Us presidential election 2004

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]don't know what you mean by coward. going to National Guard to avoid going to Vietnam?

Kerry would have been drafted if he did not enlist. Remember folks Kerry did try to get a deferment and failed. Kerry is trying to copy the life of JFK which is sad...

Quote[/b] ]Of course he's a changed man Akira, he went from the AWOL C- average Yale Cheerleading alcoholic spoiled rich kid to the Born again babeling Christian dumbass who couldn't manage a carwash let alone a large country w/ a population of over 300 million

I love how people like to point he got C average. The education system has changed a lot from the 60s. School was a hell of lot harder compared to now.

Quote[/b] ]The plane fact is George Bush Junior is a cowardly yellow rat who dodged the vietnam war through his family connections and got himself a spot in a champaign squadron.

You crack me up, Walker!

Taken from another site

Quote[/b] ]Under Oath, Barnes Testified He Had No Contact With Bush Family Concerning National Guard. "Ben Barnes, then the speaker of the Texas House, said in 1999 that Sidney Adger, a Houston businessman and longtime friend of the Bush family whose son also won a slot in the 147th, had asked him to help get Mr. Bush into the Guard. Mr. Barnes, who acknowledged a role only after he was questioned under oath, also said that he had spoken to the head of the Texas Air National Guard on Mr. Bush's behalf, but had no contact with anyone in the Bush family. And there is no direct evidence that Mr. Bush's family pulled strings to get him into the 147th. Mr. Bush is firmly on record denying it, as is the commander of the unit, and there is no paper trail showing any influence by the Bush family." (David Barstow, "In Haze Of Guard Records, A Bit Of Clarity," The New York Times, 2/15/04)

Barnes Said Reports He Helped Bush At His Father's Urging Were "False." "Former Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes denied a magazine report Thursday that he helped George W. Bush get a place in the Texas Air National Guard at the urging of Bush's father. Bush, the Republican presidential front-runner, has repeatedly denied that he received preferential treatment in being accepted into the Guard during the Vietnam War. … 'I never spoke to Congressman Bush about his son,' Barnes said Thursday. 'The story is false.'" (Renae Merle, "Barnes Denies Report That He Helped Bush Into The National Guard," The Associated Press, 7/15/99)

In Fall Of 1999, Barnes Said Bush Family Never Asked To Get President Bush Into National Guard. "Mr. Bush has consistently said he never requested special treatment, though Ben Barnes, who was speaker of the Texas House in 1968, said in 1999 that he had been asked by a Houston businessman -- not by the Bush family -- to recommend Mr. Bush for a pilot's slot, and that he had done so." (David M. Halbfinger, "Three Decades Later, Vietnam Remains A Hot Issue," The New York Times, 8/29/04)

Free will? I still love you, Walker!!!

Edit: Bush leading the polls and the dogs come out...

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]don't know what you mean by coward. going to National Guard to avoid going to Vietnam?

Kerry would have been drafted if he did not enlist. Remember folks Kerry did try to get a deferment and failed. Kerry is trying to copy the life of JFK which is sad...

the difference is that one is act of getting pulled into war, the other signing up for it. when deferment was not meat he didn't dodge the bullet. he went.

I'm sorry but i find it overtly amusing that looking up to JFK is a sad thing. JFK certainly was not perfect but was able to get his ass in working order unlike Bush.

Quote[/b] ]I love how people like to point he got C average. The education system has changed a lot from the 60s. School was a hell of lot harder compared to now.

REALLY?!? Then what was I reading 4 yrs ago when there were claims that college professors are liberals and give out As and Bs like air, and that's how Al Gore was able to not goto war?

[EiZei 0]

and that's how Al Gore was able to not goto war?

I thought he served as a field reporter for 5 months?

[denoir 0]

World 'wants Kerry as president' [bBC]

Quote[/b] ]

A new poll in 35 countries suggests that people around the world would prefer Democratic challenger John Kerry as US president over George W Bush.

Global research company GlobeScan Inc and the University of Maryland found clear leads for Mr Kerry among those polled in 30 of the countries.

Only Filipino, Polish and Nigerian respondents clearly backed Mr Bush. Most said Mr Bush's foreign policy had made them feel worse about the US since his election in 2000.

Meanwhile, a new survey of American and European public attitudes also suggested there had been a dramatic leap in the latter's criticism of US foreign policy.

More than three-quarters of Europeans surveyed in 10 countries by the German Marshall Fund of the US said they disapproved of President Bush's international actions, 20% more than two years ago. The survey also showed sharp differences in how governments should respond to potential threats from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.

More than 80% of Americans thought war could achieve justice - more than twice the proportion of Europeans.

Traditional allies

The GlobeScan/Maryland poll, of 34,330 people, was conducted mainly in July and August. Because of access difficulties, polling was restricted to metropolitan areas in 11 of the countries.

"Only one in five want to see Bush re-elected," said Steven Kull, the director of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).

"Though he is not as well known, Kerry would win handily if the people of the world were to elect the US president."

Mr Kerry scored best in traditional US allies, such as Canada and Western European countries. The highest margin was in Norway, where 74% of respondents backed Mr Kerry compared with just 7% for Mr Bush. The strongest negative views about US foreign policy appeared to come from Germany, where 83% said their view of the US had got worse. Respondents in all the Latin American countries polled, including neighbours Mexico, also went for the Democrat, with the biggest majority - 57% to 14% - in Brazil.

The picture was more mixed in Asia. Only respondents in the Philippines clearly backed Mr Bush, but there was an almost even divide in India and Thailand.Organisers of the poll attributed the Philippine result to US aid to a military campaign against Islamist rebels in the south of the country.

From the horse's mouth, the full report:

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report09_08_04.pdf

Quote[/b] ]Poll Of 35 Countries Finds 30 Prefer Kerry, 3 Bush

Traditional US Allies Strongly Favor Kerry

Bush Preferred in Philippines, Poland and Nigeria

Most Say Bush Foreign Policy Has Made Them Feel Worse Toward US

Washington DC: In 30 out of 35 countries polled, from all regions of the world, a majority or plurality would prefer to see John Kerry win the US presidential election—especially traditional US allies. The only countries where President Bush was preferred were the Philippines, Nigeria, and Poland. India and Thailand were divided. On average, Kerry was favored by more than a two-to-one margin—46% to 20% (weighted for variations in population, the ratio was not significantly different). Overall, one-third did not give an answer.

The poll of 34,330 people was conducted mainly during June through August, with some countries being polled as early as May. Polling was conducted by GlobeScan and its worldwide network of research institutes, in conjunction with the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) of the University of Maryland. Due to the difficulties of polling in developing countries, in eleven countries, polling was limited to metropolitan areas. The margin of error ranged from +/- 2.3-5%.

Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments, “Only one in five want to see Bush reelected. Though he is not as well known, Kerry would win handily if the people of the world were to elect the US president.†Support for Kerry was greater among those with higher education and income levels.

Asked how the foreign policy of President Bush has affected their feelings toward the US, in 30 countries a majority or plurality said it made them feel “worse†about America, while in 3 countries, more of the respondents said that it had made them feel “better†towards America, and in 2 countries, people were divided. On average, 53% of respondents said Bush’s foreign policy made them feel worse about the US, while 19% said it made them feel better.

GlobeScan President Doug Miller says, “Perhaps most sobering for Americans is the strength of the view that US foreign policy is on the wrong track, even in countries contributing troops in Iraq.â€

[Akira 0]

Words

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]

REALLY?!? Then what was I reading 4 yrs ago when there were claims that college professors are liberals and give out As and Bs like air, and that's how Al Gore was able to not goto war?

Were is that damn study...

Quote[/b] ]

I'm sorry but i find it overtly amusing that looking up to JFK is a sad thing. JFK certainly was not perfect but was able to get his ass in working order unlike Bush.

Quote

I thought you were own self. I not cutting on him because he looks up to him. But, to mimic him on certain things...

Quote[/b] ] Support for Kerry was greater among those with higher education and income levels.

Is that suppose to be a cut? Most of those people probably do not know hardly anything about Kerry except Vietnam.

[Badassdom 0]

i really get the feeling that winning the president doesn''t have to be a good politician but he has to look good on camera and I wonder how that makes him a good leader

i doesn't seem to matter if he knows anything.

the most praised aspect of bush apperently is his not exusing his action and standing behind them, witch are inprincipal good things, unless you do dumm things and i still can't really find a good thing bush has done

the US economy is on its ass

Iraq is chaos, a relatief(?) peacefull country for the citizens how did what the dictor said has been turned into a lawless death trap for all in it (but it has been brought democracy)

the income differance has grown

the debt of the US has grown with a record amount

civil rights and his beloved freedom have been reduced

especialy for non Amercans, causing US popularity to drop to a record low, inturn creating more potential terrorists

so no safer place

but this doesn't seem to matter ,cause he doesn't make excuses

[kerosene 0]

Quote[/b] ]

A new poll in 35 countries suggests that people around the world would prefer Democratic challenger John Kerry as US president over George W Bush.

I think thats probably a big part of Bush's appeal for a lot of the people who voted for him.

I doubt it'll change much in the way the u.s operates internationally anyway, Bush has probably set the U.S israel/palestine policy for the foreseeable future, i doubt Kerry would try anything different or that he'd really want to.

Cant do much in Iraq except send in more troops, which will presumably piss off more iraqis, hes not going to do much fundamentally differently.  Cant really see him signing kyoto agreement either.

The best thing about him is that you can be fairly sure hes not going do anything crazy like invade Iran or something.

[denoir 0]

Words

That one goes into my sig.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ] Support for Kerry was greater among those with higher education and income levels.

Is that suppose to be a cut? Most of those people probably do not know hardly anything about Kerry except Vietnam.

Very few outside the US care about Vietnam. Kerry has one main thing going for him: he's not Bush. And Bush has been a disaster for both the world and America, so anybody would most likely be better. Well-educated people are probably less likely to believe the BS coming from W.

[billybob2002 0]

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040909_1710.html

Quote[/b] ]

Son of Late Officer Questions Bush Memos

Son of Late Officer Questions Memos Attributed to His Father in File on President Bush's Service

The Associated Press

DALLAS Sept. 9, 2004 — The authenticity of newly unearthed memos stating that George W. Bush failed to meet standards of the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War was questioned Thursday by the son of the late officer who reportedly wrote the memos.

"I am upset because I think it is a mixture of truth and fiction here," said Gary Killian, son of Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who died in 1984.

Gary Killian, who served in the Guard with his father and retired as a captain in 1991, said one of the memos, signed by his father, appeared legitimate. But he doubted his father would have written another, unsigned memo which said there was pressure to "sugar coat" Bush's performance review.

"It just wouldn't happen," he said. "The only thing that can happen when you keep secret files like that are bad things. ... No officer in his right mind would write a memo like that."

News reports have said the memos, first obtained by CBS's "60 Minutes II," were found in Jerry Killian's personal records. Gary Killian said his father wasn't in the habit of bringing his work home with him, and that the documents didn't come from the family.

CBS stood by its reporting. "As a standard practice at CBS, each of the documents broadcast on "60 Minutes" was thoroughly investigated by independent experts and we are convinced of their authenticity," CBS News said in a statement.

The White House distributed the four memos from 1972 and 1973 after obtaining them from CBS News. The White House did not question their accuracy.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Quote[/b] ]Very few outside the US care about Vietnam. Kerry has one main thing going for him: he's not Bush. And Bush has been a disaster for both the world and America, so anybody would most likely be better. Well-educated people are probably less likely to believe the BS coming from W.

What about the BS from Kerry's mouth?

[billybob2002 0]

http://weeklystandard.com/Utiliti....CD2F192

Quote[/b] ]Is It a Hoax?

Experts weigh in on the 60 Minutes documents. Says one: "I'm a Kerry supporter myself, but . . . I'm 99% sure that these documents were not produced in the early 1970s."

by Stephen F. Hayes

09/09/2004 7:20:00 PM

DOCUMENTS CITED Wednesday by 60 Minutes in a widely-publicized expose of George W. Bush's National Guard Service are very likely forgeries, according to several experts on document authenticity and typography. The documents--four memos from Killian to himself or his files written in 1972 and 1973--appear to indicate that Bush refused or ignored orders to have a physical exam required to continue flying. CBS News anchor Dan Rather reported the segment and sourced the documents this way: "60 Minutes has obtained a number of documents we are told were taken from Col. Killian's personal file," he said. The 60 Minutes story served as the basis for follow-up news reports for dozens of news organizations across the country. The memos were almost immediately questioned in the blog world, with blog Power Line leading the charge.

And according to several forensic document experts contacted by THE WEEKLY STANDARD say the Killian memos appear to be forgeries. Although it is nearly impossible to establish with certainty the authenticity of documents without a careful examination of the originals, several irregularities in the Killian memos suggest that CBS may have been the victim of a hoax.

"These sure look like forgeries," says William Flynn, a forensic document expert widely considered the nation's top analyst of computer-generated documents. Flynn looked at copies of the documents posted on the CBS News website (here, here, here, and here). Flynn says, "I would say it looks very likely that these documents could not have existed" in the early 1970s, when they were allegedly written.

Several other experts agree. "They look mighty suspicious," says a veteran forensic document expert who asked not to be quoted by name. Richard Polt, a Xavier University philosophy professor who operates a website dedicated to typewriters, says that while he is not an expert on typesetting, the documents "look like typical word-processed documents."

There are several reasons these experts are skeptical of the authenticity of the Killian memos. First the typographic spacing is proportional, as is routine with professional typesetting and computer typography, not monospace, as was common in typewriters in the 1970s. (In proportional type, thin letters like "i" and "l" are spaced closer together than thick letters like "W" and "M". In monospace, all the letter widths are the same.)

Second, the font appears to be identical to the Times New Roman font that is the default typeface in Microsoft Word and other modern word processing programs. According to Flynn, the font is not listed in the Haas Atlas--the definitive encyclopedia of typewriter type fonts.

Third, the apostrophes are curlicues of the sort produced by word processors on personal computers, not the straight vertical hashmarks typical of typewriters. Finally, in some references to Bush's unit--the 111thFighter Interceptor Squadron--the "th" is a superscript in a smaller size than the other type. Again, this is typical (and often done automatically) in modern word processing programs. Although several experts allow that such a rendering might have been theoretically possible in the early 1970s, it would have been highly unlikely. Superscripts produced on typewriters--the numbers preceding footnotes in term papers, for example--were almost always in the same size as the regular type.

So can we say with absolute certainty that the documents were forged? Not yet. Xavier University's Polt, in an email, offers two possible scenarios. "Either these are later transcriptions of earlier documents (which may have been handwritten or typed on a typewriter), or they are crude and amazingly foolish forgeries. I'm a Kerry supporter myself, but I won't let that cloud my objective judgment: I'm 99% sure that these documents were not produced in the early 1970s."

Says Flynn: "This looks pretty much like a hoax at this point in time."

CBS, in a statement Thursday afternoon, said it stands by the story. The network claims that its own document expert concluded the memos were authentic. There are several things CBS could do to clear up any confusion:

(1) Provide the name of the expert who authenticated the documents for Sixty Minutes.

(2) Provide the original documents to outside experts--William Flynn, Gerald Reynolds, and Peter Tytell seem to be the consensus top three in the United States--for further analysis.

(3) Provide more information on the source of the documents.

(A spokeswoman for CBS, Kelly Edwards, said she was overwhelmed with phone calls and did not respond to specific requests for comment.)

Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard.

http://abcnews.go.com/section....09.html

Quote[/b] ]Advantage Bush

New ABC Poll Shows Bush in Lead

Analysis by Gary Langer

Sept. 9, 2004— The 2004 campaign enters its decisive phase with the advantage to President Bush, who has reasserted his personal and professional credentials, effectively driven up John Kerry's negatives and broken through to a lead in likely voters' preferences.  

According to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll, registered voters by a 27-point margin now say Bush has taken a clearer stand than Kerry on the issues, by 27 points call Bush the stronger leader and by 19 points say he would make the country safer. Bush also has a 22-point advantage in trust to handle terrorism, a 16-point lead on Iraq and perhaps a slight edge even on the lukewarm economy.

 

Sampling, data collection and tabulation for this poll were done by TNS.

These and other ratings have either reversed or eroded Kerry's position. After the Democratic convention Kerry had a six-point lead as more honest; now it's Bush +13. Kerry had a 13-point lead on a "vision for the future"; now it's Bush +9. Kerry had a 14-point lead on understanding people's problems; now they're essentially even (Bush +1).

Moving these underlying views has enabled Bush to break out of the virtual dead heat that's defined the contest: Among likely voters in this ABC News/Washington Post survey, Bush has 52 percent support, Kerry 43 percent, Ralph Nader 2 percent. It's Bush's first lead beyond the margin of sampling error in any ABC/Post poll since Kerry seized his party's nomination in March. The race is 50-44-2 percent among all registered voters.

The contest is far from over: This poll follows Bush's convention, a week in which he held center stage in public attention, and his convention "bounce" — an insignificant +5 points among registered voters — is an anemic one, on par with Kerry's +8 and below the average, +14, in polls since 1968. One difference is that Kerry left his convention in a dead heat among likely voters, while Bush leaves his with a lead.

So it goes,

Billybob2002

[walker 0]

Hi all

What was it about the Vietnam War Dodger George Bush Juniors history before he joined the National Guard that he wanted to hide?

Quote[/b] ]Ex-officer: Bush file's details caused concern

By Dave Moniz and Jim Drinkard, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — As Texas Gov. George W. Bush prepared to run for president in the late 1990s, top-ranking Texas National Guard officers and Bush advisers discussed ways to limit the release of potentially embarrassing details from Bush's military records, a former senior officer of the Texas Guard said Wednesday.

A second former Texas Guard official, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, was told by a participant that commanders and Bush advisers were particularly worried about mentions in the records of arrests of Bush before he joined the National Guard in 1968, the second official said. My use of bold walker

Bill Burkett, then a top adviser to the state Guard commander, said he overheard conversations in which superiors discussed "cleansing" the file of damaging information.. My use of bold walker

The White House dismissed Burkett's charge Wednesday. It is an "outrageously false statement," said White House communications director Dan Bartlett, who handled the records in the late 1990s as an aide to Gov. Bush. Administration officials dismiss Burkett as a disgruntled former Guardsman who had a falling-out with his superiors.

Two forms in Bush's publicly released military files — his enlistment application and a background check — contain blacked-out entries in response to questions about arrests or convictions.. My use of bold walker

http://www.usatoday.com/news....t_x.htm

Why won't the White House release the form without the section about George Bush junior's Criminal Record blacked out? The Nation is entitled to know.

Kind Regards Walker

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Very few outside the US care about Vietnam. Kerry has one main thing going for him: he's not Bush. And Bush has been a disaster for both the world and America, so anybody would most likely be better. Well-educated people are probably less likely to believe the BS coming from W.

What about the BS from Kerry's mouth?

Look at the video in my sig. It's not comparable. Kerry did not start a war that crapped out etc

Quote[/b] ]You run to the defense of Denior and when Denior accuses me of being racist (which is baseless)

I missed this one, and I'll address it now. It is not baseless.

It is perfectly normal to care more about people that are close to you than people you don't know. In the same way it is perfectly normal for you to care more about your countrymen than about the Iraqis. That is only normal however when it is passive. In short to acknowledge that it is more their business worrying about themselves than it is your business. What Bush did was actively trading a huge number of Iraq lives for some imaginary threat to American lives.

If Saddam had WMD and

If Saddam had dealings with AQ and

If Saddam gave WMD to AQ and

If AQ used WMD against America

.. then American lives would be lost.

There was no evidence for any of those 'ifs'. Bush was willing to kill tens of thousands of Iraqis to ensure that if that very unlikely number of ifs could possibly be fulfilled some time, no Americans would get hurt. And as it turned out, all the ifs were wrong. Now, what do you call that except blatant disregard for the human value of the Iraqi people. It is about basic human decency.

Now what can you conclude about a guy who now knows that the 'ifs' were wrong, and still supports Bush, who initiated the killings? You agree with his decision that certainly killing tens of thousands of Iraqis was OK in return for possibly preventing an unlikely potential future loss of American lives. What is that if not racism?

[Blake 0]

I suspect  if this forum were open back in the 80's we would likely see those opposed to Bush just as vehemently hating Reagan...

Oh really?  And how many tens of thousands of innocent lives were lost because of Reagan's decisions?  

Grenada? Salvador? Nicaragua? etc. ring any bells?

I respect Reagan very much for his achievements but he is also responsible for deaths in Central America and Caribbean, possibly thousands. And Bush Sr. was responsible for Panama incursion resulting deaths of over 3000 civilians. And the sympatic 'Gorbie' kept Soviet troops in Afganistan for another 4 years after coming to power and he tried to stem national uprising in former Soviet Union by force initially. There's blood on his hands too.

Reagan won the Cold War and is being respected all over Europe now but he was very much hated at the time all over the world, I must say the same way as Bush Jr. is today. Reagan was widely seen as a trigger-happy madman.

Bringing Pershing missiles to Europe caused unprecidented anti-war rallies across Europe only comparable to what was seen last year.

And he was also indeed responsible for thousands of deaths but they have been now brushed aside from the way of historical achievements which were not realized at the time.

I'm not especially approving Bush's policies and handling of the Iraq crisis but just a reminder that bashing presidents is nothing historically novel or radically different.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Now, what do you call that except blatant disregard for the human value of the Iraqi people. It is about basic human decency.

Now what can you conclude about a guy who now knows that the 'ifs' were wrong, and still supports Bush, who initiated the killings? You agree with his decision that certainly killing tens of thousands of Iraqis was OK in return for possibly preventing an unlikely potential future loss of American lives. What is that if not racism?

Anyway, racism is a too strong of a word. I do not hate all Iraqis.. You thinking about bias... Civilian death do sucks and TBA are trying their hardest to mini. it.

[rant]

So, this makes the allies during World War 2 super-racist? A hell of a lot of civilians were killed compared to now. There were blatant disregard for the human value of innocent German citizens.[/rant]

Quote[/b] ]Look at the video in my sig. It's not comparable. Kerry did not start a war that crapped out etc

He wants a massive health care idea; more education funding; and etc. plus he wants to lower the deficit. That is freaking impossible to paid for with just taking back the tax cut for the rich. I guess you do not care about that.

http://www.yahoo.com/_ylh=X3....6

Quote[/b] ]

Survey Finds Transatlantic Rift Hardening

Thu Sep 9, 2:31 AM ET  Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!

By Paul Taylor

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The United States and Europe are drifting further apart on security issues and the use of force in the aftermath of the Iraq (news - web sites) war, a major transatlantic opinion survey released on Thursday showed.

The Transatlantic Trends 2004 opinion poll of 11,000 Americans and Europeans, conducted in June and issued two months before a crucial U.S. presidential election, suggested a fundamental change in transatlantic relations may be under way.

A growing majority of Europeans seek a more independent role from the United States and three-quarters say they disapprove of President Bush (news - web sites)'s international policies, the survey found.

Some 58 percent of Europeans said strong U.S. leadership in the world was undesirable, an increase of nine percentage points from a similar poll last year. Only in Britain and the Netherlands do a majority desire strong U.S. leadership.

By contrast, 79 percent of Americans say they support strong European Union (news - web sites) leadership in world affairs and look to Europe as their preferred partner for solving global problems, even though 51 percent of them approve of Bush's foreign policy.

The poll, conducted for the German Marshall Fund of the United States and the Compagnia di San Paolo think-tank in Italy, highlighted wide differences over the justification for war and who should legitimize military action.

While Americans are almost evenly divided along ideological lines, 80 percent of Europeans surveyed do not believe the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq last year was worth the loss of life and cost. Some 73 percent of Europeans believe the Iraq war increased the risk of terrorism, as do 49 percent of Americans.

EU SUPERPOWER?

Asked whether war is necessary in some situations to obtain justice, more than 80 percent of Americans -- but only 40 percent of Europeans -- supported the proposition. Only Britain, with 69 percent, came close to the U.S. figure.

The poll was taken in nine EU states -- Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Slovakia -- as well as EU candidate Turkey.

More than half of those countries participated in the Iraq war or subsequent peacekeeping operations.

The findings reflected policy differences that are at the center of this year's U.S. presidential election campaign.

Democratic challenger John Kerry (news - web sites) has taken positions closer to European views on the importance of consulting allies and winning broad international support, preferably through the United Nations (news - web sites), for military action.

While Americans and Europeans agree on the main threats they face, a higher percentage of Americans support using force to prevent a terrorist attack, stop the spread of nuclear weapons, defend a NATO (news - web sites) ally or remove a regime that abuses human rights.

The survey found 59 percent of Americans support bypassing the United Nations when the vital interests of their country are involved. Europeans were more evenly split but a majority in several EU countries -- Britain, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Poland and Portugal -- supported that proposition.

Seventy-one percent of Europeans said the EU should become a superpower like the United States, but most who expressed that view did not want to increase military spending.

Despite transatlantic strains, the survey found Europeans and Americans believe they share enough common values to cooperate on international problems.

The poll was conducted by EOS Gallup Europe between June 6 and 24 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, the organizers said.

So it goes,

Billybob2002

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ][rant]

So, this makes the allies during World War 2 super-racist? A hell of a lot of civilians were killed compared to now. There were blatant disregard for the human value of innocent German citizens.[/rant]

Well the situation differs A BIT from WW2, see Japan and Germany attacked US first and declared war and were trying to take over the whole world which had to be stopped with maximum force...Iraq didn't declare war, US and co. did and fired the first shots a bit on a hunch. But, don't get me wrong I supported the war from the start even though I had doubts about those flimsy WMD claims. Admittedly I miscalculated the post-war mentality and handling after the shots were fired. But still history will tell was this a disaster or not. While others predict eternal carnage I'm not ready to believe that not at least yet.

[denoir 0]

Anyway, racism is a too strong of a word. I do not hate all Iraqis..

No, you don't hate them, but you think killing scores of them is ok, if it protects American interests. It's what Bush's "pre-emptive" principle - bomb them if there is even a slight chance that they migth do something to you in the future. That's at least how he tried to justify it in public. And you support that.

Quote[/b] ]Civilian death do sucks and TBA are trying their hardest to mini. it.

You suspect your wife of cheating so pre-emptively you rush in at luch time into the restaurant that she is in and start spraying with a machinegun. Then in court you say that you really did your best just to hit her and that the 20 others you killed were collateral damage. Guess how well that is going to work. The invasion was a conscious decision and civilian casualties were inevitable. Bush knew Iraqi civilians would die, and while he may have not taken any pleasure in it, he obviously had no problem living with it - and neither do you, his supporter.

In a normal context, Bush is not guilty of first-degree murder, but he is most certainly guilty of second degree murder. It was not in self-defence and he made a decision that he knew would kill thousands of innocent people.

Quote[/b] ][rant]

So, this makes the allies during World War 2 super-racist? A hell of a lot of civilians were killed compared to now. There were blatant disregard for the human value of innocent German citizens.[/rant]

Germany declared war on and attacked the allies. Iraq on the other hand had never done anything to the US. You were not attacked by Iraq. They did not declare war on you. In this war, you were the agressor.

If you wish to make WW2 comparisons, America has taken the role that Germany had - not the allies. You attacked without provocation a sovereign country.

Quote[/b] ]He wants a massive health care idea; more education funding; and etc. plus he wants to lower the deficit. That is freaking impossible to paid for with just taking back the tax cut for the rich. I guess you do not care about that.

No, not really. My primary interest is the safety and stability of the world. The biggest threat to world peace right now is America lead by Bush.

Having said that, Clinton managed to boost healthcare,education funding etc while having a budget surplus. It shows that it certainly isn't impossible.

[Akira 0]

FYI, they typographic "evidence" that documents could not have been produced in 1970 is false. For instance, they claim proportional typing was not possible then, but in fact IBM had introduced a typewriter that did that very thing in 1941.

Anyway, I'm too lazy to link the items. Go to Fark to see some.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Having said that, Clinton managed to boost healthcare,education funding etc while having a budget surplus. It shows that it certainly isn't impossible.

What Kerry wants for healthcare is completely different from Clinton did. Furthermore, the balancing of the budget by congress and Clinton helped a lot.

Quote[/b] ]

No, you don't hate them, but you think killing scores of them is ok, if it protects American interests. It's what Bush's "pre-emptive" principle - bomb them if there is even a slight chance that they migth do something to you in the future. That's at least how he tried to justify it in public. And you support that.

But racism?

Quote[/b] ]

In a normal context, Bush is not guilty of first-degree murder, but he is most certainly guilty of second degree murder.

Prove that in a court of law. Second degree murder? How are going to find malice or criminal intent?

Quote[/b] ]Iraq on the other hand had never done anything to the US. You were not attacked by Iraq. They did not declare war on you. In this war, you were the agressor.

The very failed attempt on the ex-president (attempted murder); safe haven for Abu Abbs and Abdul Yasin (accessory after the fact.. bah bah); the attempt on ambassador to the philippines (attempted murder). He made not of attacked American but has cause harm to americans.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]FYI, they typographic "evidence" that documents could not have been produced in 1970 is false. For instance, they claim proportional typing was not possible then, but in fact IBM had introduced a typewriter that did that very thing in 1941.

Anyway, I'm too lazy to link the items. Go to Fark to see some.

http://abcnews.go.com/section....-2.html

Quote[/b] ]

The memos are dated 1972 and 1973, when computers with word-processing software were not available.

More than half a dozen document experts contacted by ABC News said they had doubts about the memos' authenticity.

"These documents do not appear to have been the result of technology that was available in 1972 and 1973," said Bill Flynn, one of country's top authorities on document authentication. "The cumulative evidence that's available … indicates that these documents were produced on a computer, not a typewriter:"

Among the points Flynn and other experts noted:

-The memos were written using a proportional typeface, where letters take up variable space according to their size, rather than fixed-pitch typeface used on typewriters, where each letter is allotted the same space. Proportional typefaces are available only on computers or on very high-end typewriters that were unlikely to be used by the National Guard.

-The memos include superscript, i.e. the "th" in "187th" appears above the line in a smaller font. Superscript was not available on typewriters.

-The memos included "curly" apostrophes rather than straight apostrophes found on typewriters.

-The font used in the memos is Times Roman, which was in use for printing but not in typewriters. The Haas Atlas — the bible of fonts — does not list Times Roman as an available font for typewriters.

-The vertical spacing used in the memos, measured at 13 points, was not available in typewriters, and only became possible with the advent of computers.

The Washington Post today is going to run a article on the front page (A01) talking about the memos might be forged because a lot of experts have questions about the memos. Furthermore, the post looked at other NG files and those memos are formatted differently from other NG files. Even the White House had to get the memos from CBS.

[billybob2002 0]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9967-2004Sep9.html

^^^^

The Washington Post article

[billybob2002 0]

Good ole' Iran....

http://www.yahoo.com/_ylh=X3....9

Quote[/b] ]

Iran Seen Using EU to Buy Time to Get Atomic Bomb

Thu Sep 9, 2:48 PM ET  Add World - Reuters to My Yahoo!

By Louis Charbonneau

VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran is using negotiations with the European Union (news - web sites)'s "big three" on suspending sensitive nuclear activities to buy the time it needs to get ready to make atomic weapons, an Iranian exile and intelligence officials said.

With intelligence sources saying Iran could be months away from nuclear weapons capability, the United States wants Iran reported to the U.N. Security Council immediately, charging Tehran uses its civilian atomic energy program as a front to develop the bomb. Tehran vehemently denies the charge.

France, Britain and Germany want to avoid isolating Iran and have taken a go-slow approach, negotiating with Iran to suspend uranium enrichment activities.

"Iran continues to use existing differences between the U.S. and Europe to their advantage and tries to drag out talks with the EU to buy time," Alireza Jafarzadeh, an Iranian exile who has reported accurately on Iran's nuclear program in the past, told Reuters.

"They feel they have bought at least 10 months," Jafarzadeh said. He said he was citing sources in Iran familiar with the results of a recent high-level meeting on Iran's nuclear program attended by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Jafarzadeh said officials at the meeting also decided to allocate an additional $2 billion from Iran's central bank reserves to supplement some $14 billion already spent on what he called Iran's "secret nuclear weapons program."

The EU trio has expressed disappointment at Iran's failure to keep promises it made in October to suspend all activities related to the enrichment of uranium, a process of purifying it for use as fuel for atomic power plants or in weapons. But the three remain committed to a process of engagement with Tehran.

However an intelligence official said a failure to act now as Washington would like, could be decisive for the development of an Iranian nuclear weapons capability.

"The Europeans express helplessness, despair and lack of strategy, which is exactly what (the Iranians) want to hear," a senior non-U.S. intelligence official said.

"This is their golden opportunity, between now and the coming of a new (U.S.) administration."

"PLAYING FOR TIME"

The U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been investigating Iran's nuclear program ever since Jafarzadeh announced in August 2002 on behalf of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), an exiled opposition group, that Iran was hiding several massive nuclear sites from the IAEA.

Although the EU trio are reaching the point where they too might support a referral of Iran's nuclear program to the Security Council, which could impose economic sanctions, diplomats in Vienna say they will give Iran one more chance to end its enrichment activities before the November IAEA meeting.

On Tuesday, diplomats said Iran had agreed with the Europeans in principle to renew its suspension of centrifuge production, assembly and testing. But U.S. and other officials dismissed this as a ploy to escape a Security Council referral.

"Iran is playing for time," a Western diplomat told Reuters.

The IAEA Board of Governors meets next week to discuss Iran's nuclear program, parts of which it hid from the U.N. nuclear watchdog for nearly two decades. Vienna diplomats say the EU three oppose a U.N. Security Council report next week.

Diplomats and intelligence officials say this may give Iran just enough time to reach the point where it has all the technology and expertise it needs to develop an atom bomb at a time of its choosing.

"It is a matter of several months, up to a year, most probably less than a year (for nuclear capability)," the intelligence official said. "By that time we think they will have enough feed material for the centrifuges so they won't be dependent on foreign input."

Iran recently announced it would convert 37 tons of raw "yellowcake" uranium into uranium hexafluoride, the feed material for centrifuges. Experts say this is enough for a bomb.

The official said the IAEA was making a mistake by being so cautious about what the agency has called a lack of any evidence proving Tehran has a covert military atomic program.

"If the IAEA would wait forever to see a smoking gun ... it will be too late," the official said..

What would Kerry do?

What would Bush do?

Edit: Good night and god bless...

[theavonlady 2]

What would Kerry do?

Supply them.

Quote[/b] ]One of the findings of the 9/11 Commission concerns Iran and its alleged support for Al Qaeda. U.S.-Iranian policy has been in the deep freeze for 25 years. How is that going to change with Kerry?

John Kerry regards an Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism armed with nuclear weapons as unacceptable. He has a multiple-part strategy that is much more realistic than the Bush administration’s. One is to rejoin and work through the international legal framework on arms control. That will give greater force to the major powers if they have to deal with violators. Secondly, he has laid out, I think in the most comprehensive way in modern memory, a program to secure nuclear materials around the world—particularly in the former Soviet Union but also in the places where research reactors have existed that could be susceptible to proliferation. The point is to try to prevent Iran from ever getting this material surreptitiously. Thirdly, he has proposed that rather than letting the British, the French and the Germans do this themselves, that we together call the bluff of the Iranian government, which claims that its only need is energy. And we say to them: “Fine, we will provide you the fuel that you need if Russia fails to provide it.†Participating in such a diplomatic initiative makes it more likely to succeed.

[Bernadotte 0]

I suspect  if this forum were open back in the 80's we would likely see those opposed to Bush just as vehemently hating Reagan...

Oh really?  And how many tens of thousands of innocent lives were lost because of Reagan's decisions?  

Grenada? Salvador? Nicaragua? etc. ring any bells?

Let's see.... 24 civilians died during the US military operation to restore democracy to Grenada.

Beyond that, it's very difficult to say how many more hundreds of Nicaraguan or Salvadoran civilians died at the hands of the contras because of Reagan's aid package.  Just as it's very difficult to say how many hundreds were subsequently saved from death at the hands of the Sandinistas because of that aid.

But it was hardly thousands and certainly not in the tens of thousands.