A Collection On Kerry, The one man to save the US

Brother Maisky, the whole "IAEA - 380 tons of explosives - HMX, RDX or PETN" story is a sham. The stuff was long gone BEFORE any US troops ever got to the bunker. Bush didn't bungle anything. See the "Media Bias" thread.

You got fooled by the liberal media. You got lied to by MoveOn.org and DemocraticUnderground.com. But don't feel bad - the liberals wanted to fool American voters. Lies have suddenly become the favored method of both the liberals and the liberal media.

A recent Kerry campaign ad headline reads "The truth is coming out." The ominous voice-over explains that the "real" Bush agenda is to "privatize Social Security." But this is a lie. There is no desire by the Bush administration to privatize Social Security.

A handout by Americans Coming Together (funded by George Soros, et al.) is being distributed in the battleground states. This handout shows a picture of an African-American being hosed down during a civil rights protest with an accompanying title, "This is what they used to do to keep us from voting." This is a lie. The states responsible for this activity were controlled by Democrats during the civil rights movement. And Republican members of Congress voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act - 138 in favor, 34 against. 96 Democrats voted against. Without Republican support the bill would have failed. So the "sins of the past" described in the handouts were actually done by Democrats, not Republicans.

The Democratic Party has at its disposal more than 10,000 lawyers at the ready to launch "pre-emptive" strikes even if no irregularities are witnessed. They are ready to lie to the American public by claiming events that do not exist.

Voter fraud prompted by Democratic voter-registration campaigns in key battleground states already are being widely reported. "Vote for Kerry - get crack cocaine". These Democratic managers are willing to lie and cheat the voting process.

This is the sad part of American politics. 2000 set a bad precedent for presidential elections. I think in 8 - 12 years, the legal wrangling will become an accepted part of the election process.

I learned something last week -- 90% to 95% of all contracts awarded by the Veterans Administration will be contested legally. That is, it is almost certainly guaranteed that there will be legal challenges to nearly every contract. And the people who work for the VA have accepted that as a standard part of granting new contracts. It's pretty sad when something so drastic becomes de rigeur in day to day life. And now it looks like this will happen in presidential politics as well.

It's happening with Republican voter-registration campaigns too. Those managers are committing the same lies, cheats, and felonies to get their guy elected.

Are we coming to the point where the only way to have a fair election is to take the human element out of it?


Erik

Just think about it for awhile.

- Without tons of money from special interest groups how can anyone that doesn't sell their soul get elected?
- Considering the complete invasion of privacy, who would volunteer for such a job?
- Considering that you'll make lifelong enemies no matter what you do, why would you want the job?

Are we at the point that only Losers would even apply for the job?

So THAT'S why Bush is running for re-election!

You know, this one REALLY bugs me.

Possibly the most powerful position in the world, and the only way to apply for the job is NOT be an exceptional person (Washington, Lincoln, etc.), but be one that has sold their soul the most efficiently. This is down-right scary.

Back to the topic at hand: A Collection On Kerry

There was a video released the other day, proported to be by Osama himself. Osama's video exhorting American to prove that they feel all nice and warm about Muslims can be seen as nothing but an endorsement of John Kerry. Anyone who actually believes that Osama would call off his rabid Islamic jihadist dogs if Kerry won has lost all grip on reality. Osama and his brutal followers don't just want the infidels to leave them alone in the Middle East, they want our culture and society to die ... to cease to exist. Vote for Kerry, have all the summits, get France's approval, all one big happy family - that's not what their jihad is all about. Their claim of "death to infidels" is not a bully's threat - it's a promise. On Tuesday you get to decide how you will confront their jihad: at a cozy meeting in Paris, or on the battlefield. Tuesday's vote will also tell the world how we, in the US, view their jihad - an arrogant statement, or a true threat.

Kerry drones on about Bush mistakes. Oh really? In the 1990s, Afghanistan was allowed to fall to the Taliban and become the global center for the training, indoctrination and seeding of jihadists around the world -- including the mass murderers of 9/11. This week, just three years after a two-month war that destroyed the Taliban, Afghanistan completed its first free election, choosing as president a pro-American democrat enjoying legitimacy and wide popular support. This represents the single most astonishing geopolitical transformation of the last four years. What is astonishing is how this singular American victory has disappeared from public consciousness.

Bush is incompetent? Bush put in place a military campaign that did in two months what everyone had said was impossible: defeating an entrenched, fanatical, ruthless regime in a territory that had forced the great British and Soviet empires into ignominious retreat. Bush followed that by creating in less than three years a fledgling pro-American democracy in a land with no history of democratic culture and just emerging from 25 years of civil war.

Kerry complains that Bush is "outsourcing" the war in Afghanistan. But isn't Kerry's Iraq solution to "outsource" the problem to the "allies" and the United Nations?

Kerry says that Bush can't get the job done. But Bush has forced Pakistan into alliance with us, isolated the Taliban, secured military cooperation from Afghanistan's northern neighbors, and authorized a radical war plan involving just a handful of Americans on the ground, using high technology and local militias to utterly rout the Taliban.

Good.

That would be the Pentagon. Bush was still trying to find the restroom in the White House.

Again, absolutely no score on that play. Back to the bench.

When there is a victory you declare that is was "the Pentagon", or "the troops", but when it is a defeat you claim that is was "all Bush's fault".

---

This Kerry clown CONTINUES to amaze me, on the very eve of the election:

Osama bin Laden warned in his October Surprise video that he will be closely monitoring the state-by-state election returns in tomorrow's presidential race ? and will spare any state that votes against President Bush from being attacked, according to a new analysis of his statement.

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/33124.htm

The respected Middle East Media Research Institute said radical Islamist commentators monitored over the Internet this past weekend also interpreted the key passage of bin Laden's diatribe to mean that any U.S. state that votes to elect Bush on Tuesday will be considered an "enemy" and any state that votes for Kerry has "chosen to make peace with us."

Bin Laden used the Arabic term "ay-wilaya" which means an American "state", like Tennessee, not the word "dawla" that means a "country".

The Islamic terrorist who slaughtered 3,000 people on 9/11 wants to elect John Kerry. Why would 48% of the country follow Osama's lead? Maybe Al Qaeda has better health care, or will protect labor unions better.

Bin Laden's video was filled with Democratic talking points, including the Michael Moore accusation that George Bush sat idly by in a classroom in Florida while the airplanes hit the towers. Isn't that nice: Osama's a Michael Moore fan! Who would have guessed it?

Kerry has found a new Democratic constituency to go with the teacher's unions and the trial lawyers: Islamic terrorists.

Osama also echoed Kerry on Patriot Act, and accused George Bush of stealing the 2000 election in Florida. Sounds like Osama got the Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD in the mail from Michael Moore, or maybe the DNC sent him a copy!

Here comes the kicker: as soon as Kerry found out about the video, and what statements the video contained, what did Kerry do? Take a poll.

Think back to three years ago, just after the 9/11 attacks on our country. Did you ever think that anyone would have to take a poll to see how people felt about it? Would there have been any reason to ask "how do you feel about Osama Bin Laden?" No, because everybody wanted him dead. But now that some time has passed, and people have forgotten what happened, Kerry wanted to know how people felt about Uncle Osama before he made his decision where he stood. Put the finger up in the air and see which way the political winds were blowing. Incredible.

Maybe the Kerry-Edwards campaign should take a poll of the families of the people who died on 9/11, and see how they feel.

It isn't so much that Osama bin Laden favors Kerry over Bush as that he HATES Bush. But then, 80% of the WORLD hate Bush.
2% of the remaining people in the world are Republicants and 18% don't know that Bush exists.

Osama belongs to the same crowd as the "anybody but Bush" here in the US. It just strikes me as odd that so many people would vote with US terrorist #1.

OK, here we go. The election is scant hours away. I will TRY and refrain from saying anything amazing until after the votes are finally counted (unless that occurs in December). It's approaching the time when I sit in my comfy chair with a FULL BOTTLE of a fine single malt and watch the media circus. Barring something totally unforseen or noteworthy, I've said about all I can say, and I sincerely appreciate Brother Macfive allowing me to rant and rave on his message board. My job is done - it's up to the Listeners now.

Time for a recap. I don't think even Brother Maisky can debate these facts:

- John Kerry keeps an old camouflage hat in his briefcase, The Washington Post reported last year. Kerry says this "good luck hat" was "given to me by a CIA guy as we went in for a special mission in Cambodia." Kerry has repeatedly spoken of his 1968 Christmas in Cambodia ("seared, seared" in his memory, as he said in the Congressional Record), but not one crew member, not even the ones who support him for president, corroborate his story of venturing into Cambodia - not at Christmas, not ever. Richard Nixon couldn't even have sent him there, as Kerry has claimed, because Richard Nixon wasn't yet even in office. There's no evidence, official or even anecdotal, that John Kerry was ever in Cambodia. Kerry lied.

- John Kerry, during his four months in Vietnam, would routinely return with his crew to scenes of skirmishes and re-enact them for a Super 8 camera (or, as his campaign prefers: "return to various locations to film one another"). Sure, the films make great campaign footage (although the part where the ex-naval officer is dressed like an infantryman is just plain weird) but such vain calculation is too shallow for a President. Does he want to be President, or a movie star?

- A little-known fact of Kerry life is the senator's decision to seek an annulment from his first wife of 18 years, Julia Thorne (divorced 1988) in 1996, one year after his second marriage to Theresa Heinz. An annulment after 18 years of marriage, and after two children, and after he was already re-married? Julia Thorne, mother of Kerry's two daughters, learned of the annulment proceeding in a letter from a Catholic Church official, not from brave Sir Kerry, and told the Boston Globe in 1997 it was "disrespectful to me, it was aloof to any emotional issues, and devoid of any sense of the humanity of what this means to me and the children." On "Imus in the Morning," former altar boy Kerry joked about the proceeding, adding, "It doesn't affect the status of the child at all. It's just in the eyes of the church." Huh? Doesn't every wife want her husband to act this way? If he could do this to his wife, what could he do to the US?

- Bob Woodward has been trying since June to ask John Kerry how he would have fought the Iraq war differently. He even sent his questions to the candidate. "I interviewed President Bush and he answered hundreds of detailed questions," Woodward told Fox News' Bill O'Reilly this week. But not Kerry. Why? I thought he said, repeatedly, that he has "a plan".

- Just think about having a UN-servant for president. There's one thing that justifies the loss of American life, Kerry believes, and that's service to the United Nations, not the United States. "If you mean dying in the course of a United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that," Kerry said in 1994. "If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can effect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no." Such non-American thinking puts the nation at risk in a post-9/11 world.

- Think about John Kerry's supporters. From Kim Jong-Il to Yasser Arafat, from the Tehran Times to the Syria Times, John Kerry has already passed quite a global test. Recently, Malaysia's former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad openly urged American Muslims to vote for Kerry. Remember Mohamad? As prime minister, he offered to support the United States and Britain in an international coalition against "terrorism" after 9/11. But only, as he put it, "if they wanted to take action against Israel." Kerry really has some nice friends. And now, as it seems with Osama's video, we can also include US terrorist #1 to Kerry's Buddy List. Maybe Kerry will offer him a position at the State Department.

But then who cares about terrorism directed at the US when Kerry promises you FREE HEALTHCARE! Free healthcare, paid by "somebody else" - that is as long as you didn't happen to be in the World Trade Towers one fateful day, and then free healthcare would be irrevalent.

And you get to decide on all of this tomorrow. And please, dear God, don't allow Al Gore to say nary a word for the next several days.

As for the "true Libertarians": I applaud you for voting your conscience. Just please don't come around here complaining if your vote for Badnarik enabled Kerry to take the Presidency - by voting you become responsible for the outcome.

US terrorist #1 is George Bush Jr., #2 is Dick Cheney. Osama ranks 5th or 6th....

Shamalama! I have really enjoyed your debate with Maisky immensely! I am a Bush supporter myself. There was a time I wasn't sure, but the more I see and learn and hear, I am voting for Bush tomorrow! I despise Kerry and the more I see this guy, the more I want to puke! Everybody seems to think that Kerry will be the answer to our problems. I see him as causing worse problems! This guy is a real phoney. What amazes me is that he spent what four months in Vietnam and got supposedly 4 purple hearts?! Then he comes back to the states and turns his back on this country and our troops who were still over in Vietnam! I don't want a guy like that as my president! Maybe Bush hasn't been perfect, as I have disagreed with him going to Iraq, but at least he had the guts to stand up against the terrorists and the UN to fight for this country's protection and freedom. He fought back when 9/11 happened! Did everybody forget what happened that day? I can't imagine that Clinton, Gore or Kerry would have done what Bush has had the courage to do these past four years. When 9/11 happened, I was so glad that Bush was our president!

Just my 2 cents!.............for whatever it is worth!

No matter how misguided, Ms. Rose, you are welcome here in the shark and catfish pool.

To paraphrase, misguided is in the eye of the beholder.

However, I'll second Brother Maiskey's welcome, CelticRose. Voices raised in discussion are always appreciated and listened to here.

BTW, Bro. M, are you calling yourself a shark? I'm more of a largemouth bass, myself. (I could have said I consider your opinions mostly crappie, but I'll refrain in the interest of peaceful discussion.)

thank you for being so kind, Maisky and gtrplr!