A plea for intelligence!


Obviously there's a major election coming up, which is why there's such ugliness being hurled between Democrats and Republicans. But I'd like us all to remember for a moment, we're all Americans, and I think we all basically believe in the same things. I'm a Democrat, and I consider myself liberal in my thinking. I won't be so presumptive as to say I speak for all liberals, but I suspect most would agree with what I say. As Americans, we believe in:

Freedom of speech.
All men (and women) are created equal.
Everyone is entitled to share in the American Dream.
Whatever your religious beliefs (or lack thereof), you have the right to have and practice those beliefs (or lack thereof).
You're allowed to do whatever you want as long as you're not infringing on someone else's rights.
We were attacked on 9/11 and we must make the world safe again.
We are a progressive nation and we must continue to advance in science, technology, and medicine.

Do you Conservatives agree on each of those points? I suspect you do. As strongly, VERY strongly, as I disagree with ALMOST everything Bush has done, I truly don't believe he is an evil man. I believe he is trying to do what he believes is right, but what he believes is right is not what I believe is right, which is why I'll be voting for Kerry.

I hear Rush Limbaugh and Fred Honsberger rail angrily against liberals, calling us anti-American, using "peace-lover" as a derogatory term (?) and lambating us for seeing shades of gray rather than strict polarization of right and wrong. Surely any intelligent person must concede that there are two (or more!) sides to every story.

I am pro-choice, but I can't deny that the pro-lifers HAVE A POINT. We polarize the debate so completely we refuse to acknowledge that it's a difficult issue.

What's wrong with gays being married? I don't get it. But if it's all about the word marriage and you're okay with civil unions, why can't gays accept that compromise? I think a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage would be an embarrassment for what I believe is an enlightened country, but since we're almost 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans, isn't there room for compromise?

Iraq. We were attacked by Al Qaeda, not Iraq. Even if Saddam had WMDs, he wouldn't have attacked us with them. Now Bush is saying the danger was that we would have sold them to terrorists (unlikely, since he and Bin Laden didn't see eye to eye) but I'll concede that's a frightening possibility. But wouldn't it have been better to detroy Al Qaeda, so that Saddam wouldn't have had anyone to sell those WMDs to (if he had any)? As it is, Saddam is gone, which is good, but Al Qaeda is still there, which is very bad. As they proved on 9/11, they don't need WMDs to attack us.

So...can Democrats and Republicans get together as Americans and discuss these things rationally? Without all the name-calling and Limbaughian histrionics? We're all Americans. We've got to remember that. We're all one nation. Why don't we act like it?

Collin R. Skocik

reply

20 Reasons Why I'm Voting for George W. Bush

I have voted Democratic, Republican, split ticket and Independent. This year, I am voting for George Bush. Everybody has reasons for voting for their candidate. These are my reasons. Each reason carries its own weight, some more or less than the others. Anybody can respond with their reasons why they will vote for John Kerry, or against George Bush, but in my mind, GW is the clear choice.

1) I believe that although George Bush has made mistakes, he is an intelligent, good man, of strong character. He has America's best interests at heart. Our safety is his number one priority. I trust him.

2) I don't believe John Kerry is a man of character or honor. His number one priority is to be president. It has been, for thirty-five years. It has made him a very calculating, self-aggrandizing, manipulative man. He will say or do whatever he must to become president. We've had "Slick Willie." We don't need "Slick Johnny."

3) I believe in individual accomplishment, accountability and free enterprise, not big government and socialism.

4) I don't vote one way or the other because of race, religion, union affiliation, or MTV.

5) I am tired of Moore-onic comments from the likes of Cameron Diaz ("Bush is going to legalize rape") and Cher ("Bush is going to lock up all of the gays in one state").

6) I am sick of the distortion, fabrication and slanting of the news by CBS, NBC, ABC and the rest of the liberal media.

7) Michael Moore's time was up fifteen minutes ago.

8) I would rather fight the terrorists in Iraq than here.

9) I don't care who has the best hair. I want leadership.

10) George Bush has kept the country safe since 9/11.

11) Teresa makes Hillary look like June Cleaver. Laura is a first class First Lady.

12) Bush is resolute, decisive and dependable. Kerry lacks commitment or a moral compass.

13) Bush walks the talk. He paid 30% in income taxes. Kerry says he doesn't want tax cuts for the rich, and then pays 12% in taxes. Kerry votes against AK-47 ownership, but owns one. He is against big SUV's, but owns one.

14) Despite the feeble attempts by the DNC and the media to obscure the obvious, Kerry DID defame Vietnam veterans. He met with the enemy. He gave them aid and comfort. He threw away the medals that he now clings to, with the passion of Gollum and his "precious" ring. He won't sign the Department of Defense Form 180, which would release his military records. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are honorable and brave men. I stand by their side.

15) I am concerned that if Kerry is elected president, his shameful lies about those who served in Vietnam will be reinforced and cemented into the consciousness of my grandchildren and their grandchildren.

16) I want Lawrence O'Donnell and Chris Matthews to just shut the hell up for a while!

17) There are disturbing parallels between Kerry in the 70's and Kerry now. He has gone from "How do you ask the last man to die for a mistake (in Vietnam)?" to Iraq is "the wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place!" He said that in Vietnam, atrocities were occurring on a daily basis, with the consent and direction of the entire chain of command. Now, he has said that the atrocities of Abu Garibe happened with the consent and direction of the entire chain of command.

18) Bush is a man of action. Kerry didn't accomplish anything during twenty years in the senate. His four months in Vietnam have been his centerpiece accomplishment. If that is the criteria for becoming President of the United States, there are thousands of veterans more qualified than he is.

19) If Kerry had his way, Saddam Hussein would not only still be in power, but he would own Kuwait and perhaps other neighbors, as well.

20) John Kerry is an opportunist and arm chair general. Rather than having a plan of his own, he attacks with distortions and half-truths, from the enviable position of hindsight. I still don't know what he would really do about important issues. He scares the uninformed with untruths about the draft, healthcare, taxes, jobs, voting rights, Iraq, social security, stem cell research, and anything else that he can throw into a whirlpool of negative rhetoric.

reply

Here are my responses to your twenty reasons.

1) I believe that although George Bush has made mistakes, he is an intelligent, good man, of strong character. He has America's best interests at heart. Our safety is his number one priority. I trust him.

I'm glad to hear you admit that Bush has made mistakes, but he is unwilling to make that admission. That means he won't attempt to correct the mistakes he's made. I agree that he is a good man of strong character, but I disagree with him. Intelligent?...hmmm...

2) I don't believe John Kerry is a man of character or honor. His number one priority is to be president. It has been, for thirty-five years. It has made him a very calculating, self-aggrandizing, manipulative man. He will say or do whatever he must to become president. We've had "Slick Willie." We don't need "Slick Johnny."

Really, it's impossible to judge any politician's character. We see only the face they show to the public. Bill Clinton is not a man of good character -- at least in some ways -- but he was a good president. Sometimes you have to have a bit of a ruthless side to be a good president -- Bush certainly has his share of ruthlessness. We don't yet know what kind of president Kerry will be, but I'd sooner take my chances with him than suffer four more years of the arrogant mistakes of Bush.

3) I believe in individual accomplishment, accountability and free enterprise, not big government and socialism.

I believe these are Republican buzz words. Democrats are not about big government and socialism, but about equal opportunity for everyone. The argument gets more and more confused as each side misrepresents the other. As for myself, personally (not representing any other Democrat), I don't understand the problem with socialism. Canada, England, and France are productive and happy nations. We seem willing to sacrifice our happiness for the pathological pursuit of profit and a misguided belief that every waking moment must be spent working. We only live once; I don't intend to waste my life focused on nothing but my job.

4) I don't vote one way or the other because of race, religion, union affiliation, or MTV.

Agreed. I believe Kerry will leave religion out of politics, where Bush seems determined to infuse his own religious beliefs into our government. As a pro-choice atheist, I find that frightening.

5) I am tired of Moore-onic comments from the likes of Cameron Diaz ("Bush is going to legalize rape") and Cher ("Bush is going to lock up all of the gays in one state").

I haven't heard these comments. I hope they were facetious and are being taken out of context.

6) I am sick of the distortion, fabrication and slanting of the news by CBS, NBC, ABC and the rest of the liberal media.

I work with the media, and I can assure you the only agenda of the networks I work with is attracting more viewers.

7) Michael Moore's time was up fifteen minutes ago.

I don't understand this comment.

8) I would rather fight the terrorists in Iraq than here.

I would rather fight the terrorists in Afghanistan than here. Unfortunately, Bush has succeeded in duping the American people into thinking Iraq has something to do with the war on terror. I could go on for hours on this, because this is the MAIN reason why I'm voting for Kerry, but I'll try to be brief. Bush was fixated on attacking Iraq long before 9/11 -- I still have a tape of one of his 2000 debates with Gore in which he's already talking about it. I don't know what his motivation was for attacking Iraq, but it was a plainly personal one, and he dragged the country and the world along with him, searching desperately for a reason. While most of our military has been bogged down in Iraq, Osama Bin Laden has slipped away, Al Qaeda has regrouped and grown strong again, attacked Spain and Russia, and is almost certainly ready to attack us again. I only hope that Kerry will win and will somehow solve this Iraq debacle and redirect our military against the real bad guys.

9) I don't care who has the best hair. I want leadership.

Agreed.

10) George Bush has kept the country safe since 9/11.

We are no safer than we were on 9/11. I just keep reminding myself, the chances are virtually nil that terrorists will attack my little town.

11) Teresa makes Hillary look like June Cleaver. Laura is a first class First Lady.

There is no usch position as First Lady. The President's wife has absolutely no power or authority. Who the presidential candidate is married to is a total nonissue.

12) Bush is resolute, decisive and dependable. Kerry lacks commitment or a moral compass.

Not true. That's the spin that the Bush campaign has put on Kerry. If you actually listen to Kerry's speeches in their entirety, you'll see that he is consistent, logical, and committed.

13) Bush walks the talk. He paid 30% in income taxes. Kerry says he doesn't want tax cuts for the rich, and then pays 12% in taxes. Kerry votes against AK-47 ownership, but owns one. He is against big SUV's, but owns one.

Nobody's perfect. Better Bugs Bunny than Daffy Duck.

14) Despite the feeble attempts by the DNC and the media to obscure the obvious, Kerry DID defame Vietnam veterans. He met with the enemy. He gave them aid and comfort. He threw away the medals that he now clings to, with the passion of Gollum and his "precious" ring. He won't sign the Department of Defense Form 180, which would release his military records. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are honorable and brave men. I stand by their side.

Americans have the right to question American policy. I thought we were all in agreement now that Vietnam was a bad idea. Whether he agreed with the war or not, he fought for this country. He may have only spent four months over there, but that's four months longer than Bush. Besides, what does it matter? This is today. Bush was an alcoholic, a draft dodger, and a derelict. When you're running for president, every little thing you've ever done is brought into the spotlight. Even a president is human.

15) I am concerned that if Kerry is elected president, his shameful lies about those who served in Vietnam will be reinforced and cemented into the consciousness of my grandchildren and their grandchildren.

Aw, now that's just silly. Reagan called the Soviet Union an evil empire. We know now that the Russians are just people, just like us. The Japanese brutally attacked Pearl Harbor, killed thousands of our people, and we dropped two nuclear bombs on thier country. Now we're close allies and friends with Japan.

16) I want Lawrence O'Donnell and Chris Matthews to just shut the hell up for a while!

You think that will happen if Bush is elected?

17) There are disturbing parallels between Kerry in the 70's and Kerry now. He has gone from "How do you ask the last man to die for a mistake (in Vietnam)?" to Iraq is "the wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place!" He said that in Vietnam, atrocities were occurring on a daily basis, with the consent and direction of the entire chain of command. Now, he has said that the atrocities of Abu Garibe happened with the consent and direction of the entire chain of command.

He didn't say that the Abu Ghraib atrocities happened with the direction of the entire chain of command. He said that the chain of command failed to prevent the atrocities. That is disturbing. Believe me, the Republicans would be saying the same thing if this happened under the Clinton administration. As for the "wrong war" bit, I refer you to my reply to #8.

18) Bush is a man of action. Kerry didn't accomplish anything during twenty years in the senate. His four months in Vietnam have been his centerpiece accomplishment. If that is the criteria for becoming President of the United States, there are thousands of veterans more qualified than he is.

That may be true, but Kerry is the Democratic nominee. I'd rather have Howard Dean myself, I was very excited about him. But as president, he will by necessity have to do something, and I think he's got a good plan of action.

19) If Kerry had his way, Saddam Hussein would not only still be in power, but he would own Kuwait and perhaps other neighbors, as well.

Maybe, but we might have Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda might be destroyed. THEN we could focus on that little flea Saddam Hussein and all the other dictators of the world. If a bully is beating you up on the playground, you fight him off before you go attacking a bully who's picking on someone else.

20) John Kerry is an opportunist and arm chair general. Rather than having a plan of his own, he attacks with distortions and half-truths, from the enviable position of hindsight. I still don't know what he would really do about important issues. He scares the uninformed with untruths about the draft, healthcare, taxes, jobs, voting rights, Iraq, social security, stem cell research, and anything else that he can throw into a whirlpool of negative rhetoric.

Hey, it's a campaign. Bush is doing the same thing, as if by saying "John Kerry is inconsistent!" over and over again, that will somehow make it true.

Anyway, I don't expect to change your mind, and that's not really my goal. I just wanted to have an intelligent debate with a Bush supporter, without all the partisan rhetoric. I hope that whoever wins the election, things won't be so bad. I desperately hope I'm wrong about Bush and that he knows what he's doing, but from what I've seen, he's a bumbling incompetent who's making things up as he goes, figuring God's on his side and will solve any problems he can't. Since Bush will mostly likely win (or steal) this election, I truly hope it's just that he knows things the rest of us don't, and he's making the right choices even though it doesn't look like it.

By the way, I don't oppose everything Bush has done. I'm grateful for his support of the national do-not-call registry, and I am delighted about his Moon/Mars space initiative. Everybody has their good and bad qualities.

Collin R. Skocik

reply

Here are 100 reasons NOT to vote for Bush.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041108&s=facts

reply

>I just wanted to have an "intelligent debate with a Bush supporter"

Is there such a thing?

reply

How do you justify the fact that 100,000 innocent Iraqis, {mostly women and children} have died in this war that didn't need to be fought ? How many Iraqis consider Americans to be terrorists ? A human life is a precious thing whether it's an American killed in the twin towers by Al Quaeda or an Iraqi family killed in their home by American bombs. How many American servicemen have lost their lives , limbs or committed suicide because of this senseless war.
Please read some of the books written about the Viet Nam war and you will find that atrocities were committed by both sides. Do yourself a favor and go see Going Upriver. You will see that throwing away their medals wasn't a lark for these veterans it was a heart wrenching experience for the veterans and the Gold Star mothers who threw away the medals awarded to their dead children. They succeeded in bringing the war to an end. This would not have happened without the dedication of this straggly bunch of disillusioned veterans. There are too many parallels between the wars in Nam and Iraq.

reply

I read "Tour of Duty" and "Unfit For Command". I doubt if anyone else here, has. Besides, I don't have to see the movie about going up river. I was there.

reply

You were at the protests where they threw there medals?

reply

No. I served with the Mobile Riverine Force, all over the Mekong Delta, at the same time, plus eight months.

reply

Oh, I missed the 'about' in your previous post, my apologies.

Did you serve in free fire zones then?

reply

Yes, but it was not like Kerry described. I really recommend people read Kerry's book; "Tour of Duty" AND the book by John O'Neil ("Swift Boat Veterans For Truth"). We didn't do anything like Kerry described it. The primary free fire zone that I recalled, was an area directly across the river from our base, Dong Tam. We were under mortar attack often. The idea of the free fire zone was to tell Vietnamese that they should never be in the area directly across from us. We also didn't automatically kill fishermen when they violated curfew, as he has said. I tossed a grenade near a sampan one night, just to warn a fisherman that he was getting too close to my boat. Most of the people who read these pages, however, would say that I don't know what I'm talking about because I wasn't on HIS boat. After all, John Kerry doesn't lie.

reply

The creation of free-fire zones was a violation of the Geneva Conventions. I think Kerry made it clear that the people committing war-crimes were those responsible for the policies, not the soldiers. What statements do you have from that are evidence to the contrary? Also, what statements do you have from him that are untruthful descriptions of the free-fire zones? He did state on national television in his debate with O'Neill that he had never witnessed personal atrocities, which would include killing fisherman for curfew violations. Please, no paraphrases and only primary sources. I don't care what the truth is, but using anything other then primaries only creates he said/she said.

Also, what is Douglas Brinkley's relationship to Kerry?

reply

You really have no idea what a free fire zone was, but I will commend you on picking up DNC talking points. Douglas Brinkley is a Kerry supporter who wrote "Tour of Duty" based upon interviews with Kerry, his letters and his journals. He made it very clear that atrocities happened on a daily basis, with the consent and direction of the entire chain of command. He made broad brush accusations against everyone who served. I can't get into all of the evidence here. I can't reply with a message that long. I can tell you this. I went throught the same "S.E.R.E" (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape)training Kerry did. The instructors told our class that one of biggest mistakes we made is that we did not read the propaganda board that our "captors" set up during our simulated POW training. The told us that we should have read it, so that we had a 360 degree view of everything and understood how the enemy thought. If you want to know about everything, read "Unfit for Command". I doubt if 5% of the people who chat here have done that. I doubt if 20% of the people who chat here have even read Kerry's book. Am I wrong?

reply

First, I have been considerate enough to not refer to your points as neo-conservative machiavellian population control PR manifested through a regurgitated allusion describing a loss of ability to rationalize, I'd appreciate that respect returned. Especially since calling these points DNC "talking points" is a "talking point" from Fox news. Calling each other stupid brings neither closer to truth.

Regarding "Unfit for Command" and "Tour of Duty". My opinion is such that both of these books are political propaganda, I see no reason to read them. The important points that the books make can easily be bulleted on the internet and their cases presented in an efficient manner. Each point there blatantly out in the open free for all to criticize, and point out the flaws of. But, as far as I can tell, they really haven't been, and this shows me that all the people who have attempted to do so have found that the books are full of untruths. Even Fahrenheit 9/11 is presented on the internet in this manner.

That these books are not is evidence that their points are not capable of withstanding the scrutiny that Fahrenheit 9/11 can. I'm running on the assumption here that this movie is full of lies, and pointing out that it still appears to withstand scrutiny better then both of these books.

There is no argument that O'Neill makes some false claims in his book, and distorts evidence. I wouldn't say that the whole book is a lie because of this, but I will state that O'Neill cannot be considered a reliable source because of it.

Here's a list of ten major points against Kerry from "Unfit for Command."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1202550/posts
A good example of the bulleted points. Two good points with real evidence, like Kerry not releasing his records, being a reservist, two mostly true points that don't really matter - Kerry's campaign's portrayal is different then what really happened & cambodia; and then everything else. Pure speculation. No tangible evidence. He said/She said. More meaningless disinformation for people to waste their time examining. I feel you are choosing to believe these things because they scratch an itch for you that you really want scratched. Why else believe something with so little evidence?

This book uses fabrications and distortions to make its case against Kerry. That certainly doesn't mean everything is false. It just means that the book is not a reliable source of information.

Whatever truth the SBVT have, they are raping it with lies and distortions. They are guilty of the same crime they claim to be so angered at.

The biggest mistake they make, time and time again, is claiming that John Kerry's description of atrocities in front the foreign relations committee was a blanket statement directed at all veterans. Anybody with internet access can conclusively prove within a minute that this is blatantly false. I am glad to see this speech is no longer on the front page of their website, now that this lie has finally had a somewhat thourough thrashing in the media.

What's their problem with John Kerry? That he misrepresents facts. How do they prove it? By misrepresenting facts.

-------
"In 1971, '72, for almost 18 months, he stood before the television audiences and claimed that the 500,000 men and women in Vietnam, and in combat, were all villains -- there were no heroes. In 2004, one hero from the Vietnam War has appeared, running for President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief. It just galls one to think about it."

-- Captain George Elliott, USN (retired)[Member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth]
Blatantly stating his inability to view the situation objectively.
I'm sorry. Liars are not good sources. If you ever want people to trust you, don't lie.

--------------------
I thought maybe we should define war crime, so we're both talking about the same thing when we use the word --
war crime
n.

Any of various crimes, such as genocide or the mistreatment of prisoners of war, committed during a war and considered in violation of the conventions of warfare.
(first definition that comes up on www.dictionary.com -- http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=war%20crime)

--------------------

Thanks for informing me that my definition of free fire zone is completely wrong without making any attempt to critique or correct it. Perhaps you would be willing to provide me with one that is correct. I think we also need to have an agreement on what a free fire zone was in the delta.

----------------------
This post was edited to remove my double stated points.

reply

Why does everyone forget that Viet Nam was an example of America at its worst: it was a war without an endgame, and it wasn't accidental. The intent was to line the pockets of the American Military Industrial Complex, a situation that a Republican President warned the nation of only a few years earlier as he left office. The men that went to war in Nam were not the cause of the atrocities commited there, the atrocities are a direct result of going into a war that had no purpose, and a lack of leadership in general. Pentagon Papers, you've heard of them, right?

Sound familiar? We are so stupid as to repeat mistakes that are barely a generation old. EVERYONE shares in the blame for this. But it must change.

Some people that claim that Kerry betrayed them: if that's the case, they were betrayed by their country a long time before Kerry ever got a chance to. The Viet Nam war cost our country the lives of tens of thousands of young American lives, and hundreds of thousands of southeast asian lives. It negatively impacted 2 generations of American soldiers, as well as sullying the reputation of our armed forces for years.

As with now, our troops deserved much better consideration than this.

reply

Your perception of the Vietnam war is a good example of how history can be rewritten. It was Kennedy and Johnson, Democratic presidents, who got us into Vietnam. "JFK the First", said that America would do whatever it took to defend freedom and democracy in the world. Within a week of when I landed in Vietnam, Johnson and his advisors decided that the war was "folly" and that we couldn't win it. Thirty thousand of us died after that decision, including twelve of the guys I went over there with. Don't insult me with sarcastic comments about hearing about the Pentagon Papers and what caused atrocities. You don't know what you are talking about, unless you have found an American body washed up against your boat when you wake up.

Kerry did betray us. He didn't simply fight to end the war. He met with the enemy and he smeared everyone who served. What would a "President Kerry" do if a junior officer met with Osama Bin Laden or the Iraqi terrorists to discuss terms? What we he say if that junior officer said that we should do whatever Osama Bin Laden wanted and that we should pay reparations to the Arab world for.

Most of the people who are at this site are probably readers of "Rolling Stone." The current issue, with your candidate on the cover, says that their readers trust Michael Moore, more than the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Only 1.5% of the readers trust the SBVT guys. These are over three hundred of the entire chain of command and peers of John Kerry and families of POW's. It is sad that so many attach sinister motives to those who served and suffered. Sad.

reply

My perception of the war is based on watching history since I was born, and studying history since I was in high school. First, I want you to know that I do not dispute your service. You should be honored for your service, especially because of the bogus nature of the war. But your service doesn't mean you own the history, and obviously a lot of that is in dispute. It was Eisenhower, not Kennedy that began Viet Nam, through covert action as early as 1954, and providing "advisors" shortly thereafter; Robert McNamara (for Kennedy then Johnson) escalated it, and Nixon spent the rest of his presidency "trying" to exit.

Your remark about Johnson deciding that the war was folly is evidence that you were betrayed by your government. I know Kerry had nothing to do with that. The fact that I have NOT woken up with an American body washing up against my boat doesn't diminish the truth of what I am saying, any more than you going through the same thing makes the things you are saying the truth. I am very sorry that you had to endure that; I wish it had been for a better reason.

I'd love to ask you (and also every Swift Boat Vet) a simple question, and receive a yes or no answer.

Was Viet Nam a good war, or was it wrong? What did we gain for the incredible cost of the war, a cost which only begins with the 58,000 plus American lives lost?

If you think the war was just, I can understand anger at Kerry. But if you think it wasn't right, then Kerry is a hero, for trying to end it as soon as possible.

I just feel that your anger is misdirected, as well as that of the Swift Boat Vets. I would think that you would be against the ideological students and descendents of the people that commited the Viet Nam war.

For the record, I haven't read the current issue of Rolling Stone...but I will be voting for Kerry because he IS against going to war for the reasons we went to war in Viet Nam.

And this conversation is a victory for Bush, because we should be talking about why he needs to go. The war in Iraq repeating lessons already written in American blood is just one of many reasons.

reply

Well put, trshea65...

Yes, John Kerry is a hero, he has fought far harder to stop the needless loss of human lives in this world than most people ever will, and I thank him for it.

reply

8) I would rather fight the terrorists in Iraq than here.

This makes the most sense out of all your points. Some of which makes one question your intelligence (no offense really, but who cares about the stupid first lady? Come on).

As an outsider, I've always wondered why Americans think they are so safe because of this war. Some of the insurgents are Iraqis who are just fighting because they have been invaded (as there would be in any country). And there are surely some foreign Jihad types who obviously see an opportunity to finally take some shots at Americans without having to travel half way around the world. But if you look at this war from a muslim perspective, America has just attacked Islam and not the terrorists (maybe their wrong I'm just saying that's what THEY believe). So now America has a lot of middle of the road muslims who have changed into terrorists.

I can't imagine that any Al Queda plans over in America have changed because of the war in Iraq. What exactly is forcing these terrorists to give up and run over to Iraq? Do you think that some Saudi religious wacko cares what happens to Iraq? I doubt it.

Viet Nam must have been ugly, but when you were there didn't it bother you that it was for such stupid reasons?

reply

I am only going to respond to reason #10. You stated that Bush has made us safer since 9/11.

Well, hmm...we were attacked under his watch, and uh, there are 380 tons of conventional explosives missing in Iraq.

Here is a list of coincidences on 9/11.

1. Several FAA flight controllers exhibited extreme incompetence on 9/11, and evidently on that day only.

2. The officials in charge at both NMCC and NORAD also acted incompetently on 9/11, and evidently on that day only.

3. When NMCC and NORAD officials did fianlly order jet fighters to be scrambled to protect NY and DC, they ordered them in each case from more distant bases, rather than from McGuire and Andrews.

4. After public statements saying that Andrews Air Force Base had no jet fighters on alert to protect DC, its website, which had previously said that many jets were always on alert, was altered.

5. Several pilots who normally are airborne and going full speed in under three minutes all took much longer to get up on 9/11.

6. These same pilots, flying planes capable of going 1,500 to 1,850 miles per hour, on that day were all evidently able to get their planes to fly only 300 to 700 miles per hour.

7. The collapse of the buildings of the WTC, besides occurring at almost free fall speed, exhibited other signs of being controlled demolitions: molten steel, seismic shocks, and fine dust were all produced.

8. The video and physical evidence suggesting that controlled demolition was the cause of the collapse of the WTC co-exists with testimony from people in these buildings that they heard, felt, and saw the effects of explosions.

9. The collapse of WTC-1 and WTC-2 had some of the same features as the collapse of WTC-7,even though the latter collapse could not be attributed to the impact of jet fuel of an airplane.

10. Both towers collapsed just as their respective fires were dying down, even though this meant that the South Tower, which had been hit second collapsed first.


I will get to the rest later, but please ask yourself, do you really think Bush did all he could to protect America? To me the evidence suggests complicity, perhaps Bush gave stand down orders.

reply

These are a pretty big reach. There is no precedent to how America could react in such a shocking emergency. Maybe they were slow, but they weren't exactly on "high alert".
As for the collapse. If it was a planned demolition why didn't they just blow it up like the '93 bombing? This theory is pretty ridiculous.
Whoever you think is behind it (you say Bush? No way!), there would be easier ways to acheive whatever goal you think he wanted to acheive than this.

reply

There is actually standard operating procedure when a plane is hijacked. Every year there are approximately 100 planes intercepted. Not a single one of these planes were intercepted on 9/11. I never said Bush was behind the attacks, I said he most likely gave stand down orders.

The first plane lost contact at 8:14 am and flew way off course, at 8:20 the transponder went off. At 8:46 it hit the first tower. SOP, NORAD is immediately contacted and within 10 minutes fighter jets are usually up in the air signaling any plane that has lost contact with the control towers and flies off course. This is standard operating procedure. You can't tell me that it is a coincidence that all four planes were not intercepted?

There are more coincidences to come.

reply

Here are some more questions about 9/11.

11. Governmental agencies had the debris, including the steel from the collapsed WTC buildings removed without investigation, which is what would be expected if the government wanted to prevent evidence of explosives from being discovered.

12. Physical evidence suggesting that what hit the Pentagon could not have been a Boeing 757 co-exists with testimoney of several witnesses that the aircraft that did hit the Pentagon was far smaller than a 757.

13. This evidence about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon co-exists with reports that Flight 77 crashed in Kentucky or Ohio.

14. This evidence co-exists with the fact that the only evidence that Flight 77 did not crash was supplied by an attorney closely associated with the Bush administration.

15. Evidence that Flight 77 did not return to DC to hit the Pentagon co-exists with the fact that when the flight control transcript was released, the final 20 minutes were missing.

16. The fact that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon did so only after executing a very difficult maneuver co-exists with the fact that it struck a section of the Pentagon that, besides containing none of its leaders, was the section in which the stricke would cause the least death and destructioin.

17. On the same day in which jet fighters were unable to protect the Pentagon from an attack by a single airplane, the missiles that normally protect the Pentagon also failed to do so. Hmmm.....too many failures to be a coincidence.

18. Sounds from cell phones inside Flight 93 suggesting that the plane had been hit by a missile were matched by many reports to this effect from witnesses on the ground.

19. This evidence that Flight 93 was shot down co-exists with reports from both civilian and military leaders that there was intent to shoot this flight down.

20. The only plane that was evidently shot down, Flight 93, was the only one in which it appeared that passengers were going to gain control.


There is more to come.

reply



http://members.shaw.ca/freedomseven/pentagonlies.swf


Type this in your address bar and wait, it takes a while to load, but it is worth the wait. You can also save it in your favorites.

reply

All that the government has to do to stop these rumors is give conclusive evidence, like the video tapes mentioned in the flash animation.

A problem I have with this info is that I have yet to find anyone say anything about missing bodies, those on flight 77. If 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, where DID it go, where are the corpses? Why haven't any of the families complained?

This flash is fascinating: while I can't find anything to establish its truth, every attempt I make at discrediting this info falls short.

reply

There are eye witness accounts to a flight possibly crashing in Kentucky or Ohio.

reply

That was one of the most disturbing clips I have ever watched. I have been to some of those conspiracy sites about the Twin Towers being detonated with bombs, but there were no clear pictures about it just grainy guesses.

Where is that missing video? Destroyed me thinks.

If we get a regime change, will the truth come with it?

Only 3 million to investigate? Smells fishy.


D E

reply

What "smells fishy" to me is a thread called "A Plea For Intelligence" degenerating into conspiracy theories. When you look at ALL of the evidence, these are as absurd as the notion that the Holocaust never happened or that the Moon landings were faked or aliens are abducting people. If anything can defeat George W. tomorrow, it's rationality, level-headedness, and debate founded in the real world. All this outlandish speculation about "what really happened" is easily disprovable with photos that conspiracy theorists don't want you to see, data that you won't find on these websites, and a recent video in which Osama Bin Dickhead himself admits to staging the attacks. These charming conspiracy theories are as good as a concession to the Republicans that we're the dumb ones.

9/11 was a horrifying terrorist attack perpetrated by religious extremists who believe that killing is the only way to make a point. Bush responded that day as well as any president would have. His initial response to the attacks was quite positive, and we started to wage a successful campaign in Afghanistan. The war on terror fell apart once Bush decided to focus our military priority on Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. That is why we no safer today than we were on 9/11, and why -- aside from the obvious ideological differences between Democrats and Republicans -- we need to fire Bush tonorrow and elect Kerry.

Collin R. Skocik

reply

Bush responded by reading "My Pet Goat", I don't think any other president would have responded that way.

I know you support Kerry anyway, but I want you to think about why was it that none of the planes on that day were not intercepted. There really is no excuse. It is fact that only on that day there were so many outrageous failures, that they cannot be just coincidence. The people in charge of intercepting planes are higly trained experts, unless they had stand down orders, I cannot understand how they (NORAD) could have not intercepted all four planes. Either they decided to take a day off, and it just so happened to be on the day we were under attack, or Bush gave stand down orders. I don't believe Bush was the mastermind behind the attacks, he is too stupid, I just believe he knew something was coming and he wanted it to succeed. He needed a "new Pearl Harbor" in order to implement his facsist agenda and to invade Iraq. It doesn't make any sense that he would use it to attack a country that did not attack us, but he used fear. We the American people were duped, but the rest of the world could see it. Bush is evil to the core, he is a failure at everything he as ever attempted to accomplish. His rich and well connected daddy's friends have had to bail him out numerous times. Someone said to me that if Bush wasn't born into a wealthy and well connected family he would be pumping gas for a living.

"Our enemies are very resouceful and they never stop thinking about ways to attack our country and to harm the American people, and neither do we" quoted by Bush!

Hahahahahaha!!!!

reply

This is a riot! I can't believe this conspiracy thread is under the heading of "A Plea for Intelligence"! Are you guys looneys, idiots, or looney idiots?

reply

id like to respond to someones claim that these are conspiracy "theories". i completely disagree that these are theories at all. they are in FACT serious possibilities and here is why:
weve all been conditioned to associate the word theory with the word conspiracy, because after all, no conspiracies could possibly be true theyre all just theories arent they? well in the phrase conspiracy theory there are two words. the first word "conspiracy" the second word, is the active word, "theory". by definition a theory is a supposition, an idea, a concept, a hypothesis. let me give you an example: in theory, if i purchase a raffle ticket i could win a prize. now as long as i dont purchase a raffle ticket my win is theoretical. but once you purchase a raffle ticket the win is no longer a theory it becomes a possibility and the more raffle tickets you purchase the more possible and eventually probable the win becomes. such is the case with a conspiracy theory as long as there is no evidence it IS a conspiracy theory. but once you have a piece of evidence, no matter how flimsy or circumstancial it may be, it becomes a possibility. the more evidence that is gathered the more possible and eventually probable the conspiracy is.

well thats pretty much my blog. im just getting sick and tired of always being refered to as a "conspiracy theorist" when in FACT these "theories"(which have bucket loads of evidence to back them up) arent theories at all but serious possibilites. we owe it to our fellow man to seriously investigate what happened on 9/11. face it, things arent what they seem and we as the people may actualy have to deal with something.

p.s. it never ceases to amaze me how people that do not believe in "conspiracy theories" almost constantly resort to infantile name calling to asert their position. come on, i think we've evolved past that dont you?

reply

Tmsater,i disagree with numbers 2,6,7,8,9,13,16,17,18,and 20. Theres some hipocrosy going on here.
2)You say john kerry will say anything to get elected. Well, so will george bush. He has done a masterfull job of "terrorizing" the american people in order to get votes. He has ignored his last four years of failure by focusing
on their fears. Since when do republicans have conventions in new york?
Since they started exploiting 9/11! All i heard was 9/11 this and 9/11 that.
He said nothing of what he will do the next four years.

6)You say your sick of distortion and fabrication from the liberal media?
I assume your a fan of the fox news channel,a channel which distorts and fabricates and flat out lies!

7)Michael moores time is not up. Believe it or not he has been making films for
years. His time has only begun.Fahreheit 9/11 was just another film on his ressume of greatness.

8)Since 9/11 there has been no hard evidence that we would have to face terrorists here. Do you think that would happen with all these over the top security measures taking place? If we ever had to face them here its because bush did not do his job of protecting us.

9)John Kerry is a leader. Bush is a master misleader.

13)You want to talk about cuts? Your beloved george bush cut anti-terrorism funding by 12%!

16)I want Bill O riley and sean hannity to shut up for a while!

17)The investigation into the prison scandal did go pretty far up the chain of command. So far up that Donald Rumsfeld apoligized for the whole incident!

18)You mean more "conservative" veterans right? The centerpiece of bushs accomplishments is that he rallied the nation after 9/11. But he didnt make it last.

20)once again,bush uses terrorism to scare and get the vote.

reply

[deleted]

I think the name pennyWISE fits you perfectly.

reply