Us presidential election 2004

[denoir 0]

Those embryos could be birthed and put up for adoption.

There are four ways to get embryos:

[*]Fertility Clinics

During in-vitro fertilization, clinics routinely fuse more than one egg with sperm. That way, if implanting a fertilized egg doesn't work the first time, they can try again. This practice has left thousands of unwanted embryos stored in clinic freezers. James Thomson, the first scientist to establish a human stem-cell line, used such embryos.

[*]Aborted Fetuses

John Gearhart, the Johns Hopkins biologist credited, along with Thomson, with first culturing stem cells, extracted his from fetuses donated by women at a nearby abortion clinic.

[*]Cloning

Advanced Cell Technology of Worcester, Mass., acknowledged last week that it is trying to create cloned human embryos (euphemistically referred to as "entities") as sources for stem cells. The company has considered selling its stem cells to other researchers.

[*]Made to Order

The Jones Institute in Virginia, where the first U.S. test-tube baby was conceived, has mixed sperm and eggs expressly to create embryos as sources for stem cells.

[Time Magazine]

Here's your embryo:

Is the embryo human? Well, the DNA is human, so genetically yes. Is the embryo alive? Absolutely - cells are alive.

The problem is, if you want to be consistent then you should ban contraceptives and any form of sex that doesn't lead to conception. Sperms are very much alive and they are very much genetrically human as well.

Hell, you should forbid spitting and bleeding as well. Those thing contain clusters of human cells that just like the embryo are human and alive. Letting those cells die is also killing off living things.

So being alive and being human isn't perhaps the best criteria for basing your ethics upon. The only reasonable approach is taking a look at the functionality of the thing you're killing.

An embryo at that level is nothing. It's just a bunch of cells. Apart from the DNA, it has nothing in common with a human being. It can't feel, it can't think - it's just a bunch of cells.

[DanAK47 1]

Obviously I was confused somewhere.

Apparently Bush doesn't support the embryo/stem cell thing. He doesn't want people playing god. I disagree with him about this but it isn't going to swing my vote.

[billybob2002 0]

http://www.factcheck.org/article281.html

Quote[/b] ]

New And Recycled Distortions At Final Presidential Debate

Bush claims most of his tax cuts went to low- and middle-income persons. Kerry says Pell Grants were cut. Don't believe either.

October 14, 2004

Modified: October 14, 2004

eMail to a friend  Printer Friendly Version

Summary

The debates are over and the results are clear: both candidates are incorrigible fact-twisters.

Bush said most of his tax cuts went to "low- and middle-income Americans" when independent calculations show most went to the richest 10 percent. Kerry claims Bush "cut the Pell Grants" when they've actually increased. Both men repeated misstatements made in earlier debates, and added a few new ones.

Analysis

Who Got Tax Cuts?

Bush: He talks about middle-class tax cuts. That's exactly where the tax cuts went. Most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans. And now the tax code is more fair. Twenty percent of the upper-income people pay about 80 percent of the taxes in America today because of how we structured the tax cuts.

Wrong on Tax Cuts

Bush could hardly have been farther off base when he said most of his tax cuts "went to low- and middle-income Americans." That's just not true.

In fact, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center recently calculated  that most of the tax cuts -- 53% to be exact -- went to the highest -earning 10% of US individuals and families.Those most affluent Americans got an average tax cut of $7,661.

And as for the "low- and middle-income Americans" Bush mentioned -- the bottom 60% of individuals and families got only 13.7% of the tax cuts, according to the Tax Policy Center, a far cry from "most" of the cuts as claimed by Bush.

The President came closer to the mark, but still got it wrong, when he said in the same breath that the top 20% of earners pay "about 80% of the taxes in America today." That's incorrect.

In fact, as we reported only that morning, the Congressional Budget Office calculates that the top 20% now pay 63.5% of the total federal tax burden, which includes income taxes, payroll taxes and other federal levies. It's true that the top 20% pays nearly 81% of all federal income taxes, but the president spoke more expansively of "taxes in America," not just income taxes.

Pell Grants

Kerry: They've cut the Pell Grants . . .  

Bush:  He said we cut Pell Grants. We've increased Pell Grants by a million students. That's a fact.

Kerry: But you know why the Pell Grants have gone up in their numbers? Because more people qualify for them because they don't have money.

But they're not getting the $5,100 the president promised them . They're getting less money.

Wrong on Pell Grants

Kerry claimed the Bush administration had cut Pell Grants for low-income students to attend college. Bush said Pell Grants have been increased by a million students. Bush was correct.

Department of Education figures show the number of Pell Grants awarded the year before Bush took office was 3.9 million. The number grew to 5.1 million for the most recent academic year -- an increase of 1.3 million, actually.

Spending for Pell Grants grew from just under $8 billion in the academic year that was underway when Bush took office to nearly $12.7 billion three years later, a jump of nearly 60%. That's some "cut."

It is true that during the 2000 presidential campaign Bush promised to increase the maximum size of Pell Grants to $5,100 for first-year students, a promise that remains unfulfilled. The maximum grant has risen from $3,300 at the time Bush made that promise, but only to $4,050. Under Bush's proposed 2005 budget the maximum grant would remain frozen there for most students for the third year in a row.

In April Bush proposed  an increase of as much as $1,000 in the maximum award, but only for those students who prepare for college with demanding courses in high school, which would allow only a small fraction of Pell Grant recipients to qualify for the maximum. So Kerry was correct when he said students are "not getting the $5,100 the president promised them."

Wrong on After-School Programs

Kerry claimed that "500,000 kids lost after-school programs," which isn't the case. A cut was proposed but Congress rejected it. The Department of Education's 2004 budget proposal called for a nearly 40% cut in funding for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program, or a drop of nearly $400 million from about $1 billion in 2003. According to a  report by the Afterschool Alliance, "More than 550,000 children would lose access to afterschool programs." But even assuming that projection would have turned out to be correct, it never happened because Congress kept funding at about $1 billion.

Not That Concerned?

Kerry: Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, "Where is Osama bin Laden?" He said, "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned."

Bush: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.

Of course we're worried about Osama bin Laden. We're on the hunt after Osama bin Laden. We're using every asset at our disposal to get Osama bin Laden.

Wrong on Osama

Bush stumbled when he denied making some remarks about Osama bin Laden that Kerry had accurately paraphrased. Bush accused Kerry of "one of those exaggerations."

In fact, Bush said almost exactly what Kerry quoted him as saying. It was in a news conference at the White House on March 13, 2002, after US forces had overturned the Taliban regime in Afghanistan:

Q (March 13, 2002): Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden.  Why is that? . . .

Bush: So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him , Kelly, to be honest with you. . . .

Q:  But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

Bush: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I  --  I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.  I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

Who Blocked Vaccine?

Bush: Bob, we relied upon a company out of England to provide about half of the flu vaccines for the United States (sic) citizen, and it turned out that the vaccine they were producing was contaminated. And so we took the right action and didn't allow contaminated medicine into our country.

Wrong on Flu Vaccine

It's not true, as Bush claimed, that "we took the right action" in blocking "contaminated" influenza vaccine from entering the US.

Actually, it was the British and not the US that blocked shipment. The British Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, according to an Oct. 6 news release, suspended the license of Chiron Corp., the manufacturer of approximately 50% of the U.S. supply.

In fact, the Bush administration seems to have been caught by surprise when Chiron Corp. notified the US Center for Disease Control Oct. 5 that the company wouldn't be shipping the vaccine due to the British action. The US Food and Drug Administration didn't begin an investigation until five days later, according to an FDA news release .

It's also not clear how much of the vaccine is actually contaminated. The British agency said it suspended Chiron's license because of "concerns of possible microbial contamination." And the FDA news release refers to "findings concerning the contamination of some lots."

The "Black Congressional Caucus"

Kerry: This is a president who hasn't met with the Black Congressional Caucus. This is a president who has not met with the civil rights leadership of our country.

Wrong on The Black Caucus

Kerry wrongly claimed Bush "hasn't met with the Black Congressional Caucus." He garbled the organization's name, for one thing. It's actually the Congressional Black Caucus, made up of 39 African-American members of the House.

And in fact, Bush met with the caucus a few days after taking office, on Jan. 31, 2001.  "This will be the beginning of, hopefully, a lot of meetings," Bush told  them. "I hope you come back, and I'll certainly be inviting." But it was more than three years before the next meeting, on Feb. 25, 2004. Bush met with members of the caucus after they paid an impromptu visit to the White House to discuss the crisis in Haiti, according to a statement issued by the White House press secretary.

Wrong on the Surplus

Kerry claimed Bush "has taken a $5.6 trillion surplus and turned it into deficits as far as the eye can see." But the country never actually had a $5.6 trillion surplus. The projected surplus Kerry was referring to was a 10-year figure that was already made dubious by a weakening economy and a pent-up Congressional urge to spend. The largest annual surplus actually realized was $236 billion in fiscal year 2000, which ended a month before Bush was elected.

Recycled Bunkum

Both men recycled a number of distortions and falsehoods that we've reported on before:

Kerry twice claimed 1.6 million jobs have been lost under Bush, which is 1 million too high.

Bush said that in Iraq "We'll have 125,000 troops trained by the end of this year," which is wrong. Actually, the security forces being trained are a "mixed bag" of soldiers, border guards and even three-week "shake and bake" police officers, according to House testimony by Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

Kerry again claimed "The jobs the president is creating pay $9,000 less than the jobs that we're losing," a fanciful figure based on industry averages that don't actually compare wages of jobs lost to those of newer jobs.

Bush claimed fear of lawsuits drives doctors to "the defensive practice of medicine that costs the federal government some $28 billion a year and costs our society between $60 billion and $100 billion a year," which is contrary to nearly all academic studies of the matter.

Kerry repeated that "I have a plan to cover all Americans" for health care. Actually, his plan wouldn't cover all Americans. It would increase the percentage who have coverage from 84% currently to an estimated 92% to 95%. But several million would still be left uninsured.

Bush again said Kerry "voted to increase taxes 98 times." But that total includes up to 16 votes on a single tax bill, and 43 votes on budget measures that set targets but don't actually legislate tax increases.

We Note Some Improvement

The candidates did show improvement on a few matters, however. Kerry didn't repeat his inflated claim that the Iraq war has cost $200 billion. Instead he stated, correctly, "America now is paying, already $120 billion, up to $200 billion before we're finished and much more probably." And Bush stopped short of talking of his support for creating the Department of Homeland Security, something he actually opposed for nearly nine months before switching to support it. This time Bush confined himself to saying "I signed the homeland security bill," which is quite accurate.

[billybob2002 0]

No big surprises...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/14/bush.nra.ap/index.html

Quote[/b] ]

NRA endorses President Bush

Thursday, October 14, 2004 Posted: 1:56 PM EDT (1756 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The National Rifle Association endorsed President Bush for re-election on Wednesday, promising millions of dollars for ads, phone banks and other get-out-the-vote efforts.

"The Supreme Court is going to be crucial to the future of the Second Amendment, and President Bush will appoint justices that respect the Bill of Rights," NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre told The Associated Press in a phone interview before announcing the endorsement at a news conference in Duluth, Minnesota.

Bush also supports legislation to protect the firearms industry from lawsuits and opposes centralizing files on gun owners, LaPierre said, calling the difference between Bush and Democrat John Kerry on guns "day and night."

LaPierre also planned news conferences in Flint, Michigan; Youngstown, Ohio, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The gun-rights group's political action committee has already spent roughly $1 million on TV and other advertising opposing Kerry.

The NRA plans to spend about $20 million in all, focused on 10 to 15 targeted states, with efforts including radio, television and newspaper ads, phone banks, door-to-door voter contacts, up to 10 million pieces of direct mail and election messages in magazines that go to the group's 4 million members.

The pro-Bush spending will be done by the NRA's PAC, which is financed with limited donations from the NRA's members.

The campaign law that went into effect this election cycle cut off a major source of past NRA election spending by broadly barring the use of corporate money in any amount and unlimited donations from any source in presidential and congressional races.

Kerry's campaign has derided the NRA's leaders as tools of the Republican Party and said they are out of touch with their membership.

Kerry says he has been a hunter from childhood and a gun owner who supports the Second Amendment. But he has voted in favor of gun control and has supported extending a now-expired ban on assault-style weapons and requiring background checks at gun shows.

He also opposes granting gun makers immunity from civil lawsuits.

Kerry has been endorsed by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. The gun-control group said Wednesday that it is joining with the Million Mom March to air a TV ad criticizing Bush's failure to press for renewal of the assault-weapons ban.

The ad will air in Philadelphia, Cleveland and Miami over the next week, with an initial buy of $100,000, spokesman Peter Hamm said.

White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett welcomed the endorsement and said, "The NRA recognizes that President Bush understands that law-abiding citizens have a right to own firearms as well as to put the focus of our anti-crime policies on those who commit crimes with guns."

[shinRaiden 0]

Meanwhile, Swift Vets and POW's for Truth have released not one but two ads including former shipmates of Komrade Kerry and furthermore the presence of a widely respected Medal of Honor recipient Bud Day among four other former POW's and a pile of other vietnam veterans:

Quote[/b] ]

"How can you expect our sons and daughters to follow you, when you condemn their fathers, and grandfathers?"

These two ads are real dynamite, expect to see them this weekend on the tube.

[Akira 0]

Meanwhile, Swift Vets and POW's for Truth have released not one but two ads including former shipmates of Komrade Kerry and furthermore the presence of a widely respected Medal of Honor recipient Bud Day among four other former POW's:

Quote[/b] ]

"How can you expect our sons and daughters to follow you, when you condemn their fathers, and grandfathers?"

"How can you expect the country to follow you when you send their sons and daughters to get senslessly slaughtered for false pretenses"

And you can use that in a commercial too

[canukausiuka 1]

Well this may be my last post in this inflamatory thread (not like I've been a regular to this thread any way). I don't have a high enough post count so my odds of being PRed or banned for questioning members of the kliq or not towing the Kerry line are too high.

PS... Argh I can't help it I got to say one more thing. Walker and bn880 you really need to get off the ear piece conspiracy. It's just so ridicules, next I bet you'll claim the Freemasons put it there.

Well, I have to agree w/ sputnik here. Those of us who are not pro-Kerry (I am pro-Bush, although I'd lean more Libertarian than he is) and are not already established members of the community are sometimes almost viciously attacked for having a different opinion, and nobody seems to care. I admit I am no pundit, and I do not think many members of this forum are, but my opinion would not be welcome. One of the biggest reasons I do not post often in these threads (although I read them frequently) is because when I have previously, people have been downright insulting. It is one thing to try to convice someone that their opinion is wrong. It is quite another to imply very seriously that they are a moron, or even flat-out wrong, for having that opinion.

I may be a right-wing nut to some of you. But I honestly do not want my view imposed on people (hence my Libertarian leanings). Here, there seems to be a lack of tolerance for people who object to having a left-wing value system imposed on them. Do you think that things like taxes, welfare, gun control, etc, do not impose those values? I do not support welfare, so by raising it you are imposing it on me. By restricting my access to guns that I will not abuse, you are imposing your values on me. Conversely, banning abortion imposes my view on you. But lowering taxes does not impose my view (kind of a grey area concering, say, changes for certain tax brakets... I think the system is not fair, but that is more because of its complications than its design). A lot of these issues I feel the Federal government should back out of. The nation does not feel the same about abortion, or gun control, or welfare. However, if you left those decisions to the states, which tend to have more in common (although not uniform, admittedly) beliefs. Then more people can be more satisfied with the decisions of the government.

And one last that I still do not trully understand. I may not like a number of liberals (Kennedy, Moore, just kind of annoy the heck out of me), but I do not hate them. I don't think Kerry will make a lousy president. I just don't agree with him, so I will not be voting for him. Why do so many people downright hate President Bush? I understand disagreeing with him, but the hatred I see in some people is just not something I can fathom. I don't want to think that it's just group thought, I want to know the real reasons people hate him. Because I hope even those of you who do hate him can agree that group hatred is really shallow, and does not lead to good ends.

[red oct 2]

not the swift vets again. i never heard Kerry say condemed anybody either.

hey look, bush is breaking the law. anybody care?

Quote[/b] ]Federal Flag Code, Section 4(g): "The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature."

[denoir 0]

Why do so many people downright hate President Bush?

From an international perspective: Because he is a danger to the world and responsible for the deaths of many civilians in an unnecessary war. To me he's not much better than bin Laden. Both are fundamentalist ideologues who don't mind paying in other peoples' blood.

It's actually sad that people (including me) become blasé about it. I can't say I actively hate Bush; but I should - the guy is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians...

[Acecombat 0]

Check this out :

Bush + Cheney related?

Figures they are related the morons

[walker 0]

Hi all

The NeoConMen are involved in their usual anti democracy activities this time they have engaged a firm to destroy the voter registration papers of Democrats.

Quote[/b] ]Voter Fraud Charges Out West

(CBS) By CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer David Paul Kuhn

Officials in Oregon have launched a criminal investigation after receiving numerous complaints that a Republican-affiliated group was destroying registration forms filed by Democratic voters statewide, Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury told CBSNews.com.

Meanwhile, CBS affiliate KLAS-TV is reporting accusations of similar malfeasance in Nevada.

Both state's allegations are linked to a Phoenix political consulting firm called Sproul & Associates run by Nathan Sproul, former head of the Arizona Republican Party. Sproul & Associates has received nearly $500,000 from the Republican National Committee this election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Calls from CBSNews.com to Sproul were not returned.

Late Thursday afternoon, two Democratic senators, Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, sent a letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft asking the Justice Department to "launch an immediate investigation into the activities of Mr. Sproul and his firm."

According to KLAS-TV, a former employee claimed hundreds, if not thousands, of Democratic registration forms were destroyed by a Sproul & Associates group called Voters Outreach of America.

America needs to wake up to the NeoConMan criminals who have stolen the USA's once proud Republican party.

Worried Walker

[canukausiuka 1]

Why do so many people downright hate President Bush?

From an international perspective: Because he is a danger to the world and responsible for the deaths of many civilians in an unnecessary war. To me he's not much better than bin Laden. Both are fundamentalist ideologues who don't mind paying in other peoples' blood.

It's actually sad that people (including me) become blasé about it. I can't say I actively hate Bush; but I should - the guy is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians...

I guess I can understand where you are coming from with the Iraq war, but it seems to me that you are mistaken in your comparison of him to bin Laden. Perhaps there are some similarities, but bin Laden attacked with the intention of killing civilians. That is murder, straight out. Bush did not attack Iraq intending to harm the Iraqi population to make his point. I am not saying that justifies what happened, only that part of a crime is the intention. Comparing the two in a simple analogy, what bin Laden did was murder, straight up, while Bush's action would more likely be considered manslaughter. Both are bad, but one is worse than the other.

Additionally, I would not call Bush a fundamentalist idealogue, either. However, I support the man, so it would be rather inconsistent of me to. I admit that Bush is a conservative and a Christian, and lets that influence his decisions. I cannot condemn a man for that, because our values should help dictate our decisions. Ignoring our values in making decisions means that our values are hollow and essentially useless. I suppose some people think many of President Bush's values are wrong, but wrong or right, they are not extreme. I know many people who are well right of Bush, and I know Bush is not much of a moderate. To me, if there is a flaw with Bush's religious value system, it is that he would trust it over actual data.

I am glad to hear you do not actually hate President Bush, but saddened by the fact that you think it would be a good thing if you did. I do not think that there has truly been tens of thousands of civilian casualties as a direct responsibilty of President Bush's decisions (although if you have good figures for this, I would like it. Preferrably along with data on how many Iraqi combatants were killed as well. I haven't seen any real good data on either, just estimates). If the decisions truly did cost that much to civilians, I would be much more apt to condemn the decision to fight there, not because I think that good will not come out of it, but because that kind of cost is nothing to dismiss.

Thank you for helping to shed a little light on this for me, though.

[Frisbee 0]

Quote[/b] ]Why do so many people downright hate President Bush?

I didn't hate him, even after all that Axis of Evil crap (which, as you can imagine psised a lot of people off).

But after actually watching the way he debates he just well, annoys me with his smug smile, stupid retorts and mindless debating (Kerry isn't any better really).

Oh, and this irked me : "Should America listen to foreign capitals when American security is at stake?"

Or something along these lines. Besides the obvious fact that American safety was not threatened by our far eastern dictator, the part in italics annoyed me.

Foreign Capitals, with a lot of added intonation, as if it were a dirty, better left unspoken word. (but, this is obviously my opinion) Foreign capitals? Like Paris, Berlin, Brussels? You know, your allies?

Old Europe? Ineffective UN? I don't quite remember if the words "former allies" were uttered but it might have been better to say that and plainly give Europe the finger.

The debates I'm seeing disgust me, even though I'm aware of the fact that our media will try to give it such a cut that the most silly little fragments of the debate will be aired so we can collectively poke fun at the USA.

The Anti-Bush sentiment across Europe, or perhaps even the world is growing to something of a mass-hysteria. I have the feeling that it's sometimes bordering on the Anti-American.

This worries me, it seems to be trendy to say you hate Bush without explaining yourself.

Personally I think Bush is someone who just pissed far too many people off, Kerry isn't much better, "less bad" would be a more fitting term. I don't like Kerry all that much to be honest, he can't debate either, but I'd rather have the new kid give it a shot than have the guy who "is responsible" for all the things that are listed so many times on 'Why not to vote Bush' lists.

Whew, long

[walker 0]

Hi all

I dont hate Bush.

I dont Hate America or Americans.

I am terribly afraid of the dammage done to the defence of the nation I live in and of the world in general. That the trust of politicians who have cried wolf once too often and cannot therefor any longer command.

If Someone says Iran has WMD and will give it to terrorists who now would trust our administrations? If there is a real threat, as distinct from the fantasy one of Iraq, how much proof would be needed and how long would it take to amass it?

I am very angry that the people employed to make decisions about the very serious matter of War in which the nation I was born breed and live in has participated, did so in so conspicuously a bad and inept way and that the war resulted in tens of thousands of lives being lost needlessly.

I am angered that they did so on false intelligence, that they caused to be created, to excuse a war that had no validity or legality what so ever.

I am ashamed that the Nation I live in did this thing. For it brought the nation I live in down to level of the barbarian and that it besmirched the good name of the military of nation I live in and its allies.

I then come to the complete failure to win the peace; I worry that the nation I live in is going to have to go through a long drawn out, Vietnam style war, with tens of thousands of coalition casulties and in which hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians will die.

I fear greatly that the region may be so catastrophicly destabalised that Al Qaida and its franchise will end up in control of the whole of the middle east and that as a result Israel may be forced to use its Nukes that Pakistan and probably Iran will reply in kind.

Kind Regards Walker

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Supreme Court Gives Debate Win to Bush

(2004-10-13) -- Although many political commentators saw President George Bush and rival John Forbes Kerry battle to a tie in tonight's final debate, the U.S. Supreme Court has intervened and awarded the victory to Mr. Bush.

In a terse one-page ruling, the court said that political pundits had overstepped their authority in declaring the match a draw.

Mr. Kerry, who is also a U.S. senator, promised to abide by the court's decision "out of respect for the institution and pity for Mr. Bush, who struggled valiantly in the face of my withering logic and overwhelming presidential aura."

As with previous debates, the winner receives a brief bump in the polls and a year's supply of Eskimo Pies.

Just kidding

[denoir 0]

I guess I can understand where you are coming from with the Iraq war, but it seems to me that you are mistaken in your comparison of him to bin Laden.  Perhaps there are some similarities, but bin Laden attacked with the intention of killing civilians.  That is murder, straight out.  Bush did not attack Iraq intending to harm the Iraqi population to make his point.  I am not saying that justifies what happened, only that part of a crime is the intention.  Comparing the two in a simple analogy, what bin Laden did was murder, straight up, while Bush's action would more likely be considered manslaughter.  Both are bad, but one is worse than the other.

Absolutely, that's what I'm saying too. A major difference is however the number of people killed, where Bush has a significant lead.

Is a guy who is responsible for the murder of 3,000 people worse than a guy responsible for the manslaughter of 10,000+ people?

I'm not sure, but given the choice between Bush and Kerry, I'd go for the guy who isn't responsible for the manslaughter of 10,000+ people. I think it is required by basic human decency. That's also why I have limited patience for Bush supporters - I can't comperhend how they with any conscience can support a guy who is responsible for so many deaths.

This is IMO far beyond party politics, opinions on taxes etc It's about basic human values.

Quote[/b] ]Additionally, I would not call Bush a fundamentalist idealogue, either.  However, I support the man, so it would be rather inconsistent of me to.  I admit that Bush is a conservative and a Christian, and lets that influence his decisions.  I cannot condemn a man for that, because our values should help dictate our decisions.  Ignoring our values in making decisions means that our values are hollow and essentially useless.  I suppose some people think many of President Bush's values are wrong, but wrong or right, they are not extreme.  I know many people who are well right of Bush, and I know Bush is not much of a moderate.  To me, if there is a flaw with Bush's religious value system, it is that he would trust it over actual data.

I think that Bush very much believes what he did is right. I think he fully believes that the ultimate solution is by force removing regimes like the Iraqi one and installing a democracy. And he's not concerned with the reality of the situation and the practical consequences of it. And I think that is a very dangerous kind of idealism. When I call him a fundamentalist, I'm more refering to his neo-conservative values than his religious ones.

His religious values are however a problem as well. It's very nice that he has something that he believes in, and I fully respsect and support that. What I really don't like is that he imposes those values on the whole country. On religious grounds he wants to ban gay marriages, ban abortion etc In some cases it borders on criminal. For instance the opposition to handing out contraceptives in high-schools combined with an opposition to any form of sex-ed that doesn't exclusively promote abstinence and the opposition to abortion. That's his own religious beliefs messing up the lives of teenage kids.

Quote[/b] ]I do not think that there has truly been tens of thousands of civilian casualties as a direct responsibilty of President Bush's decisions (although if you have good figures for this, I would like it.  Preferrably along with data on how many Iraqi combatants were killed as well.  I haven't seen any real good data on either, just estimates).  If the decisions truly did cost that much to civilians, I would be much more apt to condemn the decision to fight there, not because I think that good will not come out of it, but because that kind of cost is nothing to dismiss.

The exact number of Iraqi civilians killed is not known. The number of Iraqi combatants killed (at least during the invasion phase) is not known at all.

The estimates for the civilian toll ranges from 10,000-50,000. Here's a good article on the subject:

Counting the civilian cost in Iraq [bBC]

Some estimates:

Iraq Body Count 13-15,000

IBC only counts deaths reported in media and only such that have been confirmed by two or more sources.

Brookings Institution10-27,000

Washington based independent research organization.

UK foreign secretary: over 10,000

Basically the official UK position.

People's Kifah: over 37,000

Iraqi organization that is the only one that has done a real census and documented individual deaths on the ground in Iraq.

There are some official figures though, but only since April this year. The Iraqi Health Ministry compiled statistics and recorded 3,487 Iraqi deaths in 15 of the country's 18 provinces from April 5 -until Sept. 19

One of the more remarkable things there were that US forces killed twice as many civilians during that period than the insurgents did.

[Balschoiw 0]

An Open Letter to the American People:

Quote[/b] ]We, a nonpartisan group of foreign affairs specialists, have joined together to call urgently for a change of course in American foreign and national security policy. We judge that the current American policy centered around the war in Iraq is the most misguided one since the Vietnam period, one which harms the cause of the struggle against extreme Islamist terrorists. One result has been a great distortion in the terms of public debate on foreign and national security policy—an emphasis on speculation instead of facts, on mythology instead of calculation, and on misplaced moralizing over considerations of national interest. [1] We write to challenge some of these distortions.

Although we applaud the Bush Administration for its initial focus on destroying al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan, its failure to engage sufficient U.S. troops to capture or kill the mass of al-Qaida fighters in the later stages of that war was a great blunder. It is a fact that the early shift of U.S. focus to Iraq diverted U.S. resources, including special operations forces and intelligence capabilities, away from direct pursuit of the fight against the terrorists. [2]

Many of the justifications offered by the Bush Administration for the war in Iraq have been proven untrue by credible studies, including by U.S. government agencies. There is no evidence that Iraq assisted al-Qaida, and its prewar involvement in international terrorism was negligible. [3] Iraq’s arsenal of chemical and biological weapons was negligible, and its nuclear weapons program virtually nonexistent. [4] In comparative terms, Iran is and was much the greater sponsor of terrorism, and North Korea and Pakistan pose much the greater risk of nuclear proliferation to terrorists. Even on moral grounds, the case for war was dubious: the war itself has killed over a thousand Americans and unknown thousands of Iraqis, and if the threat of civil war becomes reality, ordinary Iraqis could be even worse off than they were under Saddam Hussein. The Administration knew most of these facts and risks before the war, and could have discovered the others, but instead it played down, concealed or misrepresented them.

Policy errors during the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq have created a situation in Iraq worse than it needed to be. Spurning the advice of Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki, the Administration committed an inadequate number of troops to the occupation, leading to the continuing failure to establish security in Iraq. Ignoring prewar planning by the State Department and other US government agencies, it created a needless security vacuum by disbanding the Iraqi Army, and embarked on a poorly planned and ineffective reconstruction effort which to date has managed to spend only a fraction of the money earmarked for it. [5] As a result, Iraqi popular dismay at the lack of security, jobs or reliable electric power fuels much of the violent opposition to the U.S. military presence, while the war itself has drawn in terrorists from outside Iraq.

The results of this policy have been overwhelmingly negative for U.S. interests. [6] While the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime was desirable, the benefit to the U.S. was small as prewar inspections had already proven the extreme weakness of his WMD programs, and therefore the small size of the threat he posed. On the negative side, the excessive U.S. focus on Iraq led to weak and inadequate responses to the greater challenges posed by North Korea’s and Iran’s nuclear programs, and diverted resources from the economic and diplomatic efforts needed to fight terrorism in its breeding grounds in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere in the Middle East. Worse, American actions in Iraq, including but not limited to the scandal of Abu Ghraib, have harmed the reputation of the U.S. in most parts of the Middle East and, according to polls, made Osama Bin Laden more popular in some countries than is President Bush. This increased popularity makes it easier for al-Qaida to raise money, attract recruits, and carry out its terrorist operations than would otherwise be the case.

Recognizing these negative consequences of the Iraq war, in addition to the cost in lives and money, we believe that a fundamental reassessment is in order. Significant improvements are needed in our strategy in Iraq and the implementation of that strategy. We call urgently for an open debate on how to achieve these ends, one informed by attention to the facts on the ground in Iraq, the facts of al-Qaida’s methods and strategies, and sober attention to American interests and values.

List of signatures

[DanAK47 1]

Of course, the planes that struck the twin towers did so accidentally. Totally relevant to the civilian deaths in Iraq.

[red oct 2]

whether it was a accident isn't the point.

[Akira 0]

Of course, the planes that struck the twin towers did so accidentally. Totally relevant to the civilian deaths in Iraq.

You can't drop a 2000lb bomb into the middle of a residential neighborhood and say the killing of civilians was an "accident".

So don't give me that.

[walker 0]

Of course, the planes that struck the twin towers did so accidentally. Totally relevant to the civilian deaths in Iraq.

Hi DanAK47

What has the twin towers got to do with Iraq?

Kind Regards Walker

[Akira 0]

There is an interesting documentary about Bush and Kerry on PBS right now. It interviews people that were there through their beginings up to the present.

EDIT: Interesting. It has video of Kerry on the Senate floor stating on July 29 2002 and Oct 9 2002, stating that the Bush administration has no plan to wint he peace or anything else (July 29th) and that his vote was ONLY for force after exhausting diplomatic channels and bringing the Allies in with them. Exactly what he has said from the beginning despite what Bush says about flip-flopping.

EDIT2: Also had a could quote from Ann Richards during the governor race.

"Poor Georgie, he can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth."

[BoweryBaker 0]

According to this article, Cheney's daughter would have nothing to be ashamed of if it weren't wrong to be that way. Gays do have a choice as to whether they'll be that way or not. I think Kerry made an innocent mistake.

[canukausiuka 1]

Is a guy who is responsible for the murder of 3,000 people worse than a guy responsible for the manslaughter of 10,000+ people?

I'm not sure, but given the choice between Bush and Kerry, I'd go for the guy who isn't responsible for the manslaughter of 10,000+ people. I think it is required by basic human decency. That's also why I have limited patience for Bush supporters - I can't comperhend how they with any conscience can support a guy who is responsible for so many deaths.

This is IMO far beyond party politics, opinions on taxes etc It's about basic human values.

Personally, I believe a person who kills with the intent to kill is always worse than the person who does so accidentally. I am not saying that it makes things any better for those who directly suffer, only that the person who intends to kill is far worse than the one who does without meaning to. Just a personal difference of opinion I suppose.

Quote[/b] ]I think that Bush very much believes what he did is right. I think he fully believes that the ultimate solution is by force removing regimes like the Iraqi one and installing a democracy. And he's not concerned with the reality of the situation and the practical consequences of it. And I think that is a very dangerous kind of idealism. When I call him a fundamentalist, I'm more refering to his neo-conservative values than his religious ones.

His religious values are however a problem as well. It's very nice that he has something that he believes in, and I fully respsect and support that. What I really don't like is that he imposes those values on the whole country. On religious grounds he wants to ban gay marriages, ban abortion etc In some cases it borders on criminal. For instance the opposition to handing out contraceptives in high-schools combined with an opposition to any form of sex-ed that doesn't exclusively promote abstinence and the opposition to abortion. That's his own religious beliefs messing up the lives of teenage kids.

One quick question: what defines a Neo-conservative from a regular conservative? I've heard TBA often called Neocons the way I see the word Liberal used to describe Kerry & co. Its a label, and not used in a polite sense. I'm just wonder what it actually involves.

As far as Bush imposing his views, I tend to agree with you (Libertarian side of me ). However, I also think it would be wrong to blanket allow many of those things. That, too, is imposing a view. Doing so at a national level would be an extremely bad move. My state tends to be highly conservative, so we generally support Bush's stance. However, a lot of the the New England states are highly liberal, and would be very bothered by them. So if the policy is made in DC, someone goes home unhappy. If the issue is left to the states (which it is right now for homosexual marriage), then you can please more people. But I stray...

Quote[/b] ]

The exact number of Iraqi civilians killed is not known. The number of Iraqi combatants killed (at least during the invasion phase) is not known at all.

The estimates for the civilian toll ranges from 10,000-50,000. Here's a good article on the subject:

Counting the civilian cost in Iraq [bBC]

Some estimates:

Iraq Body Count 13-15,000

IBC only counts deaths reported in media and only such that have been confirmed by two or more sources.

Brookings Institution10-27,000

Washington based independent research organization.

UK foreign secretary: over 10,000

Basically the official UK position.

People's Kifah: over 37,000

Iraqi organization that is the only one that has done a real census and documented individual deaths on the ground in Iraq.

There are some official figures though, but only since April this year. The Iraqi Health Ministry compiled statistics and recorded 3,487 Iraqi deaths in 15 of the country's 18 provinces from April 5 -until Sept. 19

One of the more remarkable things there were that US forces killed twice as many civilians during that period than the insurgents did.

Thanks for the articles on civilian casualties. I guess we just don't hear much about them. I do have some skepticisms about the figures (as I imagine most people do with statistics that they do not like the conclusion of), but I honestly do not think we will know any time soon what the figures actually come out to. By the time I have children and they go to school, I guess they can read their history book and tell me what the "experts" say the figures are.

BTW, denior, I thank you for keeping this civil. I see so many posts in this thread that are absolutely scathing that I really was afraid to post here.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]I see so many posts in this thread that are absolutely scathing that I really was afraid to post here.

I haven't seen so much of personal attacks in this thread, trust me this thread will get closed and moderateros at least give a warining if it gets downright ugly. It's the issues talking.

Quote[/b] ]However, I also think it would be wrong to blanket allow many of those things. That, too, is imposing a view. Doing so at a national level would be an extremely bad move.

I'd consider right to abortion for example a human right on a nationwide level. So is the right to best possible cure, like stem cell research, which should not be blocked by religious reasons. I'd consider gay marriages a thing which is only for the best of the individuals involved.

I find Bush's moral ground untenable - opposing abortions, banning stem cell research and having lax gun laws while on the other hand supporting death penalty, total lack of healthcare to some, war and banning gay marriages. And people talk about separating religion and government while the country is run by religious man imposing his views to everyone. I for the record, I supported the war and somewhat supported Bush still a year ago.

Along with poor economy handling, terrible budget deficit, raising unemployment, ridiculous hanging on the Iraq WMD and totally unconvincing performance in debates have pretty much made me hate Bush on some level. Or more in some sense I'm in disbelief of his supporters, in spite of what has been going on, they still vote for him. Do they think they owe hims some kind of allegiance, this is democracy, not middle-ages! Governments go and come all the time.

I recently asked reasons why would people vote for Bush, based on his domestic policies alone on this thread and really, people came up with answers like 'economy doesn't matter' and 'education is ok I guess'. So I'd like to repeat that, what good has he done inside US borders, in concrete terms?