I received an email the other day entitled "He's done more damage than we thought" (author unknown) which is a list of failures attributed to President George W. Bush. After careful research and analysis to verify authenticity, I have come to the conclusion that the American people will fire George W. Bush on November 2, 2004 and hire John Kerry by a landslide of votes. I will summarize this list and comment where appropriate.

A. Foreign Policy

1. "Bush is the first president in US history to order a US attack AND military occupation of a sovereign nation, and did so against the will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community." While it is true that Congress authorized the President to invade Iraq, the fact that U.S. intelligence was so conflicting brings into question the judgment of Bush. I too was wrong in pushing for the removal of Hussein rather than staying focused on Bin Laden and the other terrorist organizations. Further, it is doubtful that Hussein could have developed WMD under the watchful eye of U.N.weapons inspectors and regular sorties flown by U.S. fighters throughout the no-fly zones (not to mention satellite surveillance). Kerry will need to initiate reconciliation through an international summit of European and Middle Eastern nations to begin the process of cleaning up this mess in Iraq (and worldwide). After the summit, the world will witness the slow withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and the quick advancement of U.N. troops into Iraq.

2. "Bush recklessly put U.S. soldiers in harms way by invading Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction which still have not been found." In doing so, he has compromised the war on terrorism by directing 200 billion dollars for an overt combat operation as opposed to a covert operation. The United States has lost over 1,000 soldiers and thousands more are severely maimed prompting some to ask: hey hey GWB, how many kids will it be? The wiser choice would have been to invest 50 billion dollars in covert operations and 50 billion in homeland security. Besides, using conventional troops to fight terrorists is similar to the British army using regulars to fight French guerrillas during the Revolutionary War. Consequently, volunteerism for U.S. military service has sharply declined for all branches prompting rumors of a draft. Kerry will need to redirect resources to enhance homeland security while getting many more nations to share in troop and money commitments overseas especially in Iraq. He will also need to push Saudi Arabia and China to administer sanctions against Iran and North Korea to prevent further nuclear proliferation. Most importantly, however, he will need to fight terrorists overseas through covert operations.

B. Domestic Policy

1. "Bush spent the U.S. surplus and shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history." Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy along with irresponsible subsidizing of the war in Iraq has taken the U.S. budget from dark black to bright red all in the span of four years. Another four years of this squandering will bankrupt the United States. The remaining 100 billion dollars (from above) could have been invested in domestic programs like health care, education and the infrastructure. Kerry will need to revoke the tax cuts for the rich and reduce the United State's financial/military commitment in Iraq. These two changes (along with others) should result in a balanced budget in four years with the possibility of a return to a budget surplus in eight years.

2. "Bush entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down. His first two years in office resulted in 2 million Americans losing their jobs AND he cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US History." His presidency has been the most "in-your-face" support of the wealthy whether it be tax cuts, the lack of an energy and environmental policy, failure to crack down hard on corporate corruption etc. Kerry will need to bring back former Clinton advisor Robert Ruben to turn the economy around just as was done after the failed administration of Bush Sr. Kerry will need to fast-track the operationalizing of alternative energy sources in order to reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil specifically and world oil in general. As a former prosecutor, he will need to push for long-term prison sentences for those committing white-collar crimes and reduce the difficulty of prosecuting the likes of Ken Ley.

Conclusion

The failures by George W. Bush, the viable alternative of John Kerry, the massive number of newly registered voters, the amount of attention being given by the American people on this election and the mass media trying to spin this race as being close are all clear signs of a Kerry landslide. On the November 2, 2004 the people will speak loud and clear.

Nice Post. Especially, about your landslide prediction, I more than hope youre right.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Especially, about your landslide prediction,

Why do people on both sides keep predicting landslides when all of the numbers indicate otherwise? Is it wishful thinking or willful blindness to reality?

im sorry, and this is neither a shot at republicans or democrats, but most people dont vote from reason, or intelligence for that matter, we vote partisan. its kinda like watching a family member do wrong, and defend them tooth and nail because they're family.......seems right.....not right ! you are not going to change ONE republican mind here with bad things, whether fiction or fact, about republican, and vice versa. i dont like bush, i dont care if he just rescued a ship full of nuns.....lmao..... some people here feel the same about kerry.

I too was wrong in pushing for the removal of Hussein rather than staying focused on Bin Laden and the other terrorist organizations.

I don't really understand the logic in laying blame when everyone else would have made the same "mistake."

"Bush entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down. His first two years in office resulted in 2 million Americans losing their jobs AND he cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US History."

I would have been real interested to see what could have kept 9/11 from having the economical impact that it had. If you're going to blame the economic downturn that went hand in hand with 9/11, why don't you just blame him for flying the planes into the WTC while you're at it?

Oh yes, and as I have posted several times already, it's very plain that the economy was on a downturn as Bush entered office. Just check out stock news as Bush was taking office. Problems with the tech bubble and Enron and other companies that padded their numbers were cropping up early in Bush's term. You could just as easily point out that all of these events actually took place in Clinton's administration and blame Billary, if you really think that's the president's fault.

Originally posted by Karankawa
I don't really understand the logic in laying blame when everyone else would have made the same "mistake."

Everyone else made the same mistake because they were shown the same doctored intellegence. It is the people who doctored the intellegence and the people who told them to that were wrong. bush and his death cult administration.

[quote]Originally posted by Karankawa
I would have been real interested to see what could have kept 9/11 from having the economical impact that it had. If you're going to blame the economic downturn that went hand in hand with 9/11, why don't you just blame him for flying the planes into the WTC while you're at it?

A presidents job is to make policy that adresses the country's problems. Bush has not done that. After 9-11 he turned his attention to sadam and iraq and has focused on nothing else (other than getting re-appointed).

[quote]Originally posted by Karankawa Oh yes, and as I have posted several times already, it's very plain that the economy was on a downturn as Bush entered office. Just check out stock news as Bush was taking office. Problems with the tech bubble and Enron and other companies that padded their numbers were cropping up early in Bush's term. You could just as easily point out that all of these events actually took place in Clinton's administration and blame Billary, if you really think that's the president's fault.

Actually the economy started turning around when people became afraid that Gore was not going to win the election. The Clinton machine did very well for this country, everyone thrived. But the negativity put forth by the republicans (who hate it when women, minorities and poor people are thriving) was so nasty it scarred people. It is common knowledge that bush plays dirty politics. He did it when he ran for governor, her did it when he ran for the republican nominee, he did it when he ran for president last time and he's doing it now.

I agree that President Bush has been on a spending binge, and I agree that he may lose, but he DID NOT enter office with the strongest economy in US history. Since when is a recession a strong economy.

It is the people who doctored the intellegence and the people who told them to that were wrong.

As soon as you can provide any reasonable evidence that Bush doctored the intelligence, maybe you'll have a case. But just creating accusations and facts, which you seem to do on a daily basis, makes me think that you are, as others have said, either stupid or ignorant.

Maybe instead of making stupid accusations, simply put out facts and let people draw their own conclusions. For example, instead of saying that Bush "doctored intelligence," maybe you could find evidence before Bush had it, and then show that Bush doctored it.

Or would that be too logical to do?

I guess it's a lot easier to just call names rather than prove that the names have any basis, isn't it?

Actually the economy started turning around when people became afraid that Gore was not going to win the election.

I didn't think anyone knew that Gore was going to lose until the day after elections were held.

Just another example of the BS you spew out everyday. Don't be surprised if the day comes real soon when I quit responding to your posts. It's beginning to be a complete waste of time talking to you.

interesting responses...

Cmon Joe, you promised that you would start commenting on the responses to the threads you start!!

..with all the programs and things kerry has "promised'.....he would spend our money quicker than a 16 year old with her daddy's credit card.

Very, very few Democrats vote to constrain spending. If you don't believe me, check out my thread several posts down, that has a link to the NTU website showing that Democrats, by a large margin, vote to increase spending more often than Republicans. The only way that Democrats can balance the budget is by increasing the flow of money INTO the coffers. They will never move to decrease the flow OUT. It is simply part of the Democrat ideology.

Karankawa, Bush did manipulate the intelligence. Sadly, you haven’t paid much attention to the posts I’ve been presenting.

George Bush was using information from a man called Ahmad Chalabi. Bush was bypassing the CIA and using this information to strengthen his case for war. Bush used this information, without telling Congress where he got it, to manipulate everyone into believing Saddam had weapons.

Chalabi was used for intelligence, but as we know now (after his arrest from American troops) he was not to be trusted. George Bush did trust him, and used his information for war with Iraq.

Clinton didn’t trust him, and took him off our intelligence agency after Bush Senior left office. But lone-be-hold, Bush puts him back on the intelligence agency once he gets in office. And we now know Clinton was right, because we arrested him in Iraq.

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/031027fa_fact (we let him give us intelligence)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...2/19/wirq19.xml (proves he gave faulty intelligence)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/20/223555/186 (Met with Bush at the State of the Union Address, after having close relations)

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20040330-094240-7127r.htm (Shows he was a huge intelligence provider)

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5019721 (Arrest)

So yes, Bush did use information that not everyone was given…to try and manipulate everyone into buying into this war.

Bush knew he was a fraud, and a liar. He knew this, because of the Clinton Administration kicking him off our intelligence sources.

George Bush still put him back on, bypassed the CIA (because he knew the CIA would say Chalabi was not a reliable source as shown with his record of being a crook)

Bush then took that information Chalabi gave and used it to his advantage. Chalabi said that Saddam did have weapons, and that Saddam was a massive threat.

We now know that Saddam wasn't a threat…and Bush knew Chalabi was not to be trusted, but he used his information anyway.

He did manipulate the intelligence by using a source he knew was not creditable to try and sway the American people.

Sounds to me like Chalabi was simply supporting the same intell that everyone already had. Big woop.

And sorry about not reading the 100 posts you make everyday. Frankly, most of it is too lengthy to bother reading. If you would shorten your posts and make quick points, I would probably read you more often.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Sounds to me like Chalabi was simply supporting the same intell that everyone already had. Big woop.
Wrong. He was making points the UN Reports were clearly not making. He was making points that were not commonly known throughout the world to justify his cause for the invasion of Iraq. The fact is, Bush used information he knew was coming from a fraud and a liar. He still used this information, and that thus shows Bush did manipulate the intelligence.

Originally posted by Karankawa
If you would shorten your posts and make quick points, I would probably read you more often.
Honestly, my posts are not usually that long. If you think so, I’m sorry. But I usually have a lot to say, and I’m not going to just make quick sound bite points in my replies. Yes, I make quick points in my signature, but in my replies, I extend things just a bit.

Well OD, since were reminiscing about past unread posts, did Chalabi also fool the Brits, Russians, and Egyptians?

and why in the hell would we trust the UN when its corrupt as it is? They made ALOT of money off Saddam......mr. forgetful over there.

Originally posted by Decka
and why in the hell would we trust the UN when its corrupt as it is? They made ALOT of money off Saddam......mr. forgetful over there.

Because not everyone in the UN was from the countries that made money off Saddam. Have you ever heard of a man called David Kay, Decka? Yes, he was the leader of the inspectors from America. He claims that Saddam never had weapons past 1991. He inspected Saddam, and said he was complying with all demands. You are also forgetting that America had the most inspectors in Iraq. And that if you want to criticize the UN for making money off Iraq, then you are also saying America was too, making money off Iraq…since we had our men in the UN Inspection team as well.

Now I’m sure that wasn’t the intent of your rebuttal because now it makes no sense that you’d even use that as a “claim” the inspectors are false...because then America would have had a deal in this scandal with Iraq…and from the looks of it, we didn’t.

Republicans appear to be the big spenders now...

http://www.electoral-vote.com/pred/index.html

Originally posted by Overdose
Because not everyone in the UN was from the countries that made money off Saddam. Have you ever heard of a man called David Kay, Decka? Yes, he was the leader of the inspectors from America. He claims that Saddam never had weapons past 1991. He inspected Saddam, and said he was complying with all demands. You are also forgetting that America had the most inspectors in Iraq. And that if you want to criticize the UN for making money off Iraq, then you are also saying America was too, making money off Iraq…since we had our men in the UN Inspection team as well.

Now I’m sure that wasn’t the intent of your rebuttal because now it makes no sense that you’d even use that as a “claim” the inspectors are false...because then America would have had a deal in this scandal with Iraq…and from the looks of it, we didn’t.

If david kay claimed that saddam didnt have weapons past 1991...than why did your boys kerry and edwards both outwardly speak of taking down saddam all the way up to 2003???....Kerry was in the intelligence agency(which he missed 76% of the meetings)...so its obvious that he would have SOME data. Why dont you blame kerry for skipping out on so many meetings LOL.

Your excuse of...."KERRY BELEIVED BUSH AND WAS LIED TO" is pretty bad. Kerry was getting info from multiple sources, and your claim that Bush put all his chips on this one guy is ludicrous. When someone has a bad record, they cant be trusted. Saddam we felt wasnt telling the whole truth, and his record is bad.....ummm whats the problem?

I’ve explained this to you several times, and you don’t seem to comprehend anything. But, to make this a small reply…

Firstly, do I have to agree, and think exactly like the people I’m supporting for office? No…but the fact is, Bush did manipulate the intelligence. He used information from Chalabi, and you can say that it’s “ludicrous” that I’d base my whole argument on that….but I’ve given you the links that showed he was a huge intelligence provider. You just refuse to read anything I post…and that really isn’t my problem. .

Secondly, Saddam was complying with all demands in the last UN Inspection, and he had no WMD’s. Bush went to war on false reasons, and the Iraq War is not justified. Saddam had no weapons, and almost no ties to terrorism. We cannot give them a Democracy for we don’t have enough troops, and this is a war on terrorism, not giving the world Democracies.

well then i guess you disagree with both candidates on that aspect.......

Your point...? They said Saddam had weapons because Bush manipulated the intelligence...

can you prove it?....i saw your links of 'that guy", which you pretty much say controlled bush's entire decision for going to war. And while maybe he did give his two cents...you dont know if bush took it as fact, you are guessing. You have no proof that bush manipulated intelligence, end of story. So please stop stating it as fact.

It boils down to white christians and corporate eletists voting for bush and everyone else voting for kerry.

That spells kerry landslide.

Dop

Originally posted by Decka
can you prove it?....i saw your links of 'that guy", which you pretty much say controlled bush's entire decision for going to war. And while maybe he did give his two cents...you dont know if bush took it as fact, you are guessing. You have no proof that bush manipulated intelligence, end of story. So please stop stating it as fact.

He was sitting right next to Laura Bush when he gave his State of the Union Speech. He met with the Bush Administration in Iraq. He was one of the biggest intelligence providers. All signs point to, Bush did use him for intelligence. You just refuse to admit that maybe, just maybe, Bush made a mistake in believing a felon.

Anyone with half a brain would vote for kerry right dop!

It appears Team Bush is backed into a corner ... PA is now solid in Kerry's column with OH starting to move also and the early retuns from FL show the 8 major counties all favoring Kerry.

That means, providing Kerry carries FL that Bush has to flip MN and WI and take IA while stopping the wobbling of his red states like WV, AR, AZ, CO and others.

I think WV goes to Kerry just because the people are pissed at Bush over that WV military group involved in Abu-Ghraib -- he hung them out to dry and the WV-ers aren't going to forget that.

And the early returns in Iowa show it 47 Kerry, 46 Bush ... that doesn't fair well for bush either.

Dop

It boils down to white christians and corporate eletists voting for bush and everyone else voting for kerry.

In other words, the ones who built it as opposed to the ones who relentlessly try to destroy and modify its foundation. As far as I'm concerned, if Kerry wins, then you can have this shit hole. If it gets much worse - I'm moving to England. This isn't a proud America anymore, it's a f**king Spanish speaking, free-for-all.

RNC's Gillespie threatens to sue Rock the vote over using the draft as a campaign issue.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/19/1437244

Classic example of censorship

Chief Justice Rhenquist is in the hospital. I think the democrats poisoned him so that they can win any post-election appeals.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! It's a conspiracy man.