Criminal Kerry?

KERRY WAS READY TO INVADE IRAQ IN 1997

Yet more evidence today that the standard-bearer for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination has absolutely no political soul, and just makes things up as he goes along. Today's installment? The war in Iraq. Now, you know that Kerry has been both for the war, against the war, for it again, sort of against it and then for it again. What you may not know is just how ready he was a few years ago to do just what he criticizes President Bush of doing.

Speaking on CNN's "Crossfire" on November 12, 1997, Kerry criticized the United Nations, France and Russia for not being tougher on Iraq. Not only that ... he even pointed out that the Clinton administration didn't need UN approval to act on Iraq. "The administration is making it clear they don't even need the UN security council to sign off on a material breach...so furthermore, I think the United States has always reserved the right and will reserve the right to act in its best interests." He also went on to criticize the French for not being more helpful, and said that the issue wasn't just about weapons of mass destruction, but Iraq's breach of agreements. In other words, he said the same things then that the Bush administration has been saying all along. Holding Saddam Hussein accountable is only a good idea if there's a Democrat in the White House.

It's too bad for the Democrats that Kerry already has the nomination sewed up. They rushed the process, and now they've wound up with a lemon and no return policy. I guess they can always vote for Nader.

By the way ... a great line from the Bush camp over the weekend. sKerry, as you know, is challenging Bush to a series of monthly debates leading to the election. Bush officials said that perhaps it might be a good idea for Kerry to finish debating himself before he tries to take on the president.

 

KADHAFI ADMITS WAR IN IRAQ CONVINCED LIBYA TO GIVE UP WMD

This isn't exactly front page news, but this victory in the war on terror shouldn't go unnoticed. Libyan leader Moammar Kadhafi said yesterday that his country is no longer pursuing weapons of mass destruction and wants better relations with the United States. And what has forced this sudden change of tune? That's right, the invasion of Iraq, overthrow of the government and capture of Saddam Hussein by the United States of America. That's what.

Asked directly if the war in Iraq had been a factor, Col. Kadhafi had this to say: "We made our own decision and our analysis on the current world situation, and we came to the conclusion.....that we can't....go ahead with having these programs." Translation: I don't want to be on George Bush's bad side. Speaking about the recent talks with visiting U.S. congressmen, Kadhafi gushed: "We are very much interested that we are able to understand each other. The problem before was that we were not able, we did not have a chance to sit down with each other and have a dalogue. Now we are able to understand each other." That's right, Moammar...we understand each other perfectly now. Do what we say, or else. It's that simple.

The point is this: would any of this have happened with a President Kerry in office? Absolutely not. We would be placating Islamic terrorists as we follow the same old policies of appeasement and "dialogue." If Libya wasn't absolutely certain that the United States meant business, none of this would be happening. It's the same reason North Korea is giving up their nukes. They know the score, plain and simple.

No matter what John Kerry and the Democrats say, terrorism is not a "law enforcement problem" and the war on terror has succeeded in making the world a safer place.

 

KERRY PLANS TO END WAR ON TERROR

John Kerry thinks that terrorism is a law enforcement problem. Well, just wait until you hear what he would do with the war on terror if he is elected president. This man is absolutely frightening.

Rather than continue the policy of destroying terrorists and the nations that harbor them, Kerry has said he would abandon the President's war on terror, begin a dialogue with terrorist regimes and apologize for the actions of the Bush administration. This is why this man must not be elected president, ever. In a speech to Council on Foreign Relations, Kerry called the war on terror "the most arrogant, inept, reckless, and ideological foreign policy in modern history." Apparently he would rather return us to the do-nothing appeasement of terrorists that was the policy under Bill Clinton. Remember, Osama Bin Laden was offered to the United States on a silver platter and the Clinton administration said no. What would John Kerry do to prevent another 9/11?

For example, Iran is known to be harboring top Al-Qaeda operatives. According to an Iranian dissident, the hard-line clerics in Iran fear George Bush, but are rooting for John Kerry.

If you are actually bright enough to understand that Islamic Jihadists have vowed to do everything they can to destroy all in the world that is not Muslim ... and that includes America ... and have promised to kill as many Americans as they can, wherever they can find them, then you are bright enough to understand what is at stake in November.

 

Re: When Clinton Lied, Nobody Died

EARTH TO KERRY: JOBS HAVE INCREASED UNDER BUSH

Senator John Kerry is running ads in the Super Tuesday states talking about the "millions of jobs lost" during President Bush's term. Sounds like a really impressive stump speech for the Democratic front-runner. Too bad it's totally and completely false. Of course, Democrats never let facts get in the way of their Bush-hating.

At least 2.4 million jobs have been created since the president took office, with 2 million of those coming just last year. At least 366,000 jobs have been created in the last five months, and 100,000 of those in January. There are many signs that the economy is recovering.

The current unemployment rate is at 5.6%, the lowest in 2 years. That is lower than the average of the 1990's, which was 5.8%. Consumer spending grew between 4 and 5% last year. Hourly earnings rose 1.5%. American workers number 138.5 million, the highest level in American history. The economy is recovering quite nicely and soon will be booming.

Of course, none of this good news suits the political purposes of the Democrats and their buddies in the media. Good economic news for you is bad for liberals, and they know it.

 

Part of the same gene pool?

Cheers,
Mark

 

That just cracks me up!

Cy

 

I guess you are not military, but.....

or a lawyer, but AWOL is, literally, only a crime if someone says it is. It requires an actual declaration that someone is absent without leave. This is even more true in the National Guard where soldiers can perform alternate drills when they are not going to be available for regularly scheduled drills. Really, I get tired of people who know zip about the military making an issue of something they know nothing about. As a first line supervisor (you know, the guy who actually talks to the soldiers on a day to day basis) of hundreds of soldiers during my military career I would be hard pressed to say for sure if someone was actually present for duty in a several month period of time just 15 years ago. I would have to say that 15 years ago if he hadn't been present for, or excused from, duty I would have written him up for it then so yes, he was probably there. For some geriatric former general who would have had little or no contact with his subordinates more than 25 years ago to say he cannot remember Bush at some meeting is laughable beyond belief. The looney left needs to get a grip. Most of them were never in the military anyway. We can say all we want that it was a wink and a nod but I have seen the same thing happen too many times to people w/o connections so where is the special treatment? The National Guard until recently was as much a social club than a military organization. In fact, some of them are actually social clubs. See here: http://www.ftpcc.com/ I should mention that the Reserves and NG's are definately not social clubs today (except for the aforementioned and a few others, but even they have or can be deployed so I hope they get serious).

Ok, only thing wrong with this theory is that it has no, zero, basis in fact or acceptable business theory or doctrine. The two programs which are widely blamed by the AFL-CIO (major Bush bashers and Kerry supporters) for causing the exportation of jobs are NAFTA (signed by a Democrat and ratified by a Democratic Senate) and the admission of China into the WTO. Guess which one (of Kerry and Bush) actually voted for both of the bills. You got it, Kerry. Of course he now says he wouldn't have if he knew the results. And Bush is supposed to be the stupid one! Of course, it is just the usual Kerry story flip-flop. People seem to forget globalization has been ongoing for decades and GW has only been in office for a little over 3 years. Heck, let's go ahead and blame him for the Vietnam War while we are at it. By the way, NAFTA and China in the WTO are just scapegoats for ourselves. Go through your house and see how much junk you have bought that is made in a foreign country. We sure like to fill up our homes with those cheap consumer goods and then badmouth Bush for for all of those poor factory workers whom have lost their jobs to China. Look in a mirror for the guilty party.

Man, I said I wasn't going to get riled up by these boards anymore. Back to silence!

 

Re: When Clinton Lied, Nobody Died

This shows all of the political astuteness of ......well forget it as I do not want to be insulting.

First, Kerry's group just spent considerable time and effort digging up whether the honorably discharged GW Bush showed up for all of his drills 30 plus years ago. I am an independent conservative who is liberal on some issues and may or may not vote for Kerry (I voted for & against Clinton...I voted for GWB). Let me tell you this turned me off as utter stupidity. Ummm could Kerry talk about some issues maybe...not a bad idea. Whether GWB showed up for all of his drills (not showing up is not an usual situation) has zip bearing on the pressing issues of today. This was really superfical & annoying and screamed "we really don't have anything of substance to talk about" & that is sad.

The nonsense about the selling out of America beginning with GWB cracked me up. Look at history for Pete's sake. Clinton sold America out big time (technology, defense stuff, trade). It certainly did not begin with him either. Why do you think China (certainly a worse civil rights violator than Cuba) never got really slapped? Because when the issue came up in both houses politicians were loathe to go too far in criticizing a country that US business is so heavily invested in for cheap labor. Democrat/Republican it does not matter. The debate was funny and all sides soft peddled as all sides receive money from big business. US companies get items made their very cheaply which means more profit. US companies that once moved to Mexico are now causing a crisis in Mexico by moving to China.

I am not hoepful that either side is going to do too much and likely the market forces will right themselves. I crack up when folks talk like the Clinton's caused the boom of the 90's rather than the internet bubble and general optimism that eventually went bust. The economy was in a down swing as Clinton was leaving. Natural ebb & flow.

Frankly, I am getting a little skeptical. Might consider Kerry especially if he chooses McCain as VP (which was hinted at on the Sunday morning national news program).

North

 

Bumper Sticker Slogan!

Today I heard about a "must have" bumper sticker slogan:

"I voted for Kerry before I voted against him"

--Orson

 

Geez, at least Kerry has something of a political history (although some might see this as a negative). Let's see, Bush had a series of jobs that Daddy gave him until he became governor of Texas (and we now know that his claims of great progress in Texas public schools were fabricated, or lies, more accurately). And Georgie was still getting drunk and crashing his car into garbage cans in his forties.

Question for history experts: Has a more undistinguished and thoroughly mediocre man ever risen to such a lofty position - ever?

Some say the cream always rises to the top. Unfortunately, so does scum.

Talk about frightening.

 

Harry S. Truman.

 

It doesn't matter if he did, or not.

There is no statute of limitations on war crimes.

Therefore, he should now reveal everything he knows about these war criminals. If he did report it to his commanding officer, then all the more reason that he should tell all now. The commanding officer should be prosecuted, along with the war criminals.

John Kerry can't have it both ways. If he witnessed war crimes in Vietnam, as he stated under oath to Congress, then he needs to identify the war criminals, so they can be prosecuted.

If he didn't witness war crimes, then he committed perjury in front of the United States Congress.

What shall it be, Senator Kerry....will you identify these "war criminals", or admit that you lied under oath?

 

Unless he participated in them!

When this story first broke the media was all over it.

Now that Kerry is the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee, the media is suspiciously quiet concerning these alleged atrocities.

With Dukakis, Frank, Finneran, Kennedy, Kerry et. al., one wonders if Massachusetts will ever have another Democrat of the caliber of Paul Tsongs?

 

HERE'S MORE BAD NEWS FOR DEMOCRATS

It would seem that March was a pretty good month for job creation. Preliminary figures show that there were more new jobs created in March than in any month since 2000. How many? About 120,000. There are predictions that as many as one million jobs or more may be created before the election.

Kerry knows the numbers look good, and he needs a way to overshadow the latest statistics. So ... he has now come up with some sort of a grand plan to create 10 million new jobs.

sKerry says he will put forward a comprehensive economic plan in the coming weeks to create these 10 million new jobs. What a load of nonsense. First of all, the government does not create jobs. Jobs are created in the private sector. All John Kerry would do would be to propose legislation that would kill jobs. But that is not what gets reported. And what about the 10 million figure? Where does that come from?

Do you want to know how sKerry would "create" these jobs? Government spending, that's how. Take money out of the private sector, where jobs are created based on the free interaction of a free people in an arena of economic liberty, and use that money to create massive public works projects to put these people to work for government instead of the private sector. Kerry will also come up with plans to seize money from the private sector by way of taxes, and then redistribute that money back to the private sector to create government subsidized jobs.

Bottom line ... jobs aren't a problem. The economy is growing, and the private sector is creating jobs at a swift pace. Here's a little quiz: Just what was the unemployment rate at the end of the third year of Clinton's presidency? Why, since you asked, it was 5.6%. And what was the unemployment rate at the end of the third year of Bush's presidency? Sure! Happy to tell you! It was 5.6%.

 

Oh please. Not even close.

 

Oh come one. Truman had ties to the underworld and was so unpopular that he was defeated, as an incumbent President, in the New Hampshire primary in 1952.

Not only was he defeated, he was defeated by a Southerner, Tennessee Senator Estes Kefaufer, at a time when the South was not very well thought of by the rest of the nation.

Truman was so inept Roosevelt didn't even include him in on some of the most important meetings in the White House.

The common thinking about Truman during his Presidency was that he was "like a blind dog in a meathouse."

Herbert Hoover gets more favorable reviews from historians than does Truman. As a matter of fact, Hoover is now considered by many contemporary historians as a "progressive."

 

For Bruce

You know, Bruce, one thing you do have in your favor with regards to Kerry is that if he is elected, you lose him as one of your Senators and Governor Romney gets to appoint a replacement.

So, you would end up with a Republican Senator for the first tme since, I believe, Edward Brooke.

Maybe Romney will apppoint himself or Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey

 

Truman was thought to be "one of us", and it's acknowledged by many that he made his share of mistakes. However, he also distinguished himself by navigating the end of WWII and the peace afterwards (something Bushie has yet to do - he can't even end the damn thing.).

And for a much different take than yours, we have this from the JFK library:

http://www.jfklibrary.org/forum_truman.html

p.s. my nomination for my open question would be Reagan, but I don't have the heart for it, since it's pretty clear that what Dems thought was just out and out stupidity was really Alzheimer's.

 

Oh yea, right, he obliterated two major Japanese cities when one would have done it. People today are still suffering from the fallout.

Real objective, Democrats defending Democrats.

I wouldn't have chosen Reagan (I never cared for him.) because he did have a pretty distinguished career as Governor.

The only two Democrats who were President who get high marks in my book are JFK and Carter. JFK for his commitment to Civil Rights and Carter for morality and integrity.

I do credit Truman with his strong Civil Rights agenda. However, I think HHH might have been the catalyst behind Truman on this issue especially after HHH's fiery Civil Rights speech at the 1948 Democratic National Convention when HHH was Mayor of Minneapolis.

Nice discussing this with you Tom. Take care.

 

Re: For Bruce

If that were so, it would be a lousy trade (Kerry becoming President).

However, it may not be so. The Democrat-controlled MA Legislature is trying to quietly slip through a bill that would require a special election instead of the Governor appointing a new Senator. They are completely, totally shameless.

Romney has stated several times that he wouldn't appoint himself. He's been a man of his word, and I believe him. Look for someone like Brian Lees or Reed Hillman.

I really believe that Governor Romney will be a major player in the Presidential election of 2008, either as the Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate. He's a decent man, and has been a great Governor.