John Kerry for President?

richdad007 said:

WHO IS ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER ???????? Your next president!!

Click to expand...

I know!!! If he does a decent job with California, he's gonna run for Prez, no doubt. But why does he gotta be a Repub, although he's a self-proclaimed liberal?

Repub-lead Congress is working on a bill that would allow foreigner who've lived here for 20+ years, able to run for Prez. Democratically I agree, but its so obvious its b/c they want Arnold to run.

If it was Hector Lopez from Mexico, or Abu-Habeeb from Iran, they'd hold off on the bill.

You guys know that Arnold does Penis Enlargement! Right??? Maybe when he is in office we can get tax refund for all our Penis Enlargement tools , website subscriptions ......

I bet Arnold is pretty hung, because he always used to feel bitches up and shit. He also used to brag about having group orgies and gang bangin chick. You dont say and do that shit w/o some size to back you up.

You would think that he would have a small little pecker because of the steroids and working out he used to do. I wouldnt vote for him though. I just feel like the Repubs just prop him up like they did with Reagen. All of his catch phrases that he uses is a dead giveaway.

I heard that Jerry Springer might be running for a Senate or House seat in Congress. Springer is the shit! We need a sensible liberal in Congress.

regarding the earlier line of conversation . . .

Vietnam was not a state under control of the larger communist block. Ho Chi Min was an iconoclastic leader and did not fall in line with communist China, Korea, or Russia. Suggesting that Vietnam was a necessary war to stop the impending spread of communism is fairly sili. A small amount of investigation into the matter will reveal to anybody that this is now common knowledge. Consider the fact that when a decorated war veteran like Kerry returns home and denounces the war, he is in fact campaigning to end something that he saw first hand to be futile and senseless. As any veteran will tell you, primary motivation in combat situations is essentially the men on either side of you. When Kerry protested the war, he was pleading with the government to bring his fellow soldiers home. Suggesting that war protests somehow facilitated the ongoing nature of Vietnam is something I don't quite understand. Kerry's extensive work for veteran's causes leads me to believe that he is anything but cynical about military service.

Articles and Books detailing the agenda of the Bush administration: If you didn't already hear about the book from Paul O'Neil released several months ago, that would be a good start. Former White House Counter Terrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke (recently retired) will be releasing his own book shortly, which directly states that Rumsfield sought to bomb Iraq as early as the day after 9/11 and that there had been a standing agenda aimed at finding a way to invade and overthrow the regime. So far as articles, those are almost too numerous to list. A few quick searches in the New York Times, The Economist, Time Magazine, virtually any major news source aside from Fox News, The Washington Times, and the WSJ will produce numerous accounts and testimony about the administration.

Cartoonist Gary Trudeau recently sponsored a contest offering $10,000 to anybody that could offer some sort of actual documentation of Bush's service during his alleged AWOL time. After more than a month Trudeau has simply mailed the money to the USO as his staffers did not recieve one credible account or document suggesting Bush was active in the Guard at the time. I would like to emphasize that there is no paper trail confirming his presence at a military installation during the time of alleged absence and for every person who has come forward and said that they think they remember him being around, there are twenty that have no recollection. The White House's lack of cooperation and secrecy on the matter does not make much of a stride towards good faith either.

The links mentioned between Iraq and Al Queda I have never heard of and would be curious to learn of their origins. However, anybody that has read about Iraq knows that it was not a state that hosted or sponsored a great deal of terrorist activity. Hussein was a political manipulator who occasionaly used religious terminology to provoke a reaction in speechs, but his regime was not of a fundamentalist religous nature. It is well documented that he did not like having terrorists operating in the country as he preferred to be master of his domain and considered terrorist a potential threat to his hegemony. When compared to nations like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, ect. , Iraq had virtually no terrorist ties and very little activity. It was not regarded as a sponsor of significant terrorist activity, and especially not Al Queda, by any experts in the field. One of the few places we have clear evidence of a few terrorist camps (not realted to Al Queda) operating are in the Kurdish zones, friendly to the US and outside of the regime's direct control (as they weren't welcome there). As I said before, the administration was very careful to never actually state that Iraq was somehow behind 9/11, as there was no good intelligence to suggest this, none whatsoever. A cursory examination of the politics involved here would lead one to believe that if they had any such evidence you had damn well better believe it would have been well-publicized and presented before the UN as part of our case for invasion.

I believe somebody else explained the mistake of simply lining up a number of defense bills Kerry voted against. Suggesting that not voting for every defense bill that comes his way makes him somehow militarily weak is again, a connection I fail to understand. I did notice that the now cancelled commanche helicopter program was among Kerry's thumbs down selections. As I mentioned before, our military is, for all practical purposes, undefeatable. There are other ways to spend money on defense and security than pumpingh more money into the notoriously wasteful Pentagon reserach facilities and bulk weapons hardware production. I always thought that conservatives wanted to limit government spending, but appearently this is only true in regard to helping people in need, not building missiles we'll never need to use.

Swank said:

Cartoonist Gary Trudeau recently sponsored a contest offering $10,000 to anybody that could offer some sort of actual documentation of Bush's service during his alleged AWOL time.

Click to expand...

For many years there has been a man with a similar standing offer to anyone who can prove there is a law saying you have to pay Federal income tax. He hasnt had any takers either.

Its not a matter of did Bush show up for his jumping jacks in Alabama. Thats not the point. The point is that Bush's Nat. Guard duty during that time in Vietnam, was nothing like the Nat. Guard now. Right now, most of the troops in Iraq are Reserves and Guards.

Bush recently said during an interview on Meet the Press, that he would have gone to Vietnam if his unit had been called. Thats such bullshit, because he got into the Nat. Guard to get OUT of going to Vietnam. And he dishonors the Guardsman who are in Iraq now, by comparing his military service with theirs.

At least Kerry knows what its like to be sent to war, and he will always know that when he sends our troops to fight terrorism. Bush dosent know what its like. And frankly I think the Bush Admin is war profiteering by trying to make the War on Terror endless. Right now were creating terrorist faster then were killing them.

Actually it would be In Bush's best interest as well for the War to end. Or at least pull troops out before the election.

bigbutnottoo said:

Actually it would be In Bush's best interest as well for the War to end. Or at least pull troops out before the election.

Click to expand...

We will never pull troops out of Iraq. We still have troops in Bosnia. If we do "pull" out of Iraq, it wont be for another several years.

We are handing over "power" to the Iraqi's on June 30(?), but its still not clear WHO we are handing the power over to. Even Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld said its not clear. So its obviously an attempt to show progress and show that were winning.

The Iraqi National Council will probably get the power, but that Council was appointed by Americans. How can a democracy look legitamate in the eyes of the people, when they never elected them in the first place? They see the INC as Americans pawns and cronies. And their probably right.

I really hope we dont set up some puppet-government. Because that will only continue the violence. We need to really give the keys to their country to the Iraqi's, then they will take it upon themselves to build a true free nation.

NeXus said:

I really hope we dont set up some puppet-government. Because that will only continue the violence. We need to really give the keys to their country to the Iraqi's, then they will take it upon themselves to build a true free nation.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Excellent points. I feel it would be a mistake to pull the troops out of Iraq now, despite any debate over whether they should have ever been there. In the 80's we financed the Afghani war against Russia, and left them in shambles when the Russians finally gave up. We are all familiar with the results of that policy (a lawless state run by religous extremists and a paradise for terrorists). Granted, that type of scenario is unlikely to emerge in a nation like Iraq, but if this is truly a war on terrorism it would seem to be a step in the wrong direction to leave an unstable country full of insurgents to the wolves. I feel strongly that the best and most responsible policy in Iraq right now is to hold fast until it is reasonably secure and independent, although as was mentioned, we will likely always be involved to some degree for many years. If the Bush administration were to start pulling troops from the region as we move closer to election time I would be deeply disturbed as it would clearly be a case of calculating election engineering at the expense of human life and security.

Nexus and Swank -- you're both on the mark. The below commentary appeared on the Op-Ed page in the NY Times today (3/24). IMO, it's well said and persuasive.

Lifting the Shroud
By PAUL KRUGMAN

From the day it took office, U.S. News & World Report wrote a few months
ago, the Bush administration "dropped a shroud of secrecy" over the federal
government. After 9/11, the administration's secretiveness knew no limits -
Americans, Ari Fleischer ominously warned, "need to watch what they say,
watch what they do." Patriotic citizens were supposed to accept the
administration's version of events, not ask awkward questions.

But something remarkable has been happening lately: more and more insiders
are finding the courage to reveal the truth on issues ranging from mercury
pollution - yes, Virginia, polluters do write the regulations these days,
and never mind the science - to the war on terror.

It's important, when you read the inevitable attempts to impugn the
character of the latest whistle-blower, to realize just how risky it is to
reveal awkward truths about the Bush administration. When Gen. Eric Shinseki
told Congress that postwar Iraq would require a large occupation force, that
was the end of his military career. When Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV
revealed that the 2003 State of the Union speech contained information known
to be false, someone in the White House destroyed his wife's career by
revealing that she was a C.I.A. operative. And we now know that Richard
Foster, the Medicare system's chief actuary, was threatened with dismissal
if he revealed to Congress the likely cost of the administration's
prescription drug plan.

The latest insider to come forth, of course, is Richard Clarke, George
Bush's former counterterrorism czar and the author of the just-published
"Against All Enemies."

On "60 Minutes" on Sunday, Mr. Clarke said the previously unsayable: that
Mr. Bush, the self-proclaimed "war president," had "done a terrible job on
the war against terrorism." After a few hours of shocked silence, the
character assassination began. He "may have had a grudge to bear since he
probably wanted a more prominent position," declared Dick Cheney, who also
says that Mr. Clarke was "out of the loop." (What loop? Before 9/11, Mr.
Clarke was the administration's top official on counterterrorism.) It's
"more about politics and a book promotion than about policy," Scott
McClellan said.

Of course, Bush officials have to attack Mr. Clarke's character because
there is plenty of independent evidence confirming the thrust of his
charges.

Did the Bush administration ignore terrorism warnings before 9/11? Justice
Department documents obtained by the Center for American Progress, a liberal
think tank, show that it did. Not only did John Ashcroft completely drop
terrorism as a priority - it wasn't even mentioned in his list of seven
"strategic goals" - just one day before 9/11 he proposed a reduction in
counterterrorism funds.

Did the administration neglect counterterrorism even after 9/11? After 9/11
the F.B.I. requested $1.5 billion for counterterrorism operations, but the

White House slashed this by two-thirds. (Meanwhile, the Bush campaign has
been attacking John Kerry because he once voted for a small cut in
intelligence funds.)

Oh, and the next time terrorists launch an attack on American soil, they
will find their task made much easier by the administration's strange
reluctance, even after 9/11, to protect potential targets. In November 2001
a bipartisan delegation urged the president to spend about $10 billion on
top-security priorities like ports and nuclear sites. But Mr. Bush flatly
refused.

Finally, did some top officials really want to respond to 9/11 not by going
after Al Qaeda, but by attacking Iraq? Of course they did. "From the very
first moments after Sept. 11," Kenneth Pollack told "Frontline," "there was
a group of people, both inside and outside the administration, who believed
that the war on terrorism . . . should target Iraq first." Mr. Clarke simply
adds more detail.

Still, the administration would like you to think that Mr. Clarke had base
motives in writing his book. But given the hawks' dominance of the
best-seller lists until last fall, it's unlikely that he wrote it for the
money. Given the assumption by most political pundits, until very recently,
that Mr. Bush was guaranteed re-election, it's unlikely that he wrote it in
the hopes of getting a political job. And given the Bush administration's
penchant for punishing its critics, he must have known that he was taking a
huge personal risk.

So why did he write it? How about this: Maybe he just wanted the public to
know the truth.

Thanks for posting that, I had laready seen it but it is quite good, very concise. I am confident all the facts will come out eventually. In an information society you can't attempt to keep a lid on things like the Bush administration has since day one, and the more people stand up, the less their bully tactics will be effective. Say what you will about liberal policies and the character of the democrats, but I don't see John Kerry or the DLC conspiring to destroy anybody's carreers for attempting to give their honest opinon on events and publicize facts that could be crucial to national security. The president and his staff are supposed to be public servants. I am afraid that anybody who thinks that Bush is in any way working for them and their families has allowed fear and lies to blind them to reality.

NeXus said:

I know!!! If he does a decent job with California, he's gonna run for Prez, no doubt. But why does he gotta be a Repub, although he's a self-proclaimed liberal?

Repub-lead Congress is working on a bill that would allow foreigner who've lived here for 20+ years, able to run for Prez. Democratically I agree, but its so obvious its b/c they want Arnold to run.

If it was Hector Lopez from Mexico, or Abu-Habeeb from Iran, they'd hold off on the bill.

Click to expand...

In my opinion, liberal republicans or conservative democrats are the best to have running things. It's bad to have someone be an extremist in anything. I am republican (not hardcore) but I always look at issues before parties.

The Arnold runnign for prez is funny because in Demolition Man they ahd the Schwarzenegger Presidential Library. Arnold is my idol and I think he can do whatever he puts his mind to. When he came to the US he had $20 and some clothes, now look at him.

What Presidential Administration in US history has been considered "liberal Democrats"? I cant think of any. Clinton was a centrist democrat, who broke away from the McGovern and Dukakis labels.

We all know from Dubya that you can be called a conservative Repub, and still be a fiscally irresponsible hack. He's socially conservative but not fiscally.

Arnold is okay, but Davis was worse. Davis was a bad Democrat. This recall was part grass-roots and part Repub opportunity to snag another title. Plus this puts Calif closer to the Repubs and could be a battle ground come November.

One reason I dont like Arnold is that when he campaigns and talks politically, he still uses movie phrases and movie references. He plays off his celebrity status. Thats so lame and cheap.

Proof that the Bushies were not that interested in Osama. I encourage you all to sign up for the daily mis-lead.

THE DAILY MIS-LEAD
< http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2414061&l=24792 >
===============================

WHITE HOUSE, 4/01: FOCUS ON BIN LADEN "A MISTAKE"

A previously forgotten report from April 2001 (four months before 9/11)
shows that the Bush Administration officially declared it "a mistake" to
focus "so much energy on Osama bin Laden." The report directly contradicts
the White House's continued assertion that fighting terrorism was its "top
priority" before the 9/11 attacks (1).

Specifically, on April 30, 2001, CNN reported that the Bush Administration's
release of the government's annual terrorism report contained a serious
change: "there was no extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind
Osama bin Laden" as there had been in previous years. When asked why the
Administration had reduced the focus, "a senior Bush State Department
official told CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much
energy on bin Laden." (2).


The move to downgrade the fight against Al Qaeda before 9/11 was not the
only instance where the Administration ignored repeated warnings that an Al
Qaeda attack was imminent (3). Specifically, the Associated Press reported
in 2002 that "President Bush's national security leadership met formally
nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism
was the topic during only two of those sessions" (4). Meanwhile, Newsweek
has reported that internal government documents show that the Bush
Administration moved to "de-emphasize" counterterrorism prior to 9/11 (5).
When "FBI officials sought to add hundreds more counterintelligence agents"
to deal with the problem, "they got shot down" by the White House.

Sources:
1. Press Briefing by Scott McClellan, 03/22/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2414061&l=24793.
2. CNN, 04/30/2001.
3. Bush Was Warned of Hijackings Before 9/11; Lawmakers Want Public
Inquiry,
ABC News, 05/16/2002,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2414061&l=24794.
4. "Top security advisers met just twice on terrorism before Sept. 11
attacks", Detroit News, 07/01/2002,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2414061&l=24795.
5. Freedom of Information Center, 05/27/2002,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2414061&l=24796.

Visit Misleader.org for more about Bush Administration distortion. -->
< http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2414061&l=24797

Gonna vote for anyone but Bush, probably Kerry. I'm a registered republican, but jesus Bush is a fucking idiot.

Bush Sr. didn't even want him to be Pres. He wanted Jeb to be, but Jeb didn't win his first election as governer.

I'm really glad to read your post, Xenoseal. I sure hope there are more enlightened Republicans out there like you. I am not registered in either party. I tend to vote Democratic, but have voted for more than a few Republicans. I have voted in many elections. I can honestly say that I have never had such contempt for a candidate before like I have for Bush. He is a stupid, disingenuous fool. Talk about someone who will say or do anything just to appease the Christian right. He has no real beliefs but knows he goes nowhere without their support. This administration is so secretive and lies constantly -- a strategy developed by the lethal duo -- Rove and Cheney. I don't believe we can easily go through another 4 years of Bush as president. We will pay dearly. I wish there was some way to get McCain to see the light and run with Kerry. They would win by a landslide. All of the independents would swing to Kerry. McCain hates Bush, as well he should after what Bush did to him in South Carolina in 2000. McCain's party loyalty should take a back seat to what's in the best interest of the country. Sure, many Democrats would be bent out of shape with a Rep. VP candidate but they'd get over it. The singlemindedness of the Democratic pols in seeking to defeat Bush would prevail, and they would eventually see the light and get behind such a ticket. There is such polarization in Washington between the parties, Kerry and McCain would go a long way toward finally breaking that down. The audacity of Bush to come into Washington after he lost the popular vote and act like he had a great mandate. That man has got to go!!

yeah,

I for one, also don't look at the partie's (rep/dem)... but I look at the values of this country and what it was found'd on, and if they stand for them! I just hope that anyone, BUT a bush, will win.

Anybody that will support an act (patriot act 1 and/or 2), that allow's the government to, for example: suspend elections, "define" a "thief" (petty criminal) as a terrorist, take away all your constitutional right's, etc... is commiting treason! They are shooting for dictatorship! In my opinion, they are no better than a terrorist! For crying out loud, this is a guy that has turned down a bill, 3 times, that will allow "elder's" to have cheaper medicare (wich he caused the raise), wich made him richer.

The whole Bush family is demented...for example...

Prescot bush: 3 count's of treason, by helping hitler with weapons trades...

Bush senrior: a few "attempted" investigation's of helping columbian drug lord's infiltrate drug's into america...while he was ahead of the CIA...... and good friend's of the individual who attempted the assasination of Ronald Raegon...while he was ahead of the CIA.

Bush Junior: Lying about going to war, responsible for the "patriot act", refusing to cooperate with the 911 commision, etc., etc., etc,...

Something about this family is fucked up! I do not trust them.

If I'm off on some of this, please let me know... but I've read and heard many article's and new's report's on these, that claim them to be fact's...especially bushy junior...fuk'n bastard!

Peace

The Patriot Act is okay, but they have provisions in there where they profile protestors and put people in giant databases in the Dep. of Homeland Sec., full of personall data and even pictures and shit. Same shit used to happen during Vietnam. The FBI was watching Kerry during his anti-Vietnam days.

I have always advocated for a Kerry/McCain ticket. It would work as long as abortion never becomes an issue b/c they are on opposite sides. But in that scenario, McCain as VP, would support the Pres. no matter what.

Im a liberal, and I am pro-war. But only when its necessary. Not like Iraq. That was the right war and the WRONG time, but 'war part' probably never would of been necessary. Pot should be legal, prostitution should be legal and taxed, religion should stay out of the White House, and FoxNews and the NewsCorporation owned by Rupert Murdoch should be broken up.

I hate Bush. I dont dislike Republicans, because there are some genuine ones out there. But too many Rightwingers hide behind the Republican Party. Democrats will win, if the Left instills itself in the Dems, and say Fuck Ralph Nader. Also, the Islam extremist ideology will never die with Bush in office. He creates terrorists faster than he can kill them.

Well anything you can say bad about Bush familiy you can say about any of the political families.

Also, I dont know what you mean that Bush turned down a bill. He has NEVER vetoed a bill. If Congress passes it, he signs it - to the benefit of Deomocrats many times.