Weapons of mass deception: the Bush campaign.
Daniel Wylie sees some low down and dirty tactics in Bush’s presidential campaign…
What’s going on? | Veteran of dirt.| 4 steps to character assassination. | Facts and the media.
What’s going on?
This year’s US presidential elections are the most important in a very long time, with big issues at stake and different world views clashing. So why, when I visited the States for two weeks last month, was the presidential campaign focussed on a war fought 35 years ago? The talk of the town was not how to deal with Iraq, but what John Kerry did or did not do in the Mekong jungle, and the authenticity of documents proving that George Bush skipped National Guard duty in 1972. Political programmes were interviewing typology experts and retired generals, and arguing over the depth of a wound, or the placement of a comma. This is the perfect snapshot of a democratic process gone horribly wrong. We should all be very scared. The American election campaign, designed to produce the most powerful man on Earth by debating the
important issues, has descended into smears, irrelevancy, and dangerously un-democratic techniques; and the Bush campaign are to blame.
Veteran of dirt.
The Democrats have simply been too slow off the mark in organising the low down dirty election winning techniques that the Republicans have become so adept at. Bush’s campaign strategist, Karl Rove, has perfected the negative campaign. In the 2000 South Carolina primary, Bush’s opponent John McCain was accused of being insane, of betraying American troops, of fathering an illegitimate black child (the child had actually been adopted) and of having a drug addict wife. The 2004 version is the “Swift Boat Veteran” scandal. This is the classic example of the “third party smear”. Bush cannot smear Kerry directly, as it would make him look bad, so an independent group with no obvious links to the campaign does the job for him. In this case, the links were rather obvious: for example Merrie Spaeth, a long-time donor and advisor to the Bush campaign, provided media consulting to the Swift Boat Vets. Still, Kerry has been badly damaged in the polls by accusations that he did not deserve his war medals, despite the fact that the “Veterans” have been firmly contradicted by several military records and by the fact that none of them actually served with Kerry. It is this type of smear on a non-issue that is so badly poisoning the political atmosphere.
4 steps to character assassination.
Slightly less false than the outright smear, but still none the less misleading, are attacks on John Kerry’s political record. The Bush campaign have mastered the ability to say something technically true about Kerry, which in reality is totally misleading. Here are a few examples:
1.) “John Kerry is the most liberal senator”. True for 2003, where Kerry, because he was campaigning, attended far fewer votes. Over his 20 years as a senator, there have been 10 senators more liberal than Kerry.
2.) “John Kerry voted against x weapons systems. He can’t be trusted with our national security!” Most of these votes came in one appropriations bill around 1990. You can vote against an appropriations bill without being against an individual item. Incidentally, Dick Cheney, Defence Secretary at the time, also cut the same weapons systems, boasting about the “peace dividend”. Cheney has been in politics long enough to know that these charges are false. What a hypocrite.
3.) “John Kerry said “I actually did vote for the $87 billion (to fund troops in Iraq) before I voted against it.” What an idiot!” The truth is rather simple. There were two versions of the bill. Kerry liked one, which would be paid for by rolling back the tax cuts for the rich, and would hold companies like Halliburton accountable. Bush liked the other, which gave a blank cheque to Halliburton and would be paid for by borrowing. Bush even threatened to veto the other version. Strange no one talks about Bush almost vetoing his own bill. Bush’s version won.
4.) “John Kerry is a flip flopper.” Kerry changed his mind on the war when he saw how the President abused the power given him by the 2002 Congress vote i.e. he didn’t exhaust inspections, he didn’t get the UN on his side. Kerry changed his mind on the No Child Left Behind Act when he saw Bush wasn’t going to fund it properly. Most of these so called “flip flops” are easily explained.
Facts and the media.
And thus these “facts” about Kerry are sunk into the national consciousness, despite having no basis in reality. In addition, the Bush campaign is not averse to tactics that pervert democracy. At a rally in New Mexico, attendees were required to sign a “loyalty” oath to Bush, thus ensuring no hecklers. Bush’s campaign appearances are ludicrously stage managed, with “Ask President Bush” sessions carefully controlled to ensure friendly questions. Anyone who advertises themselves as a Kerry supporter gets their ticket ripped up. Two weeks ago, a woman was arrested at a Bush rally for shouting that Bush killed her son in Iraq. In contrast, Kerry’s campaign appearances are open to all, regardless of political affiliation. Perhaps most disgustingly, Bush followers have been keen to play the “traitor” card: Zell Miller insinuated that anyone criticising the President in wartime is helping the enemy, while Dick Cheney made it clear that a John Kerry presidency would lead to more terrorist attacks. Under this barrage of offal, how is orderly political discourse possible? Furthermore, it appeared to be working: until the first debate, when all the smears in the world couldn’t hide the fact that Bush didn’t actually have much in the way of constructive points to make.
There is one more piece in this unholy jigsaw: the enablers, also known as the media. How do politicians get away with this crap? Because the media aren’t interested in orderly political discourse. After all, detailed policy discussions are boring, and cost time and money. How much easier to talk about “human interest stories”, like the “Swift Boat Veterans” affair! Political analysts are becoming increasingly interested in talking about how a policy will play, rather than how good the policy is. Scared stiff in being called biased, the media prefer to present each side and leave it at that, rather than root out the good argument from the bad argument. The presidential debates are a perfect example: in 2000 the networks focussed on Gore’s sighs rather than Bush’s lies. This leaves the political process unintelligible to the average voter. The identity of the winner in this year’s election is still uncertain, but the identity of the loser is clear: the American political process and rational political discourse.
Brilliant piece. Controlled, trenchant and uncompromising. If only the media would rise to the challenge of writing articles like this one, I might be inclined to buy papers more often!
Brilliant piece. Controlled, trenchant and uncompromising. If only the media would rise to the challenge of writing articles like this one, I might be inclined to buy papers more often!
Brilliant piece. Controlled, trenchant and uncompromising. If only the media would rise to the challenge of writing articles like this one, I might be inclined to buy papers more often!
Agreed. I just wish our own dear sweet prime minister would support Kerry openly a little more. Or support him at all in fact. Refusing to redeploy our troops towards Baghdad – although ostensibly a decision which will be made on ‘military’ grounds, would be a good symbolic starting point…
Agreed. I just wish our own dear sweet prime minister would support Kerry openly a little more. Or support him at all in fact. Refusing to redeploy our troops towards Baghdad – although ostensibly a decision which will be made on ‘military’ grounds, would be a good symbolic starting point…
Agreed. I just wish our own dear sweet prime minister would support Kerry openly a little more. Or support him at all in fact. Refusing to redeploy our troops towards Baghdad – although ostensibly a decision which will be made on ‘military’ grounds, would be a good symbolic starting point…
enjoyed reading this. more please
enjoyed reading this. more please
enjoyed reading this. more please
I enjoyed the piece immensely. I am nervous, being an American citizen, that Bush might win again. Too many people here listen and observe what is placed in front of them and do not look any further. There has also been rumor that FL’s voting system is not up to par by this point either and similar occurrences might take place. I just hope that eventually my nation will research these matters further before voting. We cannot force this, but I do see more and more of my peers going out there more than ever. Friends have signed up to vote to cancel out their parent’s votes for Bush. This election year has fired up more people than I have ever seen. I am hoping for the best.
I enjoyed the piece immensely. I am nervous, being an American citizen, that Bush might win again. Too many people here listen and observe what is placed in front of them and do not look any further. There has also been rumor that FL’s voting system is not up to par by this point either and similar occurrences might take place. I just hope that eventually my nation will research these matters further before voting. We cannot force this, but I do see more and more of my peers going out there more than ever. Friends have signed up to vote to cancel out their parent’s votes for Bush. This election year has fired up more people than I have ever seen. I am hoping for the best.
I enjoyed the piece immensely. I am nervous, being an American citizen, that Bush might win again. Too many people here listen and observe what is placed in front of them and do not look any further. There has also been rumor that FL’s voting system is not up to par by this point either and similar occurrences might take place. I just hope that eventually my nation will research these matters further before voting. We cannot force this, but I do see more and more of my peers going out there more than ever. Friends have signed up to vote to cancel out their parent’s votes for Bush. This election year has fired up more people than I have ever seen. I am hoping for the best.
An excellent well researched article.
An excellent well researched article.
An excellent well researched article.
Thanks for your kind words. It really is frustrating that so many unfounded accusations against Kerry get aired so much without being taken down, and doubly frustrating that the Kerry campaign aren’t doing a better job of refuting them. Fortunately he did very well in the debates at getting a short sharp message across. Here’s hoping…
If I had a bit more space I would have dealt with the whole idea of voter suppression involving racist voter purges and malfunctioning voting machines, but I suppose it falls into a different category. Let’s just say that in Britain we have it right with a good old pencil and paper. Though then again, a recent survey of all postal voting shows how it is open to fraud…
Thanks for your kind words. It really is frustrating that so many unfounded accusations against Kerry get aired so much without being taken down, and doubly frustrating that the Kerry campaign aren’t doing a better job of refuting them. Fortunately he did very well in the debates at getting a short sharp message across. Here’s hoping…
If I had a bit more space I would have dealt with the whole idea of voter suppression involving racist voter purges and malfunctioning voting machines, but I suppose it falls into a different category. Let’s just say that in Britain we have it right with a good old pencil and paper. Though then again, a recent survey of all postal voting shows how it is open to fraud…
Thanks for your kind words. It really is frustrating that so many unfounded accusations against Kerry get aired so much without being taken down, and doubly frustrating that the Kerry campaign aren’t doing a better job of refuting them. Fortunately he did very well in the debates at getting a short sharp message across. Here’s hoping…
If I had a bit more space I would have dealt with the whole idea of voter suppression involving racist voter purges and malfunctioning voting machines, but I suppose it falls into a different category. Let’s just say that in Britain we have it right with a good old pencil and paper. Though then again, a recent survey of all postal voting shows how it is open to fraud…
Good article. However there are Democrats who do think that Kerry has been very weak on Iraq (after all why shouldn’t the Iraqi people have freedom and democracy- and why shouldn’t we support them in this endeavour) and trade. I support Kerry but I (and many Democrats) would have preferred a more centrist candidate who kept with the Democrats tradition of humanitarian intervention and support for free trade. If this was a referendum on the “Patriot” act or on the deficit Kerry would be storming home – however by trying to make it a referendum on Iraq Kerry is ailenating many in the Democratic party. If we had selected Joe Lieberman we would be winning by a landslide. It also was stupid to go around saying ‘reporting for duty’ and ‘band of brothers’ when you opposed the Vietnam war – Kerry should simply have said ‘I served Bush didn’t and no-one would have criticised him.
Good article. However there are Democrats who do think that Kerry has been very weak on Iraq (after all why shouldn’t the Iraqi people have freedom and democracy- and why shouldn’t we support them in this endeavour) and trade. I support Kerry but I (and many Democrats) would have preferred a more centrist candidate who kept with the Democrats tradition of humanitarian intervention and support for free trade. If this was a referendum on the “Patriot” act or on the deficit Kerry would be storming home – however by trying to make it a referendum on Iraq Kerry is ailenating many in the Democratic party. If we had selected Joe Lieberman we would be winning by a landslide. It also was stupid to go around saying ‘reporting for duty’ and ‘band of brothers’ when you opposed the Vietnam war – Kerry should simply have said ‘I served Bush didn’t and no-one would have criticised him.
Good article. However there are Democrats who do think that Kerry has been very weak on Iraq (after all why shouldn’t the Iraqi people have freedom and democracy- and why shouldn’t we support them in this endeavour) and trade. I support Kerry but I (and many Democrats) would have preferred a more centrist candidate who kept with the Democrats tradition of humanitarian intervention and support for free trade. If this was a referendum on the “Patriot” act or on the deficit Kerry would be storming home – however by trying to make it a referendum on Iraq Kerry is ailenating many in the Democratic party. If we had selected Joe Lieberman we would be winning by a landslide. It also was stupid to go around saying ‘reporting for duty’ and ‘band of brothers’ when you opposed the Vietnam war – Kerry should simply have said ‘I served Bush didn’t and no-one would have criticised him.
Is it not rather disingenuous to present the Bush camp as being the only one which uses underhand tactics?
It was Senator Edwards afterall who tried to shamefully exploit the death of Christopher Reeve to strengthen an argument for stem-cell research.
Furthermore, could Kerry’s eagerness to emphasise Catholic roots(he is technically Jewish!) be an attempt to appeal to the millions of key Irish-American voters? Surely not…..
It works both ways.
Is it not rather disingenuous to present the Bush camp as being the only one which uses underhand tactics?
It was Senator Edwards afterall who tried to shamefully exploit the death of Christopher Reeve to strengthen an argument for stem-cell research.
Furthermore, could Kerry’s eagerness to emphasise Catholic roots(he is technically Jewish!) be an attempt to appeal to the millions of key Irish-American voters? Surely not…..
It works both ways.
Is it not rather disingenuous to present the Bush camp as being the only one which uses underhand tactics?
It was Senator Edwards afterall who tried to shamefully exploit the death of Christopher Reeve to strengthen an argument for stem-cell research.
Furthermore, could Kerry’s eagerness to emphasise Catholic roots(he is technically Jewish!) be an attempt to appeal to the millions of key Irish-American voters? Surely not…..
It works both ways.
To answer, I did have a section on the Democrats shameful attempts to eliminate other left wing candidates from the ballet, but it was edited out! As for Christopher Reeve, I hardly think that it was “exploiting” his death as stem cell research was something that Reeve campaigned for very hard. Also, appealing to an ethnic background is something to be expected in a US Presidential race – after all George Bush is just a good ol’ boy from Texas. Lying about another candidate’s record and making up stuff about their military service is something else entirely. An example: in one of the Bible Belt states the local Bush/Cheney headquarters were handing out posters that said: “Kerry is Bin Laden’s Man; Bush is Mine”. This was not condemned from central HQ. Saying that if you vote for the other guy you are voting for a terrorist is just disgusting.
To answer, I did have a section on the Democrats shameful attempts to eliminate other left wing candidates from the ballet, but it was edited out! As for Christopher Reeve, I hardly think that it was “exploiting” his death as stem cell research was something that Reeve campaigned for very hard. Also, appealing to an ethnic background is something to be expected in a US Presidential race – after all George Bush is just a good ol’ boy from Texas. Lying about another candidate’s record and making up stuff about their military service is something else entirely. An example: in one of the Bible Belt states the local Bush/Cheney headquarters were handing out posters that said: “Kerry is Bin Laden’s Man; Bush is Mine”. This was not condemned from central HQ. Saying that if you vote for the other guy you are voting for a terrorist is just disgusting.
To answer, I did have a section on the Democrats shameful attempts to eliminate other left wing candidates from the ballet, but it was edited out! As for Christopher Reeve, I hardly think that it was “exploiting” his death as stem cell research was something that Reeve campaigned for very hard. Also, appealing to an ethnic background is something to be expected in a US Presidential race – after all George Bush is just a good ol’ boy from Texas. Lying about another candidate’s record and making up stuff about their military service is something else entirely. An example: in one of the Bible Belt states the local Bush/Cheney headquarters were handing out posters that said: “Kerry is Bin Laden’s Man; Bush is Mine”. This was not condemned from central HQ. Saying that if you vote for the other guy you are voting for a terrorist is just disgusting.
It was Kerry himself who brought his military background into play. He chose to salute the crowds at the initial Democratic gatherings. (Funny how that rather tacky gimmick has since vanished.)
If there are doubts about his real war actions, his real war opinions and his real war medals, then it is only fair for the Bush camp to highlight them. You shouldn’t trade on a military image if that image has question marks hanging over it.
It was Kerry himself who brought his military background into play. He chose to salute the crowds at the initial Democratic gatherings. (Funny how that rather tacky gimmick has since vanished.)
If there are doubts about his real war actions, his real war opinions and his real war medals, then it is only fair for the Bush camp to highlight them. You shouldn’t trade on a military image if that image has question marks hanging over it.
It was Kerry himself who brought his military background into play. He chose to salute the crowds at the initial Democratic gatherings. (Funny how that rather tacky gimmick has since vanished.)
If there are doubts about his real war actions, his real war opinions and his real war medals, then it is only fair for the Bush camp to highlight them. You shouldn’t trade on a military image if that image has question marks hanging over it.
Is it fair to trade on an image of great protector, when before 9/11 despite numerous reports being put before him, Bush did nothing about securing the homeland. Sorry, do excuse me, he went on holiday and explained to the perplexed nation that he was in fact doing “things” and when pressed cleared up the confusion and said he would be making “decisions”. The decision obviously whether to use a 9 iron or not.
Is it fair to say “I am a man of determination and action”, when as he heard that his country was under attack he sat for 7 minutes reading a children’s book and staring into space. I think it is really telling that Bush outrighted refused to testify on oath before the 9/11 committee and would only speak to them if his ol’ pal Cheney was in the room with him. America is being led by a puppet, but even more dangerously a puppet who thinks he is somehow ordained by God as the moral leader on earth.
I don’t know about God Bless America, but God (wherever you are) help it.
Is it fair to trade on an image of great protector, when before 9/11 despite numerous reports being put before him, Bush did nothing about securing the homeland. Sorry, do excuse me, he went on holiday and explained to the perplexed nation that he was in fact doing “things” and when pressed cleared up the confusion and said he would be making “decisions”. The decision obviously whether to use a 9 iron or not.
Is it fair to say “I am a man of determination and action”, when as he heard that his country was under attack he sat for 7 minutes reading a children’s book and staring into space. I think it is really telling that Bush outrighted refused to testify on oath before the 9/11 committee and would only speak to them if his ol’ pal Cheney was in the room with him. America is being led by a puppet, but even more dangerously a puppet who thinks he is somehow ordained by God as the moral leader on earth.
I don’t know about God Bless America, but God (wherever you are) help it.
Is it fair to trade on an image of great protector, when before 9/11 despite numerous reports being put before him, Bush did nothing about securing the homeland. Sorry, do excuse me, he went on holiday and explained to the perplexed nation that he was in fact doing “things” and when pressed cleared up the confusion and said he would be making “decisions”. The decision obviously whether to use a 9 iron or not.
Is it fair to say “I am a man of determination and action”, when as he heard that his country was under attack he sat for 7 minutes reading a children’s book and staring into space. I think it is really telling that Bush outrighted refused to testify on oath before the 9/11 committee and would only speak to them if his ol’ pal Cheney was in the room with him. America is being led by a puppet, but even more dangerously a puppet who thinks he is somehow ordained by God as the moral leader on earth.
I don’t know about God Bless America, but God (wherever you are) help it.
Sorry to sound cynical but I hardly think it even matters who wins. Multinational corporations will pursue their agenda using the highly pliable US government as their agent. Money serving the interests of money. Kerry may look the better option, but it is a pretty feeble choice if you ask me. Lesser of two evils. At least Bush is honest about the crap he dishes out. Clinton got away with astonishing stuff, and all anyone remembers is that he was blown by a pudgy intern.
Sorry to sound cynical but I hardly think it even matters who wins. Multinational corporations will pursue their agenda using the highly pliable US government as their agent. Money serving the interests of money. Kerry may look the better option, but it is a pretty feeble choice if you ask me. Lesser of two evils. At least Bush is honest about the crap he dishes out. Clinton got away with astonishing stuff, and all anyone remembers is that he was blown by a pudgy intern.
Sorry to sound cynical but I hardly think it even matters who wins. Multinational corporations will pursue their agenda using the highly pliable US government as their agent. Money serving the interests of money. Kerry may look the better option, but it is a pretty feeble choice if you ask me. Lesser of two evils. At least Bush is honest about the crap he dishes out. Clinton got away with astonishing stuff, and all anyone remembers is that he was blown by a pudgy intern.
Ron, are you joking? Bush, honest? Absolutely no way. It is the most monumentally dangerous cop out to say, better the devil we know. You have to start sending messages to these people that the electorate will not be controlled by fear. I understand your cynicism but what good will it do to say, well we know that bush is a big bad boy but nevermind, no one will ever be better. I am absolutely positive that as President, Kerry would make mistakes, but at least we have what he says now to hold him too. Bush isn’t even offering a way forward for America’s economy and the fradulant “war on terror”. Bush and his administration rely on two things, fear and complacency. If you are aware of what’s going on, if you know what is happening and you shrug your shoulders and turn away from it, you are as bad as the beast in the White House.
Ron, are you joking? Bush, honest? Absolutely no way. It is the most monumentally dangerous cop out to say, better the devil we know. You have to start sending messages to these people that the electorate will not be controlled by fear. I understand your cynicism but what good will it do to say, well we know that bush is a big bad boy but nevermind, no one will ever be better. I am absolutely positive that as President, Kerry would make mistakes, but at least we have what he says now to hold him too. Bush isn’t even offering a way forward for America’s economy and the fradulant “war on terror”. Bush and his administration rely on two things, fear and complacency. If you are aware of what’s going on, if you know what is happening and you shrug your shoulders and turn away from it, you are as bad as the beast in the White House.
Ron, are you joking? Bush, honest? Absolutely no way. It is the most monumentally dangerous cop out to say, better the devil we know. You have to start sending messages to these people that the electorate will not be controlled by fear. I understand your cynicism but what good will it do to say, well we know that bush is a big bad boy but nevermind, no one will ever be better. I am absolutely positive that as President, Kerry would make mistakes, but at least we have what he says now to hold him too. Bush isn’t even offering a way forward for America’s economy and the fradulant “war on terror”. Bush and his administration rely on two things, fear and complacency. If you are aware of what’s going on, if you know what is happening and you shrug your shoulders and turn away from it, you are as bad as the beast in the White House.
ron is a legend! His last sentence is one for the quote wall.
Kate, if you’re going to mention the economy then why not mention Kerry’s obsession with tax? It’s his answer to everything and he voted in 1993 for the USA’s biggest ever tax increase.
Equally if you’re going to mention a lack of activity apropos terrorism and “securing the homeland”,why not mention the Clinton years? Islamic extremists were able to build a foundation in America and eventually we saw the world’s worst ever terrorist attack there.
ron is a legend! His last sentence is one for the quote wall.
Kate, if you’re going to mention the economy then why not mention Kerry’s obsession with tax? It’s his answer to everything and he voted in 1993 for the USA’s biggest ever tax increase.
Equally if you’re going to mention a lack of activity apropos terrorism and “securing the homeland”,why not mention the Clinton years? Islamic extremists were able to build a foundation in America and eventually we saw the world’s worst ever terrorist attack there.
ron is a legend! His last sentence is one for the quote wall.
Kate, if you’re going to mention the economy then why not mention Kerry’s obsession with tax? It’s his answer to everything and he voted in 1993 for the USA’s biggest ever tax increase.
Equally if you’re going to mention a lack of activity apropos terrorism and “securing the homeland”,why not mention the Clinton years? Islamic extremists were able to build a foundation in America and eventually we saw the world’s worst ever terrorist attack there.
I think that you are very naive if you think Kerry would do anything differently. Either way you get the same system, the same values and the same agenda. There is a movement in America where people believe that four more years of Bush would actually be a good thing, because it might force people into doing something about their miserable political system. It would be good to see the whole nation boil over in righteous indignation. And elect Nader.
It could happen!
I think that you are very naive if you think Kerry would do anything differently. Either way you get the same system, the same values and the same agenda. There is a movement in America where people believe that four more years of Bush would actually be a good thing, because it might force people into doing something about their miserable political system. It would be good to see the whole nation boil over in righteous indignation. And elect Nader.
It could happen!
I think that you are very naive if you think Kerry would do anything differently. Either way you get the same system, the same values and the same agenda. There is a movement in America where people believe that four more years of Bush would actually be a good thing, because it might force people into doing something about their miserable political system. It would be good to see the whole nation boil over in righteous indignation. And elect Nader.
It could happen!
It’s a nice idea Ron but considering that Bush has been so bad for 4 years, and most people haven’t exploded in righteous indignation – I don’t think 4 more years will make much of a difference. The people who vote for Bush aren’t so concerned with material circumstances as the fact that he is, according to them, “a strong leader” or “a man of God”. They aren’t going to change their minds even if he says “and if I win the election, I’m going to kick everyone in the crotch”.
Are there things I don’t like about Kerry? Sure. He could have been a lot stronger about Iraq. He’s not talking up Israel/Palestine as the key issue. But he is a lot better than Bush. And a lot more open to influence from our side, if we keep the pressure on him, then Bush ever will be. Unlike Bush, he recognises that global warming is an issue. And unlike Bush, he hasn’t sold his soul to the religious right. That fact alone makes him preferable to Bush.
And Nader? Of course he should be on all the ballots – people should be able to vote for him if they want. But he’s been getting a lot of support from Republicans who want him to take votes from Kerry.
He also is running on the Reform Party ticket – last election their candidate was Pat Buchanan. Why is he whoreing himself like this? Ralph’s done some great things in his time, but his odd behaviour this time is leaving bitter taste in the mouth.
It’s a nice idea Ron but considering that Bush has been so bad for 4 years, and most people haven’t exploded in righteous indignation – I don’t think 4 more years will make much of a difference. The people who vote for Bush aren’t so concerned with material circumstances as the fact that he is, according to them, “a strong leader” or “a man of God”. They aren’t going to change their minds even if he says “and if I win the election, I’m going to kick everyone in the crotch”.
Are there things I don’t like about Kerry? Sure. He could have been a lot stronger about Iraq. He’s not talking up Israel/Palestine as the key issue. But he is a lot better than Bush. And a lot more open to influence from our side, if we keep the pressure on him, then Bush ever will be. Unlike Bush, he recognises that global warming is an issue. And unlike Bush, he hasn’t sold his soul to the religious right. That fact alone makes him preferable to Bush.
And Nader? Of course he should be on all the ballots – people should be able to vote for him if they want. But he’s been getting a lot of support from Republicans who want him to take votes from Kerry.
He also is running on the Reform Party ticket – last election their candidate was Pat Buchanan. Why is he whoreing himself like this? Ralph’s done some great things in his time, but his odd behaviour this time is leaving bitter taste in the mouth.
It’s a nice idea Ron but considering that Bush has been so bad for 4 years, and most people haven’t exploded in righteous indignation – I don’t think 4 more years will make much of a difference. The people who vote for Bush aren’t so concerned with material circumstances as the fact that he is, according to them, “a strong leader” or “a man of God”. They aren’t going to change their minds even if he says “and if I win the election, I’m going to kick everyone in the crotch”.
Are there things I don’t like about Kerry? Sure. He could have been a lot stronger about Iraq. He’s not talking up Israel/Palestine as the key issue. But he is a lot better than Bush. And a lot more open to influence from our side, if we keep the pressure on him, then Bush ever will be. Unlike Bush, he recognises that global warming is an issue. And unlike Bush, he hasn’t sold his soul to the religious right. That fact alone makes him preferable to Bush.
And Nader? Of course he should be on all the ballots – people should be able to vote for him if they want. But he’s been getting a lot of support from Republicans who want him to take votes from Kerry.
He also is running on the Reform Party ticket – last election their candidate was Pat Buchanan. Why is he whoreing himself like this? Ralph’s done some great things in his time, but his odd behaviour this time is leaving bitter taste in the mouth.
I’m sorry, but I remain unconvinced that he is a lot better than Bush. Whilst I am convincend beyond resonable doubt that the Bush administration needs to be replaced, for the good of the planet, replacing it with a different administration which holds the same values and serves the same interests doesn’t get me weak at the knees. Kyoto is still out, you can bet that and the usual lobbyists will retain their power and that money will look after the interests in money. I think the changes offered are ideological and superficial, and will have little practical impact on the way things are run.
Millionaires should not be running nations.
I’m sorry, but I remain unconvinced that he is a lot better than Bush. Whilst I am convincend beyond resonable doubt that the Bush administration needs to be replaced, for the good of the planet, replacing it with a different administration which holds the same values and serves the same interests doesn’t get me weak at the knees. Kyoto is still out, you can bet that and the usual lobbyists will retain their power and that money will look after the interests in money. I think the changes offered are ideological and superficial, and will have little practical impact on the way things are run.
Millionaires should not be running nations.
I’m sorry, but I remain unconvinced that he is a lot better than Bush. Whilst I am convincend beyond resonable doubt that the Bush administration needs to be replaced, for the good of the planet, replacing it with a different administration which holds the same values and serves the same interests doesn’t get me weak at the knees. Kyoto is still out, you can bet that and the usual lobbyists will retain their power and that money will look after the interests in money. I think the changes offered are ideological and superficial, and will have little practical impact on the way things are run.
Millionaires should not be running nations.
okay, ‘liberal’ as a senator has nothing to do
with voting records…he’s accusing Kerry of
not being conservative (true enough) but in
the states, being liberal is the kiss of death.
Also, considering Chris Reeve was very
openly political about the need for stem cell
research in life, and that Kerry had made a
point about that research in the debate the
night before reeve’s death, it seems a valid
point. Whatever the opponent does is
‘exploitation’ apparently.
And don’t buy the bullshit about there being
no difference between the two. The current
regime is the most corrupt, brutal,
underhanded collection of zealots and neo-
fascists America has ever witnessed. For the
good of the world, do not do anything to aid
them.
okay, ‘liberal’ as a senator has nothing to do
with voting records…he’s accusing Kerry of
not being conservative (true enough) but in
the states, being liberal is the kiss of death.
Also, considering Chris Reeve was very
openly political about the need for stem cell
research in life, and that Kerry had made a
point about that research in the debate the
night before reeve’s death, it seems a valid
point. Whatever the opponent does is
‘exploitation’ apparently.
And don’t buy the bullshit about there being
no difference between the two. The current
regime is the most corrupt, brutal,
underhanded collection of zealots and neo-
fascists America has ever witnessed. For the
good of the world, do not do anything to aid
them.
okay, ‘liberal’ as a senator has nothing to do
with voting records…he’s accusing Kerry of
not being conservative (true enough) but in
the states, being liberal is the kiss of death.
Also, considering Chris Reeve was very
openly political about the need for stem cell
research in life, and that Kerry had made a
point about that research in the debate the
night before reeve’s death, it seems a valid
point. Whatever the opponent does is
‘exploitation’ apparently.
And don’t buy the bullshit about there being
no difference between the two. The current
regime is the most corrupt, brutal,
underhanded collection of zealots and neo-
fascists America has ever witnessed. For the
good of the world, do not do anything to aid
them.
This is typical Bush bashing and Amercia bashing at its finest. After returning to the USA after two years in your country, it is astoudning how many folks over here in the US are poised to re-elect Bush. Having said that there is no certainty that he will be re-elected however, the British and European public is so focused on Iraq and the War on Terror that you seem to forget domestic issues are in the fore front in peoples minds. The Clinton Administration inflated the economy and bailed just in time before the economy took a nose dive. As a matter of fact third and fourth quater 2000 economic reports showed the economy was headed for recession before Bush took office. The Bush Administration also took on the legacy of a failed foreign policy that in the end caused the September 11th tradegy.
So why do I write this, simple, there are more issues effecting America than just the hurt and pissed off feelings of Europe. France, Russia, Spain, Germany and yes, Britian two were once world powers and had the empires to back them up. Now, although important, none of these countries have the military nor the economy to compete. And some of those countries, France and Russia for example, were, as we are now finding out, were bolstering the failing UN sanctions to profit fromunder the table oil thus allowing Husseins regime to poise itself to begin mass producing WMDs. Also regardless of the fact no WMDs were found (which I concede was a poor reason to go to war) the UN resolution(s) specifically stated that weapons inspectors were to be allowed access. They were not.
So why the narrative? Simple, John Kerry flip flopped on every issue from US economy to the War on Terror to his stance on Iraq following the ebb and flow of the liberal public and Europe so as to appease rather than lead. If you go to the Library of Congress sight and look up his voting record, Kerry has flipped his position on almost every political decision he has ever taken. A leader does what is right, not what is popular, my many years in the military taught me this.
This is typical Bush bashing and Amercia bashing at its finest. After returning to the USA after two years in your country, it is astoudning how many folks over here in the US are poised to re-elect Bush. Having said that there is no certainty that he will be re-elected however, the British and European public is so focused on Iraq and the War on Terror that you seem to forget domestic issues are in the fore front in peoples minds. The Clinton Administration inflated the economy and bailed just in time before the economy took a nose dive. As a matter of fact third and fourth quater 2000 economic reports showed the economy was headed for recession before Bush took office. The Bush Administration also took on the legacy of a failed foreign policy that in the end caused the September 11th tradegy.
So why do I write this, simple, there are more issues effecting America than just the hurt and pissed off feelings of Europe. France, Russia, Spain, Germany and yes, Britian two were once world powers and had the empires to back them up. Now, although important, none of these countries have the military nor the economy to compete. And some of those countries, France and Russia for example, were, as we are now finding out, were bolstering the failing UN sanctions to profit fromunder the table oil thus allowing Husseins regime to poise itself to begin mass producing WMDs. Also regardless of the fact no WMDs were found (which I concede was a poor reason to go to war) the UN resolution(s) specifically stated that weapons inspectors were to be allowed access. They were not.
So why the narrative? Simple, John Kerry flip flopped on every issue from US economy to the War on Terror to his stance on Iraq following the ebb and flow of the liberal public and Europe so as to appease rather than lead. If you go to the Library of Congress sight and look up his voting record, Kerry has flipped his position on almost every political decision he has ever taken. A leader does what is right, not what is popular, my many years in the military taught me this.
This is typical Bush bashing and Amercia bashing at its finest. After returning to the USA after two years in your country, it is astoudning how many folks over here in the US are poised to re-elect Bush. Having said that there is no certainty that he will be re-elected however, the British and European public is so focused on Iraq and the War on Terror that you seem to forget domestic issues are in the fore front in peoples minds. The Clinton Administration inflated the economy and bailed just in time before the economy took a nose dive. As a matter of fact third and fourth quater 2000 economic reports showed the economy was headed for recession before Bush took office. The Bush Administration also took on the legacy of a failed foreign policy that in the end caused the September 11th tradegy.
So why do I write this, simple, there are more issues effecting America than just the hurt and pissed off feelings of Europe. France, Russia, Spain, Germany and yes, Britian two were once world powers and had the empires to back them up. Now, although important, none of these countries have the military nor the economy to compete. And some of those countries, France and Russia for example, were, as we are now finding out, were bolstering the failing UN sanctions to profit fromunder the table oil thus allowing Husseins regime to poise itself to begin mass producing WMDs. Also regardless of the fact no WMDs were found (which I concede was a poor reason to go to war) the UN resolution(s) specifically stated that weapons inspectors were to be allowed access. They were not.
So why the narrative? Simple, John Kerry flip flopped on every issue from US economy to the War on Terror to his stance on Iraq following the ebb and flow of the liberal public and Europe so as to appease rather than lead. If you go to the Library of Congress sight and look up his voting record, Kerry has flipped his position on almost every political decision he has ever taken. A leader does what is right, not what is popular, my many years in the military taught me this.
Gosh, where to start?
First, to describe the article as “America bashing” is simply untrue: or is a small group of people surrounding George Bush suddenly representative of 300 million people? To confuse the leader and the nation is a failure of imagination. I have great respect for many different aspects of America; the fact that I don’t like the president doesn’t make me an “America basher”.
Yes, domestic issues will be very important in determining the election. I hold no brief for Bill Clinton. Yet 4 years on Bush has failed to get the economy to deliver for ordinary people. Poverty is still dramatically on the rise with 1.3 million added in the last year alone. The numbers without health insurance have gone up by 5-6 million in the past 4 years. Health care costs are going through the roof. And because of Bush’s tax cuts the federal deficit is now astronomical. To blame Clinton after 4 years is simply not convincing – Labour are getting into trouble here for continually blaming the Tories despite being in government for 7 years. Could Clinton have done more against terrorism? Yes. But he did warn the incoming administration that Al Qaeda was the main threat to deal with. Bush’s team put it on the backburner – they didn’t even have a proper meeting for months. As late as September 10 counter terrorism money was still being cut. And of course there was the famous memo, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the US”, as well as multiple intelligence warnings from foreign governments. One could also argue that Bush’s foreign policy since 9/11 has been a failure: no Osama, invading a country with no links to Al Qaeda, creating a new field for terrorists to operate in, acting as a recruiting seargent for Islamic terrorists, alienating useful allies. And if you look at Charles Duelfer’s final report, there was no way that Saddam was in a position to produce WMD’s. Containment was working. And as for weapons inspectors? Hans Blix wanted more time: he felt more progress could have been made, and that they were getting access. It was the Americans and British who ordered the inspectors out as they wanted to get on with the invasion.
Speaking of flip flops, how about these: George Bush was against nation building, now he’s for it. Bush told the UN last year to go to hell, now he’s crawled back asking for help. Bush was against campaign finance reform, then switched in favour; he was against a 9-11 commission before being in favour; he was against the Department of Homeland Security before deciding it might be a good idea. Are some of these accusations unfair? Maybe. But so are most of the charges against Kerry. Bush doesn’t have 20 years of voting in the Senate for opponents to throw back at him. Ultimately, Kerry is the man for the job as he knows how to root out terror, as his uncovering of the Iran-Contra network and the BCCI scandal shows.
Gosh, where to start?
First, to describe the article as “America bashing” is simply untrue: or is a small group of people surrounding George Bush suddenly representative of 300 million people? To confuse the leader and the nation is a failure of imagination. I have great respect for many different aspects of America; the fact that I don’t like the president doesn’t make me an “America basher”.
Yes, domestic issues will be very important in determining the election. I hold no brief for Bill Clinton. Yet 4 years on Bush has failed to get the economy to deliver for ordinary people. Poverty is still dramatically on the rise with 1.3 million added in the last year alone. The numbers without health insurance have gone up by 5-6 million in the past 4 years. Health care costs are going through the roof. And because of Bush’s tax cuts the federal deficit is now astronomical. To blame Clinton after 4 years is simply not convincing – Labour are getting into trouble here for continually blaming the Tories despite being in government for 7 years. Could Clinton have done more against terrorism? Yes. But he did warn the incoming administration that Al Qaeda was the main threat to deal with. Bush’s team put it on the backburner – they didn’t even have a proper meeting for months. As late as September 10 counter terrorism money was still being cut. And of course there was the famous memo, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the US”, as well as multiple intelligence warnings from foreign governments. One could also argue that Bush’s foreign policy since 9/11 has been a failure: no Osama, invading a country with no links to Al Qaeda, creating a new field for terrorists to operate in, acting as a recruiting seargent for Islamic terrorists, alienating useful allies. And if you look at Charles Duelfer’s final report, there was no way that Saddam was in a position to produce WMD’s. Containment was working. And as for weapons inspectors? Hans Blix wanted more time: he felt more progress could have been made, and that they were getting access. It was the Americans and British who ordered the inspectors out as they wanted to get on with the invasion.
Speaking of flip flops, how about these: George Bush was against nation building, now he’s for it. Bush told the UN last year to go to hell, now he’s crawled back asking for help. Bush was against campaign finance reform, then switched in favour; he was against a 9-11 commission before being in favour; he was against the Department of Homeland Security before deciding it might be a good idea. Are some of these accusations unfair? Maybe. But so are most of the charges against Kerry. Bush doesn’t have 20 years of voting in the Senate for opponents to throw back at him. Ultimately, Kerry is the man for the job as he knows how to root out terror, as his uncovering of the Iran-Contra network and the BCCI scandal shows.
Gosh, where to start?
First, to describe the article as “America bashing” is simply untrue: or is a small group of people surrounding George Bush suddenly representative of 300 million people? To confuse the leader and the nation is a failure of imagination. I have great respect for many different aspects of America; the fact that I don’t like the president doesn’t make me an “America basher”.
Yes, domestic issues will be very important in determining the election. I hold no brief for Bill Clinton. Yet 4 years on Bush has failed to get the economy to deliver for ordinary people. Poverty is still dramatically on the rise with 1.3 million added in the last year alone. The numbers without health insurance have gone up by 5-6 million in the past 4 years. Health care costs are going through the roof. And because of Bush’s tax cuts the federal deficit is now astronomical. To blame Clinton after 4 years is simply not convincing – Labour are getting into trouble here for continually blaming the Tories despite being in government for 7 years. Could Clinton have done more against terrorism? Yes. But he did warn the incoming administration that Al Qaeda was the main threat to deal with. Bush’s team put it on the backburner – they didn’t even have a proper meeting for months. As late as September 10 counter terrorism money was still being cut. And of course there was the famous memo, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the US”, as well as multiple intelligence warnings from foreign governments. One could also argue that Bush’s foreign policy since 9/11 has been a failure: no Osama, invading a country with no links to Al Qaeda, creating a new field for terrorists to operate in, acting as a recruiting seargent for Islamic terrorists, alienating useful allies. And if you look at Charles Duelfer’s final report, there was no way that Saddam was in a position to produce WMD’s. Containment was working. And as for weapons inspectors? Hans Blix wanted more time: he felt more progress could have been made, and that they were getting access. It was the Americans and British who ordered the inspectors out as they wanted to get on with the invasion.
Speaking of flip flops, how about these: George Bush was against nation building, now he’s for it. Bush told the UN last year to go to hell, now he’s crawled back asking for help. Bush was against campaign finance reform, then switched in favour; he was against a 9-11 commission before being in favour; he was against the Department of Homeland Security before deciding it might be a good idea. Are some of these accusations unfair? Maybe. But so are most of the charges against Kerry. Bush doesn’t have 20 years of voting in the Senate for opponents to throw back at him. Ultimately, Kerry is the man for the job as he knows how to root out terror, as his uncovering of the Iran-Contra network and the BCCI scandal shows.
Daniel with all due respect, living here in the US and experiencing what’s going on and just writing about them are two entirely different things (assuming you have never lived for any length of time in the US.)
You might be too young to remember but, the economy 12 years ago was in the tank when Bill Clinton became President, but the recovery had already begun by the time Clinton began his second term largely because of the economic programs set forth by Bush senior in 1990-91. Statistically speaking economic recovery usualy runs in 5 to 8year cycles after a recession. Same goes for the entry into a recession. Essentially, if Gore had been President in 2000 the same economic mess would have come to pass. And, furthermore, with the September 11th attacks, the Airline industry, already suffering from the Clinton boom dragged the US economy even further into the abyss. If BUsh had not put forth the tax cuts, as Alan Greenspan has noted, the economy would have suffer even more. I applauded the tax cuts. I was making over $100,000 a year and was getting hit hard because of the Clinton/Gore tax programs.
As for Hans Blix – he simply is not as credible as he makes himself out to be. He was a weak director and his containment ideas were not working. Saddam had a program, and it simply does not take long to re-institute a weapons building program. Had he had his way, he would have been producing WMDs in 2 to 3 years. As any chemist, VX gas is not hard to make and thousands of inert warheads had been found in Iraq, something the press continually glosses over. Again, it doesn’t take long to convert inert warheads into lethal chemical warheads. My experience tells me the program was ready and as soon as sanctions were lifted, he would have been in business.
Lastly, although Bush may have flip flopped on the Nation Building arena – what choice did he have? Like it or not, whenever a problem arises, the world looks to the US. Terrorism is the new diplomacy for some regions of the world and he was right to take a nation building platform. Unless the US takes a stand – especially militarily the Al Qaeda problem would be worse. Believe me, I have seen the poor job the UN performs and have been involed in numerous situations where the US was called in to clean up their mess. Somalia is a good example.
Lastly Kerry’s voting record and rhetoric concerning the military is just plain dangerous. I for one will not vote for a President who will play Mother May I with the UN.
Daniel with all due respect, living here in the US and experiencing what’s going on and just writing about them are two entirely different things (assuming you have never lived for any length of time in the US.)
You might be too young to remember but, the economy 12 years ago was in the tank when Bill Clinton became President, but the recovery had already begun by the time Clinton began his second term largely because of the economic programs set forth by Bush senior in 1990-91. Statistically speaking economic recovery usualy runs in 5 to 8year cycles after a recession. Same goes for the entry into a recession. Essentially, if Gore had been President in 2000 the same economic mess would have come to pass. And, furthermore, with the September 11th attacks, the Airline industry, already suffering from the Clinton boom dragged the US economy even further into the abyss. If BUsh had not put forth the tax cuts, as Alan Greenspan has noted, the economy would have suffer even more. I applauded the tax cuts. I was making over $100,000 a year and was getting hit hard because of the Clinton/Gore tax programs.
As for Hans Blix – he simply is not as credible as he makes himself out to be. He was a weak director and his containment ideas were not working. Saddam had a program, and it simply does not take long to re-institute a weapons building program. Had he had his way, he would have been producing WMDs in 2 to 3 years. As any chemist, VX gas is not hard to make and thousands of inert warheads had been found in Iraq, something the press continually glosses over. Again, it doesn’t take long to convert inert warheads into lethal chemical warheads. My experience tells me the program was ready and as soon as sanctions were lifted, he would have been in business.
Lastly, although Bush may have flip flopped on the Nation Building arena – what choice did he have? Like it or not, whenever a problem arises, the world looks to the US. Terrorism is the new diplomacy for some regions of the world and he was right to take a nation building platform. Unless the US takes a stand – especially militarily the Al Qaeda problem would be worse. Believe me, I have seen the poor job the UN performs and have been involed in numerous situations where the US was called in to clean up their mess. Somalia is a good example.
Lastly Kerry’s voting record and rhetoric concerning the military is just plain dangerous. I for one will not vote for a President who will play Mother May I with the UN.
Daniel with all due respect, living here in the US and experiencing what’s going on and just writing about them are two entirely different things (assuming you have never lived for any length of time in the US.)
You might be too young to remember but, the economy 12 years ago was in the tank when Bill Clinton became President, but the recovery had already begun by the time Clinton began his second term largely because of the economic programs set forth by Bush senior in 1990-91. Statistically speaking economic recovery usualy runs in 5 to 8year cycles after a recession. Same goes for the entry into a recession. Essentially, if Gore had been President in 2000 the same economic mess would have come to pass. And, furthermore, with the September 11th attacks, the Airline industry, already suffering from the Clinton boom dragged the US economy even further into the abyss. If BUsh had not put forth the tax cuts, as Alan Greenspan has noted, the economy would have suffer even more. I applauded the tax cuts. I was making over $100,000 a year and was getting hit hard because of the Clinton/Gore tax programs.
As for Hans Blix – he simply is not as credible as he makes himself out to be. He was a weak director and his containment ideas were not working. Saddam had a program, and it simply does not take long to re-institute a weapons building program. Had he had his way, he would have been producing WMDs in 2 to 3 years. As any chemist, VX gas is not hard to make and thousands of inert warheads had been found in Iraq, something the press continually glosses over. Again, it doesn’t take long to convert inert warheads into lethal chemical warheads. My experience tells me the program was ready and as soon as sanctions were lifted, he would have been in business.
Lastly, although Bush may have flip flopped on the Nation Building arena – what choice did he have? Like it or not, whenever a problem arises, the world looks to the US. Terrorism is the new diplomacy for some regions of the world and he was right to take a nation building platform. Unless the US takes a stand – especially militarily the Al Qaeda problem would be worse. Believe me, I have seen the poor job the UN performs and have been involed in numerous situations where the US was called in to clean up their mess. Somalia is a good example.
Lastly Kerry’s voting record and rhetoric concerning the military is just plain dangerous. I for one will not vote for a President who will play Mother May I with the UN.
Mike – are you by any chance employed by Rupert Murdoch?
Mike – are you by any chance employed by Rupert Murdoch?
Mike – are you by any chance employed by Rupert Murdoch?
Bush deserves to win the election. He has had to deal with terrorism on a scale never before witnessed. At a time when he needed help and support from world powers,he was shamefully let down. France, Russia and Germany were a disgrace for their anti-war stance. They couldn’t give a damn about so-called moral implications of a war. The truth is that they were the three countries with the most to lose financially from a war. Each three had enormous trade contracts with Saddam himself and were only interested in preserving them.
All of the anti-Bush sentiment in reponse to this article seems to have been lifted straight from the M Moore film.
Full marks should go Bush for being strong enough to remove scum like Bin Laden and Saddam from positions of power.
Bush deserves to win the election. He has had to deal with terrorism on a scale never before witnessed. At a time when he needed help and support from world powers,he was shamefully let down. France, Russia and Germany were a disgrace for their anti-war stance. They couldn’t give a damn about so-called moral implications of a war. The truth is that they were the three countries with the most to lose financially from a war. Each three had enormous trade contracts with Saddam himself and were only interested in preserving them.
All of the anti-Bush sentiment in reponse to this article seems to have been lifted straight from the M Moore film.
Full marks should go Bush for being strong enough to remove scum like Bin Laden and Saddam from positions of power.
Bush deserves to win the election. He has had to deal with terrorism on a scale never before witnessed. At a time when he needed help and support from world powers,he was shamefully let down. France, Russia and Germany were a disgrace for their anti-war stance. They couldn’t give a damn about so-called moral implications of a war. The truth is that they were the three countries with the most to lose financially from a war. Each three had enormous trade contracts with Saddam himself and were only interested in preserving them.
All of the anti-Bush sentiment in reponse to this article seems to have been lifted straight from the M Moore film.
Full marks should go Bush for being strong enough to remove scum like Bin Laden and Saddam from positions of power.
Bush is an idiot. A dangerous idiot. (stop me if I’m being controversial here) – his is the administration who coined the term “the right to pollute.” He’s a bad, bad man. He has not removed anyone from positions of power, – terrorists do not hold office. He has strengthened their position by his wilful ignorance of the world outside of his borders. He came to office illegally, he went to war illegally (and by most accounts pointlessly) and he will probably never be truely accountable for the monumental f**k up that has been his time as President. If you want to stop terrorism, or stop global warming (whichever is the more urgent, depending on where in the world you live) then for the love of God, if you’re American and you’re reading this -DON’T VOTE FOR THE BASTARD! x
Bush is an idiot. A dangerous idiot. (stop me if I’m being controversial here) – his is the administration who coined the term “the right to pollute.” He’s a bad, bad man. He has not removed anyone from positions of power, – terrorists do not hold office. He has strengthened their position by his wilful ignorance of the world outside of his borders. He came to office illegally, he went to war illegally (and by most accounts pointlessly) and he will probably never be truely accountable for the monumental f**k up that has been his time as President. If you want to stop terrorism, or stop global warming (whichever is the more urgent, depending on where in the world you live) then for the love of God, if you’re American and you’re reading this -DON’T VOTE FOR THE BASTARD! x
Bush is an idiot. A dangerous idiot. (stop me if I’m being controversial here) – his is the administration who coined the term “the right to pollute.” He’s a bad, bad man. He has not removed anyone from positions of power, – terrorists do not hold office. He has strengthened their position by his wilful ignorance of the world outside of his borders. He came to office illegally, he went to war illegally (and by most accounts pointlessly) and he will probably never be truely accountable for the monumental f**k up that has been his time as President. If you want to stop terrorism, or stop global warming (whichever is the more urgent, depending on where in the world you live) then for the love of God, if you’re American and you’re reading this -DON’T VOTE FOR THE BASTARD! x
If Bush really is an idiot, then how did he manage to increase his party’s position in the mid-terms (something nearly all his predecessors failed to do), and how come he managed to beat Al Gore (who by rights should have walked the 2000 election) and looks as if he may beat Kerry?
He has removed Saddam and the Taliban from power (not that bad a thing really). What has strengthened international terrorism is the confidence that 9/11 gave them. What has blunted their strength has been the actions of the Bush administration – and if anyone seriously thinks Kerry would be much different they want their head examining.
Bush did not come to office illegally. If he had, Al Gore could have used his legal fund war chest (about $6m) to get the Presidency ‘back’. He didn’t – what does that tell you?
Whether Bush went to war illegally is point of opinion and debate, not fact.
Bush is accountable – he is up for re-election.
The Bush administration did not coin the phrase ‘right to pollute’, environmental economists have been using it for years.
I used to think Kerry might be a better bet than Bush because he looked as if he might try and sort out the budget deficit (which is a big problem). However, he now wants to blow all the money of healthcare, so I’m swinging back to Bush.
If Bush really is an idiot, then how did he manage to increase his party’s position in the mid-terms (something nearly all his predecessors failed to do), and how come he managed to beat Al Gore (who by rights should have walked the 2000 election) and looks as if he may beat Kerry?
He has removed Saddam and the Taliban from power (not that bad a thing really). What has strengthened international terrorism is the confidence that 9/11 gave them. What has blunted their strength has been the actions of the Bush administration – and if anyone seriously thinks Kerry would be much different they want their head examining.
Bush did not come to office illegally. If he had, Al Gore could have used his legal fund war chest (about $6m) to get the Presidency ‘back’. He didn’t – what does that tell you?
Whether Bush went to war illegally is point of opinion and debate, not fact.
Bush is accountable – he is up for re-election.
The Bush administration did not coin the phrase ‘right to pollute’, environmental economists have been using it for years.
I used to think Kerry might be a better bet than Bush because he looked as if he might try and sort out the budget deficit (which is a big problem). However, he now wants to blow all the money of healthcare, so I’m swinging back to Bush.
If Bush really is an idiot, then how did he manage to increase his party’s position in the mid-terms (something nearly all his predecessors failed to do), and how come he managed to beat Al Gore (who by rights should have walked the 2000 election) and looks as if he may beat Kerry?
He has removed Saddam and the Taliban from power (not that bad a thing really). What has strengthened international terrorism is the confidence that 9/11 gave them. What has blunted their strength has been the actions of the Bush administration – and if anyone seriously thinks Kerry would be much different they want their head examining.
Bush did not come to office illegally. If he had, Al Gore could have used his legal fund war chest (about $6m) to get the Presidency ‘back’. He didn’t – what does that tell you?
Whether Bush went to war illegally is point of opinion and debate, not fact.
Bush is accountable – he is up for re-election.
The Bush administration did not coin the phrase ‘right to pollute’, environmental economists have been using it for years.
I used to think Kerry might be a better bet than Bush because he looked as if he might try and sort out the budget deficit (which is a big problem). However, he now wants to blow all the money of healthcare, so I’m swinging back to Bush.
Barney : Bin Laden was the head of the terrorist outfit guilty of that disgusting and enormous attack on 9/11. That would suggest he was in a position of power.
The way you deal with scum like Bin Laden, Saddam and every other terrorist is to be decisive, strong and determined. You don’t attempt to get these vile people round a table for a friendly cup of tea and a chat. Bin Laden and co. are about massacre not negotiation. Bush has dealt with them in the best possible means. If you use such violence against America, then you should expect the full force of America to come crashing down on you. It’s an easy choice to make really.
Kerry says whatever he thinks is a vote winner, often changing his mind at will. Bush is clear-cut and determined and thankfully our ally. Four more years!
Barney : Bin Laden was the head of the terrorist outfit guilty of that disgusting and enormous attack on 9/11. That would suggest he was in a position of power.
The way you deal with scum like Bin Laden, Saddam and every other terrorist is to be decisive, strong and determined. You don’t attempt to get these vile people round a table for a friendly cup of tea and a chat. Bin Laden and co. are about massacre not negotiation. Bush has dealt with them in the best possible means. If you use such violence against America, then you should expect the full force of America to come crashing down on you. It’s an easy choice to make really.
Kerry says whatever he thinks is a vote winner, often changing his mind at will. Bush is clear-cut and determined and thankfully our ally. Four more years!
Barney : Bin Laden was the head of the terrorist outfit guilty of that disgusting and enormous attack on 9/11. That would suggest he was in a position of power.
The way you deal with scum like Bin Laden, Saddam and every other terrorist is to be decisive, strong and determined. You don’t attempt to get these vile people round a table for a friendly cup of tea and a chat. Bin Laden and co. are about massacre not negotiation. Bush has dealt with them in the best possible means. If you use such violence against America, then you should expect the full force of America to come crashing down on you. It’s an easy choice to make really.
Kerry says whatever he thinks is a vote winner, often changing his mind at will. Bush is clear-cut and determined and thankfully our ally. Four more years!
Assuming that you meant to say: “blow it all on healthcare” (your post is unclear on this) all I have to say is “Blow it all on healthcare?” – AAARRRGH! And whoever coined the term, – the “right to pollute” is a right which nobody – say again – nobody should have. Least of all the greediest (in terms of fuel-consumption, just so you know that I’m not having a dig) nation in the world. The so-called “war on terrorism” has been going on in some countries (like mine) for a long bloody time, so stop being so sanctimonious about it. I’m not a pacifist but I’m glad that my country has never had any plans – thank Christ – to bomb the hell out of Ireland. Why not? BECAUSE IT WOULD BE STUPID! Bush is a bad bad man. Sorry, but he is.
Assuming that you meant to say: “blow it all on healthcare” (your post is unclear on this) all I have to say is “Blow it all on healthcare?” – AAARRRGH! And whoever coined the term, – the “right to pollute” is a right which nobody – say again – nobody should have. Least of all the greediest (in terms of fuel-consumption, just so you know that I’m not having a dig) nation in the world. The so-called “war on terrorism” has been going on in some countries (like mine) for a long bloody time, so stop being so sanctimonious about it. I’m not a pacifist but I’m glad that my country has never had any plans – thank Christ – to bomb the hell out of Ireland. Why not? BECAUSE IT WOULD BE STUPID! Bush is a bad bad man. Sorry, but he is.
Assuming that you meant to say: “blow it all on healthcare” (your post is unclear on this) all I have to say is “Blow it all on healthcare?” – AAARRRGH! And whoever coined the term, – the “right to pollute” is a right which nobody – say again – nobody should have. Least of all the greediest (in terms of fuel-consumption, just so you know that I’m not having a dig) nation in the world. The so-called “war on terrorism” has been going on in some countries (like mine) for a long bloody time, so stop being so sanctimonious about it. I’m not a pacifist but I’m glad that my country has never had any plans – thank Christ – to bomb the hell out of Ireland. Why not? BECAUSE IT WOULD BE STUPID! Bush is a bad bad man. Sorry, but he is.
blowing it all on healthcare might not be such a bad thing. in 1998 43.4 million us citizens were without health insurance (source:census bureau – http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Health/GoingBare.html)
in 2003 it was about 45 million. now it is estimated that in 2006 this number could be as high as 53.7 million (source:national coalition on health care – http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml). and this is supposed to be the world’s most developed country.
never mind that bush is a bad man, what’s important is that he’s not the man who is going to make any sort of progressive change in america. not because he’s a republican, but because he’s a conservative. why do you think he lambasts kerry for being a liberal (although interestingly, bush seems to appreciate support from one of the most liberal republicans in america, the governor of california)?
kerry may not be a lot better than bush in terms of leadership or policy, but if he gets elected it’s a step in the right direction.
blowing it all on healthcare might not be such a bad thing. in 1998 43.4 million us citizens were without health insurance (source:census bureau – http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Health/GoingBare.html)
in 2003 it was about 45 million. now it is estimated that in 2006 this number could be as high as 53.7 million (source:national coalition on health care – http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml). and this is supposed to be the world’s most developed country.
never mind that bush is a bad man, what’s important is that he’s not the man who is going to make any sort of progressive change in america. not because he’s a republican, but because he’s a conservative. why do you think he lambasts kerry for being a liberal (although interestingly, bush seems to appreciate support from one of the most liberal republicans in america, the governor of california)?
kerry may not be a lot better than bush in terms of leadership or policy, but if he gets elected it’s a step in the right direction.
blowing it all on healthcare might not be such a bad thing. in 1998 43.4 million us citizens were without health insurance (source:census bureau – http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Health/GoingBare.html)
in 2003 it was about 45 million. now it is estimated that in 2006 this number could be as high as 53.7 million (source:national coalition on health care – http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml). and this is supposed to be the world’s most developed country.
never mind that bush is a bad man, what’s important is that he’s not the man who is going to make any sort of progressive change in america. not because he’s a republican, but because he’s a conservative. why do you think he lambasts kerry for being a liberal (although interestingly, bush seems to appreciate support from one of the most liberal republicans in america, the governor of california)?
kerry may not be a lot better than bush in terms of leadership or policy, but if he gets elected it’s a step in the right direction.
Why spend all that money on healthcare when you could spend it on armaments? Just think of all those lovely far off places you could bomb….
Why spend all that money on healthcare when you could spend it on armaments? Just think of all those lovely far off places you could bomb….
Why spend all that money on healthcare when you could spend it on armaments? Just think of all those lovely far off places you could bomb….
Utterly ridiculous comment from my master. I must apologise.
Utterly ridiculous comment from my master. I must apologise.
Utterly ridiculous comment from my master. I must apologise.
I’ll have you spayed, you mangy mutt…
I’ll have you spayed, you mangy mutt…
I’ll have you spayed, you mangy mutt…
Don’t worry about Bush. Remember that an election for Bush in 2004 just means an election for Hillary Clinton in 2008 :)
Don’t worry about Bush. Remember that an election for Bush in 2004 just means an election for Hillary Clinton in 2008 :)
Don’t worry about Bush. Remember that an election for Bush in 2004 just means an election for Hillary Clinton in 2008 :)
Or Arnie, if they change the constitution….I can just imagine it: “Hasta la vista, Syria!” “I may not have succeeded in lowering the federal deficit, but…I’ll Be Back.”
Or Arnie, if they change the constitution….I can just imagine it: “Hasta la vista, Syria!” “I may not have succeeded in lowering the federal deficit, but…I’ll Be Back.”
Or Arnie, if they change the constitution….I can just imagine it: “Hasta la vista, Syria!” “I may not have succeeded in lowering the federal deficit, but…I’ll Be Back.”
Woof
Woof
Woof
1) Healthcare – I’m not sure that spending billions of dollars on it is a good idea if, in the process, you screw up the US and world economies. How about you?
2) Pollution – a world with no pollution produces very, very little. Does anyone really want to live in such a world? If you seriously wanted to stop all pollution you’d have to stop virtually all economic activity.
1) Healthcare – I’m not sure that spending billions of dollars on it is a good idea if, in the process, you screw up the US and world economies. How about you?
2) Pollution – a world with no pollution produces very, very little. Does anyone really want to live in such a world? If you seriously wanted to stop all pollution you’d have to stop virtually all economic activity.
1) Healthcare – I’m not sure that spending billions of dollars on it is a good idea if, in the process, you screw up the US and world economies. How about you?
2) Pollution – a world with no pollution produces very, very little. Does anyone really want to live in such a world? If you seriously wanted to stop all pollution you’d have to stop virtually all economic activity.
1) Utter shite. Exactly how does increased healthcare funding ruin the planet? What evidence are you basing that on? Twat.
2) No one is aiming for a world with “no pollution”. It can however be massively reduced, which interestingly enough ties in with healthcare issues (clean water & air being beneficial to health would you believe).
Profit is being pursued recklessly at the expense of the enviroment. You don’t have to be a cosmic eco-fairy to realise the simple argument that inorganic chemical waste can be toxic, current disposal methods are inadequate in safeguarding human health, and air pollution is a serious problem for all modern industrialised nations.
I’m sure you might think differently if you found a cancerous growth developing in your body.
1) Utter shite. Exactly how does increased healthcare funding ruin the planet? What evidence are you basing that on? Twat.
2) No one is aiming for a world with “no pollution”. It can however be massively reduced, which interestingly enough ties in with healthcare issues (clean water & air being beneficial to health would you believe).
Profit is being pursued recklessly at the expense of the enviroment. You don’t have to be a cosmic eco-fairy to realise the simple argument that inorganic chemical waste can be toxic, current disposal methods are inadequate in safeguarding human health, and air pollution is a serious problem for all modern industrialised nations.
I’m sure you might think differently if you found a cancerous growth developing in your body.
1) Utter shite. Exactly how does increased healthcare funding ruin the planet? What evidence are you basing that on? Twat.
2) No one is aiming for a world with “no pollution”. It can however be massively reduced, which interestingly enough ties in with healthcare issues (clean water & air being beneficial to health would you believe).
Profit is being pursued recklessly at the expense of the enviroment. You don’t have to be a cosmic eco-fairy to realise the simple argument that inorganic chemical waste can be toxic, current disposal methods are inadequate in safeguarding human health, and air pollution is a serious problem for all modern industrialised nations.
I’m sure you might think differently if you found a cancerous growth developing in your body.
Eblane rocks.
Eblane rocks.
Eblane rocks.
Time to reply,
On healthcare – continuing to run up the US deficit (because you’d rather spend loads more money on healthcare) ruins the economy because you simultaneously stoke up inflation and interest rates (a bad combination). As this is the USA we’re talking about, the economic problems can be expected to spill over into the world economy. This is what happened at the end of the Vietnam conflict.
On pollution – to say that no-one has the right to pollute does imply that you want to see no pollution. I was pointing out the such a notion was nonsense. I do however, want to see environmental reform and strongly advocate pigovian (green) taxes and a system of pollution permits along with widescale dismantling of basically useless and damaging command & control regulatory system we have today.
Time to reply,
On healthcare – continuing to run up the US deficit (because you’d rather spend loads more money on healthcare) ruins the economy because you simultaneously stoke up inflation and interest rates (a bad combination). As this is the USA we’re talking about, the economic problems can be expected to spill over into the world economy. This is what happened at the end of the Vietnam conflict.
On pollution – to say that no-one has the right to pollute does imply that you want to see no pollution. I was pointing out the such a notion was nonsense. I do however, want to see environmental reform and strongly advocate pigovian (green) taxes and a system of pollution permits along with widescale dismantling of basically useless and damaging command & control regulatory system we have today.
Time to reply,
On healthcare – continuing to run up the US deficit (because you’d rather spend loads more money on healthcare) ruins the economy because you simultaneously stoke up inflation and interest rates (a bad combination). As this is the USA we’re talking about, the economic problems can be expected to spill over into the world economy. This is what happened at the end of the Vietnam conflict.
On pollution – to say that no-one has the right to pollute does imply that you want to see no pollution. I was pointing out the such a notion was nonsense. I do however, want to see environmental reform and strongly advocate pigovian (green) taxes and a system of pollution permits along with widescale dismantling of basically useless and damaging command & control regulatory system we have today.
http://www.electoral-vote.com is again pointing to Kerry (sunday) but will his lead stand up?
I reckon Ohio will decide the entire thing. Currently looking like it’s going for Bush I have my concerns but everybody pray the newly registered electors swing it for Kerry.
Please God…
http://www.electoral-vote.com is again pointing to Kerry (sunday) but will his lead stand up?
I reckon Ohio will decide the entire thing. Currently looking like it’s going for Bush I have my concerns but everybody pray the newly registered electors swing it for Kerry.
Please God…
http://www.electoral-vote.com is again pointing to Kerry (sunday) but will his lead stand up?
I reckon Ohio will decide the entire thing. Currently looking like it’s going for Bush I have my concerns but everybody pray the newly registered electors swing it for Kerry.
Please God…
Healthcare (again) – you seem to be making the asinine presumption that there would be no attempt to balance budgets to allow for this. Two glaringly obvious and championed solutions would be to not enter into pointless, illegal and hugely expensive wars, and perhaps repeal tax cuts for the most wealthy citizens.
Just an idea though.
“The US could feed, clothe, house, educate and medicate the whole world with less than it spends every year on defence” (Bill Hicks)
Healthcare (again) – you seem to be making the asinine presumption that there would be no attempt to balance budgets to allow for this. Two glaringly obvious and championed solutions would be to not enter into pointless, illegal and hugely expensive wars, and perhaps repeal tax cuts for the most wealthy citizens.
Just an idea though.
“The US could feed, clothe, house, educate and medicate the whole world with less than it spends every year on defence” (Bill Hicks)
Healthcare (again) – you seem to be making the asinine presumption that there would be no attempt to balance budgets to allow for this. Two glaringly obvious and championed solutions would be to not enter into pointless, illegal and hugely expensive wars, and perhaps repeal tax cuts for the most wealthy citizens.
Just an idea though.
“The US could feed, clothe, house, educate and medicate the whole world with less than it spends every year on defence” (Bill Hicks)
How can you question eblane the amount the US spends on defence each year? After the disgusting events of 9/11 surely there should be no financial barrier in the efforts to ensure there isn’t a repetition of the atrocity.
Furthermore, you cannot possibly describe a war which results in Saddam – mass abuser of human rights, funder of suicide bombers in Palestine, shelterer of Islamic terrorists etc etc etc – as “pointless”.
How can you question eblane the amount the US spends on defence each year? After the disgusting events of 9/11 surely there should be no financial barrier in the efforts to ensure there isn’t a repetition of the atrocity.
Furthermore, you cannot possibly describe a war which results in Saddam – mass abuser of human rights, funder of suicide bombers in Palestine, shelterer of Islamic terrorists etc etc etc – as “pointless”.
How can you question eblane the amount the US spends on defence each year? After the disgusting events of 9/11 surely there should be no financial barrier in the efforts to ensure there isn’t a repetition of the atrocity.
Furthermore, you cannot possibly describe a war which results in Saddam – mass abuser of human rights, funder of suicide bombers in Palestine, shelterer of Islamic terrorists etc etc etc – as “pointless”.
Yes, you can question the amount America spends on defence. America was not attacked by conventional means, but by a few guys with boxcutters. Clearly the issue is where the money is spent – surely a few more bob on counter intelligence would make far more sense then spending massive amounts on new aircraft carriers for that upcoming sea battle with Al Qaeda.
And that expensive new missile defence system would have done sweet F.A. on September 11. There is room for large cuts without endangering America – they currently outspend the next 14 competitors. The key is in intelliegence spending, not defence spending.
Yes, you can question the amount America spends on defence. America was not attacked by conventional means, but by a few guys with boxcutters. Clearly the issue is where the money is spent – surely a few more bob on counter intelligence would make far more sense then spending massive amounts on new aircraft carriers for that upcoming sea battle with Al Qaeda.
And that expensive new missile defence system would have done sweet F.A. on September 11. There is room for large cuts without endangering America – they currently outspend the next 14 competitors. The key is in intelliegence spending, not defence spending.
Yes, you can question the amount America spends on defence. America was not attacked by conventional means, but by a few guys with boxcutters. Clearly the issue is where the money is spent – surely a few more bob on counter intelligence would make far more sense then spending massive amounts on new aircraft carriers for that upcoming sea battle with Al Qaeda.
And that expensive new missile defence system would have done sweet F.A. on September 11. There is room for large cuts without endangering America – they currently outspend the next 14 competitors. The key is in intelliegence spending, not defence spending.
Yawn. Please dont waive the “abuse of human rights” banner around like you sincerely think that is why nearly $150,000,000,000 has been spent destroying a sovereign nation. Saudi Arabia is guilty of hideous human rights abuses, funding of suicide bombers, shelter of Islamic terrorists etc etc etc however the USA has a cosy relationship with the House of Saud. They are “good” dictators, who make us money.
9/11 was an atrocity, but noteworthy because of its location. As Daniel pointed out throwing money at a problem is utterly ineffective if you do not develop an appropriate strategy to deal with terrorism. The USA currently spends more on defense than the rest of the world put together.
Funny that.
Yawn. Please dont waive the “abuse of human rights” banner around like you sincerely think that is why nearly $150,000,000,000 has been spent destroying a sovereign nation. Saudi Arabia is guilty of hideous human rights abuses, funding of suicide bombers, shelter of Islamic terrorists etc etc etc however the USA has a cosy relationship with the House of Saud. They are “good” dictators, who make us money.
9/11 was an atrocity, but noteworthy because of its location. As Daniel pointed out throwing money at a problem is utterly ineffective if you do not develop an appropriate strategy to deal with terrorism. The USA currently spends more on defense than the rest of the world put together.
Funny that.
Yawn. Please dont waive the “abuse of human rights” banner around like you sincerely think that is why nearly $150,000,000,000 has been spent destroying a sovereign nation. Saudi Arabia is guilty of hideous human rights abuses, funding of suicide bombers, shelter of Islamic terrorists etc etc etc however the USA has a cosy relationship with the House of Saud. They are “good” dictators, who make us money.
9/11 was an atrocity, but noteworthy because of its location. As Daniel pointed out throwing money at a problem is utterly ineffective if you do not develop an appropriate strategy to deal with terrorism. The USA currently spends more on defense than the rest of the world put together.
Funny that.
Yawn. Please dont waive the “abuse of human rights” banner around like you sincerely think that is why nearly $150,000,000,000 has been spent destroying a sovereign nation. Saudi Arabia is guilty of hideous human rights abuses, funding of suicide bombers, shelter of Islamic terrorists etc etc etc however the USA has a cosy relationship with the House of Saud. They are “good” dictators, who make us money.
9/11 was an atrocity, but noteworthy because of its location. As Daniel pointed out throwing money at a problem is utterly ineffective if you do not develop an appropriate strategy to deal with terrorism. The USA currently spends more on defense than the rest of the world put together.
Funny that.
Yawn. Please dont waive the “abuse of human rights” banner around like you sincerely think that is why nearly $150,000,000,000 has been spent destroying a sovereign nation. Saudi Arabia is guilty of hideous human rights abuses, funding of suicide bombers, shelter of Islamic terrorists etc etc etc however the USA has a cosy relationship with the House of Saud. They are “good” dictators, who make us money.
9/11 was an atrocity, but noteworthy because of its location. As Daniel pointed out throwing money at a problem is utterly ineffective if you do not develop an appropriate strategy to deal with terrorism. The USA currently spends more on defense than the rest of the world put together.
Funny that.
Yawn. Please dont waive the “abuse of human rights” banner around like you sincerely think that is why nearly $150,000,000,000 has been spent destroying a sovereign nation. Saudi Arabia is guilty of hideous human rights abuses, funding of suicide bombers, shelter of Islamic terrorists etc etc etc however the USA has a cosy relationship with the House of Saud. They are “good” dictators, who make us money.
9/11 was an atrocity, but noteworthy because of its location. As Daniel pointed out throwing money at a problem is utterly ineffective if you do not develop an appropriate strategy to deal with terrorism. The USA currently spends more on defense than the rest of the world put together.
Funny that.
Oh dear. Someone hasn’t been paying attention to what John Kerry says he wants to do with the Presidency have they Eblane?
I don’t have to presume Kerry isn’t going to try and balance the budget I merely have to read what he says. The USA has a massive budget deficit that is growing to grow larger, faster in the coming years (and that is based on the presumption that no new invasions occur). Kerry says he wants to raise taxes, only instead of spending this money on lowering the budget deficit he wants to spend the lot on healthcare. Is that clear enough for you?
Oh dear. Someone hasn’t been paying attention to what John Kerry says he wants to do with the Presidency have they Eblane?
I don’t have to presume Kerry isn’t going to try and balance the budget I merely have to read what he says. The USA has a massive budget deficit that is growing to grow larger, faster in the coming years (and that is based on the presumption that no new invasions occur). Kerry says he wants to raise taxes, only instead of spending this money on lowering the budget deficit he wants to spend the lot on healthcare. Is that clear enough for you?
Oh dear. Someone hasn’t been paying attention to what John Kerry says he wants to do with the Presidency have they Eblane?
I don’t have to presume Kerry isn’t going to try and balance the budget I merely have to read what he says. The USA has a massive budget deficit that is growing to grow larger, faster in the coming years (and that is based on the presumption that no new invasions occur). Kerry says he wants to raise taxes, only instead of spending this money on lowering the budget deficit he wants to spend the lot on healthcare. Is that clear enough for you?
no,no, no eblane. I think you will find that 9/11 was “noteworthy” due to its scale, its callousness, its slaughter of innocent people, the out-of-the-blue factor etc etc etc.
I am as critical of Saudi abuse of human rights as you, but you are simply wrong to make further comparisons with Iraq. Remind me when Saudi Arabia fired scud-missles into Israel as Iraq did, in an attempt to spark war in the Middle East. Remind me when Saudi leaders exploited oil-for-food programs as a means for funding lavish lifestyles, as Saddam did. Remind me at what stage Saudi Arabia suddenly started to be run by “dictators”.
I think you will find that bombing terrorists is “an appropriate strategy for dealing with terrorism”. Osama is now reduced to living in caves, Al Quaeda has lost its stanglehold over Afganistan, Saddam Hussain is in prison etc etc.
no,no, no eblane. I think you will find that 9/11 was “noteworthy” due to its scale, its callousness, its slaughter of innocent people, the out-of-the-blue factor etc etc etc.
I am as critical of Saudi abuse of human rights as you, but you are simply wrong to make further comparisons with Iraq. Remind me when Saudi Arabia fired scud-missles into Israel as Iraq did, in an attempt to spark war in the Middle East. Remind me when Saudi leaders exploited oil-for-food programs as a means for funding lavish lifestyles, as Saddam did. Remind me at what stage Saudi Arabia suddenly started to be run by “dictators”.
I think you will find that bombing terrorists is “an appropriate strategy for dealing with terrorism”. Osama is now reduced to living in caves, Al Quaeda has lost its stanglehold over Afganistan, Saddam Hussain is in prison etc etc.
no,no, no eblane. I think you will find that 9/11 was “noteworthy” due to its scale, its callousness, its slaughter of innocent people, the out-of-the-blue factor etc etc etc.
I am as critical of Saudi abuse of human rights as you, but you are simply wrong to make further comparisons with Iraq. Remind me when Saudi Arabia fired scud-missles into Israel as Iraq did, in an attempt to spark war in the Middle East. Remind me when Saudi leaders exploited oil-for-food programs as a means for funding lavish lifestyles, as Saddam did. Remind me at what stage Saudi Arabia suddenly started to be run by “dictators”.
I think you will find that bombing terrorists is “an appropriate strategy for dealing with terrorism”. Osama is now reduced to living in caves, Al Quaeda has lost its stanglehold over Afganistan, Saddam Hussain is in prison etc etc.
Gromit – how about reminding us how the House of Saud has accrued such astonishing wealth, and how they fund their lavish lifestyles? Maybe then you could remind us of the status of Saudi women, and then perhaps compare it to the status of women in Iraq?
Bombing terrorists? Brilliant idea. Shame about the thousands of innocents who were callously slaughtered along with them in. But then if you call it “collateral damage” you don’t really have to face up to the consequences of your actions do you? Especially as you are unlikely to have to listen to thousands of Afghan or Iraqi families complain about their families being slaughtered or mutilated, their homes destroyed or have to watch it on every channel in glorious technicolour.
As to the efficacy of US policy, you might find a few people in Spain who disagree. Use a scalpel, not an axe.
Gromit – how about reminding us how the House of Saud has accrued such astonishing wealth, and how they fund their lavish lifestyles? Maybe then you could remind us of the status of Saudi women, and then perhaps compare it to the status of women in Iraq?
Bombing terrorists? Brilliant idea. Shame about the thousands of innocents who were callously slaughtered along with them in. But then if you call it “collateral damage” you don’t really have to face up to the consequences of your actions do you? Especially as you are unlikely to have to listen to thousands of Afghan or Iraqi families complain about their families being slaughtered or mutilated, their homes destroyed or have to watch it on every channel in glorious technicolour.
As to the efficacy of US policy, you might find a few people in Spain who disagree. Use a scalpel, not an axe.
Gromit – how about reminding us how the House of Saud has accrued such astonishing wealth, and how they fund their lavish lifestyles? Maybe then you could remind us of the status of Saudi women, and then perhaps compare it to the status of women in Iraq?
Bombing terrorists? Brilliant idea. Shame about the thousands of innocents who were callously slaughtered along with them in. But then if you call it “collateral damage” you don’t really have to face up to the consequences of your actions do you? Especially as you are unlikely to have to listen to thousands of Afghan or Iraqi families complain about their families being slaughtered or mutilated, their homes destroyed or have to watch it on every channel in glorious technicolour.
As to the efficacy of US policy, you might find a few people in Spain who disagree. Use a scalpel, not an axe.
Cain – seeing as you are so well educated in politics and macroeconomics (having paid close attention to the presedential speeches, you clever thing you) I am left nonplussed as how a bright young intellectual such as yourself isn’t formulating policy.
Or maybe its possible that Kerry has a grasp of what you clearly do not, and is able to offer a solution that goes beyond your own feeble conclusions.
I fail to remember GWB promising to lose jobs and run up an astronomical deficit in his last campaign.
Gromit – point taken, however I doubt very much doubt that if terrorists crashed planes into buildings in Poland we would have seen the same astonishing reaction.
Cain – seeing as you are so well educated in politics and macroeconomics (having paid close attention to the presedential speeches, you clever thing you) I am left nonplussed as how a bright young intellectual such as yourself isn’t formulating policy.
Or maybe its possible that Kerry has a grasp of what you clearly do not, and is able to offer a solution that goes beyond your own feeble conclusions.
I fail to remember GWB promising to lose jobs and run up an astronomical deficit in his last campaign.
Gromit – point taken, however I doubt very much doubt that if terrorists crashed planes into buildings in Poland we would have seen the same astonishing reaction.
Cain – seeing as you are so well educated in politics and macroeconomics (having paid close attention to the presedential speeches, you clever thing you) I am left nonplussed as how a bright young intellectual such as yourself isn’t formulating policy.
Or maybe its possible that Kerry has a grasp of what you clearly do not, and is able to offer a solution that goes beyond your own feeble conclusions.
I fail to remember GWB promising to lose jobs and run up an astronomical deficit in his last campaign.
Gromit – point taken, however I doubt very much doubt that if terrorists crashed planes into buildings in Poland we would have seen the same astonishing reaction.
What was Kerry’s great solution by the way? – as it seems to have passed me, and a great number of Americans, by.
What was Kerry’s great solution by the way? – as it seems to have passed me, and a great number of Americans, by.
What was Kerry’s great solution by the way? – as it seems to have passed me, and a great number of Americans, by.
Morris you are absolutely right to mention mutilation,slaughter and property detruction when discussing Afganistan and Iraq. All three were of course the hobbies of Saddam’s regime and the Taliban.
Civilian death is inevitable in war, but I urge you to be a little bit more cautious. Most of the stories about civilian deaths in Iraq seem to originate from the Arabic news channels. They are always claiming ‘loss of innocent life’ has taken place, and they are about as trustworthy as Jeffrey Archer in a courtroom. It does happen but I doubt it is as common as the likes of Al Jazeera say it is.
You seem to have missed my earlier point. By all means compare Saudi Arabia and Iraq apropos status of women, human rights etc. Just don’t do it when it comes to the threat of warfare. Once again I’ll ask, remind me when Saudi Arabia launched scuds into Israel a la Iraq. It is a country worthy of criticism but it isn’t the same as Iraq.
Morris you are absolutely right to mention mutilation,slaughter and property detruction when discussing Afganistan and Iraq. All three were of course the hobbies of Saddam’s regime and the Taliban.
Civilian death is inevitable in war, but I urge you to be a little bit more cautious. Most of the stories about civilian deaths in Iraq seem to originate from the Arabic news channels. They are always claiming ‘loss of innocent life’ has taken place, and they are about as trustworthy as Jeffrey Archer in a courtroom. It does happen but I doubt it is as common as the likes of Al Jazeera say it is.
You seem to have missed my earlier point. By all means compare Saudi Arabia and Iraq apropos status of women, human rights etc. Just don’t do it when it comes to the threat of warfare. Once again I’ll ask, remind me when Saudi Arabia launched scuds into Israel a la Iraq. It is a country worthy of criticism but it isn’t the same as Iraq.
Morris you are absolutely right to mention mutilation,slaughter and property detruction when discussing Afganistan and Iraq. All three were of course the hobbies of Saddam’s regime and the Taliban.
Civilian death is inevitable in war, but I urge you to be a little bit more cautious. Most of the stories about civilian deaths in Iraq seem to originate from the Arabic news channels. They are always claiming ‘loss of innocent life’ has taken place, and they are about as trustworthy as Jeffrey Archer in a courtroom. It does happen but I doubt it is as common as the likes of Al Jazeera say it is.
You seem to have missed my earlier point. By all means compare Saudi Arabia and Iraq apropos status of women, human rights etc. Just don’t do it when it comes to the threat of warfare. Once again I’ll ask, remind me when Saudi Arabia launched scuds into Israel a la Iraq. It is a country worthy of criticism but it isn’t the same as Iraq.
OK – The IBC is an independent British and US volunteer group which estimates that at least 5000 civilians were killed, and the figure could reach 10,000. These figures are collated using information from mortuaries, hospital records, meeting relatives of the dead and using media reports.
Prior to this hundereds of thousands died as a result of sanctions. And then, without a plan for securing stability and keeping the peace we invade and have the gall to claim that we have liberated Iraq.
My point is that there are far more oppressive and unpleasant regimes than the one we have just removed in Iraq. Which begs the question – why was it done, and for whose benefit was it done?
OK – The IBC is an independent British and US volunteer group which estimates that at least 5000 civilians were killed, and the figure could reach 10,000. These figures are collated using information from mortuaries, hospital records, meeting relatives of the dead and using media reports.
Prior to this hundereds of thousands died as a result of sanctions. And then, without a plan for securing stability and keeping the peace we invade and have the gall to claim that we have liberated Iraq.
My point is that there are far more oppressive and unpleasant regimes than the one we have just removed in Iraq. Which begs the question – why was it done, and for whose benefit was it done?
OK – The IBC is an independent British and US volunteer group which estimates that at least 5000 civilians were killed, and the figure could reach 10,000. These figures are collated using information from mortuaries, hospital records, meeting relatives of the dead and using media reports.
Prior to this hundereds of thousands died as a result of sanctions. And then, without a plan for securing stability and keeping the peace we invade and have the gall to claim that we have liberated Iraq.
My point is that there are far more oppressive and unpleasant regimes than the one we have just removed in Iraq. Which begs the question – why was it done, and for whose benefit was it done?
shush Irish. you’re pished
shush Irish. you’re pished
shush Irish. you’re pished
You guys are all liberal fags just shut up you lost get over it. Quit complaining about the money you wasted on your “Bye Bye W” Vanity plate. You all make me want to vomit .
You guys are all liberal fags just shut up you lost get over it. Quit complaining about the money you wasted on your “Bye Bye W” Vanity plate. You all make me want to vomit .
You guys are all liberal fags just shut up you lost get over it. Quit complaining about the money you wasted on your “Bye Bye W” Vanity plate. You all make me want to vomit .
eblane, your are clueless. Oh, by the way, where can we find your definitive works on foreign policy and macroeconomics to set us poor intellectually inferior plebes straight?
eblane, your are clueless. Oh, by the way, where can we find your definitive works on foreign policy and macroeconomics to set us poor intellectually inferior plebes straight?
eblane, your are clueless. Oh, by the way, where can we find your definitive works on foreign policy and macroeconomics to set us poor intellectually inferior plebes straight?
Leave your response!