Deja Vu

You need to research your comments ceruleangl. They are way off base.

Posted by: mo mo at October 14, 2004 07:56 PM

PLEASE READ. I AM NOT A "LIBERAL" I VOTE ACCORDING TO WHO I THINK WILL DO A BETTER JOB. This is troubling because it is inaccurate, and also it's non-factual, immature format is really quite offensive. I can't believe it has been circulating so much. Clinton wasn't perfect, its true. But Bush is downright awful. Besides, last I checked it was BUSH VS. KERRY

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good
...because they were already there, having won a bid on a LOGCAP contract in 1992 and started work in the Balkans and his temporary contract award just allowed them to finish what they had started. There was no sense in switching mid-stream.

Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad

...because of the impropriety of awarding a lucrative contract under conditions in which a clear conflict of interest could be said to exist, furthermore, if a normal bidding process was in place, Halliburton wouldnt have been able to try to commit fraud against the govt. and steal taxpayers money.

Clinton spends $77 billion on war in Serbia - good

...for a total cost of roughly $90 billion, 79 day air war, minimal loss of American life,
ending a decade of ethnic cleansing in a multi-lateral effort of NATO.

Bush spends $87 billion in Iraq - bad

...because close to $140 billion has already been approved, with $25 billion more being
submitted to Congress, coupled with a long-term occupation that could
reach as high as $1.5 trillion over the next 5 years. This doesn't take into account the severe depletion of military equipment and manpower and the costs that will be necessary
to re-supply both nor the impact on overall American security abroad and readiness to deploy. To see how the cost of the Iraq war affects your community, visit: www.costofwar.com

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good

...because actually NATO imposed it.

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - good

...because it came at a time when America should have stayed focused on its already-begun war in Afghanistan and the efforts to eliminate al-Qaeda in that region. Our lack of attention has allowed the network to rebuild to unprecedented levels, resulting in a steep increase in worldwide terrorist attacks. Remember, it took about 8 years from the Al Qaeda terrorist attack in the US in the early 90's to the one in 2001. It takes time to plan these things. We are not safer because of Bush. Nuclear power plants are vulnerable, our coasts are unmanned (example: Oregon is completely unprotected), and over 90% of shipments coming in the country aren't checked. Furthermore, the middle east hates us more than before and Al Qaeda has new recruits every day. Plenty of other countries hate us (or Bush) as well, so we are becoming isolated and they won't be there when we really need them. (see attachment from German newspaper about opinion ratings throughout the world)

FROM FACTCHECK.ORG: And Bush overstated matters when he said "My administration worked with the congress to create the department of homeland security." In fact, Bush opposed creation of the separate department for nearly nine months before turning around and supporting it.

Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad

...because we were still involved in a war in Afghanistan which we had not finished, not to mention ignoring the worst humanitarian crisis in the world happening in Sudan. The war on terror centered in Afghanistan and the person who organized the attack in 2001 that killed thousands of Americans IS STILL FREE. I can't believe how stupid this argument is. If we put all the troops from Iraq and all the money into Afghanistan, there is no doubt all the leaders of AQ would be caught already. Also, the rest of the world was ready to fight with us in Afghanistan.

FROM FACTCHECK.ORG: The President said twice that "75 percent" of al Qaeda leaders have been "brought to justice." But as The Associated Press reported Oct. 1, Bush was referring to the deaths or arrests of 75 percent of bin Laden's network at the time of the September 11 attacks -- not those who are running the terrorist organization today.

Furthermore, the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies reported May 25 that the occupation of Iraq has helped al Qaeda recruit more members. The institute quoted "conservative" intelligence estimates as saying that al Qaeda has 18,000 potential operatives and is present in more than 60 countries.

Clinton bombs Chinese Embassy - good

...because NATO discovered it was being used to help Milosevic's forces with communications.

Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad

...because it has only been a half-hearted effort and not at all effective in stopping terrorists. IF YOU CAPTURE OSAMA, MOST OF THE FUNDING, MOTIVATION, AND LEADERSHIP WILL FALL.

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good

...because the "felony" in question was lying about something which was no one's business in the first place. The infidelity just hurt his family. What Bush has been doing is hurting us all.

Bush lands on aircraft carrier in flight suit - bad

...because he used American forces as stage-props for a political photo opportunity and declared an end to combat operations even as American deaths continued to mount. There are about 10x as many deaths now. And it was quite ironic that he wore a flight suit, given the fact that he got out of Vietnam, and further got out of even the National Guard while thousands of his lesser privileged country-men were dying for the cause.

No mass graves found in Serbia - good

That is just a lie. new mass graves are being discovered and have been discovered over the past 4 years. http://www.alb-net.com/pipermail/kcc-news/2002-June/000184.html http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39a0443a536f.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1414735.stm

No WMD found in Iraq - bad

...because weapons inspectors weren't allowed to complete inspections nor given cooperation by America with whatever alleged intelligence was to be had. The Bush adminstration provided forged documents and "guesses" as evidence. Experts from around the world didn't think he had WMD. THE WHOLE REASON FOR THE WAR WAS BECAUSE HE WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE WMD. We are broke, more Americans have died, and the world is really starting to hate us ALL FOR NOTHING.

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good

...because it ended an artificial inflation based on tech promises that
were too speculative. Thankfully, the overall growth of the Clinton economy saved us from Depression.

Economy on upswing under Bush - bad

...because his only solution has been voodoo economics, a tried and failed approach. Bush is the first president in 72 years to lose jobs. There is 1.6 million loss in private sector and these jobs are being replaced with low pay public sector positions which leaves nearly 600,000 loss in total.

FROM FACTCHECK.ORG: "The ad by the pro-Bush group Progress for America Voter Fund claims the economy was already in a recession when Bush took office, but the National Bureau of Economic Research (which dates business cycles) says the recession actually began in March 2001, after Bush took office in January.

The facts also get stretched when the ad claims "41 million seniors now have access to lower cost prescriptions (emphasis added)." Bush's new prescription drug benefit will cover seniors on Medicare for an extra premium of about $35 a month, but not until 2006. Even the currently available drug discount cards have been used much less than expected. Current enrollment is less than 5 million."

Clinton refuses to take custody of bin Laden - good

...because the US doesn't enter negotiations with self-appointed third parties who are only looking to profit, such as what happened between the US and Sudan, not to mention the fact that Sudan couldn't have delivered anyway.

World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad

...because he spent the year preceding the attack ignoring distinct warning signs such as intelligence that bin Laden was contemplating using aircraft as weapons, not to mention a total lack of interest in counter-terrorism in not meeting with his own counter-terrorism official. See the Commission on 9/11 report.

Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good

Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad

He was wrong. And he based a war on it where America suffers 90% of the costs and 90% of the lives. Its devastating that this happened shortly after 9/11; we've lost enough lives for no good reason.

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good

...because it was a call for the Iraqi people to take responsibility for their country and for the international community to lend a hand in whatever way they could. See answer above.

Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad

See above again. WMD and link to AQ was the entire premise for going to war in the first place and now that it is blown, the administration is backpeddaling and
pushing the humanitarian angle. Even though he needed to go at some point, this was not the time or the reason for him to. THERE WERE NO WMD's and WAS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN IRAQ AND AL QAEDA. Money that we needed NOW to fight terrorism was spent on a war with no justification. It was a waste. See 9/11 Commission Report for more information.

Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good

Clinton worked through diplomacy and calls for international pressure on Afghanistan's Taliban. On July 4, 1999, President Clinton declared a national emergency to deal with the threat posed by al Qaeda and the Taliban. In his Executive Order 13129, the President prohibited, among other things, the making or receiving of any contribution of funds, goods, or services to or for the benefit of the Taliban.

In doing research, I found there is aTIME Magazine special report out now that states that the action against al-Qaeda executed post-September 11 was actually a Clinton Administration plan that the Bush Administration delayed executing.

The Clinton White House had put together the war plan and presented it to Bush Administration officials in a briefing attended by National Security Advisor Sandy Burger and future NSA Condi Rice. The war plan hadn't been executed because "We would be handing (the Bush Administration) a war when they took office on Jan. 20," says a former senior Clinton aide. "That wasn't going to happen." Now it was up to Rice's team to consider what Clarke had put together.

Rice would end up executing the plan, but only after September 11 -- "In the words of a senior Bush Administration official, the proposals amounted to 'everything we've done since 9/11.'"

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,333835,00.html

On the other hand, after the attack on the USS Cole, TIME reports, JSOC at Fort Bragg drew up a plan for Delta Force to go into Afghanistan and take out bin-Laden. Clinton never approved the plan.

Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad

...because it's the same as the reason above. He didn't do it enough or properly. There are still terrorists there, and the kingpin as well, according to experts across the world.

Milosevic not yet convicted - good

How is this good? That's just stupid. He is currently in trial. "Milosevic, 63, who led Serbia for 13 years until he was ousted in 2000, faces 66 counts of war crimes allegedly committed during the violent break-up of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. He could be imprisoned for life if convicted of any charge."

Saddam turned over for trial - bad

What is this supposed to mean? This is just silly. Although I did find in the lateline news in Sept "Worsening security, legal complexities and the lack of an Iraqi lawyer willing to represent Saddam Hussein make it impossible for the ousted dictator and 11 others to stand trial any time soon"

Ahh, it's so confusing!

"Made even more so by the disingenuous usage of good and bad when describing these events." Unfortunately, no president is perfect and often we have to choose from bad and worse. There is no doubt in my mind that Bush is worse. Thankfully after watching the debates and doing research, I can now say that I feel comfortable voting for Kerry. I encourage everyone to make up their minds from doing your own research on places like factcheck.org and other non-partisan media sources. Usually, AP news and Reuters are somewhat clean of partisanship, its the worldwide newsfeed that network TV and newspapers use to translate the news. Also, look at different media sources from around the world to get a sense of what people are thinking outside of our partisan country.

FURTHERMORE IN REGARD TO BUSH'S TAX CUTS

the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/09/20/un.poverty.ap/
The wealthiest 20 percent of households in 1973 accounted for 44 percent of total U.S. income, according to the Census Bureau. Their share jumped to 50 percent in 2002, while everyone else's fell.
http://www.faireconomy.org/press/2004/ShiftyTaxCuts_pr.html a new report, entitled “Shifty Tax Cuts: How They Move the Tax Burden off the Rich and onto Everyone Else,” from United for a Fair Economy (UFE) indicates that between 2002 and 2004, the Bush tax cuts to the top 1% of US income earners redirected billions of dollars in revenue that could have eliminated virtually all of the budget shortfalls in the states. Non-wealthy taxpayers will pay for these tax cuts with increased state and local taxes or cuts in public services.
“The Bush administration has followed a strategy of starving public services by pulling tax money away from education and housing and giving it away to multi-millionaires,” said Karen Kraut, UFE’s State Tax Partnership director. “States are suffering as a result, and people are going without essential services in order to fund the lifestyles of the rich.”

Posted by: ceruleangl at October 14, 2004 05:37 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:

Remember personal info?
YesNo
Comments: