« General Election Cattle Call, October 29: Penultimate Projection | Main | Open Thread »
Saturday, October 30, 2004
I Finally Get My First Piece of Monkey Mail!
Posted by DavidNYCAfter a year of running this site, there has been the occasional troll comment. But it's taken until now for me to finally get a piece of looney-toons e-mail:
Why don't you socialist loving peaceniks move to France. Stop spreading your lies about the Country, Bush and our Troops. Maybe you can get kerry elected in France because he probably has dual citizenship. Or, why don't you go start your own country with the support of the UN and all their mastery of global affairs. Either way when Bush is elected again why don't you, this site, all the people who frequent this site, michael moore and all his fellow mindless actors and the financial guru soros move out of our country. Good luck! Go Nader!
Definite swing voter. I think we can win him over.
Anyhow, on a more serious note, you've probably noticed the toll-free numbers I have splashed across the top of the site. The first number, 866-MYVOTE1, is a hotline where you can report all manner of voting problems, such as broken voting machines. They'll also connect you to local election officials at no additional charge, though I imagine those offices will be swamped on election day.
You can also use this number to find your polling place, or click here.
The other hotline, 1-866-OUR-VOTE is being staffed by volunteers of the Election Protection Coalition, and I was told it can handle 15,000 calls a minute. The EPC, by the way, is totally non-partisan. If you encounter any legal difficulties, such as spurious voter registration challenges, call this number immediately. MoveOn calls this "the 911 of voter hotlines," so only use this if there is a serious emergency.
Also, since many of the people who are likely to experience voting-day problems - the elderly and those in poorer communities - are less likely to use the Internet, please spread these phone numbers around by word-of-mouth. Make sure grandma and all her friends know it - and if they don't want to call some hotline, tell `em to call you so you can call the appropriate hotline for them. MoveOn has created a handy printable card (PDF), so you can print some of these up and pass them around. Good idea: Take some with you to the polls when you go to vote and just pass them out. (But be sure to observe legal guidelines governing the distribution of materials in and around polling places; usually they are posted on the wall.)
If you know of any other helpful hotlines or similar resources, please post them in the comments.
Posted at 02:03 PM in General | Technorati
Comments
Use www.MyPollingPlace.com to find out where to vote.
Posted by: polling place at October 30, 2004 02:29 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
This guy might just get his wish if Bush wins.
I for one would consider moving to another country for a while.
Posted by: baltimore at October 30, 2004 02:58 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Hey..Newsweek poll indicates that UBL's tape might be causing voters to break for Bush.
Posted by: selena at October 30, 2004 03:01 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I think that the OBL tape is going to help Kerry because it will remind people that we haven't caught one of the most evil mass murderers in history.
Posted by: David Trinh at October 30, 2004 03:19 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
But from every poll I have ever seen, voters rate Bush a stronger man than Kerry on issues of terrorism and homeland security. That's why if terrorism is dominating these final days, that cannot be a good thing for Kerry. Will it cost him the election? I have no idea, but it will not help him.
Posted by: pepe at October 30, 2004 03:30 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Baltimore-
Have a nice extended vacation in Canada.
David Trihn...you probably don't give any of the UBL (OBL) blame to Clinton...even though he had numerous opportunities to capture and/or destroy Bin Laden during his Presidency...AFTER UBL had been indicted for the first WTC attacks. Nope...it's all Bush's fault. Why not concentrate on the future...the bottom line is that Kerry hasn't been strong on terror OR defense. His records just doesn't support that he would do a better job than Bush has done. If you look at it along party lines, Reagan and both Bushes have taken a far more aggressive stance than Clinton OR Kerry (in his role as Senator and member of the Intelligence Committee).
Posted by: John at October 30, 2004 04:26 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
"Listen, retaliating for these attacks is all well and good, but we gotta get rid of these guys once and for all." Pres. Clinton to Tenet, Cohen, and Berger, August 20, 1998, after the embassy attacks in Africa. John, you ignoranant hack, do you know why the U.S. did not get "these guys" at that time??? Because the Penatagon was dragging its heels!!! They did not want to commit to such a monumental task, and stonewalled Pres. Clinton every time he tried to implement a policy to destroy Al-Qaeda. Get your facts straight, redneck!!!
Posted by: bigguy at October 30, 2004 04:57 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Even Fox News says Bush's poll numbers have gone down since the Osama tape.
Posted by: DavidNYC at October 30, 2004 05:10 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I will reiterate, I don't think the OBL tape will make any difference. Technically, Bush should be coasting to a landslide victory a la 1984. The fact that he can't hit 48% in most polls is proof that Americans don't like his "leadership" skills. Undecideds will still be undecided, because if they really were convinced of Bush's ability to handle terrorism, they would be voting for him, wouldn't they? They're just Kerry voters waiting to happen. And I still don't get why people blame Bill Clinton for 9/11. He's not the one who got a memo titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike United States".
Posted by: Dale at October 30, 2004 06:32 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
SITES LIKE REDSTATE.ORG AND BLOGSFORBUSH ARE SECRETLY CENSORING OPPOSITE POINTS OF VIEW
Thought you should know that Republican web sites are secretly censoring comments. Today, both Redstate.org and Blogsforbush.com deleted the comment below without any explanation. Redstate and Blogsforbush have been doing this to me for some time. Apparently, like Fox News, they permit some Democratic posts, but sift out the good ones away from their bloggership community. I believe that web sites who censor good hard hitting comments like this so they can't even be debated on their sites should at least be upfront about what they are doing. BOTTOM LINE: RATHER THAN HONESTLY DEBATING THE ISSUES THESE SITES WOULD RATHER SECRETLY DUMP STRONG OPPOSING POINTS OF VIEW IN THE TRASH TO AVOID EXPOSING THEM TO THEIR BLOGGERSHIP. SUPPRESSION, RATHER THAN DEBATE OF, OPPOSING POINTS OF VIEW SEEMS TO BE A THEME WITH REPUBLICANS, WHO REQUIRE PEOPLE TO SIGN "LOYALTY OATHS" TO BUSH BEFORE ATTENDING THEIR RALLIES.
CENSORED COMMENT:
ELECTION IS HERE: TIME TO BOTTOM LINE IT
EVERYBODY KNOW���S THIS ELECTION IS A REFERENDUM ON BUSH. IF HE���S BAD, THEN IT���S TIME TO GIVE THE NEW GUY KERRY A CHANCE. IF NOT, THEN LET HIM GO FOR MORE YEARS.
KEY AREAS OF BUSH RECORD ON A SCALE OF 1 TO 10
TERRORISM ��� 2 OUT OF 10. THE BUSH RECORD: Bin Laden is yacking again trying to influence our election. Disgraceful and we should ignore him. But why is he still out there yacking??? The newspapers are saying bin Laden used sophisticated video equipment to record his latest message. Why is bin Laden if not caught, at least not desperately recording from some cave somewhere? Initially, Bush did a good job retaliating for 9/11 against the Taliban in Afghanistan by taking them out militarily, but then he took his eye off the ball. Bush moved on to invading Iraq before he finished the job of finding bin Laden. Bush even said he wasn���t concerned about bin Laden in 2002. Specifically, on March 13, 2002 according to an official White House transcript Bush said "We haven't heard much from him [bin Laden]. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is . . . . I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run.��� With all the President���s tough talk and bravado and flipping back and forth on the issue of the importance of bin Laden, he has been weak, very weak, in focusing our military resources in the relentless push that is needed to completely dismantle al Qaeda. And while Bush lags back in the offensive against terrorism, in this country, even today, 95% of shipping containers are not inspected. Cargo holds in airplanes are not inspected. Luggage on buses is not inspected. Al-Zarqawi���s terrorism in Iraq is on the rise, resulting in more and more American and Iraqi lives lost each month, and al-Zarqawi recently announced he is teaming up with al Qaeda. As a consequence, with bin Laden and al Qaeda at large, now the President admits it���s not a matter of if the next terrorist attack will occur against the US, but when. Let���s hope bin Laden is similarly blowing smoke when he says he���s gearing up for another attack that will make 9/11 pale in comparison. BOTTOM LINE: BAD JOB FOR BUSH.
IRAQ ��� 1 OUT OF 10. THE BUSH RECORD: Bush rushed us into this war against Iraq to stop Sadam Hussein from amassing weapons of mass destruction. We heard evidence of Sadam rebuilding his nuclear program, stocking chemical weapons etc. IT WAS ALL WRONG. Where does the buck stop? Bottom line, with the President. All the other post-hoc reasons given by Bush for going into Iraq are lame. Bush now says we went in to liberate Iraqi���s to build democracy. Bunk. The poor Iraqi citizens are not even safe to walk in their own streets and whole sections of their country are lawless war zones. The reason things are so bad in Iraq is all our fault -- we had no decent plan to secure the peace in that country. We also set a poor example of how a democratic country acts by scooping innocent civilians off the street to have low level military personnel subject them to bizarre torture designed to offend their religion and sexual mores. This is weird and unprecedented. If the President kept asking his military generals and administration officials about their plans, why didn���t he ask them how we are going to secure the safety of the Iraqi people after the war is over? It is well known that detailed plans for securing the peace were created by the State Department, only to sit on Rumsfeld���s desk and be chucked. The President���s other excuse for going into Iraq is that Hussein was planning on planning to obtain nuclear weapons. Weak! At the same time we were invading Iraq, North Korea had obtained nuclear weapons and was building more nuclear weapons and Iran was in the process of obtaining nuclear weapons. Also, for the record, North Korea���s citizens were far more oppressed and impoverished and in need of liberating than Iraq���s by any standard. Lot���s of people are asking, if we had to invade another country, did we choose the right one? Should we have gone into Iran or North Korea? Or nowhere! BOTTOM LINE: BAD CHOICES, BAD JOB.
THE ECONOMY: 3 [out of 10]. THE BUSH RECORD: Nice tax cut, even if it mostly benefited the rich, but no bang for the buck. If this is ���trickle down��� economics, where is the trickle? Maybe it���s trickle up economics because, for the first time since Herbert Hoover���s administration, we lost more jobs than we created. Net net over a million jobs are gone over the past four years! Even over the past several months during the so-called ���recovery���, job creation hasn���t even kept up with population growth. Now government deficits are out of control and we will be paying for them for years to come. And what about the long run? As we all know, the key to economic success in the long run in a modern economy is the quality and level of education of the labor force. How are we doing there? Bush made a big deal out of the Head Start program to educate our young ones when he took office, but with all the spending and emergency spending on the war with Iraq, he ended up underfunding it by tens of billions of dollars! And what about the rest of his education program? There���s just not much to speak of. There���s no focus on what America really needs to be competitive: top quality high school and higher education for normal students from average income families. As for programs to help Americans get by with rising health care costs and fuel costs ��� there���s not much. The drug program for seniors is very hard to understand, especially for seniors, and is really a drop in the bucket compared to Bush���s failure to make good on his promise of legalizing the importation of drugs from Canada. There is no reason not to legalize drugs imported from Canada every day over the past four years and RIGHT NOW, except that the Bush administration is beholden to the big pharma/drug companies. Drugs in Canada are the same drugs manufactured in the same factories as the drugs we take in the US. Whole communities have been forced to break the law by sponsoring bus trips to Canada to avoid their elderly and sick from becoming impoverished from the astronomical cost of drugs in the US.
SOCIAL ISSUES: 4 [out of 10]. THE BUSH RECORD: The country is completely divided down the middle on these issues. There���s not much to speak about here, as there are reasonable arguments on both sides of the aisle. It���s a shame Bush couldn���t build more unity, but you can���t blame him entirely for people being put off by his big Texas swagger. Except for stem cells that is. In the abortion debate, it���s a real live fetus lost versus no gain for anybody. With stem cell research, it���s not even a fetus versus gain for millions of sick people. Bush says he is permitting stem cell research, but according to all the stem cell doctors I���ve heard speak, he really isn���t. There are only a few old and sick cell lines that can be used. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of embryos are frozen only to be ultimately discarded because it���s against the law to use them for stem cell research. Makes you think.
BOTTOM LINE: Given Bush���s weak record, it���s time to give the new guy a chance. Kerry proved himself capable and Bush���s match during the debates. Many of the people hollering about Kerry should remember about all the similar hollering about Clinton, who turned out to do a pretty good job for America. No big wars on his watch. A great economy. Lots of terrorist attacks averted through hard work leading up to the turn of the millennium, whereas the Bush administration ignored similar signs leading up to 9/11.
Posted by: JD at October 30, 2004 08:10 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Seeing the article reminded me of a bumber sticker I saw several days ago:
"Queers, Communists and Cowards for Kerry"
Scary!
Jim
Posted by: Jim Sullivan at October 30, 2004 08:34 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'm doing election protection work and I will say we are telling people NOT to call 866-MYVOTE1 -- it's pretty worthless, just connects you to your local election offices, which will be short-staffed, crazy, and in may cases won't help you. Especially in low-income and African-American precincts, the election offices may NOT be your friends and are very slow to call something "intimidation" or "suppression."
Call 1-866-OURVOTE first. Every time. The line will help you with basic precinct questions, and will also transfer you to a lawyer. These lawyers are trained to deal with any election day problems, so it's NOT just legal advice.
Two cents.
Posted by: Flash at October 30, 2004 10:43 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
off topic, though on topic if one is referring to stupidity... *g*
Guess what: According to various European and Asian sources, Dubya's official website now seems to bar away anyone trying to watch it from outside the US/Canada!!!
If you try to access http://www.georgewbush.com/ by, say, German providers (with the exception of AOL, which, on the other hand, identifies as .com and - seems to be more important - as US-based...), you are told: "Access Denied
You don't have permission to access "http://www.georgewbush.com/" on this server."
Nice one, eh? *g*
Over here in Germany this became a nice joke just before the OBL-message got shown... and by the way, talking about that OBL-hype; just wondering: where did the GOP put the usual "I am George W Bush and I approve this message"-stuff on that video? I thought campaign ads are allowed only with this sort of line at the end...
Posted by: Bornheimer at October 31, 2004 03:33 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Hey Redneck-
Clinton was the President..."pentagon stonewalling" or not. They certainly had nothing to do with stonewalling when our CIA was offered the opportunity to get OBL from Sudan before he departed for Afghanistan...that was the CIA, not the Pentagon. Also, they didn't make Clinton change the rules of engagement, and tell the CIA that they couldn't use terrorists as informants. Last, the Pentagon advised Clinton on more than one occasion that OBL was in view of an armed drone and Clinton didn't have the nuts to pull the trigger. And what the f*** us a redneck? Must be something near and dear to you.
Posted by: JOhn at October 31, 2004 07:29 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Why don't you socialist loving peaceniks move to France. Stop spreading your lies about the Country, Bush and our Troops. Maybe you can get kerry elected in France because he probably has dual citizenship. Or, why don't you go start your own country with the support of the UN and all their mastery of global affairs. Either way when Bush is elected again why don't you, this site, all the people who frequent this site, michael moore and all his fellow mindless actors and the financial guru soros move out of our country.
What makes my blood boil about people who feel this way is that only people who agree with them are patriotic and anyone disagreeing with them you are not patriotic. This is a form of thought-control that the GOP has instilled in way too many of its followers. I'm totally against mindlessly following any one party or leader. Being labeled unpatriotic for questioning or dissenting from what our political parties and leaders do as well as what they stand for is not only disingenuous, but also highly ironic in a nation that supposedly supposedly values every person's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Most times in history its the brave souls who don't accept the status quo who are our nation's greatest patriots. The guy who DavidNYC quotes would probably accuse Thomas Jefferson as unpatriotic and recommend that he pack up his bags and move to his beloved France, too! Geesh!
Posted by: pepe at October 31, 2004 08:30 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I've been thinking today about what may happen internationally if Kerry wins (as I think he will). My thinking was motivated by two recent polls in Canada and the UK. Canada favors Kerry 80-20 and the UK favors him by even more, according to the Oxford debates last night on C-Span. These are our two strongest allies. The margin is even bigger throughout the rest of the world. The world is really nervous! They are afraid of what Bush might do! I believe that, if we can swing a win for Kerry, there will be an outpouring of goodwill and appreciation toward the American people from around the non-Muslim world. This will be a significant plus as Kerry seeks international support for solutions in Iraq. I will put us back in the position we were in after Sept. 11, when a competent administration would have taken the opportunity to form a coalition against terrorism that would have been unbeatable. It was squandered then, but Kerry will not squander it this time. We must do our part to make it happen, but if we do the rest of the world will be amenable to true advances toward World security.
Posted by: Randy C at October 31, 2004 10:13 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
That��s gonna be tough now! Todays new tracking polls are out and it��s really tied now:
Reuters/Zogby: Kerry 48 - Bush 48
ABC News/Washington Post: Kerry 48 - Bush 48
Fox News: Kerry 46 - Bush 46
American Research Group: Kerry 48 Bush 48
There��s also a new poll from Ohio, also showing a tie between both of the candidates:
Kerry 50 - Bush 50
The Osama tape seems to have no impact and I still think Kerry will win. (But it��ll be very close)
Posted by: Roland Lemberger at October 31, 2004 10:24 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Randy-
Just a thought...jealousy breeds hatred. People around the world have been growing cold towards the US for a long time (since the wall came down). I really doubt that a change in Administration will have a lasting positive effect Internationally. The bottom line is that we must win the war on terror, and a lot of countries cannot stomach that, regardless of who the President is.
Posted by: John at October 31, 2004 10:25 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
ELECTION IS HERE: TIME TO BOTTOM LINE IT
This election is a referendum on Bush. If he���s bad, then it���s time to give the new guy Kerry a chance. If not, then let Bush have four more years.
KEY AREAS OF BUSH RECORD ON A SCALE OF 1 TO 10
BUSH RECORD ON TERRORISM ��� 2 OUT OF 10:
* BIN LADEN ON THE LOOSE. Why the heck hasn���t public enemy number one been caught yet??? The reason is Bush took his eye off the ball and invaded Iraq before finishing the job of catching bin Laden. To the point, by March 13, 2002 Bush said, according to an official White House transcript "I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.��� Now the President says he wants bin Laden dead or alive. This is a huge FLIP FLOP on one of the most important issues facing our country.
* TERRORISM ON THE RISE. Never before have so many US and foreign troops and citizens died from terrorist attacks in Iraq and elsewhere. And the numbers are increasing. Bush hasn���t focused our military resources in the relentless push that is needed to completely dismantle al Qaeda. As a consequence, now the President admits it���s not a matter of if the next terrorist attack will occur against the US, but when. BOTTOM LINE: BAD JOB FOR BUSH.
BUSH RECORD ON IRAQ ��� 1 OUT OF 10.
* IRAQ WAS A MISTAKE. The reason Bush rushed us into war ��� that Iraq supposedly has weapons of mass destruction ��� was all wrong. Major major major mistake. For that kind of mistake, the buck has got to stop with the President.
* IRAQ IS A MESS THAT IS NOT BEING CLEANED UP. Iraqis can���t travel safely in their own streets. Iraqis avoid being near foreigners because of the risk of attack. Whole sections of Iraq are lawless war zones. Terrorism is increasing each month. Infrastructure is still in shambles. Why is the Iraq situation declining from bad to worse? The reason is we never had a decent plan to secure the peace in that country. Another bad mistake.
* WE TORTURED INNOCENT IRAQIS. We disgraced ourselves. Bush says we are bringing Democracy to Iraq. Then we round up innocent people without adequate proof of wrongdoing, nearly all of whom have since been released, and subject them to bizarre torture aimed at violating their deepest religious mores. Sadly, this is not surprising since Bush has said we are not following the Geneva Convention, which protects our troops and citizens from outrageous conduct such as beheadings. Instead, in doublespeak, Bush���s administration said we are following ���the principles of��� the Geneva Convention. Even more shocking, no senior administration official such as Rumsfeld has been shown the door.
* DID WE INVADE THE RIGHT COUNTRY? At the same time we were invading Iraq, North Korea already had nuclear weapons and was building more. Iran was busily obtaining nuclear weapons. Lot���s of people are asking if we invaded the right country. Was Iraq really that urgent? Should we have gone into Iran or North Korea? Or nowhere! BOTTOM LINE: BAD CHOICES, BAD JOB FOR BUSH.
BUSH RECORD ON THE ECONOMY: 3 OUT OF 10.
* THE TAX CUT FAILED. Nice tax cut for the rich but it didn���t help the rest of the country. For the first time since Herbert Hoover���s administration, we lost more jobs than we created. Net net more than a million jobs are gone over the past four years. Even over the past several months during the so-called ���recovery���, job creation hasn���t even kept up with population growth. Government deficits are out of control and we will be paying for them for years to come.
* TOO MANY AMERICANS ARE STRUGGLING. How are Americans getting by with rising health care and fuel costs? Not with much help from the government. There���s no help in the fuel area. The federal drug program is limited to seniors and is very hard to understand. This is really a drop in the bucket compared to Bush���s failure to make good on his promise to let everyone buy drugs from Canada. The President���s broken promise demonstrates that he holds the interests of big drug companies above those of the public. Drugs in Canada are the same drugs manufactured in the same factories as the drugs we take in the US. Whole communities have been forced to break the law by sponsoring bus trips to Canada to avoid their elderly and sick from becoming impoverished from the astronomical cost of drugs in the US.
BUSH ON SOCIAL ISSUES: 5 OUT OF 10.
* THE PRESIDENT HAS HELD THE LINE BUT IS DIVISIVE. Social issues are what is keeping the President afloat. The country is divided down the middle on social issues. There are reasonable arguments as well as misinformation on both sides of the aisle. It���s a shame Bush couldn���t build more unity, but you can���t blame him entirely for people being put off by his folksy swagger persona.
* OUT OF TOUCH ON STEM CELL RESEARCH. In a recent Annenberg poll in August, 64% favored and 28% disfavored use of embryos to conduct stem cell research. In the abortion debate, it���s a real live fetus lost on the one hand versus no health benefit for the mother. The stem cell debate balances a tiny embryo against health gains for millions of sick people. Bush says he is permitting stem cell research, but according to stem cell researchers, he really isn���t. There are only a few old and sick cell lines that can be used. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of embryos are frozen only to be ultimately discarded because it���s against the law to use them for stem cell research. If Bush gets elected, cures from stem cell research for millions of sick people are at least four more years away, and the US could lose the edge in this promising and potentially profitable field of research.
BOTTOM LINE: Bush���s record is weak. Time to give the new guy a chance. Kerry proved himself capable and Bush���s match during the debates. Many of the people hollering about Kerry should remember all the similar hollering about Clinton, who turned out to do a pretty good job for America. No big wars on Clinton���s watch. A great economy. At least four terrorist attacks averted by the Clinton administration through hard work leading up to the turn of the millennium, whereas the Bush administration ignored similar signs leading up to 9/11. Maybe that���s why bin Laden was so surprised that 9/11 exceeded all his expectations in running flawlessly.
Posted by: J at October 31, 2004 11:56 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
All the polls today are trending Kerry. It'll be close. Despite endorsements from Russia's Putin and implied endorsements from bin Laden and Iran, I don't think Bush can pull this one off. People are fed up witht he Bush screw-ups in the war on terror, and frankly, his lead in this area is not so great -- Kerry's ppolling in the 40's as being a better leader against terror. Remeber, Kerry investigated BCCI, helped change the focus on Iraq in '98 from containment to regime change, and voted for 16 of 19 Pentagon budgets. All this BS about his opposing the very same weapons systems that Ceheny opposed is silly. And his vote against the first Gulf War -- well, Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan agree strongly with that vote, as do I. On the other hand, Republicans chose to undermine Clinton at every turn, opposing his foreign policies and his attacks on Al Qaida, and encouraging the military to oppose being deployed abroad, and in 2002 opposing the creation of a Homeland Security department.
Kerry will put intelligence back in the White House and foreign affairs, and follow events on the ground, rather than delegate to a bunch of advisors as Bush does. Lets face it, we need the extra troops AND most importantly, the doubling of our special forces -- if you want to stay on the offense against terror, the Special Forces are the ones to do it.
Why did four Republican Senators call Bush's mismangement of Iraq "incompetent" just a month ago?
Posted by: Marc at October 31, 2004 01:10 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Marc-
Just a quick question about Kerry's plan to add 40,000 troops and double our special forces...
If we are currently in the middle of a "backdoor draft" with the stop loss program (which coincidentally, was the same policy used during the prior Gulf War), where are 40,000 plus troops going to come from?
Sounds to me like KERRRY is the one who is going to bring back the draft. He certainly isn't going top shit 40,000 troops....that's a lot of people.
Posted by: John at October 31, 2004 01:56 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Guys I guess the neo-cons have infitrated are site. John 911 happened on W's WATCH!!! I am so sick of these republicans running arounding bragging about being tough on the war on terror when their guy was president when we were hit! If gore was pres when 911 happened they would try to impeach him. 911 happened on the Republicans watch!!! Instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan BUSH the "W"orst and Most devisive president in recent history rushed into Iraq to finish unfished buissness that the neo cons like Wolfowitz and Rumy where begging for. Im so sick of this sh_t! Enough! I can't wait for Kerry to win on Tuesday so we can rid are selves of the most failed presidency in recent history. Guys lets all be honest if Kerry was from Alabama this election wouldn't be close. But it's because there are still racist people in this nation that won't except a "Yankee" / Northerner as president!!!
Posted by: godfrey at October 31, 2004 02:05 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Actually John the problems with the military are primarialy with the guard. The guard makes up 40% of the forces in Iraq and they didn't really sign up to be away from home every other year. They are having huge problems with enlistment and retention in the guard and it's a race to see if we can get enough Iraqi forces trained to get the guard out before we have to take drastic measures.
The regular army however is doing just fine recruiting. Enlistees expect to be deployed for years and are still re-enlisting at a good rate. Recruitment is also good. It's become obvious that we really need a larger active military to handle most of the real combat work and the guard can fill the logistical gaps, homeland security and disaster relief closer to home. This will take much of the burder off of these guard famalies that are often without a mother or father for 50% of the time.
Posted by: Jocko at October 31, 2004 02:22 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Yea Godfrey I know. Rebublicans were estatic that Bin Laden was on the loose. 9-11 is the best thing that ever happened to them and they couldn't be happier. That is really sad.
Remember when Clinton stopped those 11 planes from being blown up over the pacific, or when they arrested extreemists in Kansas City and New York that were planning a bombing? Republican's wouldn't have stopped that, prevention doesn't get the headlines and doesn't make a good commercial.
What the hell though, all Republicans thought before 9-11 was the we needed more missle defense. Any other threats didn't fit with their ideology. Now they have a new ideology. I hope there isn't any indications of new threats that don't fit with their new ideology.
It's a really bad thing about having a belief and being totally certian that you are right. As the world changes and you don't eventually you are going to be proven wrong, and in the nuclear age we can't take that risk.
Posted by: Jocko at October 31, 2004 02:27 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Jocko-
Members of the Guard sign know what they are getting into when they enlist. I know, because after completing my eight year tour, I did another three in the Guard. I was deployed during the bombing in Bosnia. I am also a Gulf War veteran (USMC)
As far as the war on terror...you talk about what a great job clinton did...he could have HAD bin laden before UBL went to Afghanistan. Also, when the FBI and State Department located Ramses Yousef in a UBL safehouse in Pakistan, they MISSED Khalid Shiek Mohammad at the same location!
I don't blame anyone for that snafu...this stuff happens. To suggest Bush could have stopped 9/11 is ridiculous. Hindsight is also 20/20.
Posted by: John at October 31, 2004 06:03 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
From what I recall, the CIA prevented Clinton from targeting Bin Laden. Additionally, FBI investigators on the terrorist pre-9-11 trail were told to back off by the Bush administration.
Word has it from Colin Powell that the insurgency is winning in Iraq and that Iraqi (pro-coalition troops) have been infiltrated by insurgents from the bottom to the top.
Has anyone heard of the PNAC (Project for a New American Century?) This is the foreign policy doctrine that is being followed by a group of neoconservatives in the Bush administration.
I still find it inconceivable that nothing was done to stop 9-11. I also find it inconceivable that the U.S. has not captured Bin Laden.
Posted by: Shar at October 31, 2004 06:41 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Shar-
I'm just curious...do you hold Bush to the same standard as Clinton? Bush is at fault for not getting Bin Laden, but Clinton isn't, because the CIA interfered? It was Clinton's appointee that Bush left running the CIA. So, by that measure, Bush should not be held to any higher standard...with this thinking...9/11 is George Tenet's fault.
When we have systematic failures...Clinton AND Bush...why do we assess blame so recklessly? I'm just curious. I have thrown a few issues out just to gauge the response. I honestly can't comprehend the different standard.
Posted by: John at October 31, 2004 06:56 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
godfrey, you are so right about your analyses.
It is difficult to imagine why an Andover cheerleader from a Yankee state and a powerful Yankee family whose Dad helped him into the National Guard (transplanted Texan) and a Wyoming native with five draft deferments and an openly lesbian daughter garner so much support from the old conservative south.
These are the realities of the candidates and I don't mean to sound like a bigot, or anything like that. It's just amazing what the candidates' PR machines can accomplish.
It would be interesting to see the state of this race if Kerry was a war decorated, combat tested veteran from Georgia or S. Carolina, or even Ohio, for that matter.
Posted by: Shar at October 31, 2004 07:06 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I hold Bush to the standard that he could have prevented 9-11. And because 9-11 wasn't prevented, he should have focused all of his resources on capturing Bin Laden, but he did not.
There is too much secrecy in this administration.
Posted by: Shar at October 31, 2004 07:13 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Shar-
Nice dodge. That's what I thought. You can't articulate the double standard.
John.
Posted by: John at October 31, 2004 07:14 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I remember Clinton was vigirously going ofter Bin Laden and wanted to do more. Unfortunatly he didn't have the support in congress that was needed. I well remember "No war for Monica" when Clinton was going after Bin Laden. I've seen the documents from the transision when the Clinton administration warned Bush that the largest threat to the country was stateless terrorism. I've also heard Rice admit that he policy speach on 9-11 was about how balistic missles from rogue states was the largest threat to the US. I remember Bush during the debates with Gore saying nation building wasn't in out interest and leaving failed states around the world was. I also remember him saying that we were too involved in the peace process in the middle east and releation with Isreal and Palestine didn't have much to do with us. Bush was wrong, Gore and Clinto were right and it was proven in a BIG way on 9-11.
I know this is Monday morning quaterbacking. And it's time to pick our starting quaterback.
Posted by: Jocko at October 31, 2004 08:04 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The Bush policy on fighting terror is so terribly wrong-headed you have to wonder if this administration is dumb. Now, most of us would suspect that to be true of Bush (by presidential standards, at least), but no one would claim that Cheney and his gang are dumb. The conclusion has to be that they had different objectives. They have planned to take out Saddam since 1995, when Pearl, or was it Wolfowitz, first wrote the white paper on how to do it. 9/11 gave them the opportunity and they took it. It wasn't about terrorism. But, it is now. The Republicans have created such a God-awful mess that we now are stuck in Iraq. We have to see it through or it will be a hotbed of terrorists for years to come. Bush's doctrine of preemptive strike based on no evidence, or false evidence, of a real threat cannot be tolerated! It has been a total failure! The Republican's are trying to use the fight on terror as an excuse to spend billions on star wars type projects. That's not what is needed. We need special forces and surgical strikes. Following the Bush doctrine will take us to war with Iran next, most likely leaving Iraq as a terrorist haven. Then comes Syria, then North Korea?, where does it stop? Bush's way to fight terrorism is obviously wrong. It's amazing that Republicans don't see it! They don't because they are so hung up on the past that their judgement is severely clouded. They are still trying to fight Viet Nam. They didn't like it that Daddy Bush left Saddam. The current war in Iraq was their attempt to "finish the job". They decieved us and the consequences have been intolerable. These guys cannot be trusted with the leadership of our country! We have to be smarter about the fight against terrorism. The Republican way cannot work! Kerry, at least, has the right ideas. Close cooperation with other governments, special forces, good human intelligence, and a strong defense are the ways to go.
I can't wait to win this election and for a Kerry administration to move forward with an intelligent war on terrorism. Won't it be nice to say "Kerry on John"?
Posted by: Randy C at October 31, 2004 08:04 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Randy
The Dems had the same intelligence that Bush had, and they voted for war. They have no one to blame but themselves. We got into this thing together...but now, out of political convenience, all the Dems have distanced themselves. You can split hairs all you want...the bottom line is that the Dems authorized this war. If they didn't agree with it, they should have voted against it.
On another point. If Bush wins fair and square, then what? Do you get pissed off and go to Canada. To you start a revolution? How about getting behind the President this time, and working through your senator and congressman to change the things you don't like...or hold them accountable for voting for something they don't believe in...there should be a whole slew of Dem senators that were voted out by their own constituents this time around...just based on what I read here...
Posted by: John at October 31, 2004 08:24 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
"How about getting behind the President this time, and working through your senator and congressman to change the things you don't like"
I don't like the war in Iraq, the deficit, attempts to monkey with the constitution, lack of national healthcare, the increasing poverty rate, parts of the patriot act, religion in government, current invornmental policy, cancellation of commanche helicopter and crusader artillery piece, support for dictatorships like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, failure to deal with currency problems with China, and a whole slew of other things.
And I'm supposed to get behind Bush? Sorry, no way am I going to HELP flush the country down the toilet.
BTW, my congressman represents me 100%. Unfortunatly, nothing he has proposes has ever come up for debate or a vote. Odd.....Oh wait, congress only debates republican proposals, yea....democracy.
Posted by: Jocko at October 31, 2004 08:50 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Jocko-
Maybe your representative would have better luck if he didn't block EVERY judicial nomination. This is exactly what I am talking about. Everything is D or R. What ever happened to working together? It IS possible...maybe if the two sides would meet in the middle again.
Also...half of the items you like, the majority of Americans don't like, and half of the things you don't like, the majority of Americans DO like. That's actually America's strength...just because you don't like every policy, doesn't mean that we have to scrap an entire Administration.
It sounds to me like you only want it YOUR WAY.
Posted by: JOhn at October 31, 2004 09:37 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Should Bush and Cheney win, I am seriously thinking of moving to Canada. I am of the belief that this country is so corrupt that it is beyond repair. What good is the best health care system in the world if only Saudi princes can use it?
Posted by: Shar at October 31, 2004 10:28 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Anyone else think John will still be posting here if Kerry wins? John thy name is troll.
Posted by: Brett at October 31, 2004 11:13 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
"half of the items you like, the majority of Americans don't like, and half of the things you don't like, the majority of Americans DO like."
The war in Iraq -- .1% of people like this war, CEO's of companies that are making bank. Everyone else wants to win and knows it's way screwed up.
The deficit -- A small portion of people favor the deficit because they believe that it will make it impossible to pay social security benifits. They are staunch conservatives that want to go back to a pre-new deal economy. Almost everyone else wants rid of the deficit.
Attempts to monkey with the constitution -- In almost every poll an ovewhelming majority of the people like the constitution the way it is. While strong majorities are against gay marriage strong majorities are also against adding something about weddings in the constitution.
Lack of national healthcare -- Near 100% of citizens believe that access to healthcare shouldn't be determined by your income, or your employer. They think everyone should be taken care of.
Increasing poverty rate -- Again, only a small miniority of people, mostly CEO's want an increasing poverty rate. They like the cheap labor it produces. Almost everyone else wants a decreasing poverty rate.
Parts of the patriot act -- Overwhelming majorities of the people think that they should be able to check out any book they want at the library without being subject to an investigation, they also believe that their e-mail should not be able to be read without a warrent.
Religion in government -- Majorities of the population support the seperation of church and state. Those few who don't are interested in the government pushing their religion. Fact, Bushes faith based initative has spent 100% of money on christian faith based programs, 0% muslim, 0% jewish, 0% pagan, 0% budist, 0% hindu.
Current invornmental policy -- Most people opposed the withdrawl from the Koyoto accords, except again CEO's of companies that released large amounts of greenhouse gasses. Also most people oppose loosing arsnic restriction in drinking water and opening public lands to more logging.
Cancellation of commanche helicopter and crusader artillery piece -- Most people polled are interested in increasing the size of the military and aquiring more modern equipment.
Support for dictatorships like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan -- Most people are not in favor of US support of these countries, especially Saudi Arabia which has paid lip service to fighting terrorism while allowing money from it's citizens to fund insurgency in Iraq and terrorism it the world.
Failure to deal with currency problems with China -- Nobody who underands the issue agrees with Chinas currency manipulation other than CEO's who have already moved most of their workforce to China.
Well, I didn't see on thing on my list that the majorty of Americans didn't agree with me.
Posted by: Jocko at November 1, 2004 12:08 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Brett you win the smartest poster of the day award. John=troll. Despite being punked, beat down, and having his arguments exposed time and time again, he just dodges and weaves and comes up with another one. When Chimpy McFlightsuit loses he'll either be gone or trolling some more with the crybaby schtick.
Posted by: Kerrywillwin at November 1, 2004 12:33 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
So far I have been called a redneck, neocon and troll (did I miss any)?
It really doesn't hurt my feelings...because I am the one in the trenches winning the war on terror...regardless (and sometimes in spite of) the politicians...this is my profession.
However, Jocko, even with your suspect percentages and numbers (which are obviously created on the spot), I agree with some of your points. What I said was that a majority of the country will disagree with HALF the things you want to see happen, and a majority will disagree with HALF of the things you don't want to see happen. It's the nature of the beast....half the time you can't have it your way....now go back and reread my post and maybe you will understand what I was saying...YES, I agree with HALF of what you say. For instance, the deficit...big one. This is gonna hurt Bush. But you can't have it your way every time...a majority of people are going to disagree with you.
Posted by: John at November 1, 2004 08:17 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
kerrywillwin-
what are you talking about...personal attacks and babble...whatever.
Posted by: John at November 1, 2004 08:18 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
John,
I'm certainly not going to call you a redneck as it's silly, kinda bigoted and (maybe there were clues somewhere but) I have no idea of your region of origin in any case. I honestly can't tell if you are a neocon (and that's not a slur just a political orientation so no reason to be hurt anyway) or just very zealous about your vision of what the 'war on terrorism' implies. I don't know why the word 'troll' would hurt you anyway, since you are one. You are engaging a partisan site and trying to get a rise out of people (that's just the case so why would you be hurt)...
You want to fight a War on Terrorism. I've got a rather pacific nature and hate war, myself, but also live in the real world. Terrorism is a threat and we have to combat that. So, how do you justify invading Iraq? Clearly there were better targets...Saddam was just a petty despot. A horrible man no doubt, a man whose demise would not force any liberal to shed one tear, but the greatest menace to society he was not. There's no other way around it. If you have proof that there was significant terrorist activity within its borders (more than, say, the sudan, syria, iran, pakistan, saudi arabia and many others), please show us your proof.
Could Bush have prevented 9/11? Who really knows? It might have been nice if when he received a report entitled "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN U.S.," he might have thought about getting off vacation. If Bush is so determined to defeat terrorism, why is he on the verge of setting records for vacation time? Do company bosses give important projects to people who set records for sick days? Well, sometimes, but anyway...
Don't really suspect my pointless wandering will convince any trolls, nor would I expect our troll will convince those who are already committed to put Kerry in the highest office. Just felt like getting this off my chest. Why someone as lightweight as George W. Bush isn't getting laughed out of office boggles my mind sometimes...
Posted by: thurst at November 1, 2004 01:29 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Thurst-
I can assure you that I am not a redneck, have no idea what a "troll" is, and would not identify myself as a neocon (regardless of the definition). To label myself would limit my viewpoints, which might actually surprise you.
You mention I "want" to fight a war on Terrorism...I think you may have misunderstood one of my postings...I DO fight the war on terrorism...it is my profession.
As far as invading Iraq goes, I am somewhat nuetral. Were there better targets? I really don't know. I believe we are capable of fighting two wars simultaneously, and am not 100 percent sure that Iraq was the best decision. However, Saddam was involved with al qaeda (even if there is no proof he was directly involved with 9/11...which is debatable since his top intel guy met with Mohammad Atta months before the attacks). That makes him kind of bad. He tried to assassinate Bush41...that makes him kind of bad. Aside from that...all International intelligence sources indicated that he had WMD and that he planned to use it. The Ds and Rs all agreed on this, and now they are trying to rewrite history (a la George Orwell). They authorized the war with the same intelligence that Bush used to support it. We were wrong (maybe). The jury is still out on that, too.
As far as vacation time...do you hold Kerry to the same standard that you hold Bush? Kerry has an abominable records on missed votes. That cuts both ways. Edwards voting record it pretty bad, too. They have missed more than they've made. Neither has written any meaningful legislation. I haven't seen anything from Kerry that moves me his direction (and I HAVE voted for Ds in the past).
It seems like there are more anti-Bush voters out there these days, than pro-Kerry voters. Scary. 36 percent of Democrats were going to vote for Adolph Hitler if he won the Democratic Primary. I know...that's a little extreme...and you will probably blow that one statement out of proportion from the rest of what I wrote. But, that is how many people knew they would vote Democrat before the Challenger was even decided on. That's kind of scary, too.
Posted by: John at November 1, 2004 01:45 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment