|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Jul 24, 2004 1:04:10 GMT -5
bush and kerry are related.....the only thing is one tries to be honest and the other just flat out lies to win..... AMERICA is GOD's chosen country to mother the rest of HIS world.....only by faith and obedience to GOD's commandments will save this country......I read somewhere that GOD will allow the wicked to destroy the wicked....I think that's true....Americans are becoming more prideful, commiting all sorts of wicked doings.....we'll see what happens..... one advice for you americans stay away from CNN and ABC they will mess ur brains up.....lol Actually, I think the title of "chosen nation" probably went to Israel a long time ago, at least according to "that book". *note: I am keeping this post as religiously "neutral" as possible, so as to not have certain individuals who deem themselves the religious fanatic crackdown squad get their panties in a bunch.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Jul 24, 2004 1:55:53 GMT -5
NBC Admits Biased Pro-Kerry Media Fail to Hurt Bush in Polls
Yes, yes, we know that opinion polls are silly and inaccurate and that the only poll that matters is the one in the election booth, but some people enjoy poring over them. These folks should read on; everyone else should instead turn to, say, President Bush's speech today.
Three new surveys show Bush and John Kerry in a statistical tie. We've pointed out before how the pro-Democrat Los Angeles Times slants its surveys, and here's another example. Less-inaccurate surveys question "likely" voters, but the Times queried 1,529 registered voters nationwide from Saturday to Wednesday. People who are registered but don't vote are disproportionately Democrat. Even with that advantage, Kerry led Bush by only 2 percentage points, according to Gray Davis' favorite newspaper. Kerry had 46 percent, Bush 44 percent and Ralph Nader 3 percent, with 7 percent undecided. When the poll excluded Nader, Kerry still had a 2-point edge.
"Kerry's lead is within the poll's margin of error [plus or minues 3 points] and smaller than his advantage last month in a Times poll," the paper admitted.
It said 51 percent approved of Bush's performance, with 48 percent disapproving.
Shocking admission: NBC reported today that the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows the "race is tied even though Kerry has received mostly positive media coverage since selecting Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., as his running mate, while the Bush White House has seen less-than-positive news on key fronts."
"In a period that should be very good for the Democrats with the Edwards announcement, the president has more than held his own," said Democrat pollster Peter D. Hart, of NBC/Journal polling team Hart/Teeter. "Having said that, it still remains a contest which is exceptionally difficult for Bush. ... He continues to have an uphill walk."
This survey shows the Bush-Cheney ticket supported by 47 percent of registered voters and Kerry-Edwards by 45 percent. Two percent backed Nader and his running mate, Peter Camejo.
The margin of error: plus or minus 3 percentage points.
The previous NBC/Journal poll, released June 30, had Bush at 45 percent, Kerry at 44 percent and Nader at 4 percent.
The latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, released Thursday, showed 47 percent of likely voters were for Kerry, 46 percent for Bush and 4 percent for Nader. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. With just Kerry and Bush, the numbers were 49 and 47.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Jul 24, 2004 1:58:41 GMT -5
Kerry Receives Communist Endorsement By Jeff Gannon Talon News July 21, 2004
WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- The Associated Press reported Monday that the head of the communist movement in Nicaragua and Sandinista Leader Tomas Borge announced his support for Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) presidential bid.
The endorsement is not the first friendly relationship between the Massachusetts senator and the Sandinistas. In 1985, Kerry and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) led a delegation that met with Sandinista strongman Daniel Ortega, despite the Reagan administration's efforts to undermine Nicaragua's communist leader.
Kerry returned with a "peace plan" that called for the United States to stop assisting opponents of the junta. The House was convinced to reject an aid package to the resistance at the same time Ortega was traveling to Moscow to ask for $200 million more in support from the Soviets.
The Republican National Committee suggested that Borge must be one of the foreign leaders the Democratic presidential candidate says wants him to win in November.
"The cloud of mystery surrounding John Kerry's support by foreign leaders lifted a little over the weekend. Since Sen. Kerry won't tell us who they are we will continue to monitor New York's fine dining establishments hoping to glean some insight into the other still-mysterious foreign leaders supporting John Kerry," said RNC Communications Director Jim Dyke.
The RNC is returning to the issue of the unnamed foreign leaders who support Kerry in a new 30-second ad.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Jul 24, 2004 2:07:03 GMT -5
The Kerry-Edwards Campaign: Tell a Lie, Tell it Big, and Tell it Often
July 20, 2004
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Roger Wm. Hughes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell a lie, tell it big, and tell it often – Herman Goebbels, Hitler’s propagandist
Senator John Edwards and the Kerry campaign continue to use Sen. John Kerry’s Vietnam service as the gold standard for trusting Kerry to be Commander in Chief. This is because in time of war no other question is more important in the election for President in 2004.
Edwards offers in a much-repeated ad in battleground states with the statement, "there is no one better prepared than Senator John Kerry to keep America safe."
He further goes on to say that if we have any questions we just need to spend "three minutes" with those veterans that Kerry served with in Vietnam. Now, in defense of the lawyer, Edwards offers a lawyer-like covenant that implies that we should only talk with those veterans who still stand by Kerry today -- instead of saying the swift boat veterans’ picture that Kerry used in his ‘band of brothers’ ad earlier in his campaign.
With the repeated fact that only two of the 19 individuals shown in that ‘band of brothers’ veterans picture by Kerry actually support his campaign for the presidency, why is Kerry continuing with this argument? After all, 11 of the 19 wrote a letter stating that Kerry is unfit to be Commander in Chief. Clearly, the question that boggles the mind of anyone who is paying attention is: Why does Kerry keep alluding to his Vietnam credentials?
Anyone who spends time visiting Vietnam veterans’ websites will soon find out that Sen. John Kerry is not only disliked but is emphatically despised by his brethren and for good reasons:
· There is the fact that Kerry lied in 1971 to Congress about war atrocities committed by his brethren.
· There is the fact that Kerry is recognized in the North Vietnamese War Museum as one of their heroes for helping them defeat the USA and win the war for the Communists.
· There is the fact that Kerry has voted against more than a dozen of the key weapons that are critical to our nation’s defense.
· There is the fact Kerry voted to go to war and then voted against the $87 billion to fund it. (Oh that’s right, he "first voted for it before he voted against it.")
Given the damning evidence of Kerry’s lousy past support of our nation’s defense and the anger and contempt that Vietnam veterans hold towards him, why is Kerry trying this gambit?
Because the media is not talking about any of the damning evidence and if Kerry – or his surrogate, Edwards -- keeps telling his story then people will believe him rather than the facts.
Roger Wm. Hughes
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Jul 24, 2004 2:27:26 GMT -5
I do think Kerry (and his people) ought to stop using his military experiences as reasons to vote for him, however, it also seems odd for GWB (and his people) to knock Kerry's military experiences when Kerry did at least serve his country in a war situation while GWB avoided the war.
---------------------------------------------------
On April 26 the Bush campaign released a total of 10 ads, all repeating claims that Kerry opposed a list of mainstream military hardware "vital to winning the war on terror."
Misleading Claims
The claims are misleading, as we've pointed out before in articles we posted on Feb. 26 and March 16. The Bush campaign bases its claim mainly on Kerry's votes against overall Pentagon money bills in 1990, 1995 and 1996, but these were not votes against specific weapons. And in fact, Kerry voted for Pentagon authorization bills in 16 of the 19 years he's been in the Senate. So even by the Bush campaign's twisted logic, Kerry should -- on balance -- be called a supporter of the "vital" weapons, more so than an opponent.
The claim that Kerry voted against body armor is based similarly on Kerry's vote last year against an $87 billion emergency supplemental appropriation bill to finance military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It included $300 million for the latest, ceramic-plate type of body armor for troops who had been sent to war without it. The body-armor funds amounted to about 1/3 of one percent of the total.
Missing Context
It is true that when Kerry first ran for the Senate in 1984 he did call specifically for canceling the AH-64 Apache helicopter, but once elected he opposed mainly such strategic weapons as Trident nuclear missiles and space-based anti-ballistic systems. And Richard Cheney himself, who is now Vice President but who then was Secretary of Defense, also proposed canceling the Apache helicopter program five years after Kerry did. As Cheney told the House Armed Services Committee on Aug. 13, 1989:
Cheney: The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward, AH-64; . . . I forced the Army to make choices. I said, "You can't have all three. We don't have the money for all three." So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out. That would save $1.6 billion in procurement and $200 million in spares over the next five years.
Two years later Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle as well. It was among 81 Pentagon programs targeted for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. "Cheney decided the military already has enough of these weapons," the Boston Globe reported at the time.
Does that make Cheney an opponent of "weapons vital to winning the war on terror?" Of course not. But by the Bush campaign's logic, Cheney himself would be vulnerable to just such a charge, and so would Bush's father, who was president at the time.
Kerry's voting record on military spending was defended March 18 by Republican Sen. John McCain. He said on CBS's "The Early Show:"
McCain: No, I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense. He's responsible for his voting record, as we are all responsible for our records, and he'll have to explain it. But, no, I do not believe that he is necessarily weak on defense.
McCain also criticized "bitter and partisan" attacks by both sides, saying, " This kind of rhetoric, I think, is not helpful in educating and helping the American people make a choice."
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Jul 24, 2004 5:57:26 GMT -5
ELECTION 2004 More evidence communists honoring Kerry Vietnam war museum includes candidate among feted activists -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: June 15, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2004 WorldNetDaily.com A veterans group opposed to Sen. John Kerry's presidential candidacy says it has further proof the Massachusetts senator is being honored as an anti-war activist by communist Vietnam at a museum in Ho Chi Minh City. The War Remnants Museum – formerly known as the War Crimes Museum – includes a photograph of Kerry being greeted by the general secretary of the Communist Party, Comrade Do Muoi, in July 1993, according to Vietnam Vets for the Truth. www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/kerrymuseum2.jpg [/img] Vietnam veteran Bill Lupetti took this photograph of a display at a Ho Chi Minh City museum honoring war protesters. A picture of the display was taken in May by Bill Lupetti, one of more than 200 members of Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth who signed an open letter questioning Kerry's fitness to serve as commander in chief. This month, Lupetti took more photographs of the display and museum, including one with a daily newspaper held up next to it, to demonstrate that the picture is current. A spokesman with Kerry's national campaign has not returned a call from WND seeking comment. Vets for the Truth says it's not questioning the legitimacy of Kerry meeting with communist leaders in pursuit of information about POWs and MIAs, the aim of his congressional delegation in 1993. "The critical issue is that the Vietnamese communists have chosen to honor Senator Kerry in their War Crimes Museum for his assistance in helping them achieve victory over the United States," the group says. Vets for the Truth points out the sign at the entrance to the display room reads: "The World Supports Vietnam in its Resistance." Also exhibited inside the room are protest banners and emblems from various nations and photographs of international leaders who supported North Vietnam's cause. After several members questioned the authenticity of the Lupetti's first photograph, Vets for the Truth asked him to return to the museum this month and document the section featuring the foreign anti-war activists. The group also asked Dan Tran of the Vietnam Human Rights Project to have his associates in Ho Chi Minh Citiy go into the museum to verify it. Tran's contacts confirmed that the photograph is still in the museum. Some members of the U.S. media also questioned whether Kerry was in Vietnam July 13-18, 1993. The AP reported July 17, 1993, a U.S. delegation headed by Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs Hershel Gober was sent to Vietnam by President Clinton to deliver to the Vietnamese microfilm of some 3 million captured Vietnam War documents related to finding American POWs and MIAs. The story says the delegation was scheduled to meet with Do Muoi. While the story does not mention Kerry, a White House press release July 2, 1993, mentioned Kerry and the "high-level delegation," which included represenatives of three major veterans groups. Epstein said the display photograph's "unquestionable significance lies in its placement in the American protesters' section of the War Crimes Museum" in Ho Chi Minh City, the former Saigon. "The Vietnamese communists clearly recognize John Kerry's contributions to their victory," he said. "This find can be compared to the discovery of a painting of Neville Chamberlain hanging in a place of honor in Hitler's Eagle's Nest in 1945." Epstein's group says the exhibit refutes Kerry's insistence his anti-war protests did not render support to the enemy in time of war. "The Vietnamese communists clearly feel that the American anti-war protesters were a very important force in undermining support in the United States for American war efforts, a force that contributed materially to ultimate communist victory in 1975," the group said in a statement. Vietnam Vets for the Truth says it was established to organize a rally publicizing "Kerry's lies" during the "Winter Soldier" hearings in the U.S. Senate in 1971. The rally, called "Kerry Lied," will be held on Capitol Hill Sept. 12. The Swift Boat Veterans also have called on Kerry to stop unauthorized use of their images in national campaign advertising.The group says only two of the 20 officers in one photo support him and 11 have signed the letter condemning the candidate. www.shopmetrospy.com/graphics/Product_96_PrSpare2.jpg [/img]
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Jul 24, 2004 9:44:01 GMT -5
Speaking of lies - "The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" claims to be a non-partisan group. ---------------------------------------------------------
May 4, 2004, Letter by SBVT to John Kerry 'We Know the Truth'. Some of Kerrey’s Vietnam colleagues challenge the Democratic candidate, National Review.
The letter is signed by Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann, USN, Captain Charley Plumly, USN (ret), Mr. Alvin A. (Andy) Horne, Mr. Bill Lannom, Mr. John O'Neill, Mr. Wey Symmes, and Mr. William W. Franke.
Note: It is most likely that the correct name is William Edward Franke. See Franke's file for details.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commentary
On May 17, 2004, Matt Gunn shares a segment from Joe Conason's recent registration-required Salon "uncovering" of "yet more 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' Republican ties, as if there weren't enough on record already" [Gunn comments]:
"When the 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' launched its campaign against John Kerry 10 days ago, leadership and guidance were provided by Republican activists and presidential friends from Texas -- notably Houston attorney John E. O'Neill and corporate media consultant Merrie Spaeth. Indeed, although the group made its debut at a press conference in Washington, it looked and sounded like a Texas GOP operation.
"On closer inspection, the ostensibly nonpartisan 'Swift Boat Vets' seem to have another pair of significant sponsors with deep and long-standing Republican connections in Missouri. Both are officers of Gannon International, a St. Louis conglomerate that does lots of overseas business in, of all places, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
"Ties to Gannon can be traced via the Swift Boat Vets Web site ... On April 14, the site was registered under the name of Lewis Waterman, Gannon's information technology manager, at 11301 Olive Boulevard in St. Louis, the firm's headquarters address. Although Waterman wouldn't discuss why he had set up the Web site, he didn't deny that his boss, Gannon president and CEO William Franke, had asked him to do so.
"'The information about my client is confidential,' said Waterman. He acknowledged knowing, however, that his boss Franke is a Navy veteran who served in Vietnam on swift boats. Gannon vice president Stephen D. Hayes, who oversees the company's office in Alexandria, Va., is likewise a swift boat veteran who first met Franke when they served together in the Mekong Delta."
"What is most intriguing about Franke, Hayes, and Gannon -- especially in light of their apparent role in the campaign against John Kerry -- are their strong commercial interests in Southeast Asia. While Gannon is a highly diversified holding company whose divisions range from real estate in Florida and Missouri to Internet technology and software, it maintains an unusual presence in Vietnam, with offices in both Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City. Indeed, Gannon has operated in that country's tourism, real estate and import-export sectors for a decade. (The target market for its tours was fellow Vietnam veterans.)
"None of Gannon's profitable activities in the communist republic would be possible, of course, without the approval of the Hanoi government, which Franke has described as 'strong' and 'stable.' Nor would Gannon be conducting business in Vietnam without the Clinton administration diplomacy, assisted by Sen. Kerry, that established diplomatic and trade ties with the United States in 1994. Franke first began traveling to Vietnam on behalf of Operation Smile, an American charity that provides plastic surgery to children abroad. The relationships he established during those humanitarian missions provided a considerable advantage in doing business under government auspices.
"It was also during those early visits to Vietnam, as he told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, that Franke reached a clearer understanding of the war he had once fought as a young Navy lieutenant.
"'As I looked back 20 years, I saw that it was a very imperial relationship we had with these people,' said Franke in 1989. 'We were young. We were there because we were told to be there and that they were the enemy. This time I saw them as human beings who had fears and hopes the same as we.'
"Yet he evidently cannot forgive John Kerry for reaching the same conclusion about that war and its victims, so many years before he finally did."
Joe Klein, "The Long War of John Kerry," The New Yorker, January 5, 2004 (Courtesy of Matt Gunn and Mike Stark):
"Nixon's chief counsel, Charles Colson, didn't just tap John E. O'Neill to attack Kerry, he also formed an entire group around him called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace: [1]
"[Kerry] was an immediate celebrity. He was also an immediate target of the Nixon administration. Years later, Chuck Colson--who was Nixon's political enforcer--told me, 'He was a thorn in our flesh. He was very articulate, a credible leader of the opposition. He forced us to create a counterfoil. We found a vet named John O'Neill and formed a group called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace. We had O'Neill meet the President, and we did everything we could do to boost his group."
"'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' can be seen as merely a 21st century reinvention of Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace."
Joe Conason writes on May 4, 2004, in Salon that the "latest conservative outfit to fire an angry broadside against John Kerry's heroic war record is 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth', which today launches a campaign to brand the Democrat 'unfit to serve as commander in chief.' Billing itself as representing the 'other 97 percent of veterans' from Kerry's Navy unit who don't support his presidential candidacy, the group insists that all presidential candidates must be 'totally honest and forthcoming' about their military service.
"These 'swift boat vets' claim still to be furious about Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony against the war in which he spoke about atrocities in Indochina's 'free fire zones.' More than three decades later," Conason writes, "facing the complicated truth about Vietnam remains difficult. But this group's political connections make clear that its agenda is to target" U.S. presidential election, 2004."
"Conason identifies "veteran corporate media consultant and Texas Republican activist Merrie Spaeth" as being behind the group. Spaeth, "listed as the group's media contact," is the widow of Tex Lezar, "eternal Kerry antagonist and Dallas attorney" John E. O'Neill's law partner.
The group's founder is "retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffman, a cigar-chomping former Vietnam commander once described as 'the classic body-count guy' who 'wanted hooches destroyed and people killed.'" Hoffmann "first gained notoriety in Vietnam as a strutting, cigar-chewing Navy captain. But it was O'Neill, by now a familiar figure on the Kerry-bashing circuit, who came to Spaeth for assistance," according to Conason.
"Until now," he adds, "Hoffmann has been best known as the commanding officer whose obsession with body counts and 'scorekeeping' may have provoked the February 1969 massacre of Vietnamese civilians at Thanh Phong by a unit led by Bob Kerrey -- the Medal of Honor winner who lost a leg in Nam, became a U.S. senator from Nebraska and now sits on the 9-11 Commission."
Conason says that Spaeth is not "as well known as" Karen P. Hughes but yet is "among the most experienced and best connected Republican communications executives. During the Reagan administration she served as director of the White House Office of Media Liaison, where she specialized in promoting "news" items that boosted President Reagan to TV stations around the country. While living in Washington she met and married Lezar, a Reagan Justice Department lawyer who ran for lieutenant governor of Texas in 1994 with George W. Bush, then the party's candidate for governor. (Lezar lost; Bush won.)"
Conason concludes that "Arguments about the war in Vietnam seem destined to continue forever. For now, however, the lingering bitterness and ambiguity of those days provide smear material against an antiwar war hero with five medals on behalf of a privileged Guardsman with a dubious duty record. The president's Texas allies -- whose animus against his Democratic challenger dates back to the Nixon era -- are now deploying the same techniques and personnel they used to attack McCain's integrity four years ago. Bush's 'independent' supporters would apparently rather talk about the Vietnam quagmire than about his deadly incompetence in Iraq."
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Jul 24, 2004 16:55:46 GMT -5
A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand By Sam Weaver (06/25/2004)
Back in February of 2002—five months after 9/11/01, Americans were basically united in the War on Terror. We were all mightily enraged by the despicable beheading of Daniel Pearl. The murder of Mr. Pearl in Pakistan only quickened America’s resolve to wage and win this “new and different kind of war”.
Fast forward to May of this year. By virtually all accounts, Americans were as divided as we had been in November of 2000. News of the outrageous and evil decapitation of Nicholas Berg was eclipsed by the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Much of the outrage engendered by the vile act of barbarism committed against Mr. Berg was directed at the Bush Administration for having gotten us into this “ill-conceived war in Iraq” in the first place.
On June 18, 2004, yet another innocent American, Paul Johnson, was gruesomely murdered in cold blood via decapitation at the hands of Al Qaeda terrorists. Will this third incident finally be the charm? Will Americans finally wake up and smell the EVIL that we are fighting against? How many more innocent civilians—Iraqis, Americans, Italians, Koreans—will have to die horrendous deaths before we unite and fight this evil with everything we’ve got?!
As governor of Texas, George W. Bush campaigned for president in 2000 as “a uniter, not a divider”. As a Texan, I was amazed by the great working relationship –indeed the true friendship—that Governor Bush had forged with Lieutenant Governor and staunch Democrat Bob Bullock. I don’t care what Molly Ivins says; the facts reveal that Governor Bush did help to unite a divided Texas. Partisan Democrats and hate-filled “leftists”, like Ms. Ivins, have seized upon that campaign promise. “President Bush’s ‘ill-conceived war in Iraq’, based upon ‘misleading’ and/or ‘selective’ interpretation of intelligence data has divided this nation”, they screech.
Who, really, divided this nation? Have these partisans and “leftists” forgotten how disunited the country was in November of 2000? Surely not! The very fact that Vice President Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote in that unforgettable campaign is a primary source of their bitterness and anger. America is no more divided now as she was then.
Had that terrible act of war perpetrated on American soil on 9/11/01 never happened, I would still go to my grave insisting that war against Saddam’s regime in Iraq was both justified and necessary. Every major national political figure—not to mention the intelligence communities of virtually every nation on earth—proclaimed that Saddam had WMD and was willing to use them. (Yet, Bush was lying to us when he made those assertions!) The whole world witnessed the video images of dead Kurdish women and children in the streets of Northern Iraq after an attack launched upon them by Saddam’s cousin and thug, Chemical Ali. There was a cease-fire agreement after the 1991 Gulf War and many U. N. resolutions that Saddam continuously violated. American and British planes were constantly being fired upon as they patrolled the no-fly zones. On Friday, June 18, a report surfaced stating that Russian President Vladimir Putin has revealed Russian intelligence indicating that Saddam Hussein had planned to attack Americans on American soil. As far as I can tell, the “mainstream” media have been largely silent regarding this report.
In November of 2000, America was a divided nation. On September 11, 2001, we became a united nation. In March of 2003, the second major front of the War on Terror was engaged in Iraq. Then came the election season, the “9/11 Commission” and the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
If there is no bias in the “mainstream” media, then how can one possibly account for the fact that Abu Ghraib achieved infinitely more attention than the inhuman beheading of Nicholas Berg? Why are the insurgents in Iraq receiving so much more coverage than either the accomplishments or even the generally optimistic attitudes of coalition forces? Why are the phenomenal achievements of coalition forces and contractors either hidden in the back pages or ignored completely?
Every moral, educated and informed American can see the glaring partiality of the press in a series of headlines in the New York Times, USA Today, and The Los Angeles Times. Every one of these rags carried stories that were picked up even by my small-town paper, which proclaimed “Al-Qaida links not found”. The very first sentence in my local paper under that headline stated, “Rebuffing Bush Administration claims, the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said Wednesday no evidence exists that Al-Qaida had strong ties to Saddam Hussein.” After the Sunday morning talk shows, and a bit of reflection and research, many Americans are beginning to see these headlines for what they are—misinformation and propaganda. At least two of the commission members, including the chairman, have disputed these headlines.
Who is dividing this great nation? The very same folks who divided us in the late 1960’s and early 70’s, that’s who! The liberal (nihilistic, relativistic, socialistic) elites in the media and in academia are doing their best to rip the traditional unity of the American people to shreds by clouding our traditional values and principles with relativistic and “tolerant” (politically correct) gobbledygook. God is dead! Relativism rules! Traditional American values and principles are no better than the “values” of the communist or the radical, fringe, and fanatic Islamist “values” of those who would sooner see you dead than look at you! If you fall for this lie—the beguiling lie of relativism—then you are hastening the division and the ultimate conquest of the United States of America. These same media/academic “geniuses” lost the Cold War battle in Vietnam in much the same way they are subconsciously attempting to bring defeat on the front of Iraq.
President Bush is not dividing this nation. To be sure, he does not possess the communication skills of a Ronald Reagan or the “people skills” of a Bill Clinton. In my opinion, he has failed to adequately further his case and rally the people behind it. Yet, he is leading a reluctant world in a life-and-death war against terrorism. The battle to end Saddam’s regime in Iraq was both justified and necessary. The struggle to bring some form of representative democracy to the people of Iraq is both noble and just. Together, this is only one of many fronts in the greater war against terrorism. Failure on this front may not spell absolute doom in the overall War on Terror, but it would be an egregious setback to say the least.
Those who cannot or will not understand the significance of Operation Iraqi Freedom are assisting those who want to destroy American unity. Yes, it is as simple as that! Americans would do well to remember the words of Abraham Lincoln from a speech in June of 1858: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Americans would fare even better to realize the source of Lincoln’s quote (Matthew 12:25). 'And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand'.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that President Bush was horribly wrong and that regime change by military force in Iraq was absolutely ill-advised. The fact is, coalition forces and contractors are there now, fighting and working hard against all odds to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Repeated attempts to “prove” the president wrong, and to show all that is bad in the Iraqi theater without showing the good, only serves to aid and abet the enemy. This is déjà vu all over again! It happened some thirty to forty years ago when America was fighting an “ill-conceived” war in Vietnam. America lost that war not because her military was unable to win it, and not because it was an unjust or unrighteous war; but because she was a divided nation. We lost Vietnam because our unity, our values, our principles and our resolve were compromised by hostile elites in the media and academia.
Let us not ever forget the Source of our liberty! Let us never forget that we are fighting against evil people such as Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and against evil regimes that seek to destroy us and our institutions. Let us not fall for relativistic propaganda which is spewed by those among us who cannot or will not see these truths.
Let us stand united and resolved in the eyes of God Almighty. As Americans, we must never forget either the principles of our founding, or the Source of those principles. Unity and resolve helped us win two world wars and the Cold War. Without unity and resolve, we will lose the War on Terror.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Jul 24, 2004 16:56:53 GMT -5
We must defeat the entities that are trying to steer this Country in the wrong direction! The prime entity you're describing is GWB and his administration. No Bush in 2004.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Jul 24, 2004 17:04:27 GMT -5
Those that love America must must unite to defeat the wicked democratic party and their communist, socialist, and American hating allies around the world! We must fight for the future of this Country!!
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord; He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored; He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword; His truth is marching on. Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! His truth is marching on.
I have seen Him in the watch fires of a hundred circling camps They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps; I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps; His day is marching on. Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! His day is marching on.
I have read a fiery Gospel writ in burnished rows of steel; “As ye deal with My contemners, so with you My grace shall deal”; Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with His heel, Since God is marching on. Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Since God is marching on.
He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat; He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment seat; Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet; Our God is marching on. Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Our God is marching on.
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea, With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me: As He died to make men holy, let us live to make men free; [originally …let us die to make men free] While God is marching on. Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! While God is marching on.
He is coming like the glory of the morning on the wave, He is wisdom to the mighty, He is honor to the brave; So the world shall be His footstool, and the soul of wrong His slave, Our God is marching on. Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Our God is marching on.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Jul 24, 2004 18:18:13 GMT -5
Our Flip Flopper In Chief strikes again... GWB proclaims in Iowa 7/21/2004 that no one wants to be known a war president, he now wants to be known as the peace president.
|
|
|
Post by swoosh on Jul 26, 2004 1:18:38 GMT -5
if bush wins this election it will send a message to the world DON'T MESS WITH AMERICA AGAIN....it will also mean that there's still a great number of decent people in America who believe in preserving their freedom and that they are a God fearing people ......if kerry wins well then just sit and watch america go straight down the toilet....hard times are about to hit us harder and it takes a president with a big heart to guide this ship....not a shady one
|
|
|
Post by itsallaboutme on Jul 26, 2004 7:11:09 GMT -5
I've been watching America go down the toilet the last 4 years. 4 more years of Bush & this country will be in serious trouble.
I hate to say it but I think GW will once again lose the popular vote but win the electoral college. (which would be a travisty).
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Jul 26, 2004 13:47:26 GMT -5
I've been watching America go down the toilet the last 4 years. 4 more years of Bush & this country will be in serious trouble. I hate to say it but I think GW will once again lose the popular vote but win the electoral college. (which would be a travisty). Only the last 4 years? Please buy a clue! At least you got the part about GW winning the Electoral College correct. For all of you that can't bear to live with President Bush for 4 more years, Canada and Mexico are within moving distance. Don't let the door hit in you in the ass on the way out!!!!
|
|