Wednesday, October 27, 2004


Who is stronger fighting Terrorists???

Based on the story below I would have to say Bush. Do you really think the Terrorists would be risking their lives to defeat him if they really thought Kerry would be stonger. Read more about this below.

"Terrorists hope to defeat Bush through Iraq violence"

"Leaders and supporters of the anti-U.S. insurgency say their attacks in recent weeks have a clear objective: The greater the violence, the greater the chances that President Bush will be defeated on Tuesday and the Americans will go home.

"If the U.S. Army suffered numerous humiliating losses, [Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John] Kerry would emerge as the superman of the American people," said Mohammad Amin Bashar, a leader of the Muslim Scholars Association, a hard-line clerical group that vocally supports the resistance. ....."


Media - Fair and Balanced???

If you think the main stream media is really fair and balanced check out these stories.

"New Study Finds Media Favored Kerry in First Two Weeks of October"

"The cable channels were CNN and Fox, but the study only focused on two programs: the Aaron Brown and Brit Hume evening shows. Only broadcast TV produced a large sample, as it included the PBS NewsHour and the three morning shows and three evening news programs on CBS, NBC and ABC.
In all, from all outlets, 817 stories were coded and decoded.
In the final accounting, 59% of stories that were mainly about Bush told a mainly negative story, while 25% of Kerry stories played out that way. One in three stories about Kerry were positive, one in seven for Bush."

"CBS, NY Times Appear to Plan 'October Surprise' Regarding Missing Iraqi Explosives"

"According to CBS News executive producer Jeff Fager, an announcement by the interim Iraqi government to the International Atomic Energy Agency that a cache of 380 tons of explosives in a storage depot at Al Qaqaa have been missing since former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was ousted from power was going to be revealed on this Sunday's episode of "60 Minutes."
"[Ou]r plan was to run the story on October 31, but it became clear that it wouldn't hold," Fager said in a statement."

"Many political observers believe CBS was planning to unveil this as an "October surprise" in an effort to defeat President Bush in the November 2 election by airing the segment on Sunday, October 31."

"Text Transcript of ABC Bush Kerry Debate Memo"

"It's up to Kerry to defend himself, of course. But as one of the few news organizations with the skill and strength to help voters evaluate what the candidates are saying to serve the public interest. Now is the time for all of us to step up and do that right."

All I want is for them to report the news and let me decide, but it seems the mainstream media has decided this is way to important to let the common person decide who should be running the country.

Tuesday, October 26, 2004


Can you believe everything John Kerry Says

From the Washington Times

"For more than a year, the phantom meeting had been a useful cudgel for Mr. Kerry's attacks on the president. Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations in December 2003, Mr. Kerry said he had met "with the entire Security Council, and we spent a couple of hours talking about what they saw as the path to a united front in order to be able to deal with Saddam Hussein." In the second presidential debate, Mr. Kerry again trotted out the meeting to argue that "this president hasn't listened ... I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them." But that turns out not to be true. Kerry spokesmen entered into spin mode over the weekend, backtracking from the above statements with the assertion that Mr. Kerry "met with a group of representatives of countries sitting on the Security Council." But even this seems dubious. "We were as surprised as anyone when Kerry started talking about a meeting with the Security Council," one U.S. diplomat told Mr. Mowbray. Another saidonconditionof anonymity that Mr. Kerry met with "a few" of the ambassadors. In all likelihood the reality is that Mr. Kerry chose to trump up the importance of piecemeal meetings with a few delegates as part of his effort to cast the president as disdainful of allies and hasteful as commander in chief. Mr. Kerry had wanted to make himself appear the better on both accounts. It helps, of course, if the acts of diplomatic finesse one ascribes to one's self actually took place. Just as it helps to have a truthful record when trying to cast an opponent as a deceiver. Clearly, Mr. Kerry has some explaining to do. "

To me, John Kerry comes across as the little boy that his a single in the first inning and by the time he gets home it is a game winning grand slam with two out and two strikes. He just can not tell the truth because it would not be as dramtic or make him seem as important. Two of his whoppers, as my dad would say, are:

1. World leaders telling him that they want him to win...... not one world leader has backed that up.

2. Christmas in Combodia....... yes he was 50 miles from there and at one time I flew over Texas Stadium when the Cowboys were playing so can I claim I was at the game.

If this was anyone else the News would be all over it, but this is John Kerry and they act as if it is no big deal just like they did with Gore and Clinton in the past.

I for one can not vote for someone I can not trust, and telling big whoppers to make your self look big is still a lie.

Wednesday, October 13, 2004


Kerry Unchanged by 9/11

Can we afford a to have a leader that was not changed by the death of 3000 Americans???

"During long interviews on the subject with The New York Times Magazine, Kerry seemed to play down terrorism. He even made the shocking claim that 9/11 "didn't change me much at all." "

He also added "Sen. John Kerry over terrorism, citing a New York Times Magazine interview in which Kerry said people must be able to live "where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance."

Is there an acceptable level of terror activity, an acceptable number of deaths?? Not only does he want to go back to the Clinton level of taxes but the Clinton way of handling terror where we had people killed then droped a couple of bombs and called it even.

Friday, October 08, 2004


PAUL BREMER III View on Kerry and Bush

This is from his NY OP-ED piece dated Oct 8, 2004

"Our victory also depends on devoting the resources necessary to win this war. So last year, President Bush asked the American people to make available $87 billion for military and reconstruction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military commanders and I strongly agreed on the importance of these funds, which is why we stood together before Congress to make the case for their approval. The overwhelming majority of Congress understood and provided the funds needed to fight the war and win the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan. These were vital resources that Senator John Kerry voted to deny our troops.

Mr. Kerry is free to quote my comments about Iraq. But for the sake of honesty he should also point out that I have repeatedly said, including in all my speeches in recent weeks, that President Bush made a correct and courageous decision to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein's brutality, and that the president is correct to see the war in Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism.

A year and a half ago, President Bush asked me to come to the Oval Office to discuss my going to Iraq to head the coalition authority. He asked me bluntly, "Why would you want to leave private life and take on such a difficult, dangerous and probably thankless job?" Without hesitation, I answered, "Because I believe in your vision for Iraq and would be honored to help you make it a reality." Today America and the coalition are making steady progress toward that vision.

L. Paul Bremer III, former chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism, was the administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq from May 2003 to June 2004."

Who do you want leading the US..... Your Vote Matters.


Bet You do not see this on CCN, NBC, or CBS

The media has been quick to point out that Paul Bremer said we needed more troops in Iraq, but I bet you will not hear the whole story as reported NY Times OP-ED ( ) . Here are some excerts from the story.

What I Really Said About IraqBy L. PAUL BREMER IIIPublished: October 8, 2004

"It's no secret that during my time in Iraq I had tactical disagreements with others, including military commanders on the ground. Such disagreements among individuals of good will happen all the time, particularly in war and postwar situations. I believe it would have been helpful to have had more troops early on to stop the looting that did so much damage to Iraq's already decrepit infrastructure. The military commanders believed we had enough American troops in Iraq and that having a larger American military presence would have been counterproductive because it would have alienated Iraqis. That was a reasonable point of view, and it may have been right. The truth is that we'll never know. "

"Our troops continue to work closely with Iraqis to isolate and destroy terrorist strongholds. And the United States is supporting Prime Minister Ayad Allawi in his determined effort to bring security and democracy to Iraq. Elections will be held in January and, though there will be challenges and hardships, progress is being made. For the task before us now, I believe we have enough troops in Iraq. "

"The press has been curiously reluctant to report my constant public support for the president's strategy in Iraq and his policies to fight terrorism. I have been involved in the war on terrorism for two decades, and in my view no world leader has better understood the stakes in this global war than President Bush.
The president was right when he concluded that Saddam Hussein was a menace who needed to be removed from power. He understands that our enemies are not confined to Al Qaeda, and certainly not just to Osama bin Laden, who is probably trapped in his hide-out in Afghanistan. As the bipartisan 9/11 commission reported, there were contacts between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime going back a decade. We will win the war against global terror only by staying on the offensive and confronting terrorists and state sponsors of terror - wherever they are. Right now, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Qaeda ally, is a dangerous threat. He is in Iraq. "

Sounds like a differnt story when you get all of the facts.


Kerry Is Wrong on National Security

Kerry has insulted all of the countries standing with the United States in Irag plus the current leaders of Iraq. The bashes Bush for not getting France and Germany to support the US in the War in Iraq. He either can not read or has no grasp of the facts. France and Germany was never going to help the US in Iraq. They had to much to lose in the Food for Oil progra.

Regime Strategic Intent
"One aspect of Saddam’s strategy of unhinging the UN’s sanctions against Iraq, centered on Saddam’s efforts to infl uence certain UN SC permanent members, such as Russia, France, and China and some nonpermanent (Syria, Ukraine) members to end UN sanctions. Under Saddam’s orders, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) formulated and implemented a strategy aimed at these UNSC members and international public opinion with the purpose of ending UN sanctions and undermining its subsequent OFF program by diplomatic and economic means. At a minimum, Saddam wanted to divide the fi ve permanent members and foment international public support of Iraq at the UN and throughout the world by a savvy public relations campaign
and an extensive diplomatic effort."

Is this a person you trust with your and your family security?


Kerry wants it both way's

After watching the first debate, I think John Kerry's position is based on what ever Bush does is wrong. When dealing with Iraq he says Bush is wrong because he did not include enough countries.

" LEHRER: New question, two minutes, Senator Kerry.
"Colossal misjudgments." What colossal misjudgments, in your opinion, has President Bush made in these areas?
KERRY: Well, where do you want me to begin?
First of all, he made the misjudgment of saying to America that he was going to build a true alliance, that he would exhaust the remedies of the United Nations and go through the inspections. "

When dealing with North Korea, Bush is wrong be he does include other countries.

"LEHRER: I want to make sure -- yes, sir -- but in this one minute, I want to make sure that we understand -- the people watching understand the differences between the two of you on this.
You want to continue the multinational talks, correct?
BUSH: Right.
LEHRER: And you're willing to do it...
KERRY: Both. I want bilateral talks which put all of the issues, from the armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues and the nuclear issues on the table.
LEHRER: And you're opposed to that. Right?
BUSH: The minute we have bilateral talks, the six-party talks will unwind. That's exactly what Kim Jong Il wants. And by the way, the breach on the agreement was not through plutonium. The breach on the agreement is highly enriched uranium. That's what we caught him doing. That's where he was breaking the agreement. "


The Kerry Views on Iraq

I have been hearing the John Kerry has a different view on The war with Iraq and WMD's everyday of the week. Well that might totaly true. Below some of the items I have found on the subject with links to the source.

John Kerry's Statement on Iraq Before the War

"I believe the record of Saddam Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation. "

Speech at New York University
Remarks of John Kerry
"His two main rationales – weapons of mass destruction and the Al Qaeda/September 11 connection – have been proved false… by the President’s own weapons inspectors… and by the 9/11 Commission. "

Kerry speech on national security -- Georgetown University
Thursday, January 23, 2003

"Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the perils of war for themselves rather than keeping the focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal. Indeed, for a time, the Administration's unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own, undermining America's standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.
In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing."

May 18, 2003
Kerry: Face the Nation
"KAREN TUMULTY Time Magazine: Well, Senator, last October when you cast that vote for the war in Iraq, you said that your primary reason for casting that vote was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Specifically, you said, `We know through intelligence that he not only has kept them but he continues to grow them.'
We've been looking for those weapons now for over a month. This morning's Washington Post points out that when we went into the site that was number 26 on their list what we found were vacuum cleaners. Does it matter that we haven't found those weapons, and what is the fact that we haven't found them suggest about the intelligence that you were relying on and that Colin Powell took to the UN?
KERRY: Well, it raises a lot of questions about it. What we did know, obviously, Karen, is that for the eight years we had inspectors there, what have we found? We found that the Iraqis were further along in the development of nuclear weapons and that they had more chemical and biological than we had ever seen before, number one.
Number two, they've been uninspected for four years, and we did know that they had precursor chemicals and other efforts going on, according to our intelligence. We also had evidence through the intelligence community that they were engaged in activities with other terrorist organizations and so forth.
I mean, I think it does raise questions about the intelligence we've got. "

Thursday, September 16, 2004


When is a vote wasted?

I have heard both Democrats and Republicans say that if you do not vote for a Democrat or Republican you are wasting your vote. I think the only vote wasted is the one not cast. Your vote is your way of saying this is the person I want to represent me and I think he or she is the best person for the job. So make sure your voice is heard on election day and do not throw away your vote by not voting.


Congress working for you?

I have to admit I am a talk radio junkie. I have been know to listen to Rush, Michael Reagan, and even Art Bell when he was still on the air. Well yesterday on the way home from a work a young lady called into a show and was talking about how Congress had voted themselves a raise and floated a concept about how the people from each state should be the ones to decide if their Senator or House member should get a raise. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea.

But how would it work? Each new member of the House or Senate could start of with a enter level base salary plus a bonus for prior public service, then each year, using a web site each citizen of a state could login and do a performance review of their Senator and Representative. Each member of congress would get a cost of living adjustment plus a raise based on how they ranked with peers, how many votes they were present for, and how many committee meetings they attended.

Along with the new performance review we should also change some of the rules. They could no longer exclude themselves from laws that they pass, and they would be part of the social security program. Their pension fund would be moved into the social security fund. Do you really think we would have a problem with social security for much longer, and I bet they would really think twice before they raided it to help fund pork barrel spending.

Just something to think about. The idea that Congress would become true employees of the people they have gone into public office to serve. Maybe it could only happen in a bubblehead’s world.

Wednesday, September 15, 2004


Welcome to my world

I hope you enjoy reading my thoughts and I do welcome your comments and views. The only thing I ask that we keep it clean, respect each others opion, and smile as much as possible.

My Thoughts for Today:

1. Why is the only reason anyone can give me to Vote for Kerry is that he is not Bush.
2. CBS got mislead because they wanted the story to be true. They didn't want the facts to get in the way.
3. Liberals support the Right to free speech as long as it is their speech and you agree with what they are saying.
4. It is the Freedom of Speech not the Right not to be Offended and not the Freedom from Religion.
5. We owe the Women and Men of the Arm Forces are full support and thanks for a job well done in protecting our freedoms yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Now that you might have an idea from where I am comming from I hope you come back and check out more of mt thoughts.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?