Why Are You Voting For Kerry?

[DavidJames]

As you read these, keep in mind, these are Kerry endorsements. Imagine what they would have said if they opposed him.

True, now imagine how bad Kerry's opponent must be that despite this, they still prefer Kerry.

 

[merphie]

I'm pro-military and a democrat. Republicans usually screw up wars. We've fared better in military operations under democratic presidents. (and sending troops into ridiculous scenarios is decidedly anti-military)

Please thank your wife for cancelling out your vote.

The democrats are so much better. Look at Vietnam and somolia!

 

[merphie]

- Kerry aligns better with my views socially: I don't want a gay marriage amendment, faith based initiatives, or lack of federal funding for stem cell research.

Most states are passing a Anti-Gay Amendment anyway. You mean Clinton's Faith Based initiatives. I believe we should have funding for stem cells but there are some morale questions that must be considered.

- While I have little confidence in the UN, I do like Kerry's view on unilateralism.

Kerry is right on unilateralism?

- Kerry is from the Senate, where viewpoints are debated more openly and positions are defended and argued more publicly than a couple of times before the election.

You have to be there to vote.

 

[Ladewig]

Note the question carefully. It is not, "Why are you voting against Bush?" I am hard-pressed to think of a reason that anyone has given for why they are voting for Kerry.

Your post made me think carefully about my positions. I am one of those voting against GWB. If it were Kerry versus non-descript Republican, I would be voting third-party, for sure. All my reasons for voting in this election involve voting against the man who said that if Iraqi evil-doers want to cause Americans harm then "Bring them on."

Just to clarify, I'm not just voting against Bush, I am voting against Cheney, against Ashcroft, and against Rumsfeld, too.

If I were looking for reasons to vote Kerry, I might consider the number of military officers and enlisted who have switched parties to support Kerry.

 

[Furious]

Most states are passing a Anti-Gay Amendment anyway. You mean Clinton's Faith Based initiatives. I believe we should have funding for stem cells but there are some morale questions that must be considered.

Anti-Gay : And that's where it should reside. I personally oppose Anti-Gay amendments since they'll probably be reversed in 20 years or so anyway, which is why I don't want another Prohibition style screw-up amendment to the Constitution again.

Faith-based: They are far enough along already, not need for a president who wants to expand them.

Stem cells: Of course. I think we agree here that we don't want Brave New World factories for pumping out stem cells, but that using cells already scheduled for destruction isn't the worst moral problem we face.

Kerry is right on unilateralism?

He fits in line with my personal views on it, yes. As outlined by Brown earlier in this thread, I believe you need strong justification to do so. While I don't necessarily disagree with the invasion of Iraq for a variety of reasons, but it has been expensive and the U.S. is bearing the brunt of that cost in lives and dollars. I don't think the cost has been worth it.

To once again toe Bush-bashing, I didn't object to the war as much as I object to how it was handled.

You have to be there to vote.

Ideally, yes. Pragmatically, provide evidence where it would have mattered.

Since you did not comment on it, I take it you agree that electing Kerry is the fiscally responsible thing to do?

 

[BPSCG]

Re: Re: Why Are You Voting For Kerry?

If I were looking for reasons to vote Kerry, I might consider the number of military officers and enlisted who have switched parties to support Kerry.

You don't have to switch parties to vote for someone. In any case, what might that number be? Is it a large number? If so, compared to what?

What about the officers who served with Kerry who are voting against him? Two hundred some-odd as opposed to a half-dozen voting for him. Did that enter into your calculus?

Anyway, glad to see the question made you think. Now all we gotta do is get you thinking right.

 

[merphie]

Anti-Gay : And that's where it should reside. I personally oppose Anti-Gay amendments since they'll probably be reversed in 20 years or so anyway, which is why I don't want another Prohibition style screw-up amendment to the Constitution again.

I agree with you. I don't think they will get a federal amendment.

Faith-based: They are far enough along already, not need for a president who wants to expand them.

Didn't Kerry say in the debates that he supports them? I don't see a problem with using faith-based organizations to reach people who believe in them. After all, isn't ignoring them because they are faith-based just as bad as using them simply because they are.

Stem cells: Of course. I think we agree here that we don't want Brave New World factories for pumping out stem cells, but that using cells already scheduled for destruction isn't the worst moral problem we face.

Sure, that is one aspect. Proper controls must be in place to ensure people don't do immorale things just to make an extra buck.

He fits in line with my personal views on it, yes. As outlined by Brown earlier in this thread, I believe you need strong justification to do so. While I don't necessarily disagree with the invasion of Iraq for a variety of reasons, but it has been expensive and the U.S. is bearing the brunt of that cost in lives and dollars. I don't think the cost has been worth it.

To once again toe Bush-bashing, I didn't object to the war as much as I object to how it was handled.

I don't see Kerry has proposed anything else that Bush has not done is is doing. All Kerry has done is complain about Bush.

Ideally, yes. Pragmatically, provide evidence where it would have mattered.

Every vote matters. Should I not vote because Bush will most likely win my state anyway? So it wouldn't matter if I voted for Kerry or a 3rd party.

Since you did not comment on it, I take it you agree that electing Kerry is the fiscally responsible thing to do?

You said you didn't agree with Kerry so I did not feel a comment was needed. I don't like many (if any) of Kerry's social programs.

 

[Ladewig]

Re: Re: Re: Why Are You Voting For Kerry?

You don't have to switch parties to vote for someone. In any case, what might that number be? Is it a large number? If so, compared to what?

What about the officers who served with Kerry who are voting against him? Two hundred some-odd as opposed to a half-dozen voting for him. Did that enter into your calculus?

Those officers were always against Kerry. I was interesting in people who were pro-Bush but then became anti-Bush. As for numbers, I can't find verifiable numbers on the internet, so I will withdraw my claim. I had based it on the number of ancedotal interviews on Air America Radio and the letters in M. Moore's latest book.

Anyway, glad to see the question made you think. Now all we gotta do is get you thinking right. [/B]

Hold the door. If we are going to compare the candidates, then it is not fair to exclude reasons not to vote for Bush from the discussions. "Right" thinking requires looking at the plusses and minuses of all candidates. Bush's saying that the jury is still out on evolution is enough to cross him off my list.

 

[BPSCG]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why Are You Voting For Kerry?

Hold the door. If we are going to compare the candidates, then it is not fair to exclude reasons not to vote for Bush from the discussions.

Absolutely, but I don't think there's been any lack of opinion on that side of the coin; we've heard everything from "I disagree with his tax proposals" to "He killed my grandma and drank her blood." But I'd heard very little about why people were voting for Kerry, hence this thread. FWIW, I don't see a lot of strong argunments in there. Several posts saying Kerry is "for" this or "against" that, but not much saying he will do this or that. Maybe 'cuz he hasn't said much about what he'll do (other than "everything differently")?

 

[Suddenly]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why Are You Voting For Kerry?

Absolutely, but I don't think there's been any lack of opinion on that side of the coin; we've heard everything from "I disagree with his tax proposals" to "He killed my grandma and drank her blood." But I'd heard very little about why people were voting for Kerry, hence this thread. FWIW, I don't see a lot of strong argunments in there. Several posts saying Kerry is "for" this or "against" that, but not much saying he will do this or that. Maybe 'cuz he hasn't said much about what he'll do (other than "everything differently")?

It is just hard to do in these circumstances.

It is like I am running from a guy wearing a hockey mask, carrying an axe, and has made it clear he means me the severest of interpersonal harm. Someone has stopped to give me a ride and now you want to claim that the driver doesn't have a license and is smoking a blunt so why do I think he is someone I want to ride around with....


Just trying to maybe shine a light onto why this is such a hard question. We don't care if Kerry has a license or is on six hits of acid. As long as there is no axe and no intent to fillet...


I'm not meaning this as a particular pro-Kerry argument as much as to give a sense of why I don't spend a lot of time worrying about the details of Kerry's plans...

 

[Brown]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why Are You Voting For Kerry?

Several posts saying Kerry is "for" this or "against" that, but not much saying he will do this or that. Maybe 'cuz he hasn't said much about what he'll do (other than "everything differently")?

Really? I thought we did.

Kerry will seek the input of others, including those who are outside his inner circle. Bush does not do this, saying the practice is " not appropriate."

Kerry will reverse Bush policies on stem cell research, the environment, and other policies that squelch scientific inquiry. Kerry will be guided by science, not ideology.

Kerry will not appoint people to the bench based principally upon their political affiliations. Bush has done so.

Kerry will work not to alienate other nations. Bush has acted in the opposite direction.

Kerry will do his homework. Unlike Bush, he will read and act on his briefings. Kerry will not ignore warnings, as Bush has consistently done.

I don't expect to change anyone's mind about Bush versus Kerry. But I think it is very clear that a vote for Kerry is an informed vote, a vote based upon reason and good sense.

 

[merphie]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why Are You Voting For Kerry?

Kerry will seek the input of others, including those who are outside his inner circle. Bush does not do this, saying the practice is " not appropriate."

I disagree and think you are over simplifying the issues. Bush has made a lot of head way with other countries. So what if France and Germany didn't want to play.

Kerry will reverse Bush policies on stem cell research, the environment, and other policies that squelch scientific inquiry. Kerry will be guided by science, not ideology.

I think there is serious question we should consider on Stem cells. If you are talking about the Koyoto protocol, I believe it was flawed and should not be considered. Kerry is just as idealogical as Bush is.

Kerry will not appoint people to the bench based principally upon their political affiliations. Bush has done so.

Kerry wouldn't do this? Yeah right. There's no reason to think he wouldn't. His first picks would probably be Ted Kennedy or Ms Clinton.

Kerry will work not to alienate other nations. Bush has acted in the opposite direction.

Too bad for France and Germany.

Kerry will do his homework. Unlike Bush, he will read and act on his briefings. Kerry will not ignore warnings, as Bush has consistently done.

What warnings?

I don't expect to change anyone's mind about Bush versus Kerry. But I think it is very clear that a vote for Kerry is an informed vote, a vote based upon reason and good sense.

Not with rhetorical BS like that. I read that stuff on Kerry's website too.

 

[Furious]

I don't see Kerry has proposed anything else that Bush has not done is is doing. All Kerry has done is complain about Bush.

I once again have a hard time avoiding Bush-bashing on this, but I want something different, and may be overly projecting on Kerry. However, he has said that he would use more diplomatic means to include allies not currently in Iraq to help shoulder the burden, which does not seem the same as steps that Bush is taking. "Stay the course" is the mantra.

A second Bush term will continue the current strategy. I'm ready for a different one.

Every vote matters. Should I not vote because Bush will most likely win my state anyway? So it wouldn't matter if I voted for Kerry or a 3rd party.

We're having an idealist versus a pragmatic problem on this (oddly enough, we are reversed on the anti-gay amendent above). Senators (and Congressmen in general) of both parties miss votes all the time; the issue is not unique to Kerry or Edwards or Cheney.

Ideally, yes, everyone should vote every time. Pragmatically, it doesn't always (and probably usually) doesn't make a whole lot of difference.

You said you didn't agree with Kerry so I did not feel a comment was needed. I don't like many (if any) of Kerry's social programs.

Fair enough. Fiscal responsibility is a reason why I would vote for Kerry, and it is not necessarily an affirmation of Kerry's spending views. We are arguing mostly over the stuff I specifically listed as minutae.

I feel that I'm voting for the lesser of two evils (who isn't?), and mostly side with Kerry because the legislature will be the opposite party. I like gridlock, because my moderate views are more likely to prevail.

 

[Brown]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why Are You Voting For Kerry?

I disagree and think you are over simplifying the issues. Bush has made a lot of head way with other countries. So what if France and Germany didn't want to play.

Bush's international record is miserable. It isn't just France and Germany that are turned off by his practices. The vast majority of nations is opposed to his military actions. I put it to you that Bush's record with respect to international relations is the worst in American history.

I think there is serious question we should consider on Stem cells. If you are talking about the Koyoto protocol, I believe it was flawed and should not be considered. Kerry is just as idealogical as Bush is.

Bush's stem cell decision was, he said, based upon "ethics." His rationale, however, was not ethically sound, and rings hollow with those who stood to benefit from the research.

I wasn't talking about Kyoto. Environmental policy is considerably more comprehensive than that. Under the Bush administration, pollutant concentrations in American air, soil, water and food have increased due to his neglect and his cronyism.

As for Kerry being as ideological as Bush, that is simply untrue. Kerry has a record of making decisions upon the basis of what the facts are, in contrast to Bush's practice of making decisions based upon what he thinks the facts ought to be.

Kerry wouldn't do this [appoint people to the bench based principally upon political affiliation]? Yeah right. There's no reason to think he wouldn't. His first picks would probably be Ted Kennedy or Ms Clinton.

Your cynicism is not an argument, and you need to educate yourself a little more about the judicial selection process. Kerry would not be able to appoint people based principally upon political affiliation. You are wrong in thinking that Kerry would be as bad as Bush, only the other way.

What warnings?

You've got to be kidding. Where shall we start? Bush was warned in a President's Daily Brief (PDB) dated 6 August 2001 "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US." The PBD specifically referred to a domestic attack, and referred to al Qaeda members who lived in the USA and were coming to the USA. It specifically mentioned the possibility of aircraft hijacking. It specifically mentioned concern about New York. In response to this PDB, Bush did... nothing. He called no meetings, mobilized no departments, asked no questions. About a month later, Bin Laden did indeed strike in the U.S. The president's failure to follow up on this PDB is, in a word, inexcusable. I have yet to hear a coherent defense for the president's inaction.

The president was warned by inspectors and by his own intellegence people that there was no collaborative connection between al Qaeda and Iraq (which was correct). The president was warned that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that there were no active programs to develop them (which was also correct). He ignored these warnings as well. Further, he told the American people that there was no doubt that Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, even though he knew damn well that there were serious doubts.

The president was warned by his own people that the Iraq invasion would create sympathy for the terrorists, and increase the number of terrorists. He ignored that warning. The president was warned by Colin Powell that an Iraq campaign would be a drawn-out, messy affair, not a cake-walk. "If you break it, you own it," Powell said. The president disregarded this warning.

The president was warned by his own generals that, if he was going to invade, he needed more troops. The president did not act on that warning, either. He was warned to prevent looting following the invasion, but he didn't pay any attention, and Donald Rumsfeld brushed the whole thing off as trivial.

One of the consequences may have been, as we learned recently, that the Administration was warned about potential looting of explosives, and did nothing about it.

This sort of pattern absolutely reeks of shocking irresponsibility on the part of George W. Bush. I have yet to see anyone rationally explain how the president's disregard of warnings like these makes him a good commander-in-chief. If you would like to explain to us how this sort of foolish behavior is the mark of a good commander, then be my guest.

 

[merphie]

I once again have a hard time avoiding Bush-bashing on this, but I want something different, and may be overly projecting on Kerry. However, he has said that he would use more diplomatic means to include allies not currently in Iraq to help shoulder the burden, which does not seem the same as steps that Bush is taking. "Stay the course" is the mantra.

A second Bush term will continue the current strategy. I'm ready for a different one.

I wouldn't call it Bashing. You are expressing an opinion and I respect that. I don't agree with you since nothing I have heard from the Kerry side would lead me to believe he would do (be able to do) anything differently.

We're having an idealist versus a pragmatic problem on this (oddly enough, we are reversed on the anti-gay amendent above). Senators (and Congressmen in general) of both parties miss votes all the time; the issue is not unique to Kerry or Edwards or Cheney.

Ideally, yes, everyone should vote every time. Pragmatically, it doesn't always (and probably usually) doesn't make a whole lot of difference.

True, I only bring it up because of some of the things Kerry has said. It seems more important.

Fair enough. Fiscal responsibility is a reason why I would vote for Kerry, and it is not necessarily an affirmation of Kerry's spending views. We are arguing mostly over the stuff I specifically listed as minutae.

Maybe so, i don't believe Kerry has any fiscal responsibilty. At the very least not more than Bush.

I feel that I'm voting for the lesser of two evils (who isn't?), and mostly side with Kerry because the legislature will be the opposite party. I like gridlock, because my moderate views are more likely to prevail.

I agree. I just don't like a lot of Kerry's plans and rhetoric. I don't agree with his medical care, social security, Iraq, or gun control. (To name a few) So I see Bush as the lessor evil.

 

[merphie]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why Are You Voting For Kerry?

Bush's international record is miserable. It isn't just France and Germany that are turned off by his practices. The vast majority of nations is opposed to his military actions. I put it to you that Bush's record with respect to international relations is the worst in American history.

I don't see the list of others. We are working with Pakistan. We are working with Japan, China, Russia, and S Korea on the N Korea Problem. We are working with France, Germany, and Russian on the Iran Problem. Bush is working with other people. So they didn't agree with the Iraq problem. That is going to happen. Not everyone will see it our way. I think the right thing was done none-the-less.

Bush's stem cell decision was, he said, based upon "ethics." His rationale, however, was not ethically sound, and rings hollow with those who stood to benefit from the research.

Is he not allowed to have an opinion? Is it not ethically sound to not destroy potential life? This is related to the Abortion debate. I have ethic questions on Stem cells too. I don't think people should sell stuff to make a buck. Just like abortions should not be used as birthcontrol. The Bush family has had some brushes with disease that might have been cured by such research so it is personal. To say he doesn't care for those victims is a character attack and uncalled for. Why can't private research do the research?

I wasn't talking about Kyoto. Environmental policy is considerably more comprehensive than that. Under the Bush administration, pollutant concentrations in American air, soil, water and food have increased due to his neglect and his cronyism.

Examples? Links?

As for Kerry being as ideological as Bush, that is simply untrue. Kerry has a record of making decisions upon the basis of what the facts are,

Except when they are politically dangerous.

in contrast to Bush's practice of making decisions based upon what he thinks the facts ought to be.

Examples? Links?

Your cynicism is not an argument, and you need to educate yourself a little more about the judicial selection process. Kerry would not be able to appoint people based principally upon political affiliation.

Same applies to Bush.

You are wrong in thinking that Kerry would be as bad as Bush, only the other way.You've got to be kidding. Where shall we start? Bush was warned in a President's Daily Brief (PDB) dated 6 August 2001 "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US." The PBD specifically referred to a domestic attack, and referred to al Qaeda members who lived in the USA and were coming to the USA. It specifically mentioned the possibility of aircraft hijacking. It specifically mentioned concern about New York. In response to this PDB, Bush did... nothing. He called no meetings, mobilized no departments, asked no questions. About a month later, Bin Laden did indeed strike in the U.S. The president's failure to follow up on this PDB is, in a word, inexcusable. I have yet to hear a coherent defense for the president's inaction.

It's been in the 9/11 report and I believe it was fairly debunked and explained. The 9/11 attacks were probably more of a failure in the Clinton years. Remember Clinton didn't do anything in response to the Cole Bombing by Al Aqaeda. You are assume that Bush could have stopped it when the 9/11 commission doesn't support this conclusion. It was not one man's fault.

The president was warned by inspectors and by his own intellegence people that there was no collaborative connection between al Qaeda and Iraq (which was correct). The president was warned that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that there were no active programs to develop them (which was also correct). He ignored these warnings as well. Further, he told the American people that there was no doubt that Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, even though he knew damn well that there were serious doubts.

There was connections to Al Qaeda and Iraq. We didn't know there was not WMD at the time. Even Kerry thought the same thing at the time. Kerry just changed his mind after the fact. The problem with Iraq is after 12 years the inspectors couldn't find all the information because Saddam played cat and mouse. Iraq had declared a lot of WMD that they have not shown what happened to them. You are using information available to us now that was not them.

The president was warned by his own people that the Iraq invasion would create sympathy for the terrorists, and increase the number of terrorists. He ignored that warning. The president was warned by Colin Powell that an Iraq campaign would be a drawn-out, messy affair, not a cake-walk. "If you break it, you own it," Powell said. The president disregarded this warning.

Can you prove there are more terrorist there now then there were then? Maybe one of those mass graves in Iraq is full of terrorist.

The president was warned by his own generals that, if he was going to invade, he needed more troops. The president did not act on that warning, either. He was warned to prevent looting following the invasion, but he didn't pay any attention, and Donald Rumsfeld brushed the whole thing off as trivial.

One of the consequences may have been, as we learned recently, that the Administration was warned about potential looting of explosives, and did nothing about it.

Bush even said in the debate he asked his military what they needed and he filled them the best he could. Maybe Bush should be retiring some generals? The facts are the generals expected more of a fight from the Iraq military. It looks to me of more of a failure of the military.

 

[Brown]

merphie, my friend, your rebuttal doesn't even come close. With all respect, you should really pay more attention to current events.

You obviously don't know much about the state of the environment or about Bush's judicial nominations. You clearly aren't aware of the facts pertaining to the situation in Iraq or how the number of insurgents has quintupled. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but you really ought to take your blinders off and do your homework.

The August 6 PDB has not been debunked, and it damned well hasn't been explained. The fact is that Bush dropped the ball, not Clinton. Bush. Bush didn't do his job and 3000 citizens died.

Please, refute me! Don't just point the finger at Clinton, because that won't hold water. For one thing, it wasn't Clinton's "watch." For another, Clinton received terrorist warnings pertaining to the Atlanta Olympics and the Millenium. What Clinton did was completely different from what Bush did. Clinton held meetings. Bush didn't. Clinton asked questions. Bush didn't. Clinton made sure law enforcement agencies were alerted and mobilized. Bush didn't. Clinton "shook the trees." Bush didn't.

It is no excuse--none at all--to say that the attack would have taken place even if Bush hadn't dropped the ball. That conclusion is NOT supported by the 9-11 report, and it is insultingly arrogant in any event.

It is also no excuse--none at all--to blame the generals. Bush is the commander-in-chief, and the buck stops with him. Also, contrary to Bush's fib during the debates, the generals did not tell him that they had everything they needed. General Eric K. Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, warned the president that "several hundred thousand" troops would be required to win the peace as well as the war. His warning went unheeded.

merphie, I don't want this to sound like I disrespect you or that I'm mad at you or anything like that. But I say, with all sincerity, that I have never heard a reasonable, fact-based defense of the president's actions. I have looked for such defenses, and I really want to hear one. It looks to me like Bush has made some extremely serious errors, and most Bush supporters simply prefer to ignore them or throw a slogan at them rather than address them head-on.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why Are You Voting For Kerry?

Is he not allowed to have an opinion? Is it not ethically sound to not destroy potential life? This is related to the Abortion debate. I have ethic questions on Stem cells too. I don't think people should sell stuff to make a buck. Just like abortions should not be used as birthcontrol. The Bush family has had some brushes with disease that might have been cured by such research so it is personal. To say he doesn't care for those victims is a character attack and uncalled for. Why can't private research do the research?

No, a lot of us feel he shouldn't have an opinion or, more specifically, the privilege of acting upon that opinion when he has no medical expertise. And regarding private research, most scientists will tell you that President Bush denying more extensive government-funded programs has caused progress in embryonic-stem-cell research to abate to an exceptionable degree.

But more to the point, why do you feel a moral obligation to a handful of undifferentiated cells that were already going to be discarded anyway?

 

[SlippyToad]

Why is easy

I want an adult in the Oval Office. How simple could it get?

 

[merphie]

merphie, my friend, your rebuttal doesn't even come close. With all respect, you should really pay more attention to current events.

You obviously don't know much about the state of the environment or about Bush's judicial nominations. You clearly aren't aware of the facts pertaining to the situation in Iraq or how the number of insurgents has quintupled. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but you really ought to take your blinders off and do your homework.

Blinders? Where's your links? You have only given opinion as far as I can see.

The August 6 PDB has not been debunked, and it damned well hasn't been explained. The fact is that Bush dropped the ball, not Clinton. Bush. Bush didn't do his job and 3000 citizens died.

Maybe you should read the Rice testimony before the 9/11 commission. The PDB didn't contain any new information. We already knew that Bin Laden wanted to strike us. There was no information in the PDB that would lead to the conclusion that an attack was imminent (IE 9/11).

The attacks were probably well on their way before Bush took Office. Clinton should have been the first president to be in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda nearly sunk a US destroyer and it went unanswered.

Please, refute me! Don't just point the finger at Clinton, because that won't hold water. For one thing, it wasn't Clinton's "watch." For another, Clinton received terrorist warnings pertaining to the Atlanta Olympics and the Millenium. What Clinton did was completely different from what Bush did. Clinton held meetings. Bush didn't. Clinton asked questions. Bush didn't. Clinton made sure law enforcement agencies were alerted and mobilized. Bush didn't. Clinton "shook the trees." Bush didn't.

Clinton didn't correct any government problems. The Al Qaeda threat is not new and was going on long before Bush took office. Remember the first World Trade Center bombing? All Clinton did is blow up a $10 tent with a Million Dollar missle.

Do you have proof that Bush never held meetings?

It is no excuse--none at all--to say that the attack would have taken place even if Bush hadn't dropped the ball. That conclusion is NOT supported by the 9-11 report, and it is insultingly arrogant in any event.

You have no proof that Bush could have stopped the attacks.

It is also no excuse--none at all--to blame the generals. Bush is the commander-in-chief, and the buck stops with him. Also, contrary to Bush's fib during the debates, the generals did not tell him that they had everything they needed. General Eric K. Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, warned the president that "several hundred thousand" troops would be required to win the peace as well as the war. His warning went unheeded.

So if the generals didn't plan well then it's not their fault? Where is your proof of anything else? Some of what they needed Kerry voted against in the 87 Billion dollar package.

merphie, I don't want this to sound like I disrespect you or that I'm mad at you or anything like that. But I say, with all sincerity, that I have never heard a reasonable, fact-based defense of the president's actions. I have looked for such defenses, and I really want to hear one. It looks to me like Bush has made some extremely serious errors, and most Bush supporters simply prefer to ignore them or throw a slogan at them rather than address them head-on.

I've never heard a reasonable fact based for Kerry or against Bush myself. Most Kerry supports seem to quote the Kerry website as fact. Do you still think there was some Haliburton Conspiracy?