Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Proof that John Kerry is Unfit for Command -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Archie Meeties who wrote (16276)	10/6/2004 9:37:07 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27181

Archimedes, welcome to the fight for truth. This is a rightwing smear thread. If you're here, be prepared. My #1 reason that Kerry will win now is that the truth is on his side, and he knows how to use it. Kerry is not afraid of Bush or anything else. He is going for the jugular these last 3-4 weeks. Comeback Kerry. That's the way he likes it.

To: Archie Meeties who wrote (16276)	10/6/2004 10:20:12 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27181

When Kerry makes an attempt to apologize to the Vietnam vets you'll know he has caved to his negative polls in next few wks. Most importantly Kerry caved upon return from Nam with his 8mm home movie under his arm and discovered the voters of Mass would never elect a war hero. He put his campaign war hero movie on a shelf and instantly became a war protester who was willing to slander his comrades to win. That was caving into his own personal ambitions. More recently Kerry caved to political pressure from John Dean & the Democratic voting base, when Dean gained traction as an anti-war candidate. As VP Cheney explained last night, both Kerry & Edwards suddenly were anti-war Primary candidates with their vote against the much-needed $85B support for the troops already in Iraq. Both men had voted yes to give Bush the authority to go into Iraq, yet refused to provide the necessary funds. Archimedes, you don't really want to use the "happened on Bush's watch" nonsense do you? That's SmearSpirit's style...you appear to have more depth than that Kerry worshipper. Clinton's 8YEARS in the oval ofc versus 8mos for Bush says it all. Even simpletons can understand the logic. You're correct that al Qaeda is responsible for Sept 11, however the American President's most important task is to protect his fellow citizens. Clinton had an opportunity to take bin Laden into custody after the USS Cole was attacked with numerous sailors deaths. He passed on that golden opportunity and Sept 11 was the result. John Kerry's national defense instincts are at least as weak as Clinton's, in fact they're probably much softer. <<The most intense pressure Kerry has faced thus far (that I've seen) is from the president of the United States. Did you think he caved? September 11, 2001 happened during the leadership of George Bush, not Bill Clinton. If Clinton was such so docile a punching bag, why didn't Sept. 11 occur during his tenure? The honest answer; Neither George Bush nor Bill Clinton are responsible for Sept. 11, Al Queda is.>>

To: Archie Meeties who wrote (16276)	10/6/2004 11:06:57 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27181

I judge commitment not by a number, but by the outcome. My father has often said "argue your limitations and they are yours." People who know what they want go after it with all of their heart. Look at the Clintons, they are committed. Hillary told someone when they were in college that some day Bill would be President. She despises him, yet she sacrificed her ethics to get the power she yearned for. Look at John Kerry. He is committed; he has yearned for the White House since he was a young man. He wanted to live so badly that he found a loophole and invented / earned the Purple hearts which were his ticket out of the deadly jungles. Kerry then sold out his fellow servicemen to further his political aspirations. He has been wherever on the political map he felt he could draw the strongest support. He married for money twice, the second time to a woman familiar with politics and the money to buy a lottery ticket with the White House as its prize. Look at FDR. He knew that the Nazis were evil. It took him years to bend public opinion to support war. Some claim he knew about Pearl Harbor, and let it happen to shock the populous into support. If that is true, what commitment! Let us examine President Bush. Some agree with him, some disagree. He saw with moral clarity that Osama Bin Laden was evil after being shocked on 9/11. He pursued a policy designed to eliminate him, and minimize the threat posed by Al Qaeda. He further saw a threat from three additional countries who he believed where most advanced in their nuclear weapon programs and other WMD programs. He made a compromise and went after what was politically achievable instead of the worst offender. The governments surrounding Iran will soon be democracies. Are you familiar with those who complain of a porous border along the Rio Grande? Do you think that Iran might experience the same kind of talent drain with two free Muslin neighbors? China has its own reasons to keep North Korea in play. DO you think Libya would have caved with a President in office whose favorite use for the military was to distract the press from his dalliances? George W. Bush has commitment. Partisans say that North Korea and Iran became nuclear on Bush 43's watch. Clinton signed the agreed framework that gave NK the isotopes. Kerry voted for it. Ambassador Albright admitted that she was "fooled" by their promises. It takes time to develop a nuclear bomb. The process should have been addressed way prior to 2000. I think Bush 43 shares blame. I think Clinton is culpable. I apologize for the long post.

To: Archie Meeties who wrote (16276)	10/6/2004 11:18:01 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27181

Bush was warned about 9-11 type attacks numerous times including on 8-6-01 when he was presented with a CIA warning titled "Al Qaida Determined To Attack Within US" going on to specifically state airliner hijackings would be a probable attack method. What did GW do? Nothing. John Kerry warned on three occasions (1999, 2000, 2001) that a small terrorist cell attack within the US was our #1 threat. Gary Hart and Richard Clarke also warned, warned, warned. What did GW do? disbanded Clinton's anti-Al Qaida office and didn't replace it. Saudis were known to be funding Al Qaida. What did GW do? Called off FBI investigations into Saudi funding of terrorism. Bush had one big defense priority in 2001, SDI, a huge boondoggle called SDI which does work, may never work and targets no specific real threat unless maybe they're afraid of China. Bush's "Axis Of Evil" speech and disengagement from NK and Iran made both more dangerous than they were before.