Republicans For Kerry!

By the time the votes comes around I will be both a Registered Republican (just cause my Grandma wants me to be and it's an easy way to make her happy) and be voting for Kerry (most likely).

This doesn't mean I am "for Kerry" though. But then again, I'm not really a Republican either (no affiliation).

Would a "Republican Against Bush" count. I think there may be a significant number of these who will vote for Kerry.

I don't count in this number, but I think that RABs may help Kerry's election bid.

Re: Republicans For Kerry!


If you're for John Kerry, there's no conceivable way you could call yourself a republican. I mean, Karl Marx would be a moderate compared to Kerry.

You say that (that Kerry is an extreme communist) a lot, but you can't support it. It's just one of those rhetorical things that sound good enough for you not to care about pesky things like substantiation.

Count me as a Republican Against Bush (but not necessarily for Kerry).

I voted for GW in 2000. But I don't think I can vote for him in 2004 because of

1. Erosion of civil liberties
2. The 2003 invasion of Iraq

The country I want to live in does not fire the first shot in war. I could pretend America was like that until we invaded Iraq last year, and for (what I at least consider to be) insufficient reason.

I supported the action against Afghanistan/al qaeda and still do support action against terrorism, but the prisoners in Guantanamo deserve rights. Either they are prisoners of war and deserve Geneva Convention rights, OR they are criminals and deserve due process of law.

I didn't say Kerry was an "extreme communist". That would be an unwarranted insult to communists. Kerry is to the left of communism.

I view trying to poison the US senate office building with anthrax as an outright act of war.

The first case of anthrax after 9-11 (Bob Stevens) showed up within miles of where several
hijackers stayed JUST BEFORE 9/11, a very unlikely coincidence considering that they could have stayed anywhere in the country.

The last previous case of anthrax in a human in the United States prior to 9-11 had been about 30 years ago.

There are other coincidences. For instance, the wife of the editor of the sun (where Stevens worked) also had contact with the hijackers in that she rented them the place they stayed.

Atta and the hijackers flew planes out of an airport in the vicinity and asked about crop dusters on more than one occasion. Indeed, Atta sought a loan to try and modify a crop duster.

Atta and several of the hijackers in this group also sought medical aid just prior to 9/11 for skin lesions that the doctors who saw them now say looked like anthrax lesions.

Basically, you either believe in the laws of probability or you don't. Anybody claiming that all
these things were coincidences is either totally in denial or does not believe in modern mathematics and probability theory.


While the anthrax in question originally came from a US strain, it isn't too surprising that Iraq
might have that strain since that strain was mailed to laboratories around the world years earlier.

Nonetheless, it was highly sophisticated, and went through envelope paper as if it weren't even there; many thought it to be not only beyond the capabilities of Hussein but of anybody else on the planet as well including us. Nonetheless, later information showed Husseins programs to be capable of such feats:


http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html


Basically, the anthrax attack which followed 9/11 had Saddam Hussein's fingerprints all over it. It was particalized so finely it went right through envelop paper and yet was not weaponized (not hardened against antibiotics). It was basically a warning,
saying as much as:




There is no way an American who had had anything to do with that would not be behind bars by now. In fact the one American they originally suspected told investigators that if he'd had anything to do with that stuff, he would either have anthrax or have the antibodies from the preventive medicine in his blood and offered to take a blood test on the spot. That of course was unanswerable.


The basic American notion of a presumption of innocence is not meaningful or useful in cases like that of Saddam Hussein. Even the Japanese had the decency to have their own markings on their aircraft at Pearl Harbor; Nobody had to guess who did it. Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, is like the kid in school who was always standing around snickering when things went bad, but who could never be shown to have had a hand in anything directly. At some point, guys would start to kick that guy's ass periodically on general principles. Likewise, in the case of Saddam Hussein, the reasonable assumption is that he's guilty unless he somehow or other manages to prove himself innocent and, obviously, that did not happen.


At the time, the US military was in such disarray from the eight years of the Clinton regime that there was nothing we could do about it. Even such basic items as machinegun barrels, which we should have warehouses full of, were simply not there. Nonetheless, nobody should think they would get away with such a thing and, apparently, Hussein and his baathists didn't.

Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War" documents some of this:



I've seen several items dealing with this one on the web, e.g.


http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/douglass/122602.htm<br>


The Clinton administration was a disaster of unprecedented proportions. We're lucky to be alive.

swolf... it will be my pleasure to vote opposite you.

Swolf:
If you're for John Kerry, there's no conceivable way you could call yourself a republican. I mean, Karl Marx would be a moderate compared to Kerry.

I didn't say Kerry was an "extreme communist". That would be an unwarranted insult to communists. Kerry is to the left of communism.

At some point, guys would start to kick that guy's ass periodically on general principles.

swolf, Chill out man.

When you start making comments THAT absurd, people won't take you seriously. If you want to actually have an effect on what other people think, ya gotta be a little more realistic. Right now, your almost a parody of conservativism.

Spoken like a rational Republican.

I don't agree with you, but I applaud your reasoned response.

"Republicans for Kerry" seems to contain an internal contradiction. Republicans against Bush has a certain appeal.

I would just love to hear more political commentary from Equus. Well, okay, more humor would be okay, too.

I hate to throw grease on the fire, but I heard on the radio today that GWBush's approval rating is going back up towards 50. Fickle, I say!

I wonder if anyone who has virtually all of his spoken words recorded wouldn't look like an idiot after a concerted effort was made to pick and choose quotes.

Finn, its just that he gives people SO MUCH to pick and choose from! Ya gotta admit, his verbal skills are considerably lacking.

Ehm, swolf ... Equus was talking about the war against Iraq. He already said he "supported the action against Afghanistan/al qaeda", so I dont know what your lengthy response about anthrax is supposed to prove. Because it surely does not prove that Saddam's Iraq was behind any anthrax attack and can thus be considered to have basically declared war on the US.

You assert that the anthrax attacks "had Saddam Hussein's fingerprints all over it", but provide little proof, just insinuations. Basically, your argument comes down to saying that if "an American had had anything to do with [it, he] would be behind bars by now" - and since there isn't any American begind bars by now, well then it musta been Saddam, on "the reasonable assumption that he's guilty unless he somehow or other manages to prove himself innocent", no?

Right. On the same logic, you can pretty much declare Saddam proven guilty of about any unsolved strategic crime anywhere, can't you? On the overwhelmingly rational, convincing argument that we all know that Saddam is "like the kid in school who was always standing around snickering when things went bad, but who could never be shown to have had a hand in anything directly"?

<shakes head>

bushinc will make all number of temp moves and do all number of things to bring his numbers up and get reelected. America will swallow it. Then he will be reelected and all hell will break loose.

remember you heard it here.

Hope so. (except for the hell breaking loose part of course)