JBX

Why I am truly scared of a Kerry/Edwards win.

This is my personal feelings about the upcoming elections. I am getting butterflies in my gut when I think about the possibility of President Bush losing the election Nov 2.

First and foremost, I believe Senator Kerry to be a pacifist. I think he will not stand up to terrorist or any one else threatening our national security. I think that the lessons learned in Mogadisu, Somalia was not learned by Kerry.

Second, he appears to have lived his life conforming to which ever way the wind was blowing to get to the point he’s at now. He certainly stands for whatever is popular at the time. I see no courage in that.

Third, Vietnam. I know this is old, but it bothers me. I still don’t watch a Jane Fonda movie. I hate what she did to our Soldiers, how she undermined them, how her kind tied the hands of our Generals who could of defeated communism. Not watching her movies, not putting money in her pocket is my way of protesting her. Lt. John Kerry was far worse in his actions on return home, while his men were still in country. I did not know who he was before this election, but actions have consequences. I will never vote for this man.

Edwards… Channeling dead fetuses in civil lawsuits to get large financial settlements from our medical services. I need a shower.

Teresa Heinz Kerry, you can’t be serious. I’d rather have HR Clinton.

These are my thoughts, flame if you want, but it’s how I feel.

__________________
"Youth and Strength is no match for Age and Treachery"

Killconey

Amen to that. Even the things that I like about Kerry are uncertainties because I'll never know if he'll actually carry them out when he's elected. That'll be a different political environment with a different wind blowing.

__________________
Look out for numbers two and up and they'll look out for you.

Superbelt

That's sad.
From pacifist, to flip-flopper, to the retarded notion that Edwards was channeling a dead fetus.

All stupid Republican spin that all too many people have bought into.

And your contention that someone who performed his duty for America, and then felt the need to inform america just how bad and wrong that was, is something wrongheaded is just unfortunate.

But no manner of explanation will change your mind on that, you said it yourself. I'll just feel sorry for you.

JBX

Superbelt, Don’t feel sorry for me. I do not know any of the candidates personally and I suppose you don’t either. We both rely on information filtered to us. Now if you are implying that Kerry didn’t speak in front of congress calling his soldiers war criminals, we can discuss that. If you are implying that Edward’s didn’t suction large settlements out of juries for MS with out proof that the M.D.s caused the MS, we can talk. BTW I never called Kerry a Flip Flopper so talk about painting with a broad brush… I feel sorry for you.

__________________
"Youth and Strength is no match for Age and Treachery"

Superbelt

Well, this just seemed to me to be, basically, a flip-flopper charge.

JBX

I guess I can see that, but it's just how I read him.

__________________
"Youth and Strength is no match for Age and Treachery"

TheKak

Yes, like the courage it took for Bush to sign up for the NG during Vietnam!

Kerry may be a pacifist, but Bush is a war monger. You cannot tell me Iraq was part of the war on terror. I've been there, and it wasn't the supposed hotbed of terrorism the Bush administration trys make it out to be (well it wasn't PREWAR, but its much worse now).

As for Edwards making moneys off medical settlements, thats what lawyers do. You can't tell me the friends of Bush/Cheney didn't make bank off of Iraq, which is much worse than a lawyer making money off settlements.

I'm not voting for either because they are both crooked and neither one supports my views, but I think if I HAD to vote for one of them, it would be Kerry.

__________________
Roses are red, violets are blue, I'm a schizophrenic and so am I.

Willravel

Who said that the only way to deal with terrorists is complete and unending violence? Do you know what causes people to rise up and bear arms as a terrorist? WE ARE ONE SUCH CAUSE. Did you know that Iraq just had to pay KFC, Pepsi, and Toys 'r Us refferations for the Kuwait war? Why did they have to pay this? Because these companies claimed that the attack on Kuwait hurt their buisness in some way. The money that should go into schools and hospitals (that we bombed claimeng they were terrorist stongholds and training camps). Is a more pacifist atitude so very bad? I'll let you in on a little secret (that I got from my best friend who used to live in Iraq, he moved to Turkey before 9/11, but still visits home every few months): they don't hate american citizens! What? I'll say it again. Almost none of them hate American citizens. They hate that our missles blew up their cousins. They hate that Bush is playing people like a flute. The reason that we get to see some of them on TV burning an American flag is that they have lost innocent loved ones by our hands.

Why did you think they hated us? Religion? This is a quote from Donald Rumsfeld: "Islam is where God tells you to send your son to die. Christianity is where God sends his son to die for you." Hmmm, what do you suppose he meant by that?

The reality is that our lack of pacifism is what makes people hate us. The reality is that this thread seems a lot like trolling.

roachboy

on this question of the relation of a presidential candidate to war
which in this case is framed in a really unfortunate way

i would prefer having somebody who not only knows about war, but is able to confront things that go horribly wrong (kerry, exemplified in his actions around vietnam, which i would think would be understood as a courageous act rather than in the neo-mccarthyite terms presented both above and by the right media in general) than someone as vacant as george w bush.

you have 4 years of reactionary, ill-concieved policy culminating in the farce that is the iraq war to examine, if you are able to do it.
you have the inability to deal with complexity marketed as resoluteness.

the idea that anyone anywhere would feel safer under a second version of the bush regime than they would under kerry is inexplicable to me.

but i suppose such a belief could be reinforced in a negative manner, which explains the otherwise absurd label "pacifist."

the rest of the opening seems little more than an index of the sorry state of right media at the present time.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

SecretMethod70

that's gonna come from both sides.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Witchy1

Q: What's the difference between the war in Vietnam and the war in Iraq?
A: GWBush had an exit strategy for the war in Vietnam.

__________________
"In five years, the penis will be obsolete."
Steel Beach, John Varley

Flyguy

Stop buying into the hype and fear that the Bush campaign feeds you on a daily basis and start thinking for yourself for once. The Bush administration is TOTALLY depending on Americans who can't think for themselves and need the government to tell them what to do in order to win this thing. Like meee said, duct tape. How many people did we see on the news at home depot buying all the duct tape because (either Cheney, Rumsfield or Ashcroft can't remember) told them to do it? That's the kind of gullibility that Bush is relying on. That's why he's constantly spreading fear every day in every speech. Because he has absolutely NOTHING else to run on. Get America scared enough, get reelected. That's their motto.

Be independent of all the hype. Think for yourselves!!

Superbelt

It was Tom Ridge, my former Governor. So glad we exported him to DC.

shakran

What lesson would that be? Don't go cramming our military down the throats of people who don't want us there and where we don't have a legitimate reason to be there? Seems Bush is the one that needs to learn THAT lesson.

And you are parroting what the Bush administration is claiming without checking to see if it's correct or not (hint: it's not). I see no courage in that, either.



And why was it our place to defeat communism? That's ridiculous. "America believes that everyone should be free to choose their course in life, unless it disagrees with us." is essentially what we are saying when we say we have to change or defeat a system which is not hurting our system.

Russia could have stayed communist for 300 years and it would have had no impact on our economic system. People act like Communism is contageous, as though seeing a communist makes you become one. That's bullshit. But if it WERE true, then maybe communism would be something to look at more seriously, if it had that kind of power to change people's attitudes toward economics.



That doesn't even deserve a response. More regurgitation of Republican propaganda without applying ANY thought of your own to it.


Well at least we agree that she's an idiot. That's certainly true. Who cares? Bush's daughters are idiots too. Family does not dictate who is and is not fit to be president.

flstf

Nothing to fear (or maybe everything, LOL), Both parties are pretty much the same and it makes little difference which one wins this November. Remember Vietnam, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon etc... Where's Goldwater now that we need him, LOL.

Kalibah

The fact that he voted AGAINST the first Gulf War, when there was proof of WMDs, and we had the international colalition scares me.

DDDDave

John Kerry Admits His "War Crimes" to NBC's Tim Russert.

The following is from a John Kerry’s interview with Tim Russert on May 6, 2001 . In this interview, Tim Russert confronts Kerry about his admission of committing war crimes in Vietnam. John Kerry’s defense was the same defense as that used during the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal--“We were ordered to do it.” Those defenses weren’t accepted then and they shouldn’t be accepted now! [His admissions are highlighted in blue in the transcript which follows.]

Why hasn’t this important issue been covered by the media? Why wasn’t Kerry asked about his admission of war crimes in one of the three debates? The Washington Post has run articles highlighting how John Kerry has criticized the Bush administration's handling of the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal. Kerry thinks that Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld should go and that President Bush should take responsibility. In both of these stories, however, the Post failed to mention that Kerry himself has publicly admitted to committing war crimes in Vietnam.

The question for you to answer is: “Do you think an admitted war criminal should be elected as President of the United States ?” Using Kerry’s own logic, John Kerry should not be elected President, because he’s a self-admitted war criminal.

Guess what? You Decide The 2004 Election!

****************************************************************************************

THE INTERVIEW [Long before the “Swift Boat” ads]

MR. RUSSERT: You mentioned you're a military guy. There's been a lot of discussion about Bob Kerrey, your former Democratic colleague in the Senate, about his talking about his anguish about what happened in Vietnam . You were on this program 30 years ago as a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. And we went back and have an audiotape of that and some still photos. And your comments are particularly timely in this overall discussion of Bob Kerrey. And I'd like for you to listen to those with our audience and then try to put that war into some context:

[quote from audiotape -- April 18, 1971 ]

MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do you consider that you personally as a naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?

SEN. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant [William] Calley, are war criminals.

[End of audiotape quote]

MR. RUSSERT: Thirty years later, do you stand by that?

SEN. KERRY: I don't stand by the genocide. I think those were the words of an angry young man. We did not try to do that. But I do stand by the description--I don't even believe there is a purpose served in the word "war criminal." I really don't. But I stand by the rest of what happened over there, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: By your own comments, Bob Kerrey was not alone in doing the things that he did.

SEN. KERRY: Oh, of course not. And not only that we, the government of our country, ran an assassination program. I mean, [CIA Director] Bill Colby has acknowledged it. We had the Phoenix Program, where they actually went into villages to eliminate the civilian infrastructure of the Vietcong. Now, you couldn't tell the difference in many cases who they were. And countless veterans testified 30 years ago to that reality. And I think--look, there's no excusing shooting children in cold blood, or women, and killing them in cold blood. There isn't, under any circumstances. But we're not asking, you know, nor is Bob Kerrey saying, "Excuse us for what we did." We're asking people to try to understand the context and forgiveness. And I think the nation needs to understand what the nation put it’s young in a position to do, and move on and take those lessons and apply them to the future.

END OF INTERVIEW

****************************************************************************************

There is clear evidence that the large majority of Vietnam veterans served with honor and integrity and didn’t commit war crimes. However, by his own words John Kerry was not one of them. In the third presidential debate, Kerry said that his mother told him to remember three things: “Integrity, Integrity, Integrity.” Apparently, John Kerry left that word (and the concept) back in the US when he went off to Vietnam .

There is also clear evidence, contrary to Kerry’s assertions, that it was not written policy of the United States government to order it’s soldiers to commit war crimes. But, here you have John Kerry, a candidate for President of the United States , the most powerful office in the world, IN HIS OWN WORDS admitting to his war crimes and atrocities in Vietnam .

John Kerry, also in his own words, said that his actions are “inexcusable.” So don’t excuse him now by voting for him as President and thereby rewarding him for his war crimes in Vietnam !

You Decide the 2004 Election.
[If you think any of the above is not accurate, you can read the full text of the Tim Russert interview by clicking here: History News Network .]

__________________
I am just a simple man trying to make my way in the universe...

"Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have imagined." - Thoreau

"Nothing great was ever accomplished without enthusiasm" - Emerson

Halx

I think there are other, more meaningful things to be worried about. All you're worrying about is what the Republicans TOLD you to worry about. Those are superficial, unproven and inconsequential. The President (conceptual) is a tool of his party, so very little of the decisions that will be made in the next 4 years have anything to do with his own personal convictions (unless we elect an independant).

What I'm worried about are the issues that are important to me that haven't been talked about... like my personal freedom. While I despise both candidates, I must say that Kerry is less of a threat to my freedoms than Bush is.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

Kalibah

But when kids are crying about the draft, it isnt because John Kerry said they should be?

I agree though, both are puppets to their parties. But A firm Believer in the 2nd ammendment- the fact Kerry has an "F" from the NRA and critizes bush for letting the ban on assult weapons lapse has no one worried about his thread to one of our fundemental freedoms>?

cthulu23

This must get posted here at least once a week.

If you really read the quote you'll see that Kerry is speaking about official US military policy, such as free fire zones, as the war crimes and not the actions of the individual soldiers. He admits that he took part in them because they were OFFICIAL policy and thousands of soldiers were forced into the same situations daily. Conflating Kerry's testimony as "anti-soldier' is either intentional distortion or a complete misread of his actions...he represented the soldier as he condemned the war effort and the insane policies of the Pentagon.

rukkyg

No. We've been worried about a draft since long before it was mentioned on the news.

daswig

There's where I think you're wrong. Think about it. Patriot: Kerry voted it. Now he's against it, sort of, maybe, as long as it's important for him to have the far left on his side.

Kerry wants to subordinate the US Constitution to International law and the UN. Now International law and the UN doesn't recognize a bunch of civil liberties that you will well and truly miss. For example, there's nothing to keep them from passing legislation to regulate virtually anything that they want to. They don't have the same kind of checks and balances in place that our Constitution does, and once the precedent is set that International law supercedes the Constitution, there's literally NOTHING to protect our constitutional freedoms. It's like virginity: all it takes is one little prick to lose it, and you can never get it back. Now what kind of legislation could they pass that would effect us? First off, they're trying to get the ability to tax. Guess who will be the people taxed? hint: It's not the Third world. Secondly, they may very well want to regulate things like consumption of consumer goods, and their distribution, in addition to environmental regulation. Where's the rub in that? Well, suppose, just suppose, that the underdeveloped world decides that they want to live like Americans. Cars, high tech gizmos, the whole nine yards. Can you see any potential problems with this? The planet can't support 6 billion people living an American lifestyle. Something has to give. Care to bet who will do the giving? The US, with their one vote, or the 50+ third world nations and their 50+ votes?

Bush is no bargain. Personally, I think his incorporation of his religious beliefs are preposterous. But Kerry will be an UNMITIGATED disaster from a civil rights perspective, and I think Bush has pretty much "shot his bolt" in the civil liberties department. Please keep in mind, I'm coming from a perspective of being a J.D., an ACLU member, and an NRA member.

Now the REALLY fucked up stuff has widespread bipartisan support. Take, for example, bankruptcy reform. I know personally one of the people who was called in to help draft the reform, he was a professor of mine in Law School. If that passes, and eventually it will (in 2001, it got killed by 9/11, but IIRC, it passed the senate at better than 95-5.) that will COMPLETELY alter the equation, and will strip people of majorly needed protection, unless it's new provisions are overturned on 13th amendment grounds, which isn't that likely.

Kerry has been trying to paint himself as a great defender of liberty, including the Second Amendment. That's just not true. In 2000, in Boston, he spoke at an anti gun rally, in front of a person holding a sign that said "AL GORE: BAN ALL GUNS." Yup, real pro-gun. Kerry supports the Assault Weapons Ban. Recently, when his campaign was asked about favorite guns, his campaign said he owned a "chinese communist assault rifle". Turns out it's not an AK-47, it's a Mosin-Nagant M-1891 bolt-action derivative, with a 5 shot non-detachable magazine. If they consider a 100+ year old bolt action rifle to be an assault weapon, what gun DON'T they consider to be an Assault Weapon?

Don't believe the hype.

cthulu23

Speaking of not believing the hype:

This makes for a nice, strong statement but I haven't seen any evidence to back it up in the slightest. In fact, all that I've heard has been Kerry repeating over and over that he won't cede control of the US to the UN.

I'm in agreement here. This is a blatant bone thrown to the credit companies. Millions of dollars in campaign contributions can work miracles.

So someone in his campaign doesn't know shit....that hardly proves that Kerry will repeal the 2nd amendment, not to mention that the majority of Americans would never support such a move.

I haven't yet.

Coppertop

Exactly. Were Bush's reasons for terrorists attacking the United State true you'd see the same happening to a country like Canada. But since Canada does not use its military and other government agencies to sow so much terror around the world they amazingly don't get attacked.

So there's no connection between:

1) a government using its power to depose other governments around the world and install puppet leaders friendly to them thus invoking hostile reactions from said countries and condemnation from the UN

and

2) a government not deposing other nations and not being attacking in kind or condemned by the rest of the world.

And you'd be a fool and a communist to make one.

/sarcasm

daswig

There's a reason why Kerry has to keep repeating over and over again that he wouldn't cede control to the UN. It's called his record. It goes back at least as far as his early 1970's statement that "I'm an internationalist." It includes his support for the International Criminal Courts, a court system wholly outside of US law, and which would be in DIRECT conflict of Article III Section 1, and Article 3 Section 2 (1).

As for Kerry's Second Amendment record, please name a SINGLE gun control law that Kerry has NOT supported when he had the opportunity to vote on it. Just one.

Kadath

No, it's called the Republican attack machine. They latch onto key phrases and repeat them (sans context) over and over on national news programs.

__________________
it's quiet in here

walkerboh4269

Amen the one right that guarantees all others is the 2A. With out it we are all helpless.

cthulu23

Kerry in early 70's:
"I'm an internationalist"

Bush in the early 70's:
"Pass me another fucking beer! Whooooo!"

Men do change over time.

Anyway, Kerry's statements of support for the ICC have always included exemptions for American military personnel and political leaders, which is the central stipulation that the Bush administration has called for before considering entry into the ICC.

docbungle

Well, this is what scares me.

The left and the right are so concerned with what side they're on, and so intent on defending themselves, that they've lost all real focus on what really matters to humanity, to us. All that matters is that they win, and the other side loses.

That's what is most important.

Why are so many people willing to fall under the label "Democrat" or "Republican" and accept the values of that party as their own? This, in and of itself - this buying into a ideology that by it's very nature divides - plants the seeds of anger, hate and oppressiveness that are, as we speak, growing and growing and growing all accross the country.

No one ever concedes. The other side is always wrong, even when they're not. Nothing can be proven to be true or false. Not in the context that everyone from both sides will agree that it is true or false.

It's a fucking commercial. And what really, I mean really scares me, is that I don't see a realistic chance that an independent nominee, one that is not owned by a conglomerate, will ever see the light of day as a serious contender for the presidency.

I see the Democrats and the Republicans the same way many of you see organized religion: full of itself and trying to convert the masses, in this country and abroad. And people just lapping it up.

__________________
Bad Luck City

Kalibah

thats why I prefer to use terms like Liberal or Conservative- +- moderate where appropriate

eg.

I would label President Clinton as a Moderate Liberal

To me atleast, it gives a picture of beliefs rather than party affiliation. Some say ohh he tosses the L word, or using labels, but both sides do it ( Right wing ideolouge).

There are some Democrates that are conservatives and Some Republicans that are liberal- and some independents ( *cough marry berry*) who clearly arent such, so truely stating just party affiliation means little to me.

Then you get into what constitues a liberal, or a conservative, I would say Bush is a prime example of a conservative, while Ted Kennedy is a prime example of a Liberal. Mr.Kerry- Id call him confused.


But yes I get your point- that was why I tried a hand at making a thread talking about ISSUES not parties. Solutions not canidates. It worked moderatly well IMHO- but we only discussed Importation of Drugs from Canada ( or lack thereof). I'll try again - This time we'll do ohh say Social Security. See ya there

cthulu23

Neither Kennedy or Bush fit the classic examples of liberal or conservative, particularly Bush. they could more properly be called "modern american liberal/conservative."

JBX

I have read all the post with great interest. Many have had excellent points, some of which I disagree with. The different view points are amazing to say the least. The only thing I’m voting for this election is security. I believe that GWB is more likely to accomplish securing the nation and has been doing it since the attack in 2001. If another attack occurs, I believe that President Bush is more likely to aggressively prosecute it. Do I lock step with the Republican Party? No. I do vote the candidate, however, I do have conservative leanings minus religion. I believe this election is crucial in showing that we will not be Spain or the U.S. during Vietnam, and Mogadisu, Somalia. That we can drive through tough times as a Nation and prevail. That an aggressor need not only wait out until the next election to get a desired result. Is the perfect candidate out there? No, and if I thought there was one, someone would disagree. I understand this. Thank You for your thoughts. JBX

__________________
"Youth and Strength is no match for Age and Treachery"

irateplatypus

don't be scared.

it's one man who has to act on our behalf for four years, or he loses his job. it's one man who will have his every action scrutinized, every word will be checked for accuracy and nuance. one man who doesn't hold the pursestrings (that would be congress) and can't singlehandedly change the constitution (supreme court).

no matter the outcome, don't be afraid. live your life, be informed, vote accordingly four years from now. i believe one man to be markedly better than the other for the job, but we've had worse men than either of them in the White House before... we've played for higher stakes before.

go vote in november. don't bitch about the outcome whatever it may be. try to strengthen our republic in what capacity you can.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Willravel

On September 11th, this country was attacked. Airplanes crashed into the North and South towers of the World Trade Center. The Pentagon, the home of our countries security and military, was also attacked. On September 23, Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Advisor, stated that the government had evidence that linked Bin Ladden with the terrorist attacks. She also said that they would release the evidence in 'due time'. It is now October 22, 2004, and they have still not released the evidence.

So we are all in agreement that in the reality that you based your decision, Ossama Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks. Immediatally after the press release on September 23, 2001, we started our hunt for Ossama. We tracked him across deserts, systematically taking out his cheif officers. We finally had him cornered in Tora Bora. We pulled back our troops. The administration that you put so much faith in as far as our security stopped short of the easily attainable goal of capturing the supposed mastermind that was responsible for killing over 300 Americans. We left it up to some local warlords to finish the search. Well, he still isn't in custody. He is free. He has the same ability he had before 9/11 to orchestrate another attack. He is free.

Then we attack Iraq, a country that has been very uncooperative with the US and the UN. His country was known to have harbored terrorists. We even might have had information that indicated that he had WMDs. We attacked. We killed thousands of innocent civilians in a preemptive strike. Even in this great attack, we did not catch Hussain, our main objective. He eluded us for month after month. The problem with the singling out of Iraq is that there were other countries that were and are harboring terrorists and were proven to be supplying them with WMDs. There were other countries that were being very unwelcoming to the UN.

We gave up on Ossama, and went after Hussain. Now we know there were no WMDs in Iraq. Hussain is no longer able to hurt the Iraqi people, but what did that do for us? Ther are still cells in Iraq. There are still terrorists in the other countries. Ossama is still out there, able to plan more attacks. I'm glad you feel safe with the presentt administration. In the world that even you paint a picture of, it seems more dangerous that it was before 9/11.

bierslayer

Amen! Very well said.

I still don't understand the notion that GWB will somehow "keep us safer". What has he done that has made it so much safer? How come nobody wants to acknowledge Kerry's role in bringing down BCCI which is the model for disrupting terrorist financing? 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. Was it his fault? No. At the risk of being inflammatory, 9/11 was a fluke. We got beat by 19 nutjobs with box cutters cuz we never thought it would happen to us. Kerry couldn't have prevented it, Bush couldn't have prevented it, and Clinton couldn't have prevented it. It just happened. I don't know what Bush has done in his experience to demonstrate he can do anything about it. Kerry has a record of dismantling a major financial organization set up for drug cartels and wrote a damn book on how the same strategy can be used against terrorist organizations. If you're not familiar with it, google for "BCCI and Kerry". THAT is fighting terrorism. NOT invading Iraq. Kerry gets it. Bush doesn't.

daswig

Yup, the Government would be exempt, it's the regular citizens that would be fucked. Either way, it's a DIRECT violation of Article III, Sections (1) and (2)(1) of the US Constitution. Oh, wait, Kerry's the "Constitution" candidate, so he can't REALLY mean to violate the Constitution, it's just that I'm to stupid to realize the "nuance" he's spinning to justify ripping up on of the fundamental constitutional checks and balances, right?

cthulu23

Who said anything about "stupid?" I'm just pointing out how Kerry's position on the issue bears strong similarities to Bush's.

Strange Famous

I dont think Ive ever seen anyone use the term "pacifist" as an insult before!

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

sparkly

While it may be true that his positions have changed many times... I don't see this as conforming which ever way the wind is blowing... afterall, his views have changed against the current at times.

I see the ability to grow and change as something positive. Something I do not like is someone who is so stubborn and bull headed that as the world changes, their views do not change with it, no matter what the cost.

host

I do not want to read a thread about how you "feel". This is supposed to
be a place where members with informed opinions put up link referenced
arguments for others to respond to with equally well referenced details.
I'm not sure that you have accomplished that here.