If voting for Kerry, what's your reason?

[tooliscrowned]

Personally I would vote for Kerry not because I like him, but because we need to get rid of Bush. I would vote for Nader, but there's no way he'd win so I'd rather vote for someone with a better chance.

[Reverend Blair]

This time around I'd vote for Kerry just to get Bush out of office. I'm not convinced that Kerry will be any better, but it is worth a shot. Last time I would have voted for Nader and next time I'd likely vote for Nader too.

[Mr Farrius]

It's quite sad isn't. Bush is such a bad leader that we'd be willing to vote for another bad leader just to get him out. But I agree, in the meantime, I'll vote Kerry, just so that I can afford my gas and I can live in a country that isn't hated by almost everybody in the world.

[ft.niagara]

I am an American, and I am voting for Bush. I feel that Bush has acted in the best self interest of the US which is what he was commissioned to do. And talking about bad leaders, that Cretien was a doozy.

[KrustyKidd]

that Cretien was a doozy.

Got that right. He took us into the air campaign in Serbia without a UN or legal mandate yet stays out of Iraq to play footsies for public opinion while ignoring legalities. However, as for a scum sucking bastar*, he was still an amatuer compared to Mulrooney.

as for America, the best thing that could happen is for Bush to pick rice or Powell as his running mate. Give the CIA to Cheney. The rreasoning - needs to groom the future Republican President for 2008. It would fly, get the black vote, the womans vote (in Rice's case) and send all these Haliburton haters into a nose dive.

[ft.niagara]

It's quite sad isn't. Bush is such a bad leader that we'd be willing to vote for another bad leader just to get him out. But I agree, in the meantime, I'll vote Kerry, just so that I can afford my gas and I can live in a country that isn't hated by almost everybody in the world.

Mr Farris. I assume you are American and you are ashamed that the US is hated by almost everybody in the world. This board seems to be too civil for me to give you my true feelings about that statement. You live in such a country because there were people in the past who felt strong enough about something to fight for it. Is there anything you would be willing to fight for?

[IRELAND2004]

I am irish so obviously i won't be voting in the election

But if i was i would choose Kerry, quite simply because i feel Bush is incompetent and is leading the world into bad places! He is a War-Mongeral whom i really hope is taken out of office!

[KrustyKidd]

Kerry voted for the war as well. if that is your only reason why, then good thing you can't vote. Same with WMD and Regime Change, on those points they were the same.

On remaining in Iraq now, they are also of the same principal. Better find some other points like economy, abortion whatever, the war doesn't do it.

[caesar]

The invasion of Iraq is a main point for getting Bush out of office. He more than any other knew where his bs intelligence was coming from. I think any other leader would have made a serious attempt to win people and countries to his point of view. Bush used "proofs" that were quickly revealed to be fraudulent, forged, out of date and taken from a students paper. Bush tried for support by using strong armed tactics and bribery. He made no attempt at diplomacy. He has since turned a blind eye to Pakistan's forgiveness of its top scientist selling nuclear technologies and parts to rogue nations. In fact, Pakistan is now allowed to purchase newer weapon technologies from the USA as a favoured ally??? Ghadafi went from public enemy to ally overnight????? A leopard don't change its spots that easily.

[April]

Kerry and the others voted as they did because of information Bush and Co. gave them. Had they all been sitting at the same table at the same time listening to the same information Bush received, I seriously doubt they would have voted the way they did.Bush was passionate about going into Iraq and still is....he had and still has an agenda that dates back to his father.

Instead of spending all that money on our own security at home Bush has squandered it using lies as his framework to scare the American public

and its representatives.

[KrustyKidd]

Kerry and the others voted as they did because of information Bush and Co. gave them. Had they all been sitting at the same table at the same time listening to the same information Bush received, I seriously doubt they would have voted the way they did.Bush was passionate about going into Iraq and still is....he had and still has an agenda that dates back to his father.

Instead of spending all that money on our own security at home Bush has squandered it using lies as his framework to scare the American public

and its representatives.

No, they voted the way they did from Intelligence that they were all given. The Senate Intelligence Committee is Bi Partisan and run by both a Republican and a Democrat. Incidently, the Democrat who is Vice Chair actually withheld vital intelligence in order to use it against Bush. Rockerfeller. Look it up sometime and you will understand that the intelligence is not simply something that Bush has access to, they all do. Hence, they all voted with the same intelligence whether it was infected by the Democrats or not.

As for your comment on security at home and all, I suppose you are in favor of the Patriot Act then?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Bush is simply the worst President, possibly ever, certainly since Nixon.

[KrustyKidd]

Bush is simply the worst President, possibly ever, certainly since Nixon.

Is not.

[April]

He is too! and they are NOT all privy to the same info and briefings that the president is. He clearly took intelligence and distorted it.Just look at Powel, he was for the inspections and clearly stated so in public, then vanished

for about 3 weeks only to come back and chirp out the case for war.Why do you think that was? Because he suddenly changed his mind?Ah no he was slapped big time for speaking out and not going with the flow.

I firmly believe you do not have to take away rights to make a country secure. So No, while I believe the act contains some provisions that are needed to protect the country I feel it goes too far.

"Preserving our freedom is the reason that we are now engaged in this new war on terrorism. We will lose that war without firing a shot if we sacrifice the liberties of the American people."

You can love Bush all you wish, but I think he is a dangerous man to keep in office.

[KrustyKidd]

He is too! and they are NOT all privy to the same info and briefings that the president is.

Perhaps then, you could sum up the actual intelligence diseminating process for us. Not what you think, but rather the actual process in which it goes from the feild to the CIA/FBI and then onto the higher echelons. I can appreciate that the President might get some info sooner than others or vice versa but would like to know at what point the President is able to circumvent the Intelligence Community as it is they who provide him with the information through the various bi-patisan Intelligence comittees. Educate us please.

He clearly took intelligence and distorted it

Clearly? Provde the process and then show us the two versions of what the Sub Comittee had and what Bush had.

he {Powell}was slapped big time for speaking out and not going with the flow.

Please provide evidence for this event. How was he and at what time was he?

"Preserving our freedom is the reason that we are now engaged in this new war on terrorism. We will lose that war without firing a shot if we sacrifice the liberties of the American people."

What liberties have the American people lost? Why do you feel that Kerry will change the patriot act and in what form is he proposing to do that?

You can love Bush all you wish, but I think he is a dangerous man to keep in office.

Other than saying yesterday that he agrees that the US belongs in Iraq and that he thinks it should be different, how does Kerry propose things should be different?

[udawg]

Whether or not you believe that Iraq was a threat, to either the US, or the world in general, or other nations in the region, and whether, as a threat, it was right to invade, is, I think I'm safe to say, what the whole debate is about. (sorry about the run-on sentence) It's not about Bush, who believed very strongly one way, nor is it about the extreme-leftists, who believe very strongly the other way.

As for whether he is the worst president since Nixon...well, you either love him or hate him, depending almost entirely on your threat assessment of Iraq. I don't think logical reasoning can solve this or change any minds either, because nobody on this board has the necessary facts... and it is entirely possible that nobody alive on the planet (save for Hussein himself) has them. This is possibly the most pointless discussion currently under way.

[KrustyKidd]

Carter was the worst followed by Bush Sr then a toss up between Bush and Clinton. Haven't decided yet. Regan was tops of this short list for sure and maybe beyond.

and it is entirely possible that nobody alive on the planet (save for Hussein himself) has them.

Not a chance, even he is wondering what the hell happened. The US changed and he couldn't catch up. What worked all his life didn't this time. I'm no fan of Bush's but am pretty darned sure that this war was definitely not about WMDs but rather it was an excuse to provide an environment in the heart of the Middle East where democracy can take hold. Saddam was likely the world's most disposable leader and arguably, (I say that so this thread does not go off on that tangent again) there were enough legal reasons to go for it. Certainly there were no illegalities to stop it. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time is all.

What he knows? Maybe he can tell us where something is but that is moot now. Bush may get elected or not on what they find or not in the next few months but the overall situation does not depend on Bush as Kerry will also stay until it is seen through. The main voters lines were drawn long ago and it's only those who are undecided left over. MM may get a few of them but it will be a good election this time I'm sure. I just hope that Kerry gets some good policies in line so that we can understand what the hell he finally stands for instead of his ambiguous comments about how 'we have to do better.'

[The Terrible Sweal]

...

As for whether he is the worst president since Nixon...well, you either love him or hate him, depending almost entirely on your threat assessment of Iraq.

I don't think Bush is the worst president since Nixon because I hate him. I hate him because he's the worst president since Nixon.

The reasons Bush is the worst president since Nixon are several, including his Iraq fiasco. These reasons go well beyond differences in the threat assessment of Iraq. Here are my reasons for rating Bush so badly:

1) He is in office illegitimately.

2) He appears to be under-qualified and under-educated.

3) He is proud to make decisions irrationally.

4) His administration was and remains dishonest about the reasons for the US attack on Iraq.

5) His administration is undermining the legitimacy of the US constitution from both police-state and theocratic angles.

6) He has squandered the treasury almost beyond comprehension.

7) His economic policies unfairly favour the wealthy and privileged at the expense of average people.

8) His adminstration set out to undermine the United Nations and progress in the development of international law. He promulgates a doctrine of U.S. exemptionalism.

9) His foreign policy is ham-handed, alienates potential allies, and creates problems.

10) His venture in Iraq has demonstrated U.S. military limitation it would have been better to leave un-explored.

There are more, but that will suffice for now.

P.S. Clinton was the best president since Eisenhower.

[I miss Reagan]

Sounds like someone is a Michael Moore fan. First you obviously don't understand the US electoral college which functioned exactly how it was supposed to. Second I consider Harvard and Yale a pretty good education. Ya ya his daddy got him in. Ya ya he cheated to get his A's and B's, I know you have an excuse for all of it. Third he doesn't make irrational decisions. I consider it very disciplined to not drop a few Moabs on Iraq and Afganistan on Sept. 12. Fourth the hyperbolic description of turning the US into a "police-state" is a little overboard don't you think? Fifth he cut taxes for everyone by percentages which is as fair as you can get cutting taxes. BTW you must not live in Canada if you consider the US tax system unfair. And finally undermining the UN is something to be proud of. A corrupt organization that consistently fails to stop genocide in places like Sudan, Rwanda, Balkins, Zimbabwe.

[udawg]

The reasons Bush is the worst president since Nixon are several, including his Iraq fiasco. These reasons go well beyond differences in the threat assessment of Iraq. Here are my reasons for rating Bush so badly:

Well, TS, points 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, and obviously to an extent, 6, all refer to his handling of the Iraq situation.

I stand by my conclusion that you either love him or hate him, based on Iraq.

[April]

Krusty,

I don't believe for a N.Y. minute that Bush was innocent

in the streeeeeeeeching of truth that took place in order to win support for the war.He had his eye on the target long before and used his ready...fire "bring it on"mentality to get the ball rolling just as he uses it today.I don't fault Bush for his war on terrorism its because of the other war he started before the first one was out of its infancy stage.He has made a mess of not only Iraq but domestic issues as well.I don't dislike the man just to dislike him but for what he has done to my country. This country needs to head in a different direction with someone more stable at the helm.There is a danger, when all reason gets thrown out the window...

http://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/lawmaker/3.htm

Finished intelligence that is not published for general circulation is not routinely shared with Congress. For example, the Hill does not receive copies of the President's Daily Brief (PDB), prepared daily by CIA. Nor does it receive copies of the daily intelligence summaries prepared for the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Moreover, it does not receive "memo dissems" prepared by CIA for use by White House principals on various topics or tailored materials requested by top-level officials during their daily briefings. Occasionally, as part of an oversight investigation, intelligence committee staffers are shown portions of such tailored reporting--including the PDB--but regular access has not been accorded.

Congress also does not routinely see "raw" intelligence--unevaluated intelligence reporting, usually from a single source. The intelligence committees, however, occasionally receive "nonstandard" distributions of single-source intelligence on matters in which they have expressed a particular interest, such as satellite imagery of suspected mass grave sites in Bosnia. They also are occasionally granted access to "raw" intelligence for purposes of carrying out an oversight investigation

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2.../1/153207.shtml

Powell Wants Inspectors to Return to Iraq

NewsMax Staff

Monday, Sept. 2, 2002

Revealing a clear rift with Vice President Dick Cheney, who says there’s no point in sending weapons inspectors back into Iraq, Secretary of State Colin Powell during a London BBC television interview Sunday declared, "The president has been clear that he believes weapons inspectors should return," adding that the return of the inspectors would be the "first step" toward solving the Iraq crisis.

"Iraq has been in violation of these many U.N. resolutions for most of the last 11 or so years," he said. "So, as a first step, let’s see what the inspectors find, send them back in."

The remarks break Powell’s thunderous silence in recent weeks as the debate over a possible U.S. war with Iraq has preoccupied the world.

Considered the lone moderate in the Bush administration, Powell’s London remarks are also out of stride with pronouncements by national security advisor Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who have declared the need to oust Saddam Hussein with or without a renewal of the U.N. inspections.

http://www.drumbeat.mlaterz.net/2002%20Aug...k%20083002a.htm

Confidant: Powell wants key allies' OK on Iraq

Administration source says secretary urging coalition before any attack

From Andrea Koppel, CNN, August 30, 2002, 1:30pm

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell does not believe the United States should invade Iraq without the support of "key allies," according to one of his confidants within the Bush administration.

This person, who asked not to be identified but is intimately familiar with Powell's thinking, said Thursday that Powell opposes any action in which the United States would "go it alone ... as if it doesn't give a damn" what other nations think.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MOO305A.html

On Wednesday, April 23, 2003, the New York Times reported that

"White House officials….indicated publicly today for the first time that they were adamantly opposed to the quick return of United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq.(1) In the months preceding the US invasion of Iraq Hans Blix, the top UN weapons inspector told the UN Security Council on January 28, 2003 that "Iraq has on the whole co-operated rather well so far with UNMOVIC (the UN weapons inspector team) in the field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect, and with one exception it has been prompt."(2)

A week latter US Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the UN Security Council and complained about the lack of authorized U-2 recognizance flights and the Iraqi failure to allow "immediate unimpeded, unrestricted and private access to all officials" and scientists.(3)

Now that the United States has total control and complete access to every scientist, and every suspected weapons of mass destruction site, absolutely no weapons of mass destruction have been found.

Remember those Iraqi "20,000 chemical-capable artillery shells, 1.4 tons of nerve gas agents, 25,000 liters of anthrax and 20 Scud missiles that were deployable within 45 minutes."(7) Remember Colin Powell’s famous (in his own words) "missile brigade outside Baghdad (which) was dispersing rocket launchers and warheads containing biological warfare agent to various locations, distributing them to various locations in

Western Iraq. Most of the launches and warheads have been hidden in large groves of palm trees and were to be moved every one to four weeks to escape detection."(8) That’s in Powell’s report to the UN. Chemicals in warheads ready to use, probably in less than 45 minutes. Colin claims he knew why the UN inspectors couldn’t find them. They were moved around.

THE FAMOUS "MOBIL WMD LABS"

In Colin Powell’s imagination, even the factories for making chemical and biological weapons were "moving around" on trucks and train cars. No actual spy plane or satellite pictures existed, so Powell was forced to deliver a graphic artist’s rendering of the mobile lab factories for the UN Security Council. According to Powell, "The trucks and train cars are easily moved and are designed to evade detection by inspectors. In a matter of months, they can produce a quantity of biological poison equal to the entire amount that Iraq claimed to have produced in the years prior to the Gulf War."(9) So we’re talking lots of trucks and train cars here. And where are they today? The US has control of the highways, railways, air space and access to scientists. Where are they today?

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND THE IRAQI A-BOMB

Remember Dick Cheney’s speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars last summer (2002). Cheney claimed "The Iraqi regime has in fact been very busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents. And they continue to pursue the nuclear program they began so many years ago."(10)

The Bush administration Iraq nuclear story was blown out of the water even before the war started. On January 26, 2003, Dr. Mohamed El Baradei, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, argued before the UN Security Council that "no prohibited nuclear activities have been identified" in Iraq.(11) The US held documents claiming to prove Iraq’s attempt to buy uranium for nuclear warheads from Niger proved to be fakes. Mohamed El Baradei was again quoted as saying the documents were forgeries and "not authentic."(12)

FOOLING THE SENATORS

On September 24, 2002, CIA head George Tenet briefed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the attempted Iraqi purchase of five hundred tons of "yellow cake" uranium for making atomic bombs. Just five tons can produce enough weapon-grade uranium for a bomb. Two days latter Colin Powell also briefed the Senators on Iraqi

attempts to obtain uranium from Niger. The testimony from Tenet and Powell scared both Democratic and Republican Senators into passing a resolution overwhelmingly giving the President a Congressional mandate for a military assault on Iraq just two weeks latter. The only trouble was the Senators were fooled. The story was simply not true.

FOOLING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND SEYMOUR HERSH

President Bush cited the uranium deal in his January, 2003 State of the Union Message to the American People. Bush claimed he got information from the British Government. When the UN inspectors declared the documents "not authentic," Seymour Hersh, one of America’s last investigative reporters, got on the case and wrote an article for the New Yorker Magazine concerning the false A-bomb reports, dated March 31, 2003. Hersh interviewed an International Atomic Energy Agency senior official who told him "These documents are so bad that I cannot imagine that they came from a serious intelligence agency. It depresses me, given the low quality of the documents, that it was not stopped. At the level it reached (Tenet, Bush, Cheney, US Senators) I would have expected more checking."(13)

Hersh speculates that the forged documents were manufactured by M16 (British Intelligence) and accepted by the CIA uncritically. Hersh interviews a former high-level intelligence official who suggested "somebody deliberately let something false get in there…It could not have gotten into the system without the agency (CIA) being involved. Therefore it was an internal intention. Someone set someone up."(14)

The Senators too were feeling that they may have been "set up." On March 14, 2003, Senator Jay Rockefeller from West Virginia, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee asked Robert Mueller, the FBI Director to investigate the forged document. The Senator wrote to Mueller, "There is a possibility that the fabrication of these documents may be part of a larger deception campaign aimed at manipulating public opinion and foreign policy regarding Iraq." He also wants to know "why the intelligence community did not recognize the documents were fabricated."(15)

[The Terrible Sweal]

Sounds like someone is a Michael Moore fan. First you obviously don't understand the US electoral college which functioned exactly how it was supposed to. Second I consider Harvard and Yale a pretty good education. Ya ya his daddy got him in. Ya ya he cheated to get his A's and B's, I know you have an excuse for all of it. Third he doesn't make irrational decisions. I consider it very disciplined to not drop a few Moabs on Iraq and Afganistan on Sept. 12. Fourth the hyperbolic description of turning the US into a "police-state" is a little overboard don't you think? Fifth he cut taxes for everyone by percentages which is as fair as you can get cutting taxes. BTW you must not live in Canada if you consider the US tax system unfair. And finally undermining the UN is something to be proud of. A corrupt organization that consistently fails to stop genocide in places like Sudan, Rwanda, Balkins, Zimbabwe.

Much of your comment made no sense to me. Michael Moore? Excuse for all of what???

What I could make sense of, however, I will answer...

I have a perfectly adequate view of the electoral college system and Bush's electoral illegitimacy has nothing to do with it. You neglect to consider the egregious roles of Florida electoral officials and the USSC.

Bush not only makes irrational decisions, he proclaims proudly that he makes irrational decisions. He claims to decide the fate of America based on religious whimsy.

I don't think it is at all hyperbolic to worry about a police-state when the government is arguing that it has the right to detain citizens and deny them the protections of the Constitution at the command of the executive branch. What the bloody hell else would it take to trigger your alarm bells?

Cutting taxes by flat percentages is effectively a 'regressive' tax measure. Several reputable studies indicate that Bush's tax cuts favor the rich. However, this favor goes well beyond the tax cuts as well. The destruction of social infrastructure harms those who rely on it. The rich buy their own, so they don't care, but middle class people need their government services. Bush's policies harm these services.

Undermining the UN is not something to be proud of. The US founded the UN. The UN is America's vision for a peaceful law abiding world. For America to wish to undermine the UN is for America to wish to undermine the world it created.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The reasons Bush is the worst president since Nixon are several, including his Iraq fiasco. These reasons go well beyond differences in the threat assessment of Iraq. Here are my reasons for rating Bush so badly:

Well, TS, points 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, and obviously to an extent, 6, all refer to his handling of the Iraq situation.

I stand by my conclusion that you either love him or hate him, based on Iraq.

No way. 3 is more general than Iraq. 5 is about America itself, not Iraq. And several of the ones about Iraq point out that the threat assessment is not the point at issue, as you originally suggested.

[Patriot]

The independent National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the USA (known as the 9/11 Commission) finished his work and released its findings in a 570-page report. But it didn’t call any perpetrators. And it seems for me it caused a great disappointment in Democrats’ camp, because they were sure that its findings deprived Bush of any chance to be re-elected. But it’s nonsense! Our failure took place over many years and Administrations. There is no single individual who is responsible for this tragedy. We forget that some prerequisites for it were created before Bush took office. Bush’s predecessor Bill Clinton didn’t understand the gravity of the threats posed by terrorists, “because the leader of Democrats couldn’t imagine such attacksâ€. But it’s not an excuse. Now Democrats focus much of their critics on Mr. Bush, though for many years they were conniving at such monsters as Al-Qaeda and they closed their eyes to spreading Al-Qaeda’s network in America. It’s easy for them to present Bush as a scapegoat now. Although it was he who declared war on such new world’s evil as international terrorism. He didn’t sit it out as our Democrats did. And if we want to achieve a final victory over such dangerous enemy as international terrorism we mustn’t stop our struggle. Kerry can’t make our nation safer and more secure because he isn’t aimed at it and, frankly speaking, he doesn’t manage to do it. If we really want to do everything possible to prevent other our families from the same tragedy, we should give Bush a chance to finish his work.

[I miss Reagan]

Much of your comment made no sense to me.  Michael Moore?

Sorry I should have been more clear. Michael Moore likes to make foolish statements similar suggesting that Bush is an illegitimate president. It's amazing how you bitter people fail to forget that the recounts in Florida all favoured Bush. You also fail to mention that the poor ballet design was by democrats.

  He claims to decide the fate of America based on religious whimsy.

I don't remember Bush saying that God told him to attack Iraq. Funny that the constitution of the United States is something that was conjured up by "religious whimsy". Sounds like you consider yourself better and above most Americans and citizens of the world who follow "religious whimsy".

Cutting taxes by flat percentages is effectively a 'regressive' tax measure.  Several reputable studies indicate that Bush's tax cuts favor the rich.

I'm sure we differ on what we consider "reputable". What I consider "reputable" is Alan Greenspan, the smartest living economist, stating that Bush's tax cuts have got the economy rolling again. When is the left going to drop it's myopic view of taxing the hell out of the wealth creators. When are they going to realize that if you take away the incentive for people to make money, they'll likely take their business elsewhere. It's happening here. Paul Martin doesn't locate CSL in the tropics because of the weather.