Another interesting endorsement

[ljb]

Endorsements by individual politicians may not matter a whole lot in most cases -- I mean, look at all the good that Gore endorsement did for Dean. Most pols don't have a fervent personal following who will seriously change their minds about a race because of their leader's endorsement. In short, a pol's endorsement is often just another vote, not much different from yours or mine.

Jesse Ventura, on the other hand, isn't "most pols." He's a unique phenomenon, the anti-politician even after serving four years as Governor of Minnesota. Right or wrong, he brought a fiercely independent spirit to the political arena, and he attracted support from a constituency that often sits out electoral politics. Unlike Ahnold, he isn't a party hack, and he never compromised his independent voice. As a result, he still retains the allure, for some Minnesotans, of the last honest man in politics. For that reason, Ventura is one of the very few pols whose endorsement might really count for something -- he may bring a class of voter who otherwise would sit this one out to the polls.

And today he endorsed John Kerry.

[Secretariat]

LJB,

I put in another link that American Conservative magazine said they cannot support Bush.

[sq764]

Do you guys seriously think this is going to change the fact that Kerry is not going to get the electoral votes he needs?

Here's the answer..no :-)

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by sq764
Do you guys seriously think this is going to change the fact that Kerry is not going to get the electoral votes he needs?

Here's the answer..no :-)

For the sake of our country and as American Conservative magazine states, let's hope you are wrong.

[sq764]

Originally posted by Secretariat
For the sake of our country and as American Conservative magazine states, let's hope you are wrong.

I don't quite think you realize the disaster that would happen if Kerry ever got his hands on the controls..

I know, you're going to say the country is a disaster, blah blah.. I just seriously don't think you have any idea what you're wishing for.

[Secretariat]

It's not me makiong those comments about Bush. It's THe American Conservative magazine. Honestly, take a moment to read the article:

American Conservative Magazine just came out against Bush.

"George W. Bush has come to embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful conservatism. His international policies have been based on the hopelessly naïve belief that foreign peoples are eager to be liberated by American armies—a notion more grounded in Leon Trotsky’s concept of global revolution than any sort of conservative statecraft. His immigration policies—temporarily put on hold while he runs for re-election—are just as extreme. A re-elected President Bush would be committed to bringing in millions of low-wage immigrants to do jobs Americans 'won’t do.' This election is all about George W. Bush, and those issues are enough to render him unworthy of any conservative support."

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html

[sq764]

Originally posted by Secretariat
It's not me makiong those comments about Bush. It's THe American Conservative magazine. Honestly, take a moment to read the article:

American Conservative Magazine just came out against Bush.

"George W. Bush has come to embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful conservatism. His international policies have been based on the hopelessly naïve belief that foreign peoples are eager to be liberated by American armies—a notion more grounded in Leon Trotsky’s concept of global revolution than any sort of conservative statecraft. His immigration policies—temporarily put on hold while he runs for re-election—are just as extreme. A re-elected President Bush would be committed to bringing in millions of low-wage immigrants to do jobs Americans 'won’t do.' This election is all about George W. Bush, and those issues are enough to render him unworthy of any conservative support."

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html

I wasn't speaking of those comments. I was speaking of your utter ignorance to exactly what you are supporting. Fortunately for you, you have other Americans bailing your ass out by keeping the right president in office..

[Tom]

Originally posted by sq764
I don't quite think you realize the disaster that would happen if Kerry ever got his hands on the controls..

I know, you're going to say the country is a disaster, blah blah.. I just seriously don't think you have any idea what you're wishing for.


The Skipper let Gilligan have the wheel of the Minnow for 5 minutes and look what happened!

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Tom
The Skipper let Gilligan have the wheel of the Minnow for 5 minutes and look what happened!


this time it is going to be a 4 year cruise........towards socialism

[ljb]

From Tom,
The Skipper let Gilligan have the wheel of the Minnow for 5 minutes and look what happened!


Exactly Tom,
That is why I urge you to help us take back control. This guy has taken us far off course. While the damage he has done is vast, with a concentrated effort by all, joining together, we can overcome the setbacks and get back on course.

[hcap]

Sorry, but there are more conservative and libertarian defectors than left wing defectors. In fact the Naderites are losing some of their base to Kerry. Florida anyone?

"The Texas Tsar"

http://worldonfire.typepad.com/world_on_fire/2004/10/the_texas_tsar.html

"Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing president is supposed to be, and his continuation in office will discredit any sort of conservatism for generations. The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S., the doling out of war profits and concessions to politically favored corporations, the financing of the war by ballooning the deficit to be passed on to the nation’s children, the ceaseless drive to cut taxes for those outside the middle class and working poor: it is as if Bush sought to resurrect every false 1960s-era left-wing cliché about predatory imperialism and turn it into administration policy."

[PaceAdvantage]

The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S.,
At the time of the invasion, most believed Iraq was a threat. Thus, this point is invalid.

the doling out of war profits and concessions to politically favored corporations,
I assume you are referring to Halliburton, the same company that was given the same type of NO BID contracts under the CLINTON administration. Invalid point #2.

I've just killed half of your post. Yes there is a deficit, and that can be debated as to how harmful that will prove to be. This country has rebounded quite nicely from deficits in the past, so I'm not worried.

And the tax cuts can be debated another way as well, and I don't feel like getting into it now.

Half your argument is FLAT wrong. THe other half is debatable.


YAWN.

NEXT.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Ventura got lucky 1 time that the voters were way P.O.ed in MN. Happens once in while by luck, but minor stuff is hard to maintain. Voters usually drift back to the big shot parties.
Nader is right in saying that the big parties usurp issues from the 3rd parties. The Demos and Repubs steal each others' ideas a lot too- you can see some of it in this campaign.
That is why the major parties' numbers are close all the time- they have to be fairly close to the middle on most things, especially economc and diplomatic.
That is why a Ventura only comes along once in a while.
And why a lot of former and future 3rd party types still support the "lesser of the evils".

[hcap]

PAHalf your argument is FLAT wrong. THe other half is debatable.


YAWN. Not my argument. YOU missed the point as usual. Although I have argued those points many times MYSELF, and totally disagree with you, and the other wingnuts knee-jerking the preznits' line, THE POINT was that Scott McConnell of THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE was describing this failed presidency.


After all ljb started this thread pointing out endorsements from others. I just thought I would post conservative and libertarian viewpoints

More from Scott McConnell......

"The libertarian writer Lew Rockwell has mischievously noted parallels between Bush and Russia’s last tsar, Nicholas II: both gained office as a result of family connections, both initiated an unnecessary war that shattered their countries’ budgets."

YAWN

[ljb]

Hcap,
Methinks Pa did not miss your point he just chose to IGNORE it. ;)

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by hcap
PA Not my argument. YOU missed the point as usual. Although I have argued those points many times MYSELF, and totally disagree with you, and the other wingnuts knee-jerking the preznits' line, THE POINT was that Scott McConnell of THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE was describing this failed presidency.


Who cares whose argument it is, if it is still inaccurate?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by ljb
Hcap,
Methinks Pa did not miss your point he just chose to IGNORE it. ;)

Actually, I addressed his post point by point. That's something I don't think I've ever seen you accomplish in all your time here.

[hcap]

PA,

You did not adress MY point. You knee jerked your response to a disillusioned conservative writing in THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE. My point was that a number of conservatives and libertarians will not endorse the clothes-less boy Emperor.

ljb,

It seems that we’re an empire now, and accordingly the new empire like Oceania in Orwells' 1984, decides truth and what to think. Scary stuff. Maybe PA has left the reality-based community

Without a Doubt By RON SUSKIND published last Sunday in the NYT has some powerfull insights.
It is the Suskind article which contains the quote from a Bush aide in 2002 about the reality-based community which has been making the rounds on the internet.

The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do...

As a Bush volunteer in Missouri told Suskind: "I just believe God controls everything, and God uses the president to keep evil down ... God gave us this president to be the man to protect the nation at this time.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?ex=1255665600&en=890a96189e162076&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by hcap
PA,

You did not adress MY point. You knee jerked your response to a disillusioned conservative writing in THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE. My point was that a number of conservatives and libertarians will not endorse the clothes-less boy Emperor.



And a number of democrats won't endorse Kerry. That's more to your point, is it not.

My question remains....SO WHAT?

[hcap]

Name one other than zell miller.

?????

The defections are on the right not the left. Gore voters are Kerry voters. Bush voters are not all voting for bush this time. Naderites are defecting. Buchanans' Magazine is defecting. Brent Scrowcraft is defecting. Even bushs' hometown newspaper defected, and is endorsing Kerry.
In fact the majority of the world has totally lost respect for the loony in the WH. And old europe has "defected".

How it is that the polls are so close when just a couple of years ago Bush had a 90% approval rating? Remember George Herbert. Wars artificially inflate the incumbents halo. Although in juniors case, karl rove has made that job one. A "war president" is actually a misnomer. Should be the "warring president"

Remember the old political maxim---- no republican has won the presidency without Ohio. In Ohio, the jobless rate improved slightly from 6.3% last month but still hovers at 6%, well above the national average and virtually the same as a year before. This is up sharply from the 3.9% unemployment rate in Ohio when George W. Bush took office.One recent Democratic survey there found almost 70% of Ohio residents thought the country was on the wrong track. I would guess more repubs than dems are switching sides in Ohio. And the rove machine may be spending more time and money in other battleground states as nov 2 approaches.

[ljb]

From Hcap

As a Bush volunteer in Missouri told Suskind: "I just believe God controls everything, and God uses the president to keep evil down ... God gave us this president to be the man to protect the nation at this time.

This is scary!! :mad: :mad:

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by ljb
From Hcap

As a Bush volunteer in Missouri told Suskind: "I just believe God controls everything, and God uses the president to keep evil down ... God gave us this president to be the man to protect the nation at this time.

This is scary!! :mad: :mad:

LJB,

I admire this fella. He is stating what many of the Bush volunters really beleive. I appreciate his honesty. It is a rare thing coming from anyone in the Bush campaign. Scary yes....but at least honest. This is what these people actually beleive.

[sq764]

I appreciate the honest of the Swiftboat vets.. Scary yes, but at least honest..

They have to be smiling thinking they at the very least, helped bury Kerry's chances at the White House :-)

[Tom]

Ljb, Sec....you guys are really sad. You paranoia is showing.
L...when you leave here in November, are you going to be a greeter at Wal Mart? That is one job they can't outsource. And you seem to be very close to being qualified.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Tom
Ljb, Sec....you guys are really sad. You paranoia is showing.
L...when you leave here in November, are you going to be a greeter at Wal Mart? That is one job they can't outsource. And you seem to be very close to being qualified.

L,

If Bush wins, Tom may be right. They can't outsource the Walmart greeter, and that may be about the limit of jobs available.

[lsbets]

"Name one other than zell miller"

Off the top of my head:

Ed Koch
Randy Kelly - Mayor of St Paul
George McKelvey - Mayor of Youngstown
Dick Morris


I'm home on emergency leave because my wife had some complications from the c-section, and having just arrived to hear all of this election crap, I can say both sides seem to be more concerned with gaining power than in doing right, but the Dems really seem to have gone off the deep end. It reminds me of when I studied the Soviet Union in college - party meant more than country.

[sq764]

Originally posted by Secretariat
L,

If Bush wins, Tom may be right. They can't outsource the Walmart greeter, and that may be about the limit of jobs available.

Probably can't go work for Heinz either, they only have like 40% jobs domestic..

But maybe Kerry will share some of the profits from Heinz he has with you..

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by lsbets
I'm home on emergency leave because my wife had some complications from the c-section,

Good Luck with everything Jeff.............

[lsbets]

She'll be okay, and the two and half year old actually has me looking forward to going back overseas. Soldiers follow orders - kids don't.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by ljb
From Hcap

As a Bush volunteer in Missouri told Suskind: "I just believe God controls everything, and God uses the president to keep evil down ... God gave us this president to be the man to protect the nation at this time.

This is scary!! :mad: :mad:


Not any more scary than some of the crap you pump out on here...

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by lsbets
"Name one other than zell miller"

Off the top of my head:

Ed Koch
Randy Kelly - Mayor of St Paul
George McKelvey - Mayor of Youngstown
Dick Morris


Thanks for the list. I'm sure there won't be any more replies, or if there are, it will be some sort of shallow attempt at humor.

Good to hear your wife will be OK. Enjoy whatever precious time you have here stateside.....

[ElKabong]

Originally posted by lsbets
"Name one other than zell miller"

Off the top of my head:

Ed Koch
Randy Kelly - Mayor of St Paul
George McKelvey - Mayor of Youngstown
Dick Morris


I'm home on emergency leave because my wife had some complications from the c-section, and having just arrived to hear all of this election crap, I can say both sides seem to be more concerned with gaining power than in doing right, but the Dems really seem to have gone off the deep end. It reminds me of when I studied the Soviet Union in college - party meant more than country.

Just speaking for myself, I could care less about the Republican party. I'm registered as an Independant and have given NO money to either party the past 4 yrs.

I have given to the swifts however, and on multiple occasions. The thought of someone like Kerry leading our military scares the shit out of me. McAuliffe and his slimy dealings are too far in the gutter for me. Others can talk about Rove all they like, but if you didn't see Larry O'Donnell on msnbc the other day, you should catch it. It's what the DNC has become lately.

If you like, check out O'donnell's video or audio in the links below.

http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/10/breakdown.html

http://www2.swiftvets.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=14162

2nd link you can dl the audio on two separate wav's...I guess McAuliffe has the dems in this rabid mode now. O'Donnell, Gore, Jackson, Sharpton....all the same delivery, which gives the appearance of an orchestrated, rehearsed irrational rant.

[Equineer]

PaceAdvantage,

You absolved the Bush administration of launching a war against a nation that posed no imminent threat to the U.S. by saying, "At the time of the invasion, most believed Iraq was a threat. Thus, this point is invalid.

Bush and his administration spokesmen spent a fortune trying to persuade Congress, U.N. diplomats, foreign governments, the media, and the American public that Iraq was an imminent threat to America. If most of us believed Bush, how does that justify the war when Bush's beliefs cannot be substantiated? Why does it matter how many people believed a leader who was wrong?

It has become obvious that Bush let his personal beliefs guide his decisions as opposed to fulfilling his executive job description. The way our three government branches are defined and empowered is intended to safeguard us from demigods or rule by an "imperial" executive oligarchy. Bush does not underatand this and refuses to acknowledge his mistakes.

What "most believed" was sold to them by Bush. What "most believed" was that Bush had done his homework. Now we know better. Shame on us if we are fooled again.

[Tom]

What most believed, most believed before Bush was elected.
No one was fooled. Just the weak willed now whinning aobut it for political gain. the weak willed who are not fit to lead this nation.

[Equineer]

Originally posted by Tom
What most believed, most believed before Bush was elected.
No one was fooled. Just the weak willed now whinning aobut it for political gain. the weak willed who are not fit to lead this nation. What does this garbled post mean?
Believed what among most of whom?
Coming from you, it must be something that most believed among those who comb their hair like Hitler and rant for genocide.
So what screwy belief is it this time?

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Equineer
PaceAdvantage,

You absolved the Bush administration of launching a war against a nation that posed no imminent threat to the U.S. by saying, "At the time of the invasion, most believed Iraq was a threat. Thus, this point is invalid.

Bush and his administration spokesmen spent a fortune trying to persuade Congress, U.N. diplomats, foreign governments, the media, and the American public that Iraq was an imminent threat to America. If most of us believed Bush, how does that justify the war when Bush's beliefs cannot be substantiated? Why does it matter how many people believed a leader who was wrong?

It has become obvious that Bush let his personal beliefs guide his decisions as opposed to fulfilling his executive job description. The way our three government branches are defined and empowered is intended to safeguard us from demigods or rule by an "imperial" executive oligarchy. Bush does not underatand this and refuses to acknowledge his mistakes.

What "most believed" was sold to them by Bush. What "most believed" was that Bush had done his homework. Now we know better. Shame on us if we are fooled again.
Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Mad Albright, Al Gore and several others from "before Bush was elected" all said he was a threat......

You know Equine.........you pack more bullshit into that extraneous vocabulary than anybody I have seen in a while. Then again, I stopped reading newsweek and the regular media a long time ago.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Equineer
What does this garbled post mean?
Believed what among most of whom?
Coming from you, it must be something that most believed among those who comb their hair like Hitler and rant for genocide.
So what screwy belief is it this time?


I didn't think you would be bright enough to get it. Thought I'd take a shot. I'd explain it to you, but frankly you aren't worth the key strokes.

[Equineer]

Originally posted by JustRalph
Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Mad Albright, Al Gore and several others from "before Bush was elected" all said he was a threat......

You know Equine.........you pack more bullshit into that extraneous vocabulary than anybody I have seen in a while. Then again, I stopped reading newsweek and the regular media a long time ago. You use "threat" loosely... prior to the current Bush administration, none of those you mention characterized Iraq as an imminent threat to America. This was Bush's characterization because "imminent threat" is a necessary pretext for invading and occupying another nation.

When Bush sought support via bipartisan congressional resolutions, Senators and Congressmen were explicitly lobbied on the premise that Bush would use their votes to exert diplomatic pressure on the United Nations to demand and enforce Iraqi compliance with Security Council resolutions pertaining to Iraq. Others besides Kerry have gone on the record to question whether Bush was sincere about his intentions when he lobbied for congressional support while promising that war with Iraq would be a last resort.

You, like others, seem to confuse beliefs with reality. When reality contradicts beliefs, as it has with Iraq, there is no benefit to be gained by denying mistakes and continuing to act in accordance with discredited beliefs.

In February 2002, Bush should have gobbled up the 290 al Qaeda leaders and terrorists detained by Iran when they fled Afghanistan. He chose to rebuff Iran's offers because most of the terrorists were Saudis. Moreover, Saudi Arabia was also the known major source of funding for al Qaeda. Instead, Bush elected to target Saddam who was one of Bin Laden's publically sworn infidel enemies.

Iran eventually expelled the detained al Qaeda terrorists, and most elected to return to Saudi Arabia, thankful that Bush had spared them.

Some ask why did Iran eventually expel the al Qaeda? The answer is simple. After Bush rebuffed Iran, they had captives with no charges pending... although Iran had prosecuted Afghan Taliban agents who committed crimes within Iran, Bin Laden was always smart enough to avoid causing trouble in Iran, which is seen by Muslims as a true Islamic Republic.

[sq764]

Originally posted by Equineer
You use "threat" loosely... prior to the current Bush administration, none of those you mention characterized Iraq as an imminent threat to America. This was Bush's characterization because "imminent threat" is a necessary pretext for invading and occupying another nation.

When Bush sought support via bipartisan congressional resolutions, Senators and Congressmen were explicitly lobbied on the premise that Bush would use their votes to exert diplomatic pressure on the United Nations to demand and enforce Iraqi compliance with Security Council resolutions pertaining to Iraq. Others besides Kerry have gone on the record to question whether Bush was sincere about his intentions when he lobbied for congressional support while promising that war with Iraq would be a last resort.

You, like others, seem to confuse beliefs with reality. When reality contradicts beliefs, as it has with Iraq, there is no benefit to be gained by denying mistakes and continuing to act in accordance with discredited beliefs.

In February 2002, Bush should have gobbled up the 290 al Qaeda leaders and terrorists detained by Iran when they fled Afghanistan. He chose to rebuff Iran's offers because most of the terrorists were Saudis. Moreover, Saudi Arabia was also the known major source of funding for al Qaeda. Instead, Bush elected to target Saddam who was one of Bin Laden's publically sworn infidel enemies.

Iran eventually expelled the detained al Qaeda terrorists, and most elected to return to Saudi Arabia, thankful that Bush had spared them.

Some ask why did Iran eventually expel the al Qaeda? The answer is simple. After Bush rebuffed Iran, they had captives with no charges pending... although Iran had prosecuted Afghan Taliban agents who committed crimes within Iran, Bin Laden was always smart enough to avoid causing trouble in Iran, which is seen by Muslims as a true Islamic Republic.

Why did Kerry mention Iraq as a threat and Sadam as an aid to terrorists, back in the late 90's?? Or was he misquoted live on tv?

[lsbets]

If Clinton did not perceive Saddam to be a threat, why was I stationed on the Kuwait/Iraqi border in 1997?

You seem to be the one who does not accept reality.

[Tom]

Originally posted by lsbets
If Clinton did not perceive Saddam to be a threat, why was I stationed on the Kuwait/Iraqi border in 1997?

You seem to be the one who does not accept reality.

Yup. Space cadet fer sure.:D

[Secretariat]

The question goes to the word "imminent" threat.

China is a threat, North Korea is a threat, Russia is a threat, Syria is a threat, Iran is a threat, and Al Queda is a threat.

This really is the issue here. Was Saddam an "imminent" threat to the US?

Bush has said he never used the word "imminent", but Senators beleive that was what was being asserted with the resolution.

The PDB of Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the US -- Now that qualfies more as an "imminent" threat, rather than Saddam being patrolled by two fly zones, and being a paper tiger with no WMD's. And what did Bozo do with this info about a direct threat of attack on the US -- He went on vacation.

[JustRalph]

You know Sec, Equine.........you are very close to getting your wish. You just might get the Administration you want. But I will tell you that you haven't seen Gridlock or wholesale dirty Tactics until you see what is going to happen to your man if he gets elected. And when his failures become apparent and he is giving the country away to his European friends, you are going to find a backlash so enourmous that you are going to be eating your words and wishing you had never voted for the bastard. And when that next terrorist attack happens and Kerry decides to convene a committee meeting at the U.N. you are really going to look bad. But I am sure that many of us here will still be around to call you and your brethren on it. Providing the Internet still exists and the country isn't in lock down from Radioactive fallout or something similar. Then again the economy may tank so bad we won't be able to afford our fancy Internet connections...........
When the price of gas is 4 dollars or more a gallon because Kerry signed the Kyoto treaty and our soldiers are being extradited to the World Court........we will remember who put the bastard in office.

[JustRalph]

Speaking of Endorsements

From The Columbus Ohio Newpaper
The Columbus Dispatch

For President
Despite missteps, Bush is better able to steer nation through difficulties ahead
Sunday, October 24, 2004

Like millions of American voters, The Dispatch is less than enthused about the choices in next week’s presidential election. Neither President Bush nor Sen. John Kerry has built a record that leads to a clear-cut decision.

Since President Bush took office, this newspaper repeatedly has criticized his administration’s borrow-and-spend fiscal policies, which have resulted in massive deficits that weaken America.

The Dispatch also strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq, contending the case had not been made that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction or posed an imminent threat to this nation.

On the other hand, neither Kerry’s 20-year Senate record nor his shifting positions during the presidential campaign inspire confidence that he would provide the strong, resolute leadership America desperately needs.

Confronted with these disappointments and this choice, The Dispatch believes a second-term George W. Bush would stand a better chance of leading the nation up the difficult road that lies ahead.

The most crucial challenge facing the next president is winning the peace in Iraq. Although the rationale for the Iraq war has been proved wrong, no one should underestimate the stakes now. The United States must see the job through to the end.

For far too long, dictators and terrorists have believed that Americans lack staying power. Friends and enemies of the United States are watching closely to see if the casualties and expense of the war will sap the nation’s will to plant democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. For America, there is no other choice but to succeed. Failure will sow more terrorism and tyranny.

Like it or not, America must stand firm.

Although the president, unfortunately, seems incapable of admitting obvious error, Kerry has not provided a vision of what he would do differently in Iraq. He agrees the United States must be successful in pacifying Iraq. He claims he could be more successful in getting other nations to help shoulder the burden, but that is not realistic.

During the presidential campaign, Kerry has revised his stance on Iraq almost as frequently as there have been shifts in opinion polls. He appears to lack solid convictions on how to proceed.

His vow to repair the damage done by Bush to the nation’s alliances sounds good, but his longstanding ambivalence about deploying American power raises questions about his willingness to defy world opinion if and when that might become necessary in pursuit of U.S. national security. If Bush has been too willing to deploy that power on slim pretexts, Kerry may be too hesitant to unleash it even when justified.

How the rest of the world will view the outcome of the election also plays into the Dispatch’s decision. A victory for Bush will signal to the world and terrorists that the United States is committed to victory in Iraq and Afghanistan. A Kerry victory will send an ambiguous signal that may raise doubts about American staying power.

On domestic issues, voters are confronted with an avowed conservative who spends like a liberal, and a confirmed liberal who promises the fiscal constraint of a conservative.

Bush has vastly expanded the reach of the federal government with the Medicare drug benefit and the No Child Left Behind Act. The first will add more than $500 billion to the nation’s debt over the next decade. The NCLB, despite its worthy goals, is a vast federal encroachment into education, traditionally a preserve of state and local government. This act unnecessarily pre-empted state initiatives to bring more accountability to elementary and secondary education.

At the same time he has increased the government’s obligations, Bush has slashed taxes, resulting in the highest budget deficits in U.S. history.

This is not a conservative record.

Kerry, whose voting record marks him as one of the most liberal senators in the nation, is painting himself as a fiscal conservative. He promises to cut the deficit in half and to find a way to pay for any new spending that he proposes.

But once in office, with all the expectations of his party and with liberal special interests to appease and reward, would Kerry stick to those promises? This seems unlikely. As Bush and other presidents have demonstrated, excuses for expanding government on credit always are at hand.

Without a track record as a disciplined fiscal steward or as a believer in limited government, Kerry’s promises are suspect.

The next president will appoint many federal judges, and perhaps three or four U.S. Supreme Court justices. The impact on the judiciary will be lasting. The Dispatch believes Bush’s appointments would more likely respect the principles of judicial restraint and separation of powers.

One other factor gives Bush an edge. In a second term, relieved of concern about re-election, presidents look to their legacy. This is when they feel free to take chances and expend political capital. There is no bigger problem facing the nation long term than senior entitlements. Without significant reform, Social Security and Medicare are headed for fiscal collapse under the press of millions of retiring baby boomers.

Kerry, who knows touching these programs is political suicide, has ruled out any change in how they currently operate. But with trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities, they are unsustainable as they currently operate. Electing Kerry would simply delay action for four more years.

Bush has every reason to take on precisely this sort of challenge, especially if he hopes to ensure that history remembers him for something other than the Iraq mess.

If Bush wins and Republicans retain control of Congress, the stars finally may be aligned in a way that allows the nation to confront the entitlement goliath.

If he is elected, Bush should make good on his pledge to reduce the deficit by half. Better yet, he should eliminate it. The president refuses to acknowledge mistakes, and that is unlikely to change in a second term. But he still should correct them.

He should put enough troops and resources into Iraq and Afghanistan to get the job done. He should ask the American people to make the sacrifices necessary to achieve that, even if that means paying more taxes.

Since Sept. 11, Americans have been ready and willing to sacrifice to avenge the attacks and prevent future ones. Bush shouldn’t hesitate any longer: Enlist them in the fight. That might be one way to heal the deep division that now afflicts the country.

After all, four years ago, Bush promised to be a uniter, not a divider. Perhaps more than any other, he should make good on that promise.

[Equineer]

Originally posted by lsbets
If Clinton did not perceive Saddam to be a threat, why was I stationed on the Kuwait/Iraqi border in 1997?

You seem to be the one who does not accept reality. While you were stationed in Kuwait in 1997, you served under President Clinton and Marine General Anthony Zinni, commander of the United States Central Command.

Neither of your commanders characterized Iraq as an "imminent threat to America."

You were there to support the United Nations resolutions concerning Iraq.

I am surprised that you don't seem to agree with your commanding general from 1997, who says the "books were cooked" to justify invading Iraq.

Here are General Zinni's ten points of condemnation from a 2004 speech about Bush's war of choice against Iraq.

1) The war planners "misjudged the success of containment" - the existing policy of trade sanctions and maintaining troops in the area.

2) The "strategy was flawed" - the strategy being that invading, occupying, and setting up a new government in Iraq would help solve the broader conflicts in the Middle East. Zinni "couldn't believe what I was hearing about the benefits of this strategic move".

3) The administration "had to create a false rationale for going in to get public support". Zinni said that "the books were cooked, in my mind. The intelligence (that supported the claims made to support the need for war) was not there."

4) The war planners failed "to internationalize the effort.", by gaining the support of allies or unambiguously gaining UN endorsement of an invasion.

5) The "fifth mistake was that we underestimated the task." Zinni clarified this in his speech to mean the broader task of creating a free, democratic, and functional Iraq.

6) The sixth mistake was "propping up and trusting the exiles". The exiles Zinni refers to are groups like the Iraqi National Congress and its controversial leader Ahmed Chalabi.

7) Zinni criticised the "lack of planning" - not so much for the military confrontation, the planning of which he praised fulsomely, but for the post-war stablization and reconstruction of Iraq.

8) "The eighth problem was the insufficiency of military forces on the ground". Zinni, in his former position, had devised a battle plan for conquering and occupying Iraq in the 1990's, which featured far more troops, as did alternative plans presented to Donald Rumsfeld before the war. The extra troops were needed to "freeze the security situation because we knew the chaos that would result once we uprooted an authoritarian regime like Saddam's".

9) "The ninth problem has been the ad hoc organization we threw in there." Zinni criticises what he views as the lack of staff, skills, experience, and clear structure in the Coalition Provisional Authority.

10) According to Zinni, "that ad hoc organization has failed", "leading to the 10th mistake, and that's a series of bad decisions on the ground". These bad decisions include the excessive zeal in "de-Baathification", removing people only peripherally involved in the Baath Party who were Baathists purely to be permitted to conduct their profession or business, the decision to disband the Iraqi army.

[ljb]

Just Ralphs post
You know Sec, Equine.........you are very close to getting your wish. You just might get the Administration you want. But I will tell you that you haven't seen Gridlock or wholesale dirty Tactics until you see what is going to happen to your man if he gets elected. And when his failures become apparent and he is giving the country away to his European friends, you are going to find a backlash so enourmous that you are going to be eating your words and wishing you had never voted for the bastard. And when that next terrorist attack happens and Kerry decides to convene a committee meeting at the U.N. you are really going to look bad. But I am sure that many of us here will still be around to call you and your brethren on it. Providing the Internet still exists and the country isn't in lock down from Radioactive fallout or something similar. Then again the economy may tank so bad we won't be able to afford our fancy Internet connections...........
When the price of gas is 4 dollars or more a gallon because Kerry signed the Kyoto treaty and our soldiers are being extradited to the World Court........we will remember who put the bastard in office.

_
Strange I always thought Just Ralph was a macho man. Sounds a little paranoid here.
Already calling our next President a bastard. For shame for shame :(

[lsbets]

You have to wonder about Zinni - if the invasion plans that he had drawn up in the 90s had been used, and if he had been brought out of retirement to lead the invasion, would he be criticizing the war today? As someone who served under him, my gut tells me, no he would not. When we were there in 97, one of the scenarios that we practiced a lot was how to hold off an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait until we could get enough forces on the ground to drive them back. Why would we practice repelling an invasion from a nation that Zinni thought was succesfully contained? Oh, and the scenarios always involved Saddam using chemical weapons. I guess Zinni was cooking the intelligence back then.

[lsbets]

As the CENTCOM CINC, wasn't Zinni one Clinton's generals who stated that even with the downsizing of the 90s our military was more than large enough to handle two regional wars at once, in Iraq and Korea? Hmmmmmmmmmmm

[Secretariat]

LJB,

The entire Republican platform is about nothing but keeping people in fear. Thank God FDR was around in WW II or these guys would still be wringing their hands crying.

[Secretariat]

JR,

Please, let's spare the newspaper endorsements. I don't want to put up THe Washington Post, The NY Times, The Orlando Sentinel, The Minneapolis Tribune and The Commerical Appeal in Memphis up on this board. I think we can all agree, different candidates get different papers. Let's hope all can think for themselves and not rely on editorial boards. btw...I hear the publishers of the Columbus paper overruled the Editorial board on their recommendation.

[lsbets]

Sec, interesting that you are asking members not to post newspaper endorsements of the guy you oppose, yet you post magazine anti-endorsements of the same guy. Nice double standard you Dems have.

[Secretariat]

Is,

Fine, guess I'll get the Post, Times, Tribune, Appeal, and Sentinel links since you are interested in reading the Kerry endorsements.

[sq764]

Originally posted by Secretariat
LJB,

The entire Republican platform is about nothing but keeping people in fear. Thank God FDR was around in WW II or these guys would still be wringing their hands crying.

A little hypocritical coming from someone who supports a party that tries fear tactics in the way of a draft.. Even though the same people have said there will be no draft..

Kinda moronic don't you think?

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by lsbets
Sec, interesting that you are asking members not to post newspaper endorsements of the guy you oppose, yet you post magazine anti-endorsements of the same guy. Nice double standard you Dems have.

The two below require Registration so just posting a bit of the articles, but the Des Moines Register endorsed Kerry today so I’m just putting up the link since Isbets is interested in newspaper endorsements.

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041024/OPINION03/410240317/1035/OPINION

Commerical Appeal in Memphis

The 2004 presidential election campaign has uncovered an America as bitterly polarized as it has been since the 1960s.

The Commercial Appeal urges all eligible voters to exercise that right. And we believe that the best hope for uniting this country is with the election of new leadership Nov. 2.

We arrive at our endorsement of SEN. JOHN FORBES KERRY for president of the United States with reservations about both members of the Democratic ticket. Kerry has promised more than he surely can deliver on the domestic front, and Sen. John Edwards would be one of the 20th Century's least experienced vice presidents.

This recommendation comes because of deeper concerns about where George W. Bush will take this country over the next four years.

We recognize that many of our readers will profoundly disagree. But we believe that President Bush, who once promised to be a uniter, was given a mandate to lead a united country when terrorists attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, and he has not used it wisely.

Whatever his shortcomings, Sen. Kerry, we believe, has a chance to restore the traditional, cooperative approach toward foreign policy that has served America well since the Eisenhower administration. We need more allies in the war on terror and to help us protect the homeland.

Washinton Post

EXPERTS TELL US that most voters have had no difficulty making up their minds in this year's presidential election. Half the nation is passionately for George W. Bush, the pollsters say, and half passionately for John F. Kerry -- or, at least, passionately against Mr. Bush. We have not been able to share in this passion, nor in the certainty. As readers of this page know, we find much to criticize in Mr. Bush's term but also more than a few things to admire. We find much to admire in Mr. Kerry's life of service, knowledge of the world and positions on a range of issues -- but also some things that give us pause. On balance, though, we believe Mr. Kerry, with his promise of resoluteness tempered by wisdom and open-mindedness, has staked a stronger claim on the nation's trust to lead for the next four years.

Des Moines Register

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by sq764
A little hypocritical coming from someone who supports a party that tries fear tactics in the way of a draft.. Even though the same people have said there will be no draft..

Kinda moronic don't you think?

What is moronic is to deny their own Pentagon's troop estimates that to pursue incursions into any other countries is going to require many more troops than are currently available without a draft or more troop committments from other nations.

If you think countries are going to line up to give us troops to go
into Iran or N. Korea I'll think you're naive. How are we going to get them while we're calling up presently the Ready Reserve, and holding people past their deployments and even using men 50 to 60 years up in Iraq? That's not fear. It's facing a reality.

[ljb]

From Sec,
That's not fear. It's facing a reality.
Sec,
You must not forget the Repubs like Bush, deny reality. One could almost say they fear it! :D

[ljb]

And here is a little clip regarding Newspaper endorsements.
Sen. John Kerry continued his raid on newspapers that backed President Bush in 2000, grabbing 24 new "flip-flops," plus The Washington Post, which was a major supporter of the war in Iraq. The Democrat has now won endorsements from at least 35 papers that went for Bush in 2000, while Bush has earned only two Gore papers.

[boxcar]

Secretariat wrote:

What is moronic is to deny their own Pentagon's troop estimates that to pursue incursions into any other countries is going to require many more troops than are currently available without a draft or more troop committments from other nations.

If you think countries are going to line up to give us troops to go into Iran or N. Korea I'll think you're naive.

Hmm...I see what you mean, Sec. Are you implying, then, that if Kerry gets elected he'll prove himself to be the liar he is by instituting the draft, even though he has promised that he wouldn't? Or are you meaning for us to infer from your statement that Kerry has come up with,yet, another ingenious "plan" to get those countries to give us troops, in which case, why would it be so "naive" of us to think that such a strategy wouldn't be in Bush's grasp, also, if he gets reelected?

Get back to us when you can on this one, will ya?

Boxcar

[sq764]

Originally posted by Secretariat
What is moronic is to deny their own Pentagon's troop estimates that to pursue incursions into any other countries is going to require many more troops than are currently available without a draft or more troop committments from other nations.

If you think countries are going to line up to give us troops to go
into Iran or N. Korea I'll think you're naive. How are we going to get them while we're calling up presently the Ready Reserve, and holding people past their deployments and even using men 50 to 60 years up in Iraq? That's not fear. It's facing a reality.

Wait, why do we need troops? Kerry has 40,000 more planned, right?? STILL waiting for the explanation on how he is going to fund this :-)

[sq764]

Originally posted by ljb
And here is a little clip regarding Newspaper endorsements.
Sen. John Kerry continued his raid on newspapers that backed President Bush in 2000, grabbing 24 new "flip-flops," plus The Washington Post, which was a major supporter of the war in Iraq. The Democrat has now won endorsements from at least 35 papers that went for Bush in 2000, while Bush has earned only two Gore papers.

Wait, there's the popular vote, the electoral vote AND the paper endorsement vote?

Damnit, I forget which one decides the president now..

[lsbets]

Sec, I personally don't care what newspaper endorses who - I make u my mind for myself. I just find it a little ironic that you seem to be bothered that JR posted an endorsement of Bush. Does the first amendment only apply to those who you agree with?

[Secretariat]

Is,

I don't care either. That's why I said "please spare me", not that he didn't have the right not to post them. Please quote me accurately.

[Equineer]

Originally posted by sq764
Wait, why do we need troops? Kerry has 40,000 more planned, right?? STILL waiting for the explanation on how he is going to fund this :-) Asking to be spoon fed again? :)

Why don't you research this and get back to us. :)

BTW, Bush is winking at you about the draft, trusting that you won't do any research on the matter.

[Secretariat]

Maybe if we had a draft we would have enough troops to secure some of those weapons sites better in Iraq. And capture Zarqawi, and Bin Laden and Omar? And maybe some richer folks would actually be involved in the actual costs of the war..

[lsbets]

Bur Gen Zinni said we have enough troops to fight two wars at once. You're not doubting Gen Zinni, are you?

[sq764]

Originally posted by Equineer
Asking to be spoon fed again? :)

Why don't you research this and get back to us. :)

BTW, Bush is winking at you about the draft, trusting that you won't do any research on the matter.

Oh yeah, I keep forgetting, he 'has a plan'..

There is absolutely no base, financially or logistically to his plan, but damned if he doesn't have one...

You kill me Equineer..

[Equineer]

Originally posted by lsbets
Bur Gen Zinni said we have enough troops to fight two wars at once. You're not doubting Gen Zinni, are you? Not to challenge your intention to be credible, but you floated this assertion about Zinni in this thread. If you have a source, it would help out.

What makes me question this notion is that Zinni's plan for invading, occupying, and stabilizing Iraq was inherited in 2000 by General Franks... who updated it in response to intelligence... but Franks' "recommended manpower requirements" were rejected by Rumsfield and Bush because they feared projections of a truly massive mobilization would frighten the public.

Are you sure what you attribute to Zinni is relevant to terror interventions where invasion, occupation, and re-construction need to be considered? Or wasn't he really talking about our ability to respond with strategic weapons to two simultaneous attacks?

[lsbets]

In the 90s when we downsized, the goal was to give us the capability to fight two major regional wars simultaneously. What I am sure about Zinni - and the reason I bring him up is the left tends to love to trot him out - is that he is what we referred to in the 90s as one of Clinton's generals. They gutted the military, all the while telling the American people that we were prepared to fight two wars simultaneously, one in Korea and one in Iraq. That was the Congressional mandate for our military capabilities in the 90s, and the Pentagon said we were more than capable of doing so. We on active duty knew that we were underfunded and undertrained, but that the four stars under Clinton refused to come out and speak the truth because they cared more about getting their next job lined up. So, if you want to use him as a so called credible source, remember who he is and what he asserted when he was in charge.

If you want to bring up Franks, why don't you discuss the fact that Franks has endorsed Bush, is campaigning for Bush, and has said that virtually every statement made by Kerry regarding the war n terror is a lie? That would be too inconvenient for you, I know.

Our soldiers have done remarkable things in both Iraq and Afghanistan - things that have never been done before. I am absolutely fed up with having to hear the politically expediant lies of the left about how bad things are and what a lousy job we are doing simply because it is an election year and they want to regain power. It is pathetic.

[JustRalph]

If we had a draft maybe we wouldn't have a gazillion pukes between the age of 17-24 running around the country in their pseudo rap outfits and fathering kids from neighborhood to neighborhood while the latest viacom superstar reverberates in their heads.............don't get me started !

[Equineer]

Originally posted by JustRalph
If we had a draft maybe we wouldn't have a gazillion pukes between the age of 17-24 running around the country in their pseudo rap outfits and fathering kids from neighborhood to neighborhood while the latest viacom superstar reverberates in their heads.............don't get me started ! Or me either!

We are creating a huge block of single-issue anti-draft voters. Given what confronts us, this is madness that encourages our enemies.

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Equineer
Or me either!

We are creating a huge block of single-issue anti-draft voters. Given what confronts us, this is madness that encourages our enemies.

I wouldn't count on many in this demographic to actually vote.

[Equineer]

Originally posted by schweitz
I wouldn't count on many in this demographic to actually vote. The focus group studies indicate the parents of 14-24 year-olds are planning to vote in this year's quadrennial election, and campus voter registrations have exceeded expectations.

[delayjf]

and the reason I bring him up is the left tends to love to trot him out - is that he is what we referred to in the 90s as one of Clinton's generals.

One reason why our senior leaders would not step up and do the right thing was that they saw what happened to some who did.

I recall an incident in flight school wereby a female flight student (Rebecca Hansen)was indeed sexually harassed. Not much happened to the the guilty party as he got out of the military soon after the incident. But later, when the female flight student was doing so poorly in helo training, she was finally given the boot from flight school despite being given many more chances to succeed than any male flight student.

To make a long story short, she claimed that she was still being harassed (despite having female instructor pilots) and that was the reason for her failure. The press got a hold of this and in the fallout of the tailhook scandal made a huge issue of it. This went all the way up to the CNO, which was unpresidented. The CNO defered to Admiral Author who after considering all the evidence determined that she simply could not fly and supported the lower commands decision. They then offered her any assignment she wanted in the Navy as a concession to the sexual harashment.

That was not good enough for her. She got her Congressman involved, so now they decided to investigate Admiral Author. At that time, Admiral Author was slated to take over as CINCPAC within the year. This is one of the most covented commands in the Military. His appointment and subsequent promotion to 4 stars was held up because of the Congressmans inquiry. They ended up having to appoint somebody else and Admiral Author resigned soon after, his career was done.

After seeing all that, as well as the tailhook witch hunt, I'm not to surprized that these generals don't "cover their ass"

For all of Wesleys Clarks accomplishments in the Army, he is highly critisized for his Bosnia campaign. He too was considered a "Clinton General".

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Equineer
The focus group studies indicate the parents of 14-24 year-olds are planning to vote in this year's quadrennial election, and campus voter registrations have exceeded expectations.

I fit in the parent group and don't fall for the draft bs being spewed---and as I have said before; getting someone to register is not getting them to vote.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by JustRalph
If we had a draft maybe we wouldn't have a gazillion pukes between the age of 17-24 running around the country in their pseudo rap outfits and fathering kids from neighborhood to neighborhood while the latest viacom superstar reverberates in their heads.............don't get me started !

My God, JR...maybe we do agree on this. I'd love to get some of those 17-24 rich pukes out on the front lines instead of out campaigning for Bush.

[Secretariat]

Hopefully, we can drop this endorsement thing with this article:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1963&e=17&u=/ap/20041025/ap_on_el_pr/newspapers_endorsements

[JustRalph]

hopefully, you will crawl back into your hole after the election.....

do you really think that the idiots who run the papers in this country aren't already perceived as left wingers?

I was so surprised when my home town paper endorsed Bush I almost fell over.............they finally got one right..........

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Equineer
PaceAdvantage,

You absolved the Bush administration of launching a war against a nation that posed no imminent threat to the U.S. by saying, "At the time of the invasion, most believed Iraq was a threat. Thus, this point is invalid.

Bush and his administration spokesmen spent a fortune trying to persuade Congress, U.N. diplomats, foreign governments, the media, and the American public that Iraq was an imminent threat to America. If most of us believed Bush, how does that justify the war when Bush's beliefs cannot be substantiated? Why does it matter how many people believed a leader who was wrong?

It has become obvious that Bush let his personal beliefs guide his decisions as opposed to fulfilling his executive job description. The way our three government branches are defined and empowered is intended to safeguard us from demigods or rule by an "imperial" executive oligarchy. Bush does not underatand this and refuses to acknowledge his mistakes.

What "most believed" was sold to them by Bush. What "most believed" was that Bush had done his homework. Now we know better. Shame on us if we are fooled again.


You're twisting again. This was not my point. Try again.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by lsbets
If Clinton did not perceive Saddam to be a threat, why was I stationed on the Kuwait/Iraqi border in 1997?

You seem to be the one who does not accept reality.

As usual, EXCELLENT point.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by lsbets
If you want to bring up Franks, why don't you discuss the fact that Franks has endorsed Bush, is campaigning for Bush, and has said that virtually every statement made by Kerry regarding the war n terror is a lie? That would be too inconvenient for you, I know.


Hey LSBETS, they had NO REPLY to this comment of yours....how surprising.....NOT

[lsbets]

PA, that has been their modus operendi for months - spout off and when challenged run and hide until the Dem talking points give them something else to say.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
As usual, EXCELLENT point.

Good lord..."imminent" threat is different that monitoring him after the 91 Gulf War. No one, not even Tenet has said Huseein was an "imminent" threat. That was the issue....or have you forgot? THe WMD's.

[Secretariat]

As to the Tommy Franks endorsement, good for Bush.

However, I have never seen a public denial by Franks on Senator Graham's comments about what he told him about the Iraq war. Perhaps some of you have a link.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/florida/MGBOCNHKRYD.html

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Good lord

You're always so dramatic.

[lsbets]

I don't have a link, but I do recall Franks refuting Graham's claim (lie).

[ElKabong]

Originally posted by lsbets
I don't have a link, but I do recall Franks refuting Graham's claim (lie).

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134240,00.html

FRANKS: You know, I heard it tonight, and I also heard about it from Senator Graham's book. And a comment I've made is unfortunately, that the senator heard something the general didn't say. Because the fact of the matter is, that I was responsible for both Afghanistan and Iraq, the numbers speak for themselves, as a matter of fact. On the day we started operations in Iraq, we had about 9,500 Americans operating in Afghanistan. That number in fact inclined. It increased during operations in Iraq, and continues to increase today, that number never came down. And so I was a bit surprised at the mention of something which I know to be factually incorrect.