Kerry bad For America

Can you respond to any of the other points?

Cycloptichorn

GAH! I said no such thing! I said that Nimh's response was better in that Nimh was addressing the post that was made instead of the poster that made it!

But, I find your postings as offensive as Pistoffs in that they are mere partisan ramblings that have no value.

Could it be another on the Bush campaign staff spamming A2K? I wonder.

This is as good as it gets from the right. They can't defend their jerk wad - they come out with agruments against the other guy that when placed against their guy is far more damaging. Typical right wing neofascist bullshit being spouted from the weak, unamerican, unpatriotic, whining neocons.......

You can't handle the truth!

BUSH IS RUINING AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't sugar coat it Bill, tell us how you really feel!


Meanwhile Kerry has the coalition of the unhinged working for him, courtesy of Soros, cuz he's such a weak candidate.

The kooks are becoming the center of the Dem campaign, ie. Gore, who was a big hit in front of 200 people at kook HQ, MoveOn.org, but that ilk is a very small segment of America.

Now Kerry's going to to be swayed by the lefty kooks into pulling out of Iraq when he already said that would be a mistake, not that he hasn't changed positions before(daily).

His whole campaign is based on any 'bad' news out of Iraq, otherwise he's put the bulk of America to sleep.

Dems, get a candidate worthy of a true win for chrissake.

Let America be Kerry free. :wink:

I'm not a huge fan of Kerry either, but I'll direct you to a website I found the other day:

www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/

Yes, that's John Kerry is a douche bag but im voting for him anyway.com.

Hardly a critical examination of the Bush admin but definately on the right track.

Cycloptichorn

Thanks for the encouragement - us lefties gotta get out of the shell and be more like the right

This was exactly my impression.

George Bush was Right: Iraq Finally Poses a Threat

George Bush was right. Iraq does indeed present an imminent and deadly threat to America. Unfortunately, when he first made this statement, he was off by about two years. But he did what was necessary to make his statement come true: he invaded Iraq.

If you recall, nearly two years ago, he and other members of his administration went on at some length about how Iraq posed a looming and malevolent threat, capable of doing grievous harm to Americans. On any and all occasions available, Bush and company told us repeatedly and with apparent sincerity that they believed the Iraqis would lend assistance to other terrorist groups. Together, they would kill Americans.

And they have. So far they have killed over 700 Americans, a number that rises by as many as 12 a day. With the aid of conventional weapons, like mortars and machine guns, along with the ever deadly improvised explosive devices (IEDs), Iraqis have been quite effective in dispatching us permanently from this life or, at least, separating us from our limbs.

In this endeavor, they are alleged to have had the assistance of other terrorist groups. According to a recent report by the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS), the U.S. occupation of Iraq brought al Qaeda recruits from across many Islamic nations. "Up to 1,000 foreign Islamic fighters have infiltrated Iraqi territory, where they are cooperating with Iraqi insurgents."

Admittedly, we had to go to an extraordinary expense to make all this come true: the occupation is costing Americans an estimated 2-3 billion dollars a month, depending on who you are listening to. To effectively combat the Iraqi "threat," we had to transport and then deploy an army of over 134,000 troops and over 15,000 American contractors. Most of these contractors, including truck drivers and laborers, earn over $80,000 a year; some contractors, primarily security specialists, make as much as $1,000 a day.

In addition to foreign troops, foreign contractors acting as troops have also joined the fight. Unfortunately, some of the latter "troops" have rather questionable pedigrees: quite a few fought in Chile under Pinochet or in South Africa during the days of Apartheid. Regardless, they and the Americans, both military and civilians, have all come to Iraq.

This situation, however, runs counter to Bush's scenario of Iraqis and other terrorists coming here and attacking us on American soil -- which they will probably do, according to the study. But we had to go there first before they came here -- at least in the number that may have already arrived here. Also contrary to Bush's scenario, it would seem that the Iraqis never really had the capacity to attack us had we remained here, except possibly to ship across the Atlantic various materials for dirty bombs or other explosives.

Unfortunately, this threat remains, largely because we have done very little to counter it. Money that was supposed to fund better protection of America's shores instead found its way into the hands of those who needed it most -- the richest 1% of Americans. Because of the revenues "diverted" by tax cuts and the welfare that the Bush administration has tirelessly and unstintingly lavished on large corporations, in the form of tax breaks and subsides, we are still not safe. We don't have the funds to inspect more than 3 percent of all the cargo that comes to our shores.

But sending weapons or materials for various bombs from Iraq is no longer necessary. According to the IISS study, hundreds of terrorists are now in America, where they can buy their AK-47s and Cesium-137 from local suppliers, in addition to importing it.

It appears that our invasion and occupation of Iraq worked quite nicely as a recruiting device, inducing many to enlist as terrorists, several of whom have since found their way to our shores. So in a sense, because we went there, they have come here. Consequently, they might now do what Bush wrongly claimed two years ago they could do -- injure and kill Americans at any time.

Therefore, it's true that the Iraqis and other assorted terrorists do indeed constitute an imminent threat to America. But wait a minute.

Isn't this where we all came in?

!
Bush's Broken Promises

"You can't say one thing and do another." - George W. Bush, 10/31/00

During the presidential campaign and his first year in office, George W. Bush made a number of promises affecting American families, but he has failed to keep them. From breaching the Social Security lockbox to making it harder for middle class families to pay for college and leaving out millions of seniors from his prescription drug proposal, Bush has made a habit out of saying one thing and doing another. Here is a catalogue of Bush's broken promises revealed in his FY 2003 budget and in other key policy areas.

In contrast to Bush's failures, Democrats have a strong record of progress on these issues.

Summary of Bush's Broken Promises Deficit
Bush said his tax cut would not cause deficits, even in a bad economy.

Bush's FY 2003 budget posts $106 billion deficit, the first deficit since 1997. The budget will return to balance in 2005, at the earliest.

Social Security

Bush said Social Security Trust Fund would remain in a lockbox.

Bush breached the Social Security Trust Fund and is on schedule to spend $1.65 trillion of it over the next ten years.

National Debt

Bush promised to pay down a record amount of the national debt.

Bush not only failed to pay down the national debt, he has been forced to request a $750 billion increase in the debt limit.

Education Reform

As part of the bipartisan education reform, Bush promised to spend more money on education.

Bush budget cut funding from his own "No Child Left Behind" law and provided the smallest education funding increase in seven years.

Pell Grants

Bush promised to increase the maximum Pell Grant award, thereby increasing access to higher education.

Bush froze Pell Grant limit below his promised level.

LIHEAP

Bush promised to "fully fund" LIHEAP (the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program).

Bush's budget cut LIHEAP by $300 million.

Medicare

Bush pledged to provide Medicare prescription drug coverage for all seniors.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that Bush's plan would cover only 6 percent of Medicare beneficiaries.

Yucca Mountain

Bush promised to listen to sound science and local officials before deciding to bury the nation's nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain.

Bush designated Yucca Mountain the site before all the science is in, flouting local officials.

Student Loans

Bush promised to make higher education more accessible by helping students with high costs.

Bush proposed pulling $1.3 billion from a program that allows students to consolidate education loans at federally subsidized interest rates.

*These are just for starters. BushCo is the worst Admin. to ever assult the American Middle Class. In my view the Neo Fascists and the Taliban of the Right Wing that have usurped power in the govt. are enemies of the people and should be indicted as War Criminals!

Well, while I defintately agree with your spirit BillW, I think we should just vote the lot of em out. Much easier than impeaching.

If it wasn't right around election time I would think differently. You didn't even begin to list the moral violations made under his admin's name, or perhaps the promises to keep america's allies around, or to improve our trade deficit.

Cycloptichorn

Maybe the Yale secret society Skull & Bones isn't as warm and cozy as previously believed.

A new book, "Ambushed," reveals that Bonesman David Richards, now a Manhattan real estate lawyer, was the member who tapped Yale junior George W. Bush in 1967.

But Richards - who didn't respond to Lowdown's detailed messages yesterday - tells "Ambushed" author Toby Rogers that the worst thing in the world would be for Bush to be re-elected President.

"I think it's pretty grim, I think he has trashed the economy, and I think he has conducted foreign policy badly, and I think he is a bad President," Richards says. "I don't know what he has done well."

Richards, who marched in Selma, Ala., with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., also reveals that he had gotten "quite drunk" with Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge at the 1964 Harvard-Yale football game.

"My personal choice is [Sen.] John Kerry," Richards added, "partly because he has experienced war and has some notion of what it means to send men to die, as he was someone sent to die."

But Kerry, a 1966 Yale grad, is also a Bonesman, natch.

Better look at those polls (whether one agrees with polls or not) 'cause Kerry is now leading in the some key swing states even with Nader gobbling up over 5% of the vote. It's going to be an exciting election and a lot will depend on:

1. The economy and especially if inflation doesn't rear its ugly head (maybe like in gas prices which raises nearly all prices down the line because goods have to get from one place to another?).

2. The Iraq war doesn't take a further nose dive. And I agree that now that we're in there we have no choice but to make it work even if it means a theocracy disguised as a democracy.

You been reading your coffeeleaves again, Brand X?

No sign of Kerry doing any such thing, yet.

In fact, one adroit analysis I read today pointed out that not just doesnt he really have to - it would be very dumb for him too, even just talking strategically. After the NYT quoted a Kerry adviser fretting that "He's caught between what would be politically advantageous, declaring a timetable for getting out, and what he knows is the reality on the ground, which is that we need more troops," TNR's &c blog retorted:

No sign yet, it wouldn't surprise me as more of the lefty kooks get in position to call the shots.

I do agree it would be stupid for him to flip flp on that one.

Major newspapers are reporting how much Bush and Kerry's plan's for Iraq are getting closer, so I imagine the Dem powers that be will want to push him to change something about his strategy.

Right on, Radakal! Bush supporters are casually ignoring these facts for some reason. Why? Guess we'll never really know, since he's sucking away the money and rights from everyone except old, white, filthy rich right-wing republicans. Why would a normal middle class or lower income individual like being treated this way???

BrandX--(I know we probably don't agree politically, but..) I looove your Donny Darko avatar!

In seven languages, No!

KerryGoHome, glad you are hanging around. For awhile I thought you were just hit and run.

If he can't respond to any points, he might as well be.

In seven languages. Lol.

Cycloptichorn

One of the languages is silence?