Tag: John Kerry

Posted on

Gloves come off in round two: Bush takes standing 8 count

President George Bush and Sen. John Kerry had a second debate at Washington University in St. Louis on Friday 10/8/04. Here some highlights of note to me.

Unlike the calm civil debate seen in round one, on Friday the gloves seemed to come off. Both Bush and Kerry came out swinging with energy in a the town meeting format. Members of the audience, who were identified as undecided, offered questions to each candidate.

Bush seemed more angry, really angry as he not only answered the questions directed to him but he really got feisty when responding to Kerry’s answers.

Kerry also seemed to get more animated in responding to Bush’s answers but overall he seemed more in control during his talking times. He jumped right at the President with the first question where he said the administration mislead us in going to war in Iraq. That set the stage for the tone of the debate.

For a question on why Bush banned importation of drugs from Canada, Bush claimed he hasn’t yet. He falsely told the questioner he wants to be sure they are safe. The fact is the drugs that would come from Canada are the exact same meds that are sold here in the states. Second, Bush signed the Medicare Reform Act that prohibited Medicare from negotiating for lower prices. Due to continued pressure from Senior groups, they are now reconsidering the ban on imports from Canada. They are dragging their feet but they are reconsidering the ban.

Kerry was asked why he picked John Edwards as VP when he was a trial lawyer making millions on liability cases. Kerry explained that Edwards was the author of the Patient’s Bill of Rights that the Congress wouldn’t pass. He also explained that large settlements only make up 1% of health care costs while those in Missouri saw there health care costs go up 64%.

Kerry was asked about embryonic stem cell research. It is a values issue because those opposed to it feel it is destroying a life. The Senator said while he respected the questioners view point but he feels if we can cure a host of disease with the research then we need to do that. Bush responded that he approved some limited research but won’t fund anymore. Kerry then responded that Bush was wishy washy with his response.

A audience member asked Bush who he would appoint to the Supreme Court and why. Bush said he would appoint a strict constructionist and one of the examples he gave of a judge he wouldn’t appoint is one that ruled in the Dred Scott decision. What? Kerry clarified that Bush has said his two favorite current justices are Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas “so you see where he is heading..”

Abortion came up with a question to Kerry. The questioner wanted to know what he would tell someone who told him that abortion was murder. Kerry made a good answer in saying even though he is Catholic and he would support other options, he could not deny the constitutional rights of those who don’t hold his religious beliefs on the issue.

Bush said he got a partial birth abortion law passed and supports parental notification. He told the audience that Kerry was against both in voting against them. Kerry then said that he voted against them because they didn’t contain qualifiers he felt they needed such as life of the mother and another option for 16 year old raped by her father. The bills didn’t have those qualifiers so he voted against them.

I thought Bush did better as the debate went on but Kerry was able to stay slightly ahead even with the cheap shots with Bush’s use of the Liberal label.

Posted on

Kerry gains after 1st debate

The first of 3 Presidential debates was held tonight in Miami. Pundit Pinheads agree that John Kerry did a better job than President Bush on the debate topic of Iraq and homeland security.

It was assumed that Bush would score well on that topic. That is why it was the first topic of the debates. But Kerry was able to make his points, rebut most of Bush’s, and to steer the debate toward his agenda.

Each candidate got into details on some of the issues like what kind of talks should be held with North Korea.

The other part of the debate had nothing to do with what was said but how each man presented his ideas and presented himself.

We saw the return of Bush the stammerer. He has been known not to be good at off the cuff remarks and it showed. Also while Kerry was speaking Bush looked annoyed the whole time like he wanted to fight. His eyes darted around the room and it looked like he was chewing on the inside of his cheek.

Kerry refrained from his long winded responses and while Bush talked he either listened intently or wrote some notes to himself.

Oh and the two wives had similar colored outfits……

Posted on

With a hatchet man like Dick Cheney, who needs the truth

I don’t often get angry while watching a news broadcast, but on Friday 9/24/04 I happened to catch our local newscast giving an update on the Presidential campaign, I got very angry. Angry enough to walkout of the break room just so I wouldn’t have to watch the story.

It started with a clip of John Kerry giving his 7 point plan for the war on terrorism and critiquing Bush and company for going after Saddam instead of finishing the job against Bin Laden.

“George Bush made Saddam Hussein the priority,” Kerry told a group of students and faculty at Temple University. “The invasion of Iraq was a profound diversion from the battle against our greatest enemy, al-Qaida, which killed more than 3,000 people on 9/11 and which still plots our destruction today. And there’s just no question about it: The president’s misjudgment, miscalculation and mismanagement of the war in Iraq will make the war on terror harder to win.”

“Iraq is now what it was not before the war: a haven for terrorists,” Kerry said. “I will grant no one, no country, no sweetheart relationship a free pass,” he said. “As president, I will do what President Bush has not done; I will hold the Saudis accountable.”

http://tinyurl.com/4ykkv

So then Vice President Cheney responds:

Vice President Dick Cheney complained Friday in Warrenton that the Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry, suggested that Iraq wasn’t a home for terrorists before Saddam Hussein was deposed.

“Ladies and gentlemen, Saddam himself was a terrorist,” Cheney told about 1,500 people at a Republican rally at the Warren County Fairgrounds.

Cheney said Saddam had provided a safe haven for terrorists over the years, made $25,000 payments to families of Palestinian suicide bombers and had a relationship with al-Qaida.

http://tinyurl.com/48ubn

The Bush-Cheney team continue to LIE about the reasons for invading Iraq. That is why I got mad. The news allowed Cheney to spit out his untruths without ANY questioning from the press or anyone.

Taking a closer look at Iraq and terrorism finds that Saddam was considered dangerous, no one disputes that, but not an immediate threat to the US. Col. Muammar Abu Minyar al-Qadhafi of Libya was more of an immediate threat to the US than Saddam. Bin Laden had ordered the killing several thousand innocent civilians in the 9/11 terrorist act yet the President shifted the focus from Bin Laden to Saddam without a resolution.

The other lie Cheney is fond of stating is that Saddam and al-Qaida had a relationship. He is then assuming you and I will connect the dots and think Saddam had something to do with 9/11. There was no relationship. Saddam was too busy keeping his grip on Iraq to help another terrorist group. He wasn’t looking for an excuse to be attacked.

Cheney is also the one who inferred that if Kerry was elected, the US would be attacked by terrorists.

Terrorism is a threat. Unfortunately, the Republicans are too busy keeping Cat Stevens out of the country and forcing book stores to tell the government what books I buy, among other civil rights abuses, to fight terrorism as it needs to be fought. Terrorism and the groups who commit terror acts are in the shadows. They have no country or army to fight. Fighting terror requires a concerted effort of intelligence agencies across the world and old fashion police work. Just ask the Italians how they broke the back of the Red Brigades, or how the British turned down the IRA troubles, or how the Germans defeated the Baader-Meinhof gang or how Japan dealt with the Japanese Red Army group.

Cheney and Bush want you to think that terrorists care who is in the Whitehouse.

Posted on

Talk about a Flip Flop

Senator Zell Miller’s speech at the Republican National Convention on 9/1 was the talk of all the pundits that week, especially when Miller challenged Chris Matthews to a duel. Back in 2001, Miller had nothing but nice things to say about John Kerry. President Bush and the Republicans have harped on Kerry for changing his position on some issues over the years yet here is Miller saying nice things about Kerry in 2001 and then being real nasty about him at the RNC in 2004. The following intro is posted on Miller’s Senate website:

Introduction of Senator John Kerry

Democratic Party of Georgia’s
Jefferson-Jackson Dinner

March 1, 2001

My job tonight is an easy one: to present to you one of this nation’s authentic heroes, one of this party’s best-known and greatest leaders � and a good friend.

He was once a lieutenant governor � but he didn’t stay in that office 16 years, like someone else I know. It just took two years before the people of Massachusetts moved him into the United States Senate in 1984.

In his 16 years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington.

http://miller.senate.gov/speeches/030101jjdinner.htm
Posted on

When will Bush’s lies end???

I read an article on Yahoo News today that ticked me off. It was an article about John Kerry’s reaction to Bush’s so-called press conference on Tuesday.

Here is what ticked me off:

“The president made clear what we all share, which is a sense that the United States of America is going to be resolute and tough and make certain that we accomplish our mission,” Kerry said.

Other nations share the U.S. goal of stability in Iraq and, if elected president, Kerry said he would use his powers of persuasion to convince them that their interests demand they share in the effort.

“Our soldiers are bearing the brunt of this operation,” Kerry said. “Our military is to some degree overextended. American soldiers are bearing the huge majority, the lion’s share of this.”

Republicans rejected the criticism, with Bush’s re-election campaign chairman Marc Racicot calling Kerry’s comments “a political attack that is very, very seriously undermining our efforts in Iraq and in the war on terror.”

In a conference call with reporters, Racicot said Kerry simply blames America for provoking the attacks in Iraq without offering a competing vision that addresses the war on terrorism. 

The full story here

First of all, Kerry’s criticism is not “undermining our efforts in Iraq.” The radical Muslims don’t care what Kerry says about Bush’s Iraq policy. All they know is the devil is in their house and they must die.

It is interesting to note that the current outbreak of violence has nothing to do with Saddam or his supporters. It is probably the first volley in a renewed power struggle among the different religious sects in Iraq. Each sect believes they should be the only power in Iraq.

The person who us actually undermining the US in Iraq is Ahmed Chalabi.

Ahmed Chalabi, the neocons’ choice to run Iraq, appears to have been responsible for the disastrous decision to move against Muqtada al-Sadr.

Why did they do it? It seemed a safe bet to the civilian echelon policymakers at the Department of Defense when they approved Coalition Provisional Authority administrator L. Paul Bremer’s fateful decision to close down the newspaper of Muqtada al-Sadr and to arrest an aide to the young firebrand Shiite cleric. Even after Shiite Iraq had erupted into fury over the moves on Saturday, April 3, top-level Pentagon policymakers were privately still convinced it was all a storm in a teacup.

Chalabi, longtime exile leader, has never had a power base within Iraq. He is a smooth operator, convicted of embezzling millions from the Petra Bank of Jordan — sentenced in absentia to 22 years of hard labor — but championed by the neoconservatives of Washington.

Just as Bremer will not make the slightest move without the approval of his Pentagon bosses, the Defense Department policymakers continue to rely on Chalabi alone for their political assessments on Iraq. In private conversation, as in public, they remain amazingly enthusiastic about Chalabi’s supposed political skills, and even genius, and proclaim repeatedly that he is the only man with the brilliance to hold Iraq together and make it work. Give Chalabi a free hand after June 30 and give him all the U.S. firepower he wants to crush his foes — this is their master plan; there is no other. 

Complete article here

Marc Racicot says that Kerry’s comments are “undermining our efforts in Iraq and in the war on terror.”

Iraq has always been, absent contrary proof, a tertiary part of the war on terrorism. In fact, the Bush administration has undermined their war on terrorism by invading Iraq before Bin Laden had been dealt with completely in Afghanistan.

Lastly Racicot makes the ridiculous statement: “Kerry simply blames America for provoking the attacks in Iraq without offering a competing vision that addresses the war on terrorism.”

Kerry isn’t simply or difficultly blaming America for provoking the attacks in Iraq. Bush is the one who ordered the invasion of Iraq. Iraq didn’t attack us first. Kerry is pointing out the issues with Bush’s Iraq policy.

As for Kerry not “offering a competing vision that addresses the war on terrorism,” I would like to know what Bush’s vision for addressing the war on terror that as Kerry has said doesn’t needlessly infringe on our civil rights as the Patriot Act does today.

About Proudly powered by WordPress