Be a friend! Please, cut & paste, then e-mail this on to all your family & friends, including your democrat friends.

Things one must believe to be a democrat.

1. That pre-war intelligence shared with Congress was somehow different than pre-war intelligence viewed at the White House. (John Kerry stated during his speech, at the DNC convention, of two weeks ago, that he, John Edwards & this country were misled into war. Then yesterday, stated in Arizona, that knowing what he knows today, that he still would have voted "for the authority", to go to war in Iraq.)

2. That George Bush & Dick Cheney--(Haliburton), would risk their re-election attempt, by keeping oil prices up, in an effort to "enrich themselves, or their oil buddies." (gasoline prices were higher, as a comparison of income earned, during President Carters term.) Jimmy Carter was no oil man.

3. That Al Queda was never in Iraq, until we invaded. Yet at the same time, acknowledging that Al Queda was in the United States, Britian, France, Spain, Canada, Germany, Iran, Kuwait, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Bosnia, Turkey, Africa, Jordan, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia & the Phillipines.

4. That Bush stole the election in 2000. (Even after those votes have been counted at least 5 times, & by very liberal means.) Bush won more than a 2 to 1 margin on a nationwide county count.

5. That African American voters, were blocked by police from entering the voting precincts, in Florida. (as stated numerous times by Jessie Jackson).

6. That Michael Moore's, Farenheight 9/11 is true. (Moore is on record for blaming America for the attack on 9/11.) (He is also on record for not wanting to send troops into Afgahanistan to break up Al Queda.) 12 major points in this movie are challenged, by democrat's. This movie is now the number 1 hit, with Hamas & Hezbolah terrorist groups.

7. That it is O.K. to send American troops into battle, & then not support them. (John Kerry & John Edwards were 2 out of 4 senators, in the entire senate, that voted to send American troops into Iraq, & then voted against supporting them. ("While the troops were in combat.")

8. That it is O.K. for a presidential candidate to refuse to release what his plans are for Iraq, until after he is elected President. (As stated by John Kerry, during an interview with George Stephanophilis, a few days after the DNC convention.)

9. That it is O.K. for a senator to vote to raise someones taxes every 3 weeks during his 19 year term. (Including elderly social security recipients. Voting to raise middle class taxes 96 times, & overwhelmingly voting against tax cuts.)

10. That it is O.K. for a senator to be assigned to the senate intelligence committee, for 8 years, & be absent 38 meetings out of a total of 49.

11. That it was O.K. for a senator John Kerry, who brought a bill to the floor of the senate, that would have cut 7.5 billion dollars out of the Central Intelligence Agency, (After the 1st World Trade Center bombing.)

12. That it is O.K. for a presidential candidate to state to Americans. That foreign leaders have told him in private, that they want him to be President, & then refuses to release the names of those leaders. (A few reporters investigated his daily appointments, during the primaries, when Kerry stated this. They could not find any time where Kerry had met or talked with any foreign leaders, in the 1-1/2 years prior to the primaries.)

13. That John Kerry would be able to bring in more "allies" into Iraq to help us. Meaning France, Russia, Germany & China. France & Russia had very large oil contracts with Sadam Husien. Sadam Husien owed France & Russia a lot of money. France & Russia are now being investigated for fraud, by the UN on the oil for food program in Iraq. France has been on the opposing side of the U.S. since Lyndon B. Johnson, during the gold standard crisis. Even refusing Ronald Reagan, French air-space to bomb Qadhafi of Libya. This after terrorists, sponsored by Qadhfi, took a disabled American in a wheel chair & threw him overboard a ship, while his family watched in horror. Libya, also responsible for the airline terrorist bombing, that killed several hundred American college students returning home from Europe.

14. It was not necessary to go into Iraq, Sadam was no threat to us. (6 different & separate intelligence agencies, including France, Germany, Britain, the CIA & M1 6 stated differently. Including on record comments from Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry & John Edwards. All stating that Sadam Husien posessed WMD & was trying to acquire "yellow cake", in Nigeria. Britain, still stands very firm on the "yellow cake", incidient. Bill Clinton & Al Gore on record for calling for a regime change in Iraq.

15. Sadam Husien had no ties to terrorists. (Sadam Husien, publicly advertised & awarded the families of suicide bombers in Isreal. The amount was $25,000 per family. (This is state sponsored terror. President Bush stated he would go after state sponsored terror, directly after 9/11.) The 9/11 comission report confirms that Sadam Husien intelligence officers met with Al Queda, in Prague, prior to 9/11. Zarqawi, the Al Queda operative in Iraq today, causing all the problems, was a frequent visitor to Iraq. He was treated at the Royal Sadam Hospital several years ago for a leg amputation. Normal Iraqi citizens, were never treated at the Royal hospital. What we don't know? Is if Sadam Husien had anything to do with 9/11.

16. Sadam Husien deserved another chance to come clean with WMD. (even after 12 years & 17 broken resolutions?) Sadam Husien kicked out UN inspectors in 1997. Then played cat & mouse with UN inspectors on his final last chance. The UN, including France, Russia, Germany & China voted for the use of force, then backed out. France, for reasons above, threatened a veto. Then we assembled a more than 30 country coalition to enforce the final resolution.

17. A plan for peace in Iraq, was not planned & executed properly. (What war has the United States ever been involved with, has gone like clock work?) It took more than 2 years to stabilise Japan & Germany, post war. Battles were won & lost.

18. If you believe all of the above, then you have to believe, that it was unncessary to fight the Germans during WW2, because it was only Japan that attacked us.

THANKS FOR READING! Please forward this on to all your family & friends!

You have bought the "piece of crap car" the RNC Dealership sold you!! You really believe all that you have stated above?

I have sent your words on to my family and friends, some of them Republicans. They all say they are even more determined to vote for Kerry!!

Anything else?

Now if only the Bush bashers would say something pro-Kerry.
They can't honestly cite his war record if they voted for Clinton. And I haven't seen anything positive about his senate record from them. I'm sure Munko will go find something if we're patient.

This doesn't upset me. It's a very common response from a left winger, intent on distortion from the left, of the left of the likes of the moveon.org group. Vote for anyone but Bush types. They never state what it is they like about Kerry, other than he's not George Bush.

The "truth" normally enrages them.

I am neither a "left winger" or a "bush hater" or a "kerry lover" for that matter. My sarcastic response to you was simply my way of stating that I have read these same arguments and talking points from Bush Supporters. You are the ones who assume that anyone..anyone who disagreee with this admin must be fit one of the above descriptions.

Just because I am NOT listing things I "like" about Kerry, does not mean I cannit find any. In fact, I can just as well list things I like about BUSH and dislike about Kerry.. You guys are the ones with "wool over your eyes"

Personally, I cannot VOTE. I am not a citizen yet but I choose to get involved because I love this county as much as the next person. And my support for a new admin simply has to do with my belief that the current one (which I supported in 2000) has let me down. Its not because Kerry is the "MESSIAH"!!

BTW- Here is something commendable from Kerry's record.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/

Maybe its not tied directly to the War on Terror but its commendable because even went after a Democratic President. Then again, you may disagree with me.

But please...try not to "lump" everyone opposed to your vote as a LEFTY LIBERAL. Try to expand your imagination a little.

But frankly every American should use their right to vote in a manner that is compatible with their conscience. I don't fault anyone for that. My only dispute is that all facts should be presented by the media.

__________________
Those who think they know everything, usually know the least.

Source: The Boston Herald
Section: Editorial Pols & Politics - The Buzz
Dateline: April 13, 2003


Headline: Kerry Donation Gets Hammered;
Senator Puts His Charitable Image on Auction Block

U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry, who was scorched in his 1996 campaign for making only piddling donations to charity, apparently hasn't gotten any more generous since deciding he wanted to become president.

At a recent charity event for Holy Name Parish School in West Roxbury, Kerry was among a slew of politicians, businesses and others who chipped in items for a "Reach for the Stars" auction.

Most of the pols and corporate bigwigs donated expensive dinners, tickets or other valuable items for the auction, which raised money for science and reading textbooks.

Mayor Thomas M. Menino graciously submitted an exclusive catered dinner at the Parkman House. U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-South Boston) offered a personal tour of the White House and a lunch in the House member's dining room - an item valued as "priceless" by auction organizers.

City Councilor John Tobin came through with a coveted pair of Red Sox tickets in the new Green Monster seats. U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and the Stenger family offered a painting by Kennedy of his boat, "The Maya."

Other auction items included Celtics tickets, a round of golf at the prestigious Country Club in Brookline and a weekend at a Nantucket inn.

So what did Kerry offer?

An 8 x 10 autographed photo - of himself. The winning bid was a grand total of $ 18, according to sources. That would pay for about one chapter of a textbook.

"It was either the signed photo or personal guitar lessons from Sen. Kerry," said Kerry spokesman Kyle Sullivan. "We thought the photo had more value."

Thanks, John.

The report on how much the White House influenced intelligence reports won't be out until after the election, at Republican insistence. Wonder why they wanted to push that back?

There's a world of difference between giving the president authority to go to war, and actually deciding to attack. One is an option; the other is an irrevocable committment.

Wrong on the face of it. You don't have to believe this at all. And your comparison is laughable. Jimmy Carter wasn't an oil man, true -- but he was dealing with OPEC price increases (four increases of 15% or so in four years, plus fallout from the Iran hostage crisis) as well as stagflation, both of which greatly increased the cost of gasoline relative to income.

None of whom, I notice, we've invaded -- other than Afghanistan. The point is that Iraq did not have a collaborative relationship with al-Qaeda.

I don't think Bush stole the election, so again, your assertion is false on the face of it. He won according to the Constitution, despite having lost the popular vote. Why on earth does "county count" have to do with it? That just means he won more sparsely populated rural counties than heavily populated urban ones. What an idiotic piece of data to use.

Again, why do I "have" to believe this?

Again, wrong on the face of it. I don't know if Moore's movie is true or not; I don't care. I haven't seen it. Moore speaks for himself, not the Democrats. Also, you contradict yourself: if Democrats are challenging the movie, then obviously you don't have to believe it to vote Democrat.

Yep, Kerry just hates American troops. That's why I, an ex-tanker, support him.

The president, by the way, threatened to veto the very same funding bill if the Democrats put in a provision providing health-care to Reservists, or making the money a loan, not a grant.

Kerry voted against it because he wanted it funded by rolling back part of Bush's tax cuts. And had it not passed, it wouldn't have affected the troops in Iraq. There would have been plenty of time to craft an alternative bill before previous funding ran out.

Pretty dang silly, I agree. Feel better?

A bullsh*t GOP number that counts every vote he ever made that somehow involved taxes, no matter how complex the bill or his reasons for opposing it, and counts as a "tax increase" any vote that somehow prevented an existing tax from being cut -- again, regardless of the complexity of the issue or his reasons for voting as he did.

The public meetings aren't where most of the work gets done. Go ahead, slam Kerry because he's not a grandstander.

A link: http://encyclopedia.fablis.com/index...ng_controversy

This is false. He never proposed a $7.5 billion cut. And it wasn't the CIA.

He did bring a series of deficit-reduction bills to the floor over two years, which if they had all been enacted together would have totaled $7.5 billion. But the reason he brought a series is that the earlier ones didn't pass. He wasn't trying to cut $7.5 billion; he was repeatedly trying to cut about $1.5 billion.

Other details:
1. The cuts were for a five-year period. So he was cutting $300 million a year.
2. It was part of a deficit-reduction package, at a time when mismanagement in intelligence spending was in the headlines.
3. A couple of amendments (co-sponsored by Arlen Specter) to other bills would have cut $1.5 billion from the National Reconnaissance Office -- which at the time had accumulated exactly $1.5 billion in unspent funds. It was a standard budgetary move to reclaim unneeded money.
4. The proposed cuts represented 1 percent of military intelligence spending.

Ever heard of a telephone? Or keeping meetings out of your public calendar? The whole point was that these leaders feared retaliation from the Bush administration.

Your assumption. I think it's a no-brainer that far more world leaders dislike Bush than like him, and would welcome a replacement. You just have to listen to what people are saying around the world to get that. How much we should care is another issue. But you're really deluding yourself if you think that Bush is a popular man around the globe.

Turns out we were wrong. Ironic, huh? And his stance is that the WAR was unnecessary, not that we didn't have to deal with Saddam. Funny, I agree. War is a last resort. With Bush and Co., it was a first resort.

He didn't. The suicide bombers in Israel were an Israeli/Palestinian issue, not ours. It was not used as a justification for Iraq until all the other justifications turned out to be wrong.

16. Sadam Husien deserved another chance to come clean with WMD.
No, Saddam Hussein needed to be forced to submit to inspections. The point of the UN resolutions was to make sure he didn't have WMDs. Oddly enough, they turned out to have worked: he didn't have WMDs. But we refused to let the inspectors do their work. We ordered them out of the country so we could start bombing.

In World War II, there was extensive planning for the occupation that began long before the war ended. There were 1.5 million American troops in the American zone of Germany ALONE when the war ended; they blanketed the place and prevented serious resistance from developing.

The Bush administration spent a few weeks planning the postwar occupation, and decided it could get by with 115,000 troops, far fewer than everyone with any peacekeeping experience thought necessary. Guess what? everyone else were right. A year later we still haven't stabilized Iraq, and resistance is mounting, not shrinking.

Iraq will likely be remembered as the most incompetently planned occupation in American history.

Ever heard of a telephone? Or keeping meetings out of your public calendar? The whole point was that these leaders feared retaliation from the Bush administration.

Conspiracy theory.

Senators, do not negotiate or talk with foreign leaders. Senators represent the consituents that elected them. Foreign leaders are handled by heads of state.

Your assumption. I think it's a no-brainer that far more world leaders dislike Bush than like him, and would welcome a replacement. You just have to listen to what people are saying around the world to get that. How much we should care is another issue. But you're really deluding yourself if you think that Bush is a popular man around the globe.

Is it wise to use foreign policy, that may be detrimental to our own well-being, in order to try and win a world wide popularity contest?

It was not necessary to go into Iraq, Sadam was no threat to us. [/b].[/quote]

Turns out we were wrong. Ironic, huh? And his stance is that the WAR was unnecessary, not that we didn't have to deal with Saddam. Funny, I agree. War is a last resort. With Bush and Co., it was a first resort.

Quote from John Kerry, in Arizona, on Monday. "What I know about Iraq today, I would have still voted to authorize the war. Sounds like he would have gone to war, anyway. But who knows? He flip-flops so much? He would have changed his mind, depending on what next stop he made, & what group he was speaking too.

He didn't. The suicide bombers in Israel were an Israeli/Palestinian issue, not ours. It was not used as a justification for Iraq until all the other justifications turned out to be wrong.

President Bush's speech, directly after 9/11. "We will go after terrorists wherever they exist, & also "state sponsored terror." He did not say: state sponsored terror, that ONLY sponsors Al Queda.

16.
Sadam Husien deserved another chance to come clean with WMD.
No, Saddam Hussein needed to be forced to submit to inspections. The point of the UN resolutions was to make sure he didn't have WMDs. Oddly enough, they turned out to have worked: he didn't have WMDs.

But we refused to let the inspectors do their work. We ordered them out of the country so we could start bombing.

UN inspectors, had years to do their work. Sadam kicked them out in 1997. Bill Clinton, at that time, should have insisted on keeping them in. During the final days, it was Sadam that was playing cat & mouse with inspectors. Sadam didn't take it seriously. Why? Because nothing ever happened. 15 resolutions & 12 years, he was very used to nothing happening.

A plan for peace in Iraq, was not planned & executed properly. (What war has the United States ever been involved with, has gone like clock work?) It took more than 2 years to stabilise Japan & Germany, post war. Battles were won & lost.[/quote]

In World War II, there was extensive planning for the occupation that began long before the war ended. There were 1.5 million American troops in the American zone of Germany ALONE when the war ended; they blanketed the place and prevented serious resistance from developing.

The Bush administration spent a few weeks planning the postwar occupation, and decided it could get by with 115,000 troops, far fewer than everyone with any peacekeeping experience thought necessary. Guess what? everyone else were right. A year later we still haven't stabilized Iraq, and resistance is mounting, not shrinking.

Germany & Japan were not stabilised until two years post war. "American soldiers were still getting shot at post war, after victory". In fact, the Warren act was not established until 3-1/2 years post war, in which money started flowing again for re-construction.

Iraq will likely be remembered as the most incompetently planned occupation in American history.[/quote]

Actually, this is the most successful war we have witnessed to date in U.S. history. No one likes war. However, WW2 took 4 years, & much longer to rebuild, considering the overwhelming damage in Europe. During WW2, we lost 410,000 American soldiers. Viet Nam lasted 10 years, with 54,000 American soldiers lost. 10 years later, no progress made or any end in sight. We've been in Iraq 1 year, 4 months, & have an interim government established with elections this coming Jan. 05. Troubles? You bet. There are terrorists groups, & insurgents bent on ruling Iraq. They do not want freedom for Iraqi's. They know that freedom spells prosperity, & prosperity means an end to their terror world. And they know that freedom is contagious to neighboring countries.