Edwards Misstatements

[Naturalized-Texan]

Posted in its entirety with permission of the author:

Edwards misstatements (http://adjoran.blogspot.com/2004/10/edwards-misstatements.html)


Two misstatements by Edwards in the Veep debate don't seem to be getting much coverage.

First, I am almost sure I heard him say "John Kerry voted to cut taxes over 600 times in the Senate."

That averages out to 30 votes to cut taxes every year. Tax cut icons like Jack Kemp, Bill Roth, and Phil Gramm only wish they had had that many opportunities to vote for tax cuts.

Second, Edwards repeatedly claimed that Halliburton wasn't having their payments withheld, as is normally the practice when billings are under investigation. This is not true. Millions are being held up; it was announced months ago.

Here is a Houston Business Journal (http://houston.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2004/05/17/daily20.html) report in May, which was NOT the first time payments were withheld.

Edwards just wasn't telling the truth in these cases.

•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬

UPDATE: From the transcript:

EDWARDS: We are committed to cutting back anything in our programs that need to be cut back to get us back on a path to fiscal responsibility.

John Kerry, Mr. Vice President, has voted or co-sponsored over 600 times tax cuts for the American people -- over 600 times.



From that notorious right-wing rag, the Washington Post.

•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬•¬

UPDATE: Polipundit's (http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=4354) Lorie Byrd heard from military blogger Oak Leaf that Edwards' statement about "millionaires paying less taxes than our combat troops in Iraq" is false, as combat pay is tax-free. Says so here (http://www.dod.mil/militarypay/pay/tax/10_combatzone.html). Who ya gonna believe? John Edwards, or the Department of Defense?

[Warlady]

I believe the truth is that Kerry voted to raise taxes over 300 times. I'm not sure he's ever voted to cut them. That would take some research. Ann Coulter cited a few more lies the other night on Hannity. I just can't remember them all. It's hard to keep up with all of their lies.

[Jeffrho]

It's hard to keep up with all of their lies.Thats the 'RATs M.O. Lie, lie and lie some more until people believe the lies are truths.

[Sinanju]

The Dems(most of em anyway...) lie about everything, knowing that the Republicans can only catch a certain percentage of em....

Kinda like every player on a basketball team fouling everytime down the court knowing the refferee will only call a few of em... or the NBA.....

[MichaelS]

I believe the truth is that Kerry voted to raise taxes over 300 times. I'm not sure he's ever voted to cut them. That would take some research. Ann Coulter cited a few more lies the other night on Hannity. I just can't remember them all. It's hard to keep up with all of their lies. Don't worry, FactCheck.com.....oh, I mean FactCheck.org.....has already done the research for you, detailing exactly how distorted and misleading the Bush claims are.

Bush accuses Kerry of 350 votes for "higher taxes" Higher than what? Bush campaign falsely accuses Kerry of voting 350 times for tax increases. Bush's own words mislead reporters. (http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=159.html)

Bush Still Fudging the Numbers on Kerry's Tax Votes: Ad claims Kerry cast "98 votes" to raise taxes, but the total is misleading (http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=247.html)

[The_Elucidator]

[QUOTE=MichaelS]Don't worry, FactCheck.com.....oh, I mean FactCheck.org.....has already done the research for you, detailing exactly how distorted and misleading the Bush claims are.[QUOTE]

Don't worry, nobody here takes your cut and paste, seminar bullshit seriously anyway...

:wave:

[MichaelS]

Don't worry, nobody here takes your cut and paste, seminar bullshit seriously anyway...
Don't worry....I've come to expect most Reps to not take the truth seriously. I don't blame them. After all, they're just following the example of their commander-in-chief.

[dajoga]

Don't worry....I've come to expect most Reps to not take the truth seriously. I don't blame them. After all, they're just following the example of their commander-in-chief.

Since Kerry didn't tell me tonight, maybe you know: what is Kerry's plan on how to do the Iraq war right?

[Maggie_T]

Don't worry....I've come to expect most Reps to not take the truth seriously. I don't blame them. After all, they're just following the example of their commander-in-chief.
Mike, you're confused. Clinton was the Commander in Chief who did not tell the truth.

[Maggie_T]

Since Kerry didn't tell me tonight, maybe you know: what is Kerry's plan on how to do the Iraq war right?I'll tell you. He's going to tax the 'evil rich' to high heaven and then use that money over and over and over and over again to pay for the $2-3 trillion that his promises will cost the country.

What a guy. What a plan. What a load of crap.

[oracle]

First, I am almost sure I heard him say "John Kerry voted to cut taxes over 600 times in the Senate."

That averages out to 30 votes to cut taxes every year. Tax cut icons like Jack Kemp, Bill Roth, and Phil Gramm only wish they had had that many opportunities to vote for tax cuts.
While Edwards is factually correct, he is deliberately misleading the voters. While Kerry did propose/vote to cut taxes over 600 times, the fact is that these were attempts to pass a smaller tax cut alternative to one being considered by Republicans. So his real goal was not to cut taxes but rather to prevent them from being cut more than he wanted.

[oracle]

Bush accuses Kerry of 350 votes for "higher taxes" Higher than what? Bush campaign falsely accuses Kerry of voting 350 times for tax increases. Bush's own words mislead reporters. (http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=159.html)
Actually what the Bush campaign originally said was that Kerry supported higher taxes 350 times. This has been spun by Kerry's defenders into claiming that the Bush campaign said that he voted for tax increases. IN this case it is the Kerry campaign that has tried to mislead the country.

And when you consider all of the times that Kerry tried to prevent tax cuts, even by trying to push through alternatives that offered smaller tax cuts, the number of times that Kerry supported higher taxes is far more than 350.

[MichaelS]

oracle...

So, let me get this straight. You agree that Kerry has proposed/voted over 600 times to lower taxes. However, he's still evil and liberal, because he didn't vote to lower them as much as the Reps wanted to lower them.

And it's actually the Kerry campaign that is misleading in a speech given by Bush where Bush...

..claimed that Kerry “voted over 350 times for higher taxes on the American people” during his 20-year Senate career. Bush spoke of “yes” votes for “tax increases.” To quote Bush directly...

Senator Kerry is one of the main opponents of tax relief in the United States Congress. However, when tax increases are proposed, it's a lot easier to get a "yes" vote out of him. (Laughter.) Over the years, he's voted over 350 times for higher taxes on the American people ....and yet, it's Kerry who is misleading. Just want to make sure we are on the same page regarding your understanding of these things.

[MichaelS]

Mike, you're confused. Clinton was the Commander in Chief who did not tell the truth. OK, so we have one President that didn't tell the truth about a sexual encounter and one President that didn't tell the truth about the circumstances that have resulted in a war costing $120 billion and counting, over 1,000 American soldiers' lives and counting, thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilian lives and counting, an occupied country bordering on civil war, and rampant anti-Americanism throughout the world only 3 short years after pretty much the entire world was united behind the U.S. after 9/11.

And the Reps wanted to impeach the first one.

http://michaelpsearcy.com/iraq.htm

[Large_Al]

Oh BOO HOO! France and Germany and a bunch of liberal socialists don't like us. Reagan had many more people angry at him when he took on the USSR. I understand your upset and scared about the world hateing us. And I'm sure Bush's falure to use the Global test must drive you to the brink of wetting your pants. I know this won't comfort you but we have people who are looking out for you. Granted France may still hate us but we'll be safe and sound.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Lib foreign policy: Clique-ish high school peer pressure, what brand names to wear and learning how to strut like either a whore or a rapper.

[nosferatuscoffin]

Lib foreign policy: Clique-ish high school peer pressure, what brand names to wear and learning how to strut like either a whore or a rapper.

Tres Bien. Unfortuantely for the Jordaches of the world, it is quite impossible to create an inseam size small enough to fit his balls comfortably with a pair of their jeans and still make it look like he has a pair. That is why he is reduced to a skin-tight version of his windsurfing outfit. Wearing that makes shrinkage a non-factor.

[MichaelS]

Go ahead and belittle. However, those are our American troops out there dying, because each one is forced to try to do the job of three or four.

To paraphrase....

"We need hundreds of thousands of troops." "We need hundreds of thousands of troops." "We need hundreds of thousands of troops." "We need hundreds of thousands of troops." Why is each soldier forced to do the job of three or four? Because this administration couldn't be bothered with enlisting the help from our allies that we needed and continue to need.

So, go ahead and belittle. Personally, I despise it when our troops get hung out to dry by an administration that knew better.

[Large_Al]

Mikey said
"Originally Posted by General Shinseki, Army Chief of Staff
"We need hundreds of thousands of troops."


You qouted yourself wrong Shinseki from your own website "
“several hundred thousand”

Several Hundred Thousand!!! and you wonder why Shinseki was let go.

I think I'll go with the Generals who are on the ground you know the ones who are living it. They seem to think If Kerry gets in we are in for a whole lot of trouble. Oh forget them they don't back up your premise so they must be wrong.

Mikey said
"So, go ahead and belittle. Personally, I despise it when our troops get hung out to dry by an administration that knew better."


Bullshit! you just hate Bush and want Kerry in so we can pass the Global test. I got news for you The troops you worry about are overwhelmingly in Bushs favor. Something like 80% support Bush. Oh that's right your a liberal you know better than them. <!-- / message -->

[MichaelS]

You qouted yourself wrong Shinseki from your own website "several hundred thousand”I guess I took it for granted you would know what the word "paraphrase" meant. My apologies.
I think I'll go with the Generals who are on the ground you know the ones who are living it.OK. So, let's consider a hypothetical (that's a possible situation for the sake of argument). Let's say the "Generals on the ground" did request more troops. Where exactly would they come from? The troops are already stretched thin as it is, to the point of the Army using stop-loss orders, the National Guard serving 12-month rotations, and reservists being called up. And that's just to maintain the current troop levels. So,where would these additional troops come from were the Generals to request them?

Well, we could place even more burden on the existing soldiers, forcing them into even longer tours. Not great for morale. Not a very attractive option. We could institute a draft. Once again, not a very attractive option, and Bush has vehemently (forcefully) said that there will not be one. We could go to our allies for more troops. Not likely as this administration has already alienated just about all of them with any significant force that could be contributed. So, there really are no attractive options under this administration for adding troops.

Don't you think the "Generals on the ground" already know this? Don't you think the "Generals on the ground" are more than aware of how this administration swatted down Shinseki before Congress for suggesting such a thing? Doesn't really make requesting additional troops an attractive option for them, does it?

Bullshit! you just hate Bush and want Kerry in so we can pass the Global test.This has nothing to do with Kerry and the Rep interpretation of some "global test" and everything to do with how this administration sent our troops into an extended engagement without enough help to get the job done right.

In Bosnia, NATO had 60,000 troops to provide peacekeeping for a population one-fifth the size of Iraq's. And with that presence, there was little to no loss of life. That would put the need in Iraq at around 300,000 (5 x 60,000) troops. Right now, we have less than half of that number. Is it any wonder we are losing soldiers day in and day out? Why not just smack targets on their backs and be done with it?

Personally, I respect our troops more than that.
Something like 80% support Bush.I wouldn't be so sure about that if I were you.

[True American]

I guess I took it for granted you would know what the word "paraphrase" meant. My apologies.
OK. So, let's consider a hypothetical (that's a possible situation for the sake of argument). Let's say the "Generals on the ground" did request more troops. Where exactly would they come from? The troops are already stretched thin as it is, to the point of the Army using stop-loss orders, the National Guard serving 12-month rotations, and reservists being called up. And that's just to maintain the current troop levels. So,where would these additional troops come from were the Generals to request them?
I must say MS, you do pose an exquisite question here.

Where will the "40 thousand" troops that Kerry is promising to deploy come from???
Hmmmmm?????

I live right here at Fort Hood. The 4th ID has come back already and the 1st Cav has been deployed for quite some time. Fort Hood just accepted 5,000 transfers from other forts around the country. Most from the Carolinas. They are training and they are preparing to deploy. There aren't "40,000" though. There are 5,000.

The reason Rumsfeld gave for not deploying the amounts of our military that he was suggested, was because he remembered 1991 Iraq where every single Iraqi soldier we encountered were laying down their arms and surrendering without firing a single shot.

Well, it did backfire. The Iraqi soldiers didn't even get on the playing field this time. They didn't even pick their guns up. They left them all stockpiled. We were expecting to collect these arms during their massive surrender. However, we were too busy marching to Baghdad & complete the mission at hand to worry about stockpiled weapons.

We were also far too busy to guard the borders against insurgents. These insurgents got to the stockpiles first. Not to worry much though, our weapons exceed the weapons they are using ten-fold and a plan is well under way to use them and clean out the rebels. It's not easy to beat an enemy who is so cowardly that they place small children and women in front of them to make us stop shooting. The difference is, we're compassionate enough to hold our fire. These scumbags wouldn't let a little thing like innocent civilians stop them from shooting.

THIS is why Bush is the Compassionate President. You get the link now????

There is NO 40,000 TROOPS for John Kerry. Just like every other thing he spews from his filthy hole, it's a fantasy!

[The_Elucidator]

Personally, I respect our troops more than that.
No you don't. And you owe each and every military family who's loved one you helped kill by emboldening the enemy because you can't keep your ***** mouth shut! You also owe an apology to those families who had a loved one decapitated for the very same reason. You Marxist *****!!

:boxer:

[MichaelS]

I must say MS, you do pose an exquisite question here.

Where will the "40 thousand" troops that Kerry is promising to deploy come from???
Hmmmmm?????...There aren't "40,000" though.
I agree completely. Kerry has indicated that these 40K would be added through voluntary enlistment. He has indicated that these 40K would not be deployed but rather trained to ensure readiness for future use if needed.

However, I agree with you completely that he is going to have a very difficult time getting 40K more troops to "sign up", as would Bush. Though 40K over 4 years is not an outrageous number, the current engagements will make it difficult.

But your question does reinforce my point, that even if the "Generals on the ground" were to request additional troops, there are very few to send them. The generals know this as well.

[MichaelS]

Elucidator...

Thank you for yet another intelligent, articulate, and constructive addition to the conversation at hand. The depth of your intellectual capacity knows no bounds.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Elucidator...

Thank you for yet another intelligent, articulate, and constructive addition to the conversation at hand. The depth of your intellectual capacity knows no bounds.

Yep! Elucidator told the truth, as he always does. :thumb:

[MichaelS]

Yeah, I've come to understand that an inability to discuss the topic with any degree of reason to be considered the "truth" by several on these boards.

[Timberwolf]

MikhailS...why do you hate America so badly? Why would you seek to weaken our country by voting for a self-confessed war criminal (sKerry)? Why would you vote for higher taxes upon those that provide, far and away, the backbone of our economy? Why would you vote for a man that has shistered his way around the present tax laws (sKerry paid roughly 12% in taxes last year)? Why would you vote for a man that can only say, "I have a plan", but refuses to shed ANY light upon what it is?

Hell, the way it stands, Nader is a better candidate than sKerry...:rolleyes:

btw - the debates? See the following...

President Bush ----> :nutkick: <---- John F'n sKerry

[True American]

I agree completely. Kerry has indicated that these 40K would be added through voluntary enlistment. He has indicated that these 40K would not be deployed but rather trained to ensure readiness for future use if needed.

However, I agree with you completely that he is going to have a very difficult time getting 40K more troops to "sign up", as would Bush. Though 40K over 4 years is not an outrageous number, the current engagements will make it difficult.

But your question does reinforce my point, that even if the "Generals on the ground" were to request additional troops, there are very few to send them. The generals know this as well.
OK! So you have just proven my point.

Kerry is "PROMISING" to send in 40K troops to help the war effort in Iraq and have our boys & girls home in 4 years. You have just said in plain black & white that he most likely can't keep his promise.

Now let's move on to anything else he has promised so we can prove him wrong on those promises as well.

[Warlady]

I just thank God that the other Senators outvoted Kerry when he wanted to slash billions from the intelligence and military budgets. The reason our military is stretched so thin is because of Bill Clinton.

Michael, Clinton lied about a whole lot more than a sexual affair. He also lied under oath. I suppose that's okay with you. As for Bush lying about intelligence, Kerry voted to liberate Iraq in 1998 and Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act based on that same intel. Your claim just doesn't hold water. Thanks to Bush Saddam and his sons will never again be a threat to global peace. Never again will they pay homicide bomber's families. Never again will they rape, torture and murder their own people or their neighbors. And never again will they have the opportunity to start up their WMD programs. All, thanks to the Bush administration and our troops. Did you see in Afghanistan that they held elections for the first time in history? The media coverage of that historic event was disgusting.

[MichaelS]

OK! So you have just proven my point.

Kerry is "PROMISING" to send in 40K troops to help the war effort in Iraq and have our boys & girls home in 4 years. You have just said in plain black & white that he most likely can't keep his promise.

Now let's move on to anything else he has promised so we can prove him wrong on those promises as well.
As I mentioned in the last post, the 40K troops were not promised to be deployed to Iraq but rather trained for possible needed use elsewhere. And, yes, I still agree it will be difficult to raise them, though I hardly see that as a defense for a current President that has mentioned no such plans of growing our troops and is already mired in a situation where recruitment is down and current troops are stretched extremely thin.

As for getting our troops home in four years, I have not heard any such promise, and, yes, I would agree it would be difficult to do so, regardless of who is President. I have heard Kerry mention a desire to reduce the number of our troops in six months based on sharing the burden with more of our allies, a promise that is dependent on whether or not bridges burned by this administration have any hope of being mended, which is not guaranteed.

So, yes, I agree that the current administration has gotten us into a mess that will be very difficult to get out of. Bush promises of "staying the course" hold little optimism when the current course is replete with insurgent attacks, beheadings, kidnappings, children killed in the streets, and a distinct inability to provide the security necessary to spend any more than $1.2 billion of $18.4 billion set aside for reconstruction in 1 1/2 years.

However, "staying the course" is the only option the current President has. What are his options? Pull the troops out? That would leave a Middle East far worse than before we invaded. Call for more U.S. troops? As we've both agreed, there aren't any to call and no attractive means of obtaining more. Go to our allies for assistance? We've already established that this administration doesn't need and couldn't care less what our allies think (to paraphrase, "We're not winning a popularity contest here.") or feel about the Iraq situation much less the United Nations (how many burning U.N. flags and crossed out U.N. symbols have I seen on these boards alone?), so I wouldn't expect a change there. Ah, here it is, train more Iraqi troops without additional outside help. There's the solution. One of the primary concerns with the draft is that those drafted would be inadequately trained for performing the task at had, but Iraqis given a 3-week training course in a language they can't understand and then sent out into the line-of-fire for "on-the-job" training is much better. Though you have to wonder that without outside help if at some point it might dawn on those Iraqis that an outside occupying force is telling Iraqis to shoot at other Iraqis and how that might impact their motivation. Well then can we get the Iraqis to ask for help from our allies? Does anyone really believe that those nations wouldn't realize it's actually the U.S. seeking assistance, and doesn't that undermine the U.S.'s stance that we can handle it, when those we are occupying go to the world and say, "Help us. These guys aren't getting it done"?

Bush says "stay the course", because that's what he has to say based on the decisions this administration has already made, not because it is an attractive option.

[MichaelS]

No you don't. And you owe each and every military family who's loved one you helped kill by emboldening the enemy because you can't keep your ****ing mouth shut! You also owe an apology to those families who had a loved one decapitated for the very same reason. You Marxist Asshole!! You know, I was gonna let this slide, attributing it to the large majority of inane postings you put on this site, but I've changed my mind.

How dare you have the audacity to question my patriotism and love and respect I have for the armed forces of this country? Where do you get off?

Why? Because I don't want soldiers like AZScreamingEagle serving multiple tours with the strong likelihood of another deployment in the National Guard with many other soldiers like him serving long after their committed times because of stop-loss orders? Because I don't like National Guard soldiers serving 12-month tours away from their families as more and more of them are married? Because I don't want each of our soldiers being required to do the jobs of 3 or 4 while they are over there? Because I don't like seeing report after report after report of our kids dying and wounded when this administration knows damn well there was and continues to be a better way?

Forget about whether or not it was a good idea to invade, that's past tense. Forget about whether or not there were WMDs. Immaterial at this point. We're there now, and we have to get the job done right. I'm not one of these "anti-war" protestors that blindly cries for "Bring our troops home now," knowing all the while it would leave a situation worse than when we found it. Liberating the Iraqi people and establishing a viable democracy is a noble cause and one in which the soldiers can be proud.

And I respect the hell outta soldiers like AZSE who are willing to go back time and again, because that's what their country has asked of them. And they love this country. But, damnit, we owe them the respect of making sure they have all the help they need. We spend so much time arguing over $87 billion this and $87 billion that and reinforced Humvees and body armor....how about simply more friggin boots on the ground?!?

And, whether those on this board want to admit it or not, it means we need the assistance of our allies. Screw all this BS rhetoric about "global tests" and "F--k the U.N.". Those are our kids dying. You don't want to vote for Kerry? Fine. So be it. But the current administration has got to change its course. They don't even have to admit any mistakes in going into Iraq. They just need to admit it was wrong to try and do it primarily alone, that we just don't have the physical manpower to ensure success. That's it. Plain and simple. Standing "firm and resolute" is hardly a comfort when you're driving into a brick wall. The President mentioned during the 2nd debate, "I vowed to our countrymen that I would do everything I could to protect the American people." Now how about extending that same vow to our soldiers? Can this administration get over its arrogance for the sake of our kids? I think they're worth it. I would hope you would feel the same.

[True American]

You know, I was gonna let this slide, attributing it to the large majority of inane postings you put on this site, but I've changed my mind.

How dare you have the audacity to question my patriotism and love and respect I have for the armed forces of this country? Where do you get off?

Why? Because I don't want soldiers like AZScreamingEagle serving multiple tours with the strong likelihood of another deployment in the National Guard with many other soldiers like him serving long after their committed times because of stop-loss orders? Because I don't like National Guard soldiers serving 12-month tours away from their families as more and more of them are married?
MS,
In this particular part of your post, you had me all misty eyed.
Screaming Eagle is the type of guy who has my undivided respect, as do all our men & women in uniform protecting our freedoms.
God Bless You Eagle!

The rest of your post left much to be desired though.

Imagine this scenario if you will,
You're having a family cookout. Your siblings are there, your parents, your aunts, your uncles and your cousins and grandparents, all present.
Some asshole with an Uzi comes through your yard spraying bullets and kills 5 cousins and your Mother. Are you going to ask a neighbor 12 houses down to help you kill that guy with the Uzi? Do you think they give a shit?

Are you going to wait for 2 years to do something about it????

9/11 is the percentage we're looking at here. Many soldiers were happy to get over there and get started. It doesn't matter how much anyone belly aches about us going to Iraq. It had to be done. Bush told us in 2001 that we were going to do this and he told us it would take a VERY LONG TIME. This is proof that he actually had the strategy going in.

As for Afghani Warlords... Blah, Blah, Blah...
It's like you going to Russia without a language mediator. You don't know the customs or the currency values or the language. If you find a mediator, you will trust them. What choice do you have? This is what we "HAD" to do. Now we know that doesn't work. So, I guess we'll just have to use a deck of cards and grab anyone who looks like the faces on those.

It "IS" taking a long time. It will be longer still as Bush told us where we'll be going. Iraq, Iran & North Korea. I can see that most democrats were listening, but they choose to exclude this fact as they are so hungry for power in Washington rather than being hungry for saving American lives.

Sure our soldiers are dying. This is the nature of war. It's a nasty business. At least our soldiers are in that business. How many military men & women in fatigues were in the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001? I actually think that if you're going to declare war on us, you should hit our Pentagon, so I almost understand this attack. Bottom line though: They declared War and we answered their call.

This is "NOTHING" like Vietnam and Kerry has to stop portraying it as such. Johnson sent 100's of thousands to a war, he knew before commiting them he couldn't win. Sounds like that's the mind set of Kerry too. At least Bush believes he will win. Kerry has no intention of winning this thing.

Think MS! From your posts, I can see you're an intelligent individual. Put aside all the rhetoric and just figure out all this stuff on your own. I'm confident you'll see the light.

[rowl2021]

Thats the 'RATs M.O. Lie, lie and lie some more until people believe the lies are truths.
Are you saying conservatives don't lie?

[Jeffrho]

Are you saying conservatives don't lie?You really suck at reading comprehension. Read it slowly and think about it, although I realize thinking is tough for you libbies. If you stop walking or chewing gum while trying to think it might be easier for you.

[Naturalized-Texan]

TA:
Let's face it. MS hates America and everything that it stands for. He doesn't care that the hate-America rhetoric from Kerry, Edwards, and the Demonrat leadership has given aid and comfort to the terrorists and has caused the needless deaths of hundreds of American troops and thousands of innocent Iraqis.

[Naturalized-Texan]

President Bush is fighting a war while his opponents are fighting him

We are experiencing an unprecedented situation in which the President of the United States is conducting a war in which the very survival of our nation is at stake, yet his opponent and most of the leadership of the Democrat Party oppose the war, at best, or sympathize with the enemy, at worst.

To illustrate, it's worthwhile to compare the similarities and the differences between U.S. involvement in World War II and in our current War on Terrorism.

- Our involvement in World War II began on December 7, 1941, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor with the loss of nearly 3,000 Americans. The War on Terrorism began with the terrorist attacks on New York and Virginia and downing of a terrorist-controlled plane in Pennsylvania with the loss of nearly 3,000 Americans.

- Following the Pearl Harbor attack, every American, Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative, united behind President Roosevelt to defeat the enemy. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, every American, Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative, united behind President Bush to defeat the enemy.

- The unanimous support of President Roosevelt (and of President Truman, after Roosevelt's death) lasted throughout the entire war. Unfortunately, the support of the War on Terrorism by Bush's opponent and most of the Democrat leadership ended about six weeks after the 9/11 attacks when they complained that we were bogged down in a Vietnam-type "quagmire" in Afghanistan and they reminded everyone that the Soviet Union got bogged down there for 8 years and were finally driven out.

- Enthusiastic support for President Roosevelt's war efforts lasted through tough campaigns in North Africa, Sicily, Italy, France, Germany, Midway, Guadalcanal, New Guinea, Bougainville, the Philipines, Tarawa, Saipan, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc., etc. Unfortunately, Bush's opponent and most of the Democrat leaders stupidly pretend that Operation Iraqi Freedom was not part of the War on Terrorism and we hear nothing but incessant carping and sniping against President Bush for "abandoning the War on Terrorism" that they had already quit supporting before the Afghanistan operation had even been completed. The fact is that Operation Iraqi Freedom was as much an integral part of the War on Terrorism as all of the campaigns listed above were integral parts of World War II.

Following the Pearl Harbor attack and throughout World War II, no one would have even thought to ask President Roosevelt or President Truman or Secretary Hull or Secretary Stettinius or Secretary Stimson or Secretary Knox or Secretary Forrestall or Secretary Morganthau questions like:
How long will this war last? or
How much will it cost?
The American people were united and were willing to bear any burden to win the war, no matter what it cost.

In stark contrast, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President Bush's opponent, most of the leadership of the Democrat Party, and their willing accomplices in the media started to ask those questions of President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary O'Neill before the smoke even cleared from the ruins of the Twin Towers and the Pentagon and continue to ask those questions to this day with Secretary Snow replacing Secretary O'Neill.

Such questions are irrelevant because, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, we should be willing to bear any burden, no matter the cost, to win the War on Terrorism and keep America and the world safe from terrorist attacks.

- Even during the Battle of the Bulge, the last gasp of a defeated enemy, support for President Roosevelt's war effort did not wane. In the War on Terrorism, we are now experiencing the last gasp of a defeated enemy in Iraq, but all we are hearing from Bush's opponent and most of the Democrat leadership are cries of "bring our troops home" or "a Vietnam-type 'quagmire'" (again) or even wishes for a terrorist victory and false claims that the people of Iraq were better off under Saddam.

The anti-American rhetoric and the incessant carping and sniping of Bush's opponent and most of the Democrat leadership against the War on Terrorism has emboldened the terrorists to step up their last-gasp terrorist attacks in Iraq resulting in the needless deaths of hundreds of American troops and thousands of innocent Iraqis. The blood of those troops and those innocent Iraqis is on the hands of Bush's traitorous opponent and those traitorous Democrat leaders who have given aid and comfort to our enemies.

[The_Elucidator]

You know, I was gonna let this slide, attributing it to the large majority of inane postings you put on this site, but I've changed my mind.

How dare you have the audacity to question my patriotism and love and respect I have for the armed forces of this country? Where do you get off?

Little bit mad are we? I am one of the boots on the ground with an AEF window of May - Aug 05. After 20 years in the military I have seen my share of Marxist like you protesting everything a Republican does and stands by and does nothing when a Democrat is in office. By the way, just what is our exit stragegy in Kosovo? I have many friends that I keep in contact with during this campaign that are over there now, have been over there and returned, and the one thing they tell me is that unpatriotic Marxists like you do more damage to their morale than any number of road side bombings. I have zero tolerance, do you hear me, zero tolerance for Marxists like you. I will cut back on my colorful language but my rhetoric will remain.

:patriot:

[True American]

President Bush is fighting a war while his opponents are fighting him

We are experiencing an unprecedented situation in which the President of the United States is conducting a war in which the very survival of our nation is at stake, yet his opponent and most of the leadership of the Democrat Party oppose the war, at best, or sympathize with the enemy, at worst.
Outstanding NT, absolutely outstanding!

The problem we face, I think, is that we live in a Jetson's day & age where everyone expects things to be finished yesterday. We didn't actually exit Japan for 7 years.
Patience is something seldom found in women and NEVER found in men. Especially Liberal Men in the Senate.