Us presidential election 2004

[blackdog~ 0]

1 - True. But its hard not to when I watch people wreck the hell out of this country.

2 - Do you really think they even care about civilians, when we drop a 1000lb laser guided bomb into the middle of a residential neighborhood and then tell the press "We are trying to minimize civilian casualties."?

1 - I agree. Those Democrats... tsk tsk.

2 - 1000 pounds is a lot of bomb. It happens, but sometimes that's the fact you have to face. It's highly that insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan have killed many more with THEIR bombs that they are trying take US out with. Once more, when we drop laser guided bombs, normally, they are not dumb bombs - they are precision guided weapons - in fact, they might not even be bombs, maybe even missiles - they pinpoint the target and if a few civillians get hurt or killed, normally, we could have not prevented it as time matters in those type of situations. And if we do hit civillians, then it's the intelligence who gave us the info's fault - NOT our president.

Plus, if we did send our guys in, more people would be hurt as in most residential neighborhoods (at least where I live), and especially if there is gunfire constantly surrounding me, I'd be staying inside MY residency! Not conversing with the Saddam Hussein supporters next door!

Plus, most people that I know don't sleep in their business office.

[Bernadotte 0]

From Slate regarding the RNC speeches of Zell Miller and Dick Cheney:

Quote[/b] ]<span style='font-size:13pt;line-height:100%'>Lies, Damned Lies, and Convention Speeches</span>

<span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>Setting Kerry's record right—again.</span>

By Fred Kaplan

Posted Thursday, Sept. 2, 2004, at 11:50 AM PT

Half-truths and embellishments are one thing; they're common at political conventions, vital flourishes for a theatrical air. Lies are another thing, and last night's Republican convention was soaked in them.

In the case of Sen. Zell Miller's keynote address, "lies" might be too strong a word. Clearly not a bright man, Miller dutifully recited the talking points that his Republican National Committee handlers had typed up for him, though perhaps in a more hysterical tone than anyone might have anticipated. (His stumbled rantings in the interviews afterward, on CNN and MSNBC, brought to mind the flat-Earthers who used to be guests on The Joe Pyne Show.) Can a puppet tell lies? Perhaps not.

Still, it is worth setting the record straight. The main falsehood, we have gone over before (click here for the details), but it keeps getting repeated, so here we go again: It is the claim that John Kerry, during his 20 years in the Senate, voted to kill the M-1 tank, the Apache helicopter; the F-14, F-16, and F-18 jet fighters; and just about every other weapon system that has kept our nation free and strong.

Here, one more time, is the truth of the matter: Kerry did not vote to kill these weapons, in part because none of these weapons ever came up for a vote, either on the Senate floor or in any of Kerry's committees.

This myth took hold last February in a press release put out by the RNC. Those who bothered to look up the fine-print footnotes discovered that they referred to votes on two defense appropriations bills, one in 1990, the other in 1995. Kerry voted against both bills, as did 15 other senators, including five Republicans. The RNC took those bills, cherry-picked some of the weapons systems contained therein, and implied that Kerry voted against those weapons. By the same logic, they could have claimed that Kerry voted to disband the entire U.S. armed forces; but that would have raised suspicions and thus compelled more reporters to read the document more closely.

What makes this dishonesty not merely a lie, but a damned lie, is that back when Kerry cast these votes, Dick Cheney—who was the secretary of defense for George W. Bush's father—was truly slashing the military budget. Here was Secretary Cheney, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Jan. 31, 1992:

Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. … And now we're adding to that another $50 billion … of so-called peace dividend.

Cheney then lit into the Democratic-controlled Congress for not cutting weapons systems enough:

Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. … You've directed me to buy more M1s, F14s, and F16s—all great systems … but we have enough of them.

I'm not accusing Cheney of being a girly man on defense. As he notes, the Cold War had just ended; deficits were spiraling; the nation could afford to cut back. But some pro-Kerry equivalent of Arnold Schwarzenegger or Zell Miller could make that charge with as much validity as they—and Cheney—make it against Kerry.

In other words, it's not just that Cheney and those around him are lying; it's not even just that they know they're lying; it's that they know—or at least Cheney knows—that the same lie could be said about him. That's what makes it a damned lie.

Before moving on to Cheney's speech, we should pause to note two truly weird passages in Zell's address. My favorite:

Today, at the same time young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of a Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief.

A "manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief"? Most people call this a "presidential election." Someone should tell Zell they happen every four years; he can look it up in that same place where he did the research on Kerry's voting record ("I've got more documents," he said on CNN, waving two pieces of paper that he'd taken from his coat pocket, "than in the Library of Congress and the New York Public Library combined.")

The other oddball remark: "Nothing makes me madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators." Huge applause line, but is he kidding? The U.S. troops in Iraq are occupiers. Even Bush has said so. If he doesn't understand this, then he doesn't understand what our problems are.

Cheney followed Zell, and couldn't help but begin with … not a lie, but certainly a howler: "People tell me Sen. Edwards got picked for his good looks, his sex appeal, his charm, and his great hair. [Pause] I said, 'How do you think I got the job?' "

Funny, apparently self-deprecating line, but does anybody remember how he did get the job? Bush had asked Cheney to conduct the search for a vice presidential candidate, and he came up with himself. He got the job because he picked himself.

Later in the speech, Cheney made this comment: "Four years ago, some said the world had grown calm, and many assumed that the United States was invulnerable to danger. That thought might have been comforting; it was also false."

Who are these people who thought this? The implication is that it was the Democrats who preceded Bush and Cheney. But it was Bill Clinton's administration that stopped the millennium attack on LAX. It was Clinton's national security adviser who told Condoleezza Rice, during the transition period, that she'd be spending more time on al-Qaida than on any other issue. It was Rice who didn't call the first Cabinet meeting on al-Qaida until just days before Sept. 11. It was Bush's attorney general who told a Justice Department assistant that he didn't want to hear anything more about counterterrorism. It was Bush who spent 40 percent of his time out of town in his first eight months of office, while his CIA director and National Security Council terrorism specialists ran around with their "hair on fire," trying to get higher-ups to heed their warnings of an imminent attack.

"President Bush does not deal in empty threats and halfway measures," Cheney said. What is an empty threat if not the warnings Bush gave the North Koreans to stop building a nuclear arsenal? What is a halfway measure if not Bush's decision to topple the Taliban yet leave Afghanistan to the warlords and the poppy farmers; to bust up al-Qaida's training camps yet fail to capture Osama Bin Laden (whose name has virtually gone unmentioned at this convention); to topple the Iraqi regime yet plan nothing for the aftermath?

"Time and again Sen. Kerry has made the wrong call on national security," Cheney said. The first example he cited of these wrong calls: "Sen. Kerry began his political career by saying he would like to see our troops deployed 'only at the directive of the United Nations.' " Yes, Kerry did say this—in 1971, to the Harvard Crimson. He has long since recanted it. Is there evidence that George W. Bush said anything remarkable, whether wise or naive, in his 20s?

The second example of Kerry's wrong calls: "During the 1980s, Sen. Kerry opposed Ronald Reagan's major defense initiative that brought victory in the Cold War." We've been over this—unless Cheney is talking about the Strategic Defense Initiative, aka the "star wars" missile-defense plan. It may be true that SDI played some role in prompting the Soviet Union's conciliation, though it was at best a minor role—and wouldn't have been even that, had it not been for Mikhail Gorbachev. But two more points should be made. First, lots of lawmakers opposed SDI; almost no scientist thought it would work, especially as Reagan conceived it (a shield that would shoot down all nuclear missiles and therefore render nukes "impotent and obsolete"). Second, Kerry voted not to kill SDI, but to limit its funding.

"Even in the post-9/11 period," Cheney continued, "Sen. Kerry doesn't appear to understand how the world has changed. He talks about leading a 'more sensitive war on terror,' as though al-Qaida will be impressed with our softer side." A big laugh line, as it was when Cheney first uttered it on Aug. 12 before a group of veterans. But Cheney knows this is nonsense. Here's the full Kerry quote, from an address to journalists on Aug. 5: "I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side."

In context, it's clear that "sensitive," a word that has several definitions, is not meant as a synonym for "soft." And Cheney, who is not a stupid man, knows this.

"He declared at the Democratic Convention," Cheney said of Kerry, "that he will forcefully defend America after we have been attacked. My fellow Americans, we have already been attacked." Where in Kerry's speech did he say this? Nowhere.

"Sen. Kerry denounces American action when other countries don't approve," Cheney continued, "as if the whole object of our foreign policy were to please a few persistent countries." No, that's not it. Kerry thinks that other countries should go along with our actions—that a president must work hard at diplomacy to get them to go along with us—because going it alone often leads to failure. Cheney should ask his old colleague Brent Scowcroft or his old boss W's father about this. Or he should simply go to Iraq and see what unilateralism has wrought.

[denoir 0]

http://www.skfriends.com/-wtc/wtc-plane2-crash2-orig.jpg <span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>Might be 'disturbing'... depicts the second plane crashing into the WTC</span>

Yepp, that's disturbing. The sad part however is that while you see that as disturbing, you don't see this as disturbing:

Wake up call? And that gives you the right to kill tens of thousands of people that had absolutely nothing to do with the attack on you?

It is beyond comperhension how you want to vote for a guy who attacked a country that posed no threat to you; a guy that is responsible for so many civilian deaths. I can only see it as racism - you obviously don't think the lives of Iraq civilians are worth anything. Which brings you on the same level of bin Laden supporters, who don't think that American civilian lives are worth anything...

[denoir 0]

Bush is far from perfect, but at this time we need his vision and style of leadership.

And what exactly would that be? Using grand words. Waving the flag?

Look at what he has accomplished. Two wars in the name of national security.

1. Afghanistan - it is such a mess that the Doctors Without Borders have left the place - after a 26 year long presence. You can find them on any shithole on earth, but they left Afghanistan because of the security situation. The UN is leaving this month and the Red Cross has already more or less moved out. NATO controls a part of Kabul and the airport. The rest of the place is under control of various warlords that have made the lives for the population even more miserable than it was under the Taliban (who by the way are making a great comeback in several provinces). No sign of bin Laden of course. Bush couldn't even deliver the guy who attacked you.

2. Iraq. Do I really need to comment on that? It had nothing to do with the 'war on terror'. The place is a mess. Tons of civilians killed. Brand new Afghanistanesque spawning ground for terrorists. And you made countless more enemies in the Arab world.

Yeah, great leadership.

Quote[/b] ]Those who have read the book understand the importance of bringing the 'gap' countries into the global community.

Indeed, but you make little friends by dropping bombs on them. You are starting from a position where the people in the countries don't like you at all as is. Your popularity isn't exactly going to increase when you start killing them and invading them. You got into the current trouble through a messed up foreign policy in the first place and it's not going to be solved by an even more messed up one.

You people that are praising Bush should take a moment and look back at what he has actually done so far.

[DarkLight 0]

Bush is far from perfect, but at this time we need his vision and style of leadership.

What the fuck are you talking about?

[EiZei 0]

Granted, 3000 people died in 9/11 attacks but historically that is almost nothing, its not like "world had changed" when well over 10000 people died in the Iran earthquakes or when some african militiamen genocided hundreds of thousands.

[Balschoiw 0]

Plain fact aobut Afghnaistan is that the US setup army of 30.000 was trained poorly within 3 months and the warlords are just waiting for the elections to sort Afghanistan new. They are not impressed by the US presence and are laughing when they talk about the "army". In fact even the US military responbsible for training and setting up the force is not confident of their abilities and an educational officers clearly said that everyone knows how capable an army is that got trained in a crashcourse in 3 months.

It won´t take long until the shit hits the fan in Afghanistan again...it already does in some regions but they are so offside that there are no major news reports on it.

Afghanistan is a failed mission. Just wait and see.

It was started by dropping bombs and then the US tried to put it on NATO and pulled their asses out. It is a half-hearted mission and therefore doomed to fail.

Bush is incompetent to his bone and that´s why everyone except those easy to impress military wannabees liked to see him sent to an abandoned island where he can only harm himself but not earth environment and political climate. There is no place for such a man or such policies in the 21st century anmore. He worsens things. Nothing else.

[llauma 0]

The US politics works just like Hollywood.. Guys like Vin Diesel are big stars while their acting skills are in the level of an elementary school play at top. The same things that makes people go and watch movies like Anacondas can win elections. Just invest enough of money in a message without substance and people will buy it.

I'm sure Bush will be re-elected and that will make the US citizens responsible for what he has done as they show that they accept it. What does thousands of dead non-americans really matter when the goal is to protect America?

[CrackerJack 0]

Quote[/b] ]What does thousands of dead non-americans really matter when the goal is to protect America?

A thousand + americans dead in Iraq to do the job.

Does anyone have the lates poll, who leads?

[Balschoiw 0]

...can you pls say what the "job" exactly was or is ?

WMD´s ? Saddam ? Stability ? Democracy ?

Right now it doesn´t look like anyone except major companies would benefit from this war. Not even the regualr US citzen as he has to pay in blood and money. For what ?

And don´t come up with the "it has made the world safer" shit as it is proven wrong daily. I know a lot of US people are only glued to Bush´s mouth but if you checked what other world leader including Annan said you´d know that this war has not made the world or the US safer. And they are longer in business and have a hell lot of more foreign experiances than Bush who had never went abroad prior his presidency...

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]*Yawn*

Flamebaiting? Maybe the truth.

Maybe you are just afraid to face the truth?

Thanks for calling me an asshat. I learn new things about me everyday....

Quote[/b] ]Does anyone have the lates poll, who leads?

Bush got a big bounce in the polls and it is a "tradition" for a bounce after ones convention. So, that means, Kerry is not leading.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ] I can only see it as racism - you obviously don't think the lives of Iraq civilians are worth anything.

*Spins it around*

I see all these people who did not support the "war" has racist (racism). You sat around has Iraq civilians were getting killed during Saddam reign and only said "that is wrong". We the "west" allowed him to keep his power for a long time. Hell, a lot of western countries (i.e. the US; France; and others) aided him. Granted, a coalition of those countries that once supported Saddam kicked him out of another country. After the first GW, people did not take no action except a resolution or two and Saddam just pissed on them. While this was going on, Saddam had his fun terrorizing the iraqi civilians by cutting off limbs; throwing people off roofs; and other shit you will see in a horror movie. You see the lives of Iraq civilians are worth nothing because not supporting the "war" would of allowed Saddam to continue terrorizing the Iraqi civilians with his now dead sons. I see you has the racist. Do the coalition want to kill civilians? No. Did Saddam and his sons like killing civilians just for a game? Yes. Who is the racist? Civilians deaths do suck but it is a sad fact that happens during all wars. At least, the coalition is not going World War 2-style on Iraq.

That is why I do not try to get myself to deep in to shit.

[turms 0]

Saying that going to war to make peace, is like saying we are are fucking to get virginity.

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]I see all these people who did not support the "war" has racist (racism).

You sat around has Iraq civilians were getting killed during Saddam reign and only said "that is wrong".

While this was going on, Saddam had his fun terrorizing the iraqi civilians by cutting off limbs; throwing people off roofs; and other shit you will see in a horror movie.

No,that is exactly what you did.In 1991 when the Shi'ites uprised after being promised to recive US support they were left to be slaughtered by Saddam forces with no aid at sight,tens of thousands of Iraqis were killed during that rebellion while the US government turned their back on them.

Unfortunatly by your standards I have to fingerpoint myself as being one of the most racist persons and I have an itching need to confess how much of a racist am I.

First of all,I think Saddam was a despot responsable for unforgivable crimes against his countrymen just like Kim Jo Youung in North Korea where we are also witnessing Bush decisive action,war leadership or his objective of bringing freedom and democracy around the world put into action...or not .

I am categoricly opposed to a war that came 13 years later then when Saddam comited his vast majority of crimes.

I am against a war started by a country that by it's lies led to tens of thousands of Shi'ites that got slaughtered by Saddams forces.

I am against a war that has led to tens of thousands of Iraqi civillians dead and an agressor that will go to any length in terms of civillian casualties to avoid their own.

I am against a war that was started not with the objective of freeing Iraqis but on a basis that prooved completly false.

I am against an occupation that installed a CIA operative that hasn't stepped foot during the last decades in Iraq as prime minister and has a suport that doesn`t exceed one digit in %.

I am against a war that led to an occupier incapable of providing security in the country and even now one year after the "war ended" I find myself turning the TV and reading that dozens of Iraqis were killed in various incidents,an occupier that by it's actions made himself hated by almost all of Iraqis.

I am against a war that one year after it started it's only accomplishment is the subsequent capture of the countries leader,aside from that turning it into a terrorist heaven,destroying it's infrastructure and as said the deaths of countless Iraqis.

I however consider that suporting the Shi'ite uprising in 1991 and avoiding their masacration would have been the right thing to do.

All that is left now is for you to call me a racist to put salt on my already open wound after realising that I have turned into what I`ve hated my entire life at least from Billybob`s standards..

Quote[/b] ]At least, the coalition is not going World War 2-style on Iraq.

Billy have you got nothing better to say then this kinder garden style of retorics because I am sick and tired of reading them and you should be mature enough to realise how pale your arguments are.

"Saddam did worst" "at least we are not going ww2 style on them" what's next we should be thankfull that you haven't used your nulcear arsenal on Iraq?

Get it into your skull there will always be an "at least"-that's the defence of many of the most barbaric criminals mankind has ever witnessed,that won`t take Saddam out of the brutal dictators league as it won`t bring back to life tens of thousands of civillians,it also won`t make the naked agression against Iraq a justifiable war.

[Bernadotte 0]

You see the lives of Iraq civilians are worth nothing because not supporting the "war" would of allowed Saddam to continue terrorizing the Iraqi civilians with his now dead sons. I see you has the racist.

Iraq was hardly the only or even the worst nation where civilians were being terrorised.  According to your profound reasoning, Americans would be racists for not invading all those other nations too, right?

Actully, the scariest part is that you thought you were posting something clever.    

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Billy have you got nothing better to say then this kinder garden style of retorics because I am sick and tired of reading them and you should be mature enough to realise how pale your arguments are.

"Saddam did worst" "at least we are not going ww2 style on them" what's next we should be thankfull that you haven't used your nulcear arsenal on Iraq?

Get it into your skull there will always be an "at least"-that's the defence of many of the most barbaric criminals mankind has ever witnessed,that won`t take Saddam out of the brutal dictators league as it won`t bring back to life tens of thousands of civillians,it also won`t make the naked agression against Iraq a justifiable war.

I'm serious. If the US military/DoD/Bush did not care about civilian death what so ever, what would of stopped them from "bombing" Fallujah, Baghdad, and other Iraqi cities to the stone age? If it was "racist", what would stop them from doing it? You think the Marines/Army/Iraqi forces like being shot from people that are in certain mosques and cannot do anything really because it is very "holy"?  What is stopping them from calling in a airstrike from leveling it? What stopped them from continue the fight in Fallujah? The Marines/Iraqi forces were not afraid or beaten back. It is not "childish".

Quote[/b] ]Iraq was hardly the only or even the worst nation where civilians were being terrorised.  According to your profound reasoning, Americans would be racists for not invading all those other nations too, right?

Actully, the scariest part is that you thought you were posting something clever.

I was spinning around Denior's post accusing people that they do not care about Iraqi civilian deaths and are on the same level of bin Laden supporters. I was spinning it to say the anti-war folks are on the same level of bin Laden supporters too because Saddam (and sons/friends) would be in power and still committing crimes against Iraqi civilians. He would of got a free pass like Kerry on this forum. His statement is wrong because you cannot blanket a entire group of people with that BS. Sure, some people do not care about civilian deaths but some of the anti-war would of liked to see Saddam still in power because he was a "good" leader and the US is a imperial evil force.

Anyway, Bernadotte... Bush 54%-Kerry 43%

[billybob2002 0]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004....sition=

Quote[/b] ]

September 5, 2004

DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIES

Democrats Urge Kerry to Turn Up Intensity of Campaign

By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JODI WILGOREN

resident Bush roared out of his New York convention last week, leaving many Democrats nervous about the state of the presidential race and pressing Senator John Kerry to torque up what they described as a wandering and low-energy campaign.

In interviews, leading Democrats - governors, senators, fund-raisers and veteran strategists - said they had urged Mr. Kerry's campaign aides to concentrate almost exclusively on challenging President Bush on domestic issues from here on out, saying he had spent too much of the summer on national security, Mr. Bush's strongest turf.

As the Labor Day weekend began, Mr. Kerry appeared to be heeding the advice with an aggressive attack on Mr. Bush's economic leadership. But many supporters also said they wanted to see Mr. Kerry respond more forcefully to the sort of attacks they said had undercut his standing and to offer a broad and convincing case for his candidacy.

"He's got to become more engaged,'' said Harold Ickes, a former political lieutenant to President Bill Clinton who is now running an independent Democratic organization that has spent millions of dollars on advertisements attacking President Bush. "Kerry is by nature a cautious politician, but he's got to throw caution to the wind."

Senator Bob Graham of Florida, a former rival of Mr. Kerry for the Democratic nomination, said Mr. Kerry still had not settled on a defining theme to counter what Democrats called the compelling theme of security hammered into viewers of the Republican convention.

"The people are there, the candidate is there; it's the reason to vote for the candidate that's still a little out of focus," Mr. Graham said.

Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania said Mr. Kerry "has got to start smacking back."

And Senator Christopher J. Dodd, an influential Democrat from Connecticut, said his party's standard-bearer had "a very confused message in August, and the Republicans had a very clear and concise one."

Mr. Dodd was one of several Democrats who said they now thought Mr. Kerry had made a mistake at his convention in July by talking mainly about his history as a Vietnam War veteran and criticizing Mr. Bush's policies, without offering a vision of what a Kerry term would be like.

"We did not adequately lay out the contrast, compare and contrast what a Kerry administration would do and what the Bush administration has done," Mr. Dodd said of the Democrats' convention in Boston. "That was a mistake. Vietnam, in terms of John Kerry's service, that was a good point to make, but making it such a central point sort of invited the kind of response you've seen."

If nervous about the state of play going into Labor Day, Democrats were far from ready to concede defeat in a contest that typically does not engage until the start of September. They pointed to polls showing continued unhappiness with the direction of the country and Mr. Bush's mediocre job approval ratings.

And not incidentally, they invoked Mr. Kerry's history of getting more focused on a contest only when he was faced with the prospect of imminent defeat; that is what happened when he ran for re-election to the Senate from Massachusetts in 1996 and when he won the Iowa caucuses this year after many Democrats had dismissed his candidacy as finished.

"John Kerry had a great July and George Bush had a good August,'' said Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa, one of a handful of Democrats who said they were not concerned by the turn of events. "It doesn't mean a thing. This battle starts right now."

Still, Democrats said Mr. Bush's convention, combined with an aggressive advertising effort by former Vietnam veterans with ties to Mr. Bush's supporters to discredit Mr. Kerry's war record, had turned this contest away from a referendum on Mr. Bush's presidency and into a referendum on Mr. Kerry's character, war record and stand on Iraq.

Some Democrats described this as an ominous development that Mr. Kerry had to address.

"What they did is they lost control of the ball," said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, who was a senior political adviser in the Clinton White House. "They allowed the election to not be about George Bush but to be about themselves. They have to get back on their game."

And Mr. Graham said, "It's become a referendum on the challenger."

The remarks suggested something of a reassessment by many Democratic leaders who had, almost unanimously, praised Mr. Kerry's convention when he left Boston in July.

Their concern has mounted as Mr. Kerry has fended off an attack on his Vietnam record, and seem to have come to a head after a convention in New York where the Republicans systematically sought to take advantage of what they saw as lapses in Mr. Kerry's own convention. Those included the decision by Mr. Kerry and his aides to focus almost entirely on promoting his biography, for the most part avoiding the kind of sharp attacks on his opponent that were a dominant theme of Mr. Bush's convention.

"If you give me a hundred dollars, I couldn't tell you a single policy thing they talked about,'' Ed Gillespie, the national Republican chairman, said. "They gave us a huge opening, and we jumped on it.''

Mr. Kerry's situation is complicated by the fact that because the Republicans scheduled their convention so late, there is relatively little time to turn things around.

The questions about Mr. Kerry's campaign came as the candidate has beefed up his staff, bringing in some longtime party veterans, and shown signs of what aides said would be a new aggressiveness on the stump and on television. In a break from tradition, Mr. Kerry held a rally at midnight soon after Mr. Bush accepted his nomination to lash into Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for questioning his combat record, noting that both Republicans had not served in Vietnam.

"You're seeing a different John Kerry," Mr. Vilsack said. "He was up at 12 o'clock at night. He was saying, 'I am ready to rock and roll.' "

Kerry is taking today off at his wife's farm in Fox Chapel, Pa., to celebrate the 31st birthday of his eldest daughter, Alexandra. Some of the criticism of Mr. Kerry's campaign was cosmetic. Several Democrats said they were not happy to see news photographs of Mr. Kerry windsurfing in the Atlantic waters off Nantucket during the convention, suggesting that it underlined the very image of Mr. Kerry - as a wealthy, culturally out-of-touch liberal - that the Republicans were trying to convey.

"I might have gone windsurfing - you certainly have a right to clear your head,'' said Mr. Rendell, a former head of the Democratic National Committee. "But I'm not sure I would have taken the press with me."

Mr. Kerry's aides defended their strategy, saying the campaign would change, as planned, in tone and substance now that the Republicans were finished.

"There are stages in this race and the fall has always been about painting stark difference between the two candidates," said Stephanie Cutter, Mr. Kerry's communications director. "You're just going to see an aggressive campaign that will go right at the real issues in this race."

And while taking questions in Ohio on Saturday, Mr. Kerry said he was not worried about how the campaign was going.

"We're doing good," he said. "They are going to get a bounce out of the convention. But we'll be coming back."

And Democrats said all of this would be forgotten at what was shaping up as the next critical moment of the campaign: the two or three presidential debates, starting at the end of September. Aides to both sides said the encounters could be decisive, suggesting that many more undecided voters would watch them than had seen Mr. Kerry or Mr. Bush at their conventions.

In questioning the Kerry campaign, some Democrats offered challenges to some of its most fundamental strategic decisions.

Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana said Mr. Kerry had spent too much time talking about national security, including his own views on the Iraq war, and overplayed Mr. Kerry's Vietnam war experience, inviting the attacks that have dominated debate in recent weeks.

The focus on security was calculated to erase Mr. Bush's advantage on the issue. But Democratic leaders said the Kerry campaign had become ensnared in a debate that played to Mr. Bush's strength, and diverted him from challenging Mr. Bush on his domestic record.

"He needs to define this election," Mr. Bayh said of Mr. Kerry. "So much of the convention was focused on national security - if that's where the election is, I don't think he can win."

Most of all, Democrats were perturbed with what they described as the Kerry campaign's unsteady response to the Vietnam veterans groups making unsubstantiated charges about the combat medals Mr. Kerry won while in Vietnam.

They expressed sympathy with the political dilemma Mr. Kerry confronted in trying to determine whether to respond to such charges would serve only to draw attention to them, but said they were astonished to see him struggling with what was supposed to be his strength.

"All of a sudden Kerry is on the defensive about his service and Bush is on the offensive about his service," Senator John B. Breaux of Louisiana said. "It's absolutely amazing."

Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm of Michigan said: "I think it is very critical that you don't answer a tuba with a piccolo. If he's hit, and he will be, he needs to stand up and fight."

Mr. Rendell said the mood of Democrats had swung sharply since Mr. Kerry's nominating convention.

"I think there is real concern," he said. But he added, "Everybody has a level of optimism that it can turn around and will turn around."

Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont who lost the Democratic nomination to Mr. Kerry, said Democrats were overreacting, noting Mr. Kerry's come-from-behind victories against William Weld in the 1996 race for Senate in Massachusetts and Mr. Kerry's decisive defeat of Dr. Dean in Iowa.

"They've been very aggressive and they've really turned withering fire on John Kerry and clearly we have to respond to that," Dr. Dean said. "I tell you, I'm the one person in America other than Bill Weld that knows John Kerry can respond."

Elisabeth Bumiller contributed reporting from Washington for this article.

If Kerry goes very hardcore, he might/will lose this election. He tried to break Bush's strong point on security and had very little sucess.

[denoir 0]

I'm serious. If the US military/DoD/Bush did not care about civilian death what so ever, what would of stopped them from "bombing" Fallujah, Baghdad, and other Iraqi cities to the stone age? If it was "racist", what would stop them from doing it? You think the Marines/Army/Iraqi forces like being shot from people that are in certain mosques and cannot do anything really because it is very "holy"?  What is stopping them from calling in a airstrike from leveling it? What stopped them from continue the fight in Fallujah? The Marines/Iraqi forces were not afraid or beaten back. It is not "childish".

When you make the decision to start a war, you are well aware that there will be civilian casualties.

Bin Laden you can say is responsible for thousands of accounts of first degree murder while Bush is responsible for tens of thousands of accounts of second degree murder. And that's the raw facts. And that's counting just the ones killed by US bombs. It goes way beyond that if it includes the consequences that followed the anarchy brought upon the country.

Quote[/b] ]I was spinning around Denior's post accusing people that they do not care about Iraqi civilian deaths and are on the same level of bin Laden supporters. I was spinning it to say the anti-war folks are on the same level of bin Laden supporters too because Saddam (and sons/friends) would be in power and still committing crimes against Iraqi civilians. He would of got a free pass like Kerry on this forum. His statement is wrong because you cannot blanket a entire group of people with that BS. Sure, some people do not care about civilian deaths but some of the anti-war would of liked to see Saddam still in power because he was a "good" leader and the US is a imperial evil force.

...and it was pure nonsene. The Iraqis are worse off now than under Saddam and there are no signs of things getting better. Saddam was very bad, but this is worse for the Iraqis- from any perspective - body count, securty, jobs, economy oil.

[Balschoiw 0]

Sometimes you´re telling so much bull that I could vomit.

Quote[/b] ] I was spinning it to say the anti-war folks are on the same level of bin Laden supporters too because Saddam (and sons/friends) would be in power and still committing crimes against Iraqi civilians.

You may have missed it , but the UN was actively checking Iraq when some gungho rednecks went on a hunt for WMD´s that couldn´t be delayed any more second. You indeed attacked a souvereign country and killed it´s citizens. At least 10000 civillians have died as a result of your unfounded and unwanted war while you have your ships at the Liberia coast to ensure that US embassy personel can evacuate, but you don´t help anyone of the people slaughtered at the streets.

That is US foreign policy my friend. And that is why you will always have more enemies on this planet than your army can ever deal with.

It´s your freaking leadership, the president of the USA who does all this in the name of you and you still feel well represented ? If you do, you must have a very colorful phantasy and a total block on reality.

It´s not like the UN wasn´t in Iraq. It was your blatant warmonger president who started all the mess Iraq is in today.

What did he talk about ? Democracy ? This is so funny. Really...except you live there...

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]When you make the decision to start a war, you are well aware that there will be civilian casualties.

I already posted civilian casualties are a sad fact of war. At least, the coalition are trying to minimize it. You were one accusing people of being racist for not caring about Iraqis and being on the same level of bin laden supporters.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]When you make the decision to start a war, you are well aware that there will be civilian casualties.

I already posted civilian casualties are a sad fact of war. At least, the coalition are trying to minimize it. You were one accusing people of being racist for not caring about Iraqis and being on the same level of bin laden supporters.

It is a choice to go to war. And you knew beforehand that there would be casualties. Now the really remarkable fact is now when it is very evident to anybody that Iraq posed no threat, that you still support the guy that started the war. The guy that made the choice of attacking a country that had not done anything to you and the choice of inevitably killing lots of people.

It is not remarkable that you supproted the war - people can be misled. It is remarkable that you are defending the guy who started the war - be it through lying or 'only' gross incompetence.

"Oops, I invaded a country and killed tens of thousands of people - sorry." - doesn't work that way. Not that he has even said he's sorry or acknowledged his mistake. Strong leader and strong moral values, eh?

[Bernadotte 0]

I was spinning around Denior's post...

I know.  So what?

It was still utter nonesense what you posted.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]I know.  So what?

It was still utter nonesense what you posted.

Then it's utter nonsense to accuse a "group" of being "racist". (Denior)

[llauma 0]

Quote[/b] ]When you make the decision to start a war, you are well aware that there will be civilian casualties.

I already posted civilian casualties are a sad fact of war. At least, the coalition are trying to minimize it. You were one accusing people of being racist for not caring about Iraqis and being on the same level of bin laden supporters.

It is a choice to go to war. And you knew beforehand that there would be casualties. Now the really remarkable fact is now when it is very evident to anybody that Iraq posed no threat, that you still support the guy that started the war. The guy that made the choice of attacking a country that had not done anything to you and the choice of inevitably killing lots of people.

It is not remarkable that you supproted the war - people can be misled. It is remarkable that you are defending the guy who started the war - be it through lying or 'only' gross incompetence.

"Oops, I invaded a country and killed tens of thousands of people - sorry." - doesn't work that way. Not that he has even said he's sorry or acknowledged his mistake. Strong leader and strong moral values, eh?

Alot of people will support their leaders no matter what they do. All Bush has to do is to make the people think he is a strong leader, convince them that they are in a time where a strong leader is needed and peoples fear will get him re-elected.

There are two possible scenarios:

1. Bin Laden get's caught short before the election which will make people pleased with Bush as he has accomplished the mission. The news of his capture will be published as the first step to global peace *alot of moral stuff and a few hundred God bless America* etc... This would definitly make people vote for Bush.

2. Bin Laden will still be loose which will allows Bush to keep using fear as a tool to control the people. During bad times people tend to avoid big changes as it could make the situation even worse. The message to the people will be that USA needs to keep attacking the terrorists so they can't get mobilized and attack USA. As Bush has shown that he does alot of attacking while Kerry might be more careful Bush will be the first choice.

[seafire6 0]

From reading the posts of those who are opposed to Pres. Bush its pretty clear that there is a great deal of not just disagreement, but also personal antipathy in their arguments which makes a rational discussion of the issues impossible. I suspect if this forum were open back in the 80's we would likely see those opposed to Bush just as vehemently hating Reagan; and we now see he ended up on the good side of history in spite of being considered a 'warmonger' and was hated by most liberals on both sides of the Atlantic.