Us presidential election 2004

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Quote[/b] ]The only thing not said in the debates is that Kerry can go to other leaders and say "I know this is a mess, but its still not in anyones intersts to let Iraq descend into anarchy."

Nor is it in anyones interest to let the americans down. How many of your soldiers in Iraq have understood that the conflict is currently out of control? I bet a lot.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

From the angey tone of your message, you seem to be under the impression im a Bush fan?

?? No, that is my inpolite temper

Didnt you read that?

Quote[/b] ]Albert Schweizer

Nagging Pulitzer Hunter

I have no problems with those believing in Bush, however if they start offending europe my pulse rises. Cant help it

No, I am realistic. Right now, you should have no problem to return to the UN and ask for support. After all you are a paying member. HOWEVER the UN is an independant body and wont accept to be abused by a nation, by that I mean to stand under somebody elses command.

It might not get a lot better, but it might also do. Can it get worse than it is right now?

[denoir 0]

The stuff about how is Kerry gonna sell a war he dosent support to other countries... personally i cant see any politicans in other countrys saying " yeah, fuck it, im tried of my job anyway, we'll send troops to Iraq."  

Indeed. Sure, Kerry will be better received internationally, but Iraq is America's problem. And when Kerry talks about "international" support, he talks in practice about the EU. I don't see that happening. It would be political suicide for any European politician to suggest sending troops to Iraq.

Kerry argues that Europe has a stake in a peaceful mid-east. That is perhaps true, but Europeans and European politicians do in general not look at it that way. Iraq is America's problem and given how the prelude of the war was played, I would be very surprised to see any larger cash contributions from the EU and much less troops.

Quote[/b] ]Good to hear him say he didnt have any interest in permanent military bases in Iraq or mini-nukes, definite plus.

Yeah, that was good to hear.

I think also Kerry came out very well on the nuclear proliferation issue. He was more convincing on North Korea as well, although I'm not sure I quite share his view.

Bush on the other hand made a good case that it was a problem that Kerry called the Iraq war a "great distraction" - that it sent mixed signals to the troops. I think that Bush won on consistency there. Kerry did not bother to clearly state that "It was a mistake going there, but now when we are there, it is very important that we fix the mess".

He did actually say that indirectly a couple of time, but Bush's accusations came through better.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Good to hear him say he didnt have any interest in permanent military bases in Iraq or mini-nukes, definite plus.  

The budget for the uber-bunker buster program is less than $35 million. Hundreds of millions of dollars have not been spent on that program.

Edit:...erm...

[FSPilot 0]

Well, Gore did invent the internet.

I thought that "quote" was completely forgotten.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.htm

Or not.

http://goreinternet.ytmnd.com/

I guess it's just open to interpretation. I was just poking fun at him anyway.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Good to hear him say he didnt have any interest in permanent military bases in Iraq or mini-nukes, definite plus.  

The total amount of money spent on the uber-bunker buster program is less than $35 million. Hundreds of millions of dollars have not been spent on that program.

Who cares about the cost? That's not the point.

The point is that the US preaches about stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons while it at the same time builds a new generation of them - with the express purpose of using them.

You can only push around people so far. It's unfortunate that people have apparently not learned from 9/11 that what goes around, comes around.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Who cares about the cost? That's not the point.

The point is that the US preaches about stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons while it at the same time builds a new generation of them - with the express purpose of using them.

You can only push around people so far. It's unfortunate that people have apparently not learned from 9/11 that what goes around, comes around.

erm...Also, congress has to approve it for production.

[denoir 0]

erm...Also, congress has to approve it for production.

That makes me feel so warm, fuzzy and secure...

[billybob2002 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3705948.stm

Quote[/b] ]

N Korea dogs Bush-Kerry debate

It was the first of three televised debates between the US candidates US President George W Bush and presidential candidate John Kerry have clashed over how to handle the North Korean nuclear stand-off. In a televised debate ahead of November elections, Mr Bush defended his six-nation talks approach while Mr Kerry backed bilateral talks with the North.

Both agreed the US' greatest security threat was nuclear proliferation.

Analysts believe Pyongyang is waiting to see who is the next US president before it makes its next move.

"I want bilateral talks which put all of the issues, from the armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues and the nuclear issues on the table," said Mr Kerry.

Mr Bush responded: "I can't tell you how big a mistake I think that is to have bilateral talks with North Korea. That's precisely what Kim Jong-il wants."

He argued that face to face talks between the US and North Korea would "unravel" the current framework, which brings pressure on Pyongyang from its traditional ally China, in addition to Japan, Russia, and South Korea, as well as the US.

"If Kim Jong-il decides not to honour an agreement, he's not only doing an injustice to America, he would be doing injustice to China as well. And I think this will work," said Mr Bush.

The current administration believes the bilateral approach taken by former President Bill Clinton gave too much to Pyongyang in exchange for too little.

But Mr Kerry argued that Mr Bush's approach was not working, and had given Pyongyang the time to build up its nuclear arsenal.

"Today there are four to seven nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea," he said.

Analysts believe Pyongyang may be waiting to see who will win the November elections before it makes its next move. It has refused to take part in a fourth round of six-nation talks which was planned for this month.

But US Secretary of State Colin Powell stressed on Thursday - after talks with his Chinese counterpart - that Washington was still committed to this mechanism.

"I'm quite confident that the six-part framework is a framework in which this matter will be dealt with for the foreseeable future, because it serves the interests of all parties," Mr Powell said.

He said that North Korea's neighbours in particular had "an even greater equity in seeing a denuclearised peninsula than does the United States".

Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing, standing at his side, said the "entire international community" agreed that the six-nation approach was the best way to deal with the problem.

While acknowledging that there "were some complicating factors and new difficulties" that hampered the talks, Mr Li stressed that "nothing is more precious than peace".

He did not elaborate on what the "complicating factors" were.

Seoul's secret tests

The talks on the nuclear stand-off have been put on hold since Pyongyang made clear its dissatisfaction with Washington's stance.

Pyongyang has also been pressing for a full probe into South Korea's recent admission that its scientists had carried out secret nuclear experiments.

The nuclear stand-off intensified in 2002 when Washington accused Pyongyang of operating a nuclear weapons programme based on enriched uranium in violation of a 1994 agreement.

North Korea has denied running the uranium-based programme but its officials have recently said the country turned plutonium from 8,000 spent fuel rods into nuclear weapons.

[kerosene 0]

[

The budget for the uber-bunker buster program is less than $35 million. Hundreds of millions of dollars have not been spent on that program.

If the only bad thing you can imagine about the mini-nukes program is me having an objection to the cost.... Damn, I dont know what to say, you dont see anything dangerous about developing small nuculear bombs and reserving the right to use them in non-nuclear conflicts?

Also I still dont see why Bush thinks bi-lateral talks with N.Korea will result in China halting any diplomatic efforts with North Korea,

[shinRaiden 0]

Washington State Bush Campaign Office Burglarized

Here we go again...

Quote[/b] ]Missing are laptop computers used by the campaign's executive director, the head of the get-out-the-vote effort and one that had been set for delivery to the campaign's Southwest Washington field director, said Jon Seaton, executive director of the state's George W. Bush campaign.

Why 'those' laptops, and not the others? Why was that office targeted and not the adjacent ones? I needed to order two hundred signs for my precinct but this is not helping.

Of course, Seattle is one of the few places in the world that bought a old V.I. Lenin statue from a ex-soviet country and set it up to honor what he stood for.

[Bernadotte 0]

John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower and life-long Republican, has just explained Why I will vote for John Kerry for President.  He served as American ambassador to Belgium between 1969 and 1971 and is the author of nine books, largely on military subjects.

Quote[/b] ]THE Presidential election to be held this coming Nov. 2 will be one of extraordinary importance to the future of our nation. The outcome will determine whether this country will continue on the same path it has followed for the last 3Ë years or whether it will return to a set of core domestic and foreign policy values that have been at the heart of what has made this country great.

Now more than ever, we voters will have to make cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the past. Experts tell us that we tend to vote as our parents did or as we “always have.†We remained loyal to party labels. We cannot afford that luxury in the election of 2004. There are times when we must break with the past, and I believe this is one of them.

As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration’s decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.

The fact is that today’s “Republican†Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word “Republican†has always been synonymous with the word “responsibility,†which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today’s whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.

Responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. That has meant respect for others. America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance. Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance.

In the Middle East crisis of 1991, President George H.W. Bush marshaled world opinion through the United Nations before employing military force to free Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Through negotiation he arranged for the action to be financed by all the industrialized nations, not just the United States. When Kuwait had been freed, President George H. W. Bush stayed within the United Nations mandate, aware of the dangers of occupying an entire nation.

Today many people are rightly concerned about our precious individual freedoms, our privacy, the basis of our democracy. Of course we must fight terrorism, but have we irresponsibly gone overboard in doing so? I wonder. In 1960, President Eisenhower told the Republican convention, “If ever we put any other value above (our) liberty, and above principle, we shall lose both.†I would appreciate hearing such warnings from the Republican Party of today.

The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which included balancing the budget whenever the state of the economy allowed it to do so. The Eisenhower administration accomplished that difficult task three times during its eight years in office. It did not attain that remarkable achievement by cutting taxes for the rich. Republicans disliked taxes, of course, but the party accepted them as a necessary means of keep the nation’s financial structure sound.

The Republicans used to be deeply concerned for the middle class and small business. Today’s Republican leadership, while not solely accountable for the loss of American jobs, encourages it with its tax code and heads us in the direction of a society of very rich and very poor.

Sen. Kerry, in whom I am willing to place my trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous, sober, competent, and concerned with fighting the dangers associated with the widening socio-economic gap in this country. I will vote for him enthusiastically.

I celebrate, along with other Americans, the diversity of opinion in this country. But let it be based on careful thought. I urge everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, to avoid voting for a ticket merely because it carries the label of the party of one’s parents or of our own ingrained habits.

I guess that only leaves George W Bush, as the son of a recent Republican president, who won't be supporting Kerry.  

[walker 0]

Hi shinRaiden

Dont get your knikers in a twist aparently it was just a normal burglary you can not expect anything else when TBA are reducing COPS in their first reponder cuts.

Quote[/b] ]Bellevue police confirmed the burglary Friday afternoon but offered no support for Vance's claims about motive.

"No evidence at the scene indicated this was politically motivated," police spokeswoman Jessamyn Poling said.

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

Clearly we must condem all thefts whether it be a politicians computers or the high number of house burglaries or car thefts but if you want more police to prevent burglaries and for Homeland Defense vote for John F. Kerry.

Kind Regards Walker

[walker 0]

Hi all

FOR MANY OF YOU TODAY Saturday 2nd of October IS YOUR LAST CHANCE TO REGISTER TO VOTE For these elections

If you live in: the District of Columbia, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee and Washington Register NOW Tell your friends and family too.

States with Sunday 3rd of October as deadline

Alaska and Arkansas

States with Monday 4th of October as deadline

Arizona, Colorado, FLORIDA, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia.

If your state has not been mentioned; there is a full list of dates you have to be registered by on Michael Moores site along with links to where you can register.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/takeaction/vote/register.php

On a very serious political note in a rerun of the the thousands of florida voters turned away from the polls in 2000

Quote[/b] ]Thousands in Florida may be rejected at polls

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (USATODAY.com) — Thousands of Floridians who think they're registered to vote could be turned away at the polls Nov. 2 because their voter registration forms weren't completely filled out, officials said Friday.

Secretary of State Glenda Hood said some groups registering voters are turning in application forms with information missing, such as unchecked boxes asking whether applicants are citizens, mentally incompetent or felons.

A group that's been seeking copies of the incomplete applications in an effort to help people complete them said Hood's office, citing state law, has begun blocking them.

"Clearly, way over the number that could determine the election" won't be able to vote, said Judith Browne, a lawyer with the Washington-based Advancement Project, which promotes multiracial participation in voting. She was referring to President Bush's disputed 537-vote victory in Florida that gave him the presidency in 2000.

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

Clearly if you are voting in Florida go and check you are actualy registered and do a drive with your friends to ensure you are all registered, verify and check each other get it all sorted for Monday. Check the links below for help registering if you are having any trouble record conversations and what you are told. Call the Toll-Free Voter Assistance Hotline: 866-308-6739

Florida

DEADLINE to Register: October 4th That is MONDAY

Click here to download a voter registration form

For an absentee voter application contact your State Secretary’s office.

Here is the contact info for the Florida Department of State, Division of Elections. If you have any questions at all, please FEEL FREE TO CALL!

Department of State

Division of Elections

Room 316, R.A. Gray Building

500 South Bronough Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250

Phone: 850-245-6240

Fax: 850-245-6259

Or call the Toll-Free Voter Assistance Hotline: 866-308-6739

If you live in Florida, the Voter Fraud Hotline might come in handy: 877-868-3737

For further information, check out Vote-Smart's Florida page

Register Vote this is the closest election in decades your vote counts In Florida it will go down to the wire.

Kind Regards Walker

[Bernadotte 0]

Bush on the other hand made a good case that it was a problem that Kerry called the Iraq war a "great distraction" - that it sent mixed signals to the troops. I think that Bush won on consistency there.

Well, actually Bush claimed that Kerry called the Iraq war a grand diversion, which is quite different from a "great distraction."  Bush said this 3 times, but then again, Bush repeated a lot of things 3 times.

Kerry might have said "grand diversion" elsewhere, but he didn't say that during the debate.  Nonetheless, he quite clearly stated that US military forces should not have been diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq.  

Kerry did not bother to clearly state that "It was a mistake going there, but now when we are there, it is very important that we fix the mess".

He did actually say that indirectly a couple of time, but Bush's accusations came through better.

Well, actually Kerry did say it quite directly, but he used a double negative which probably soared way over the heads of many Republican viewers:

Quote[/b] ]"And I will succeed for those troops, now that we're there. We have to succeed. We can't leave a failed Iraq. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake of judgment to go there and take the focus off of Osama bin Laden. It was."

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]On a very serious political note in a rerun of the the thousands of florida voters turned away from the polls in 2000

erm...If you forgot to fill in something, it is not the state fault but yours.

Quote[/b] ]  Nonetheless, he quite clearly stated that US military forces should not have been diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq.  

erm...

http://www.kmclive.com/

Quote[/b] ]

Kevin McCullough

Radio Talk Show Host, Syndicated Columnist, and past recipient of the Tesla and Marconi Awards

Friday, October 1, 2004

Transcript of General DeLong on KMC Show

~5:14pm~ EST

KERRY KNEW HE WAS LYING WHEN HE SAID IT: In light of the oft-repeated assertion by John Kerry that President Bush took resources from Afghanistan in order to perform the operations in Iraq - former CentCom commander and number 2 in the War On Terror Lt. General Michael DeLong had the following to say...

KMC: General welcome to the Kevin McCullough Show

DeLong: Kevin its a pleasure to be here.

KMC: When you hear John Kerry last night, in the debate, talking about the robbing of Afghanistan to serve Iraq...I'm going to play this clip, I want you to hear this comment and then I'd like to get your reaction to it.

CLIP: (John Kerry) "The President made the judgement to divert forces from under General Tommy Franks from Afghanistan before the Congress even approved it, to begin to prepare to go to war in Iraq."

KMC: That assertion he (Kerry) made multiple times throughout the debate last night, Lt. General Michael DeLong, former number two at CentCom - was that your experience or did you have knowledge of that to be true? That the Bush Administration robbed Afghanistan to pay Iraq - so to speak?

DeLong: It's completely untrue, what happened is...The way we went to war in Afghanistan, first of all was different than the Soviets. We used Afghan forces with our ground forces on purpose so that they'd be the heroes of the war. So that they would feel good about themselves in the end, and be able to have a country united. We never had more than around 9000 soldiers there at any one time and today there is 10,000. So I can say unequivocally not one single troop, nor airplane, nor piece of equipment left Afghanistan to go to Iraq. It was a conscious decision on General Franks, the President and Sec. Rumsfelds part to insure that the war on terrorism not only stayed at its current rate but accelerated because going into Iraq, we did not know how that would make the terrorists react. So we went overboard. And the same day we went into Iraq we carried out a huge, huge operation in Afghanistan. So it (the statement by Kerry) is NOT correct.

KMC: As a former commander of those operations how do you personally feel when you hear a man who is seeking the office of Commander-In-Chief get something so basic in terms of the raw facts of the matter, that's so easily provable - so wrong?

DeLong: Well, first of all its an election year. He's running for President - he doesn't have the Presidential background to fall back on. He's picking and choosing and taking things out of context, and I feel sorry that that's the way he has to go. And if I thought those were things he really meant I'd take offense.

And for what it's worth General Franks roundly disputed Kerry on the same matter on some network coverage last night.

[Bernadotte 0]

In Florida it will go down to the wire.

It may, but I doubt it.  From my many friends and acquaintances in Florida (some Republican) they all feel that if Kerry doesn't win it easily there will be a civil war.

Of course I don't mean to encourage complacency, however I do suspect the race could be decided more closely elsewhere this time, like in Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio and even Oregon.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]From my many friends and acquaintances in Florida (some Republican) they all feel that if Kerry doesn't win it easily there will be a civil war.

Woot!! I always wanted to defend the govt....

[Bernadotte 0]

erm...

Quote[/b] ]DeLong:  So I can say unequivocally not one single troop, nor airplane, nor piece of equipment left Afghanistan to go to Iraq.

erm... bullshit...

From your president's own mouth during the debate:

Quote[/b] ]"You know, I think about Missy Johnson. She's a fantastic lady I met in Charlotte, North Carolina. She and her son Brian, they came to see me. Her husband PJ got killed. He'd been in Afghanistan, went to Iraq."

[Bernadotte 0]

Woot!! I always wanted to defend the govt....

Then why aren't you in Iraq right now?

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]erm... bullshit...

From your president's own mouth during the debate:

He was in the 82nd Airborne Division and the 82nd was sent to relieve the 101st in Afghanistan (pre-iraq war). I guess somebody replaced them...Anyway, the 82nd is going to back to Afghanistan in the spring to relieve the soldiers from the 25th Infantry Division

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Then why aren't you in Iraq right now?

If a draft happens, I'm willing to serve.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]From my many friends and acquaintances in Florida (some Republican) they all feel that if Kerry doesn't win it easily there will be a civil war.

Woot!! I always wanted to defend the govt....

So did the Waffen SS

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Then why aren't you in Iraq right now?

If a draft happens, I'm willing to serve.

Oh how brave of you.

Least m21man (I think) has stated he is going to volunteer and enlist after HS. I will give him that for backing his words with actions.

You on the other hand spout it out and don't back it up.

"I'll be happy to serve if they make me!"

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]erm... bullshit...

From your president's own mouth during the debate:

He was in the 82nd Airborne Division and the 82nd was sent to relieve the 101st in Afghanistan (pre-iraq war). I guess somebody replaced them...Anyway, the 82nd is going to back to Afghanistan in the spring to relieve the soldiers from the 25th Infantry Division

Ahhhh...

Nothin' like gettin' a little R&R from Iraq by going BACK to Afghanistan...