The 2004 presidential election.

[mugsy]

Pssst.....Nicole.....I posted both places!! hehehe

[RICHARD]

I am really looking forward to the debates tomorrow night.

I'm just trying to figure out what to wear.....
Since I plan to listen to John Kerry very closely I might as well
put on my pajamas, sit back and enjoy a hearty breakfast.....



He'll be serving up "waffles", won't he???

[Soledad]

Hmmm...waffles. Hilarious. Another original comment.

I suppose I'd rather have waffles than tax cuts for the rich, more dead and injured American soldiers and no job growth.

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by Soledad
Hmmm...waffles. Hilarious. Another original comment.

I suppose I'd rather have waffles than tax cuts for the rich, more dead and injured American soldiers and no job growth.

Or ketchup and pickles on the side???

I'm glad you think I'm funny.........I strikeout when it comes to "cute"..

I WAS thinking of something dramatically sweet for your birthday....But, people would talk.


I'm not really looking forward to job growth, I do way too much already.

As far as the soldiers go......No jokes about this.....

Why does each side have to use them as pawns in the political game? I was watching an interview with Ms. Edwards and some other gal that stumping for her...

The other gal had two kids in the service, one in the Marines...

When the BHBB (Bubble Headed Bleach Blonde) asked her why she supported Kerry, who voted for the war but nixxed the 87 billion zillion dollars that would have gone for more, better materials for her sons she said something like, "Bush didn't have a plan to spend the money..."

WTF??????

You'll support someone who took the equipment out of your son's hands because they have a plan and the Prez doesn't????

When her son comes back in the aluminum casket she'll be crying that her son didn't have the right equipment and blame anyone except Kerry...

I yelled at the TV set for a few more moments and then I laughed at her friggin ignorance.

There have been different stories posted about military material shortages/makeshift fixes......Pistol magazines, the 'fences' on Bradley Fighting Vehicles and welding metal plates on the sides of Humvees because soldiers weren't sent with proper equipment.

Yes, Dubya is partially to blame for that....But, it's up to us and the morons (like John Kerry) in Washington to make sure they get WHAT they need.

Waffles.......I tried to put a twist on the old 'waffle' joke....It just doesn't seem right to suggest or call Kerry names.

But,I did see they new Dem Mascot....they axed the donkey and brought back the "pushme, pullyou" from Dr Doolittle....


Kinda apropo, doncha think?

[Soledad]

Kerry didn't object to giving the troops $87 million, he disagreed with the way it was going to be paid for. It happens all the time. The President should know, he's done it any number of times.

I'd also like to know just how much of that $87 million went straight to the soldies in terms of payment and equipment. Wouldn't it make more sense to pay for things like personal body armor before doing other things?

I think it's despicable that this President can talk about supporting the troops while cutting their funeral and imminent danger pay and claiming he raised military pay when he absolutely did not (see quote).

President Bush's Department of Defense (DOD) budget increase of $14.2 billion (4.8%) over FY 2001 levels is essentially identical to the increase proposed by President Clinton in January. Although President Bush's DOD budget of $310.5 is $100 million above President Clinton's January budget, it includes the transfer of the Maritime Security Program - a program authorized at $100 million a year - from the Maritime Administration to the DOD. As a result, the net "increase" above the Clinton budget is zero.

[Soledad]

Also, I hear Bush can cook up some pretty good waffles of his own. Here's a tip: when trying to discuss politics, try not to just read off of the RNC's talking points...

Nation Building and the War in Iraq

During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush argued against nation building and foreign military entanglements. In the second presidential debate, he said: "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'"

The United States is currently involved in nation building in Iraq on a scale unseen since the years immediately following World War II.

During the 2000 election, Mr. Bush called for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from the NATO peacekeeping mission in the Balkans. His administration now cites such missions as an example of how America must "stay the course."


Iraq and the Sept. 11 Attacks

In a press conference in September 2002, six months before the invasion of Iraq, President Bush said, “you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror... they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive.”

In September of 2004, Mr. Bush said: “We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11th." Though he added that “there's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties,” the statement seemingly belied earlier assertions that Saddam and al Qaeda were “equally bad.”

The Sept. 11 commission found there was no evidence Saddam was linked to the 9/11 attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people.


The Sept. 11 Commission

President Bush initially opposed the creation of an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 attacks. In May 2002, he said, “Since it deals with such sensitive information, in my judgment, it's best for the ongoing war against terror that the investigation be done in the intelligence committee.”

Bowing to pressure from victims' families, Mr. Bush reversed his position. The following September, he backed an independent investigation.


Free Trade

During the 2000 presidential election, Mr. Bush championed free trade. Then, eyeing campaign concerns that allowed him to win West Virginia, he imposed 30 percent tariffs on foreign steel products from Europe and other nations in March 2002.

Twenty-one months later, Mr. Bush changed his mind and rescinded the steel tariffs. Choosing to stand on social issues instead of tariffs in steel country – Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia – the Bush campaign decided it could afford to upset the steel industry rather than further estrange old alliances.


Homeland Security Department

President Bush initially opposed creating a new Department of Homeland Security. He wanted Tom Ridge, now the secretary of Homeland Security, to remain an adviser.

Mr. Bush reversed himself and backed the largest expansion of the federal government since the creation of the Defense Department in 1949.


Same-Sex Marriage

During the 2000 campaign, Mr. Bush said he was against federal intervention regarding the issue of same-sex marriage. In an interview with CNN's Larry King, he said, states "can do what they want to do" on the issue. Vice President Cheney took the same stance.

Four year later, this past February, Mr. Bush announced his support for an amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as being exclusively between men and women. The amendment would forbid states from doing "what they want to do" on same-sex marriage.

Citing recent decisions by “activist judges” in states like Massachusetts, Mr. Bush defended his reversal. Critics point out that well before the 2000 presidential race, a judge in Hawaii ruled in December 1996 that there was no compelling reason for withholding marriage from same-sex couples.


Winning the War on Terror

"I don't think you can win it," Mr. Bush said of the war on terror in August. In an interview on NBC's "Today" show, he said, “I think you can create conditions so that . . . those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

Before the month closed, Mr. Bush reversed himself at the American Legion national convention in Nashville. He said: "We meet today in a time of war for our country, a war we did not start yet one that we will win." He later added, “we are winning, and we will win."


Campaign Finance Reform

President Bush was initially against the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. He opposed any soft-money limits on individuals to national parties.

But Mr. Bush later signed McCain-Feingold into law. The law, named for Senate sponsors John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russell Feingold, D-Wis., barred both national parties from collecting soft money from individuals.

During the 2000 race, Mr. Bush showed support for the so-called 527 groups’ right to air advertising.

In March 2000, he told CBS News' "Face the Nation," "There have been ads, independent expenditures, that are saying bad things about me. I don't particularly care when they do, but that's what freedom of speech is all about.”

In late August of this year, in an effort to distance himself from controversial anti-Kerry ads by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Mr. Bush reversed his position, announcing he would join McCain in legal action to stop these "shadowy" organizations.

Though it would close the Swift Boat group's funding, court action would also silence well-funded liberal 527 organizations like MoveOn.org and America Coming Together.


Gas Prices

Mr. Bush was critical of Al Gore in the 2000 campaign for being part of “the administration that's been in charge” while the “price of gasoline has gone steadily upward.” In December 1999, in the first Republican primary debate, Mr. Bush said President Clinton “must jawbone OPEC members to lower prices.”

As gas topped a record level of $50 a barrel this week, Mr. Bush has shown no propensity to personally pressure, or “jawbone,” Mideast oil producers to increase output.

A spokesman for the president reportedly said in March that Mr. Bush will not personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds.

[lizzielou742]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE590O711.DTL

President Bush portrays his position on Iraq as steady and unwavering as he represents Sen. John Kerry's stance as ambiguous and vacillating.

"Mixed signals are the wrong signals,'' Bush said last week during a campaign stop in Bangor, Maine. "I will continue to lead with clarity, and when I say something, I'll mean what I say.''

Yet, heading into the first presidential debate Thursday, which will focus on foreign affairs, there is much in the public record to suggest that Bush's words on Iraq have evolved -- or, in the parlance his campaign often uses to describe Kerry, flip-flopped.

An examination of more than 150 of Bush's speeches, radio addresses and responses to reporters' questions reveal a steady progression of language, mostly to reflect changing circumstances such as the failure to discover weapons of mass destruction, the lack of ties between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network and the growing violence of Iraqi insurgents.

A war that was waged principally to overthrow a dictator who possessed "some of the most lethal weapons ever devised'' has evolved into a mission to rid Iraq of its "weapons-making capabilities'' and to offer democracy and freedom to its 25 million residents.

The president no longer expounds upon deposed Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein's connections with al Qaeda, rarely mentions the rape and torture rooms or the illicit weapons factories that he once warned posed a direct threat to the United States.

In the fall of 2002, as Bush sought congressional support for the use of force, he described the vote as a sign of solidarity that would strengthen his ability to keep the peace. Today, his aides describe it unambiguously as a vote to go to war.

Whether such shifts constitute a reasonable evolution of language to reflect the progression of war, or an about-face to justify unmet expectations, is a subjective judgment tinged by partisan prejudice.

Yet a close look at the record makes it difficult to support Bush campaign chairman Ken Mehlman's description of the upcoming debate as a "square-off between resolve and optimism versus vacillation and defeatism.''

A careful reading of Bush's statements on Iraq reveals many instances of consistency, just as The Chronicle's examination of Kerry's words found consistency in the Democratic challenger's statements. Over and over, Bush stated that the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, changed the way Americans -- including the commander in chief -- viewed the threat of terrorism and lowered the threshold of risk Americans were willing to accept.

"Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take,'' Bush said in a well-received speech before the U.N. General Assembly on Sept 12, 2002.

Bush echoed those words earlier this month as he accepted his party's nomination for president a few miles away, at Madison Square Garden in New York:

"Do I forget the lessons of September the 11th and take the word of a madman, or do I take action to defend our country? Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time.''

Yet the more specific explanation of a mission that has cost more than 1, 000 American lives, thousands of Iraqi lives and well over $100 billion has undergone a transformation.

Prior to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, Bush focused on weapons of mass destruction and stated the U.S. goal in straightforward terms.

"Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. And in order to disarm, it would mean regime change,'' Bush said at a news conference two weeks before he took the nation to war.

"And our mission won't change,'' Bush continued. "Our mission is precisely what I just stated.''

Six weeks later, speaking to workers at an Army tank plant in Ohio, the goal seemed to expand.

"Our mission -- besides removing the regime that threatened us, besides ending a place where the terrorists could find a friend, besides getting rid of weapons of mass destruction -- our mission has been to bring humanitarian aid and restore basic services and put this country, Iraq, on the road to self- government.''

Last month, speaking to supporters at a campaign event in Wisconsin, Bush put it more plainly: "The goal in Iraq and Afghanistan is for there to be democratic and free countries who are allies in the war on terror. That's the goal.''

In the course of the campaign, such shifts have been characterized by Bush's opponents as lies.

"He failed to tell the truth about the rationale for going to war,'' Kerry said during a speech at New York University last week in which he said Bush has offered 23 different rationales for going to war. "If his purpose was to confuse and mislead the American people, he succeeded.''

The count comes from a study conducted by an honors thesis written by a University of Illinois student, which actually attributed 19 rationales -- none mutually exclusive -- to Bush and four others to members of his administration.

Most of the rationales were on the table from the beginning. What changed was the emphasis.

Bush voiced no doubt from the beginning that Hussein possessed chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons.

"Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks, to build and keep weapons of mass destruction,'' Bush said in his State of the Union address in January 2003.

By the following year, after no such weapons had been discovered and evidence suggested that much of the intelligence was wrong, Bush had toned down such talk and begun to speak of the "threat'' of Hussein developing such weapons.

In his State of the Union address last January, Bush spoke of Hussein's "mass destruction-related program activities."

"Look, there is no doubt that Saddam Husein was a dangerous person,'' the president told ABC's Diane Sawyer in an interview several weeks before that speech. "And there's no doubt we had a body of evidence providing that. And there is no doubt that the president must act, after 9/11, to make America a more secure country.''

Sawyer asked the president about the distinction between the "hard fact that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons.''

"So what's the difference?'' Bush responded. "The possibility that he could acquire weapons, if he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger.''

"What would it take to convince you he didn't have weapons of mass destruction,'' Sawyer persisted.

"Saddam Hussein was a threat,'' Bush responded. "And the fact that he is gone means America is a safer country.''

In the months since, Bush has changed his standard speech to reflect that failure to discover the weapons.

"Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq,'' Bush said in July in Tennessee. "We removed a declared enemy of America who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them. In the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take.''

There are a few instances where the president's words contradict developments or his previous statements.

On March 6, 2003, for example, Bush insisted during a prime-time news conference that he would offer a resolution before the United Nations calling for the use of force against Iraq even if other nations threatened to veto it.

"No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote,'' Bush said.

A few days later, after it became apparent that the measure would not only be vetoed but might fail to win a majority of the Security Council, the Bush administration dropped its demand for a vote.

The president also said last month on NBC's "Today Show'' that "I don't think you can win'' the war on terrorism, explaining instead that the nation could greatly minimize the likelihood of terrorist attacks. The comment came after months of asserting the United States was winning, and would ultimately triumph, in its war on terror. The statement appeared to be little more than an inelegant way of adding nuance to his explanation, and the president quickly retreated from the words the following day.

Some statements now look off-base after developments in Iraq, such as Bush's response in the first days of the war after learning that Iraqis may have captured some Americans.

"I do know that we expect them to be treated humanely, just like we'll treat any prisoners of theirs that we capture humanely,'' Bush said, many months before American soldiers committed the atrocities at the Abu Ghraib prison.

President Bush on Iraq

Sept. 12, 2002

Speech before the U.N. General Assembly

"Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.''

Sept. 19, 2002

Response to a reporter's question

"If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. ... This is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say, we support the administration's ability to keep the peace. That's what this is all about.''

Oct. 7, 2002

Speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Cincinnati

"Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. ... Knowing these realities, American must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.''

March 6, 2003

News conference

"Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. And in order to disarm, it would mean regime change.''

March 17, 2003

Address to nation (two days before invasion)

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other.''

May 1, 2003

Aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. ... The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on."

Nov. 11, 2003

Veterans Day address

"Our mission in Iraq and Afghanistan is clear to our service members -- and clear to our enemies. Our men and women are fighting to secure the freedom of more than 50 million people who recently lived under two of the cruelest dictatorships on earth. Our men and women are fighting to help democracy and peace and justice rise in a troubled and violent region. Our men and women are fighting terrorist enemies thousands of miles away in the heart and center of their power, so that we do not face those enemies in the heart of America.''

Aug. 16, 2004

Speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Cincinnati

"Even though we did not find the stockpiles that we thought we would find, Saddam Hussein had the capability to make weapons of mass destruction, and he could have passed that capability on to our enemy, to the terrorists. It is not a risk after September the 11th that we could afford to take. Knowing what I know today, I would have taken the same action."
-----------------------


This administration thinks if it just ignores things, like Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Osama Bin Laden, that they will just go away. They think that if they just make it nearly impossible for people to vote, then they just won't. They're in a fantasy world, but they're about to get a real harsh reality check on November 2nd.

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by Soledad
Kerry didn't object to giving the troops $87 million, he disagreed with the way it was going to be paid for. It happens all the time. The President should know, he's done it any number of times.

I'd also like to know just how much of that $87 million went straight to the soldies in terms of payment and equipment. Wouldn't it make more sense to pay for things like personal body armor before doing other things?

I think it's despicable that this President can talk about supporting the troops while cutting their funeral and imminent danger pay and claiming he raised military pay when he absolutely did not (see quote).

Bullets and gas, tanks and trucks are free.

Isn't equipment and BA the same thing???

Waffles...tee hee.

George Bush lied......He misrepresented.....
----------------------------------------

You are supposed to toss in a slam against Bush!
You know, something about his past, drug use or military service....I'm see you are slipping....
-----------------------------------------

PS.

I read the first three lines of the articles......it's just too boring to read someone else's opinions....


Honey,

Do you think a tan would be appropriate for the debate???

[Lady's Human]

Soledad,


President Bush did indeed push for and get a larger military pay raise and got targeted pay raises through congress. Instead of everyone getting the same raise, the pay tables were altered so those with more responsibility got more money......It used to be when a soldier got promoted from PFC to Specialist it was the biggest raise they'd ever see. No change in duties or responsibilities, just more money. Now senior NCO's and Staff Sergeants are (almost ) getting paid in accordance to their responsibilities. The raises in the Bush administration have been about one percent higher than they had been in the previous decade. We have also seen far more money put into the training and ammunition funds. No longer do we have to worry about going over budget on mileage, which was a major concern in the '90s. (and yes, this began prior to 9/11).From 1992 to about 1999, the armor units were limited to 25 miles per month on a tracked vehicle because there were no maintenance spares available to fix the equipment if we went over that figure. . We can actually request and get ammunition for training, and the new COS of the Army is pushing a new training cycle that should make an impact across the board. I could go on for pages about changes in the military, but the point is that the military has vastly improved since the Bush administration was elected.

[RICHARD]

I shudder to think about sending mechanized units and their troops to a war with only 25 miles a month to train on.

In the Gulf War I the mechanized divisions traveled some 180 kilometers into Iraq...in some 80 hours...It may be more - I don't have the facts at hand....That's three months of training mileage!
in three plus days.

I think is a disservice to speak of supporting the troops and then voting down monies that would make their mission a whole lot easier..

The other thing that makes me ill is the point being made that WHERE THE money comes from is MORE IMPORTANT than the PEOPLE it's meant for........

----------------------

Years ago I met a very nice woman who volunteered her time in our office. She was a grandmotherly type, who was an absolutely charming lady.

One day I noticed her hands.
Press your hands flat on the table in front of you.
Look at your thumbs-see the way they curve out.
Now try to curve your index/pointer finger out the same way...

You probably can't do it.

I was pretty taken by her crooked fingers, They looked painful and the work of arthritis.....

I asked her if I could ask her a question about her fingers.

NO problem, ask away......"Do they hurt???
She smiled at me and said, 'No, they don't hurt'.
Her smile was from ear to ear, so I figured that I could ask her HOW they were bent.

Again a HUGE smile on her face.....During World War II she pulled wiring for bombers.......

"I pulled so much wiring my fingers bent that way..."

Huge smile to finish our conversation

No regret, no hesitation.

She was proud of her work, she was proud of her contribution and she was proud of her fingers. That was literally years ago...

I still remember Bea because of her charm and her fingers. When someone starts to complain about where the money should come from to support the troops, I think about this gal, who busted her rump to put wires thru wing spars and the fuselage of bombers that were needed.

Sometimes money isn't the cure all. But I don't see the American public going to an aircraft company to pull wires for bombers...

Since George Bush sent the troops our ill prepared for Iraq, then we only have Clinton to blame for 25 miles a month and no ammo.

As a matter of fact, It's a message to us, as taxpayers, to make sure that we get the troops we support, ANYTHING they want.

Some forty years after her fingers were bent all to hell this gal didn't have any regrets....you could see the spark in her eyes and the pride in her voice as she told me about her job.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

So you support the troops...and you support the fact that some nitz WON'T approve the 87 mil for them...Just because he doesn't know how we are going to pay for it..

MY wallet or OUR soldiers??????

I can get a wallet any day of the week.

[Soledad]

President: "You can not change positions in the war on terror if you expect to win"
BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" (President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01)

...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him." (President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02)

BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror."([President Bush, 9/25/02)

...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." (President Bush, 9/17/03)

[Albea]

President Eisenhower's Son Endorses John Kerry

Republicans have been deserting George Bush all summer long, but in the New Hampshire Union Leader, John Eisenhower, son of President Eisenhower and a lifelong Republican, declares that he is switching to Independent and plans to vote for John Kerry in November.
Here's the complete endorsement and biographical information about John Eisenhower:

Why I will vote for John Kerry for President
By JOHN EISENHOWER
Guest Commentary

The Presidential election to be held this coming Nov. 2 will be one of extraordinary importance to the future of our nation. The outcome will determine whether this country will continue on the same path it has followed for the last 31⁄2 years or whether it will return to a set of core domestic and foreign policy values that have been at the heart of what has made this country great.

Now more than ever, we voters will have to make cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the past. Experts tell us that we tend to vote as our parents did or as we “always have.” We remained loyal to party labels. We cannot afford that luxury in the election of 2004. There are times when we must break with the past, and I believe this is one of them.

As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration’s decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.

The fact is that today’s “Republican” Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word “Republican” has always been synonymous with the word “responsibility,” which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today’s whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.

Responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. That has meant respect for others. America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance. Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance.

In the Middle East crisis of 1991, President George H.W. Bush marshaled world opinion through the United Nations before employing military force to free Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Through negotiation he arranged for the action to be financed by all the industrialized nations, not just the United States. When Kuwait had been freed, President George H. W. Bush stayed within the United Nations mandate, aware of the dangers of occupying an entire nation.

Today many people are rightly concerned about our precious individual freedoms, our privacy, the basis of our democracy. Of course we must fight terrorism, but have we irresponsibly gone overboard in doing so? I wonder. In 1960, President Eisenhower told the Republican convention, “If ever we put any other value above (our) liberty, and above principle, we shall lose both.” I would appreciate hearing such warnings from the Republican Party of today.

The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which included balancing the budget whenever the state of the economy allowed it to do so. The Eisenhower administration accomplished that difficult task three times during its eight years in office. It did not attain that remarkable achievement by cutting taxes for the rich. Republicans disliked taxes, of course, but the party accepted them as a necessary means of keep the nation’s financial structure sound.

The Republicans used to be deeply concerned for the middle class and small business. Today’s Republican leadership, while not solely accountable for the loss of American jobs, encourages it with its tax code and heads us in the direction of a society of very rich and very poor.

Sen. Kerry, in whom I am willing to place my trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous, sober, competent, and concerned with fighting the dangers associated with the widening socio-economic gap in this country. I will vote for him enthusiastically.

I celebrate, along with other Americans, the diversity of opinion in this country. But let it be based on careful thought. I urge everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, to avoid voting for a ticket merely because it carries the label of the party of one’s parents or of our own ingrained habits.

**********

John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, served on the White House staff between October 1958 and the end of the Eisenhower administration. From 1961 to 1964 he assisted his father in writing “The White House Years,” his Presidential memoirs. He served as American ambassador to Belgium between 1969 and 1971. He is the author of nine books, largely on military subjects.

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by Soledad
President: "You can not change positions in the war on terror if you expect to win"
BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" (President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01)

If you want to catch a rat you have to patiently and quietly wait for him to stick his head out of the wall. Having people run all over the place ain't gonna help, you just scare the rat deeper into hiding...

----------------------------------------------------

I got a letter from John Kerry to make a contribution.

I thought about how much money Tah raise ah has and wondered why he'd need my hard earned bucks...

I stuffed the return envelope with some crisp new bills-the best part is he paid for the postage.

I sent him 4,000 dollars.

Now I have to replace the Monopoly money from my nephew's
game before he finds out...

[Logan]

Originally posted by RICHARD
If you want to catch a rat you have to patiently and quietly wait for him to stick his head out of the wall. Having people run all over the place ain't gonna help, you just scare the rat deeper into hiding...

----------------------------------------------------

I got a letter from John Kerry to make a contribution.

I thought about how much money Tah raise ah has and wondered why he'd need my hard earned bucks...

I stuffed the return envelope with some crisp new bills-the best part is he paid for the postage.

I sent him 4,000 dollars.

Now I have to replace the Monopoly money from my nephew's
game before he finds out...

Hehehe!!!!

[christa]

Originally posted by RICHARD
I sent him 4,000 dollars.

Now I have to replace the Monopoly money from my nephew's
game before he finds out...

LOLOLOL!!! Richard, are you serious!?!? That's too great! You're AWESOME!