Bush Opens a Double-Digit Lead!

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Bush Opens a Double-Digit Lead!
221
Fri, 09-03-2004 - 3:46pm
New York: For the first time since the Presidential race became a two person contest last spring, there is a clear leader, the latest TIME poll shows. If the 2004 election for President were held today, 52% of likely voters surveyed would vote for President George W. Bush, 41% would vote for Democratic nominee John Kerry, and 3% would vote for Ralph Nader, according to a new TIME poll conducted from Aug. 31 to Sept. 2. Poll results are available on TIME.com and will appear in the upcoming issue of TIME magazine, on newsstands Monday, Sept. 6.


http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,692562,00.html


Edited 9/3/2004 4:13 pm ET ET by iminnie833

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2004
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 6:13am
And apparently most of us are stupid, as the Reps did get a bounce. It is scaring me and I cannot believe people will vote on image and charisma alone and not facts but they have, they do and they will. I am hoping Kerry's new advisors will tell him to get out there punching back but they should have told him that BEFORE the Dem convention not now when it may be way too late. They had decided to "be nice" during the convention instead of be real and it has cost them. Bill Clinton was the only one who got up there and told it like it is. I just hope it is not too late, for the people who are voting based on the image of the convention and what was said and represented there are in for a BIG suprise if they get 4 more years of this president. Are these people just too busy to think for themselves?
Donna
Donna
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2004
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 6:27am
Excuse me but unless you were there you have NO RIGHT to comment on what Kerry did in battle.
Donna
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2004
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 6:31am

Newsflash: Cheney dissassociated himself with

Donna
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 8:00am
He couldn't get around it so he donates it all to charity.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 8:04am
One of the guys who was actually on the boat with him says there was no enemy fire. The rest of the guys were a few yards away. They all say no enemy fire. Kerry and Rassmussen are the only two with a different story. Each have something to gain by lying.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 9:19am
Please try to have your facts straight before posting. It's extra frustrating to deal with mistaken recollections of the original swiftie lies. It's like playing Telephone with a hundred Karl Roves.

Kerry NEVER said that Nixon SENT him there. He said that during a time Nixon had been saying loudly in the press that there were no troops in Cambodia, Kerry was in Cambodia. As for your "gotcha" that Nixon wasn't the President on Christmas Eve 1968 - your technically right, but it doesn't matter. Nixon was the President Elect and was sworn in about 20 days later. As President Elect it's entirely likely and even probable that he was making statements on the war, and Cambodia was a hot issue. Nixon began the secret bombing of Cambodia just a few months later.

My point in posting John O'Neill's quote was to point out how curious it is that he made no distinction between working "at the border" and being "in Cambodia", and is now throwing Kerry's words in his face for the same thing. It's hypocritical. It also leads me to believe that the border was more porus that the swifties are saying, but I have no real way to confirm that.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 9:34am
What conflict? The Vietnam War? Of course it was "involved."
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-13-2003
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 9:52am
Apparently there are still Kerry believers who do not yet know that Kerry's first purple heard was by his own words not obtained through enemy action.

Truth can often be disappointing -- please read on:

**********************************

Kerry's war journal contradicts medal claim?

At least 9 days after Purple Heart, wrote he had not 'been shot at yet'

Posted: August 17, 2004

8:00 p.m. Eastern

By Art Moore

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

A previously unnoticed passage in John Kerry's approved war biography, citing his own journals, appears to contradict the senator's claim he won his first Purple Heart as a result of an injury sustained under enemy fire.

Kerry, who served as commander of a Navy swift boat, has insisted he was wounded by enemy fire Dec. 2, 1968, when he and two other men took a smaller vessel, a Boston Whaler, on a patrol north of his base at Cam Ranh Bay.

But Douglas Brinkley's "Tour of Duty," for which Kerry supplied his journals and letters, indicates that as Kerry set out on a subsequent mission, he had not yet been under enemy fire.

While the date of the four-day excursion on PCF-44 is not specified, Brinkley notes it commenced when Kerry "had just turned 25, on Dec. 11, 1968," which was nine days after the incident in which he claimed he had been wounded by enemy fire.

Brinkley recounts the outset of that mid-December journey, which included a crew of radarman James Wasser, engineman William Zaladonis, gunner's mate Stephen Gardner and boatswain's mates Drew Whitlow and Stephen Hatch:


Quote:

"They pulled away from the pier at Cat Lo with spirits high, feeling satisfied with the way things were going for them. They had no lust for battle, but they also were were not afraid. Kerry wrote in his notebook, 'A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky.'"

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 9:53am
I'd appreciate it if you'd stop calling Democrats "monkeys."
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-13-2003
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 9:59am
Debateguy, here's the silver star with "V" source:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14743

Pages