This American Election = Sucks !!

[Gaim Mastr]

I'm going to vent just a pinch here. Pardon the harsh language.


Come this November the American people are going to vote for whom they want to be our President over the next four years.

In all my life I cannot recall a presidential election where the two front runners are so astoundingly, amazingly, incredibly worthless, incompetent and untrustworthy. :mad2:


On one side, we've got Bush. A mentally retarded, bible-banging Republican.

On the other side we've got Kerry. A very weak, two-faced Democrat.


There shouldn't be any doubt in anyone's mind that Bush is a thoroughly incompetent idiot unfit for the office of President. Why Texans elected him as their governor is beyond me. What, no other white, male, Southern, NRA member, Christian conservatives were available that day ?? :wtf:

I suppose I'll figure out why Texas elected Bush as Governor about the same time as I figure out why New York put Hillary Clinton into office. :face4:

And while I'd first defended Kerry against these "flip-flopping" claims as nothing more than a man willing to change his mind to take the best course of action available, there's no way I'll do that again. The other day I sat and watched this jerkoff state unequivocally that he would not have gone to war in Iraq. When I KNOW he's said that he's supported the war on multiple occasion. Kerry isn't just a flip-flopper, he's a two-faced liar who will say anything to anybody, and refuses to pick a side of the fence and stay there.

Kerry is also weak. A very weak man. People in positions of authority or power can't be weak. There is no way I can look at Kerry and equate him with strong leadership in any manner.

On the other hand, Bush is NOT a 'strong' leader. He's an ignorant, stubborn jackass who's too stupid to know when to make policy changes; and he's way too arrogant to admit mistakes or to ask for help.


I wouldn't trust either of these two guys to mow my damn lawn on a regular basis if they just ran a small landscaping company. Seriously. No way in hell can I trust either of them to run the United States as its President.


For the first time in my life, I'm giving very serious thought to abstaining from voting for a President. Either that or I'm going to write John McCain's name on the ballot. But John isn't even running anymore, so it's a worthless vote. I really don't like the idea of voting for one of two morons. No matter which one wins the vote, the next four years are really going to suck hard for Americans. And when Americans make bad choices for Presidents, the whole world suffers. Very sad, but very true.


vent_off

[Rafal Dudek]

I suppose I'll figure out why Texas elected Bush as Governor about the same time as I figure out why New York put Hillary Clinton into office.

Well for one, I didnt vote for the biatch. I voted for that young guy running as republican who replaced former mayor Guliani (sp?) like towards the end of the race. Dont forget, NYC is pretty much a democratic city, and the Clinton also got the Jewish support so she got tons of votes.

[Bruenor]

Well, speaking as someone from outside the US, you just about summed up my impressions of what I have seen about the upcoming presidential election. It actually kind of reminds me of the recent Canadian election, except we have more official parties so we were essentially presented with three idiots nationally (four in Quebec) instead of two.

[Mr. Natural]

Yeah it's pretty depressing. It goes further than national elections as well. All of the candidates for local elections in my area are zero's as well. I probably won't be voting this year.
All we get are promises and yet nothing ever changes. And the biggest issue in my book isn't even mentioned. The terrible waste and government spending.
I'm looking to move to some remote tropical island, hurricanes or not.

[Mara]

I'm looking to move to some remote tropical island, hurricanes or not.

Good idea, actually. If you get a lot of damage from a hurricane, you can ask for federal aid. :):

[Ojnod]

I am moving to canada, I hear they have good syrup too.

[Gaim Mastr]

I would like to make one retraction, my reference to Bush being a bible-banger. Like most born-again Christians, he's very religious. But he really isn't a bible-banger. However, he does base most of his policies on his religous beliefs over anything else. And that's worse than just being a bible-banger.

[Chylde Roland]

I am moving to canada, I hear they have good syrup too.

To heck with the syrup, we have REAL beer!!!!

On topic, I pretty much agree with Bruenor, my sentiments are the same. and yes, our last election was a pretty big joke too.

[NotSoFast]

Here's one for you...

*********************
Kerry Questioned About His 'Chinese Assault Rifle'
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
September 17, 2004

CNSNews.com) - Does Sen. John F. Kerry really own a "Communist Chinese assault rifle," as he suggested in an interview in the latest edition of Outdoor Life magazine?

The Second Amendment Foundation says if the senator does own such a rifle, it wants to know where Kerry keeps it, if it is legally registered, and how he got it into the United States.

"Senator Kerry's own words once again trip him up in an apparent hypocrisy," SAF Founder Alan Gottlieb said in a press release.

"Responding to a question from Outdoor Life about whether he is a gun owner, and if so, what's his favorite gun, Kerry strongly intimates he has an assault rifle, which is illegal to own both in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C."

The Kerry quote appears on Page 82 of the October issue of Outdoor Life. He told the magazine, "My favorite gun is the M-16 that saved my life and that of my crew in Vietnam. I don't own one of those now, but one of my reminders of my service is a Communist Chinese assault rifle."

Gottlieb called it another example of Kerry running on his Vietnam service history: "Now he's talking as if he's got an assault rifle stashed somewhere, while he's been railing against their ownership by other law-abiding American citizens," Gottlieb added.

Kerry supported an extension of the so-called assault weapons ban, which expired on Monday. Last week, at a campaign stop in St. Louis, he said, "As a hunter, I have never ever thought about going hunting with an AK-47 or an Uzi or anything else."

"Senator Kerry, where's the rifle?" Gottlieb asked. "In which one of your mansions are you hiding that gun? Why should it be okay for you to have a Communist Chinese assault rifle when you think nobody else should have one? And if you don't have one, why would you intimate to Outdoor Life that you do?"

Kerry has made it a point to appeal to gun owners by staging a number of gun-friendly photo-ops on the campaign trail.

********************

First, his wife's company has dozens of fields and plants in foreign countries and he bashes Bush for letting US jobs go overseas. Clinton signed NAFTA and Bush gets blamed.

Mr. and Mrs. Kerry bash those Americans that drive those gas-guzzling SUV's while they own 7 of them and keep them at their many multi-million dollar mansions.

I don't care if Bush is found guilty of killing OJ's wife, he'll still get my vote over Kerry.

[Gary V.]

As a Christian and a Texan, I of course like Bush's strong faith and find your(Gaim's) insults of Texans annoying. However, I don't believe Bush is looking out for me as a lower middle class person. Of course, neither will Kerry. I would really love to have a conservative democrat to vote for. Or even, well, just about anybody else. I would vote for Lieberman, McCain, or Colin Powell in a second over either of these clowns.

[Lou Cypher]

Originally posted by Gaim
And while I'd first defended Kerry against these "flip-flopping" claims as nothing more than a man willing to change his mind to take the best course of action available, there's no way I'll do that again. The other day I sat and watched this jerkoff state unequivocally that he would not have gone to war in Iraq. When I KNOW he's said that he's supported the war on multiple occasion. Kerry isn't just a flip-flopper, he's a two-faced liar who will say anything to anybody, and refuses to pick a side of the fence and stay there.I hate to say this but..........I told you so, and he's the same with many other positions too. As for Bush, in some ways I'll have to agree, but at least you know what your getting, be it good or bad. You won't be wondering if he means what he say's.

Lou :globe:

[Lou Cypher]

Mr. and Mrs. Kerry bash those Americans that drive those gas-guzzling SUV's while they own 7 of them and keep them at their many multi-million dollar mansions. Since you brought up SUV's, you might find this interesting.
Link (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040506-064552-1574r.htm)


Lou :globe:

[weed_wizard]

I think they should change the rules and allow people not born in the US to stand for president.That way with a bit of Luck Arnold Schwarzenegger would win!

[Gaim Mastr]

I didn't insult Texans, Gary, I questioned them. Big difference. If you can't stand even being questioned like that, then let me see Texas put a female black homosexual Jew into office based solely on her public record and policies.


I know it's easy to nit-pick on Kerry with crap that doesn't really mean anything to me, like what guns or cars he may or may not own.

But I have to compare that to a President who has gotten us stuck in a war that slips faster and farther into a repeat of Vietnam. Entire regions of the country are still fighting against us, the citizens continue to hate us more and more. Perhaps if Bush wasn't a draft-dodger during 'Nam he'd have learned that you cannot fight an entire population.

We're still waging war in areas like Najaf and Fallujah.
Why ??
These people don't have any WMDs.
They aren't associated with al Queda.
Saddam doesn't rule their lands.
What in the hell are we still fighting these people for ?!?!

Bush has screwed up so incredibly bad every step of the way in this whole Iraq fiasco that we have degenerated into the foreign invaders who want only to beat all of the citizens of Iraq into submission.

Hmmm.... what other 'conflict' can you think of where the American military failed to win the popular support of the people and faced an unending series of guerilla attacks from both military and untrained civilians of a country ??

What other 'conflict' can you think of where we were bogged down with absolutely NO exit strategy ??

What other 'conflict' can you think of where the support of the people decreased daily to the point where we were starting to wage war not just on a military but an entire population ??

What other 'conflict' can you think of that divided the American people so clearly as this war in Iraq ??

What other 'conflict' can you think of that has garnered such an astoundingly massive amount of international protest ??


When Bush gave Saddam the deadline and had UN support, I agreed that we needed to go in and remove Saddam like an infected growth. When the UN support crumbled, I still supported going in. But I had no idea that Bush didn't have any post-war strategy and didn't have any exit strategy. My god! The average high-school kid could have come up with a better post-war plan and exit strategy than Bush !!

I've always known that Bush is an idiot. But if I'd known that he was THIS big of an idiot I would have held my support for removing Saddam for the next President.


So you guys want to keep on posting or linking to articles about if Kerry has what gun or what cars in his driveway, that's fine. But I personally see the biggest issue as my country getting screwed into a losing war for a second time in my life.


I don't know what the hell some of you guys are thinking. I really don't. You'll vote for Bush, even though he's gotten us into another Vietnam fiasco. But you won't vote for Kerry because you can't trust where he really stands on the issues.

That's like saying you're going to keep taking your car back to the same mechanic who has consistently screwed it up, causing more problems than when you'd brought it in. Because, you don't want to take the chance of taking your car to some new mechanic that may or may not be good.

:wtf2:


Right now I don't give a rat's ass if Kerry claims to be a vegetarian, yet owns a dozen slaughter houses. I don't care if he claims to be Christian, yet only follows the Jewish holidays.

At this point, I may vote solely based on which one is more likely to get us out of Iraq the fastest without leaving the country in total turmoil and on the brink of civil war.

Those of you who are my age or older, yet don't see the mounting similarities between the Vietnam war and this Iraq war, and why that's a really bad thing, need a very serious reality check. And I just hope and pray that your reality check doesn't come at the expense of our country and the spent blood of thousands of our young men and women who have to do the dirty work over there for many more years to come !!

The absolute best guesses state that we'll be stuck in Iraq for at least another 5 years. Bush talks about Iraq like everything is going well and progressing. Even though his own advisers keep telling him that things are getting worse and worse.

Now, when you guys sit there and choose who the worst liar to the American people is, Bush or Kerry, you need to also ask yourselves whose lies are most likely to cause the most damage to our country.

[Nyghtfall]

Hmmm.... what other 'conflict' can you think of where the American military failed to win the popular support of the people and faced an unending series of guerilla attacks from both military and untrained civilians of a country ??

Speaking of similarities with other wars, here's some depressing statistics (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0417-02.htm) from an article comparing the death toll in Iraq with that of Vietnam, published last April.

[NotSoFast]

If you think Kerry would be good for the military, you are sadly mistaken. Only one of the servicemen that actually served in Vietnam on his swift boat says he thinks Kerry is fit to be Commader in Chief of the US military. Only one. These men saw him in person in action and only one of them approve of him. This fact speaks volumes on his service.

[Gaim Mastr]

And what of Bush, Glenn ??

You jump on Kerry, but what does Bush's record speak ??

I know what it speaks, draft-dodger who refused to serve even his cream time in Texas. He left to work on political campaigns.

When people exonerate Bush, yet bitch that Kerry was only worried about his political career during 'Nam, it just amazes me. Not you specifically, Glenn. Just some people I've come across.

But past service records aside, I'm tired of people playing the Vietnam card for either of these jerks in a manner like it's the primary focus point. It's history and we can't change a thing about it. This is 2004 and I need to know what they're going to do for America's tar pit of a situation with Iraq.

What I'd ask, is what do some of you Bush-lovers think Kerry would do with Iraq ??

Do you think we'd all be forced to learning the Koran if Kerry wins ??

Do you think that he'd allow the French government to dictate what we do and when ??

I mean really, what's the big point of fear that some of you have ??

[Nyghtfall]

If you think Kerry would be good for the military, you are sadly mistaken.

Rather than burdoning myself with re-educating you, I will simply recommend that you do a Google on the phrase, "swift boat veterans discredited".

:: yawn ::

I'm ready to vote now and be done with all of this... I'm so tired...

[Gaim Mastr]

heh, you may be tired, but I'm only just getting started.

The effects of Vietnam ravaged this country, changing it's political and social structure forever. Now that Bush has put us into a repeat of those events, I'm just starting to get fired up. :yes:

Lou, Hooks, Glenn, RangerRick, you all want to do a link and statistic war between the evils of the two candidates, I'll take ya all on by myself. Let's get into it. Let's see how any of you justify Bush over Kerry as the "lesser of two evils". I'm riled up now. You want to do some real comparisons between the two jackass morons running for office, let's have at it !! :brows:

[Winkks]

Kerry is under the thumb of his wife, that's what keeps his back straight. Bush has a huge ego. He has most definitely changed the course of history, not only for our country but the world, he has confirmed what other countries thought about the U.S. A big bully.

-Winkks

[Gary V.]

How about if we agree that they both stink?

[DanTheManPR]

Just wait till 2008


http://img4.imgspot.com/u/04/266/00/hillaryvsarnold.JPG

[Lou Cypher]

Lou, Hooks, Glenn, RangerRick, you all want to do a link and statistic war between the evils of the two candidates, I'll take ya all on by myself. Let's get into it. Ok, I don't have time today but how about this, Kerry is an admitted War Criminal.


Lou :globe:

[RangerRick]

heh, you may be tired, but I'm only just getting started.

The effects of Vietnam ravaged this country, changing it's political and social structure forever. Now that Bush has put us into a repeat of those events, I'm just starting to get fired up. :yes:

Lou, Hooks, Glenn, RangerRick, you all want to do a link and statistic war between the evils of the two candidates, I'll take ya all on by myself. Let's get into it. Let's see how any of you justify Bush over Kerry as the "lesser of two evils". I'm riled up now. You want to do some real comparisons between the two jackass morons running for office, let's have at it !! :brows:


Yadda! Yadda! Yadda! :moon:

Nothin' but :trash: talkin!

[Ojnod]

If people are complaining about Kerry so much, what about those primaries? Someone must have liked him...

If I could have voted, Howard Dean or John Edwards would get my vote. If I could vote this year, Kerry would get my vote just because I like Edwards. I don't like Bush (I don't think he tries to represent the people very well), and who knows about that Cheney guy, is he even alive?

[Lou Cypher]

and who knows about that Cheney guy, is he even alive?
No, he's a Cyborg actually.

Lou :globe:

[DanTheManPR]

No, he's a Cyborg actually.

http://img4.imgspot.com/u/04/266/01/Dickcheneyborg.JPG

You know the drill;


RESISTANCE IS FUTILE

[NotSoFast]

Honestly, I think Kerry will be the UN's bitch. Bend over backwards to do whatever they ask of us. There have been talks in his camp already of getting the UN involved in our elections to keep the Republicans from somehow corrupting the system. I know they won't get involved, but the thought of it is horrible.

The UN condemns the US over the war, but says and does nothing about the numerous beheadings committed by the Afghani's.

In all of my readings, never have I witnessed a single Kerry supporter list why they think Kerry would be a good military leader. None. They just keep rehashing the same old "Bush sucks and is a draft dodger". That's funny, Clinton did the same thing and you all loved him to death. Best thing since sliced bread. Kerry injured himself to receive at least one of his Purple Hearts and elected to send himself home early to run for office. He threw his medals away when he got home and openly participated in anti-war protests.

Kerry says whatever his current audience wants to hear about the topic at hand. At least with Bush you know you are hearing what he really feels about the matter. He spoke to a group of Greenpeace folks and boasted about his fuel-efficient vehicles. In Michigan, he bragged about his numerous large SUV's because they are made there.

As far as the world viewing the US as a bully. I see that as better than them viewing us as wimps that will not fight back when attacked. Let them see that and you will never live in peace.

I am a veteran of the US Army with an Honorable Discharge. I would much rather have Bush as my Commander in Chief than Kerry. Ask most any veteran and you'll get the same answer.

[NotSoFast]

Rather than copy/past the entire article here, I'll just post a link. It lists the long and illustrious history or Mr. Kerry. Please have a read at your leisure.

Clicky (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/20/131219.shtml)

One more... (http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.org/)

Third time's a charm... (http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20040531140357545)

[NotSoFast]

After reading the above articles, please feel free to tell everyone here that you think Mr. Kerry would make a fitting Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces.

[Nyghtfall]

After reading the above articles, please feel free to tell everyone here that you think Mr. Kerry would make a fitting Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces.

I'm going to be perfectly honest with you and everyone else here. There's only one real reason why I'm voting for Kerry: he's not Bush. I don't care about Kerry's war record. I don't care about his issues. At this point, I don't even care about his character. I've seen what Bush can do to a country. I don't want another four years of it. My basic theory is that, short of electing Charles Manson, just about anyone would be an improvement over Bush.

I've got an opportunity coming up in November to get that ************ the **** out of the White House, and I'm going to ******* take it! Neither one of them are worth my vote, but Kerry is, without a shred of doubt in my mind, the lesser of the two evils. It's how I've voted since turning 18 - I vote for whomever I think will **** us over the least.

[Circlebreaker]

Rather than copy/past the entire article here, I'll just post a link. It lists the long and illustrious history or Mr. Kerry. Please have a read at your leisure.

Come on Glenn, be serious. If you're going to post stuff from such partizan sites off course Kerry's going to look bad. Try to come up with some objective sources that actually check their sources.

here (http://slate.msn.com/id/2106119/), here (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html), here (http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&tts=1&display=rednews/2004/09/01/build/state/25-swift-boat.inc) and here (http://www.anotherrepublicanforkerry.com/) are a couple of other interesting links about typical republican lies. Still think those sources are credible?

Here (http://www.mcsweeneys.net/links/bush/)'s a couple of reasons why you shouldn't vote for Bush. Some of them are rather insignificant, some of them irrelevant, but all of them are factual, with sources, and there's over 100 of them, so even if not all of them are important to you, there's still plenty that should be important to you.

[Impresario]

Conflict Iraq is only turning into a fiasco within the context of the sales pitch - liberating the oppressed. Certainly, the neo-con agenda that influenced Bush has other motives; specifically, the introduction of a large scale American military presence into the heart of the Middle East. Whether Iraq can be morphed into a Democracy is collateral - the exercise of power is Res Ipsa Loquitur - it speaks for itself. Bush and cronies post 911 are illustrating to the Middle East that we carry the biggest stick on the block. The volunteer army and the guard are enforcing this strategy with their lives. This falls under the rubric of allegedly acceptable losses. In essence the Bush doctrine is a warning to all Middle East leaders - get control of your loonies or we're coming in. Putin recently expressed a similar sentiment. This is pure power exercising its will. Do not be mislead, we are staying the Middle East for an indefinite period of time. Early on Bush used the word crusade - admittedly a poor choice of language given its connotation but it speaks volumes. While this is not necessarily a religious crusade it is motivated by an imperative for stability necessary for markets and political systems to function.

I am ambivalent about our course yet am reluctant to be dogmatic on either side. As a former New Yawker 911 resonates and I do think that this can only be understood through a historical context. The world indeed has changed. Truthfully, I do not know what the right and just course is?

[Lou Cypher]

Vietnam!, give me a freaking break Gaim, to say this is another Vietnam is simplistic. Vietnam was at War for 15 years before the U.S. got involved militarily, Iraq wasn't. Vietnam was a divided country, Iraq was never that.
The Viet cong and the Viet nim(sp) before them where backed and supplied by two countries, the U.S.S.R. and China, Iraqi terrorists are getting some small support from Iran but that's minimal. In Vietnam 90% of the populace was against the U.S., in Iraq it's probibly 10% thats against the U.S. and most of those are from outside there country and that includes Al Queda and other terrorists orginizations.

And if as you imply that the vast majority of Iraqi's wanted us out of there, we would be, because shiite(sp) religious leaders like Grand Ayatollah Sistani would have called his people to arms through a fatwa to drive us out. Vietnam never had Democratic elections, Iraq is scheduled to have elections this januarary. And to also put this in perspective, Germany after WWII didn't have elections/sovereignty until 1949.

You claim "entire regions of the country are still fighting against us", what the hell does that meen?, do you meen counties, cities or what. But the reality is 15(75% of the populace) of the 18(25% of the populace) provrences in Iraq are stable enough to hold elections. Where do you get the idea that we want to "beat all of the citizens of Iraq into submission", from what I see on the news and interviews with returning soldiers it's just the opposite, if it was, as you say, we would have flattened Fallujah and leveled the Mosqe in Najaf.. It has been shown throughout this War that the U.S. military has taken efforts to minimize civilian casualties, even at the cost of our own soldiers.

You ask "What in the hell are we still fighting these people for ?!?!", well these people are terrorists, which include Al Quada, not the average Iraqi citizen. I would rather our enemy be fought by our military in Iraq that here in the U.S. by our police.
The left keeps howling Bush has/had no "exit strategy", but there is one, but I guess they just cant see it, it's to win the war, but i guess thats just to simplistic. But lets look back in history, in WWII we had no exit strategy, our goal was to win, an exit stategy was never even thought of. As for a "post-war plan", there is one. theres 18 billion dollars sitting, waiting to be spent on reconstruction, but it's not "post-war" yet.

So you think Bush is an idiot, Bush graduated from Harvard Business school, did you?.

You said "At this point, I may vote solely based on which one is more likely to get us out of Iraq the fastest without leaving the country in total turmoil and on the brink of civil war."Well Kerry is not your man, because he doesn't even know what he wants to do in Iraq. And even if he set forth a plan, could you believe him?.
************************************************** ********************
Nyght, you want to compare casualty rates?, just because a certain amount of troops die in a certain time frame doesn't make it like a previous War. For the Battle of Tarawa 1,056 troops died in 76 hours, I'm glad you wern't President at that time, because you probibly would have pulled our troops from the Pacific theater of War.
Tarawa (http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/CRAIGE/doc7.html)

As for the "Swift boat veterans for truth" Nyght, there are some things in the book that may never be proven, but, there are some things that have been proven true. It's been proven that Kerry should have never recieved his first Purple heart (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040825-125217-7993r.htm), he recieved his first Purple Heart for action on Dec. 2nd but Kerry himself writing in his diary on Dec. 11th that he had not been shot at yet.

Also, Kerry has said many times in interviews that he had spent christmas eve in Cambodia and being under fire, he even made a speech to Congress about that incident saying that the experiance was "seared, seared into my mind" and that it was a "life changing experiance". Well it turns out that that was a lie also, he was 50 miles away in that day. So if he's lying about these, can you believe anything else about his Vietnam experiance. Christmas in Cambodia (http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040809-090612-9480r.htm)

************************************************** ********************
Geez Gaim, your bringing up Bush's ANG service, give it a break. The ANG service is based on "points", in the ANG you must make 50 points a year to fulfill your duty, in the first 4 years he doubled or even quadrupled his points, the last 2 years he did the minumum. And in the end he recieved an Honorable disscharge, so give it up.

You said "I'm tired of people playing the Vietnam card", well Gaim, focus all your wrath on John Kerry. He's the one who made the Vietnam War the center piece of his whole campaign, it was what his whole convention was about. He's the one who dragged around his swiftboat buddies on the campaign trail, he kept telling everyone that he should be President based on 4 months of military service in a War 35 years ago, but not his record of 20 years in the senate, which he only talked about for 27 seconds out of an hour speech. He's the one who's at fault for focusing everthing about the past instead of the future and what this race should be about.
In a time of peace and posterity Kerry may have been acceptable, but thats not how it is today. We are at War, and having a President that has no clear vision of what needs to be done is unacceptable, and that person is Kerry.

Kerry throughout his campaign has repeatedly stated that he would have built a "true" coalation(sp), gone to the U.N. and brought other nations in such as France, Germany and even the Arab league. But in 1991 when there was a world wide coalation(sp), which included France, Germany and even the Arab league, to oust Iraq out of Q8, which IMO was a more compelling reason to go to War, Kerry voted against giving authority to then President George H.W. Bush to go to War.

Leading up the the Gulf war a constituent named Wallace Carter got two letters from Kerry taking both sides of the Gulf War. The first letter said this; "Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war." letter from Senator John Kerry to Wallace Carter of Newton Centre, Massachusetts, dated January 22 [1991]
Then Wallace Carter recieved another letter from Kerry, it said this; "Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf." .Senator Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31 [1991],
But a few weeks later he would vote against the measure to go to War.

Now lets look at his stance on Israel and the security wall thats being built, is he for it, or against it?, well the answer is yes!. This is what he said on 10/17/03;
"And I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government’s decision to build the barrier off of the green line - cutting deep into Palestinian areas. We don’t need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israeli’s security over the long term, increase the hardships to the Palestinian people, and make the process of negotiating an eventual settlement that much harder. "
Wall (http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2003%20Opinion%20Editorials/November/5%20o/Remarks%20about%20the%20Palestinian-Israeli%20conflict%20by%20Senator%20John%20Kerry.h tm)
Then he say's this on 2/25/04 about the security wall;
"Israel’s security fence is a legitimate act of self defense," he added. "No nation can stand by while its children are blown up at pizza parlors and on buses. While President [George W.] Bush is rightly discussing with Israel the exact route of the fence to minimize the hardship it causes innocent Palestinians, Israel has a right and a duty to defend its citizens. The fence only exists in response to the wave of terror attacks against Israel."
wall 2 (http://www.hootinan.com/?entry=2316_Kerry_Im_Against_The_Fence!_Im_For_The _Fence!)

Kerry can't even make up his mind on whether iy's a manhunt or not a manhunt, first it's a Manhunt, Feb 12th, 2004:
Kerry characterized the war on terror as predominantly an intelligence-gathering and law enforcement operation. "It's basically a manhunt," he said. "You gotta know who they are, where they are, what they're planning, and you gotta be able to go get 'em before they get us."
a man hunt (http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/feb04/207286.asp)
Then it's not a Manhunt, Feb 27th, 2004;
This war isn’t just a manhunt – a checklist of names from a deck of cards. In it, we do not face just one man or one terrorist group. We face a global jihadist movement of many groups, from different sources, with separate agendas, but all committed to assaulting the United States and free and open societies around the globe.
not (http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0227.html)

When it came down to voting to give Bush the authority to go to War, Kerry voted yes. But when it came time to fund the troops and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, Kerry voted against it. He actually said, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it,"
But, weekes before the vote he had this exchange with an interviewer; Asked if he would vote against the $87 billion if his amendment did not pass, Kerry said, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible."
link (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Politics/tapper_kerry_040319-1.html)

Recently Bush called for the reduction of troops in Europe and So. Korea, Kerry had this to say about it on Aug 19th, 2004;
CINCINNATI — John Kerry (search), telling fellow combat veterans he's their "true brother in arms," said Wednesday that President Bush's plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Europe and Asia would weaken U.S. security and embolden nuclear-armed North Korea.
Link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,129304,00.html)
But Kerry himself had called for the same thing on Aug. 8th, 2004
And my hope is, that with my diplomacy, we can be more effective with North Korea. We might be able to reduce the deployment in that part of the world, that’s been much too similar for 50 years now.
Stripes: Do you support an overall reduction in troops in South Korea?
Kerry: As an ultimate goal, but not as an immediate step.
Link (http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=22763&archive=true)

Kerry lately has been saying that funding for Iraq war was a mistake, Sep. 9th, 2004;
CINCINNATI — John Kerry (search) blasted President Bush (search) Wednesday for what he described as a trail of broken promises on the path to war, also accusing the commander in chief of squandering money in Iraq that could be put to better use at home.
"George W. Bush's wrong choices have led America in the wrong direction on Iraq and left America without the resources we need here at home," Kerry said at the Cincinnati Museum Center
link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131745,00.html)

But again he had a different position on Aug. 31st, 2003.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that we should withdraw American troops from Iraq?
SEN. KERRY: No.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe we should put more American troops in Iraq?
SEN. KERRY: No.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that we should reduce funding that we are now providing for the operation in Iraq?
SEN. KERRY: No. I think we should increase it.
MR. RUSSERT: Increase funding.
SEN. KERRY: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: By how much?
SEN. KERRY: By whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win. It is critical that the United States of America be successful in Iraq, Tim. And it is essential that we also recognize what’s happening to the military of the United States of America. Our Reserves are overextended. Families are being hurt.
Link (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080246/)

Kerry has held the position that we shouldn't resort to pre-emptive strikes, but he sang a different tune back in 1997;
"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians," said Mr. Kerry. "We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."
Link (http://www.washtimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm)

Lately John Kerry came up with a new catch phrase, "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.", and where he got it from was Howard Dean. But when Howard Dean spoke these words Kerry had a completly different take on them, this is what he said to rebuke Howard Dean;
"those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."
So if he thought that way about, "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.", back then, why is he saying the same thing today?
Link (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/587jxocg.asp)

In his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention he said, "Saying there are WMD in Iraq doesn't make it so".
But in an interview with NPR last march Kerry said, “Saddam Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction are a threat, and that's why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him.”

John Kerry has repeatedly said that he would go to the U.N. and bring in other nations to help with the War in Iraq, and "not go it alone". What he meant was he would bring in the French and Germans (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/36048bf8-0ff7-11d9-ba62-00000e2511c8.html) into Iraq, but he has never said what he would do if he couldn't bring them in, but since they have publicly nixted that idea what will Kerry say now.

But what if the French and Germans never said that they wouldn't send troops to Iraq, with Kerry saying he would start pulling troops out and saying that Iraq is "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.", would the French and Germans want to send troops to Iraq, I think not.

John Kerry doesn't have what it takes to be President, he has no clear plan for Iraq and the War on terror, all he says is I'll do better but never says what that better is. When picking a President you need to look at each candidates record, with Bush it's the last 4 years of office, with Kerry it comes down to his record in the Senate the last 20 years. Above I have listed some of Kerrys flip-flops and him taking both sides of an issue, no one knows where he stands on the War in Iraq and that includes even Kerry himself.

Lou :globe:

[RangerRick]

Above I have listed some of Kerrys flip-flops and him taking both sides of an issue, no one knows where he stands on the War in Iraq and that includes even Kerry himself.


Yep. and then there are the issues that he has flip flopped on in regards to what he'll do in this country for the economy, jobs, the elderly and health care.
Not to mention that he has no clear cut way to pay for them!