Us presidential election 2004

[brgnorway 0]

Christ!

Perfect match for your freedom fries!

[der bastler 0]

Quote[/b] ]Many countries did trade with Saddam...

I love when people bring things up from the 80s....

I knew that...

[Schoeler 0]

Anyone ever notice that the Men and Women doing the fighting are voting for Bush? I am and Soldier11B is, My squadmates and probrably my platoon is. So maybe, Bush isn't that bad, but yo Civilians are making a big frigging deal about it?    

Also, Moore is a goddamn idiot, and, He should be hung.

Don't quote me or involve me in any of the discussion of this.

Your coalition of veterans for Bush is about as impressive as the President's coalition of nations in Iraq.

I know a lot of veterans (of this war and others) who will not be voting for Bush in November.  We'll see how gung-ho you are when you get called back as an inactive reservist.

Well, You know what? These reservists shouldn't have joined up, if they didn't want to go to war, that Kind of what the Army is about. I joined the Army to fight. So I'm not some fat, annoying person challenging crap they don't know about. Don't call me gung-ho, I'm not some half-brained marine.

Most of the guys I'm talking about were and some still are active duty.  Reservists shouldn't complain, you are right, it comes with the enlistment, but what about the National Guard?  Those guys signed up to portect their State, not fight in a foreign war?

You signed up to fight?

I don't know about you, but when I took my oath of service, it wasn't to fight, it was to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, serve the people and to obey the orders of the officers appointed over me.  You say you aren't some half-brained Marine, but then you accept without challenge an order to go off and kill others or to possibly be killed yourself?  You followed this without question?  How did you know if it was a legal order or not?  Do you believe you are obligated to follow every order given to you by a superior, or did you miss that particular day in recruit training?  Every serviceman asked to fight should question the cause, even if they still do their duty, you are still an American citizen, you still have a voice and a vote and that counts for something.  As a serviceman you should be doubly obligated as protector of our Constitutional rights to make sure they are not being violated, subverted or removed.  You should be extra careful to watch out for the abuse of power, and a large part of the abuse of power is the deployment of people like you for no good reason, or under false pretenses.

If the President had come out and said, "Hey, Saddam is a bad guy and we need to go in and get him to help the Iraqi people", I think I and a lot of other informed Americans would have less problems accepting this war, but he instead said "Saddam has WMD and he is an imminent threat to us, so we need to replace his regime".  It turns out by all the best evidence available that the President was wrong, knew it, and decided to invade anyway, because that was what he wanted to do and by damned he was going to get his war no matter what.

You say you want to fight, but do you really want to just fight?  Is it really that mindless of an impulse that any old fight would do, or do you want to fight where and when it really matters?  If you wanted to fight, you could have stayed home an joined a gang and skipped the Army altogether.  I think you wanted to make a difference, like I did when I joined, not just to simply fight.  Tell me, what difference has been made?  Could we not have made a difference elsewhere that would have been more meaningful?  

The President's "Bush Doctrine" states that the U.S. will engage in pre-emptive action whenever and wherever a rougue nation is pursuing WMD programs, yet Iraq had no WMD and it looks now as if the President knew that all along.  Meanwhile, nations like North Korea, Iran and Pakistan have developed WMD programs and we simply ignored that.  Now, because the President chose to enforce his shiny new doctrine only in the nation that incidently led to the demise of his father's second term and strangely enough had no WMD and nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, you or your children will someday be standing on foreign soil with a rifle in their hands trying to do something about those nations he chose to ignore.  Your kids will grow up under the threat of nuclear holocaust just as my generation did and my parent's did.  You will have been the only generation to ever have been free from the threat of nuclear terror.  All because Bush is a liar.  It was never about WMD, if it was, we'd be in Iran and North Korea right now, we would be in Pakistan hunting down their nukes and oh, someone else if I remember correctly, who was that guy?  Oh yeah, now I remember, Osama Bin Laden!

We did nothing for the war on terror by invading Iraq, in fact, we made the world more dangerous and created legions of young new terrorists.  We did nothing to halt proliferation by invading Iraq, instead, we kept ourselves occupied in a nation that was not a threat while other nations that posed a real threat found the time to develop unimaginable horrors that now hang over our heads and those of our children.  We did help the Iraqi people and rid the world of an evil dictator, but at what cost?  We will be in Iraq for another 5-10 years, by the time we leave, Iraq may be a democracy, but they will never be the friends we hoped they would become.  We will lose even more people to the war, and our enemies will become nuclear capable anyway.

If you signed up to make a difference and were willing to sacrifice your own life to do so, then you should be hopping mad at President Bush right now, because you were misled and disused.  Your efforts and your noble intentions were wasted.  You were used to make a difference, and that difference is that the Constitution and the people you swore to protect and the world in general are much less safe now than they were before.

Of all people Rishon, you should be angriest at the President.  He lied to you and used you to fulfill a personal agenda, not to protect the nation or rid the world of the threat of WMD.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Some of Vietnam War Dodger George Bush Jnr.'s Texas Air National Guard have been destroyed.

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (AP) — Military payroll records that could more fully document President Bush's whereabouts during his service in the Texas Air National Guard were inadvertently destroyed, according to the Pentagon.

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

The loss of the records has once again ignited the issue that the White House had hoped had gone away.

George Bush Jnr.s lack of millitary standing is why so many veterans wont be voting for him in the 2004. His inability to serve his nation in war is seen as dodging and showing a lack of values.

It is also seen as indicative of the indecisiveness of George Bush Jnr. has so readily shown in the fact that when the US was attacked on 9/11 George Bush Jnr. froze for a whole 20 minutes reading an upside down book about goats and failing to get the nations defense aircraft in the air until 34 minutes after the 2nd plane hit the twin towers; thus costing the US all the lives lost in Pentagon attack.

George Bush Jnr. never did serve in Vietnam and he is left in a bad light on defense issues due to the fact he is up against genuine Vietnam War Hero J. F. Kerry; a man who has shown he can act in a chrisis after decisive action by him in the field of battle.

Kind Regards Walker

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Some of Vietnam War Dodger George Bush Jnr.'s Texas Air National Guard have been destroyed.

The loss of the records has once again ignited the issue that the White House had hoped had gone away.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39707-2004Jul9.html

Quote[/b] ]

Bush's War-Era Records Damaged

Alabama Service Still Not Verified

Saturday, July 10, 2004; Page A03

The accidental destruction of microfilm seven years ago has handicapped Pentagon efforts to turn up records documenting President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard during part of 1972, a Defense Department public records official said in a letter to The Washington Post and other news organizations.

Was he president then....

[GoOB 0]

Christ!

Perfect match for your freedom fries!

What next? Toilet paper with pictures of the Bush cabinet printed on it? I bet that would be a hit all over the world.

[walker 0]

Quote[/b] ]The accidental destruction of microfilm seven years ago has handicapped Pentagon efforts to turn up records documenting President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard during part of 1972, a Defense Department public records official said in a letter to The Washington Post and other news organizations.

Was he president then....

Hi billybob2002

Funny how these dates tie in perfectly thanks for reminding us billybob2002 I beleve it is called coroberating evidence

Quote[/b] ]While he was governor of Texas, George Bush's aides disposed of Mr Bush's National Guard files while searching for information that could embarrass the governor in future elections, a retired lieutenant-colonel in the Texas National Guard told a member of the Texas Senate

http://www.smh.com.au/article....ck=true

Quote[/b] ]Mr Burkett said in mid-1997, in Camp Mabry military museum, he saw the head of the museum, General John Scribner, going through Mr Bush's records.

Mr Burkett said he saw a rubbish bin with discarded papers bearing Mr Bush's name.

"It never happened as far as I know," General Scribner said. "Why would I be going into records?"

I Wonder how much scrubing of George Bush Jnr.s Records was going on maybe something to do with a criminal record?

Kind Regards Walker

[walker 0]

Hi all

More Discrepancies have apeared

Quote[/b] ]Bush's official record of service, which is supposed to contain an account of his duty attendance for each year of service, shows no such attendance after May 1972. In unit records, however, there are documents showing that Bush was ordered to a flurry of drills -- over 36 days -- in the late spring and summer of 1973. He was discharged Oct. 1, 1973, eight months before his six-year commitment ended.

http://www.boston.com/news....d_shows

But new records have come to light that show that George Bush Jnr. for some reason had additional time tacked on to his records?

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/slpcreply.jpg

This record says George Bush Jnr.'s discharge was on the 21st of November 1974

The figures dont add up has some one lied the same as Clinton did and that got him in deep doodoo.

Kind Regards Walker

[blackdog~ 0]

Quote[/b] ]In Desperate Move, Kerry Adopts Puppy

July 7, 2004

I guess with John Kerry's choice of John Edwards as his running mate, he really does want to stand up for all Americans, from those worth only $60 million to those worth in excess of $800 million.

In one of the many stratagems Democrats have developed to avoid telling people what they believe, all Edwards wants to talk about is his cracker-barrel humble origins story. We're supposed to swoon over his "life story," as the flacks say, which apparently consists of the amazing fact that ... his father was a millworker!

That's right up there with "Clinton's stepdad was a drunk" and "Ted Kennedy's dad was a womanizing bootlegger" on my inspirational life-stories meter. In fact, I'm immediately renouncing my university degrees and going to work for the post office just to give my future children a shot at having a "life story," should they decide to run for president someday.

What is so amazing about Edwards' father being a millworker? That's at least an honorable occupation -- as opposed to being a trial lawyer. True, Edwards made more money than his father did. I assume strippers make more money than their alcoholic fathers who abandoned them did, too. This isn't a story of progress; it's a story of devolution.

Despite the overwrought claims of Edwards' dazzling legal skills, winning jury verdicts in personal injury cases has nothing to do with legal talent and everything to do with getting the right cases -- unless "talent" is taken to mean "having absolutely no shame." Edwards specialized in babies with cerebral palsy whom he claimed would have been spared the affliction if only the doctors had immediately performed Caesarean sections.

As a result of such lawsuits, there are now more than four times as many Caesarean sections as there were in 1970. But curiously, there has been no change in the rate of babies born with cerebral palsy. As The New York Times reported: "Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder is caused by fetal brain injury long before labor begins." All those Caesareans have, however, increased the mother's risk of death, hemorrhage, infection, pulmonary embolism and Mendelson's syndrome.

In addition, the "little guys" Edwards claims to represent are having a lot more trouble finding doctors to deliver their babies these days as obstetricians leave the practice rather than pay malpractice insurance in excess of $100,000 a year.

In one of Edwards' silver-tongued arguments to the jury on behalf of a girl born with cerebral palsy, he claimed he was channeling the unborn baby girl, Jennifer Campbell, who was speaking to the jurors through him:

"She said at 3, 'I'm fine.' She said at 4, 'I'm having a little trouble, but I'm doing OK.' Five, she said, 'I'm having problems.' At 5:30, she said, 'I need out.'"

She's saying, "My lawyer needs a new Jaguar ... "

"She speaks to you through me and I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."

Well, tell her to pipe down, would you? I'm trying to hear the evidence in a malpractice lawsuit.

To paraphrase Oscar Wilde on the death of Little Nell, one must have a heart of stone to read this without laughing. What is this guy, a tent-show preacher? An off-the-strip Las Vegas lounge psychic couldn't get away with this routine.

Is Edwards able to channel any children right before an abortionist's fork is plunged into their tiny skulls? Why can't he hear those babies saying, "Let me live! Stop spraying this saline solution all over me!" Edwards must experience interference in channeling the voices of babies about to be aborted. Their liberal mothers' hands seem to muffle those voices.

And may we ask what the pre-born Jennifer Campbell thinks about war with Iraq? North Korea? Marginal tax rates? If Miss Cleo here is going to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, I think the voters are entitled to know that.

While making himself fabulously rich by taking a one-third cut of his multimillion-dollar verdicts coaxed out of juries with junk science and maudlin performances, Edwards has the audacity to claim, "I was more than just their lawyer; I cared about them. Their cause was my cause."

If he cared so deeply, how about keeping just 10 percent of the multimillion-dollar jury awards, rather than a third? In fact, as long as these Democrats are so eager to raise the taxes of "the rich," how about a 90 percent tax on contingency fees?

For someone who didn't care about the money, it's interesting that Edwards avoided cases in which the baby died during delivery. Evidently, jury awards average only about $500,000 when the babies die, and there is no disabled child to parade before the jury.

Edwards was one of the leading opponents of a bill in the North Carolina Legislature that would have established a fund for all babies born with cerebral palsy. So instead of all disabled babies in North Carolina being compensated equitably, only a few will win the jury lottery -- one-third of which will go to trial lawyers like Edwards, who insists he doesn't care about the money.

Despite the now-disproved junk science theory about C-sections preventing cerebral palsy that Edwards peddled in the channeling case, the jury awarded Edwards' client a record-breaking $6.5 million. This is the essence of the modern Democratic Party, polished to perfection by Bill Clinton: They are willing to insult the intelligence of 49 percent of the people if they think they can fool 51 percent of the people.

So while Michael Moore, Al Franken, George Soros, Crazy Al Gore and the rest of the characters from the climactic devil-worshipping scene in "Rosemary's Baby" provide the muscle for the Kerry campaign, Kerry picks a pretty-boy milquetoast as his running mate, narrowly edging out a puppy for the spot. Just don't ask the Democrats what they believe. Edwards' father was a millworker, and that's all you need to know.

[walker 0]

Hi blackdog~

It is considered customary even in impolite society to quote your sources

http://www.anncoulter.org/

I thought I would help you there as you seemed to have missed it. Not ashamed of quoting the source are you?

Also just quoting a great big wodge of stuff like that it is a bit like you see your self as just a drone or something and unable to speak for your self.

I know that the communist tendancy of the NeoConMen wing of the Republican party tend to wonder round with censored minds uanble to think or write for themselves repeating only the party line but I had you pegged as more intelligent than that.

Why not try writing what you think and support it with quotes everybody ignores big quoted woodges of stuff any way unless the author is well respected and invariably we like to see it in its original so it is contextualised.

Kind Regards Walker

[denoir 0]

It's interesting, I thought Edwards was fairly harmless, but it would seem that it has god the Republicans scared shitless. The article posted by blackdog is fairly representative of the desperation of the right wing.

You can see it by the content that it's directed at Republican voters, not undecided. (About 60% of Americans support abortion). So the article is for the very-right wing group.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]It's interesting, I thought Edwards was fairly harmless, but it would seem that it has god the Republicans scared shitless. The article posted by blackdog is fairly representative of the desperation of the right wing.

You can see it by the content that it's directed at Republican voters, not undecided. (About 60% of Americans support abortion). So the article is for the very-right wing group.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....mpact_1

Quote[/b] ]

Edwards Does Little for Polls

Sun Jul 11, 4:15 PM ET

By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - John Kerry (news - web sites)'s choice of John Edwards (news - web sites) as his running mate was received favorably by the public, polls suggest, but it has made little difference so far in the race with President Bush.

Kerry strategists are trying to lower expectations for a "bounce" in the polls that presidential candidates sometimes get after choosing a running mate or attending a convention. Bush strategists were quick to raise expectations of a double-digit "bounce" for the Kerry-Edwards team by the end of the Democratic National Convention.

Tad Devine, a Kerry campaign strategist, said he does not believe Republican claims about "a double-digit" bounce of 12 percentage points to 15 percentage points.

"We've gotten the bounce already that we're going to get," Devine said. "If you look at the Democratic vote, it has already consolidated behind John Kerry."

Both Devine and Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd said on "Fox News Sunday" that they have detected slight gains for Kerry in the polls after the Edwards' choice.

Kerry's announcement Tuesday was followed by a tour of several states by the candidates and their families.

Kerry has "gotten a slight uptick, whether it's temporary or not," Dowd said.

But those looking for a Kerry surge in the polls after the Edwards pick saw a shift of a few points, often within a poll's margin of error.

An AP-Ipsos poll released Thursday offered an early hint there would not be a post-Edwards bounce for Kerry.

Bush had a slight lead over Kerry as voters expressed increasing confidence about the economy. Bush was at 49 percent, Kerry at 45 percent and independent Ralph Nader (news - web sites) at 3 percent, according to the poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs.

Other polls in the next few days showed Bush and Kerry essentially tied in a three-way contest. Kerry had a slight edge in a two-way race with Bush in some polls.

As the deadlocked polls became public, Kerry campaign pollster Mark Mellman issued a campaign memo Friday cautioning he does not expect a bounce in the polls from either the Edwards choice or the convention.

Even though the race remains close, weekend polls found encouraging news for Edwards.

Almost half, 47 percent, said in a Time-CNN poll that Edwards would make a better president than the current vice president, Dick Cheney (news - web sites), while 38 percent said Cheney would be better.

Cheney's wife, Lynne, said on CNN's "Late Edition" that those poll numbers are understandable because few people know Edwards yet.

"When someone doesn't know you they don't have a chance to examine what other people say is your baggage," she said. "And I would say the Democrats have been pretty good at quite a lot of mudslinging over these past years and, you know, you pay a price for it in terms of the polls."

But she said polls now are unimportant because Kerry and Edwards are out of step with most Americans.

When people were asked in a Newsweek poll who they would pick if they could vote separately for vice president, they chose Edwards by 52 percent to 41 percent for Cheney.

After a frantic week of campaigning, both Kerry and Edwards took Sunday to relax before returning to campaigning this week.

In Boston, Kerry got a briefing Sunday morning from federal officials on the current terror threat and then took an afternoon bike ride around a neighborhood, stopping to chat with a couple of families.

Edwards went to his church in Raleigh, N.C., before flying to Washington.

The president attended church in Washington and then went biking on the grounds of a Secret Service training facility in Beltsville, Md.

[DB-ERAUPilot 0]

It's interesting, I thought Edwards was fairly harmless, but it would seem that it has god the Republicans scared shitless. The article posted by blackdog is fairly representative of the desperation of the right wing.

You can see it by the content that it's directed at Republican voters, not undecided. (About 60% of Americans support abortion). So the article is for the very-right wing group.

I guess it comes down to most people actually like Edwards while no even republicans can stand Cheney or Bush for that matter..have ya noticed how all of the Bush supporting adds are negative and all the Kerry supporting adds are positive..we are in the last days of the Bush/Cheney dictatorship THANK GOD I'm still waiting for Bush to send out his add talking about his decorated military career like Kerry did...oh wait Bush doesn't have one LOL !!

[walker 0]

Hi Denoir

Jeeze your right they are not atempting to win votes they are trying to keep the votes they have got.

Wow I never saw it until you posted that though the NeoConMen must be realy desperate if that is their strategy. The most amazing thing is the attack adds will actualy be loosing them peripheral voters but they are afraid of even loosing their core vote.

They must know they are hemoraging voters like mad.

Kind Regards Walker

[VerySolidSnake 0]

I don't get it, 9/11, everyone was about security in the country, no one wanted anything of the sort to happen again. Everyone is pissed that George Bush pushed aside the fake that there could of been an attack against our country. Action was not takin because who would've believed it? I sure would never of dreamed that would've came true.

Now lets go to iraq. Reports came in that there could be WMD's in Iraq and Bush did take action. This is where the democrats confuse me.

So lets say hypothetically that Bush didn't take action, and those WMD reports stuck around, and something did end up happening (either with unfound WMD's, or the terrorists themselves being harbored in Iraq made another attack at the USA). Everyone would've been stuck back at Bush for not taking action with the original reports.

So what do you want? Bush to take action or not to take action, you can't chose both, and you are.

[DB-ERAUPilot 0]

what do I want..BUSH OUT...BUSH if a fucking idiot anyway you cut it...he's the perfect example of why someone who has NEVER been in combat should not be allowed to send our troops into the field..solving his personal beef with Saddam with the death of over 800 plus brave men and women..damn him..I can't wait for the debates to start so Kerry can ripe this prick a new one.

[Scrub 0]

The WMD question might be very simple.. Somebody we trust didn't do their job, or lied (2 dead Anti-African-Nuke-Connection politicians??? ).

 I would assume that the CIA tracks internal info. If that is true, we should know:

1. The order that came from the White House said either, "get new info from the field on Iraqi WMD" or it said, "build on the info we have and don't worry about updating the old stuff." (or something in-between)

2. The order that Tenant gave to his troops (same as above)

3. If the info that came from the field was updated, and from who-when-and-where, or was in dossiers for a decade.

In at least one of those points, someone said 'This information IS...blahblahblah [reliable]' as if it was the truth.

No party lines to draw.. Just a ball dropped and now over 875 of our boys and girls dead, the world severely disliking our 'current' cowboy in office, and a mushy, vulnerable form of government established that a large, sneaky, coordinated group of people want to kill.. (phew.. long one).  

This is a worse F#&%up than that Mars orbiter that crashed and burned after years of effort 'cause someone forgot to convert a measurement from metric to imperial.. "OOps.. Sorry.." (hehe, at least NASA disclosed what went wrong.  We just got a dog and pony show)

[Edit: deleted something I stated that I just found out was not the whole picture.]

[Akira 0]

Anyone see the 60 Minutes interview with John Kerry and John Edwards (or parts of it)?

Right off they came off much more charismtic then the Bush-Cheney duo. They certainly seemed intelligent, capable of replying to Stahl's questions. Their reply on 60 Minutes to the question of how Cheney and Edwards compare was much more subdued than Kerry's reply on Friday I believe it was.

Bush was asked what the difference is between Edwards and Cheney. Bush replied "Cheney can be President."

Kerry's retort was Cheney already was President right now.

Theresa Heinz seemed a little....."odd," while Edwards' wife was completely likeable, nice, and gregarious.

I couldn't tell if he was dodging or honest about his "Aye" vote for force in Iraq. He outright said Bush was wrong in the way that he went to war. He was unapologetic about his vote, and said it was right at the time, that his 'Yes' vote was on force as a last resort.Edwards promised previously that no young people would die or be sent to war needlessly in their administration.

The DNC also recently switched platforms to fit that of Kerry, if they should win, to rebuild a coalition and UN support for some form of international help for Iraq.

Also on a side note:

Officials Discuss Election Day Postponement

Quote[/b] ]Officials discuss how to delay Election Day

Talks stem from recent fears of terror attack timed to vote

Sunday, July 11, 2004 Posted: 10:42 PM EDT (0242 GMT)

Sen. John Kerry, with running mate Sen. John Edwards, and President Bush are surrounded by supporters on the campaign trail.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. officials have discussed the idea of postponing Election Day in the event of a terrorist attack on or about that day, a Homeland Security Department spokesman said Sunday.

The department has referred questions about the matter to the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, said spokesman Brian Roehrkasse, confirming a report in this week's editions of Newsweek magazine.

Newsweek said the discussions about whether the November 2 election could be postponed started with a recent letter to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge from DeForest Soaries Jr., chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

The commission was set up after the disputed 2000 presidential vote to help states deal with logistical problems in their elections.

Soaries, who was appointed by President Bush, is a former New Jersey secretary of state and senior pastor of the 7,000-member First Baptist Church of Lincoln Gardens in Somerset.

Newsweek reported that Soaries expressed concern that no federal agency had the authority to postpone an election and asked Ridge to ask Congress to give his commission such power.

Ridge warned Thursday that al Qaeda terrorists were planning a large-scale attack on the United States "in an effort to disrupt the democratic process." (Full story)

Ridge said he had no specific or credible information about threats to the political conventions. The four-day Democratic convention kicks off July 26 in Boston, Massachusetts, and the Republican National Convention begins August 30 in New York City.

Ridge also said the nation's color-coded terrorist threat level would remain at yellow, or elevated.

Democratic Rep. Jane Harman of California, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said Sunday that she believes planning for the possibility of postponing Election Day is "excessive, based on what we know."

"Six days ago, the leadership of the House and Senate intelligence committees and leadership of the House and Senate were briefed on these so-called new threats," Harman said on CNN's "Late Edition."

"They are more chatter about old threats, which were the subject of a press conference by Attorney General [John] Ashcroft and [FBI] Director [Robert] Mueller six weeks ago.

"[Ridge] sounded more like an interior decorator talking about what more we can do under the shade of yellow," she said.

The news that such discussions have taken place raised other eyebrows on Capitol Hill as well.

"I don't think there's an argument that can be made, for the first time in our history, to delay an election," said Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, a member of the Intelligence Committee.

"We hold elections in the middle of war, in the middle of earthquakes, in the middle of whatever it takes. The election is a statutory election. It should go ahead, on schedule, and we should not change it."

But the Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Christopher Cox of California, said on "Late Edition" that he sees Ridge's request as part of a prudent effort to plan for "doomsday scenarios."

"We don't have any intelligence to suggest that it is going to happen, but we're preparing for all of these contingencies now," Cox said.

Noting that New York election officials were able to postpone their September 11, 2001, primary election after terrorists slammed hijacked planes into the World Trade Center, Cox said "there isn't any body that has that authority to do that for federal elections."

"So what Secretary Ridge has asked the Justice Department to do is, 'Give me a legal memo, tell me what will be necessary. Do we need to go to Congress and get legislation?' "

What has Homeland Security officials worried is that terrorists could attempt to disrupt the election in the same way that train bombings in Madrid created unrest three days before the Spanish general election, Roehrkasse said.

Although there is no evidence that the bombings influenced the March 11 vote, socialist Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero unseated Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, whose center-right government supported the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

The country's new government then pulled Spanish troops from Iraq.

One way not to lose an election is not to have one. Already they have "warned" about Bin Laden wanting to disrupt the elections. Seems awful early for something like that.

Is Bin Laden really the one that wants to disrupt the elections? With a new President he might actually get what he wants (however unlikely).

EDIT:Another Source

EDIT2:Ron Reagan To Address Democratic Convention

[bn880 5]

hmm (deep thoughts)

At this point, maybe Bush does need to be re-elected, perhaps that is what it will take to persuade the Conservatives/Republicans to think about what they are supporting next time.

I have no worries in one respect; I know that eventually the only people who will prevail are people who work and think to improve everyone's lives, people with limits on their ambitions, but not on compassion. It's the law of nature, and people can not deafeat it. No matter how technologically advanced a specific group of us gets, that group can not be sustained by greed and destruction.

Despite the daily wars of life, there is a bigger force at play than most people care to imagine. Next time you see a crazy person, or a suicide bomber, or a criminal; think of a tornado, or a lightning bolt, or an avalanche. All are a direct result of nature, neither is more or less important in the grand scheme of things than you are. Even what you unknowingly strive for (propagation of life), is not more or less relevant than the way the rain falls, or blood spills.

In this light I understand Bush and friends, like I understand the nail that went in my foot, or the cavity in my tooth... or the heat of summer.

[blackdog~ 0]

First, I copied the article from another board and did not even realize it had no source.

Second, I think it very well explains itself - Edwards is just out there to make money. He does not care about the people who cannot find doctors to deliver babies. He does not care that he is making many doctors get out of the practice. He is a scumbag, and that's all I need to say and that's all you need to know.

Then again, his father was a millworker.

[Akira 0]

First, I copied the article from another board and did not even realize it had no source.

Second, I think it very well explains itself - Edwards is just out there to make money. He does not care about the people who cannot find doctors to deliver babies. He does not care that he is making many doctors get out of the practice. He is a scumbag, and that's all I need to say and that's all you need to know.

Then again, his father was a millworker.

Care to share sources?

Considering he made his money as a trial lawyer protecting the little man, I don't see where you get your accusations (other than swallowing more crap from the TBA).

And I suppose millioniare Bush has your best interest in mind. I suppose millionaire Cheney cares if you can afford a doctor as they strengthen legislation against patient rights (which Edwards DID vote for btw). Maybe millionaire Rumsfeld or Rice will care.

Perhaps you should be more informed and double chekc your info before embarressing yourself by shooting of your mouth (or in this case the sad fact is you actually had to "think" to type that drivel).

[blackdog~ 0]

what do I want..BUSH OUT...BUSH if a fucking idiot anyway you cut it...he's the perfect example of why someone who has NEVER been in combat should not be allowed to send our troops into the field..solving his personal beef with Saddam with the death of over 800 plus brave men and women..damn him..I can't wait for the debates to start so Kerry can ripe this prick a new one.

I would appreciate it if you would take a more serious approach to posting, rather than saying things such as "BUSH OUT...BUSH if a fucking idiot anyway you cut it"

The education system has failed you.

That's why we have no child left behind, though I find it sad that unappreciative people such as yourself will/would be in this program as well

[blackdog~ 0]

Look back one page.

You'll see how Edwards became millwor... I mean, millionare, that was his father, Edwards, so he could help run with millionare Kerry.

[blackdog~ 0]

Source: Yahoo

Quote[/b] ]KERRY PASSES UP TERROR BRIEFING: 'I JUST HAVEN'T HAD TIME'

Fri Jul 09 2004 09:23:56 ET

Just hours before attending an all-star celebrity fundraising concert in New York, Dem presidential candidate John Kerry revealed how has been too busy for a real-time national security briefing.

"I just haven't had time," Kerry explained in an interview.

Kerry made the startling comments on CNN's LARRY KING LIVE Thursday night.

KING: News of the day, Tom Ridge warned today about al Qaeda plans of a large-scale attack on the United States. Didn't increase the -- you see any politics in this? What's your reaction?

KERRY: Well, I haven't been briefed yet, Larry. They have offered to brief me. I just haven't had time.

Caption: Kerry doing important 'time-consuming' stuff.

Now I've seen Kerry doing the following things for the sake of attention and public image:

Rode a Harley

Went clay shooting

Played the guitar

Went skiing

Yet, he's a poser at it all. I doubt he has any interest in motorcycles (not because he can't afford it, he's a millionare y'know), he is against guns (believe I saw somewhere that he voted on over 50 legislations against guns as a senator and junior senator), he's played the guitar (totally far out dude!), and he's went skiing, and even then he got 'knocked down' and then cussed at a secret service agent for doing it!

[DB-ERAUPilot 0]

what do I want..BUSH OUT...BUSH if a fucking idiot anyway you cut it...he's the perfect example of why someone who has NEVER been in combat should not be allowed to send our troops into the field..solving his personal beef with Saddam with the death of over 800 plus brave men and women..damn him..I can't wait for the debates to start so Kerry can ripe this prick a new one.

I would appreciate it if you would take a more serious approach to posting, rather than saying things such as "BUSH OUT...BUSH if a fucking idiot anyway you cut it"

The education system has failed you.

That's why we have no child left behind, though I find it sad that unappreciative people such as yourself will/would be in this program as well

Well, you have just pointed out the reason why I adopted the stance of what happens in off topic stays in off topic..YOU HAVE NO CLUE...I'm about to graduate from the TOP aviation university in the WORLD, will probaly end up flying for the United States Navy and the education system has failed me? umm yeah...maybe you should start researching and getting to know people before you call them uneducated...yeah dude whatever you say...stick to things you know like gaining another warning level