Bush campaign obsessed with Kerry

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Bush campaign obsessed with Kerry
108
Thu, 07-29-2004 - 7:08am

Have a look at the two websites.  The first thing you see on the Bush site is a big picture of Kerry and the lead story about Kerry’s “makeover”, and links to lots of Kerry bashing.  I get the feeling that Bush wants to distract from his lack of ideas.


<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 


Look at the Kerry website and there is not a word about Bush, only what Kerry plans to do for the country.


 


I may not like Kerry very much, and I may wish that the Dems had chosen a better candidate, but at least he's not directly engaging in smear tactics, and at least his website gives information on exactly what it is he aims to do.


 


 



http://www.georgewbush.com/


 


http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html


 


 


 


 


Elaine

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-08-2003
Tue, 08-03-2004 - 9:22am
Outsourcing, it's going to be a way of life. But to say 'We've created all these jobs' when they're CRAP jobs is not helpful to the American people.

But that's how Bush is: He's satisfied with everything as it is.

Clinton said it best in the early 90's: The jobs lost are not going to come back, one must re-train themselves, learn new trades, work with your mind as you once worked with your hands.

Bush apparently does not believe this. Last year, the did throw some money at community colleges for 'Hi-Tech Training'.

$125,000,000 for the entire nation. That works out to not much more than a 1 day bull session on how to use MS Word or Excel.

You can't watch millions of middle class jobs disappear and replace them with Walmart jobs and say everything's on the right track.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-08-2003
Tue, 08-03-2004 - 9:27am
--

afterall you don't want to accuse anyone else of doing so, do you?

--

When I post ridiculous partisan poison, I certainly hope they will.

Why comment at all? Do you also feel that there's a CONSPIRACY going on with 527 PAcs and the Democratic Party? Or as this CL says: Collusion between them with the Kerry/Edwards campaign?

I stand by my comment, posting such drivel is what trolls do.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-31-2003
Tue, 08-03-2004 - 9:37am
This is a serious question. How much authority does the UN actually have? The most I have heard about them is over the Iraq weapons inspectors. I can remember hearing that Saddam threw them out at one point, that he wasn't cooperative in his end of the deal, etc. And of course, there's the oil for food program. It would seem that the UN abused their authority terribly in that one. So to my question, how much authority does the UN really have? What is their authority? Is it to tell us when we can and can't defend our countries? Is it more a humanitarian authority? What action can and do they take to use their authority for the good of a country? These may be vauge questions, but hopefully you can answer them.
NIU Ribbon   Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-08-2003
Tue, 08-03-2004 - 9:45am
The United Nations never got to vote on The use of Military force in Iraq. While you may feel that Bush acted in defense of our country, all the evidence shown has been to the contrary.

This was beyond all doubt, a rush to war.

How do you equate mismanagement with ABUSE? By ABUSE, are you saying UNSC members willfully exploited the UN oil for food program?

The UN may or may not have authority, that's not so much the issue as those who support the war by citing UNSC resolutions: Bush and his supporters thumbed their nose at the UN and deemed them irrelevant.

Turns out: They were right about WMD, they were right not to vote for war and without them, the Handover on 6/28/2004 would have never happened. The UN succeeded in diplomacy to make that handover possible, when the US had failed.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-31-2003
Tue, 08-03-2004 - 3:44pm
"The United Nations never got to vote on The use of Military force in Iraq. While you may feel that Bush acted in defense of our country, all the evidence shown has been to the contrary.

This was beyond all doubt, a rush to war. "

Yes, in hindsight, it seems that the information that the world seem to have on Iraq and their weapons was exagerated. But that is all in hindsight. How can we judge someone based on what they didn't know, and couldn't know. How can we judge one person negatively when no one with information on the topic was saying anything differently? The most I've ever heard anyone say is that 'they knew it wasn't the right move', or comments like that, as though their notions were based more on intuition and feeling than fact. Do we want someone with such authority to base their decisions on feeling or fact. I'm not saying moving into Iraq was right or wrong. I'll admit, I've been a waffler on this for a long time. There are times when I am sure it was 100% the right thing to do. There are times when I question that thought. At this point, with all the hindsight information, I don't think I can go backwards in the thought process without injecting current information to really know for sure what was right at the time, and that would not be a 'fair fight' so to speak.


"How do you equate mismanagement with ABUSE? By ABUSE, are you saying UNSC members willfully exploited the UN oil for food program?"

Willfully exploited the program. If you look back, I used the word 'seemed', I couldn't say for sure so I didn't, it seems that it hasn't been really investigated.

But I've heard and read enough to have a red flag that waves in my head when ever Food for Oil comes up.

"The UN may or may not have authority, that's not so much the issue as those who support the war by citing UNSC resolutions: Bush and his supporters thumbed their nose at the UN and deemed them irrelevant. "

I don't think that at this time I have enough knowledge to agree or disagree with you. At one point I might have just disagreed. That said, because of the 9/11 commission, we know that there was an Iraq, Al-Queda link as Bush said. It was not the link that he was accused of saying. I truthfully never thought that Bush was suggesting that Iraq and Al-Queda were in on the plane crashes together. So, with that knowledge, and the 9/11 attacks, do you think that the US was still beholden on the UN to make a decision on force? I'm going to assume yes, so I'll ask you why too. Is it the job of the UN to decide when a country can use force? And if so, why and how do they have that power? I know this is a world civics lesson, but I really am trying to understand.

NIU Ribbon   Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-08-2003
Tue, 08-03-2004 - 3:50pm
No, I certainly do not agree it's the UN's job, place or position to authorize a country to defend itself.

However, it is the UN's job, place or position to decide best how to enforce or conclude UNSC resolutions.

UNSC resolution 1441 was never violated, that's why the UNSC would never authorize military force.

I've always believed Democracy comes from within and remember Romania in 1989 as a perfect example. It's just that reason I was against the war in the first place. Anyhow, that's not what we need to get into, more Iraqi war debate :)

I don't know enough about the UN oil for food program to make an educated chat about it. With todays internet, you really gotta dig deep for reliable information.

Cheers,

Jeff

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 08-03-2004 - 4:13pm

<<"The United Nations never got to vote on The use of Military force in Iraq.">>....


I agree!! And we all know how that came about no? Just a reminder:


The sabotage to come to a jóint UN/SC solution lies in the *fact* that France c.s. vówed to veto *any resolution that compels disarmament* (for SH to face Réal Consequences) beforehand. Consequences that *SH* would feel instead of yet agáin giving him room to shift them onto the Iraqi people, which he had successfully done for over a decade.

Djie

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-08-2003
Tue, 08-03-2004 - 4:33pm
--

France c.s. vówed to veto *any resolution that compels disarmament* (for SH to face Réal Consequences) beforehand.

--

I thought UNSC 1441 passed 15-0

France threaten to veto the USE of FORCE. I believe Germany, Russia and China did not support the use of force either.

Is using a veto that bad? The United States has used its veto more than 2 dozen times at resolutions aimed at making Israel comply, that's also NOT ok?




iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 08-03-2004 - 4:54pm

<<"I don't know enough about the UN oil for food program to make an educated chat about it. With todays internet, you really gotta dig deep for reliable information. ">>....see? That's why I love Google. You simply type e.g. "oil for food program violations" et voilà, you get tons of links.


Here's one: http://www.puk.org/web/htm/news/nws/news040211b.html

Djie

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Tue, 08-03-2004 - 10:18pm
Actually you are wrong there.

There is one or two resolutions that say that any member state can use whatever means necessary to uphold the resolution. To me that includes military action.

I will have to find the resolution. I did read it about 6 months or so ago, but cannot remember which one it was.... I will check and get back to you.

Pages