Last Night's Kerry Eggos..

[Big Train]

http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=4775

ONE: Claimed “I’ll Never Give A Veto To Any Country Over Our Security.”_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)



ü_____ Preemption Must Pass “Global Test” First._ “No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you’re doing what you’re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.”_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)



ü_____ Kerry Would Wait On French And Russians To Defend America._ SEN. JOHN KERRY: “I would have done what was necessary to know that you had exhausted the available remedies with the French and the Russians.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 10/20/03)



TWO: Claimed “Reason For Going To War Was Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Not The Removal Of Saddam Hussein.” _ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)



ü_____ Kerry Said “Greatest Threat” Was Saddam’s “Miscalculation,” Not “Actual” WMDs._ KERRY: “I would disagree with John McCain that it’s the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it’s what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that – that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat.”_ (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 9/15/02)



THREE: Claimed “This President Has Made, I Regret To Say, A Colossal Error Of Judgment. And Judgment Is What We Look For In The President Of The United States Of America.”_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)



ü_____ Kerry Questioned Judgment Of Those Claiming Saddam’s Capture Didn’t Help U.S. Security._ “Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture don’t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president.”_ (CNN’s “Capital Gang,” 12/20/03; Anne Q. Hoy, “Dean Faces More Criticism,” [New York] Newsday, 12/17/03)



FOUR: Complained “We Are 90 Percent Of The Casualties And 90 Percent Of The Cost: $200 Billion – $200 Billion That Could Have Been Used For Health Care, For Schools, For Construction, For Prescription Drugs For Seniors, And It’s In Iraq.”_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)



ü_____ Kerry Pledged To Fund Reconstruction With “Whatever Number” Of Dollars It Took._ NBC’S TIM RUSSERT: “Do you believe that we should reduce funding that we are now providing for the operation in Iraq?”_ SEN. JOHN KERRY: “No. I think we should increase it.”_ RUSSERT: “Increase funding?”_ KERRY: “Yes.”_ RUSSERT: “By how much?”_ KERRY: “By whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win. It is critical that the United States of America be successful in Iraq, Tim.”_ (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/31/03)



FIVE: Claimed “You Don’t Send Troops To War Without The Body Armor That They Need.”_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)



ü_____ Kerry Said It Would Be Reckless And “Irresponsible” To Vote Against Funding For Troops._ LOS ANGELES TIMES’ DOYLE McMANUS: “If that amendment does not pass, will you then vote against the $87 billion?”_ KERRY: “I don’t think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That’s irresponsible. What is responsible is for the administration to do this properly now. And I am laying out the way in which the administration could unite the American people, could bring other countries to the table, and I think could give the American people a sense that they’re on the right track. There’s a way to do this properly. But I don’t think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We’re not going to cut and run and not do the job.”_ (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 9/14/03)



ü_____ Kerry Voted Against Senate Passage Of Iraq/Afghanistan Reconstruction Package That Included “Money For Body Armor For Soldiers.”_ (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted Nay; “Highlights Of Iraq, Afghanistan Measures,” The Associated Press, 10/17/03)



ü_____ ‘“I Actually Did Vote For The $87 Billion Before I Voted Against It,’ [Kerry] Said.”(Glen Johnson, “Kerry Blasts Bush On Protecting Troops,” The Boston Globe, 3/17/04)



SIX: Said Americans In Iraq Not Dying For “Mistake.”_ PBS’ JIM LEHRER: “Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?”_ KERRY: “No, and they don’t have to, providing we have the leadership that we put – that I’m offering.”_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)



ü_____ Earlier In Debate, Kerry Called Iraq War “Mistake.”_ “We can’t leave a failed Iraq. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a mistake of judgment to go there and take the focus off of Osama bin Laden. It was.”_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)



ü_____ “But The President Made A Mistake In Invading Iraq.”_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)



SEVEN: Said Knowing What He Knows Now, “Would Not” Have Authorized Use Of Force._ “What I think troubles a lot of people in our country is that the president has just sort of described one kind of mistake. But what he has said is that, even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, even knowing there was no imminent threat, even knowing there was no connection with al Qaeda, he would still have done everything the same way. Those are his words._ Now, I would not.”_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)



ü_____ Said Knowing What He Knows Now, “Would Have Voted For The Authority.”_ SEN. JOHN KERRY: “Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it’s the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively. I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has.”_(CNN’s “Inside Politics,” 8/9/04)



EIGHT: Claimed “The President Says That I’m Denigrating These Troops. I Have Nothing But Respect For The British, Tony Blair, And For What They’ve Been Willing To Do.” _ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)



ü_____ Kerry Dismissed Coalition Partners As “Window Dressing” And Claimed They’re Not Sharing Burden Of War And Reconstruction._ CNN’S BILL HEMMER: “The White House would say that dozens of countries are helping now in the effort on the ground in Iraq and they are engaged with the U.N., as well, how would more international involvement prevent the violence we’re seeing today?”_ SEN. JOHN KERRY: “Well, the fact is that those countries are really window dressing to the greatest degree. And they weren’t there in the beginning when we went in, and they’re not carrying the cost of this war.”_ (CNN’s “American Morning,” 3/2/04)



NINE: Claimed “I’ve Had One Position, One Consistent Position, That Saddam Hussein Was A Threat.”_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)



ü_____ Kerry Said, “We Now Know That Iraq Had No Weapons Of Mass Destruction, And Posed No Imminent Threat To Our Security.”_ (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At New York University, New York, NY, 9/20/04)



TEN: Claimed “My Position Has Been Consistent: Saddam Hussein Is A Threat. He Needed To Be Disarmed.”_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)


“Saying There Are Weapons Of Mass Destruction In Iraq Doesn’t Make It So.”_ (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks To Democrat National Convention, Boston, MA, 7/29/04)



ü_____ “I Have Always Said We May Yet Even Find Weapons Of Mass Destruction.”_ (Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday,” 12/14/03)

[Warham]

I still don't know how somebody could see any consistency in that guy.

He goes with the polls.

[Big Train]

The guy is pretty damning of himself. I'm surprised that there haven't been more liberal comments on this...

Are we all just making these statements up, or are you just comfortable with statements that have no real meaning?

[BigBadBrian]

FORD, sticky this. :gulp:

[Big Train]

Elvis, Sticky this....

[John Ashcroft]

This is my point with Kerry. So, the left is all excited because he "won" the debate.

All I can say is he peddled his lies eloquently last night. Does that mean he won an honest debate?

I think the transcripts of the encounter will expose the debate for exactly what it was.

[ELVIS]

Okeedokee...


:elvis:

[BigBadBrian]

Bump

[Mezro]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
This is my point with Kerry. So, the left is all excited because he "won" the debate.

All I can say is he peddled his lies eloquently last night. Does that mean he won an honest debate?

I think the transcripts of the encounter will expose the debate for exactly what it was.

I want to see an all out, no-holds-barred debate. The people would really get to know these guys then.

Mezro...forget the moderators; let them hit each other with refrigerators...

[ELVIS]

I've tried to sticky this thread, it's not working...

[Big Train]

Keep trying...try deselecting the Ford Commie button..ha ha...

[Big Train]

Bump...

I will keep bumping until it becomes a sticky..

[McCarrens]

Bump...

[FORD]

There's absolutely no reason to sticky this. Those who have seen it and wished to respond to it have done so, and had no problems finding it. BTW, most of that shit is entirely out of context anyway, but I don't have the time to debug it right now.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Mezro
I want to see an all out, no-holds-barred debate. The people would really get to know these guys then.

Mezro...forget the moderators; let them hit each other with refrigerators...

I want to see a real debate as well. Fuck the "bipartisan" corporatist commission and get the League of Women Voters back into the mix.

[Big Train]

There is every reason to sticky this. As time passes, those statements change. It's good to keep a record of it. BBB, JA, Elvis, anyone else agree?

[Mezro]

Originally posted by FORD
I want to see a real debate as well. Fuck the "bipartisan" corporatist commission and get the League of Women Voters back into the mix.

Instead of the League of Women Voters all we get is the League of Extremely Well Connected Gentleman.

Mezro...another example of the "business" of business as usual...

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by FORD
There's absolutely no reason to sticky this.

Meanwhile, the "Fahrenheit 2004" thread has been stickied for weeks with absolutely nobody giving a damn. Look at the number of posts. Just an indicator of FORD's bias. :rolleyes:

[FORD]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Meanwhile, the "Fahrenheit 2004" thread has been stickied for weeks with absolutely nobody giving a damn. Look at the number of posts. Just an indicator of FORD's bias. :rolleyes:

That one was stickied because the "This Land" animation was spawning at least one redundant thread a day for about two weeks in a row, so call it a "pre-emptive measure" - no bias intended or applied, just as the cartoon itself was unbiased.

You do have a point with those stickies getting kinda old though, so I'll anchor them both. But that still doesn't mean that a list of talking points literally taken from GOP.com are going to replace them.

[McCarrens]

Unless those points spark discussion and a have point, right? Or do you mean, "they won't be stickied because you are a biased moderator who will never admit that Bush and his team are doinga good job running this country"?

[Big Train]

cough..coughcorrectcoughhhhhh ahhhhhhhhhhhhcoughhhhhh

[FORD]

Originally posted by McCarrens
Unless those points spark discussion and a have point, right? Or do you mean, "they won't be stickied because you are a biased moderator who will never admit that Bush and his team are doinga good job running this country"?

1) If the points spark discussion, then the thread will stay alive on it's own.

2) I freely admit my bias. As does Elvis admit his. Doc is the one who claims to be unaffiliated, plus he's not here much anyway. Regardless of which, it has been our policy not to sticky blatantly partisan threads. I won't be stickying anything straight off of the Democratic Party website here either.

3) Bush Jr and his team have done a great job of RUINING this country.

[Big Train]

coughcoughincorrect...coughcoughhhhhhh coughhhhhhhh....

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD
3) Bush Jr and his team have done a great job of RUINING this country.


You spelled running incorrectly...:)

[McCarrens]

Give me one way they have ruined this country...because I sure as hell can't think of a damned one.

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by FORD
There's absolutely no reason to sticky this. Those who have seen it and wished to respond to it have done so, and had no problems finding it. BTW, most of that shit is entirely out of context anyway, but I don't have the time to debug it right now.

Did I read this correctly, or did Ford prevent this from being stickied??? I mean, Elvis reported problems with a simple sticky, now Ford's saying there's no reason to sticky this, after Elvis tried unsuccessfully... Conspiracy anyone? :D

[Big Train]

Yea JA, the fucking BCE are EVERYWHERE!!! All of this, preventing all conservative threads from being stickied.

I wonder if I was to offer tit for tat, a liberal stickied thread, if that button would suddenly "fix" itself....

[FORD]

Originally posted by McCarrens
Give me one way they have ruined this country...because I sure as hell can't think of a damned one.

The Bush Record: Homeland Insecurity

Despite a lot of rhetoric, Bush has failed to provide adequate homeland security. After initially opposing the creation of a Homeland Security department, Bush has inadequately funded the department as well as starving state and local security efforts, including police, fire and health first-responders. Federal funding of local anti-terror efforts has been restricted. And security surrounding chemical plants, airports, airlines, ports, borders and other terror-sensitive points still is lacking.
Bush Opposed the Creation of a Homeland Security Department

In Spite of 9-11, Bush was Slow to See the Need for a Department of Homeland Security. Bush opposed the creation of a cabinet agency for homeland security until Congress passed legislation creating it in November 2002, thus delaying its launch until February 2003. Former press secretary Ari Fleischer said Bush told Congress "there does not need to be a Cabinet-level Office of Homeland Security," and Tom Ridge, then director of the non-agency White House Office of Homeland Security, said "I'd probably recommend that he veto" any bill creating a new agency. [White House Press Briefing, 10/24/01; National Journal, 6/5/02; George W. Bush, 11/19/02]
Security Focus Wanes, Government Inspires Complacency

GOP-Led Terrorism Panel Warned of Extensive Problems in Bush's Homeland Security Focus. The Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, which assessed America's domestic terrorism preparedness, reported "serious concern about the current state of homeland security efforts" in its report issued in December 2003. The commission, chaired by former Republican Party head and VA Governor James Gilmore, found that momentum for security had "waned," and blamed the government for causing complacency. It also found "fragmentation" of efforts and "that scarce resources may not be prioritized and applied most effectively." [Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, Forging America's New Normalcy, 12/15/03]
Bush Cuts State and Local Funding to Deal With Terror Threats

Bush Cuts Funding for State and Local Homeland Security Grants by $800 Million. Bush cut funding to the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Domestic Preparedness, which supplies a variety of first-responder grants to state and local governments, by $800 million, to $3.6 billion in 2005 from $4.4 billion in 2004. [Department of Homeland Security, 2005 Budget in Brief, www.dhs.gov; Congressional Quarterly, www.CQ.com]
Bush Gives Short Shrift to First-Responders

Bush Cuts Resources for Firefighters. Bush cut FIRE Act grants for equipment and personnel to local fire departments by $246 million in his 2005 budget. According to the International Association of Firefighters, "The FIRE Act grant program has received $5 billion worth of requests," and "has awarded grants totaling just 10% of that need." Kevin O'Connor of the International Association of Firefighters said, "This [2005] budget is profoundly disappointing to first responders ... It's a continuation of the president's lack of commitment to first responders in general and firefighters in particular." [Department of Homeland Security, 2005 Budget in Brief, www.dhs.gov; Intl. Assoc. of Firefighters, www.iaff.org; United Press International, 2/2/04; www.cfr.org]

Bush Cut State and Local First Responder Training by Nearly Half.Bush cut state and local grant funding for first responder training, exercise, and technical assistance by nearly half, from $320 million in 2004 to $178 million in 2005. According to the House Democrats on the Homeland Security Committee, analysts estimate that funding for "critical needs" of emergency responders will fall $98.4 billion short over the next five years. [Budget of the United States, www.omb.gov; Democratic Members of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, America at Risk, 1/04]

Police Chiefs: Police Funding "Unacceptable." The International Association of Chiefs of Police said in February 2004: "Targeting law enforcement assistance programs for reductions of this magnitude [in the Bush 2005 budget] has the potential to significantly weaken the ability of state and local law enforcement agencies to protect our communities from both traditional acts of crime and the new specter of terrorism. This is unacceptable." [IACP, www.theiacp.org]
Local Governments Complain About Homeland Security Shortfalls

Mayors Gripe That Cities "Lost Ground" in Many Homeland Security Funding Categories. The US Conference of Mayors survey on homeland security funding reported that "for some programs, we have actually lost ground" since the first survey in August 2003. The mayors reported an increase in cities that are not expecting Urban Area Security funding, are dissatisfied with the state planning process, have not been reimbursed for increase homeland security enforcement costs, are not receiving Port Security Grant money and are not getting Mass Transit Security Grant Program funds. [US Conference of Mayors convention, Homeland Security Panel, 1/22/04]

Mayors Complain That First-Responder and Domestic Preparedness Funding to Cities Falls "Far Short." The U.S. Conference of Mayors survey on homeland security funding reported that while federal funding to cities for federal first responder/critical infrastructure and state domestic preparedness programs had improved somewhat, they "continue to fall far short of meeting this nation's goal of homeland security for our cities," and are "still far short of an acceptable level." Seventy six percent of cities reported that they had not yet received first-responder/critical infrastructure funding. [US Conference of Mayors convention, Homeland Security Panel, 1/22/04]
Bush Leaves Chemical Plants, Air Traffic, Ports, Other Sensitive Targets Under-Protected

Federal Auditors: Security Oversight of Chemical Facilities Lacking. A Government Accounting Office report released in March 2003 noted that even though U.S. chemical facilities were "attractive targets for terrorists," the ability of any facility to respond to an attack was "unknown." GAO found that the chemical industry was not required by law to assess vulnerabilities or take action to secure its facilities, and that "the federal government has not comprehensively assessed the chemical industry's vulnerabilities to terrorist attacks." A chemical plant attack, according to the GAO, could endanger more than 1 million Americans; the Justice Department has called the terrorist threat to chemical plants "real and credible." The GAO also found that the administration backed down from new regulations due to "concernsÂ…[of a] significant litigation risk" from the chemical industry. [GAO, Voluntary Initiatives Are Under Way at Chemical Facilities, but the Extent of Security Preparedness Is Unknown, March 2003; Democratic Members of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, America at Risk, 1/04]

Federal Airport Screener Force Cut by Thousands and Counting. The initial federal air security screening force of more than 55,000 has been cut by thousands after being attacked by the GOP. Rep. Harold Rogers, chairman of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on the Appropriations Committee, said the Transportation Security Administration "threw money at the employee and screening deadlines in a shotgun fashion and over-hired." TSA reports that its force will number only 48,000 screeners by the end of 2004, and the GOP-controlled House Appropriations Committee has required TSA to cut the force even more, to 45,000 screeners. [HR 2555, 2003; Transportation Security Admin., www.tsa.gov; Associated Press, 4/30/03; Washington Post, 5/1/03]

TSA's Air Cargo Plan Leaves Major Gaps in Security. TSA's air cargo inspection program only provides for limited random inspections performed by shippers and freight forwarders. The next level in TSA's plan, screening 100 percent of "high-risk" cargo, will not be implemented until 2005, and may be of questionable value because TSA "has no experience classifying cargo by risk," and does not even possess a "fully developed database" on authorized cargo shippers. [Democratic Members of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, America at Risk, 1/04]

TSA Tried to Cut Air Marshals' Flights to Save on Hotel Fees Just One Day Before DHS Issued New Hijacking Alert. Just one day before the Homeland Security Department issued a warning about airline hijackings, air marshals in the Washington, DC, area had been told to cancel long flights with hotel stays due to "monetary considerations." [Washington Post, 7/31/03]

Bush Proposed Massive Cuts in Port Security Grant Funding. Bush's 2005 budget calls for $50 million for port security grants, down from $200 million in his 2004 budget. Seven million cargo containers arrive in US ports each year, but as few as 2 percent of those are screened. The CIA reported, "The United States is more likely to be attacked with a weapon of mass destruction smuggled into the country aboard a ship than one delivered by a ballistic missile." And a 2003 Pentagon simulation found that even a "minor" attack on a US port could shut down all the ports for a month. [Budget of the United States, www.omb.gov; Journal of Commerce, 3/24/03; Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 7/10/03; Portland Press Herald, 7/5/03; Boston Globe, 6/21/03]

Bush's Container Security Program Has Serious Gaps, is "Inherently Dangerous." Bush's Container Security Initiative uses ships' manifest data, which the GAO called "one of the least reliable or useful for targeting purposes," to evaluate risk. Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Stephen Flynn called the program "inherently dangerous." The president of the American Association of Port Authorities, Kurt Nagle, said: "It's disheartening that port facilities have been neglected as a key player. Port authorities and facility operators are expected to comply with the new security regulations, at a cost of billions of dollars. Federal help is simply imperative in order to make that expectation reality." [Sunday Telegram, 3/30/03; House HS Committee Democrats, America at Risk, 1/04; Congressional Quarterly, 2/9/04]
Bush is Letting Border Security Slide

Less Than 10 Percent of the Nation's Border Agents Secure the Northern Border. Only 1,000 border agents patrol the United State's border with Canada, compared to 9,500 that patrol the nation's southern border. While the US-Mexico border is 2,000 miles long, the US-Canada border is 5,000 miles, meaning that only one agent patrols for every 5 miles of border. The Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, Canada's domestic anti-terrorism agency, has acknowledged that Al Qaeda maintains cells and personnel in Canada, which possess "the capability and conviction to provide support for terrorist activities in North America." [Deseret Morning News, 7/20/03; Washington Post, 12/25/02]
Bush's Bioterror Security Response Fragmented and Neglected

Bush Allowed Smallpox Vaccination Program to Wither Away. Bush's plan for vaccinating first responders for smallpox evaportated after it failed to garner the expected number of volunteers and was criticized for not taking into account possible health problems and workers' concerns. The program was supposed to encompass up to 10 million first responders but was said by a CDC official in October 2003 to have "ceased," with only 38,549 vaccinated. An official of the AFL-CIO, Robert McGarrah Jr., blamed the missed target on, "the administration [refusal] to listen to the concerns of patients, doctors, nurses and other health care workers." During a Senate hearing on January 29, 2003, health care professionals expressed "serious doubts" about Bush's smallpox vaccination plan. In particular, the chief of pediatrics at the largest children's hospital in the nation, said his hospital would not participate because "The virus might spread from the arm of a health care worker to a hospitalized child." [New York Times, 1/30/03, 3/7/03; Washington Post, 2/24/03; Associated Press, 4/2/03; USA Today, 10/16/03]

Bush Proposed Separating Vaccine Stockpile From Homeland Security Department. Bush's 2005 budget proposed transferring the Strategic National Stockpile, the reserves of vaccines for possible bioterror incidents, from DHS to the Department of Health and Human Services, splintering it from the coordinated anti-terror response efforts of Homeland Security. [Department of Homeland Security, 2005 Budget in Brief, www.dhs.gov]
Intelligence Sharing Still Not a Reality

Homeland Security Intelligence Still Not Shared With Federal and State Officials. A Government Accounting Office survey found that only 13 percent of federal officials and 35 percent of state officials believed that the level of intelligence sharing between federal, state, and local officials was adequate and effective. [Select Committee on Homeland Security Democrats, 1/04]

Bush's Actions Have Hindered US Intelligence Integration. DHS reported that focus and funding to integrate intelligence agencies through the DHS has largely been redirected to the FBI and the CIA. The report explained, "Since the establishment of DHS, two even newer entities, the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, run by the CIA, and the Terrorist Screening Center, run by the . . . FBI, have been created that have . . . responsibilities that overlap with, duplicate, or even trump those of" DHS. [Congressional Quarterly, 2/20/04]

Even the Heritage Foundation and Republican Senators Criticize Bush's Intelligence-Sharing Efforts. The conservative Heritage Foundation said: "It is deeply troubling that the [Department of Homeland Security], as the primary consumer of intelligence for providing domestic security, does not have primary control over the mechanisms for fusing and disbursing informationÂ…[DHS has become] little more than just another intelligence end user, competing with other members of the national security community to ensure that its priority requirements are met." And the Republican-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee said: "Post-September 11 reforms were intended to consolidate and unify intelligence-gathering, analysis and enforcement. Instead, we now have more agencies and organizations in the counter-terrorism game than ever before." [Congressional Quarterly, 12/16/03, 3/04/04]

Years After 9/11 Attacks There is Still No Unified Terrorist Watch List. Months of bureaucratic infighting have delayed the integration of various terrorist watch lists to the extent that two years after the 2001 terrorist attacks, no one agency maintains a comprehensive list or database. In addition, the ranking member on the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Turner noted in March 2004, "[Recently,] a senior DHS official suggested that a consolidated watch list would not be necessary." [Congressional Quarterly, 03/02/04]

[FORD]

Originally posted by McCarrens
Give me one way they have ruined this country...because I sure as hell can't think of a damned one.

Bush Budget Sells Veterans Short

President Bush's 2005 budget will renew an attempt he made last year to impose new fees and increase health care costs on middle-income veterans. Veterans' organizations rallied to overturn the proposals and are expected to do the same again this year. Bush will also cut VA research spending.
"The president ignored veterans in the State of the Union Address and with today's release of his 2005 budget, it is further evident that veterans are no longer a priority with this administration."
-VFW Commander-in-Chief Edward S. Banas [VFW Release, 2/2/04]
Veterans Health Care Ailing Under Bush

Bush Budget Seeks to Impose New Fees on Middle-Income Vets. Bush's FY05 budget will institute a new annual $250 enrollment fee and an increase in prescription drug co-pays from $7 to $15 for middle-income veterans, a 53 percent increase, driving anywhere from 200,000 to 500,000 vets out of the VA health care system. [CQ, 2/2/04; Miami Herald, 2/3/04; Orlando Sentinel, 2/3/04; American Legion Press Release, 1/23/04; Washington Post, 3/3/04; DAV Release, 2/4/04; AMVETS release, 2/3/04; AP, 4/24/03]

* Bush Tried Same Move Last Year, Only to Be Rejected by Congress. Last year, Bush tried to pass the same charges on middle-income veterans in the 2004 budget, only to be rebuffed his own Republican-led Congress. Veterans protested angrily against an attempt to deprive veterans of the benefits they were promised. VA spokeswoman Laurie Tranter was forced to admit, "[The proposal] is definitely stalled. I believe Congress doesn't want to do this." Following the outcry, the Republican-controlled Congress proceeded to appropriate $1.1 billion more for VA health care than requested by Bush. [CQ, 2/2/04; American Legion Press Release, 1/23/04; The Times Leader, 10/9/03]
* VA Raised Fees on Middle-Income Vets in 2001. In December 2001, VA raised the prescription co-payments for nonservice-connected veterans from $2 to $7, prompting an angry cry from veterans and federal lawmakers. [The Times Leader, 10/9/03]

Bush's Efforts Angering Veterans Once Again. "Last year, the effort to charge veterans new user fees and boost co-payments for prescription drugs ran into a buzzsaw of opposition among veterans' groups and their allies in Congress. "Here we go again," said Richard Fuller, legislative director for the Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA). "It's just going to be the same thing all over again." VFW Commander-in-Chief Edward Banas called the funding package a "disgrace," a "sham," "inexcusable," and "deplorable." In a release entitled, "Another Year, Another Inadequate Budget Request for Veterans' Health Care," PVA called Bush's budget "grossly inadequate." The Disabled American Veterans said "the Bush Administration has broken faith with the nation's sick and disabled veterans" with its budget proposal. And AMVETS National Commander John Sisler said of Bush's proposal: "To say we are extremely disappointed with it is an understatement." [DAV Release, 2/4/04; AMVETS Release, 2/3/04; PVA Release, 2/3/04; CQ, 2/2/04; VFW Release, 2/2/04, emphasis added]

Bush Fails to Fully Fund VA Health Care. Bush's 2005 budget falls more than $2.6 billion short of the amount needed to fully fund quality veterans' health care, according to the The Independent Budget, an annual collective assessment by four veterans service organizations of the funding levels and policy changes needed at VA. [AMVETS Release, 2/3/04; VFW Release, 2/2/04]

White House Rebuffed VA's Pleas for More Money, Principi Testifies. According to CQ, "The Department of Veterans Affairs received $1.2 billion less than it requested from the White House when President Bush's fiscal 2005 budget was assembled, Secretary Anthony J. Principi told lawmakers... The revelation during the House Veterans' Affairs Committee's first hearing on the budget reaffirmed the view of many legislators that the administration has underfunded veterans programs in its budget. Principi's admission of the $1.2 billion shortfall stunned many veterans groups and staff aides, who say that legislators routinely ask how much the department has sought from the White House Office of Management and Budget, but rarely get a straight answer." Principi flatly told ranking member Rep. Lane Evans, "I asked OMB for $1.2 billion more than I received." [CQ Today, 2/4/04; House Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing, 2/4/04]

* Senate Democrats Pledge to Fight for More Health Funding. In 2003, Democrats fought to include $1.3 billion over the Administration's proposal into the omnibus appropriations bill. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said, "We have to assume it will be every bit as big a challenge as last year. We can't take anything for granted." Daschle said the proposed budget would boost health care funding for veterans by about 2.5 percent, but argued that a boost of approximately 12 percent would have been more in line. [CQ, 2/13/04]
* House Veterans Affairs Committee Seeks Additional $2.4 Billion. The House Veterans' Affairs Committee put forward a bipartisan recommendation in late February under which Department of Veterans Affairs programs would get an additional $2.4 billion over the administration's fiscal 2005 request. The panel's proposal recommends $32.1 billion in discretionary appropriations for fiscal 2005, the bulk of which is used for health care programs. That would be a $2.4 billion boost over the administration's $29.7 billion proposal, which represents a 2 percent boost over current year spending. "It's an honest, totally justified, sustainable number," said Christopher H. Smith, R-N.J., the chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. [CQ, 2/25/04]

Bush Legacy: The Future of Vets Budgets Is Bleak

Domestic Programs Targeted for Cuts From 2005 Through 2009. According to unpublished 999-page OMB computer printout produced concurrently with Bush 2005 proposed budget, the administration's plan to cut the deficit in half within five years would call for long-term spending cuts for hundreds of domestic programs. Under the scenario, money for domestic programs would decline from $390.5 billion in 2005 to $385.6 billion in 2009-$50 billion (11.5 percent) below what would be required to keep pace with inflation. Although the President's 2005 budget increases appropriated resources for every year, these increases are only for defense, homeland security, international affairs, and the NASA. Bush's budget cuts funding for domestic non-homeland security programs by $1.2 billion for 2005, then cuts it further for 2006. [Washington Post, 2/6/04; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/6/04; House Budget Committee Democratic Caucus, 2/19/04]

* Bush's Long-Term Budget for Veterans is Below the Freeze Level. While funding for 2005 is $520 million above the 2004 enacted level, over five years the budget for appropriated veterans programs is $1.4 billion below a freeze at the 2004 enacted level. Almost all appropriated funding for veterans pays for medical care and hospital services. Future increases in health care prices and caseload will push VA medical funding needs well above a freeze at the 2004 level. [House Budget Committee Democratic Caucus, 2/19/04]

Bush's 2005 Budget Cuts Long-Term Funding for Veterans Health Benefits. Funding for veteran's health services in 2009 would fall 17 percent - or $5.7 billion - below the 2004 level, adjusted for inflation. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/27/04]

* Bush's 2005 Budget Cuts Long-Term Funding for Veterans Health Services. Bush's budget would cut veterans health services by $5.7 billion-or 17 percent-below the 2004 level adjusted for inflation. In a section of Bush's budget that cites Administration accomplishments and funding priorities, the Administration touts the increases in veterans' health services since 2001. This part of the budget fails to explain, however, that the Administration is proposing to reduce funding for veterans health services by large amounts over the next five years. A sizeable share of the funding reduction comes from a proposal to impose new fees on certain veterans who wish to access the veterans' health system. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/27/04]

Bush Runs from Vets

White House Hesitant to Confront Veterans' Record. A Republican running for statewide office in Nevada said the Bush re-election campaign has urged Republican candidates not to talk about the Administration's record on helping veterans. "Basically, they're saying don't bring up veterans' issues and don't bring up Vietnam; our surrogates will take care of it," said the candidate, Ed Gobel. [NY Times, 2/13/04]

* Former Bush Campaign Official Declines to Support Bush Due to His Veterans' Record. "When the Bush campaign asked James McKinnon to co-chair its veterans steering committee in New Hampshire - a job he held in 2000 - the 56-year-old Vietnam veteran respectfully, but firmly, said no. 'I basically told them I was disappointed in his support of veterans,' said McKinnon, who served two tours in Vietnam with the Coast Guard. 'He's killing the active-duty military... Look at the reserves call-ups for Iraq, the hardships. The National Guard - the state militia - is being used improperly. I took the president at his word on Iraq, and now you can't find a single report to back up or substantiate weapons of mass destruction.'" [Knight Ridder, 3/10/04]

Bush's VA Remedies Likely to Cause More Pain

Bush Promises to Reduce Waiting Times on the Backs of Middle-Income Veterans. In its budget proposal, the White House guaranteed "the waiting list for medical care will be reduced from its high of 300,000 to zero in early 2004." Demand for care has continued to increase dramatically over the past decade. Waiting lists will indeed decline if potential veteran recipients are not allowed to enroll in the VA health care system and others drop out due to the new fees. VFW's Edward Banas said, "The budget seeks to drive veterans from the system by realigning funding, charging enrollment fees for access and more than doubling the prescription drug copayment." The number of veterans using the VA health care program has increased from 2.9 million in 1995 to about 5 million in 2004. DAV and AMVETS estimated that more than 500,000 veterans would be forced out of the VA medical system, leaving many without access to affordable health care. Pressed by House VA Committee Chairman Chris Smith (R-NJ), Principi acknowledged in testimony before the House that the user fee and the increased drug co-payments "may discourage some use by [higher-income veterans] who have other options." The VA has estimated 200,000 veterans will leave the system if the new fees are imposed. Principi said if Congress again refuses to approve the new fees and co-payments proposed in the president's budget, veterans may face "longer waiting lines" or the VA will have to make "more difficult enrollment decisions." [Washington Post, 3/3/04; DAV Release, 2/4/04; CQ, 2/4/04; AMVETS release, 2/3/04; VA FY2005 Budget Proposal; VFW Release, 2/2/04; AP, 4/24/03]

* VA Seeks to Reduce Staff of Claims Handlers. According to John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, the VA is calling for a reduction of 540 full-time jobs in the Veterans Benefits Administration, which handles disability, pension and other claims by veterans. "VBA is under such pressure to get the caseload down, and now they are going to cut the staff," he said. "These things don't make sense on their face." [Washington Post, 3/3/04]

Bush Fails to View Veterans as Extension of War Costs. "Joseph Violante, legislative affairs director for the Disabled American Veterans, said that many veterans think it is unfair for Bush to lump veterans' programs in with the domestic spending the White House wants to rein in during the war on terror. 'I think he's hiding behind the war,' Violante said. 'We're trying to make people understand that we're a continuation of the cost of war.'" VFW's Banas said, "It is clear that, just as we fought on the battlefields, we must now bring the fight to the halls of Congress to rectify this disgraceful budget. Having traveled throughout the nation, I know that the American people will not tolerate this shoddy treatment of America's veterans, especially at a time of war." [CQ, 2/2/04]

VA Budget Neglects Nursing Home Care. Linda Bennett, legislative director for American Federation of Government Employees, was critical of the proposed cuts in nursing home care, which she said would reduce the number of full-time VA nursing home beds to 37 percent below the level set in law by Congress in 1998. She said the VA has been trying to move more veterans into state-run nursing homes and "non-institutional" settings, such as home health care programs. "I look at it as a signal that the VA would like to get out of the business of taking care of veterans in their old age," Bennett said. [Washington Post, 3/3/04]

White House Praises, Then Cuts VA Research Program. In its budget proposal, the White House says, "VA's research program is known worldwide for its work in areas such as prosthetics, spinal cord injuries, and other widespread diseases, such as Parkinson's and diabetes." Bush then proposes to cut $50 million from the program later in the same report. [VA FY2005 Budget Proposal]

[FORD]

Originally posted by McCarrens
Give me one way they have ruined this country...because I sure as hell can't think of a damned one.

Aug 31, 2004
George W. Bush: Mission NOT Accomplished for Middle-Class Families

George W. Bush has not completed his mission for middle-class families. With incomes down, health care costs up and the poverty roles expanding, middle-class families know that they have not been well-served by the Bush administration.
MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED FOR THE MIDDLE-CLASS ECONOMY:

Family income has declined $1,511 under President Bush. Under President Bush the typical family has seen its inflation-adjusted income decline by $1,511, based on the most recent data showing the change from 2000 to 2003. Under President Clinton the typical family saw its inflation-adjusted income rise by $7,199. [Census Bureau]

America Has Lost 1.8 Million Private Sector Jobs Under Bush. Since George W. Bush took office, America has seen 1.8 million jobs lost. America has also lost 2.7 million manufacturing jobs. [Bureau of Labor Statistics]

Jobs Are Shifting To Lower-Paying Industries Paying $9,160 Less. Jobs are growing in industries with low-paying jobs and contracting in industries with higher-paying jobs. On average, jobs in growing industries pay $9,160 less — or 21 percent less — than jobs in contracting industries. [Economic Policy Institute, "Jobs Shift From Higher Paying to Lower Paying Industries," January 21, 2004]

MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED FOR MIDDLE-CLASS FAMILIES:

5.2 Million Americans Lost Their Health Insurance. Since George W. Bush took office, 5.2 million Americans have become uninsured. There are now 45 million Americans without health insurance coverage. [Census Bureau]

3.8 Million Fell Into Poverty. Since George W. Bush took office, 3.8 million have fallen into poverty. [Census Bureau]

Child Care Costs Increased by $2,050. In 2000, a family with 2 children under age 5 in full-time daycare was spending $10,860 on child care. By 2004, that figure increased to approximately $12,910. [Census Bureau, Consumer Price Index, Analysis by Amelia Warren Tyagi]

Family Health Care Premiums Increased by $2,630. In the United States, the total family premium for health insurance has increased by $2,630 to $9,068. [Kaiser Family Foundation]

Families with Teenagers Spend $696 More On Gasoline Per Year. Households with teenagers are paying higher prices for gasoline than ever before. In the United States, households with teenagers are paying $696 more per year for gasoline since George Bush took office. They now pay on average $2,817 per year. [Department of Energy, Household Vehicles Energy Consumption 1994, Table 5.2, August 1997]

College Tuition Increased by $1,207. Since Bush has taken office, tuition in the United States has increased by $1,207 at four-year public universities — a 35 percent increase. [College Board]

[FORD]

Originally posted by McCarrens
Give me one way they have ruined this country...because I sure as hell can't think of a damned one.

The Bush Record: Costs Up, Coverage Down, Companies Cash In

Health care in the Bush administration is sick, sick, sick. Costs are rising at four times the rate of inflation. Health insurance prices and out-of-pocket costs are rising -- and so is the number of Americans without health insurance. Bush pushed through a Medicare plan that is healthy only for the big pharmaceutical and health care companies that will reap windfalls from it. Seniors, on the other hand, will get hit with higher prescription drug and health care costs.
Costs Go Up

Under Bush, health care costs go up at four times the rate of inflation. Health care spending rose 9.3 percent in 2002 and 8.5 percent in 2001 -- more than four times the rate of inflation.1,2

Are you paying more for health insurance? Annual out-of-pocket expenses for workers are up $174 (52 percent) for individuals and $793 (49 percent) for families. Job-based health insurance costs are rising at the highest rate in 13 years, with average annual premiums for employer-based health plans rising 14 percent in 2003 -- up $323 for individuals and $1,114 for families.3

Bankruptcy on the rise thanks to catastrophic health care crises. A record 1.6 million families will file for bankruptcy in 2004, 90 percent from the middle class. Health care costs contribute to half of all bankruptcies.4,5
Number of Uninsured Goes Up

Americans without insurance skyrockets under Bush. In the last two years of the Clinton Administration, 2.3 million people gained health insurance. Since Bush took office, 3.8 million have lost it.6

Minority uninsured rates climb in Bush's America. More than half of the non-elderly Hispanic population, 18.6 million, was uninsured for all or part of 2001-2002. Among African Americans, 20.2 percent were uninsured in 2002.6,7

With job losses comes health coverage losses. During the first two years of the Bush Administration, 1.5 million workers lost health coverage through their jobs. Taxpayers picked up the slack, with 1.3 million more adults relying on Medicaid and state coverage during the same period.8

Seniors' costs on the rise. Retirees under the age of 65 saw their personal expenses for health plans increase 20 percent to $166 a month in 2003, while expenses for those over 65 increased 18 percent to $83 a month.3
Drug Company Profits Go Up

Rising drug costs are driving rising health care costs while the Bush administration gives special interest paybacks to the pharmaceutical industry. The average cost of the top 10 most-used prescription drugs went up 8.7 percent in 2003 alone. But the Bush Medicare initiative makes it illegal for the government to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry, adding an extra $139 billion in corporate profits to the cost of the bill.9,10

Sources: 1Health Affairs, Jan/Feb. 2004; 2Bureau of Labor Statistics; 3Kaiser Family Foundation; 4NOW With Bill Moyers, 2/6/04; 5Consumers Union, 2/25/04; 6U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports; 7CBC Foundation Release, 9/29/03; 8Health Affairs, Jan/Feb. 2004; 9AdvancePCS, 8/25/03; 10Medicare Rights Center, 11/14/03

[McCarrens]

I quit readin after the first line from your first post, where you talked about "Homeland Insecurity." America is secure. We have not had another attack since 9-11.

That record is a thousands times better than liberal bitch hero Clinton.

See Ford, everything you post is just sppun, convoluted malarky. Maybe you should leave the politics to the adults and go post in some video game forum on another site.

[FORD]

Originally posted by McCarrens
Give me one way they have ruined this country...because I sure as hell can't think of a damned one.

The Bush Record: Every Child Left Behind

No child left behind? Don't believe it! The Bush administration is leaving America's children farther and farther behind by slashing the budget for key educational programs and not even fully funding its much-touted "No Child Left Behind" program (not to mention other educational initiatives). The result: Schools are in crisis, programs are being cut, teachers are quitting in frustration, and our children are not getting the educations they deserve. So much for the "education president."
Bush Target: Early Education

Even the youngest children aren't safe from President Bush's polices, as tries to downgrade Head Start. Bush wants to shift cut federal Head Start funding and move it to state programs with lower quality standards and less accountability. His 2005 budget freezes enrollment in Head Start programs, meaning the 40 percent of children eligible for Head Start and 97 percent eligible for Early Head Start who aren't currently enrolled won't ever be.1,2

Bush says literacy is his top priority -- so why is he eliminating a family literacy program? Bush's budget eliminates the $247 million Even Start program that encourages young children and parents to read together at home. Laura Bush herself has promoted these programs, stating, "Family literacy programs... work on the front lines of the battle against illiteracy." What does she think of her husband's budget?1,3
Bush Target: K-12 Education

Bush leaves his own "No Child Left Behind" reforms behind. Bush's proposed budgets have broken his promise to fully fund No Child Left Behind, falling short by $33.2 billion, including $22.4 billion less for Title I programs for low-income children.4

The nation's governors and state legislatures -- Republicans and Democrats -- have condemned Bush for failing to fund education. The National Governors Association has voted unanimously to label No Child Left Behind an unfunded mandate. Twenty-two states are considering challenging portions of the legislation, including the GOP-controlled legislatures in Arizona, Minnesota, Ohio, Utah and Virginia.5

Even the children of military families face cuts under Bush. As he was sending troops to Iraq, Bush proposed cutting $200 million in Impact Aid educational assistance to children in military families. During the 2000 campaign, Bush has promised to increase this funding by $310 million, saying, "Our men and women in service put their lives on the line to defend our freedom. We have a special obligation to rebuild the schools that educate their children." An obligation that Bush isn't interested in meeting when the cameras are off.6,7,8
Bush Target: Higher Education

As tuitions skyrocket, Bush cuts financial aid. Since Bush took office, tuition and fees at public colleges have increased by an average of 35 percent, thanks to the failed economic policies that are bankrupting state governments. In fact, 49 out of 50 states saw college tuitions go up last year. And Bush isn't doing anything to ease that burden. He broke a campaign promise to increase the maximum Pell Grant to $5,100, is proposing to eliminate the LEAP program that provided more than a billion dollars in federal and state assistance to students in 2000, and is cutting $100 million in Perkins Loans.1,9,10,11
Bush Target: Job Training

Done with school? Bush isn't done with you. It isn't just traditional student who are bearing the burdens of Bush's attacks on education. The new Bush budget cuts overall employment training funding by $151 million and lumps four employment-training programs into a single block grant. Bush also is cutting overall vocational education by $316 million.1

Sources: 1House Budget Committee Democratic Caucus, 2/6/04; 2Children's Defense Fund, Feb. 2003; 3Texas Center for the Advancement of Literacy and Learning; 4President's FY 02-05 Budgets; 5National Conference State Legislatures; 6House Appropriations Committee, Minority Staff, 6/17/03; 7Washington Post, 6/17/03; 8New York Times, 8/22/00; 9College Board, College Costs 2003; 10Bush Speech in Hampton, New Hampshire, 8/30/00; 11National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs, Mar. 2003

[McCarrens]

Dude, stop posting. You fucked up with that first post so i'm not going to waste my time reading the rest of your shit.

Maybe you think before you post.

[FORD]

Originally posted by McCarrens
I quit readin after the first line from your first post, where you talked about "Homeland Insecurity." America is secure. We have not had another attack since 9-11.

How convenient... Of course we didn't have any BEFORE 9-11 either.

That record is a thousands times better than liberal bitch hero Clinton.

Let's see... Clinton had a bombing at the WTC, early in his term, and those who committed the crime were caught, tried and convicted. The domestic terrorist Mc Veigh who blew up the OKC Federal Building was caught, tried, convicted and executed.

Osama Bin Laden remains at large while the BCE invades entirely unrelated countries. I'd say Clinton's record's looking pretty good right now.

See Ford, everything you post is just sppun, convoluted malarky. Maybe you should leave the politics to the adults and go post in some video game forum on another site.

Everything I posted this morning were facts and figures with their sources listed. Everything YOU post is pure right wing FAUX NEWS Fear Channel spin. I've forgotten more about politics in the last 6 months than you'll know about in your life, so take your disruptor ass back to Chris Fucking Pussy Ass Vance and tell him I said he can go suck Dino Rossi's mafia loving cock and FUCK OFF.

[McCarrens]

Ford, you do know that naval ships and american embassies (sp?) are clasisfed as American soil. So counting the bombings of several naval ships and the one embassy, Clinton's record is horrible.

Also, stopping the attacks before theyhappen is a hell of a lot better than catching the men responsible. It doesn't make the families that lost a love one feel thta much better to have the terrorist captured if they still have an empty seat at the table come Thanksgiving. Prevention is always better than cleanup.

Also, accoridng to you, I thought Bin Lama had been captured several months (or years) ago and was currently residing in a "Club Fed." Are you even contradicitng yourself now.

And you've forgotten more about politics in the lats 6 months than I'll know in my life. Yeah, that's correct. Weren't you the one spouting off yesterday about the "mediawhores." Yeah, that was an intelligent comment. You probably changed they way some people think with that one...moron.

[ELVIS]

The teachings of Jesus are so evident in your posts lately, FORD...

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
The teachings of Jesus are so evident in your posts lately, FORD...

I never said I *WAS* Jesus, did I?

The desperation of the Republican party is in full effect here. Their disruptors are in full panic mode. Shit, I'd laugh at the pathetic little shits if they weren't making it personal.

[ELVIS]

I wouldn't say desperation at all...

I'm more inclined to call it a Roth-like belligerent enthusiasm...;)

The democratic party is the more desperate of the two, mostly because the party's division between hard left wackos like yourself, and the more conservative, rational crowd...

[McCarrens]

I like how Ford ignored my post because it was full of rational fact he could not fight with liberal party's unrealistic, communistic dogma.

[ELVIS]

Get used to it...

[ODShowtime]

Ford, the president SAID we are safer. What more do you want? All these inconvenient facts are just cluttering things up.

[McCarrens]

What these false facts are cluttering up is the American public's ability to choose the right man in November.

[ELVIS]

That's the general idea...

[FORD]

Elvis, have you noticed how Ass Vibrator vanished the minute that McCarrens showed up?

Or that the one before him disappeared when AssVibe was here?

These people are paid GOP disruptors. I don't care what YOUR politics are, you shouldn't encourage these assholes.

Call me crazy all you want, but the pattern is unmistakeable....

[ODShowtime]

Yep, I think you two both understand. Fuck the facts. The president's word should always be taken as truth because he has the best interests of the American people in mind at all times. History has proven that time and time again.

[ELVIS]

I noticed now that you mentioned it...

I think you were encouraging him or them more than I was by responding everytime they try to push your buttons...

I hear you though...

[McCarrens]

OD, what you said makes no sense.

We are safer under Bush. Safer than we were under Clinton, the first Bush and Reagan. He has had only had one terrorist attack. Yet Clinton (and though it pains me to say it) and Bush and Reagan had many.

And when has history shown that the president does not have the best interests of the American people at heart? I can't think of one, be it the more "modern" presidents, or through the complete run of Commanders-in-Chief.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by McCarrens
OD, what you said makes no sense.

We are safer under Bush. Safer than we were under Clinton,


There are no reliable facts to back up your position but I hope you don't get proved wrong soon.

[Warham]

How many attacks have been on American soil since 9/11?

Have we been safer?

Would you have thought that not ONE attack would have happened in three years?

I think we are safer, indeed.

[ELVIS]

Well, It was eight years from the first WTC attack in '93 to 9/11...

[FORD]

Excellent point, Elvis.

These guys always take time off between a major offensive. The BCE being in power has nothing to do with that

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by FORD
Excellent point, Elvis.

These guys always take time off between a major offensive. The BCE being in power has nothing to do with that

You can make much more fear if you spread out the terror and only bust out the big guns for special occasions. Attacks in the US especially are costly and risky. 100s of attacks in Turkey, India, and Iraq are worth one big one in the US.

It's like music, you have peaks and valleys. If it was all peaks, there would be no peaks.

Stating that there have been no major terror attacks in the US since 9-11 proves nothing. Now if any big fish were caught or plots broken up, maybe, but having Ashcroft bust out Jose Padilla just to show he's making progress doesn't constitute actual success in the real world.

[Big Train]

Originally posted by FORD
Excellent point, Elvis.

These guys always take time off between a major offensive. The BCE being in power has nothing to do with that

Ford, which Ford am I supposed to believe? The Ford that says the BCE crashed the planes into the towers on 9/11 or the Ford who says the above statement?

Learning from Mr. Kerry?

[FORD]

Originally posted by Big Train
Ford, which Ford am I supposed to believe? The Ford that says the BCE crashed the planes into the towers on 9/11 or the Ford who says the above statement?

Learning from Mr. Kerry?

No, I believe completely that the BCE was the creators of Al Qaeda. That's not even up for discusssion, it's a fact. Whether they knew they would turn on the US or not - or were ordered to do so - is the only disputable part. In any case, it was 8 years between WTC 1 and WTC 2 - even though the name Al Qaeda was not mentioned in 1993 at all, that I can recall, nor Bin Laden individually. In fact that operation was said to be masterminded by a blind sheik who wore a Santa Claus hat and lived in NYC at the time (sorry, it's been 11 years and I forgot this guy's name).

So since I can't prove that the BCE is directly controlling Al Qaeda, I'll assume that the terra-ists are operating on their own timetable, which means Junior claiming "NO ATTACKS SINCE 9-11!! AIN'T I COOL!!" is incredibly stupid and irresponsible.

[Big Train]

If you can't prove it and there are no links proving BCE control over Al-Qaeda, why would you make the connection to begin with between them?

And no, I am not disputing the initial funding for them against the Soviets.

As long as nothing is happening, the man can claim it, they way all presidents (including clinton) can claim it.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by FORD
No, I believe completely that the BCE was the creators of Al Qaeda. That's not even up for discusssion, it's a fact. Whether they knew they would turn on the US or not - or were ordered to do so - is the only disputable part.


Did your mother have any "normal" children?

[Warham]

I don't know which guy has spin more today...Edwards in tonight's debate, or FORD in this thread.

[Lqskdiver]

Originally posted by FORD
No, I believe completely that the BCE was the creators of Al Qaeda. That's not even up for discusssion, it's a fact.

Beliefs and facts are distinguishable contrasts.



So since I can't prove that the BCE is directly controlling Al Qaeda,

Nuff said.

[FORD]

It comes down to this question..... Is Al Qaeda still an active agency of the Bush Criminal Empire, or are they the Frankenstein's Monster that went out of control?

A case could be made either way.

And you could ask the same questions of Israel's Mossad and their little experiment called "Hamas".