posted on July 7, 2004 03:05:32 PM new
I don't understand how some republican posters on this board can stand getting stuffed time and time again with their posts. It looks to me like these people have no shame or real conviction. I guess just like the guys they support Bush and Cheney they have to say anything even if its lies in a feeble attempt to muddy the waters. These are the kind of people that are hurting their party and will help make them lose the next election.
posted on July 7, 2004 04:20:48 PM new
KD - Linda, I see the right trying their best to smear Kerry's VN service only to take the spotlight away from Bush being AWOL.
Kerry is the one who for at least 24 months has pointed out his VN service. Yes, KD, many of my generation think he was a traitor to his country in his actions to side with the communists after his service. That's why they think so little of his 'service'.
Secondly, other than false accusations NO ONE has proved Bush was AWOL....and our Armed forces don't hand out HONORABLE discharges to those who have deserted. So the left can continue to spout such foolishness but all are aware it's an unproven accusation - and nothting more.
Rusty asked what good things Cheney has done as VP.
Maybe being from Canada you aren't aware of what the 'job requirements' of our VPs are. Maybe you are. But he's been more than capable in doing his job and giving support to four different [past] administrations. And his biggest accomplishment, in my mind, is the support he has given to this President and those same past administrations. He is a highly respected/regarded man. It's the left that smears him because he was a successful business person. The left who smears him because he has worked to defend the office of the President's powers as he believes they should be. [Keep the powers of our three branches of government separate].
Instead of answering, Edwards is smeared.
This thread is ABOUT kerry and Edwards. And many have grave concerns that since a VP is only one heart-beat away from being our President...that we look to his experience.
While the left wants to continue to hammer Cheney on Hallburton....they don't appear to want the right to examine the fac that Edwards is a trial lawyer...and that 45% of those who supported his run...are going to have a huge say in what legislation might be passed during a kerry/Edwards administration. Obviously unions won't have the control now....trail lawyers will. That's usually against the interests of businesses and could have serious consequences in many areas of our government structure.
Here...with kerry/Edwards we have two of the MOST liberal officials in our country. Kerry voted the most liberal...with Edwards coming in 4th place. Enormous consequences for the direction our country could/would take.
And we're in a war on terrorism. BOTH voted to approve that war....and BOTH voted against funding it. Speaks loud and clear as to where they really stand on defending this nation.
posted on July 7, 2004 04:47:47 PM new
Where did you read Kerry sided with the communists? He was against the VN war and protested. That doesn't make him a traitor. LOTS of people felt that way. Soldiers are against the Iraq war. Doesn't mean they're traitors either.
Linda, all you've really said about Cheney is that he supported the President. Can't think of anything either?
posted on July 7, 2004 04:49:21 PM new
EAG- still no answer there from you as to why Cheney is the best VP ever in the history of the USA. does the cat got your tongue? avoiding questions like the rest of the Republicans??? I find it amusing that you cannot give one, let alone 3 reasons why Cheney is the best VP, as you claimed earlier in this thread.
I just want some justification. Looks like EAG is going AWOL on this one. Another Republican who attempts to dodge a bullet.
posted on July 7, 2004 05:01:00 PM new
Linda K- where did you get I was from Canada? lol. I was born in Jackson, Mississippi (some would consider the heart of the south, others the toilet bowl of the south), I lived in Jackson, Michigan for 14 years (this was where the first Republican National Convention was held), I followed that by spending another 15 years in Florida, where I graduated from Florida State University with a Bachelors in Sociology and a Bachelors in Social Sciences and now reside in Portland, Oregon. I have looked back on my history, and cannot find any time where I resided in Canada. In fact, I think I have spent a total of 2 weeks in Canada during my entire life. So, if you wish to claim I am from Canada as some Republican dirty trick to discredit my knowledge of American politics, you are barking up the wrong tree.
It seems as though you cannot think for yourself Linda K. If you do, you get your facts mixed up, and make a liar of yourself (there seems to be a history of this in the Republican party). Your better off sticking to your cut and paste methods of debate. At least someone is doing the cognitive thought process for you, whether they're right or wrong.
posted on July 7, 2004 05:01:15 PM new
KD - On VN....most who opposed the VN war didn't take the actions he and Jane Fonda did. Nor did they say our democracy is a farse...like he did.
And I'll always consider that to be the actions of a traitor...always.
posted on July 7, 2004 05:02:39 PM new
::and that 45% of those who supported his run...are going to have a huge say in what legislation might be passed during a kerry/Edwards administration. Obviously unions won't have the control now....trail lawyers will. That's usually against the interests of businesses and could have serious consequences in many areas of our government structure.::
The VP only has a vote in the case of a deadlock. I don't believe Cheney has had to vote even once during his term. You truly think that in terms of a democratic choice for VP, Edwards is not adequate because of the slight possibility that he might end up in a situation of casting a deciding vote and the even slighter possibility that it might be a vote in which trial lawyers have an interest in that particular bill?
Really? Seriously? THAT is your concern? You have no problem with someone having influence over the defence department giving no bid contracts to a company that a) They have been formerly employed with and have financial ties to and b) has a history of fraudlent billing. You feel that a VP that is throwing you tax dollars away and making sure they land at the feet of their friends is somehow more suited for the job than someone who might someday, if seven moons com e into perfect alignment be able to cast a vote that would somehow benefit people that he shared a common form of employment with?
Who would you have approved of? Given that you have to pick someone and that there is a good chance that they could become VP - Who would you have rather he chosen?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
I was referring to the fact that IF someone decides to knock kerry off, IF his prostrate cancer returns or he dies from any cause, we would have a totally unqualified Edwards as President. You'll see the difference when they debate. There's so much Edwards doesn't have a clue about. I watched Tim Russert once where he asked him a question most would know the answer to and Edwards didn't know who Tim was referring to. And he might lead us? I certainly hope not.
THAT is your concern?
I have stated my concerns. Two far left ultra-liberals....no moderate there. A totally inexperience, unqualified VP who could end up running the joint.
You have no problem with someone having influence over the defence department giving no bid contracts to a company that a) They have been formerly employed with and have financial ties to and b) has a history of fraudlent billing. You feel that a VP that is throwing you tax dollars away and making sure they land at the feet of their friends is somehow more suited for the job than someone who might someday, if seven moons com e into perfect alignment be able to cast a vote that would somehow benefit people that he shared a common form of employment with?
You are the queen of run-on sentences.
Hallburton was awarded no bid contracts, JUST LIKE they were during the clinton administration. If it didn't bother the left then, but only bothers them now...I clearly see the double-standard.
And as I've previously explained, at least one hundred times, the reasn for that was we needed them RIGHT THEN....not three or four months down the road AFTER our troops were sent there.
On the fradulent billing issue....there is an explanation for most of that, but the left doesn't really want to believe it, so what's the point? And I know of no lawsuits, which began during THIS administration where they have been shown to do anything illegal.
Who would you have approved of?
Someone more moderate like Lieberman - who I could trust has our nation's best interest at heart. Second choice would have gone to Gephardt - at least HE'D defend this country. NEVER to another ultra-liberal.
posted on July 7, 2004 05:30:19 PM new
rusty - Is it wrong for someone to speak out against their President's actions and/or the actions of their Administration or military?
Wrong.... YES!!! Allowed under their constitutional rights...YES!!!
How I see this is AFTER our elected officials have voted to send our troops to war, the decision about the direction our country has decided upon has been made. Those elected officials have put their lives on the line for a decision THEY made....then yes...shut up about it and support our troops. Don't put them in further danger by using an election campaign - or for any political gain - to encourage our enemies to fight even harder against our soldiers.
One only has to look to how our enemies see those statements/comments to see it encourages them. [imo, aid and abetting]
Check out the latest Al-sadr statement and see how encouraged he is by what the left is doing.
In my whole life, I've never been more disappointed with the left than I current am. There's such a willingness to point out every thing wrong with America....defend the actions of our enemies, our supposed allies [it's all our fault] and give aid and comfort to our enemies. Compare our President to a Nazi...etc. The most un-American actions I've ever seen by US citizens. It's heartbreaking to me.
posted on July 7, 2004 05:33:32 PM new
Linda, let me get this straight here. First, you are using the term "ultra-liberal" to tagline Kerry and Edwards. I find that funny. Ooooh.... The Ultra Liberals. Sounds like the name of a crappy garage rockabilly band. "Let's give a warm welcome to The Ultra Liberals." lol.
I think the point I'm making here is that you chastise them for something that they're not. I would say I'm an ultra liberal, not Kerry or Edwards. What channel or conservative talk show host did you get that term, "Ultra-Liberal" form? I would go as far as preferring being called, Uber-Liberal instead. It has a hipper ring to it.
Seriously though. Do you really think that Kerry or Edwards are "ultra-liberal"? I mean, the right likes to point out that Kerry hasn't voted in the last 14 months, then you want to say he is Ultra Liberal. Can you tell me why you feel that way? I mean, point out some facts about John Kerry that makes him ultra-liberal. While your thinking up some hard facts, you might also want to research John Edwards voting record to point us in the right direction here. What is your definition of Ultra-Liberal?
As newly announced vice-presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards' record is scrutinized, political critics are re-examining claims the former trial lawyer amassed much of the personal fortune that financed his political career by winning legal cases based on "junk science."
Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry named the North Carolina senator as his running mate yesterday, calling him "a champion for middle class Americans."
CNSNews.com first reported in January how Edwards won record jury verdicts and settlements in cases alleging that the botched treatment of women in labor and their deliveries caused infants to develop the brain disorder cerebral palsy.
Edwards specialized in these cases, which he characterized in his presidential campaign as battles on behalf of the common man against insurance companies.
But the cause of cerebral palsy long has been debated, and two new studies in 2003 further undermined the scientific premise of Edwards' cases, CNSNews.com reported.
"There are some cases where the brain damage did occur at the time of delivery. But it's really unusual. It's really quite unusual," Dr. Murray Goldstein, a neurologist and the medical director of the United Cerebral Palsy Research and Educational Foundation, told the news agency.
"The overwhelming majority of children that are born with developmental brain damage, the ob/gyn could not have done anything about it, could not have, not at this stage of what we know," Goldstein stated.
Medical science increasingly is exonerating doctors in cases of labor and delivery where cerebral palsy resulted, medical and legal experts told CNSNews.com.
"At the end of the day, I verily believe we will find [the cause of cerebral palsy is] all genetic," said Eldon L. Boisseau of the Kansas-based firm Turner and Boisseau.
Dr. John Freeman, a professor of neurology and pediatrics at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Md., said "a great many of these cases are due to subtle infections of the child before birth."
Nevertheless, some of Edwards' critics say his extraordinary oratorical skills overcame the latest science, enabling him to persuade juries that doctors were at fault for the cerebral palsy in infants.
In an analysis last year of Edwards' legal career, the Boston Globe wrote that his trial summations "routinely went beyond a recitation of his case to a heart-wrenching plea to jurors to listen to the unspoken voices of injured children."
An example came from a medical malpractice trial in 1985 in which Edwards blamed a doctor and a hospital for the cerebral palsy afflicting then-5-year-old Jennifer Campbell.
"I have to tell you right now I didn't plan to talk about this right now I feel her [Jennifer], I feel her presence," Edwards told the jury according to court records. "[Jennifer's] inside me and she's talking to you. ... And this is what she says to you. She says, 'I don't ask for your pity. What I ask for is your strength. And I don't ask for your sympathy, but I do ask for your courage.'"
The emotional plea convinced the jury to award Campbell's family a record jury verdict of $6.5 million against the hospital where the girl was born.
From judgments or settlements related to medical malpractice, Edwards built a personal fortune estimated at between $12.8 and $60 million. His former law firm, Edwards & Kirby of Raleigh, N.C., reportedly kept between 25 and 40 percent of the jury awards and settlements during the time he worked there, CNSNews.com said.
In 63 lawsuits alone, Edwards won "more than $152 million," according to the Center for Public Integrity.
Suits blaming obstetricians for cerebral palsy and other infant brain damage "may constitute the single biggest branch of medical malpractice litigation," said Walter Olson, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, even though the recent studies make those cases "scientifically unfounded."
As a result, he told CNSNews.com, medical specialities such as obstetrics, emergency room medicine and neurosurgery have become crippled.
"A few years ago every neurosurgeon in Washington D.C., had been sued, and it can't be because the nation's capital gets only bad neurosurgeons," Olson said. "It's because it's too tempting to file against the competent ones because so many terrible things go wrong with their patients."
CNSNew.com said Edwards did not respond to repeated requests through his campaign offices for comment.
------------------------------
Peepa getting stuffed time and time
Bragging about you and logansdad having something going on the side"
--------------------
KD Where did you read Kerry sided with the communists?
[b]Vietnam cites Kerry to prove U.S. abuses
Official news agency says 1971 testimony shows war crimes[/b]
The official Communist Vietnamese news agency is citing presidential candidate John Kerry's 1971 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as proof the U.S. committed war crimes in its conduct of the Vietnam war.
A report in the Vietnam News begins: "The Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal calls forth questions over the American War in Vietnam: "How were captured U.S. troops treated?" and "How did the Americans treat the Vietnamese?"
The report goes on to charge, "like in any of the dozens of countries they invaded, it was the Americans who perpetrated well-documented atrocities in Vietnam, both at the individual and mass levels."
While the report shows America POWs enjoying "a refreshing game of volleyball" while imprisoned during the war, it contrasts that photo with reference to the My Lai massacre.
"Candidate in this years American presidential elections, John Kerry, who fought in the war, went further in his criticism," the report continues. "In a statement to the U.S.' Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in 1971, he said the war crimes committed by U.S. soldiers in Southeast Asia 'were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.'"
The report insists that despite such abuses, "the Vietnamese did not reciprocate in kind; instead, they treated captured U.S. troops humanely."
More evidence communists honoring Kerry
Vietnam war museum includes candidate among feted activists
Posted: June 15, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
A veterans group opposed to Sen. John Kerry's presidential candidacy says it has further proof the Massachusetts senator is being honored as an anti-war activist by communist Vietnam at a museum in Ho Chi Minh City.
The War Remnants Museum formerly known as the War Crimes Museum includes a photograph of Kerry being greeted by the general secretary of the Communist Party, Comrade Do Muoi, in July 1993, according to Vietnam Vets for the Truth.
A picture of the display was taken in May by Bill Lupetti, one of more than 200 members of Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth who signed an open letter questioning Kerry's fitness to serve as commander in chief.
This month, Lupetti took more photographs of the display and museum, including one with a daily newspaper held up next to it, to demonstrate that the picture is current.
A spokesman with Kerry's national campaign has not returned a call from WND seeking comment.
Vets for the Truth says it's not questioning the legitimacy of Kerry meeting with communist leaders in pursuit of information about POWs and MIAs, the aim of his congressional delegation in 1993.
"The critical issue is that the Vietnamese communists have chosen to honor Senator Kerry in their War Crimes Museum for his assistance in helping them achieve victory over the United States," the group says.
Vets for the Truth points out the sign at the entrance to the display room reads: "The World Supports Vietnam in its Resistance."
Also exhibited inside the room are protest banners and emblems from various nations and photographs of international leaders who supported North Vietnam's cause.
After several members questioned the authenticity of the Lupetti's first photograph, Vets for the Truth asked him to return to the museum this month and document the section featuring the foreign anti-war activists. The group also asked Dan Tran of the Vietnam Human Rights Project to have his associates in Ho Chi Minh Citiy go into the museum to verify it.
Tran's contacts confirmed that the photograph is still in the museum.
Some members of the U.S. media also questioned whether Kerry was in Vietnam July 13-18, 1993.
The AP reported July 17, 1993, a U.S. delegation headed by Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs Hershel Gober was sent to Vietnam by President Clinton to deliver to the Vietnamese microfilm of some 3 million captured Vietnam War documents related to finding American POWs and MIAs. The story says the delegation was scheduled to meet with Do Muoi.
While the story does not mention Kerry, a White House press release July 2, 1993, mentioned Kerry and the "high-level delegation," which included represenatives of three major veterans groups.
Epstein said the display photograph's "unquestionable significance lies in its placement in the American protesters' section of the War Crimes Museum" in Ho Chi Minh City, the former Saigon.
"The Vietnamese communists clearly recognize John Kerry's contributions to their victory," he said. "This find can be compared to the discovery of a painting of Neville Chamberlain hanging in a place of honor in Hitler's Eagle's Nest in 1945."
Epstein's group says the exhibit refutes Kerry's insistence his anti-war protests did not render support to the enemy in time of war.
"The Vietnamese communists clearly feel that the American anti-war protesters were a very important force in undermining support in the United States for American war efforts, a force that contributed materially to ultimate communist victory in 1975," the group said in a statement.
Vietnam Vets for the Truth says it was established to organize a rally publicizing "Kerry's lies" during the "Winter Soldier" hearings in the U.S. Senate in 1971. The rally, called "Kerry Lied," will be held on Capitol Hill Sept. 12.
The Swift Boat Veterans also have called on Kerry to stop unauthorized use of their images in national campaign advertising.The group says only two of the 20 officers in one photo support him and 11 have signed the letter condemning the candidate
By Michael Kranish and Patrick Healy, Globe Staff, 3/25/2004
WASHINGTON -- In a question-and-answer session before a Senate committee in 1971, John F. Kerry, who was a leading antiwar activist at the time, asserted that 200,000 Vietnamese per year were being "murdered by the United States of America" and said he had gone to Paris and "talked with both delegations at the peace talks" and met with communist representatives.
Kerry, now the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, yesterday confirmed through a spokesman that he did go to Paris and talked privately with a leading communist representative. But the spokesman played down the extent of Kerry's role and said Kerry did not engage in negotiations.
Asked about the appropriateness of Kerry's saying that the United States had "murdered" 200,000 Vietnamese annually when the United States was at war, Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan said "Senator Kerry used a word he deems inappropriate."
Meehan said Kerry "never suggested or believed and absolutely rejects the idea that the word applied to service of the American soldiers in Vietnam." Meehan then declined to say to whom Kerry was referring when he said that the United States had murdered the Vietnamese; Kerry declined to be interviewed about the matter.
Kerry killed a Viet Cong fighter in an action his superiors deemed appropriate and for which he was awarded the Silver Star.
Kerry's speech before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971, is one of the best-known moments of his life when he was involved in Vietnam Veterans Against the War. In that speech, Kerry asked: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"
But the follow-up session of questions and answers, made public at the time in the official proceedings of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has received little mainstream notice until now.
When Kerry was asked by committee chairman Senator J. William Fulbright how he proposed to end the war, the former Navy lieutenant said it should be ended immediately and mentioned his involvement in peace talks in Paris.
"I have been to Paris," Kerry said. "I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points . . . ."
The latter was a reference to a communist group based in South Vietnam. Historian Stanley Karnow, author of "Vietnam: A History," described the Provisional Revolutionary Government as "an arm of the North Vietnamese government." Madam Nguyen Thi Binh was a leader of the group and had a list of peace-talk points, including the suggestion that US prisoners of war would be released when American forces withdrew.
After their May 1970 marriage, Kerry traveled to Paris with his wife, Julia Thorne, on a private trip, Meehan said. Kerry did not go to Paris with the intention of meeting with participants in the peace talks or involving himself in the negotiations, Meehan added, saying that while there Kerry had his brief meeting with Binh, which included members of both delegations to the peace talks.
As Kerry runs for president, he is finding that many of his statements and activities over the last 33 years are drawing new attention. Last year, the Globe published White House transcripts of discussions about Kerry by President Nixon in the Oval Office. More recently, the Los Angeles Times focused on FBI surveillance reports, obtained by historian Gerald Nicosia, in which the FBI monitored meetings of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a group that Kerry led in 1971.
Indeed, there may be a tie between Kerry's statement before the Senate committee and the interest of the FBI in his activities. One FBI report provided to the Globe by Nicosia shows that the government was monitoring whether Kerry planned to go to Paris again. Kerry was "planning to travel to Paris, France . . . for talks with North Vietnamese peace delegation," said the report, dated Nov. 11, 1971.
Kerry's Senate testimony spans about six pages in the committee publication, but the lesser-known question-and-answer session was another 24 pages. As he opened the latter session, Kerry said Nixon should declare a cease-fire and "accept a coalition regime which would represent all the political forces of the country which is in fact what a representative government is supposed to do and which is in fact what this government here in this country purports to do, and pull the troops out without losing one more American, and still further without losing the South Vietnamese."
Kerry then suggested that Congress should permit a special national referendum on ending the Vietnam War, leading Fulbright to remind Kerry that Congress "cannot directly under our system negotiate a cease-fire or anything of this kind. Under our constitutional system, we can advise the president." Kerry responded that, "I realize that full well as a study of political science. I realize that we cannot negotiate treaties, and I realize that even my visits in Paris, precedents had been set by Senator [Eugene] McCarthy and others, in a sense are on the borderline of private individuals negotiating, et cetera."
Kerry's statement dealt with the question of whether he was trying to negotiate in Paris as a private citizen and was thus on that "borderline" of what was allowable. A US law forbids citizens from negotiating with foreign governments on matters such as peace treaties. Meehan said Kerry was not negotiating.
"Senator Kerry had no role whatsoever in the Paris peace talks or negotiations," Meehan said in his statement. "He did not engage in any negotiations and did not attend any session of the talks. Prior to his Senate testimony, he went to Paris on a private trip, where he had one brief meeting with Madam Binh and others. In an effort to find facts, he learned the status of the peace talks from their point of view and about any progress in resolving the conflict, particularly as it related to the fate of the POWs."
Kerry's suggestion before the Senate committee that there be an immediate pullout led to questions about whether such a move would endanger the lives of South Vietnamese allies.
Kerry responded that "this obviously is the most difficult question of all, but I think that at this point the United States is not really in a position to consider the happiness of those people as pertains to the army in our withdrawal." If the United States did not withdraw, Kerry said, then US bombing would continue, and "the war will continue. So what I am saying is that yes, there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America . . . ."
Meehan, asked to explain Kerry's comment, said: "During a very emotionally charged time in American history, Senator Kerry was testifying against a failed policy, which resulted in the killing of hundreds of thousands of people. That policy resulted in one of the highest civilian casualty rate in the history of war. In answering Senator [George D.] Aiken's question about the consequences of an American withdrawal and potential additional bloodbath, Senator Kerry used a word he deems inappropriate.
"Senator Kerry never suggested or believed and absolutely rejects the idea that the word applied to service of the American soldiers in Vietnam. While opposed to the failed policy, Senator Kerry insisted that Americans must never confuse the war with the warriors."
Kranish reported from Washington; Healy reported while traveling with Kerry. Kranish may be reached at [email protected] and Healy at [email protected].
"The natural family is a man and woman bound in a lifelong covenant of marriage for the purposes of:
*the continuation of the human species,
*the rearing of children,
*the regulation of sexuality,
*the provision of mutual support and protection,
*the creation of an altruistic domestic economy, and
*the maintenance of bonds between the generations."
posted on July 7, 2004 05:45:24 PM new
Linda, Thank you for your response.
I imagine it was un-American then when every single Republican was out there slamming Bill Clinton when he was President. I mean, that is exactly what you are saying right? It is wrong for people to speak out about our President, even if he did something wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I'm getting from this is that we should trust a man even if they are guilty of wrongdoing, right? Even if what they are doing is only morally wrong? Or does that wrongdoing have to be in writing within some law book? What about Jimmy Carter? Many people spoke out against President Carter because of the gasoline crisis, and the Iran hostage situation. Was it wrong for them to do so?
I just want to level this playing field so that we can see exactly where we stand on this.
I might point out that being outspoken against your government has been the one thing throughout the history of America that has created change for the better. I don't think you will find any Liberal, Democrat, or Liberal Democrat, or even, Ultra Liberal Democrat out there who was opposed to the war in Afghanistan. You probably won't find any of us who are against our troops. We love our troops. They have been placed in harms way by a man and his administration who have made grave choices that have killed thousands and thousands of innocent people, including our troops. This goes without mentioning the hundreds of thousands of people seriously injured from this Iraqi war. If Saddam was such a concern for America, and he had all of these weapons when we first attacked Iraq, then why wasn't this job finished? Why didn't W's daddy do the job? Why did W's daddy let Iraq continue to "harbor terrorists" and build an arsenol of WMDs? I hope you can answer these questions, because I would sure love to know the truth.
posted on July 7, 2004 05:47:42 PM newThere's so much Edwards doesn't have a clue about. I watched Tim Russert once where he asked him a question most would know the answer to and Edwards didn't know who Tim was referring to. And he might lead us? I certainly hope not.
LOL!! Yet you support a president who, when elected, could not name the heads of other nations!!!!
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on July 7, 2004 05:49:43 PM new
::You are the queen of run-on sentences. ::
I am having a crown designed . It's sweet and adorable but wraps around my head three or four times.
::at least HE'D defend this country.::
Oh come on - Edwards voted for the invasion.
::And I know of no lawsuits, which began during THIS administration where they have been shown to do anything illegal.::
Halliburton Admits Iraq Contract Overcharges
MATT KELLEY
Mar 12, 2004, Pentagon auditors found a Halliburton Co. subsidiary gave faulty cost estimates on a $2.7 billion contract to serve American troops in Iraq and Kuwait, and company officials acknowledged making mistakes
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Halliburton Admits Role in $6 Million Iraq Scheme
Monday, January 26, 2004
The Houston-based contractor once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney announced Friday that two employees at a Kuwait subsidiary had been fired for running a kickback scheme on reconstruction contracts in Iraq.
Halliburton has reimbursed the federal government for $6 million of overcharges. This is in addition to earlier charges that Halliburton subsidiaries over billed for fuel in Iraq. Those accusations allege tens of millions in overcharges.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
By DAVID IVANOVICH
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle
WASHINGTON Auditors looking into hefty charges rung up by Halliburton Co. and others at a beachfront hotel in Kuwait chastised the Coalition Provisional Authority for failing to better control costs. The authority's inspector general, examining $11 million in charges being incurred annually at the five-star Kuwait Hilton, said the Provisional Authority "did not apply adequate oversight to ensure that operating costs were minimized."
According to an inspector general's audit report made available Tuesday, the auditors proposed cost-saving measures they calculate would save about $3.6 million a year.
The hotel was supposed to be used by "executive personnel" being deployed to the region.
Lower-ranking employees were supposed to stay at less expensive villas.
But the authority failed to "provide clear guidance" as to who was eligible to stay at the hotel, the report said.
And as a result, Halliburton subsidiary KBR allowed lower-level workers to stay there as well.
That pushed up costs by some $2.85 million a year, the report said.
The government could have saved $191,000 for laundry service alone if it had installed washers and dryers in the villas for workers to use, rather than allow them to use the hotel laundry service.
Halliburton spokeswoman Cathy Gist said the company assigned living accommodations for its workers "as approved by the military."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On the issue of meals for troops, FactCheck.org said the MoveOn.org ad correctly states that Halliburton "billed over $100 million for meals for our troops that they never delivered."
This matter is also still under review by the DCCA.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One of the amendments defeated Wednesday would have imposed criminal penalties for companies that intentionally and significantly overcharge the government in providing services. The amendment was aimed at Halliburton and its subsidiaries, which won lucrative no-bid Defense Department contracts to feed and house soldiers and fuel and repair their equipment. Halliburton has acknowledged that it overcharged the U.S. government by at least $136 million. The amendment was defeated 52-46.
(anyone curious as to how many of those 52 recieved campaign contributions from Haliburton?)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Linda - there are many topics on which you can claim the moral right, but even you have to know that Haliburton is not one of them.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on July 7, 2004 05:51:22 PM newSeriously though. Do you really think that Kerry or Edwards are "ultra-liberal"?
Yes, seriously. Their voting records prove it.
AND there are sites that have always rated which political candidate has supported which 'cause' and to what degree. For example, the environmentia groups....give rating to which candidates MOST vote for legislation that supports their cause. But there are many. And on this issue of liberal votes....yes....the rating I gave above is where kerry and edwards have been on the scale of liberal vs conservative positions.
I mean, the right likes to point out that Kerry hasn't voted in the last 14 months, then you want to say he is Ultra Liberal. Yes, quiet a waste of taxpayer dollars for the state he's supposed to have been representing. And how very easy to not have a most recent record so people can see just how liberal he is....lately. But there's still almost 18-20 years of how he has voted to judge him on.
[i]Can you tell me why you feel that way? I mean, point out some facts about John Kerry that makes him ultra-liberal[i]. Most simply he's priorties lie in areas that are social issues....vs defense. With all his flip-fopping it's hard to know what the truth is about him.
Like - for the war...against the war. Send the troops to war....vote against funding their needs. For the Patriot Act...against the patriot act. Only a couple of quite a few reversals from how he's voted to what he's currently saying he does or doesn't support.
So unlike this President who knows his convictions...knows where he stands on the issues....acts in what he believes to be in the best interest of this nation....not what he thinks the next group he's speaking in front of wants to hear.
[wishy-washy]
kerry is the type of politician that has given politicans all a bad name. NO backbone.
posted on July 7, 2004 05:56:16 PM new
I'd guess now it would be MY turn to ask just what you see as having been kerry's accomplishments in his 20+ years of serving in the Senate. I've read about three pieces of legislation that he's been given credit for getting passed in 20 years.
posted on July 7, 2004 06:12:22 PM new
Is it wrong for someone to speak out against their President's actions and/or the actions of their Administration or military?
Wrong.... YES!!! Allowed under their constitutional rights...YES!!!
Wrong, Linda. It is our duty as American citizens to keep an eye on our government--and speak out against any part of it, including the President, when necessary.
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." --Thomas Jefferson
"An elective despotism is not the government we fought for." --Thomas Jefferson
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." --Thomas Jefferson
"The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted." -- James Madison
"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from the government." -- Thomas Paine
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." -- George Washington
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." -- Thomas Jefferson
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on July 7, 2004 06:16:54 PM new
That was my quote, EAG which I deleted when I saw that rustygumbo might get an acceptable answer from Linda. In my opinion he did not.
Linda won't anwer any question that I ask so it's difficult to communicate with her on any level.
Where's your answer EAG? Can you point out even one achievement that leads you to believe that "Cheney is probably the best VP this country has ever had"
[ edited by Helenjw on Jul 7, 2004 06:21 PM ]
posted on July 7, 2004 06:20:45 PM new
rusty - A little clarification appears to be needed here.
I'm talking about when this country is at WAR....when our Congress has APPROVED the war and our troops have been sent - and their lives are on the line.
I'm also speaking about the actions/statements of Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, etc. to speak like they have against the actions the sitting administration is taking to WIN this war. They could quiet easily express their objections to one another in a civil manner, bring these disagreements up for a vote, where these issues SHOULD be discussed.....rather than in front of TV cameras - all for political gain - no matter the damage it does.
And I also was NOT referring to the average citizen...but rather those ELECTED officials that should be aware, but obviously aren't - or just don't care - about the consequences of their actions.
It's like I keep reading the dems say, "Bush's war".... It's NOT Bush's war...it was a decision our Congress voted on...and should be supporting. We should be united behind our troops.....not them voting to send them to war...all those dems who voted yes..and now blast the fact we went.
Their party cannot be trusted to defend this country....they obviously can't decide what they DO want.
posted on July 7, 2004 06:33:19 PM new
fenix - Yes, I've read all those and what I'm saying is that these things would/could have happened even IF Cheney had no connection at all to Hallburton.
I truly believe it's only being made an issue because of his past employment with them...and the left wants to make this appear as if shady dealings are going on and he's profitting from them. He's not!!!
I also believe in my heart-of-hearts that many don't understand how the military works when a President decides to send troops to war. They have NO clue what all is involved.
Like the fuel over-charges....they had to get it 'yesterday' and there weren't a whole lot of choices of vendors. Like the meals for the troops...they are told to feed so many...and they do that...even if that's not the number sent. etc, etc. etc.
It's WAR!!! Hard to do everything as perfectly as the left, who usually oppose our military and war to begin with, would like to see it done. Not realistic in my opinion. Not even close.
posted on July 7, 2004 06:52:56 PM new
Linda - even if every reason you just gave is true - why... now that there is not this sense of emergeny, are these thing not being putt put back up for bid?
Yes, in an emergency situation, you go with the one able to help the fastest, however, once the crisis phase is over, responsible businesses then start looking at how things can be handled in the most resposible manner. We are not in emergency mose anymore Linda, why are we throwing money away as though we are? Why are we reimbursing Haliburton $1.45 a gallon for gas they are purchasing in Kuwait and selling in Iraq for $.05 when the price of gas in Kuwait is only $.75 a gallon?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Jul 7, 2004 06:53 PM ]
