I think the following would be an interesting script for a commerical for a Democratic activist group:
1) Footage of Candidate Bush stating that he's against nation building.
2) Footage of dead and dying American soldiers and dead and dying Iraqis, including some of that brutal footage from "F 9/11."
3) Footage of Bush declaring "MIssion Accomplished."
4) Footage of headlines declaring over a thousand Americans killed.
5) Footage of Candidate Bush stating that he supported the assault weapon ban.
6) Footage of newspaper headlines about the assault ban treaty being lifted without a word of protest from the White House, intercut with dead and dying young people or terrorists fighting assault weapons.
7) Footage of Bush saying that he's keeping us safer. Freeze Frame, and the following words appear:
"While he's lyin', we're dyin'."
Paid for by the Committe of People Who Don't Want to See More People Die On George Bush's Watch.
Just a passing thought.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at September 14, 2004 12:00 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingI think the apostrophe in place of the "g" makes it sound rather glib, but other than that it sounds no worse than the many other Democratic ads I've seen suggested on other liberal blogs. The thing is, though, I'm personally not sure how well any of these ads work at this point, it seems like people who are voting for Bush are bound and determined to do so no matter what facts are raised. Doesn't mean people shouldn't keep raising them, but I just have my doubts as to whether any of them are effective with people whose minds are closed and made up to begin with...
I was going to vote for the Constitution Party's candidate for president but thanks to Mr. Moore, Moveon.org, the Dem's 527 ads, and this stupid "anybody but Bush" mentality from the left has changed my mind. George W. Bush will now get my vote and I know for a fact others are being moved to vote for the President because of the attacks from the left. The left thought they were energizing their base, but all they did was fire up the right...not smart.
So, PAD, I'd love to see your ad on tv. Add it to the list of crap and hate the left has been pumping into tv, movies, books, etc. All their hard work is really paying off:
WASHINGTONPOSTWABCNEWS Poll, John F. Kerry was viewed favorably by 36 percent of registered voters, down 18 points over the past six months.
Kerry finds himself in a dead heat with Martha Stewart and Joseph McCarthy, and behind Herbert Hoover...although he narrowly beats O.J. Simpson.
I'm personally not sure how well any political ads work at this point, it seems like people who are voting for Kerry are bound and determined to do so no matter what facts are raised. Doesn't mean people shouldn't keep raising them, but I just have my doubts as to whether any of them are effective with people whose minds are closed and made up to begin with...
this stupid "anybody but Bush" mentality from the left has changed my mind. George W. Bush will now get my vote and I know for a fact others are being moved to vote for the President because of the attacks from the left.
Well, there's a mature reason to vote for the leader of the free world.
Not because of ability.
Not because of a plan to save manufacturing jobs in the US
Not because of a plan to improve health care in the US
But because of spite.
Yes, that's really a responsible reason to vote.
Pity.
Keep your pity to yourself.
You want to talk about voting out of spite? How many people who normally vote green will vote for Kerry this year? The Dems were hard on Nadar and asked him a thousand times not to run. Why? Because they wanted the Green vote. They'd hate to see the Greens vote their heart and lose any precious votes.
I like George W. Bush. I think he has done a fantastic job. What he has or hasn't done was not my reason for wanting to vote for the Constitution Party. I voted for Bush the first time and thanks to the left I'll be voting for him again.
Richard:
>this stupid "anybody but Bush" mentality from the left has changed my mind. George W. Bush will now get my vote and I know for a fact others are being moved to vote for the President because of the attacks from the left.
>Well, there's a mature reason to vote for the leader of the free world.
Are you saying that the rationale for your, and others you know for a fact, vote for Bush is any different than the Left that you are attacking? How is "voting for anyone but Bush" any less mature than "voting for Bush in response to a group of people's rationale for voting against him"?
Not bad, PAD. But I like the suggestions from DailyKos - using Bush's "Ownership Scoiety" against him and getting him to "own up" to the mess on his watch:
"Mr. president, Colin Powell told you about this war that 'if you break it, you own it.' And now you're going around talking about an 'ownership society.' Well, Mr. President, let me tell you what you own. A million jobs lost. You own that. A thousand soldiers lost. You own that. 1.4 million new people living below the poverty line. You own that. 1.2 million less people covered by health insurance. You own that. A seventeen percent medicare increase. You own that. Health care costs skyrocketing. You own that. The tax burden increasing amongst the middle class. You own that. Mr. President, if you want to talk about an ownership society, let's talk about what you own."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/13/143648/865
If John Kerry wants to be president he needs to take the advice that Bill Clinton offered before undergoing heart surgery. Kerry needs to focus less on Vietnam and more on domestic issues. I think the fact that a lot of people aren’t working right now should take center stage of his campaign. I think he needs to start asking people are their lives better now than they were four years ago.
I really don’t think Kerry should run negative footage from the war in Iraq. First off those ads will only make people afraid which plays to the president strategy of constantly bringing up September Eleventh. Second and I could be wrong on this, but didn’t Howard Dean attribute losing the first Iowa primary due to going negative? If that strategy didn’t work for Dean why would it work for Kerry?
I'm not voting for Kerry out of spite. I'm doing it because I honestly believe that the current president has done a terrible job, both domestically and with foreign policy.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: this election, I'm a Yellow Dog Democrat; if the party runs a yellow dog against Mr. Bush, I'll vote for it.
If the attacks from moderate Republicans, Centrist Democrats and (yes) Liberals seem spiteful, it's indicative of the level of anger created by Mr. Bush's stated policies, not to mention the discrepancies of his public statements versus his actions.
By the bye, I need to mention to whom it may concern...the "Preview" key doesn't seem to work.
It may just be my computer, but when I clicked on it, it just reopened this page with my comments in the "Comments:" box, not an actual preview.
Thanks.
Man a lot of people have a definition of hate and spite that's extremely strident. There's certainly a few percent on both sides that's nasty and hateful but I don't see how expressing a strong dislike for the policies and performance of the incumbent qualifies as "attack."
Why is calling Kerry a flip-flopper for saying something and later saying something different any more fair than criticizing an incumbent for saying one thing and doing another?
"I was going to vote for the Constitution Party's candidate for president but thanks to Mr. Moore, Moveon.org, the Dem's 527 ads, and this stupid "anybody but Bush" mentality from the left has changed my mind. George W. Bush will now get my vote and I know for a fact others are being moved to vote for the President because of the attacks from the left"
Of course there are no such equivilent attacks from the right. No Mr Limbaugh, no Mr O'Reilly, no Mr Savage, no Mrs Coulter, no 'Swift Boat Veterens For Truth'
"I'm personally not sure how well any political ads work at this point, it seems like people who are voting for Kerry are bound and determined to do so no matter what facts are raised. Doesn't mean people shouldn't keep raising them, but I just have my doubts as to whether any of them are effective with people whose minds are closed and made up to begin with..."
Yes, exactly. That's exactly how I feel...except, y'know, substitute the name "Bush" for "Kerry"...
PAD
"Why is calling Kerry a flip-flopper for saying something and later saying something different any more fair than criticizing an incumbent for saying one thing and doing another?"
It's not.
The thing is, I really don't have trouble with the notion of politicians changing their minds about issues. But Bush has chosen to cite that as a weakness when it comes to Kerry. So if it's a weakness, then it has to cut both ways.
PAD
I've said this before, but it bears repeating..
If it wasn't for the get out the vote campaigns by the 527s, this election would have the lowest turnout in years. Why?
Because for the first time I can recall, we have an election where BOTH candidates are unpopular. I haven't looked recently, but for the longest time, Bush's approval rating was below 50% and so was Kerry's favorable view rating.
What this means is that no matter who wins, it is probable that more than half of the people he will be govering will not like him. Sheesh, talk about losing by winning.
As far as commercials, here's my plan (and both sides get to do it).
The basis of the campaign is "Are you better off now then you were 4 years ago." Each side gets to use billboards, commercials, news ads, whatever. The only rule is that any stats used in the ad must come from a non-partisan source.
For example (Sample Kerry Ads)
2000: US military Deaths : 12 (this is a made up number for example purposes)
2004: US military Deaths: 456
(Sample Bush Ads)
2000: Average Home Ownership: 47%
2004: Average Home Ownership: 54%
(Again, sample, I don't know the exact numbers, but it has been a statistically significant increase)
People can then look at CURRENT stats that mean something to them and make an informed decision. If you think things are better now or the same, vote Bush. If you think things are worse, vote Kerry. It really is that simple.
He who lives by the flip, dies by the flop?
George W. Bush will now get my vote and I know for a fact others are being moved to vote for the President because of the attacks from the left.
Sure, sure, it's always the left.
Or did you not catch any of the SBV ads?
Was Cheney's comments about another 9/11 not enough to show that the only thing they're doing is playing the negatives about Kerry?
Bush doesn't even attempt to focus on what he's done, other than the fact he bombed the shit out of Afghanistan and Iraq.
So if it's a weakness, then it has to cut both ways.
And yet, people have been too stupid to see that Bush is as much of a "flip flopper" as Kerry has been.
But hey, Bush doesn't have to say he's flip flopped on the issue of nation building, because he hasn't DONE any rebuilding - only blown shit up.
"Welcome back for another 4 years, President Bush. Here's your next target."
Fred C: Are you saying that the rationale for your, and others you know for a fact, vote for Bush is any different than the Left that you are attacking? How is "voting for anyone but Bush" any less mature than "voting for Bush in response to a group of people's rationale for voting against him"?
No, I was simply responding to James T saying:this stupid "anybody but Bush" mentality from the left has changed my mind. George W. Bush will now get my vote and I know for a fact others are being moved to vote for the President because of the attacks from the left.
With that statement, he said that he and others are voting for Bush BECAUSE of the attacks from the left.
James T: Keep your pity to yourself.
The pity wasn't aimed at you (in particular), it was aimed at a decision to vote for a candidate NOT for the issues, but because of "attacks from the left".
It's a pity that what should be an adult, and mature decision has become nothing more than name calling and childish rants.
James T: I like George W. Bush. I think he has done a fantastic job
Well why the hell didn't you just say that and be done with it? Why even bring up the "left" or the "anybody but Bush" mentality from some?
James T: I voted for Bush the first time and thanks to the left I'll be voting for him again.
??
Now what the hell does that mean???
You said that you think Bush has done a fantastic job.
Great, fine, but then you say "thanks to the left..." Thanks for what?
If you agree so much with what a cndidate or incumbent has done, why should the opinions of anyone else, left or right, sway your vote???
Not because of a plan to save manufacturing jobs in the US
Not because of a plan to improve health care in the US>
And Kerry has a plan? Seems to me that if that is your criteria, you really should vote for either of the big 2. Kerry hasn't offered ANYTHING solid, just ill-defined pipe dreams.
Chip S.:And Kerry has a plan? Seems to me that if that is your criteria, you really should vote for either of the big 2. Kerry hasn't offered ANYTHING solid, just ill-defined pipe dreams.
Why are you assuming that I'm voting for Kerry?
Hell, WHERE in my post did I state ANY preference for either candidate???
Did you actually read my post???
I'll try to make it simple.
I was responding to a post that stated that he was voting for a cndidate because of the "actions" by the left.
Voting out of spite, as it were.
While I realize that it's difficult to try to get points across on line, but I was TRYING to establish that voting for the leader of the free world should come down to WHAT can be accomplished and ther bettermeant of the people of this country, NOT because what the "left", or for that matter, the "right" are whining about.
Richard wrote:
"Not because of ability. Not because of a plan to save manufacturing jobs in the US; Not because of a plan to improve health care in the US; But because of spite. Yes, that's really a responsible reason to vote."
The thing about partisan bickering is that the bickerees often cannot see the forest for the trees.
What do I mean? Well, yesterday, in the Chicago Sun-Times, a Democratic columnist on Page 3 was going over some of the things she says Kerry should be doing to get re-elected. During her discourse, she cites her fear that if Bush is re-elected and attorney general John Ashcroft gets to come back after the election, he'll continues to trample on the civil liberties of Americans (an indirect reference to The Patriot Act).
Ironically, on the facing Page 4 of the same issue, there is a big article, with a screaming headline, announcing the (Democratic) mayor's new plan to install 2,250 cameras throughout Chicago to deter crime (this plan was also endorsed by an editorial in the Sun-Times today).
Considering the advanced state of facial recognition software available today, which do you think is more invasive to privacy and civil liberties on a day-to-day basis?
Personally, I'm not bothered by either the camera program or the Patriot Act, but I am bothered by people who only show their indignation when it follows party lines. That isn't free-thinking -- that's being a partisan zombie.
R. Maheras:
I am bothered by people who only show their indignation when it follows party lines. That isn't free-thinking -- that's being a partisan zombie.
Well said.
I'd be all for the ad. Of course, I think it would drive up Kerry's unfaivorable ratings, so you might take that with a grain of salt.
If I were advising Kerry--and he could (and has) done worse--I'd advise against any use of F9/11 in any ads. I think he's already getting the Michael Moore vote. Using him will only turn off further those who are not fans of Moore's work (and also really pump up the Right).
I really thought that Kerry was pulling ahead a few weeks back, but lately all the talk from his "supporters" has been A--What he SHOULD be doing; B- how stupid the average voter is and C--just wait and see how the Republicans steal this election.
When an opponent is already thinking about defeat before the battle is fought you have to give the likelihood of victory to the other side.
I for one am sick of hearing about losing manufacturing jobs. Guess what... they don't matter.
This is no longer an industrial nation. The idustrial revolution has come and gone... it's place is in third world countries now. The is the technology and information age and that is what we should be focusing on.
The fact of the matter is that in a decadge or so there wont BE any more factory jobs because everything will be done by robotics and computers. Blue collar workers slaving for minimum wage on the assembly line just won't exist in any large number.
What everyone SHOULD be focusing on is the fact that education and job skill training in this country suck. Honestly, it's horrible.
Our education system needs a total overall... yes I know they always TALK about education in election years, but the fact of the matter is its pretty much out of the hands of the president and federal government, as it's all local school boards and the god awful teachers unions that drive the systems into the ground. I say scrap it. Overhaul it from the ground up. Raise standards and expectation, fire teachers that are no good, raise pay for good teachers, and make college an expected follow up to high school for everyone... which of course means the government is hand out a lot more assitance.
The other side of the coin is job training. Companies don't do it anymore. Everyone has become so greey and shortsighted that they are no longer willing to spend a little time and money in the present to invest in the future. We have a huge untrained workforce, and an even larger one that needs retraining. They shouldn't be expected to pay for it all out of pocket.
But of course it's another election year, and the same pointless bullshit all over again....
Big business has for some time now neglected any responsibility to their stockholders, employees, customers, and the environment. In these last 4 years they not only were given a free ride, they were given the car they were riding in. You can rant all you want about manufacturing jobs (and I agree completely about needing to focus on education and job skills to compete in the coming years) but until we hold the corporations more accountable their greed is going to continue to line the pockets of a few, while not investing a dime in their workers or this country.
Mike:I for one am sick of hearing about losing manufacturing jobs. Guess what... they don't matter.
That is one of the most stupid comments that I've ever heard (read)
They don't matter.
Tell that to the people of the manufacturing jobs in Pennsylvania, or Oho, or Missouri or any state in this country.
Tell that to the men and women over 40, or 45 or 50, hey too bad, but according to Mike your jobs don't matter. Now go and learn a new skill or new technology, because "idustrial revolution has come and gone"
Mike: Our education system needs a total overall
Of course it does Mike, but that does squat for the generation that are currently trying to live and work in this country.
Where's your answer for them?
But like you said Mike, " it's another election year, and the same pointless bullshit all over again...."
Real peoples lives don't really matter
Karen wrote:
"Big business has for some time now neglected any responsibility to their stockholders, employees, customers, and the environment."
This is a generalization, and from my recent personal experience, one that is not true.
Three years ago, I worked for an appliance manufacturer whose huge manufacturing plant was located in the middle or rural Iowa, adjacent a beautiful nature preserve, lake and wetlands area. The plant used well water, and its state-of-the-art (and expensive) water treatment facility was so advanced, the water that was eventually discharged after use and treatment was cleaner than what came out of the well. Engineers at the plant also created a closed loop cooling system for plant machinery to drastically reduce water consumption. In addition, the plant's separate sewage treatment facility actually treated the sewage of the nearby town, instead of vice versa. Finally, the company's emergency power generator plant was designed to supply nearby towns with power should the normal power grid be interrupted by lightning or other power glitches. Hardly seems to fit your definition of corporate America.
As a matter of fact, I'll bet plenty of people drive by that plant, set in the middle of rural Iowa and, in ignorance, curse its very existence -- even though it provides hundreds of high-paying manufacturing jobs at a time when manufacturing jobs in America are on the wane.
I'll admit that I haven't really paid that much attention to what other people have said during an election season, but to me it seems like this campaign has really divided people along near-violent lines. This current administration has been plagued from the start, and I guess I shouldn't be surprised that it continues to be plagued.
I do have to say that of all the reasons I've heard to support Bush, "he's being attacked, and I want to stick up for him" has got to be the lamest. Most people I hear speaking in support of Bush sound like Republican mouth pieces, spouting off one-liners straight from the Bush-Cheney website. The problem is, I haven't heard a single person be able to go beyond the soundbite and discuss how that list of accomplishments has actually benefited or improved our country, as a whole.
And the worst thing is, showing many of those people the "truth," that is, factual discussions of what impacts this administration actually has had, both good and bad, doesn't do one bit of good.
There's a storm, comin', people, and I'm not talkin' 'bout Ivan....
When it comes to people and voting, I have my pick and others have theirs. I respect that and I hope others will respect me on it.
This past weekend, I was at my club leader's house folding flyers and getting some prep work done for our convention. Me and a friend were discussing John Kerry, since we're both voting for him, when our leader's wife started the rhetoric of the purple hearts getting Kerry a desk job out of Vietnam. This ticked me off royally. I realized that all she had done was to listen to the media about the candidate.
Why am I voting for Kerry? Because it's time for someone different at the helm of our country. As another poster said, all Bush has done is campaign on his war effort and of 9/11 related actions. I want someone that cares about where we are, where we're heading, and what we can become. I think that Kerry is the choice for that.
Folks talk about Bush and his faith and of how he's 'restored decency to the White House.' All because of an infidelity has Clinton's eight years of office been wiped away.
I've given Bush the benefit of four years to show how he could bring us to higher places, and I think I don't want to give him four more to keep trying to do that.
Over ten thousand US citizens have been hurt, maimed, or killed over in Iraq now. A thousand are dead, but the rest are amputees or wounded. Its a number I think the media should be discussing a bit more.
That's my $0.02 and I'm glad I have a chance to share it.
As a matter of fact, I'll bet plenty of people drive by that plant, set in the middle of rural Iowa and, in ignorance, curse its very existence -- even though it provides hundreds of high-paying manufacturing jobs at a time when manufacturing jobs in America are on the wane.
I'd be interested in knowing where this plant was located.
I've seen other plants that, well, make you wish that more manufacturing jobs were lost (Cargill springs to mind), but, contrary to Mike's ignorance, these jobs are important. Particularly in the Midwest and through the Ohio River Valley as was mentioned.
But, even if the jobs could be lost... guess what? We're losing our information tech jobs too, and they're not being replaced fast enough either.
If you're going to choose to base your diet on apples and orange, and you throw your apples away, you better make sure you have enough oranges around so you don't starve.
Unfortunately, that's not the case with our national economy right now.
RJM,,
I appreciate the passion but how exactly DO we get the manufacturing jobs back? People will NOT pay 2 or 3 times the cost of items just so they can buy American. As long as Wal-Mart or any other retailer is able to advertise that they are selling Indonesian made widgets at half the cost of their competitor's widgets, more people will shop there.
So we'd have to have an embargo on foreign goods. They would retaliate against us. Which would lead to more job losses on both sides, kind of defeating the purpose.
If there is a good solution to this problem I haven't heard it. Mike's statement is blunt and may come off as insensitive but that doesn't mean it's necessarily untrue.
More food for thought:
"The U.S. information tech sector lost 403,300 jobs between March 2001 and this past April, and the market for tech workers remains bleak, according to a new report.
Perhaps more surprising, just over half of those jobs — 206,300 — were lost after experts declared the recession over in November 2001, say the researchers from the University of Illinois-Chicago."
Bill,
Well, that's kind of the point that I was making before. I read the earlier post by James Tichy and his picking our leader by spite. And I hear the radio and TV pundits describing this election to be nothing more than "my guy" over "your guy" because inane, benign reasons.
But never do any of the candidates tackle the REAL problems or to try to solve these issues.
If I knew the answers, I'd run for office.
But you would think, that these gentlemen and ladies, college graduates all, would have the intelligence to come up with solutions to the countries problems.
And you know what? BIG Business be Damed!
Sometimes it's more about the american people being able to live a contributional life than to make a couple extra million.
But I took issue to Mike's insensitive remark, because he sounds like so many of the radio and TV voices. Not giving a damn about the people of this country, just caring about their own wallet.
R. Maheras,
Perhaps I should have said a majority of big business. I know there are some conscientious corporations out there. When you look at the big corporations as a whole, well, I bet the percentage of those who do give back are far smaller than any of us would like. I wonder if the percentage even gets into double digits? But why don't we talk about businesses who declare no dividends while paying enormous salaries to the few on top, or about the thousands who lost any retirement because of shady practices, or the current push for "tort reform" so they have even less responsiblilty for the harm their products cause, since the penalty will be minimal, or the lastest bid by this administration to gut controls so companies are not only free to pollute, but don't even have to worry about cleaning up their mess. Sorry about the run on sentence.
Jason H,
Well said. I have yet to meet anyone who has truly benefitted from the current policies. I guess I don't travel in those rarified circles. But one thing they are very good at is getting people to believe the worst of their opponents. If I were voting only on soundbites they would win hands down. Since I am voting for real issues, Kerry wins every time. I don't want to vote for their brand of fear mongering. I want to vote for a better future.
Bill,
Well, one part of Kerry's plan is tax incentives to companies that keep jobs here. There is a part of the solution. Wal-Mart keeps it's prices low, but pays it's employees almost nothing, gives few benefits at very high cost to the employee, won't allow workers to unionize for a better future, and drives many small businesses into bankruptcy in the places it sets up. Is that the America you want to live in? Where all corporations do business that way? Yes, prices may go up, but so will quality of life for many.
Dig it!
Delare yourself a 527 and get that ad on the airwaves!
Mark W.
PAD wrote:
>The thing is, I really don't have trouble with >the notion of politicians changing their minds >about issues. But Bush has chosen to cite that >as a weakness when it comes to Kerry. So if >it's a weakness, then it has to cut both ways.
I would suggest that the problem is not that this doesn't cut both ways, it is that you are comparing apples to oranges.
Bush has changed his mind on some issues. Bush has had to "clarify" (spin, whatever you want to call it), some issues. But there are few examples that go to core issues of what he says he believes. Rather, they are ways to implement those policies, or similar issues.
My point: Give me just one example where Bush has backed down on tax cuts? Give me just one example where he has backed down on his opposition to abortion on demand? Give me just one way he has changed and told one group he is for gun control, then told another he is not.
Bush has a core belief. Iraq is a good example. Bush may now be emphasizing more (at least in the minds of some) the reasons for the war, but he is unwavering in his belief that the war was right and necessary. Agree or disagree, have some conspiracy theory that he made everything up (and ignore a lot of evidence to the contrary), I don't care. His core belief about the war has not changed.
Kerry has not done the same. Forget the silly quote about voting for the war before he was against it. Look at the numerous staments he made over a number of years that Saddam was a clear threat. (In one press interview, he said he was AHEAD of his fellow Democrats in pushing for immediate action.) What he says now changes. Perhaps his core conviction is still the same, but for the average person (not the political junkies such as you or me), it is not clear. I would suggest the flip/flop charge sticks because it is true. But even if not, it is Kerry's inability to express and maintain a clear conviction on core issues. (I won't bother listing them since there is an "excuse" for each of them that makes things worse.)
Back to your original post. I do not consider it a "flip/flop" for Bush to have said, BEFORE 9/11, that he did not believe in nation building, and to now be going down that road. As Bush stated in his convention address, he is "nation building" in Iraq in order to protect us at home. I know you think his policy is flawed, but that is beside the point right now. Having been attacked by one group without provocation, it is not a logical stretch to understand why Bush would preemptively strike against another country/power that has a clear history of terrorism and aggressive action invading their neighbors.
Bottom line, I find it both maddening and amusing. I have enough objectivity to step back and realize you do believe this. You really think Bush is lying. And I am convinced of the opposite: Bush is telling the truth, and Kerry is lying and unable to take a stand without playing to his audience.
I know you do not want another 9/11. But I am convinced that Kerry's policies are much more likely to bring that about than what Bush is doing. I don't want to see people die. As someone has said before, "perception is reality." I don't think terrorists will fear Kerry. I know they will fear Bush.
Jim in Iowa
>>>As a matter of fact, I'll bet plenty of people drive by that plant, set in the middle of rural Iowa and, in ignorance, curse its very existence -- even though it provides hundreds of high-paying manufacturing jobs at a time when manufacturing jobs in America are on the wane.
>>I'd be interested in knowing where this plant was located.
Someone may have answered this, but I didn't see it. The plant is located in the Amana colonies here in Iowa. The description given is very accurate. It is a great tourist stop (I believe the #1 tourist stop in Iowa) with the German homes and stores right nearby.
Jim in Iowa
Jim,
The terrorists don't fear Bush. They don't fear anyone. One of the members of the 9/11 commission said on Hardball last night that the old ways won't work. You used to make your enemy fear that you would kill him, so this was a deterrent. The fanatics who are plotting against us now do not fear death. Death is a reward. Heaven and virgins are waiting for them.
And Kerry is not coming out against the war, as much as some of us wish he would. He has come out against the way it was waged. He has said he wouldn't do one thing differently, that he would do everything differently. Colin Powell just said in an interciew that, while he did not know how Kerry would implement any action, he did not doubt he would have a robust response. Or is Powell lying now? Bush may believe in all of the things you said. That does not make them right for this country.
I love to read some of the over the top fanatics that come to this site. It appears that every celeb in the world thinks they can run the country better than those that have spent their lives learning to do just that.
It's easy to sit back and blame others but no one wants to get in there and get their hands dirty. Maybe just maybe we should sit back and stop throwing BS at people and work towards solutions. Instead of bitching about supposed unemployment maybe find a way to work towards a solution.
By the way I see plenty of help wanted signs up around my area. Maybe people just think they are too good for the jobs that are out there. I know I'm not too good for a job that feeds me.
I do not consider it a "flip/flop" for Bush to have said, BEFORE 9/11
Of course you don't. That would be too easy, wouldn't it?
But then, Bush had this plan for Iraq before 9/11, so I'd say his comments about nation building more than qualify.
As for the Amanas, I've been through there a few times, but never stopped.
It appears that every celeb in the world thinks they can run the country better than those that have spent their lives learning to do just that.
When they've mucked the job up like Bush has, then hell yes, why not.
But if you really want to get into the "spent their lives learning", well, you definately don't want Bush to have the job - he only became an owner in the Texas Rangers so he could put on a good face to become governor.
By your logic, Gore should be president right now, not Bush.
Btw, just so you're aware, Reagan was a tv and radio guy, then got into acting and movies. He's just the sort of celeb you're trying to bash. Good job!
Bush also promised police he would keep the ban on assault weapons. Does this qualify as a flip flop?
I'll only vote for Bush!
I'll only vote for kerry!
What issues? If you've been around long enough, maybe three elections, it should be obvious that presidential elections are not about issues! They are about selling a product to the American people. "Buy OUR GUY" both parties scream and "Danger WIll Robinson, Kerry/Bush Presidency Ahead, DANGER!" and we buy into it.
Do the American people really want an issues campaign? ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ for most people!
But many have their own personal wants and anyone that can sell them on the idea that Bush/Kerry will give it to them first gets the vote.
Those more fanatically devoted to their guy then climb in and offer their crap on each candidate.
The media (where have you gone Walter Cronkite, our nations turns its lonely eyes to you!)
Fox News, CNN or BSNBC which tells us the truth?
NONE! Unless they praise your guy and condem the other!
PAD will your ad make a difference?
No! But nice try!
Karen:
"Bush also promised police he would keep the ban on assault weapons. Does this qualify as a flip flop?"
I don't think so. Congress is the body that had to write the legislation to continue the ban. Maybe if a senator or two had bothered to pay attention or show up to sessions, they could have spearheaded a movement to extend the ban, instead of doing nothing and now wanting to make it a campaign issue.
May I present the cover to next month's "Reason" (a libertarian political magazine):
http://www.reason.com/0410/preview-0410.shtml
Carl Henderson
(who is seriously considering a write-in vote for one of several fictional characters)
Craig wrote:
>>I do not consider it a "flip/flop"
>>for Bush to have said, BEFORE 9/11
>Of course you don't. That would be too
>easy, wouldn't it?
>But then, Bush had this plan for Iraq
>before 9/11, so I'd say his comments
>about nation building more than qualify.
Your first point is absurd and insulting. Take a moment, forget it is G. W. Bush, and think about the situation. It is like someone who says they oppose the death penalty, but then he or she has a child who is brutally murdered. It is very understandable that they might change their position. This is not giving Bush a pass, this is being intelectually honest enough to realize that an event without precendent in American history has happened. Bush did not change his mind to please an interest group, he changed it in response to a new threat to the nation.
If you make the assumption that Bush had planned to invade before 9/11, then obviously Bush is worse than someone who flip/flopped. But contrary to what you and others believe, there is NO evidence that Bush planned this (other than the continuing plans since the first gulf war ended). You look at what Bush did for the 8 months before 9/11, and you find NO policy moving in this direction. None.
But put that aside for the moment. Even without 9/11, there is an enourmous amount of evidence that the policies of the prior 8 years were not being effective. Talk about giving someone a pass. Whether or not invasion was the best answer, the willingness of Michael Moore and others on this site to totally ignore the evilness of Sadaam is without excuse. Argue all you want that invasion made things worse. I can understand that (though I don't agree). But do it in the context that Bush was not just creating a war for the hell of it. There was a real problem that was not going away.
Jim in Iowa
Jim in Iowa wrote:
>>>Someone may have answered this, but I didn't see it. The plant is located in the Amana colonies here in Iowa. The description given is very accurate. It is a great tourist stop (I believe the #1 tourist stop in Iowa) with the German homes and stores right nearby.
The reason the description is accurate is because not only did I work at the plant nearly 18 months, I researched and wrote a story about about the water treatment plant in question, interviewing a number of key state and factory officials in the process. The advanced stainless steel filters of the treatment plant were such that they would not only exceed the existing environmental water standards for the next 20 years, they would exceed the PLANNED, more stringent standards that had not even been voted on to be adopted yet. THAT'S forward-thinking!
The moral of the story? Resist the temptation to broad brush all business as evil; rather, judge each business fairly on a case-by-case basis.
Big yawn.
"Mission Accomplished", which, you know, was in response to the remarkable amount of time in which we won the war and did not refer to the fact we still had more work to do, has been used ad nauseum by Democrats ever since he made it.
Soldiers dying have been reported on a daily basis.
We had the bash-Bush manifesto "Fahrenheit 9/11".
We even had the media obsession over Abu Ghraib.
And now, we have an entire network disgraced because they just couldn't wait to run a story that made Bush look bad.
Personally, I think a response to the proposed PAD ad would be negligible. If Kerry actually had a consistent position or anything substantial to say, THAT might work. But so far he hasn't.
Maybe he could run on all the bills he sponsored and policies he advocated strongly while in the Senate. Maybe somebody can make a fake tape of that and give it to CBS News, and they'll run it.
Too bad you’re not on Kerry’s campaign staff, Peter. Me, I’m upset that Kerry is not responding to the attacks on him, and that much of what he does say sounds somewhat rhetorical.
James Tichy: You want to talk about voting out of spite? How many people who normally vote green will vote for Kerry this year?
Luigi Novi: And how is that spite? Thinking that a vote for someone one considers to be more ideal will result in the election of one’s ideological opponent, and that voting for a less ideal candidate that one has less qualms about electing seems like a matter of practicality. Not spite.
Mark Patterson: By the bye, I need to mention to whom it may concern...the "Preview" key doesn't seem to work. It may just be my computer…
Luigi Novi: Nope. It just doesn’t work.
R. Maheras: The thing about partisan bickering is that the bickerees often cannot see the forest for the trees. Yesterday, in the Chicago Sun-Times, a Democratic columnist on Page 3 was going over some of the things she says Kerry should be doing to get re-elected. During her discourse, she cites her fear that if Bush is re-elected and attorney general John Ashcroft gets to come back after the election, he'll continues to trample on the civil liberties of Americans (an indirect reference to The Patriot Act). Ironically, on the facing Page 4 of the same issue, there is a big article, with a screaming headline, announcing the (Democratic) mayor's new plan to install 2,250 cameras throughout Chicago to deter crime (this plan was also endorsed by an editorial in the Sun-Times today).
Luigi Novi: The two aren’t even close to being analogous. The one involved jailing people without trial, invasions of privacy, and targeting people for totally innocuous exercises of freedom of assembly and speech. The other is simply monitoring PUBLIC areas, and has been shown to actually deter crime.
Jim in Iowa: Bush has a core belief. Iraq is a good example. Bush may now be emphasizing more (at least in the minds of some) the reasons for the war, but he is unwavering in his belief that the war was right and necessary. Agree or disagree, have some conspiracy theory that he made everything up (and ignore a lot of evidence to the contrary), I don't care. His core belief about the war has not changed.
Luigi Novi: The problem here is not his beliefs about the war’s justification. It’s about the public’s belief in it, and whether the original reasons given for it have held up. Whether Bush thinks there are other reasons that can used to rationalize it in a post hoc manner is immaterial from the fact that the public was sold on it with one set of reasons that do not appear to be borne out.
Kerri Hilton: I love to read some of the over the top fanatics that come to this site. It appears that every celeb in the world thinks they can run the country better than those that have spent their lives learning to do just that.
Luigi Novi: Ad hominem. The fact that Peter (assuming that that’s who meant by “celebrity) is something of a celebrity has no bearing on the truth or falsity (or reasonability or lack of reasonability) of his statements. When he expresses his feelings about political issues, he is doing so for the same reason every other private citizen is doing so. Statements like the one quoted above stem merely from snobbery and resentment towards those they feel need to be taken down a peg or two, and have nothing to do with legitimate discourse. If someone derided a person’s views because he was a janitor or cop or construction worker, decent-minded spectators would react by pointing out that this is merely snobbishness and an ad hominem statement. But when the person speaking is a “celebrity,” somehow this is okay. Indeed, exercising one’s right to VOTE is a right we all respect, so why does exercising one’s right to EXPRESS THEIR OPINION constitute “thinking they can run the country better”?
Kerri Hilton: It's easy to sit back and blame others but no one wants to get in there and get their hands dirty. Maybe just maybe we should sit back and stop throwing BS at people and work towards solutions. Instead of bitching about supposed unemployment maybe find a way to work towards a solution.
Luigi Novi: Does voting count? Doesn’t discussing the issues on a public forum count?
Karen,
"Bush also promised he would keep the ban on assault weapons. This qualify as a flip flop."
Seeing as how Congress let it lapse (I'm soooo surprised Kerry didn't take the lead to keep it. It's much easier just to bash Bush on the issue than doing somethng substantial, I guess), I would say no.
Actually, THIS is a flip flop:
"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."
JOHN KERRY - December 16, 2003
"I would have voted for the authority. I believe it's the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively."
JOHN KERRY - August 9, 2004
Iraq was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time."
JOHN KERRY - September 6, 2004
Here's another one:
"We should not send more American troops. That would be the worst thing."
JOHN KERRY - September 4, 2003
"If it requires more troops..that's what you have to do."
JOHN KERRY - April 18, 2004
"I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops."
JOHN KERRY - August 1, 2004
"We're going to get our troops home where they belong."
JOHN KERRY - August 6, 2004
And yet another:
"We should increase funding (for the war in Iraq) by whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win."
JOHN KERRY - August 31, 2003
"$200 billion (for Iraq) that we're not investing in education and health care, and job creation here at home...That's the wrong choice."
JOHN KERRY - September 8, 2004
It is clear from these and other statements that o fundamental matters of war and peace, and on the major strategic and tactical questions that follow from them, that John Kerry will not or cannot hold to a position under pressure.
Bush lied! People died!
Oh gawd!
You're still clinging to that silly slogan, aren't you? Nevermind the fact that the 9/11 Commission, MI-6 Intelligence Report, Russian Intelligence Report, and others have all reported the same thing: That everybody thought Iraq did have WMDs. All the intelligence pointed to it. Not just ours, but everybody else's.
I also find it hilarious how you liberals love to toss around "Swift Boat Vets!" Where was the outrage when "Fahrenheit 9/11," which was basically a two-hours-long attack ad against Bush full of deceits and distortions, came out? If I remember right, PAD praised it. Even said something along the lines of "You must see this movie before you vote or you're being ignorant!"
Did you ever take up my offer to read "Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man"? Will you go out and watch "Michael Moore Hates America" if [when] it comes out in the theater? Just to keep things balanced? Or maybe at least mosey on over to MooreWatch.com? How are Moore's lies any different than those of the SBVs?
And hey, why have you been mum about memo-gate? Ya know, when Dan Rather and the "conservative" media leaked out lousy forges that "questions" Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard? Those forgies that were disproved in fifteen minutes flat by the blogosphere. Of course you don't want to say anything about that. That makes your side looks bad.
I love this. Everybody's so quick to scream, "Your side fights dirty! Our side is the clean, pure, innocent one! Your side lies! Our side tells the truth!" Here's news for you, pal. The Democrats are just as dirty as you think the Republicans are. To pretend otherwise is just putting blinders on your eyes and chanting "lalalala I can't hear you!"
So go ahead, make that ad. Keep on parroting the shrill "Bush lied! People died!" line. It just pushes more people to the winning side. I hope you enjoy four more years of Bush. I know I will.
Starving Writer wtote:Bush lied! People died!
Oh gawd!
You're still clinging to that silly slogan, aren't you?
I think it's interesting that you would apply the word silly and at the same breath tie that in with people dying.
You can shout and rant and whine and blame this on the "liberals" or blame that on the "liberals" all you want.
But the fact is a lot of people have died. And more will keep dying over a series of convnient lies and deceptions.
It's "nice" to read how smug and happy your post sounds while good men and women are dying over a incredibly poorly planned war.
"winning side"???! What, this is all a game to you??!
Jesus, I'm constantly amazed how all these partisan right wings and partisan left wings care ONLY that their side "wins" that no matter how many bodies have to be trod on, ignored or killed --just as long as they "win"
pathetic.
Bill Maher cummed it up succinctly the other night when he pointed out the many opportunities lost to the Dems to actively fight back in open confrontation against some of the 527s and other mud slinging.
What John Kerry must do now is use the opportunity for debate to hammer the President in person.
This will be very difficult to pull off without coming across like a reactionary, but the opportunity must be seized without fail.
This explains why the President's handlers are reluctant to have more than one debate and why they are trying to time it so that if John Kerry does seize this opportunity, the effects will be muted by election day.
The same goes for Edwards vs Cheney, and perhaps even moreso because Mr. Edwards strikes me as more likely to open up with both barrels.
This should be a very entertaining fall season.....
With apologies to Bill Maher, that's "summed", not "cummed". There's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip.....
I'm voting against George Bush because I believe that he believes that he is leading us in a Manifest Destiny.
Manifest Destiny is the belief that because we think we are the best and smartest in the world that we must force our ways onto the rest of the world.
Decade after decade, and even century after century, powerful countries have tried to force the rest of the world into their own self image. It has never worked. The biggest recent, non-communist dynasty was the British Empire. Look at all the troubles that are still ongoing in the countries that have broken away from the Empire. Trying to take over the world only works in fantasy.
We do not have a Manifest Destiny just because we are the United States of America. We have a responsibility to set a good example for the rest of the world. George Bush does not do this.
You're still clinging to that silly slogan, aren't you? Nevermind the fact that the 9/11 Commission, MI-6 Intelligence Report, Russian Intelligence Report, and others have all reported the same thing: That everybody thought Iraq did have WMDs. All the intelligence pointed to it. Not just ours, but everybody else's.
Yet, no one else felt there was a pressing need to invade Iraq to rid us of Saddam, except for the man whose father attempted it a decade ago and failed.
BTW, this week, what's the main reason we went in? It keeps changing so much, I forget.
James Tichy writes:
"I like George W. Bush. I think he has done a fantastic job."
Hmmm.... Let's see....
fan·tas·tic P Pronunciation Key (fn-tstk) also fan·tas·ti·cal (-t-kl)
adj.
1: Quaint or strange in form, conception, or appearance.
2: Unrestrainedly fanciful; extravagant: fantastic hopes.
Bizarre, as in form or appearance; strange: fantastic attire; fantastic behavior.
3:Based on or existing only in fantasy; unreal: fantastic ideas about her own superiority.
Yes, I'm forced to agree.
Alan -
That's pretty much the exact reason why I'm voting Kerry. Bush acts like he wants to be Emperor, not President. He talks about not letting the government run people's personal lives, but he wants to ban gay marriages, he imposed the godawful Patriot Act...every day I just want to slap him that much more.
Also, my now personal vested interest - my closest friend, the man I love more than anyone except my fiance, will be shipped out to Iraq as of Sunday. I do support our troops, but I have NEVER supported this war (there's a huge difference). If anything happens to Ben, I will hold Bush personally responsible, just like he's personally responsible for a thousand other dead soldiers.
I want him OUT. I registered to vote yesterday and damnit, I'm going to vote. Because all the protesting and finger-pointing and message board discussion won't do a damn thing when it really matters. I hope everyone on here at least agress on THAT point.
Peter, would it be better if soldiers died under Kerry's watch?
What's Kerry's alternative? He backs the Bush's plan and has said even in hindsight he would have voted to give Bush the authorization.
His plan for Iraq is to convince other countries that their soldiers should be under attack or beheaded in Iraq. If other countries say "Haha, I don't think so," Kerry plans to send more troops in--which is the same advice being given to Bush.
As many on the left, like Bill Maher, or on the right, like Patrick Buchanan, who were foursquare against the war, you have no vote in the presidential election (except for Nader).
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Did you see Buchanan on THE DAILY SHOW? He succinctly laid out the case against BOTH Bush (for the war) AND against Kerry (for voting for it before and in hindsight).
>This is no longer an industrial nation. The idustrial revolution has come and gone... it's place is in third world countries now. The is the technology and information age and that is what we should be focusing on.
So, when do we start setting up the resettlement camps for the large numbers of people whose built-in intellectual limitations PREVENT them from being ableto work in this wonderful new technology and information age? Training someone to put part "a" in slot "b" is one thing. Training them to be a software enginner is something else.
Nobody seems to be thinking about this.
Can you say "whistling in the dark"? Because this will come home to roost as a major societal problem and nobody seems to give a rat's ass about doing something now, before the fallout hits.
>The other is simply monitoring PUBLIC areas, and has been shown to actually deter crime.
The UK has the largest number of surveillance cameras in use in the world.
Crime has gone up, and the IRA wasn't even slowed down while they were still in action (prior to NEGOTIATIONS solving the problem).
So much for cameras working.
Alan wrote:
"I'm voting against George Bush because I believe that he believes that he is leading us in a Manifest Destiny.
Manifest Destiny is the belief that because we think we are the best and smartest in the world that we must force our ways onto the rest of the world."
We may not automatically be the best and smartest in the world, but we're certainly a hell of a lot better than the dictatorships in the Middle East.
Gorginfoogle wrote:
"Alan wrote:
"I'm voting against George Bush because I believe that he believes that he is leading us in a Manifest Destiny.
Manifest Destiny is the belief that because we think we are the best and smartest in the world that we must force our ways onto the rest of the world."
We may not automatically be the best and smartest in the world, but we're certainly a hell of a lot better than the dictatorships in the Middle East."
So, Gorginfoogle, how much time have you spent living in the "dictatorships in the Middle East?" How many years' experience do you have to say that life there is so untolerable, so unbearable, so repressive, that people are crying out to the US and Bush's administration "save us, save us?" How many people do you know, personally, living in those "dictatorships in the Middle East" who complain about their standard of living, of their chances to provide their families with good, decent homes?
Because I don't know any. I do know a few transplants, and they've said that they were better off before they came over. There, they were engineers and doctors, highly regarded, respected, wanted. Here, the work in gas stations and drive taxis. That's not just a stereotype, those are people I know personally.
I've also met people who are happy to live and work here in the US. These folks have the had the good fortune to not only be doctors in their homeland, but also here. They often travel back, because they love their home so much, and they have friends and family who are happy and content to live within a "dictatorships in the Middle East."
When did a governmental dictatorship system become equated with evil? It's not the system, it's the leaders, and dictatorships are no less or no more susceptible to corruption and waste than, oh, say, democracies, or representative republics.
Then agian, if dictatorships, in your view, ARE a bad thing, well, hey, we're 2/3 of the way there. We're supposed to have a 3 level government that serves as a series of checks and balances on each other. Yet congress has pretty much ceded the ability to declare and wage war upon the executive. The only thing the office of the president lacks is the ability to pass laws. Oh, wait, with executive orders, he can do that. And the administrative agency system allows him to pass laws, er, regulations. Good thing he doesn't have judicial power...oh, wait, administrative agencies have primary oversight of their own decisions, so I guess in a way he does.
Seems we're maybe closer to a 2/3 dictatorship that I thought. Thank God we're not in the Middle East, huh?
I still fail to see how "staying the course" is automatically an admirable thing, while changing one's stance as the facts or situation changes is unilaterally a bad thing. If I'm driving down the road, and the road curves to go round a lake, I'm sure the hell not going to keep going straight simply out of the fear that turning will make me look indecisive. And I CERTAINLY wouldn't want to ride in a car driven by somebody who thinks that changing direction is for weenies.
There's a British saying I think's appropriate. "Oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them."
Kerry has to play negative to elevate himself into position. Bush has to make the electorate scared of the devil they don't know.
Seeing as how Congress let it lapse
Yet, did Bush even ONCE suggest that Congress should renew the ban?
He's allowed to do that, you know.
Luigi Novi wrote:
"The two aren’t even close to being analogous. The one involved jailing people without trial, invasions of privacy, and targeting people for totally innocuous exercises of freedom of assembly and speech. The other is simply monitoring PUBLIC areas, and has been shown to actually deter crime."
Oh, yes they are! You're looking at the two with partisan blinders on! Cameras, especially digitally linked with face recognition software are just as "intrusive" as anything in the Patriot Act. Cameras can show (and record) who you talk to, where you go (from-camera-to-camera-to-camera), when you are home, what you buy, etc. -- all with a nifty date/time stamp on it. They could identify you by name and address in seconds, simply by comparing your digitized face image on camera with your digitized driver's license image at the DMV. Some camera networks even have microphones, which means all audio is recorded as well. This adds an additional means of identification through voice print matching. All this recorded stuff, I might add, can be used against you in court. For example, existing date/time records from Illinois electronic "Speed Pass" lanes at toll plazas around the state have been used in court numerous times already to refute or prove date/time allegations.
Face it! It's a brave new world out there regardless of which side of the political fence you straddle, so stop pointing fingers and get used to it!
Oh, well. At least the congress never voted to authorize the war in... oh, wait. Well, certainly the Democrats on the Hill would never have voted to... what's that you say? Overwhelmingly, you say? Oh, but the opposition nominee for president would never have... really? But what if you asked him if he'd still vote for war even knowing what we know now... He said THAT? Hmm. Well, at least the nominee must have a clear and consistent plan for what to do in... before he voted against it, you say? We need 60,000 more troops in Iraq, while simultaneously getting all troops out in four years, make it six months? The Pro-Anti-Pro war considate who would still do even though it's wrong? (At least he doesn't believe life begins at conception while still demanding that what he himself describes as murder be... oh.)
And all this trouble, even though Saddam Hussein was no threat to... Red Cropss says 300,000 civillians in mass graves, huh, with the Iraqis saying up to a million? Celebrated the 9/11 attacks publicly? Attempted to assassinated a former US President? Founded, trained and orchestrated international terrorist groups, including al Qaida? Well, at least we know for certain no Democrat president would ever say Saddam had WMDs, that's for... really? Over and over again? And Albright, and Daschle, and Chiroc? Not GORE? And that's why we bombed unilaterally multiple times in the 90s, against the wishes of the UN security council? Well, if things were great under Saddam, things with the Taliban were SPIFFY, especially for women and little girls who... not so much, you say? I'll be darned.
Well, about the assault weapons ban, seeing as AK-47s were banned in the 80s, and machine guns have been under import embargo since 1934 I'm POSITIVE Kerry wouldn't have said anything about THOSE weapons being... oh. Really.
Well, one thing's for certain, no web site the great Peter David would host could ever grotesquely slander our fallen soldiers with some idiotic "lyin' dyin'" comment, and...
oh.
I suggest "While he is lying, they are diying". I can't understand people concern about soldiers dying, they are not the boy scouts, army is an organization with the objective of killing people. Soldiers know this. I know their families are in pain, and no soldier wants to die, but who is responsible? I feel sorry for the other people.
"I do know a few transplants, and they've said that they were better off before they came over. There, they were engineers and doctors, highly regarded, respected, wanted. Here, they work in gas stations and drive taxis. That's not just a stereotype, those are people I know personally."
No offense intended but why exactly did they come here? It seems like it would be a tremendous hassle to do so only to experience the thrill of going from doctor to taxi cab driver. Unless we are still in the business of chaining people to the bottom of ships and forcing them to come to America I have to wonder what they were thinking.
On the assault weapons ban:
Anyone interested in the truth will probably want to avert his or her eyes when the next big MoveOn.org ad comes on. A perfect case of misleading facts, it goes something like this:
"Announcer: This is an assault weapon. It can fire up to 300 rounds a minute. It’s the weapon most feared by our police. In the hands of terrorists it could kill hundreds. That’s why they’re illegal. John Kerry, a sportsman and a hunter, would keep them illegal."
"But on Sept. 13th, George Bush will let the assault weapon ban expire. George Bush says he’s making America safer. Who does he think he’s kidding?"
"MoveonPAC is responsible for the content of this advertisement."
Now anyone watching this ad will certainly be forgiven if they come away from it believing that the weapon shown--an AK-47--has just become available to the average Joe, thanks to the perfidious Bush. That's certainly what the ad wants you to think.
It isn't true, of course. Any weapon firing 300 rounds or more per minute is illegal for civilians without clearance by the Department of Justice.
And note that the ad DOESN'T actually say otherwise. "In the hands of terrorists it could kill hundreds. That’s why they’re illegal. John Kerry, a sportsman and a hunter, would keep them illegal."
"But on Sept. 13th, George Bush will let the assault weapon ban expire."
It doesn't actually say that this expiration will allow the gun to be sold, though that's the obvious assumption one should make. They just string together a few facts and let you make the (wrong) connection.
Good thing I'm too poor to have my own 527 organization. Imagine the irresponsible fun I could have:
(Pictures of kids playing on a swing set, monkey bars, etc. Carousel music.)
Announcer: “We all want our children to be happy and safe. The Child Protection Act of 1997 ensures that child pornographers and pedophiles cannot legally engage in acts of perversion against the most helpless of victims..."
(Change to black and white grainy footage of hairy men in evil clown costumes throwing what seems to be bags marked "Anthrax Spores" into the faces of terrified orphans. Music shifts to minor key)
"But John Kerry voted for Senate Bill 5411. Is THIS the kind of man we can afford to have around our kids???"
"This message was paid for by Dyslexics for hsub"
Ok, ok, so Senate Bill 5411 actually has nothing to do with child porn. It established October of 2003 as International Month of the Eskimo. The point is, the ad (or something like it with real laws and bills instead of ones I just made up) would be every bit as intellectually accurate as the MoveOn one (which is, admittedly, a low bar indeed)
"It is clear from these and other statements that o fundamental matters of war and peace, and on the major strategic and tactical questions that follow from them, that John Kerry will not or cannot hold to a position under pressure. "
No, it's clear that conservatives who howl bloody murder if a Bush or Cheney comment is not given its full three or four graf context will not hesitate to pull single sentences out of far lengthier and nuanced responses if it serves their purposes.
And by the way, several of those so-called flip flops actually don't contradict each other at all. They're nuanced responses to different sides of a question.
By the way, the current running tally for Iraq: this week, fourteen US troops killed, 219 wounded, with a total of 1018 killed and 7,245 wounded since March 2003.
Iraqis: 200 killed this week, at least 10,000 killed since March 2003. Foreign workers: 2 kidnapped this week, 130 kidnapped, 22 killed since March 2003.
I'm more inclined to go with someone who realizes that something might not be a good idea than soeone who stubbornly refuses to acknowledge it, and is so incapable of self-analysis that he can't even think of a single thing he's done wrong in the past several years (can ANYONE here not think of a SINGLE thing they've screwed up since 2000?) Furthermore, I kind of like my leaders a touch less Machiavellan. Less "ends justifies the means" types, as opposed to those (and their followers) who believe that because the world is better off without Saddam in charge, therefore absolutely everything and anything that was done in order to accomplish it was and continues to be acceptable.
Life isn't like that. Fantasy is like that. Which is why, yes, Bush is a fantastic president.
PAD
Any weapon firing 300 rounds or more per minute is illegal for civilians without clearance by the Department of Justice.
Take a semi-automatic weapon that can be modified to fully, and the extra-bullet clips that are now allowed again, and you have something rather close to the truth.
But you wouldn't want people to learn the truth, would you?
Providing more information on immigrants I have known. They came here for the opportunity, for the travel, for the experience. What I mean is that some of them can't get jobs. Intelligent, educated, experienced professionals in fields where there are jobs don't get hired in our country because of prejudice and ignorance.
So, no, no one made them come here. But no one made them leave, either. The point I was trying to make was that the system of government had little to do with whether they had success or failure in their chosen career.
Why am I voting for Kerry? Because it's time for someone different at the helm of our country. As another poster said, all Bush has done is campaign on his war effort and of 9/11 related actions. I want someone that cares about where we are, where we're heading, and what we can become. I think that Kerry is the choice for that.
Then why hasn't Kerry pointed out his record in the Senate? I mean, if I didn't already know, I'd be hard pressed to know that he was EVER in the Senate. If he's going to do so much to change the future, shouldn't his past voting record reflect that? And if he's proud of that record, why not run on that instead of on a war that he personally campaigned against. Why try to hold himself up as a war hero?
eclark 1849 wrote:
"Then why hasn't Kerry pointed out his record in the Senate? I mean, if I didn't already know, I'd be hard pressed to know that he was EVER in the Senate. If he's going to do so much to change the future, shouldn't his past voting record reflect that? And if he's proud of that record, why not run on that instead of on a war that he personally campaigned against. Why try to hold himself up as a war hero?"
This mirrors some of my thoughts as well. As an independent voter, I find that Kerry has still not defined himself. Most of his statements are about what Bush is doing wrong, rather than specific examples of what Kerry would do right.
Kerry reminds me of a fan in the stands of some baseball stadium, shouting his displeasure to no one in particular about why the guy on the field sucks. Is the beligerent fan a professional ballplayer? Can he hit, field or pitch? Is he perhaps a professional baseball manager? No one around him really knows. He COULD be, but to most people within earshot, it is assumed he is just a loudmouthed, armchair critic.
However, unlike the fan in my example, Kerry actually has a stage available to SHOW onlookers what he can do. Such opportunities are rare in life. But does Kerry seize the opportunity and outline his plans and vision for the country? No. He just continues to spout off one-liners criticizing the player on the field ("W" is for wrong!"; "Bush created more excuses than jobs!"; etc.). Thus, while Kerry is now out on the field in the spotlight, he has yet to step into the batter's box to show us what he can really do.
Frankly, I'm seriously underwhelmed.
ObeeKris: Yet, no one else felt there was a pressing need to invade Iraq to rid us of Saddam, except for the man whose father attempted it a decade ago and failed.
Luigi Novi: George Bush senior never tried to rid us of Saddam. Once he was expelled from Kuwait, our UN mandate was fulfilled. Bush senior did not try to depose Saddam because he knew that to do so would’ve violated our UN mandate, and would’ve created an Arab Vietnam.
Luigi Novi: The other is simply monitoring PUBLIC areas, and has been shown to actually deter crime.
The StarWolf: The UK has the largest number of surveillance cameras in use in the world. Crime has gone up…
Luigi Novi: And where was this? In areas where cameras were placed?
Kingbobb: Good thing he doesn't have judicial power...oh, wait, administrative agencies have primary oversight of their own decisions, so I guess in a way he does.
Luigi Novi: What does oversight have to do with the judicial branch. The judicial branch interprets laws. It does not conduct oversight.
Luigi Novi: The two aren’t even close to being analogous. The one involved jailing people without trial, invasions of privacy, and targeting people for totally innocuous exercises of freedom of assembly and speech. The other is simply monitoring PUBLIC areas, and has been shown to actually deter crime.
R. Maheras: Oh, yes they are! You're looking at the two with partisan blinders on! Cameras, especially digitally linked with face recognition software are just as "intrusive" as anything in the Patriot Act.
Luigi Novi: Not if they’re used in PUBLIC areas.
R. Maheras: Cameras can show (and record) who you talk to, where you go (from-camera-to-camera-to-camera), when you are home, what you buy, etc. -- all with a nifty date/time stamp on it. They could identify you by name and address in seconds, simply by comparing your digitized face image on camera with your digitized driver's license image at the DMV. Some camera networks even have microphones, which means all audio is recorded as well. This adds an additional means of identification through voice print matching. All this recorded stuff, I might add, can be used against you in court.
Luigi Novi: In other words…………if I’ve committed a crime. The Patriot Act targets people who have NOT.
R. Maheras: For example, existing date/time records from Illinois electronic "Speed Pass" lanes at toll plazas around the state have been used in court numerous times already to refute or prove date/time allegations.
Luigi Novi: And this is bad………why?
R. Maheras: Face it! It's a brave new world out there regardless of which side of the political fence you straddle, so stop pointing fingers and get used to it!
Luigi Novi: When did I point fingers?
Over 1000 dead? Uh it was way above 1000 after the Towers fell.
Then why hasn't Kerry pointed out his record in the Senate?
And what exactly did Bush do as governor?
Bush senior did not try to depose Saddam because he knew that to do so would’ve violated our UN mandate, and would’ve created an Arab Vietnam.
Isn't it great ot see that Junior learned something from daddy? Oh, wait, he didn't learn...
Over 1000 dead? Uh it was way above 1000 after the Towers fell.
Ahh, so now we're back to "one of yours for one of ours". But then, the argument still stands that the terrorists involved in 9/11 were Saudi, not Iraqi.
So I'm sure that the Iraqis are comforted by the fact that they have to die for the actions of others.
kingbobb wrote:
"So, Gorginfoogle, how much time have you spent living in the "dictatorships in the Middle East?" How many years' experience do you have to say that life there is so untolerable, so unbearable, so repressive, that people are crying out to the US and Bush's administration "save us, save us?" How many people do you know, personally, living in those "dictatorships in the Middle East" who complain about their standard of living, of their chances to provide their families with good, decent homes?
Because I don't know any. I do know a few transplants, and they've said that they were better off before they came over. There, they were engineers and doctors, highly regarded, respected, wanted. Here, the work in gas stations and drive taxis. That's not just a stereotype, those are people I know personally."
Gee, too bad for them. I also have a friend who is of Persian descent, though she has never actually been to Iran, since, you see, her mother had to flee the country before she was born. Jewish, you know.
"When did a governmental dictatorship system become equated with evil?"
Yeah, I doubt you're going to find many people on this board or anywhere else that are going to agree even slightly with you on this.
"It's not the system, it's the leaders, and dictatorships are no less or no more susceptible to corruption and waste than, oh, say, democracies, or representative republics."
Yes, because a system in which our leaders can be voted out of office by the public is equally prone to corruption as one in which there is no possible governmental oversight.
"Then agian, if dictatorships, in your view, ARE a bad thing, well, hey, we're 2/3 of the way there. We're supposed to have a 3 level government that serves as a series of checks and balances on each other. Yet congress has pretty much ceded the ability to declare and wage war upon the executive. The only thing the office of the president lacks is the ability to pass laws. Oh, wait, with executive orders, he can do that. And the administrative agency system allows him to pass laws, er, regulations. Good thing he doesn't have judicial power...oh, wait, administrative agencies have primary oversight of their own decisions, so I guess in a way he does."
I see. So someone you don't like is in office, and so that means we're already mostly a dictatorship as is. How quaint.
Tell you what. As soon as you can find something our government is doing that is as bad as, say, locking teenage girls in a burning school, letting them die horrible deaths rather than shame themselves by appearing in public without being fully covered from head to toe (gotta keep those women in line, you know, otherwise who knows what could happen), or carrying out ethnic cleansing against an unliked minority, or having a legal system in which a man can go to jail for a year for the crime of rape, while a woman will be sentenced to life imprisonment or death for the crime of BEING raped, or where a sports team can be tortured by the president's kid for losing a match, or where...well, you get my point. As soon as you can find our government doing things as bad as that, then I'll agree with you that we're no better than one of those Middle Eastern dictatorships.
Craig T. Ries wrote:
"And what exactly did Bush do as governor?"
Bush has had four years of policies as a president to show what he's like. He no longer needs to go by his record as governor. Kerry, however, needs to pull SOMETHING out to show, clearly, what his policies will be to convince us to vote for him. Simply saying that he'll do things differently from Bush isn't enough, we need to know WHAT he's going to do differently and HOW, otherwise it's just meaningless rhetoric (and yes, obviously even if he laid out a clear plan it could still turn out to be meaningless rhetoric if he gets elected and doesn't implement that plan, but he still needs to convince everyone that he's got a good plan for the future).
Zeek writes:
"Over 1000 dead? Uh it was way above 1000 after the Towers fell."
Wow, and the Red Sox haven't won the World Series yet. Which has exactly as much to do with 9/11 or the war in Iraq as they have to do with one another: Nothing at all.
Gorginfoogle:
First off, where have I said I didn't like our current administration? That's a leap I don't see my words supporting.
You're missing my point. Which is that you're painting with a broad brush. You claim dictatorships, and Middle Eastern dictatorships in particular, are bad. Saddam's regime in Iraq was undoubtedly a dictatorship, and horrible, terrible things happened because of and under his direct command.
However, my point was that dictatorships themselves are not bad, so it's dangerous to take the view that we're fighting "evil" by promoting democracy over kings. The Taliban, which you refer to, was run by a council of clerics. It wasn't a dictatorship. I've honestly now idea how those clerics attained their leadership positions, but there was no sole ruler of the Taliban regime. And before you start getting all "well, lookee what George W. did to the Taliban," consider that for 10 years or more prior to 9/11/01, the Taliban ran an oppressive country where, yes, women were stoned to death for showing an inch of skin on their ankle. Our country did little to counter that non-dictatorship regime during Clinton's term, and GWB's term, until, hey, 9/11. Then it was all "hey everybody, lookee over there! Them's oppressive Taliban's Evil, and they's got to go. Them and their terrorist freinds, AQ."
Want to know what our government is doing that's as bad as some of those things you mention? How about holding/detaining people in military camps for over 2 years, with no charges filed, no evidence presented, no due process of any kind. Our government approving the use of torture, aka "stress situations" in the "interrogation" of said detainees (when just about any compentent psychologist will tell you that torture of any kind produces, at best, information of questionable value. more often than not, torture is itself a tool of terror). Or how about our leader using a horrific attack as justification to wrest constitutional authority from congress to enable his little private war against Iraq, claiming that we're in immediate danger of suffering another attack from WMDs, and when those WMDs fail to appear, shrugging his shoulders and saying "shucks, just ignore the 1000+ American casualties and 10,000+ Iraqi civilians dead, getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do."
Luigi Novi, I was making a vieled reference to the administrative system many agencies have. Take the EPA. You get cited for some EPA violations, you don't get to go in front of a judge. You plead your case before and Administrative Law Judge, an employee of the EPA, which means that you're case involves a regulation written, administered, and enforced by the Executive branch. You do have limited appeal rights to the Judicial branch, but high deference is given to the executive agency.
And technically speaking, our courts only have "oversight" power. The judicial branch relies upon the executive branch for enforcement of its decisions.
And answers to those biased statements:
1) Footage of Candidate Bush stating that he's against nation building.
Unless failure by the UN to enforce its own rulings and forced to do so by a rogue nation.
2) Footage of dead and dying American soldiers and dead and dying Iraqis, including some of that brutal footage from "F 9/11."
You mean, from the noted liar Michael Moore? So, I guess it would be better to have attacks in the streets of America to make us feel better about it?
3) Footage of Bush declaring "MIssion Accomplished."
Yep, it was, against the Saddam Regime, it didn't say "Entire Iraq Mission Accomplished".
4) Footage of headlines declaring over a thousand Americans killed.
Let's add the people from the first WTC bombing, the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers too and pictures of the dead Rangers being dragged through the streets of Somalia. All on the Democrats watch.
5) Footage of Candidate Bush stating that he supported the assault weapon ban.
Stats have proved that assault style weapons (rolls eyes) are used in less then 8 percent of crimes. Fully auto-weapons (full automatic fire for you people scared of guns means, a continious pull completely empties the clip) are used in 1 percent of all crimes. Wow, that law was great!!!
6) Footage of newspaper headlines about the assault ban treaty being lifted without a word of protest from the White House, intercut with dead and dying young people or terrorists fighting assault weapons.
And those foreign fully-automatic weapons are affected how by an AMERICAN law?
7) Footage of Bush saying that he's keeping us safer. Freeze Frame, and the following words appear:
"While he's lyin', we're dyin'."
And who has said that? Democrats? And you left out the important buzz word: "KIDS". "Bush lied, kids died", like instead of a volunteer army we are like the PLO and send out 9 year old with bombs strapped to their bodies. Those people use children, we send men and women to fight there, so they won't fight *here*...
Paid for by the Committe of People Who Apparently Slept Though Terrorist Acts And Genocide (see Rwanda for a sample) On Clinton And 40 Years Of Democrat Party Slumber And Inaction
Thank you
"Take a semi-automatic weapon that can be modified to fully, and the extra-bullet clips that are now allowed again, and you have something rather close to the truth."
"But you wouldn't want people to learn the truth, would you?"
Sure I do, though it might help if you wrote something understandable. I'll assume you're trying to say that with the ban now lifted it is now possible to buy guns that can be modified into something like an AK-47.
If true, a fair statement. Not what the ad said, but a fair statement.
But I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings picking on those swell MoveOn.org folks.
Queen Anthai -
"every day I just want to slap him that much more"
Here you go - spank away
http://www.spankbush.com
Craig -
"Over 1000 dead? Uh it was way above 1000 after the Towers fell."
When the towers fell 1000 soldiers had already died in Iraq?
Carl -
"Unless failure by the UN to enforce its own rulings and forced to do so by a rogue nation."
Since the 2 countries who have violated the most UN resolutions (AKA rulings) are Isreal & Turkey, does this mean we should invade them as well? Also, just when did the U.S. become the enforcement branch of the UN?
"So, I guess it would be better to have attacks in the streets of America to make us feel better about it?"
What does this have to do with invading Iraq, when the ones who committed the attacks were not Iraqi?
"Let's add the people from the first WTC bombing, the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers too and pictures of the dead Rangers being dragged through the streets of Somalia. All on the Democrats watch."
Again, what does any of this have to do with the Iraqi's, When the terrorists were mostly Saudi & operating out of Afghanistan?
"40 Years Of Democrat Party Slumber And Inaction"
Those 40 years include Bush I, Reagan, Ford & Nixon. When did they become Democrats?
Craig,
By the way,are you under the impression that the assault weapons ban actually banned all assault weapons? Or that it is only now that you can get the "semi-automatic weapon that can be modified to fully, and the extra-bullet clips that are now allowed again"?
I'm no gun enthusiast but looking around the web it appears that the "ban" did not apply to existing guns and it has always been possible to illegally modify a gun.. It's easier to buy an illegal AK-47 though.
The MoveOn ad was misleading, pure and simple, but if all it takes to pass the smell test is to have it be anti-Bush, well, then it's just fine.
Carl wrote:
5) Footage of Candidate Bush stating that he supported the assault weapon ban.
Stats have proved that assault style weapons (rolls eyes) are used in less then 8 percent of crimes. Fully auto-weapons (full automatic fire for you people scared of guns means, a continious pull completely empties the clip) are used in 1 percent of all crimes. Wow, that law was great!!!
Yeah, here we go.
Carl, do you actually think before you type? You answer the statement that FOOTAGE showing Bush stated that he SUPPORTED the ban with some rambling about stats, polls and percentages of crime.
How does that answer the statement that there is ACTUAL footage of Bush stating that he SUPPORTED the ban.
Oh....it doesn't,
Silly me, expecteing the TRUTH from obvious, partisan posts.
Going back to yesterday for a moment:
"I for one am sick of hearing about losing manufacturing jobs. Guess what... they don't matter.
This is no longer an industrial nation. The idustrial revolution has come and gone... it's place is in third world countries now. The is the technology and information age and that is what we should be focusing on."
Since March 2001, over 400,000 of these jobs have been lost. Should we also consider these as jobs that don't matter?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=562&e=1&u=/ap/20040914/ap_on_hi_te/tech_job_slump
Yeah, he supported the ban. And did nothing to further it. Sometimes all it takes is for a good man to do nothing about a bad law. Do you think period RJM, does that stand for "Real Jerks Matter"? Thanks...
I was bored so I decided to look up the definition of partisan because I was unclear as to it’s specific meaning of the word can change from one political pundit to another. Of the definitions I found this was by far the most interesting 3. partisan, partizan -- (a pike with a long tapering double-edged blade with lateral projections; 16th and 17th centuries)
Anyway reading all of the pervious posts has given me a change of heart, as I initially thought Kerry should error on the side of caution and not run negative ads. I now think most people know one way or another which way they are going to vote so Bush and Kerry are really only campaigning for a few select undecided votes. So given the fact Kerry can’t alienate his camp or win over Bushes camp he should go for broke in winning the undecided vote by doing whatever it takes to convince them to cast a vote for him.
Also I think it’s imperative that everyone votes. Bottom line is that with the nation being polarized right now the right and left have cancelled each other out, so this is the election where groups, such as minorities, can have their greatest impact. Now is the time to make your voice heard if you are interested in effecting change.
Carl,
Why am I not surprised that the ONLY way you could respond to my pointing out that you couldn't defend your point was to call me names.
I can see though, why you support Bush. You're similar, you can't admit when you're wrong.
It's so easy for you RADICAL Partisan defenders, my guy right or wrong, to post ridiculious statements, not back up your arguments and hide behind anonymous names on the net.
RJM are my initials. It stands for my name, Richard John Marcej. I'm not some internet coward who finds that it's easy to spout out inane, asinine comments, then when found to be wrong, rather than be a man and admit it, call someone a name.
"Bush senior did not try to depose Saddam because he knew that to do so would’ve violated our UN mandate, and would’ve created an Arab Vietnam.
Isn't it great ot see that Junior learned something from daddy? Oh, wait, he didn't learn..."
Actually, Craig, I think he did learn from daddy. Because daddy was a one-term president, and I think W. looked at all the things his father did that cost him the election, and has worked like mad to do the exact opposite. For instance:
Senior's approval ratings were skyward when we were involved with a war effort. But once that subsided, limited American memories and the spiralling economy caused his numbers to plummet and made him vulnerable. Junior's answer? Make sure we stay at war, because electorates are reluctant to switch presidents during time of war. Don't allow for a lousy economy, or the inability to capture bin Laden, to cause polling numbers to drop.
Senior realized that circumstances sometimes require one to change one's mind ("Read my lips, no new taxes.") So Junior refused to allow for that. Never admit mistakes. Never change course. The Iraqis haven't greeted us with rose petals? Keep killing them until they do.
There's other instances, I'm sure.
PAD
James Tichy,
people like you scare the hell out of me. you'll vote *cough* bush *cough* because you don't like all the attack ads. What about the attack ads from the "right"?
Bush by numbers: Four years of double standards
By Graydon Carter
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=557746
03 September 2004
1 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security issued between 20 January 2001 and 10 September 2001 that mentioned al-Qa'ida.
104 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned Iraq or Saddam Hussein.
101 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned missile defence.
65 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned weapons of mass destruction.
0 Number of times Bush mentioned Osama bin Laden in his three State of the Union addresses.
73 Number of times that Bush mentioned terrorism or terrorists in his three State of the Union addresses.
83 Number of times Bush mentioned Saddam, Iraq, or regime (as in change) in his three State of the Union addresses.
$1m Estimated value of a painting the Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas, received from Prince Bandar, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States and Bush family friend.
0 Number of times Bush mentioned Saudi Arabia in his three State of the Union addresses.
1,700 Percentage increase between 2001 and 2002 of Saudi Arabian spending on public relations in the United States.
79 Percentage of the 11 September hijackers who came from Saudi Arabia.
3 Number of 11 September hijackers whose entry visas came through special US-Saudi "Visa Express" programme.
140 Number of Saudis, including members of the Bin Laden family, evacuated from United States almost immediately after 11 September.
14 Number of Immigration and Naturalisation Service (INS) agents assigned to track down 1,200 known illegal immigrants in the United States from countries where al-Qa'ida is active.
$3m Amount the White House was willing to grant the 9/11 Commission to investigate the 11 September attacks.
$0 Amount approved by George Bush to hire more INS special agents.
$10m Amount Bush cut from the INS's existing terrorism budget.
$50m Amount granted to the commission that looked into the Columbia space shuttle crash.
$5m Amount a 1996 federal commission was given to study legalised gambling.
7 Number of Arabic linguists fired by the US army between mid-August and mid-October 2002 for being gay.
George Bush: Military man
1972 Year that Bush walked away from his pilot duties in the Texas National Guard, Nearly two years before his six-year obligation was up.
$3,500 Reward a group of veterans offered in 2000 for anyone who could confirm Bush's Alabama guard service.
600-700 Number of guardsmen who were in Bush's unit during that period.
0 Number of guardsmen from that period who came forward with information about Bush's guard service.
0 Number of minutes that President Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney, the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, the assistant Defence Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, the former chairman of the Defence Policy Board, Richard Perle, and the White House Chief of Staff, Karl Rove the main proponents of the war in Iraq served in combat (combined).
0 Number of principal civilian or Pentagon staff members who planned the war who have immediate family members serving in uniform in Iraq.
8 Number of members of the US Senate and House of Representatives who have a child serving in the military.
10 Number of days that the Pentagon spent investigating a soldier who had called the President "a joke" in a letter to the editor of a Newspaper.
46 Percentage increase in sales between 2001 and 2002 of GI Joe figures (children's toys).
Ambitious warrior
2 Number of Nations that George Bush has attacked and taken over since coming into office.
130 Approximate Number of countries (out of a total of 191 recognised by the United Nations) with a US military presence.
43 Percentage of the entire world's military spending that the US spends on defence. (That was in 2002, the year before the invasion of Iraq.)
$401.3bn Proposed military budget for 2004.
Saviour of Iraq
1983 The year in which Donald Rumsfeld, Ronald Reagan's special envoy to the Middle East, gave Saddam Hussein a pair of golden spurs as a gift.
2.5 Number of hours after Rumsfeld learnt that Osama bin Laden was a suspect in the 11 September attacks that he brought up reasons to "hit" Iraq.
237 Minimum number of misleading statements on Iraq made by top Bush administration officials between 2002 and January 2004, according to the California Representative Henry Waxman.
10m Estimated number of people worldwide who took to the streets on 21 February 2003, in opposition to the invasion of Iraq, the largest simultaneous protest in world history.
$2bn Estimated monthly cost of US military presence in Iraq projected by the White House in April 2003.
$4bn Actual monthly cost of the US military presence in Iraq according to Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld in 2004.
$15m Amount of a contract awarded to an American firm to build a cement factory in Iraq.
$80,000 Amount an Iraqi firm spent (using Saddam's confiscated funds) to build the same factory, after delays prevented the American firm from starting it.
2000 Year that Cheney said his policy as CEO of Halliburton oil services company was "we wouldn't do anything in Iraq".
$4.7bn Total value of contracts awarded to Halliburton in Iraq and Afghanistan.
$680m Estimated value of Iraq reconstruction contracts awarded to Bechtel.
$2.8bnValue of Bechtel Corp contracts in Iraq.
$120bn Amount the war and its aftermath are projected to cost for the 2004 fiscal year.
35 Number of countries to which the United States suspended military assistance after they failed to sign agreements giving Americans immunity from prosecution before the International Criminal Court.
92 Percentage of Iraq's urban areas with access to potable water in late 2002.
60 Percentage of Iraq's urban areas with access to potable water in late 2003.
55 Percentage of the Iraqi workforce who were unemployed before the war.
80 Percentage of the Iraqi workforce who are unemployed a Year after the war.
0 Number of American combat deaths in Germany after the Nazi surrender in May 1945.
37 Death toll of US soldiers in Iraq in May 2003, the month combat operations "officially" ended.
0 Number of coffins of dead soldiers returning home that the Bush administration has permitted to be photographed.
0 Number of memorial services for the returned dead that Bush has attended since the beginning of the war.
A soldier's best friend
40,000 Number of soldiers in Iraq seven months after start of the war still without Interceptor vests, designed to stop a round from an AK-47.
$60m Estimated cost of outfitting those 40,000 soldiers with Interceptor vests.
62 Percentage of gas masks that army investigators discovered did Not work properly in autumn 2002.
90 Percentage of detectors which give early warning of a biological weapons attack found to be defective.
87 Percentage of Humvees in Iraq not equipped with armour capable of stopping AK-47 rounds and protecting against roadside bombs and landmines at the end of 2003.
Making the country safer
$3.29 Average amount allocated per person Nationwide in the first round of homeland security grants.
$94.40 Amount allocated per person for homeland security in American Samoa.
$36 Amount allocated per person for homeland security in Wyoming, Vice-President Cheney's home state.
$17 Amount allocated per person in New York state.
$5.87 Amount allocated per person in New York City.
$77.92 Amount allocated per person in New Haven, Connecticut, home of Yale University, Bush's alma mater.
76 Percentage of 215 cities surveyed by the US Conference of Mayors in early 2004 that had yet to receive a dime in federal homeland security assistance for their first-response units.
5 Number of major US airports at the beginning of 2004 that the Transportation Security Administration admitted were Not fully screening baggage electronically.
22,600 Number of planes carrying unscreened cargo that fly into New York each month.
5 Estimated Percentage of US air cargo that is screened, including cargo transported on passenger planes.
95 Percentage of foreign goods that arrive in the United States by sea.
2 Percentage of those goods subjected to thorough inspection.
$5.5bnEstimated cost to secure fully US ports over the Next decade.
$0 Amount Bush allocated for port security in 2003.
$46m Amount the Bush administration has budgeted for port security in 2005.
15,000 Number of major chemical facilities in the United States.
100 Number of US chemical plants where a terrorist act could endanger the lives of more than one million people.
0 Number of new drugs or vaccines against "priority pathogens" listed by the Centres for Disease Control that have been developed and introduced since 11 September 2001.
Giving a hand up to the advantaged
$10.9m Average wealth of the members of Bush's original 16-person cabinet.
75 Percentage of Americans unaffected by Bush's sweeping 2003 cuts in capital gains and dividends taxes.
$42,000 Average savings members of Bush's cabinet received in 2003 as a result of cuts in capital gains and dividends taxes.
10 Number of fellow members from the Yale secret society Skull and Bones that Bush has named to important positions (including the Associate Attorney General Robert McCallum Jr. and SEC chief Bill Donaldson).
79 Number of Bush's initial 189 appointees who also served in his father's administration.
A man with a lot of friends
$113m Amount of total hard money the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign received, a record.
$11.5m Amount of hard money raised through the Pioneer programme, the controversial fund-raising process created for the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign. (Participants pledged to raise at least $100,000 by bundling together cheques of up to $1,000 from friends and family. Pioneers were assigned numbers, which were included on all cheques, enabling the campaign to keep track of who raised how much.)
George Bush: Money manager
4.7m Number of bankruptcies that were declared during Bush's first three years in office.
2002 The worst year for major markets since the recession of the 1970s.
$489bn The US trade deficit in 2003, the worst in history for a single year.
$5.6tr Projected national surplus forecast by the end of the decade when Bush took office in 2001.
$7.22tr US national debt by mid-2004.
George Bush: Tax cutter
87 Percentage of American families in April 2004 who say they have felt no benefit from Bush's tax cuts.
39 Percentage of tax cuts that will go to the top 1 per cent of American families when fully phased in.
49 Percentage of Americans in April 2004 who found that their taxes had actually gone up since Bush took office.
88 Percentage of American families who will save less than $100 on their 2006 federal taxes as a result of 2003 cut in capital gains and dividends taxes.
$30,858 Amount Bush himself saved in taxes in 2003.
Employment tsar
9.3m Number of US unemployed in April 2004.
2.3m Number of Americans who lost their jobs during first three Years of the Bush administration.
22m Number of jobs gained during Clinton's eight years in office.
Friend of the poor
34.6m Number of Americans living below the poverty line (1 in 8 of the population).
6.8m Number of people in the workforce but still classified as poor.
35m Number of Americans that the government defines as "food insecure," in other words, hungry.
$300m Amount cut from the federal programme that provides subsidies to poor families so they can heat their homes.
40 Percentage of wealth in the United States held by the richest 1 per cent of the population.
18 Percentage of wealth in Britain held by the richest 1e per cent of the population.
George Bush And his special friend
$60bn Loss to Enron stockholders, following the largest bankruptcy in US history.
$205m Amount Enron CEO Kenneth Lay earned from stock option profits over a four-year period.
$101m Amount Lay made from selling his Enron shares just before the company went bankrupt.
$59,339 Amount the Bush campaign reimbursed Enron for 14 trips on its corporate jet during the 2000 campaign.
30 Length of time in months between Enron's collapse and Lay (whom the President called "Kenny Boy") still not being charged with a crime.
George Bush: Lawman
15 Average number of minutes Bush spent reviewing capital punishment cases while governor of Texas.
46 Percentage of Republican federal judges when Bush came to office.
57 Percentage of Republican federal judges after three years of the Bush administration.
33 Percentage of the $15bn Bush pledged to fight Aids in Africa that must go to abstinence-only programmes.
The Civil libertarian
680 Number of suspected al-Qa'ida members that the United States admits are detained at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
42 Number of nationalities of those detainees at Guantanamo.
22 Number of hours prisoners were handcuffed, shackled, and made to wear surgical masks, earmuffs, and blindfolds during their flight to Guantanamo.
32 Number of confirmed suicide attempts by Guantanamo Bay prisoners.
24 Number of prisoners in mid-2003 being monitored by psychiatrists in Guantanamo's new mental ward.
A health-conscious president
43.6m Number of Americans without health insurance by the end of 2002 (more than 15 per cent of the population).
2.4m Number of Americans who lost their health insurance during Bush's first year in office.
Environmentalist
$44m Amount the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign and the Republican National Committee received in contributions from the fossil fuel, chemical, timber, and mining industries.
200 Number of regulation rollbacks downgrading or weakening environmental laws in Bush's first three years in office.
31 Number of Bush administration appointees who are alumni of the energy industry (includes four cabinet secretaries, the six most powerful White House officials, and more than 20 other high-level appointees).
50 Approximate number of policy changes and regulation rollbacks injurious to the environ