2005 will see the 2nd JFK in the White House

[Psychoblues]

And Nixon regretted his indiscretions, GHWB regretted his promises but that's all behind-sight. 20/20 foresight is not to be discovered. Character and attitude is all we really have to examine, aren't they? GWB has already demonstrated his flawed attitude and disguised character. What we are left with is the promise of a less flawed Democrat taking the election of 2004. That is the real subject on most of the minds in America. That's what I think.

 

[eric]

Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement by John Kerry to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations

April 23, 1971

I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

We call this investigation the Winter Soldier Investigation. The term Winter Soldier is a play on words of Thomas Paine's in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriots and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.

We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country, we could be quiet, we could hold our silence, we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, not the reds, but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out....

In our opinion and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.

We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever, but also we found that the Vietnamese whom we had enthusiastically molded after our own image were hard put to take up the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from.

We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of survival by siding with whichever military force was present at a particular time, be it Viet Cong, North Vietnamese or American.

We found also that all too often American men were dying in those rice paddies for want of support from their allies. We saw first hand how monies from American taxes were used for a corrupt dictatorial regime. We saw that many people in this country had a one-sided idea of who was kept free by the flag, and blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties. We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs and search and destroy missions, as well as by Viet Cong terrorism - and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Viet Cong.

We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum.

We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of orientals.

We watched the United States falsification of body counts, in fact the glorification of body counts. We listened while month after month we were told the back of the enemy was about to break. We fought using weapons against "oriental human beings." We fought using weapons against those people which I do not believe this country would dream of using were we fighting in the European theater. We watched while men charged up hills because a general said that hill has to be taken, and after losing one platoon or two platoons they marched away to leave the hill for reoccupation by the North Vietnamese. We watched pride allow the most unimportant battles to be blown into extravaganzas, because we couldn't lose, and we couldn't retreat, and because it didn't matter how many American bodies were lost to prove that point, and so there were Hamburger Hills and Khe Sanhs and Hill 81s and Fire Base 6s, and so many others.

Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of Vietnamizing the Vietnamese.

Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say that we have made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, "the first President to lose a war."

We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?....We are here in Washington to say that the problem of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people in this country - the question of racism which is rampant in the military, and so many other questions such as the use of weapons; the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage at the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions; in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, all accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of everything.

An American Indian friend of mine who lives in the Indian Nation of Alcatraz put it to me very succinctly. He told me how as a boy on an Indian reservation he had watched television and he used to cheer the cowboys when they came in and shot the Indians, and then suddenly one day he stopped in Vietnam and he said, "my God, I am doing to these people the very same thing that was done to my people," and he stopped. And that is what we are trying to say, that we think this thing has to end.

We are here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We're here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatrick, and so many others? Where are they now that we, the men they sent off to war, have returned? These are the commanders who have deserted their troops. And there is no more serious crime in the laws of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded. The marines say they never even leave their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They've left the real stuff of their reputations bleaching behind them in the sun in this country....

We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped away their memories of us. But all that they have done and all that they can do by this denial is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission - to search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war, to pacify our own hearts, to conquer the hate and fear that have driven this country these last ten years and more. And more. And so when thirty years from now our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say "Vietnam" and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory, but mean instead where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.

 

[nbdysfu]

I'm sorry but I believe it to be entirely the other way around pb. John Kerry lives in Bizarro World and can't see the forest for the trees, nor do I think he cares.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
Character and attitude is all we really have to examine, aren't they?

No, we can examine actions, which stand for much more than mere words.

GWB has already demonstrated his flawed attitude and disguised character.

How? Please be specific.

 

[nbdysfu]

originally posted by eric
They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.
__________________ ________________
Has a president ever been elected based on his mistrust of the American people?

 

[Psychoblues]

Just a few actions, so as not to bore you.

GWB promised he was a "compassionate conservative". I see no evidence he is either.

GWB promised he was not into "nation building". There is ample evidence he is not only into nation building he is also claiming some obscure right to "world domination" but only when it suits his business objectives. I know, that's a long and complicated subject and we'll all get a better understanding as time will allow. Doublespeak or outright lie?

GWB promised us all "tax cuts" while we are inundated with state and local tax increases althewhile our Federal obligation is supposedly being relieved. That's another falsehood that needs better explanation than what I can explain to you in only a few words. Doublespeak or outright lie?

GWB promised an end to abortion. His actions prove only tacit to the elimination of this procedure. Doublespeak or outright lie?

GWB promised "No Child Left Behind" but stats prove there are considerably more left behind now than before and he has explicitly refused to fund the "No Child Left Behind" program that he promised and even passed into legislation. Doublespeak or outright lie?

GWB promised healthcare for Americans. There are less Americans covered by healthcare insurance now than there was in 2000. Doublespeak or outright lie?

GWB promised Social Security reform. His method of reform is some convoluted plan to provide additional income to pharmacutical and insurance industries in 2006 when he will be long gone from the White House. Doublespeak or outright lie?

GWB promised a lot to average Americans and has delivered on none of them. This list is only a beginning of his doublespeak or outright lies.

GWB, regardless of his paid for polls and seemingly accurate media, is not a "Favorite Son" within the American populace.

I'm paying attention, I can only assume that you are as well.

 

[nbdysfu]

 

[Psychoblues]

As is common amongst most dittohead republicans, you obviously prefer boredom to discussion. But thanks anyway.

 

[nbdysfu]

Quite the opposite. I'm at the edge of my seat. Opinion is opinion, and my opinion is my own.

 

[nbdysfu]

**At the risk of being a dittohead, this article does a good job of sizing up Kerry**

January 27, 2004, 8:25 a.m.
Vetting the Vet Record
Is Kerry a proud war hero or angry antiwar protester?



John Kerry, we know, is running against John Kerry: his own voting record. But there is another record that John Kerry is running against, and this has to do with his very emergence as a Democratic politician: Kerry, the proud Vietnam veteran vs. Kerry, the antiwar activist who accused his fellow Vietnam veterans of the most heinous atrocities imaginable.



John Kerry not only served honorably in Vietnam, but also with distinction, earning a Silver Star (America's third-highest award for valor), a Bronze Star, and three awards of the Purple Heart for wounds received in combat as a swift-boat commander. Kerry did not return from Vietnam a radical antiwar activist. According to the indispensable Stolen Valor, by H. G. "Jug" Burkett and Genna Whitley, "Friends said that when Kerry first began talking about running for office, he was not visibly agitated about the Vietnam War. 'I thought of him as a rather normal vet,' a friend said to a reporter, 'glad to be out but not terribly uptight about the war.' Another acquaintance who talked to Kerry about his political ambitions called him a 'very charismatic fellow looking for a good issue.'" Apparently, this good issue would be Vietnam.

Kerry hooked up with an organization called Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). Two events cooked up by this group went a long way toward cementing in the public mind the image of Vietnam as one big atrocity. The first of these was the January 31, 1971, "Winter Soldier Investigation," organized by "the usual suspects" among antiwar celebrities such as Jane Fonda, Dick Gregory, and Kennedy-assassination conspiracy theorist, Mark Lane. Here, individuals purporting to be Vietnam veterans told horrible stories of atrocities in Vietnam: using prisoners for target practice, throwing them out of helicopters, cutting off the ears of dead Viet Cong soldiers, burning villages, and gang-raping women as a matter of course.

The second event was "Dewey Canyon III," or what VVAW called a "limited incursion into the country of Congress" in April of 1971. It was during this VVAW "operation" that John Kerry first came to public attention. The group marched on Congress to deliver petitions to Congress and then to the White House. The highlight of this event occurred when veterans threw their medals and ribbons over a fence in front of the Capitol, symbolizing a rebuke to the government that they claimed had betrayed them. One of the veterans flinging medals back in the face of his government was John Kerry, although it turns out they were not his medals, but someone else's.

Several days later Kerry testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. His speech, touted as a spontaneous rhetorical endeavor, was a tour de force, convincing many Americans that their country had indeed waged a merciless and immoral war in Vietnam. It was particularly powerful because Kerry did not fit the antiwar-protester mold — he was no scruffy, wide-eyed hippie. He was instead the best that America had to offer. He was, according to Burkett and Whitley, the "All-American boy, mentally twisted by being asked to do terrible things, then abandoned by his government."

Kerry began by referring to the Winter Soldiers Investigation in Detroit. Here, he claimed, "over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did, they relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.
They told their stories. At times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.


This is quite a bill of particulars to lay at the feet of the U.S. military. He said in essence that his fellow veterans had committed unparalleled war crimes in Vietnam as a matter of course, indeed, that it was American policy to commit such atrocities.

In fact, the entire Winter Soldiers Investigation was a lie. It was inspired by Mark Lane's 1970 book entitled Conversations with Americans, which claimed to recount atrocity stories by Vietnam veterans. This book was panned by James Reston Jr. and Neil Sheehan, not exactly known as supporters of the Vietnam War. Sheehan in particular demonstrated that many of Lane's "eye witnesses" either had never served in Vietnam or had not done so in the capacity they claimed.

Nonetheless, Sen. Mark Hatfield inserted the transcript of the Winter Soldier testimonies into the Congressional Record and asked the Commandant of the Marine Corps to investigate the war crimes allegedly committed by Marines. When the Naval Investigative Service attempted to interview the so-called witnesses, most refused to cooperate, even after assurances that they would not be questioned about atrocities they may have committed personally. Those that did cooperate never provided details of actual crimes to investigators. The NIS also discovered that some of the most grisly testimony was given by fake witnesses who had appropriated the names of real Vietnam veterans. Guenter Lewy tells the entire study in his book, America in Vietnam.

Kerry's 1971 testimony includes every left-wing cliché about Vietnam and the men who served there. It is part of the reason that even today, people who are too young to remember Vietnam are predisposed to believe the worst about the Vietnam War and those who fought it. This predisposition was driven home by the fraudulent "Tailwind" episode some months ago.

The first cliché is that atrocities were widespread in Vietnam. But this is nonsense. Atrocities did occur in Vietnam, but they were far from widespread. Between 1965 and 1973, 201 soldiers and 77 Marines were convicted of serious crimes against the Vietnamese. Of course, the fact that many crimes, either in war or peace, go unreported, combined with the particular difficulties encountered by Americans fighting in Vietnam, suggest that more such acts were committed than reported or tried.

But even Daniel Ellsberg, a severe critic of U.S. policy in Vietnam, rejected the argument that the biggest U.S. atrocity in Vietnam, My Lai, was in any way a normal event: "My Lai was beyond the bounds of permissible behavior, and that is recognizable by virtually every soldier in Vietnam. They know it was wrong....The men who were at My Lai knew there were aspects out of the ordinary. That is why they tried to hide the event, talked about it to no one, discussed it very little even among themselves."

My Lai was an extreme case, but anyone who has been in combat understands the thin line between permissible acts and atrocity. The first and potentially most powerful emotion in combat is fear arising from the instinct of self-preservation. But in soldiers, fear is overcome by what the Greeks called thumos, spiritedness and righteous anger. In the Iliad, it is thumos, awakened by the death of his comrade Patroclus that causes Achilles to leave sulking in his tent and wade into the Trojans.

But unchecked, thumos can engender rage and frenzy. It is the role of leadership, which provides strategic context for killing and enforces discipline, to prevent this outcome. Such leadership was not in evidence at My Lai.

But My Lai also must be placed within a larger context. The NVA and VC frequently committed atrocities, not as a result of thumos run amok, but as a matter of policy. While left-wing anti-war critics of U.S. policy in Vietnam were always quick to invoke Auschwitz and the Nazis in discussing alleged American atrocities, they were silent about Hue City, where a month and a half before My Lai, the North Vietnamese and VC systematically murdered 3,000 people. They were also willing to excuse Pol Pot's mass murderer of upwards of a million Cambodians.

The second cliché is that is that Vietnam scarred an entire generation of young men. But for years, many of us who served in Vietnam tried to make the case that the popular image of the Vietnam vet as maladjusted loser, dehumanized killer, or ticking "time bomb" was at odds with reality. Indeed, it was our experience that those who had served in Vietnam generally did so with honor, decency, and restraint; that despite often being viewed with distrust or opprobrium at home, most had asked for nothing but to be left alone to make the transition back to civilian life; and that most had in fact made that transition if not always smoothly, at least successfully.

But the press could always find the stereotypical, traumatized vet who could be counted on to tell the most harrowing and gruesome stories of combat in Vietnam, often involving atrocities, the sort of stories that John Kerry gave credence to in his 1971 testimony. Many of the war stories recounted by these individuals were wildly implausible to any one who had been in Vietnam, but credulous journalists, most of whom had no military experience, uncritically passed their reports along to the public.

I had always agreed with the observation of the late Harry Summers, a well-known military commentator who served as an infantryman in Korean and Vietnam, that the story teller's distance from the battle zone was directly proportional to the gruesomeness of his atrocity story. But until the publication of the aforementioned Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of Its Heroes and its History, neither Harry nor I any idea just how true his observation was.

In the course of trying to raise money for a Texas Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Burkett discovered that reporters were only interested in homeless veterans and drug abuse and that the corporate leaders he approached had bought into the popular image of Vietnam veterans. They were not honorable men who took pride in their service, but whining welfare cases, bellyaching about what an immoral government did to them.

Fed up, Burkett did something that any reporter worth his or her salt could have done: he used the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to check the actual records of the "image makers" used by reporters to flesh out their stories on homelessness, Agent Orange, suicide, drug abuse, criminality, or alcoholism. What he found was astounding. More often than not, the showcase "veteran" who cried on camera about his dead buddies, about committing or witnessing atrocities, or about some heroic action in combat that led him to the current dead end in his life, was an impostor.

Indeed, Burkett discovered that over the last decade, some 1,700 individuals, including some of the most prominent examples of the Vietnam veteran as dysfunctional loser, had fabricated their war stories. Many had never even been in the service. Others, had been, but had never been in Vietnam.

Stolen Valor made it clear why John Kerry's testimony in 1971 slandered an entire generation of soldiers. Kerry gave credence to the claim that the war was fought primarily by reluctant draftees, predominantly composed of the poor, the young, or racial minorities.

The record shows something different, indicating that 86 percent of those who died during the war were white and 12.5 percent were black, from an age group in which blacks comprised 13.1 percent of the population. Two thirds of those who served in Vietnam were volunteers, and volunteers accounted for 77 percent of combat deaths.

Kerry portrayed the Vietnam veteran as ashamed of his service:

We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped their memories of us. But all that they have done and all that they can do by this denial is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission, to search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war, to pacify our own hearts, to conquer the hate and the fear that have driven this country these last ten years and more, and so when in 30 years from now our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say "Vietnam" and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory, but mean instead the place where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.
But a comprehensive 1980 survey commissioned by Veterans' Administration (VA) reported that 91 percent of those who had seen combat in Vietnam were "glad they had served their country;" 80 percent disagreed with the statement that "the US took advantage of me;" and nearly two out of three would go to Vietnam again, even knowing how the war would end.

Today, Sen. Kerry appeals to veterans in his quest for the White House. He invokes his Vietnam service at every turn. But an honest, enterprising reporter should ask Sen. Kerry this: Were you lying in 1971 or are you lying now? We do know that his speech was not the spontaneous, emotional, from-the-heart offering that he suggested it was. Burkett and Whitley report that instead, "it had been carefully crafted by a speech writer for Robert Kennedy named Adam Walinsky, who also tutored him on how to present it."

But the issue goes far beyond theatrics. If he believes his 1971 indictment of his country and his fellow veterans was true, then he couldn't possibly be proud of his Vietnam service. Who can be proud of committing war crimes of the sort that Kerry recounted in his 1971 testimony? But if he is proud of his service today, perhaps it is because he always knew that his indictment in 1971 was a piece of political theater that he, an aspiring politician, exploited merely as a "good issue." If the latter is true, he should apologize to every veteran of that war for slandering them to advance his political fortunes.

— Mackubin Thomas Owens is an NRO contributing editor and a professor of strategy and force planning at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. He led a Marine infantry platoon in Vietnam in 1968-1969.article

 

[jimnyc]

Gephardt - gone
Braun - gone
Sharpton - was gone before he started
Kucinich - put my name on the ballots, I'll probably beat him
Lieberman - will be gone shortly
Clark - dwindling, has about as much as a chance of a snowball in hell
Edwards - he's also dwindling, another one without a chance
Dean - the implosion is almost complete, an idiot of epic proportions
Kerry - Mr. Flip Flop himself, will probably get the nod, then we;ll all have someone to laugh at through November

This is perhaps the saddest bunch of nominees ever. What a great year to be a Bush supporter! I would be embarassed to support any of these 'candidates', and I use that term lightly.

 

[eric]

Jim how true it is. You are one hip cat man. Eric is digging it ! :

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by eric
Jim how true it is. You are one hip cat man. Eric is digging it ! :

I hear ya brother, groovy! Can you dig it?

 

[eric]

I dig man !

Just remember Jim, make love not war !

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by eric
I dig man !

Just remember Jim, make love not war !

Peace back at ya, brother! Wanna smoke some doobies and go protest something we haven't a clue about?

 

[eric]

Gonna boogie in my Volkswagen Van with big peace sign on the side !

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by eric
Gonna boogie in my Volkswagen Van with big peace sign on the side !

No way, far out dude! Let's pick up the other cats and smoke the place up. Can you dig it?

 

[bamthin]

nbdyfsu,

I read that article you posted and I can see the point of the author. However, I think the majority of Democrats and the majority of Americans still believe that Vietnam was not one the shining moments of US military involvement. This is important when an author considers what smear tactics he/she decides to employ against Kerry.

The important point is who is really going to care about this? Are vets, undecided on who to vote for, going to be swayed to vote for GWB, who didn't even serve in Vietnam, over Kerry who was a war hero? I would think probably not.

Are the undecided American people, who generally believe that Vietnam as a massive mistake, going to hold what Kerry did against him? Probably not.

This article really caters to the pro-Bush crowd. I don't think the message will sway any Dems or undecided people. So what's the point of it? I am guessing to galvanize the neocons support for Bush, especially the ones that are slipping away from him.

I think trying to smear Kerry, or Clark for that matter, on military service will backfire big time on the Bush campaign. I think bush will get creamed on this issue, especially if Rove decides to pursue it.

-Bam

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
GWB promised he was a "compassionate conservative". I see no evidence he is either.

As for compassion, Bush has wanted to extend federal funding to many more charitable groups than are eligible for federal funding now - but the extreme separation-of-church-and-state groups got upset about it. Not to mention the tax cuts that have put money back in the pockets of all income taxpayers, especially those with children.
As for conservative, Bush has repeatedly called for a flatter income tax setup, a hallmark of conservatism. Besides, what happened to the legions of angry Democrats who are calling Bush a "neo-conservative?" Were they all wrong?

GWB promised he was not into "nation building". There is ample evidence he is not only into nation building he is also claiming some obscure right to "world domination" but only when it suits his business objectives. I know, that's a long and complicated subject and we'll all get a better understanding as time will allow. Doublespeak or outright lie?

I have never heard GWB talk about "world domination," nor do I think you can find anywhere when he claimed as much. We are currently rebuilding two nations that we went into in the GWOT, which terrorists started and which was unforseeable in 2000. Calling it a lie is dubious on your part.

GWB promised us all "tax cuts" while we are inundated with state and local tax increases althewhile our Federal obligation is supposedly being relieved. That's another falsehood that needs better explanation than what I can explain to you in only a few words. Doublespeak or outright lie?

We have received numerous tax cuts on the federal level. Bush has no control over state or local governments. How can you blame him for your state taxes increasing?

GWB promised an end to abortion. His actions prove only tacit to the elimination of this procedure. Doublespeak or outright lie?

Bush has pushed for, and received, a ban on partial-birth abortion. I am sure that if Bush was able to nominate a Supreme Court Justice or two, and a case came up, Roe. v. Wade would be overturned. As it stands, however, pro-abortion forces in Congress are too numerous for Bush and the GOP to overcome right now.

GWB promised "No Child Left Behind" but stats prove there are considerably more left behind now than before and he has explicitly refused to fund the "No Child Left Behind" program that he promised and even passed into legislation. Doublespeak or outright lie?

Considering his program is only a couple of years old, I think it's a little early to start judging. But then, there are those of us in the GOP who would like to see no federal involvement at all in education.

GWB promised healthcare for Americans. There are less Americans covered by healthcare insurance now than there was in 2000. Doublespeak or outright lie?

First, when did Bush promise health care for all Americans? Second, did you miss the addition of prescription drug benefits to Medicare, the largest entitlement increase since Medicare's creation??

GWB promised Social Security reform. His method of reform is some convoluted plan to provide additional income to pharmacutical and insurance industries in 2006 when he will be long gone from the White House. Doublespeak or outright lie??

His method of reform would be for young people (like me) to opt out of SS altogether (which I would, in a heartbeat) or to have privatized accounts which I could control (which is a great alternative), while still guaranteeing SS to those who have been counting on it. It was a high priority of his until 9/11, and continues to be one of the things he wants to do. I applaud him for his vision, and hope it becomes law.

GWB promised a lot to average Americans and has delivered on none of them. This list is only a beginning of his doublespeak or outright lies.?

All of your accusations of "doublespeak" are baseless.

GWB, regardless of his paid for polls and seemingly accurate media, is not a "Favorite Son" within the American populace.
I'm paying attention, I can only assume that you are as well.

I'm paying plenty of attention. While Bush's support may seem to be waning, he hasn't even started to campaign. I'm sure that as election time draws near, we will see the American people understand that Bush has made our country safer and has guided us through a recession made worse by the terrorist attacks.

 

[OCA]

John Kerry hmmmm can anybody say Michael Dukakis?