FLEETWOOD MAC fans for KERRY

[David]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I guess there are people out there ready to believe anything. Make no mistake. This bill is going to cost seniors millions and millions of dollars and is going to make it tougher for all of us to get decent health care. As it is, I'm already paying more for health insurance than I was just a year ago. Ask anyone around you. They'll probably say the same thing. And it's going to get worse.

My health insurance went up $1,500 from 2002 to 2003. Not went up to---went up.

It's a good thing I like bologna sandwiches!

[dissention]

Originally posted by ShangriLaTroubl
I for one also think people exaggerate things about the President.

From what I understand the President believes that everyone should be able to choose a health care plan that meets their needs at a price they can afford. By allowing patients the choice of doctors, and hospitals seniors will be able to get even better care.

There is a huge problem in health care dealing with cancer. Under the Presiden'ts health care plan it would provide full coverage for disease prevention such as screenings for cancer, diabetes and osteoporosis

For people to say he is ruining Medicare, I just think that's bull. The President has committed up to $400 billion over the next ten years in his FY 2004 budget to pay for modernizing and improving Medicare.

This plan would give all Medicare beneficiaries access to prescription drug coverage that lets seniors get the medicines they need, without the government dictating their drug choices. Choice of an individual health care plan that best fits their needs just like Members of Congress and other federal employees enjoy today. The plan will make sure that low-income seniors receive additional financial assistance so they will not have to pay more to receive better benefits than they currently do under Medicare.


So what people keep saying about this medicare thing makes no sense to me..

Democrats call this a republican war...well the great words of Bill Clinton ring in my head , as he talked to the country about striking Iraq.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. "
"Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States"
"But once more the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests we will do so."

hmmm

Chris

Methinks you need to look up some information about this Medicare plan.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

I have looked up information on this Medicare plan...I did not think the information up on my own, obviously it is what I heard...

The question for me really is, who to believe, ya know? You here opposite things from both sides, it is hard to distinquish the truth. Myself being a new 18 yr old voter, I guess I am still trying to figure out WHAT I am...I have read A LOT of info on both sides....and I just seem to agree with things about both..

Chris

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Also you made a very good point Johnny Stew about the war...I appreciate that, it has made me rethink you could say, my stance...which is now even more unclear, hopefully with the right amount of research, and info from both sides I will be able to decide by November...

Chris

[jwd]

Bush isn't the only one who believed Saddam had WMDS.



"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
> develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
>is our bottom line."
> - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
>
> "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
>We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
>destruction program."
> - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
>
> "Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great
>deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
>nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
>greatest security threat we face."
> - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
>
> "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
>since 1983."
> - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
>
> "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
>U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
>appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
>effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass
>destruction programs."
> - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin,
> Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
>
> "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
>destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he
>has made a mockery of the weapons inspection
>process."
> - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
>
> "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
>destruction and palaces for his cronies."
> - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
>
> "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
>programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
>continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
>continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
>licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten
>the United States and our allies."
> - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,)
> and others, December 5, 2001
>
> "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
>threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
> mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
>and the means of delivering them."
> - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
>
> "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
>weapons throughout his country."
> - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
>
> "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
>deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
>power."
>- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
>
> "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
>developing weapons of mass destruction."
> - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
>
> "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
> confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
>biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
>build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
>reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
> - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
>
> "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
> to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
>that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
>and grave threat to our security."
> - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
>
> "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
>aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons
>within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always
>underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of
>mass destruction."
> - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
>
> "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
>every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy
>his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
>refused to do" Rep.
> - Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
>
> "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
>that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
>weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He
>has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda
>members
> .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
> continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare,
>and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
> - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
>
> "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
>Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity
>for the production and storage of weapons of mass
>destruction."
>- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
>
> "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
>murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
>particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
>miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
>continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction...
>So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real
>..."
> - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003



Joe

[gldstwmn]

We'll see.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet...73418644&path=!news!columnists&s=1045855935174

Republican takes strong stand against war, Bush

JOHN HALL
TIMES-DISPATCH COLUMNIST Feb 1, 2004


Is the Iraq war, if it is to be judged a wrongful war, a product of flawed intelligence or flawed policy?

The leading Democratic presidential candidates agree on the charge that the Bush administration erroneously packaged and presented intelligence to Congress.

"We were misled," said the front-runner, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, explaining why he is against the war but voted for the resolution authorizing it.

"What this administration has done is play politics," said retired Gen. Wesley Clark.

Former chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kay told last week of a massive pre-war intelligence failure on weapons of mass destruction.

But what of the policy? Much of the Democratic Party was squarely behind President Bush's policy on Iraq, which was backed by a bipartisan resolution opposing Saddam Hussein and advocating regime change.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean challenged the policy and blew the whistle on those in Congress, including Kerry, who voted for it. But lately Dean has softened his tone and turned his attention away from the Iraq war.



If you want to hear the fiery rhetoric of a crusading, anti-war true believer, call in a Republican. That's right. And a heartlander from Illinois.

When former Rep. Paul Findley openly broke with Bush over his Iraqi war policy, he didn't leave any asterisks in the text or wriggle room in the position.

"I believe President George W. Bush's decision to initiate war in Iraq will be the greatest and most costly blunder in American history," Findley wrote in a recent paper prepared for the Council for the National Interest, a Washington organization advocating a new direction for U.S. Middle East policy. "He has set Ameri- can on the wrong course."

Findley's quarrel is with the policy of this administration, not just intelligence.

At 82, retired from Congress for two decades, he was never the type who took on presidents of his own party. Though controversial, he was so loyal that he even defended Richard M. Nixon. Although he eventually voted for the impeachment of Nixon, he preferred censure.

But Findley said he is "fully prepared" to join in urging Bush's defeat this fall unless there is a change in Bush's policy in the Middle East.

The change Findley recommends - an immediate ultimatum to Israel to withdraw from all Arab lands seized in 1967 - has no chance of acceptance and would be radioactive to any Democratic opponent of the war in Iraq who even suggested it.

Nonetheless, Findley says, Bush must do it now. There has already been "grave damage" to the United States, he warned, and there would be "still greater harm if Bush continues his present course during a second term in the White House."

Many Iraqis still believe Bush "harbors dreams of an American empire," said Findley, whose Muslim contacts are extensive. And he is convinced Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's "high fences that contain Palestinians like cattle" are directly related to the troubles in Iraq and throughout the Muslim world.

Findley, in a telephone interview last week, said he could no longer be silent about what he considers to be a neoconservative, as well as a fundamentalist religious, takeover of the Bush administration.

Bush "seems oblivious to war's horror," Findley wrote in his recent paper. "The rockets and 1-ton bombs may kill a few Iraqi guerrillas and cause others to pull back and pause, but they kill and maim innocent civilians, level homes, turn neighborhoods into rubble and permanently blight many lives. They create deep-seated outrage, not cooperation."

The U.S. death toll in Iraq has surpassed 500, but Findley noted that the thousands of families of Americans wounded had been "permanently blighted in a war the United States has initiated."

It is a "fiery trial that may last far into the future - years of U.S.-initiated wars designed to punish regimes believed to harbor terrorists."

Findley said he knows of "many" other Republicans ready to urge Bush's defeat.

There is not any serious opposition to the president in the Republican primaries, however. That makes no difference to Findley, who hasn't been afraid in his long life is a sailor, weekly newspaper editor, congressman and author to stand alone in unpopular causes.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...ml?nav=hptoc_n

Charity Event May Have Terrorist Link
Pentagon Adviser Who Spoke at Function Thought Money Was for Quake Victims
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 29, 2004; Page A08


Pentagon adviser Richard N. Perle, a strong advocate of war against Iraq, spoke last weekend at a charity event that U.S. officials say may have had ties to an alleged terrorist group seeking to topple the Iranian government and backed by Saddam Hussein.



The event, attended by more than 3,000 people Saturday at the Washington Convention Center, generated enough concerns within the administration that officials debated whether they had the legal authority to block the event, U.S. officials said yesterday. FBI agents attended it and, as part of a continuing investigation, the Treasury Department on Monday froze the assets of the event's prime organizer, the Iranian-American Community of Northern Virginia.

Perle, in an interview, said he was unaware of any involvement by the terrorist group, known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), and believed he was assisting the victims of the Bam earthquake when he delivered the paid speech.

"All of the proceeds will go to the Red Cross," Perle said. Informed that the Red Cross had announced before the event it would refuse any monies because of the event's "political nature," Perle said: "I was unaware of that." Perle declined to say how much he received.

Click the link for the full article.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

I found this republican/democrat compatibility test which I really thought useful...It says im 88% compatible to the democratic party...which comes as a surprise to me (registered Republican, although I havent been able to vote yet) ....it helped me kinda figure out where I stand on certain things....its interesting to see if anyone wants to do it

http://www.3pc.net/matchmaker/quiz.html

[t.c.]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Except perhaps his wife, and hmm... maybe, just maybe, all the taxpayers who were paying for the office in which he was getting serviced.

Good point. I know if I did what he did while I was at work, I'd be fired! Then again, I guess considering he lives in his place of office, it's not so clear cut....???

But how about that he was under oath? And it was for a sexual harrasment lawsuit. And if any of us lied during that, we'd be in BIG trouble. I can't see how any woman can like him, actually, or atleast not be angry that he lied, and that he did not get in trouble for that. If a woman is raped she has to go on trial to try and prosecute the rapist. And she ends up getting the third degree herself, having to answer all kinds of personal questions about her sex life and history. Which is not fair, but it happens. Yet Clinton is not expected to have to? That really angered me. Big time. I don't care about his sex life. I do care that he lied *under oath* and got away with it, when none of us could have.

[t.c.]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ShangriLaTroubl
[B]Unfortunately many will still find themselves confused to what they air...Dem or Repub...after they read every web site out there...
I am a registered Republican...but that does not mean I strictly vote that way....I try to judge by who I like the best, no matter what their political party....I don't agree with Democrats on Taxes...I dont agree with Republicans on gay marriage....I dont agree with Democrats on Affirmative Action or Abortion......And I dont agree with Republicans on Medicare and Social Security...


Yes, my mind is boggled over all the contradictions out there right now. I am glad I am not alone!

I feel a lot like you do. Some repub issues I am totally against, like the gay marriages and their abortion issues. Yet I tend to side with them on a lot of other issues. And recently so many democrats have been totally hounding me and if I even question anything or say I am not sure about something, they insult me. It's getting so aggrivating. And meanwhile repubs don't "harrass" me like that. They say something in an even toned voice, and then that's it. It's left up to me to figure out how I feel about it. I can appreciate that more. I hate to say,but the democrats are going to push a lot of "middle of the road-ers" away with the extreme liberals out there who get all fired up. Which is not a good thing.

So far I don't know who to vote for. I see no one I want. It's depressing.

[t.c.]

Originally posted by diamondsnake
Clinton had every right to lie- it was no ones business who he slept with.

If you (are you male? female?) are ever raped, or your sister or your wife or your mother raped...and you go to the trial to support them, and see what kinds of questions she will be forced to answer under oath, you then might change your mind!

If it was NOT UNDER OATH then you would be right, it would have been no one's business. But that was not the case. It's also no one's business if a woman was a virgin or not before she got raped. But she is forced to answer all kinds of questions like that under oath, regardless. Perhaps the system sucks, but so does Bill for thinking he was above us and could and should have gotten away with it. In a sexual harrassment case, questions about if he has had sex at work and with people working under him (no pun intended) *is* relevant, I hate to say. Even if the charges were boogus. You still have to go through the motions, and not lie under oath.

[t.c.]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dontlookdown
[B]you can't be one half of a duo with Lindsey Buckingham and be apolitical.
you can't be a close friend of Sheryl Crow and Tom Petty and Don Henley and be apolitical.

Yes you can...I have friends who have different politcal opinions than I do.....


[QUOTE]
You know that when she walked out on that stage for Bill Clinton in 92 and then played for him again before he left the White House that there's not an apolitical bone in her body.

Errr....no....all that showed was that the prez asked FWM to play, and they did. There is no pre-requirement that says that had to vote for him....

[QUOTE]
her wild heart has always been in the right place - comfortably on the left - hugging the shore of the Palisades in southern California

oooookaaaaay....... whatever gets you through the day.....I always got the impression she did *not* support Clinton. Who's to say?

[t.c.]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by secondhandchain
[B]And why would I get drafted? Are we going to war or something? And since I don't beleive in violence, do "they" really have the right to force me to fight

We wouldn't have this country right now if it wasn't for war. And there would still be slavery if it wasn't for war. I hate it too, but I would fight if I had to...

If we all just decided to "go peace" we would be attacked and no longer be the US. I am grateful we have men and women who will defend us. It is one of our greatest blessings. We' d be in deep **** otherwise......

The day no one signs up for the military and there is not draft is the day we become a sitting duck with great big bull's eye on us. Thank goodness somebody defends us.

We are pretty lucky in this country. A lot have mandatory time served in their armies, where all boys go in to serve atleast two years the day they turn 18.

My love and appreciation goes out to the men and women who do serve this country.

[strandinthewind]

Once again, I think people are confusing issues about Iraq.

We now know that although the search continues, Iraq probably did not have WMD and the ability to deliver them as alleged by W's administration. But to say W alone was solely responsible for this misinformation is just wrong. Clinton and Bush I used alot of the same information. So, they are just as guilty for enforcing the no fly zones and conducting the missle strikes.

Moreover, I still maintain that SH alone is SOLELY responsible for the military action to remove his regime. Again, if you had a friend who lied to once or twice, would you still believe them - much less after 11 years.

Also, yes, the inspectors were allowed to return in 2002 after SH in violation of the UN kicked them out in 1998. Yes, these inspectors did not find anything meaningful. But, once again, SH did not allow them access to all requested sites and failed once again to honor his burden of providing them with proof that he destroyed his WMD. Even Kay admitted that this sequence of events justified the ousting of SH because SH still had the facilities to make these WMD and could have easily passed them to terrorists or, being the terrorist SH was, SH could have easily used them himself, a situation I submit we cannot allow post 9/11. So, this is why I think it is just flat out wrong when people say in hindsight (always 20/20) well SH had no WMD - bad Bush I and II and bad Clinton. It should be bad SH.

Note - I still think W should be impeached for knowingly embellishing the nuclear stuff. But, that is a separate issue from the question of why we thought SH had WMD and why SH's refusal to cooperate was the sole reason for the war.