Archive for February, 2004
« Previous EntriesHillary Takes a Stab At Stand-Up Comedy
Sunday, February 29th, 2004Some things you have to see to believe…
In a foreign policy speech at a Washington think tank, Sen. Hillary Clinton chided President Bush for not thanking her husband for handing the current administration such a strong military.
What exactly did Hillary say?:
“During the 2000 campaign, I recall Vice President Cheney saying that there is almost nothing you can do to improve the quality of a force created by your predecessors. And then after the Gulf War, he wrote a letter to former President Reagan thanking him for building the military that fought so capably.
“Well, I don’t know, but I don’t think any letters have yet arrived on the desks of anyone associated with the Clinton Administration.”
Does Hillary want to know why? The WorldNetDaily articles point out several reasons why not only should the Clinton Administration not be thanked for the state the military was left in, but be condemned for decimating it.
From 1990 to 1998, active Army ranks were reduced from 770,000 to 495,000. After the cuts, the Army had 10 active combat divisions compared to the 18 it had at the start of Operation Desert Storm in 1991. The following also were cut:
- 293,000 reservists;
- two reserve divisions;
- 20 Air Force and Navy air wings along with approximately 2,000 combat aircraft;
- 232 strategic bombers;
- 13 ballistic-missile submarines with 3,114 nuclear warheads on 232 missiles;
- 500 ICBMs;
- four aircraft carriers;
- 121 surface-combat vessels and attack submarines, plus all the support basing, transport and logistic access, tanks, armored fighting vehicles, helicopters, etc.
In a real slap in the face to our military, Hillary said in her speech that women were better off under the rule of Saddam Hussein!!!
When I was [in Iraq] and met with women members of the governing councils and local–of the national governing councils and local governing councils in Baghdad and Kirkuk, they were starting to express concerns about some of the pullbacks in the rights that they were given under Saddam Hussein. He was an equal opportunity oppressor, but on paper women had rights; they went to school; they participated in the professions; they participated in government; and business and, as long as they stayed out of his way, they had considerable freedom of movement.
As long as they stayed out of Saddam’s way? Is Hillary suggesting things are really worse off now then they were with the rape rooms operational? What exactly is Hillary trying to prove by praising our military, but then claiming that things were better before Saddam’s regime was toppled?
Read Hillary’s entire speech, there are a whole bunch of gems in there to keep Bush bloggers busy - after they stop laughing.
__________
Cross posted on Blogs For Bush.
Kerry’s 7 Empty Promises Plan for Winning The War On Terror
Friday, February 27th, 2004Today, John Kerry
1. Direct Military Action. John Kerry will always be prepared to use military force when necessary to neutralize terrorists and drain the swamps where they breed.
This point goes into further detail about deploying “The best-equipped forces backed by the most accurate intelligence.”
At this point, most people can dismiss the entire plan as empty rhetoric that completely contrasts with Kerry’s record. As has been noted before, Kerry voted against many defense programs, including the B-1 Bomber, B-2 Stealth Bomber, the F-14, F-15, F-16, the AV-8B harrier vertical takeoff and landing jet fighters, AH-64 Apache Helicopters, Patriot Missiles, Aegis Air Defense Cruiser, the Trident Missile System for U.S. Submarines, M-1 Abrams Tanks, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and the Tomahawk Cruise Missile.
If John Kerry wants the best-equipped military, why has he never voted for program to equip them with new technology and weapons?
Kerry’s promise to give the military the most accurate intelligence also doesn’t jive with his record in the Senate. Since 1993, Kerry has repeatedly voted to cut billions of dollars from our intelligence community, and even proposed freezing the intelligence budget.
Kerry’s First Point also calls for an increase of “Active Duty End Strength,” his plan states:
John Kerry has called for a temporary increase of about 40,000 active-duty Army troops: 20,000 in such specialties as military police and civil affairs, and 20,000 combat.
Interestingly enough, this completely conflicts with Kerry’s statement at the debate from last night:
KUCINICH: “You said you want to send 40,000 more troops [to Iraq].”
KERRY: “I have never said that.”
KUCINICH: “You never said you wanted to bring 40,000 more troops ever?”
KERRY: “No …”
Kerry has said similar things in the past as well. And yes, including Iraq.
2. Improve International Intelligence and Law Enforcement. John Kerry will lead our nation in building strong international cooperation to ensure that America has the best information available and works effectively to cut financing for terrorist organizations.
Once again, Kerry’s promises on improving anything for the intelligence community just don’t hold water. Kerry talks about ensuring “intelligence agencies receive the most accurate and timely information” but how can you do that without giving them adequate funding?
3. Cut Off the Flow of Terrorist Funds
Is this some new idea of Kerry’s? Please…
4. Control the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Control the spread??? Control it? How about “Stop the Spread of WMD????” Just what exactly are Kerry’s priorities here?
I also question Kerry’s true commitment to dealing with the WMD issue because Kerry is same guy who for years was telling us Saddam Hussein was a threat and then once the war began was accusing Bush of misleading the country.
Further discrediting Kerry’s commitment to this WMD issue, after Libya agreed to dismantle it’s WMD program (out of Qaddafi’s fear of sharing the same fate as Saddam Hussein,) Kerry, while at least recognizing the significance of Libya’s agreement and then criticized the circumstances: “If the President can put aside his go it alone unilateralism to engage with a longtime enemy like Qaddafi, why are the ideologues in this Administration so hesitant to negotiate with North Korea to end their nuclear weapons programs?”
5. Win the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan. John Kerry will bring real security in Iraq and Afghanistan to prevent terrorists from reemerging in Afghanistan or establishing a base in Iraq.
In this point, Kerry’s plan states it wants to “broaden the coalition in Iraq,” and “include the UN.” What I don’t understand is why Kerry thinks our coalition in Iraq is not legitimate, when he supported intervention of our military in Kosovo, which had a smaller coalition and no UN approval to back it up.
[6]. Win the War of Ideas and the Future of a Younge[r] Generation
What sticks out in this point is the strategy of assisting “Civil society through human rights groups, independent media, and labor unions.”
What? Is this sensitivity training or something? Is Kerry going to enlist Democratic Underground or IndyMedia to “build bridges?”
[7]. Secure America’s Homeland
Kerry’s final point here is also supplemented with a lot of empty promises that have no reflection of Kerry’s record. The plan states “Kerry will ensure our first defenders are equipped, that we can respond to biological attacks, and air transportation security is made safer.”
The only thing we have to judge Kerry on is his record, and when his record conflicts with his promises, then all we have is piece of fiction.
I will put my trust in the one person whose promises to win the war on terror can be backed up with actions. George W. Bush is that one person.
The Blogroll For Bush Exceeds 300 Blogs!
Friday, February 27th, 2004My other project, Blogs For Bush has reached a new milestone. The Blogroll for Bush has now passed 300 blogs!
Who would have thought this past summer that it would have grown so big so quickly?
Howard Dean, “Mr. Grassroots Internet” himself, had no more than 90 blogs on its blogroll. Just to put things in perspective…
Mazel Tov Bush Bloggers!
If You’re Going To San Francisco…
Thursday, February 26th, 2004…be sure to be as far away from this honeymoon as you can.
Rosie O’Donnell has married her longtime girlfriend in San Francisco.
O’Donnell and Kelli Carpenter flew across the country Thursday to tie the knot.
The ceremony is the latest in a long line of same-sex marriages that have taken city hall by storm and got the nation talking — if not always in agreement. More than 3,300 other same-sex couples have wed since Feb. 12.
O’Donnell and Carpenter were married in a private office at city hall by San Francisco treasurer Susan Leal — one of the city’s most prominent elected lesbians.
This is what has happened because of liberal activism in the courts and renegade city officials…
Rhetoric vs. Truth: Kerry’s Latest Ad Doesn’t Add Up
Wednesday, February 25th, 2004John Kerry’s latest ad, which began airing in Georgia today, features one of Kerry’s favorite political props, Max Cleland. It’s a really shallow ad with no substance.
It begins with Cleland speaking about Kerry:
John Kerry is the guy that can change this country. John is a fighter. He’s experienced, he has character, he has courage.
He’s a fighter?
If he’s so much of a fighter, why did he whine about his Senate record being scrutinized? I haven’t heard any convincing defense of his past votes – all I (and all of us) have heard is Kerry whimper about his “patriotism” being attacked. Is that the actions of a “fighter?” I don’t think so.
He’s experienced?
Some experience. He’s voted against our defense and intelligence throughout his Senate career and his overall voting record makes Ted Kennedy look like the conservative Senator from Massachusetts. Is that “experience” anyone would want to run on?
He has character?
Well, at least someone can see Kerry’s “character” because I can’t.
He has courage?
Courage? Is courage whining about his record being criticized adnd accusing Bush of attacking his patriotism courage? John Kerry doesn’t want his record to be criticized because he is a coward.
He stands head and shoulders above anybody else running for President. He understands that we need a strong economy, we need America at work.
I think Cleland needs to open his eyes. Has he seen what has happened since Bush’s tax cuts went through? Unemployment went down. Jobs starting being created again, and we got out of the Clintonian recession. Bush has a far superior understanding of the need for a strong economy and the need for Americans to be working than John Kerry has.
John Kerry’s the one man that I would put my trust in to make this country safer.
Why? Because in the Senate he’s voted against the military, against our intelligence, against our defense… How does his record translate into trust for making this country safer?
He’s been tested on the battlefield, he’s been tested in the United States Senate, and now he’s ready to be President of the United States.
Tested on the battlefield and in the United States Senate? Has Cleland looked at Kerry’s record? Kerry’s record in the Senate shows complete lack of support for those who go into the battlefield!
A real lousy ad Kerry. The rhetoric doesn’t have any truth to support it.
It’s Wictory Wednesday
Wednesday, February 25th, 2004It’s another Wictory Wednesday.
I Love Bush
Monday, February 23rd, 2004Bush’s speech inspired me to donate more money to his campaign…
Will The Democrats Be Nadered and Spayed?
Sunday, February 22nd, 2004Apparently, Democrats are bit concerned about Ralph Nader entering the race.
I don’t think they have anything to worry about. Bush is going to win with or without Nader in the race.
Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, who personally urged Nader not to run, called the decision “unfortunate.”
“You know, he’s had a whole distinguished career, fighting for working families, and I would hate to see part of his legacy being that he got us eight years of George Bush,” McAuliffe said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
Are the Democrats throwing in the towel already or something? Terry must really believe that Naders influence, as small as it will be, will change the election in favor of Bush?
That is absolutely pathetic. As a Bush supporter, it doesn’t matter to me if he’s in or out. I fully expect Bush to win by a large enough margin that Nader’s potential impact, small or microscopic, will make no difference.
Why don’t the Democrats think the same way? Why don’t they believe enough in their own candidate(s) that they don’t share similiar apathy as myself or the Republican Party?
Why are the Democrats so afraid? If Bush was such a bad president for the country, why should it be such a contest? If Kerry is such an “electable” candidate, why fear Nader?
How sad, the Democrats don’t even have faith in their own candidates…
« Previous Entries