Bush or Kerry, vote today!

[Phraxtion]

Yup dead link... but you can refer back to the one I posted earlier...

Try this.. http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20040817-04.html

 

[Neutrino]

Not to sound cold in any way but in every war that has ever been men, women and children have died and that will always be a part of it. Im not 100% for the direction the war has taken but I do feel that it is something that has to be done.

As for the economy.. since last August, 1.5 million new jobs created. This was after the stock market bubble, recession, terrorist attacks and the corporate scandels. No its not perfect, but I think the Bush administration is doing a pretty good job.

Well, to answer both the economy question and the international relations question, I think the fact that we should never have gone to war pretty much sums up both points nicely.

For international relations, what exactly has Bush ever done well in this area? In 2001 he started with a huge amount of world sympathy and support over the 9/11 tragedy. But somehow, in a few short years he managed to turn most of the support into anger and contempt. He invaded a sovereign nation on faulty evidence, thus throwing the US into a war it should never have been involved in and had no right to be involved in. (I really don't see how you can say it's something that has to be done. We went there by mistake in the first place.) He basically made a mockery of the United Nations in a time when we needed to bolster the international community, not ignore the wishes of it, thus degrading its power and integrity. He then created a "coallition" which, frankly, was a joke to show he had support for the war. Though, the only two really major countries involved were the US and England. Not quite a "coallition" of countries if you ask me. And now we're at the point that American citizens are mocked in other countries for the sole reason that they are American. Personally, I enjoyed the old times when we were regarded as the good guys, not the enemy.

Oh, and yes you could argue that the War was justified since Bush didn't know that the evidence supporting it was wrong when it started. Well, in my opinion, you better damn well make sure the evidence is sufficient and correct before taking over other countries. It's not something you just do and then say, "oops, sorry about that, we were wrong". It should never have happened, and I think if we had had a competent administration it never would have.

This takes us to the economy. In the long term I think Bush has made very poor choices. Our deficit is higher than ever and he just spent about a 150 Billion dollars (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3603923.stm) on a War that should never have been fought. Guess who will be paying for that little expenditure?

So I would like to ask another question in response to your question. What has the Bush administation done particularly well in the area of jobs, economy, healthcare, and international relations? Yes, I admit that not everything has been bad. But I don't think they have done anything that Kerry or any other president couldn't do, and to me the negative things they have done far outweigh anything else.

In addition to all this, another reason I do not like Bush as president is his policy of sticking unwavering to his opinions and ideas. Granted, in some cases this can be a strength of a leader, but in Bush's case I think it is a weakness. He seems unable to stray from his convictions no matter what happens, even if he is wrong. That is a scary trait for a man with so much power to have and I think it points to an dangerously arrogant streak. People say that Kerry flip flops too much. I say there is a difference between indecisive flipflopping and a reasoned examination of the issues with the ability to admit that one was in the wrong. I think that's what we need right now. A president that is able to make compromises and examine issues very carefully before making any decisions. And also a president who can admit that he was wrong, and correct his mistakes. I think Kerry is able to do these things, which among many other reasons, is why I'll vote for him.

Oh, and just so you know, I actually supported Bush at one time. Not anymore though.

Apos, I often wish I could have joined you in helping the Kerry campaign. I fear I'm just not brave enough to drop everything else, though I sometimes think I should have. It would be nice to do more than just vote.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

You mean left and lefter?

You do know that independant surveys show that something like 58% of reporters in the mainstream media have republican leanings, don't you?

The liberal media bias is a myth.

 

[Korgoth]

Try this.. http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20040817-04.html

Bringing 60 to 70,000 thousand home still wouldn't be enough to continue at the pace that we are on now, we have well over 100 thousand in iraq, and the war itself is supposed to be over "mission accomplished" so to speak. Do you think we could take on iran/syria/north korea with what we have now? Not likely...
Please refer back to the article i posted from pbs, you will understand just how strained our military really is right now, many troops taking 2 or 3 tours etc.
I believe we can't afford 4 more years of bush, you may believe differently and thats fine, you have the right... But to me, the facts are all there.

 

[seinfeldrules]

You do know that independant surveys show that something like 58% of reporters in the mainstream media have republican leanings, don't you?

Wow Id like to see whatever it is you are looking at because the surveys that I have seen show 75% + have far liberal leanings.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Personally, I enjoyed the old times when we were regarded as the good guys, not the enemy.

You mean like Somalia for example? The Anti-Americanism has been going on long before Bush took office, you just have a short memory span.

Oh, and yes you could argue that the War was justified since Bush didn't know that the evidence supporting it was wrong when it started. Well, in my opinion, you better damn well make sure the evidence is sufficient and correct before taking over other countries. It's not something you just do and then say, "oops, sorry about that, we were wrong". It should never have happened, and I think if we had had a competent administration it never would have.

The British Intelligence review and the Russian Intelligence review came to the same conclusions we did. Thats 3 'solid' intelligence groups right there. Who are you supposed to believe! Hmmm my physic readings today are telling me it is going to rain....

I think Kerry is able to do these things, which among many other reasons, is why I'll vote for him.

If you honestly believe Kerry looks back and does what he thinks is right that is your agenda. To me and many others, it is obvious he did it for political gain. How many times can you change your stance on abortion? How can you vote to send troops to Iraq, then not support them? How can you claim a good history on foreign policy when you missed most of your intelligence hearings? Stop using outside groups to attack my Vietnam record! (its ok for Moveon.org and others to do it to Bush though) It goes on and on. "I voted for the 87 billion dollar funding, before I voted against it!"

 

[hasan]

This is probably late, I was gonna post this an hour and a half ago but for somereason my internet went dead.
It seems the topic has changed to a debate about the war?
here is what I wanted to say ..

Nice post. I see so a lot of people that don't understand that voting for Nader basically is just hurting the democratic candidate.

Now, that's of course their right to vote for a third party if they wish, but in a close election like this one, the votes that go to Nader are pretty much only helping the Bush campaign.

As for the poll, I'll be voting for Kerry.

If I lived in America and had the right to vote I'd probably vote for Nader.

Now, I don't know what the people who are voting for nader thinking, but I think that don't understand: they don't care what happens to Kerry; they wouldn't vote for Nader if they cared.

I personally would for nader for a reason: let Kerry know that he can't take my vote for granted just because I'm against Bush.

This might hurt me for another four years, but if we let them take us for granted all the time, then they will never stio doing it, and not just for four years; forever.

eeh .. but like I said I'm not American nor even in America

 

[SaL]

Well how many wars do you propose we start in the span of four/eight years? We are practically stretched to the limits now (military wise).

We didn't start any war.Islam started war on the U.S.

93 WTC bombing
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/7/2/103301.shtml

Oklahoma City April 19th, 1995
http://www.jaynadavis.com/

TWA 800 July 17, 1996
http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/13/twa/

1998 U.S.embassy bombings in Tanzania & Kenya
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127475,00.html

USS Cole attack Oct 12,2000
http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/10/23/uss.cole.01/

9/11
http://www.september11news.com/AttackImages.htm

the list goes on and on and on it's time to take care of business with Islam! Think Kerry the flip-flopping frenchman will do it(yeah right).

Bush all the way

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Wow Id like to see whatever it is you are looking at because the surveys that I have seen show 75% + have far liberal leanings.

From the Pew Charitable Trusts Project for Excellence in Journalism, covering the 2000 election campaign. 1,149 stories from seventeen different news organisations.

Tone of Coverage for Gore & Bush
Gore:
Positive: 13%
Neutral: 31%
Negative: 56%

Bush:
Positive: 24%
Neutral: 27%
Negative: 49%

No bias.

 

[Korgoth]

wtf, yes the whole of islam is against us, what your proposing then is genocide.

 

[seinfeldrules]

http://www.npr.org/features/columns/column.php?wfId=1919999&columnId=2781901

It found that a majority of American journalists say they are liberals. Not surprisingly this has been grist for conservatives because it confirms the impression that journalists are overwhelmingly liberal compared to the public in general

 

[SaL]

wtf, yes the whole of islam is against us, what your proposing then is genocide.

No it's like this

 

[seinfeldrules]

The Center for Media and Public Affairs has examined the coverage of Bush by the broadcast network evening news shows and found only two periods of favorable coverage: in the weeks after September 11 and during the actual war in Iraq. This year, roughly 75 percent of the stories about the Democratic presidential candidates were positive. For Bush, they've been 60-plus percent negative.

from here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/143lkblo.asp

 

[Neutrino]

from here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/143lkblo.asp

Perhaps it's because there just aren't very many positive things about him that they can cover?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

from here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/143lkblo.asp

Speaking of bias, that link happens to be full of republican campaign ads.

 

[Korgoth]

No it's like this

very well, you're obviously fanatical in your thinking, therefore I won't try to sway you into believing that the islamic religion and the terrorists who claim to follow said religion are two different things.
Carry on with your're crusade.

Also sal, you reference the oklahoma city bombings, the perpatrators of that attack where white, do you propose we kill all the white men too?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=830
From there, the source your first link cites in the title:

Bottom-Line Pressures Now Hurting Coverage, Say Journalists
Press Going Too Easy on Bush

(my italics)

You also might have missed that 54% to 61% of those polled were moderates, neither Conservative or Liberal.

Apparently it's biased towards the unbiased.

Also, the poll I posted earlier from Pew, the same source you site shows that, in 2000, even if the journalists were liberal, the stories themselves were slanted more towards the conservatives.

Therefore, journalists may be mildly liberal, but it isn't affecting their actual journalism.

Perhaps it's because there just aren't very many positive things about him that they can cover?

Exactly. The media might seem mean to Bush but, then again, he's doing far worse things than Kerry's flip-flopping.

 

[Neutrino]

No it's like this

Just the fact that someone like you is voting for Bush is one of the best arguments for voting for Kerry that I've seen.

 

[Phraxtion]

Well, to answer both the economy question and the international relations question, I think the fact that we should never have gone to war pretty much sums up both points nicely.

For international relations, what exactly has Bush ever done well in this area? In 2001 he started with a huge amount of world sympathy and support over the 9/11 tragedy. But somehow, in a few short years he managed to turn most of the support into anger and contempt. He invaded a sovereign nation on faulty evidence, thus throwing the US into a war it should never have been involved in and had no right to be involved in. (I really don't see how you can say it's something that has to be done. We went there by mistake in the first place.) He basically made a mockery of the United Nations in a time when we needed to bolster the international community, not ignore the wishes of it, thus degrading its power and integrity. He then created a "coallition" which, frankly, was a joke to show he had support for the war. Though, the only two really major countries involved were the US and England. Not quite a "coallition" of countries if you ask me. And now we're at the point that American citizens are mocked in other countries for the sole reason that they are American. Personally, I enjoyed the old times when we were regarded as the good guys, not the enemy.

Oh, and yes you could argue that the War was justified since Bush didn't know that the evidence supporting it was wrong when it started. Well, in my opinion, you better damn well make sure the evidence is sufficient and correct before taking over other countries. It's not something you just do and then say, "oops, sorry about that, we were wrong". It should never have happened, and I think if we had had a competent administration it never would have.

This takes us to the economy. In the long term I think Bush has made very poor choices. Our deficit is higher than ever and he just spent about a 150 Billion dollars (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3603923.stm) on a War that should never have been fought. Guess who will be paying for that little expenditure?

So I would like to ask another question in response to your question. What has the Bush administation done particularly well in the area of jobs, economy, healthcare, and international relations? Yes, I admit that not everything has been bad. But I don't think they have done anything that Kerry or any other president couldn't do, and to me the negative things they have done far outweigh anything else.

In addition to all this, another reason I do not like Bush as president is his policy of sticking unwavering to his opinions and ideas. Granted, in some cases this can be a strength of a leader, but in Bush's case I think it is a weakness. He seems unable to stray from his convictions no matter what happens, even if he is wrong. That is a scary trait for a man with so much power to have and I think it points to an dangerously arrogant streak. People say that Kerry flip flops too much. I say there is a difference between indecisive flipflopping and a reasoned examination of the issues with the ability to admit that one was in the wrong. I think that's what we need right now. A president that is able to make compromises and examine issues very carefully before making any decisions. And also a president who can admit that he was wrong, and correct his mistakes. I think Kerry is able to do these things, which among many other reasons, is why I'll vote for him.

Oh, and just so you know, I actually supported Bush at one time. Not anymore though.

Apos, I often wish I could have joined you in helping the Kerry campaign. I fear I'm just not brave enough to drop everything else, though I sometimes think I should have. It would be nice to do more than just vote.

First off, America is damned if we do and damned if we dont. Like I said in a previous post, I dont agree 100% with the direction the war has taken, but how can you say we had no merit to go in and do something. How many violations were there... 17, 17 violations? Also, why were we not permitted to speak with any of the scientists in the programs? I mean hell, he would risk war rather then give this information? He knew it was coming, he was warned several times. On top of all this he funds terrorism! Seems to me it was a good place to start. People talk about the horrible things were doing to Iraq.. if its so bad then why is a huge part of the country doing little dances in the street?

As for not being backed up internationaly... not sure but I think it was 30 countries or so that were behind us. Soon your going to start hearing about alot of countries avoiding the war and being against it due to trades between themselves an Iraq.

The deficit.. fact is we will always have a deficit and the fact we are at war dosent help it of course, and I will have no problem paying my part.

Refering to the part about Kerry being able to do what Bush has done.. im not for Bush on just subjects like war, economy, etc. I feel strongly on other topics that effect me, my family and my way of life.

 

[qckbeam]

No it's like this

Oh so Islam is an evil religion then? Would you like some violent quotes from the bible as well, to put things into perspective?

Exodus 22:17
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

Exodus 22:19
"Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death."

Exodus 31:14
"Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people."

Leviticus 20:27
"A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them."

Numbers 15:36
"And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses."

Numbers 18:7
"I have given your priest's office unto you as a service of gift: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death"

Deuteronomy 2:34
"And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:"

That is just a small taste of the violence contained inside the "Christian Holy Book". Obviously all Christians are evil, after all, just look at this "steaming hateful pile of crap."

 

[seinfeldrules]

You also might have missed that 54% to 61% of those polled were moderates, neither Conservative or Liberal.

Do many people come out and say "I am openly biased". Nah, you need to look deeper into that specific polling data to find the real results. Im not sure if that link had it or not.

Exactly. The media might seem mean to Bush but, then again, he's doing far worse things than Kerry's flip-flopping.

You think so, but what about the other 50% of Americans who feel otherwise. Their voice needs to be heard and reported as well. Currently, it isnt.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

First off, America is damned if we do and damned if we dont. Like I said in a previous post, I dont agree 100% with the direction the war has taken, but how can you say we had no merit to go in and do something. How many violations were there... 17, 17 violations? Also, why were we not permitted to speak with any of the scientists in the programs? I mean hell, he would risk war rather then give this information? He knew it was coming, he was warned several times.

But in this case, the UN was expressly saying "don't", and was right.
And your point is: the US was intimidating Saddam, so why didn't he give them info?

On top of all this he funds terrorism! Seems to me it was a good place to start. People talk about the horrible things were doing to Iraq.. if its so bad then why is a huge part of the country doing little dances in the street?

I've heard expressly the opposite on the terrorism thing. Source? Connections to Al Queda just aren't there.

As for not being backed up internationaly... not sure but I think it was 30 countries or so that were behind us. Soon your going to start hearing about alot of countries avoiding the war and being against it due to trades between themselves an Iraq.

Canada stayed out because we didn't see enough evidence of WMDs. Turns out there were none. Now, around 50 nations fit Bush's definition of a WMD threat.

The deficit.. fact is we will always have a deficit and the fact we are at war dosent help it of course, and I will have no problem paying my part.

There a defecit with Clinton. Wasn't it a surplus before Bush arrived?

Refering to the part about Kerry being able to do what Bush has done.. im not for Bush on just subjects like war, economy, etc. I feel strongly on other topics that effect me, my family and my way of life.

Like?

Points in bold above.

 

[seinfeldrules]

But in this case, the UN was expressly saying "don't", and was right.
And your point is: the US was intimidating Saddam, so why didn't he give them info?

Because he was insane. Also, it is clear they had WMD, the question should be 'Where is it now?'.

I've heard expressly the opposite on the terrorism thing. Source? Connections to Al Queda just aren't there.

He said terrorism, not Al Qaeda, there is a difference.

There a defecit with Clinton. Wasn't it a surplus before Bush arrived?

Also, before the recession arrived and a little thing called 9/11.

 

[gh0st]

Bush is ahead in the polls. Quite a lot farther than he was a month or so ago. 5 points is 5 points. I think if he plays his card right he cant lose. Incumbants are sometimes very hard to get out of office. Especially when you have a fraud like Kerry (who unlike bush, refuses to release his own military records). The vietnam issue is getting to me alot. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...07.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/03/07/ixnewstop.html. Kerrys going to lose, so it doesnt matter. 4 more years

 

[seinfeldrules]

I like you already gh0st

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Do many people come out and say "I am openly biased". Nah, you need to look deeper into that specific polling data to find the real results. Im not sure if that link had it or not.

So you distrust the veracity of the poll you're using as a source?
I could just as easily say that all the Republican reporters must have been pretending to be moderates in order to create the false impression of a liberal bias.

But I'd prefer to leave conspiracy theories out of this.

You think so, but what about the other 50% of Americans who feel otherwise. Their voice needs to be heard and reported as well. Currently, it isnt.

Well, what has Kerry really done wrong? Under bush, there's been a war, and one that was started under incorrect assumptions and in spite of international objection.
Also, trillion-dollar defecit.

...and Kerry might not have been as heroic in vietnam as he says, claim Bush supporters.

Kerry just hasn't done anything yet. Positive or negative.

 

[gh0st]

I like you already gh0st

The link I give is important. Liberal/democratic groups are trying to cut the swiftboat vets for truth ads. they try to get bush to denounce them which is funny because the freedom of speech is usually an important issue for democrats. that link means either kerry is lying (likely), or that bush is lying.

the vast majority of the people who have served with kerry do not support him. QUIT USING THE VIETNAM ISSUE.

 

[Dulrough]

Wow Id like to see whatever it is you are looking at because the surveys that I have seen show 75% + have far liberal leanings.

Ah yes but the editors in charge of what gets printed are mostly republicans, wont catch that on fox.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Well, what has Kerry really done wrong?

Meh, I dunno. Voting for the war, then not voting to fund the troops. Switching his policies whenever it will help him politically. Calling for Bush to stop the swift boat ads, but ignoring moveon.org. Missing most of his time in the Senate.

 

[SaL]

very well, you're obviously fanatical in your thinking, therefore I won't try to sway you into believing that the islamic religion and the terrorists who claim to follow said religion are two different things.
Carry on with your're crusade.

Also sal, you reference the oklahoma city bombings, the perpatrators of that attack where white, do you propose we kill all the white men too?

Ramsi Yousef met with Terry Nichols in Manilla after the 93 WTC bombing.

Who's John Doe #2? So you actually believe Oklahoma City was the work of 2 angry white men?Do some research!

You think your being informed when you watch the news too?

Kobe Bryant
Monica Lewinsky
Michael Jackson
Scott Peterson
Mark Hacking
OJ Simpson
Elena Bobbit
Elian Gonzalez
Tonya Harding
and on and on and on

This is not news it's sick entertainment.What is so earth shattering about these people...nothing,it's a placebo while America is engrossed in this sick entertainment,they are not being told what's going on in the rest of the world.

Islam divides the universe into two parts: Dar Al Islam: the domain of the faithful (to Islam); and Dar Al Harb: those with whom they are at war until Judgment Day.The US government calls it the "War on Terror" because Our Country and "the Free world"does not want to admit who the enemy really is :Islam and how big the problem really is.Even the Islamic moderates agree with the extremists in that the whole world must be under the Dar al Islam.

They see Christians & Jews as one people who must convert to Islam or be exterminated.We are the Dar al Kitab (The people of the Book).If the Muslims kill all the pagans(this includes atheists,agnostics,new age,etc,etc),and then all the Jews and Christians.The Muslims would then just kill each other.

Iran,Iraq,Sudan,PA controlled Gaza/West Bank, Lebanon,Libya,Pakistan,Somalia,Afghanistan,Algeria,etc

This is the kind of utopia you can expect from the Dar al-Islam.Also there is no such thing as a peace agreement with Islam,their peace is called a hudna' and it's only temporary.


This is a war for the direction of the planet.Myself I don't like what I've heard from Kerry about the "War on terror".He's stated that he'd remove U.S. troops from Iraq within 6 months of taking office? Also that he'd travel the globe his first 100 days in office denouncing his predecessor and open dialogue with I forget the wording he used but it was absurd.Basically he's going to go to our enemies and say can't we be friends.The Democrats & The Clinton aministration did a terrible job in not addressing these problems during their time in office.

It's not the time to leave Iraq and abandon the war on terror.The foriegn policy of Kerry will seal our doom.

 

[Phraxtion]

Points in bold above.

I need a break from the war for a bit.
:rolling:

Things such as abortion, gay marrige, stem cells research.... etc. are a few of the areas I feel strongly on.

 

[Korgoth]

Bush is ahead in the polls. Quite a lot farther than he was a month or so ago. 5 points is 5 points. I think if he plays his card right he cant lose. Incumbants are sometimes very hard to get out of office. Especially when you have a fraud like Kerry (who unlike bush, refuses to release his own military records). The vietnam issue is getting to me alot. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...07.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/03/07/ixnewstop.html. Kerrys going to lose, so it doesnt matter. 4 more years

I think you're confused. Bush happens to be the one who won't release his records, then won't release the relevant records, then oopsy they got destroyed, and on and on... still nothing.
Kerry's records are pretty open, even if he tried to dodge vietnam, he still went, and came back a very decorated war hero.
He proved he has leadership skills. 4 more years, I doubt it, not if my vote counts.
:E

 

[gh0st]

Well, what has Kerry really done wrong? Under bush, there's been a war, and one that was started under incorrect assumptions and in spite of international objection.

...and Kerry might not have been as heroic in vietnam as he says, claim Bush supporters.

Kerry just hasn't done anything yet. Positive or negative.

a war that kerry voted for. twice. he has had a very negative influence on the senate.

assumptions? the kgb, mi6, and the cia do not make "assumptions". they had clear and concise evidence toward war, that they gave to bush.

that international objection is moot point. bush went to the UN repeatedly, but the organization is so broken and ineffective, eventually we have to do whats int he best interest of our national security.

 

[seinfeldrules]

I think you need to put the decorated in quotation marks. As in "decorated" *wink wink* war hero.

 

[Korgoth]

The link I give is important. Liberal/democratic groups are trying to cut the swiftboat vets for truth ads. they try to get bush to denounce them which is funny because the freedom of speech is usually an important issue for democrats. that link means either kerry is lying (likely), or that bush is lying.

the vast majority of the people who have served with kerry do not support him. QUIT USING THE VIETNAM ISSUE.

They are trying to get the BA to denounce the ad because it has come to light that many of the people in the ad have been working for the bush relection campaign, which is ILLEGAL!
Also a few have already backed out saying that they were mistaken, and not to mention that not even one (1) single person in that ad actually served with/under john kerry... Talki about flip flopping these guys sure are, and i hope this comes back to haunt bush as more and more of this comes to light...

 

[gh0st]

They are trying to get the BA to denounce the ad because it has come to light that many of the people in the ad have been working for the bush relection campaign, which is ILLEGAL!
Also a few have already backed out saying that they were mistaken, and not to mention that not even one (1) single person in that ad actually served with/under john kerry... Talki about flip flopping these guys sure are, and i hope this comes back to haunt bush as more and more of this comes to light...

http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=SwiftPhoto . his fellow officers dont support him, why should i? these are the guys in the swiftboatvets ad's, seems to me like they served with him.

 

[Dulrough]

Any one catch the daily show where john harped on the "vetrans for truths" ads. Yes it is slanted liberaly but there are the facts that cannot be ignored. Ill recount what i remember.
By saying they served with him, they mean they were in the same war, not the same boat crew.
The docs signature appears nowhere on kerrys medical records, and he says he remembers it clearly out of a shit load of other wounds that he treated.
Its bull shit thats why Kerry wants it stopped.
Harping on Bush becuase he did not go to nam, and his attendance is under question is not utter BS.
EDIT Idiot speeling errors

 

[Mechagodzilla]

a war that kerry voted for. twice. he has had a very negative influence on the senate.

So it's bad when Kerry supports the war back in 1993 or whenever, but okay when Bush follows through with it and still insists that it was a great idea?

assumptions? the kgb, mi6, and the cia do not make "assumptions". they had clear and concise evidence toward war, that they gave to bush.

Well, obviously the evidence was wrong. And it was based mostly on testimony from some of Hussien's enemies.

One of the key pieces of evidence was steel tubes that Colin Powell said were for use in centrifuges for refining nuclear material for WMDs. Saddam said they were for rockets. Powell dismissed the rocket story because the tubes were anodised.

Turns out, the first step in making the centrifuges would be to scrape all the anodizing off, according to centrifuge experts. And anodized tubes make for great non-WMD rockets.

So, they assumed, using mis-interpreted evidence, that Saddam was a threat, when he wasn't.

 

[Korgoth]

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp
(actually i was mistaken, there was only one (1) man who was actually a shipmate with kerry

http://www.johnkerry.com/rapidresponse/080504_truth.html
(talks about mccain, should read)

http://boards.historychannel.com/threadedout.jsp?forum=30048&thread=300021012

On its Web site (www.swiftvets.com), the group calls itself "non-partisan." But public records show that two of its three main backers are longtime GOP contributors: Bob Perry, a Texas home builder who gave $100,000, and Harlan Crow, a Dallas real estate executive, who gave $25,000.

Like Hoffmann, none of the 13 men in the TV ad served on either of the two swift boats ¯ small, lightly armed patrol craft ¯ that Kerry commanded. Of the group's 254 members ¯ out of 3,500 swift boat sailors who served in Vietnam ¯ only one served under Kerry. The rest who did serve on Kerry's boats back his record.

Read it and weep

 

[gh0st]

So it's bad when Kerry supports the war back in 1993 or whenever, but okay when Bush follows through with it and still insists that it was a great idea?

there have been benefits to the iraq war. one of the reasons why they have an olympic team for the first time in years.

Well, obviously the evidence was wrong. And it was based mostly on testimony from some of Hussien's enemies.

hahaha wow. we ignore evidence from people that are enemies of someone else? thats rediculous. what if we had ignored britain during the early staged of world war 2?

One of the key pieces of evidence was steel tubes that Colin Powell said were for use in centrifuges for refining nuclear material for WMDs. Saddam said they were for rockets. Powell dismissed the rocket story because the tubes were anodised.

Turns out, the first step in making the centrifuges would be to scrape all the anodizing off, according to centrifuge experts. And anodized tubes make for great non-WMD rockets.

So, they assumed, using mis-interpreted evidence, that Saddam was a threat, when he wasn't.