved, and he can rely on only himself and that the universe was not created, but instead is self-existing. They believe that Man has the potential to be good in and of himself. All of this of course is in direct conflict with not only the teachings of the Bible but even the lessons of history. In June 1961 in a case called Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." The Supreme Court declared Secular Humanism to be a religion. The American Humanist Association certifies counselors who enjoy the same legal status as ordained ministers. Since the Supreme Court has said that Secular Humanism is a religion, why is it being allowed to be taught in schools? The removal of public prayer of those who wish to participate is, in effect, establishing the religion of Humanism over Christianity. This is exactly what our founding fathers tried to stop from happening with the first amendment."
(an excerpt from http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html)
by Bush in 04!
8/23/2004 @ 7:22pm
First, the truth does not need adjectives like "absolute". The truth stands on its own. It does not need to be called "reality". Reality can be as individual as one's belief system demands. The website you refer to expounds in assumptions and is full of circular arguments as are all theology sites. Their bread and butter depends on your brain not comprehending the merry-go-round they have you on. A wise man once said, "Question everything. Experience possibilities." Religion that can not stand up to close examination is worthless. Religion as a whole has been exceptionally effective in putting minds in a steel trap that cannot be penetrated from the outside. Only if you are willing to open the door, can your mind expand to encompise the possibilities and seek the "Truth". Finally, I will not get on the merry-go-round with you or anyone else. I have researched too much to take that many steps backward. "Been there and done that." I'm so much farther ahead than that and this pitiful debate is not worth my time. No more comments from me.
by The Watcher
8/24/2004 @ 2:23am
The Watcher says that truth does not need to be called "reality". How can one define truth if not calling it reality or actuality? What does The Watcher mean by seeking the "Truth" if "reality can be as individual as one's belief system demands." It is illogical. What value does truth have if it varies from person to person? I don't expect The Watcher to respond since he is "so much farther ahead" and apparently believes he is too good for the rest of us but perhaps someone else will chime in. Things are heatin' up in here! Over and out.
by Bush in 04!
8/24/2004 @ 7:37am
Getting back to it, it now seems the Mr. Bush has denounced those terribly negative ads against John Kerry's war record but also denounces any from groups bearing the PAC or 527 designation. Sorry, but the latest ad about John Kerry's record is full of lies. Most everything MoveOn.org has put out has been chalked full of good stuff that is easily proven in the last four years of Mr. Bush's time in office.
Bottom line is that I won't vote for Bush because he's raped this country of its dignity in the world on defense and on the environment. Anyone who sits reading a children's book when he's been told a airliner slammed in the WTC (whether he knew it was terrorists or not) is a failure in my books.
About the whole religion thing, I don't believe anyone should have to hide their faith but I do believe that our leaders have a great responsibility to represent everyone in this country and that means letting it shine as a light for hope and not as a strobe that flashes in the window of a corner pay day loan store.
Oh, and I wouldn't mine terribly if "under god" and "in god we trust" were removed from their respective roles in our pledge and money. This country doesn't belong to one god nor does my trust in it.
by KevinFreitas
8/24/2004 @ 8:19am
Oh, yeah, and that whole weapons of mass destruction thing. Funny how Mr. Bush had to finally concede that the war was a humanitarian issue after he realized his decision to go to hunt down chemical weapons was bunk. "Uh... we went in to get Saddam because he treated the (what are they called again?) Iraqi's kinda' bad." What a joke! If his administration was truly a champion for humanitarian causes why the hell aren't we in Burma or North Korea or Sudan ('cause we've seen how well UN resolutions do) or the inner cities of the United States for that matter. Mr. bush has steered our priorities off a jagged cliff into a deep see from which it will take years to swim out of. We need to start that now, mend our relationships around the world, and start moving toward a future of hope rather than one of war-mongering.
by KevinFreitas
8/24/2004 @ 10:59am
200 veterans who have served our country proudly are united in calling John Kerry unfit to be president. In their latest ad, the Swift Vets replay recordings of Kerry saying the soldiers in Vietnam “razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan.” Paul Gallanti responds, “John Kerry gave the enemy for free what I, and many of my, uh, comrades in North Vietnam, in the prison camps, uh, took torture to avoid saying. It demoralized us.” He has a right to make that claim because he too served in Vietnam. John Kerry was so much liked by the enemy in Vietnam for his statements that his picture is in a museum in Hanoi for helping them defeat the United States. Here is what www.swiftvets.com has to say:
"It is a matter of public record that John Kerry lied before Congress when he falsely portrayed his fellow service personnel in Vietnam as rapists and baby killers. John Kerry claimed that American troops were guilty of “crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command,” and that we “personally raped” and otherwise brutalized innocent civilians. Kerry specifically accused Swift boat personnel of “showing the flag and firing at sampans and villages along the banks” and “butchering a lot of innocent people.” None of that is true.
We believe Senator Kerry’s irresponsible accusations damaged the U.S. war effort. Whether his testimony was designed to advance a political or personal agenda, we do believe that testimony endangered our prisoners of war, dishonored those injured and killed in action and did irreparable harm to the reputation of servicemen who served honorably in Vietnam only to return home to unwarranted ridicule and abuse.
Drawing on the credibility of a tour of duty in Vietnam, however abbreviated, John Kerry shaped a false, slanderous image of U.S. military personnel as violent, vicious and brutal. U.S. military personnel, Senator Kerry told the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, are collectively “a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence.” That is untrue. As with military men and women today, U.S. military personnel in Vietnam went out of their way to safeguard innocent life, often taking casualties themselves rather than putting civilians at risk.
Having lied to the world about his former comrades, it is our view that Senator Kerry is unfit to command our sons and daughters as Commander-in-Chief."
What say ye?
by Bush in 04!
8/24/2004 @ 1:16pm
I'd rather know what YOU think rather than reading from a list of talking points worthy of Fox News.
<sarcasm>I'm sure Vietname was a Disneyland theme park of fun and happiness.</sarcasm> I'm sure our American soldiers all behaved honorably while in a hellish time of war when reality took a vacation from the idea that the US was an undefeatable force of good for the world. Just like in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, right? The truth is that these veterans are still having issues dealing with the idea that their fellow soldiers (probably even them) committed atrocities and still resent John Kerry for standing up for someone in the world other than an American.
Bottom line is G.W. Bush hasn't been shot at by anyone in a theatre of war and will never have a clue what it's like for soldiers risking their lives for their country like John Kerry does.
Also, tell me how many of those 200 veterans served on John Kerry's boat. Are they going to dispute the man he pulled from the water while under fire? Since Bush has no war service record no one needs to try and bring down John Kerry's record. Want to talk about his senate voting record? Fine. Want to question his honor or service to our country? Sure. At the same time, let's talk about Bush's service record -- oh wait, there isn't one.
by KevinFreitas
8/27/2004 @ 5:49pm
What I think is this... It is ridiculous to claim that the Swift Boat Vet ads are full of lies while the MoveOn.org ads are chalked full of good stuff. The 250 Swift Boat Vets were also in Vietnam and have the right to state what they believe without being called liars. You were not there. You may believe John Kerry and not believe the Vets but don't call them outright liars until all the facts are in. Secondly, the 527 are a huge problem and the money put toward those in favor of Bush vs. the pro-Kerry groups is 9 million to 149 million. This distorts the whole process and should be halted.
To answer your question, one of the Swift Boat Vets served on John Kerry's boat and yes, they do dispute the circumstances in which Kerry pulled a man from the water. They don't deny that he did, but they deny some of the story which Kerry has told.
You slammed Bush for sitting with the kids seven minutes after he aid told him something, we don't know what he was told exactly. But did you know that Kerry admitted that he sat stunned in his chair for 30 minutes upon hearing the news. I personally remember hearing the news and remember the confussion going on. No one thought it was terrorists at first, they thought it was an accident. Don't believe that Bush didn't serve this country well on 9/11 and the days following.
by Bush in 04!
8/30/2004 @ 8:20am
Interesting. Yeah, when you get down to the dispute on whether it was bullets vs. shrapnel or how much blood did he REALLY spill, I can see how that's stuff worth screaming and shouting about, and setting up a large audience to come to simplistic and false conclusions about Kerry being over there at all.
What about the fact that as both Bush and Kerry were men of privilege during the Vietnam War and both had the ability to avoid going at all. However, where Kerry chose to go, Bush "actively sought to avoid it" while at the same time, fully supported the Vietnam war!
by Cassioposa
8/31/2004 @ 6:37am
Bush volunteered for a three month tour in Vietnam while in the National Guard but was not accepted for this duty. Maybe this article can put to rest some of your thinking about Bush and the National Guard...
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp
by Bush in 04!
8/31/2004 @ 6:51am
Then why, pray tell, has Bush himself never let us all know about his attempted volunteerism? Why does it have to come from some right-wing slanted publication?
"the money put toward those in favor of Bush vs. the pro-Kerry groups is 9 million to 149 million"
Jealous? Perhaps the pro-Kerry fund raising signals a change in the way politics are done in this country. Why shouldn't I, a citizen of this great nation, be able to contribute to something like MoveOn.org to help them air a political ad I believe in? There's not much better a path to direct democracy than that (and, perhaps, that whole "voting" thing). If the GOP had $149 million of grass roots (you guys call it your base) support out there I don't believe I'd hear you complaining. Sounds to me like you've bled your donors dry with too many $2,000/plate dinners.
Oh, and if the pro-Kerry ads have a few lies in them they do it only because they learned by example from our Pinocchio-imitating president. "Weapons of mass destruction? Who said anything about that? We're there for humanitarian reasons and that democracy stuff, yeah, some of that too!"
by KevinFreitas
8/31/2004 @ 8:58am
I actually found the tibit about Bush's volunteerism in an article attacking Bush's service in Vietnam. I believe the reason you don't hear Bush responding much to the attacks about his National Guard service is because responding adds fuel to the fire of the attackers who's minds won't be changed, much like Kerry with the Swift Boat Vets.
Now onto the subject of WMDs... I can't believe liberals are still calling Bush a liar and claiming he intentionally misled the country about WMDs. He received bad information from sources he had to trust. Intelligence from our country, Great Britian, and Russian were all reporting the exsistence of WMDs in Iraq. And Kerry was just as convinced as Bush about the threat. It's easy to look back now and say that some things should have been done differently. But Bush is the Commander & Chief responsible for protecting our nation. I believe the actions taken in Iraq were reasonable and still are the result of real violations of UN resolutions and a lack of action by Saddam, not to mention that democracy stuff too. Let's not forget there are many good reasons for liberating the people of Iraq from the evil of the Saddam regime.
By the way, how do you like what you've heard from the Republican National Convention so far?
by Bush in 04!
8/31/2004 @ 9:42am
Saddam bad, true. Levelling a country to get at him, questionable. Abusing authority granted to you by the senate to use force as a last result, inexcusable. The senate voted to allow Mr. Bush to exhaust all options before going to war and he didn't. The weapons inspectors were pulled out too early and have told us then and now there were no WMDs. Besides, Mr. Bush, as our fearless leader, also needs to take full responsibility for making that decision that was based on faulty information rather than deflecting the blame directly onto those institutions. I'd like to have a Commander in Chief who can make own up to that decision because, in the end, it was his to make. The coalition setup was a joke that requires the U.S. to bear the huge burden of money and lives lost. A true coalition would've encompassed many more nations that are willing to share that burden. Why didn't they? Because Bush jumped the so-called gun. He never intended for a peaceful or diplomatic resolution. The bottom line about this and comparing it to the decisions Kerry's made about the war are simple: Kerry didn't bear the responsibility of the title President on his shoulders when making these decisions. Bush did. He's proven himself a shabby decision maker that has alienated the world community of which we are an important part.
Kerry has real answers to the questions anyone has about how he'll make the U.S. economy strong again, how he'll protect the environment, how he'll bring back good-paying jobs, and how he'll nurture and educate the youth of America. Read all about it here: http://www.johnkerry.com/plan/ So far, I haven't heard much from Bush that doesn't sound like a slacking employee saying something like "We've been busy lately and will get right on it."
And about Bush chilling for 7 minutes after he was told about a jet liner smashing through a building in N.Y.: He's the President! It was a tragic accident/act! It was unusual! Planes crash, that's true but do they usually crash into high-rise buildings? He should've excused himself to get more information. The bottom line there is: He's the President. He sat around for a photo-op rather than figure out what the hell was going on. John Kerry didn't have that responsibility so can't be compared to how the President should've responded.
I watched some News Hour public broadcasting coverage and will have a listen to speeches on NPR. I'm interested to learn more about the Republicans who recently signed an ad in the NY Times calling for their party to come back and get more in-tune with normal Americans rather than the right-wing extremist ideals we've seen to date. That certainly says a lot if "your own" are taking such action.
by KevinFreitas
8/31/2004 @ 3:51pm
I suppose we must agree to disagree and hope that the values that unite us as Americans win out over these divisive issues and times. Let freedom ring!
by Bush in 04!