The Kerry ad you’ll never hear:
”I’m John Kerry and George Bush gave me a hangnail.”
“I’m John Kerry and anything George Bush can do I can do better.”
“I’m John Kerry and George Bush can’t do anything right, and I can’t do anything wrong.
"Don’t pay attention to a growing economy. Don’t consider the huge numbers of people returning to work now after losing their jobs when the tech bubble of the Clinton years burst. Don’t listen to the millions of Iraqis and Afghanis who are free from oppressive regimes.
Don’t think about the thousands of terrorists who are in prison or dead because of the Bush war on terror. Don’t even consider the Medicare prescription act that George Bush pushed through Congress to give relief to seniors.
The sensitive, caring leadership George Bush has demonstrated following the 9/11 attacks, don’t even think about it. Then there’s the beefing up of the intelligence community and the reformed communications and unified terrorist watch list George Bush has implemented, ignore it.
Reduced taxes, believe me, the increases in take home pay of the middle class saw in their paychecks was a mirage, they got nothing. The rich, since they already pay 58% of all income taxes and are merely the engines driving the American economy, why shouldn’t they pay more. Then there’s the poor, since they are part of the 40% of Americans who pay nothing, why shouldn’t they get a tax cut?”
Then there’s truthfulness with the American people, George Bush told you what he did based on the best information he had at the time, HE LIED WHEN HE DID THAT! Just like you did when you told your spouse that car was a great buy, before it turned into a lemon six months later.
But me, I came back from Vietnam and testified before Congress and the American people about atrocities committed by US soldiers there, stories I had made up and embellished to score points with my anti-war buddies, but that wasn’t lying, just good marketing.
Sure in 1971 I told Crosby Noyes on Meet The Press, “I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers…” But that’s ok, I still want to be the first admitted war criminal to serve as president of the United States. I want it, I deserve it, and if you vote for me, you’ll get what you ask for.
An expert at negative, whining, finger pointing, and accusing, that’s me. A veteran who made a name for himself by creating false accusations of honorable people, yep. A person who makes issues of people who I think should apologize for things I think are wrong, while not having the manhood to admit that my own mistakes have caused grievous harm to others, why break a perfect record?
Yep, I’m John Kerry and if you don’t have the desire or intelligence to check the Bush record yourself, trust me; I’ll be sure and tell you what I want you to hear. If you are willing to believe me instead of the objective record that refutes what I say, you're my kind of people. Believe me, if you vote for me I won’t apologize for anything, never have, and never will."
Be sure to visit Letters From Iraq
Saturday, October 23, 2004
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Iraqi intelligence documents seized by US forces and released by an administration bureaucrat serve to validity the Bush administration's claim of Saddam's involvement in terrorism.
This subject has been hotly debated over the course of the war and before, and the Kerry campaign has politicized the issue. Back on May 27, Opinion Journal.com posted an article about the diligent record keeping of the Saddam regime and predicting the wealth of strategic information to come out of them. Now, on October 4th the Cybercast News Service posted an article detailing the information in these documents.
Interestingly enough, this story was published the day before a CIA report flatly stated "there's no conclusive evidence that the regime harbored Osama bin Laden associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi."
The released documents tie Ssaddam to both al-Zarqawi, notorious for the bombings and beheadings in Iraq, and Ayman al-Zawahiri who is alleged to have helped mastermind the 9/11/01 attacks in the US.
Additionally, the documents show a plan by Saddam to reconstruct his WMD program as soon as the UN sanctions were lifted. Evidence of purchases of Anthrax and Mustard Gas are also there.
With what is now becoming evident about the corrupt UN "oil for food" program, there should be little doubt that Saddam was a threat to the US and the world, if not immediately at the time of the invasion by the US, he would have been soon had not the US taken action.
Independent experts have translated the documents and analyzed them, all coming to the same conclusion as to their authenticity. This would appear to be the smoking gun the Bush administration needs to prove their case for the war in Iraq.
So why haven't the Bush administration and the rest of the media brought this information to the public's attention? According to the CNS source as quoted by World magazine's Mindy Belz, "the documents have not been made public because Bush administration officials have "thousands and thousands" of similar documents waiting to be translated and "it is unlikely they even know this exists."
As for the media, in their complicity with the Kerry campaign to undercut and demonize the Bush administration, these documents would crumble the foundation of their argument. John Kerry's words that "the president's "two main rationales, weapons of mass destruction and the al-Qaida/Sept. 11 connection, have been proved false" would itself be proven false.
So what's the big problem, all Kerry has to do is flip again...or this time is it flop?
Be sure to visit Letters From Iraq
This subject has been hotly debated over the course of the war and before, and the Kerry campaign has politicized the issue. Back on May 27, Opinion Journal.com posted an article about the diligent record keeping of the Saddam regime and predicting the wealth of strategic information to come out of them. Now, on October 4th the Cybercast News Service posted an article detailing the information in these documents.
Interestingly enough, this story was published the day before a CIA report flatly stated "there's no conclusive evidence that the regime harbored Osama bin Laden associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi."
The released documents tie Ssaddam to both al-Zarqawi, notorious for the bombings and beheadings in Iraq, and Ayman al-Zawahiri who is alleged to have helped mastermind the 9/11/01 attacks in the US.
Additionally, the documents show a plan by Saddam to reconstruct his WMD program as soon as the UN sanctions were lifted. Evidence of purchases of Anthrax and Mustard Gas are also there.
With what is now becoming evident about the corrupt UN "oil for food" program, there should be little doubt that Saddam was a threat to the US and the world, if not immediately at the time of the invasion by the US, he would have been soon had not the US taken action.
Independent experts have translated the documents and analyzed them, all coming to the same conclusion as to their authenticity. This would appear to be the smoking gun the Bush administration needs to prove their case for the war in Iraq.
So why haven't the Bush administration and the rest of the media brought this information to the public's attention? According to the CNS source as quoted by World magazine's Mindy Belz, "the documents have not been made public because Bush administration officials have "thousands and thousands" of similar documents waiting to be translated and "it is unlikely they even know this exists."
As for the media, in their complicity with the Kerry campaign to undercut and demonize the Bush administration, these documents would crumble the foundation of their argument. John Kerry's words that "the president's "two main rationales, weapons of mass destruction and the al-Qaida/Sept. 11 connection, have been proved false" would itself be proven false.
So what's the big problem, all Kerry has to do is flip again...or this time is it flop?
Be sure to visit Letters From Iraq
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
I had a conversation with someone today who gave me hope for the coming election. As of lately the polls show the race tightening and though I know this coming election is merely an aside to the greater plan on God's list, the human in me still is concerned.
The person I spoke with, who will remain nameless, is a union steward in another office and has always been very "union", outspoken and confided that she has always voted a straight Democrat ticket...until this year.
The things that have contributed to her splitting her vote this year boil down to:
1. She doesn't trust Kerry
2. She thinks he will submit US security to the world for approval
3. She feels that if both Kerry and Edwards are capable of the underhanded attack they made on the Cheneys, what won't they stop at? Do they have any scruples? She thinks not.
I’m anxious to discover how this all plays out as we go into the coming two weeks.
On a different tangent of the subject, this individual has heard that Bill Burris, president of the 360,000 member APWU was incensed to learn of Kerry’s lagging in the polls and is working on a plan to bolster support in the membership. Of course my question was, “I thought there was supposed to be a disconnect between unions and direct political involvement?”
Apparently there are loopholes they can exploit, specifically Labor Political Action Committees and the new 527’s. In addition, they are working to limit choice among workers buy hiding the fact that a worker can withhold compulsory union dues that are used for political purposes. When it comes to union leadership, choice is only good if it is their choice.
According to Stop Political Abuse, unions constantly abuse the political system by illegally using dues, supply campaign literature to candidates, providing union-paid staff to campaign to conduct illegal campaign activities and more. They use this power to press their issues, both union oriented as well as social and political. And they are decidedly to the left of center. They have been described as indistinguishable in agenda and doctrine.
This all plays out in the negative for the membership. They are required to submit dues to a union in order to work, except in the few “Right to Work” states, to provide support to an organization that doesn’t necessarily represent them or their views. According to some studies, 40% of union membership will vote contrary to the wishes of union bosses in this election.
Perhaps some of these courageous souls will be able to make changes within their labor organization to provide the open government the left so loudly calls for elsewhere. After all, are not unions supposed to be representative of their members?
Be sure to visit Letters From Iraq
The person I spoke with, who will remain nameless, is a union steward in another office and has always been very "union", outspoken and confided that she has always voted a straight Democrat ticket...until this year.
The things that have contributed to her splitting her vote this year boil down to:
1. She doesn't trust Kerry
2. She thinks he will submit US security to the world for approval
3. She feels that if both Kerry and Edwards are capable of the underhanded attack they made on the Cheneys, what won't they stop at? Do they have any scruples? She thinks not.
I’m anxious to discover how this all plays out as we go into the coming two weeks.
On a different tangent of the subject, this individual has heard that Bill Burris, president of the 360,000 member APWU was incensed to learn of Kerry’s lagging in the polls and is working on a plan to bolster support in the membership. Of course my question was, “I thought there was supposed to be a disconnect between unions and direct political involvement?”
Apparently there are loopholes they can exploit, specifically Labor Political Action Committees and the new 527’s. In addition, they are working to limit choice among workers buy hiding the fact that a worker can withhold compulsory union dues that are used for political purposes. When it comes to union leadership, choice is only good if it is their choice.
According to Stop Political Abuse, unions constantly abuse the political system by illegally using dues, supply campaign literature to candidates, providing union-paid staff to campaign to conduct illegal campaign activities and more. They use this power to press their issues, both union oriented as well as social and political. And they are decidedly to the left of center. They have been described as indistinguishable in agenda and doctrine.
This all plays out in the negative for the membership. They are required to submit dues to a union in order to work, except in the few “Right to Work” states, to provide support to an organization that doesn’t necessarily represent them or their views. According to some studies, 40% of union membership will vote contrary to the wishes of union bosses in this election.
Perhaps some of these courageous souls will be able to make changes within their labor organization to provide the open government the left so loudly calls for elsewhere. After all, are not unions supposed to be representative of their members?
Be sure to visit Letters From Iraq
Following up on Dean's eloquent comments yesterday, one question Christians need and should ask is, "where is their source?" It seems, at least by the sound of the worries and the debate, many are looking for government to meet their needs.
Seems to me that is contrary to scriptural teaching. Matt 6:25-33 tells us that we are to trust in Gods provision. That promise in vs. 33, "and all these things shall be added unto you." is prefaced by the command, "Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness."
Are we seeking provision from government because we refuse to seek after the righteousness of God? Or is it ignorance, or is it laziness?
It's easier to lay with your snout in the government trough than to run and pursue God. In the end what is the tradeoff. The minimal provision of a government yoke vs the abundance that comes with freedom in God?
Sadly, we Christians too often choose the former then blame God when it fails to meet the need and we find ourselves entrapped.
Be sure to visit Letters From Iraq
Seems to me that is contrary to scriptural teaching. Matt 6:25-33 tells us that we are to trust in Gods provision. That promise in vs. 33, "and all these things shall be added unto you." is prefaced by the command, "Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness."
Are we seeking provision from government because we refuse to seek after the righteousness of God? Or is it ignorance, or is it laziness?
It's easier to lay with your snout in the government trough than to run and pursue God. In the end what is the tradeoff. The minimal provision of a government yoke vs the abundance that comes with freedom in God?
Sadly, we Christians too often choose the former then blame God when it fails to meet the need and we find ourselves entrapped.
Be sure to visit Letters From Iraq
Monday, October 18, 2004
Concerning my previous entry Saturday, October 8, my Canadian cousin, Dean, forwarded his comments on the issue discussed. I'm going to post them, unedited, for thoughtful consideration:
"I have no way of knowing if these facts about George Bush & his party are true. But I think that it would not surprise me if they are because the more conservative the party the less they are likely to feel that it is their responsibility to offer up certain “social programs”. This is because they are more likely to believe that it is healthier in the long term for people to do what they can for themselves (even those with “disabilities”) before expecting the government to “help”. It is important to note that the more liberal parties love to play on people’s fears of losing certain “benefits” or point to “perceived losses created by the past more conservative government” during an election if they vote for them (as our own Liberal party did very well in the last federal election—in reality all politicians whatever their political stripe do this to one degree or another). That to me is clearly seems to be what this letter from Senator Kennedy is attempting to do amongst the “disabled” community in the US.
What I do know is that traditionally most in the Deaf community in Canada (Christian or not) tend to vote Liberal/NDP (and perhaps Democrat in the US) because these parties are more likely to do more for them (i.e. social programs, handouts, etc).
I think that the real question here should not be ... “If these facts are true or not” ... but rather ... “Should the Deaf believe that these social programs or handouts are their inalienable right?” ... or ... “Should they consider their own responsibility to pay for some services instead of expecting the government to pay for everything?” (The ADA seems to have planted firmly the first belief in the minds of many Deaf in the US). We need to keep in mind that the more the government pays for the higher the taxes & the more socialist a country gets (Note: This is why Canada’s taxes are so much higher than in the US ... In Sweden the government pays for a whole lot more than even in Canada but their taxes average about 70% – I wonder would anyone in Canada/US really want this?). Traditionally the higher the tax load the more likely that it will lessen the business community’s (or wealthy people’s) desire/motivation to innovate, invest & produce more to create more jobs. Then we have another problem on our hands – higher unemployment rates amongst the Deaf (who are among the first to get “let go” in a difficult business environment). I’d be interested to know how the unemployment rates in the Deaf communities of Sweden—Canada—US compares with “how much each government does for the Deaf in their country”.
An even more important question that the Christian Deaf community especially must ask itself in an election is ... “Which party/candidate is most likely to uphold their moral values & lead the country in a way that is consistent with their beliefs & their country’s heritage” & weigh this information up against what they may or may not view as their “rights under the ADA”. It seems that too often people in general vote very “selfishly” thinking about what each candidate/party can do for them personally or their particular community rather than which candidate/party will do the most for “the greater good of the whole community/country”. This concept of “the greater good” seems to have been lost in our politics & in the courtrooms of North America.
If Christians (regardless if they are Deaf or hearing, disabled or not, white or black, etc) approach their elections this way then they are never “stuck” as your friend seems to think. Yes, it is sometimes a tough choice (i.e. sometimes it seems that we must choose the lesser of 2 or 3 ‘evils’ OR as one retired Canadian politician infamously said during our recent federal election ... “Choosing between the devil we know or the one we don’t know”). But the LORD can give HIS people the wisdom they need if they only ask HIM (James 1:5).
Ultimately, as the Scriptures say, “the king’s (we could legitimately insert president’s or prime minister’s) heart is in the hand of the LORD, HE directs it like a watercourse wherever HE pleases” (Proverbs 21:1). I believe that GOD put George W. Bush in power for these past 4 years to fulfill HIS purposes (whatever they may have been) & will place whoever HE thinks best suits HIS purposes for the next 4 years (as HE has already done here in Canada by placing Prime Minister Paul Martin & a “minority Liberal government” that many Christians here may or may not be happy with).
Last word ... It is kind of ironic but it was a well known, former Democratic president who said these famous words ... “You should not ask what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” I’m not sure if I’m remembering his words exactly but I think this is close ... Can you remember who said this?
I hope this creates a constructive thinking environment for you all,"
Dean Hardy
Be sure to visit Letters From Iraq
"I have no way of knowing if these facts about George Bush & his party are true. But I think that it would not surprise me if they are because the more conservative the party the less they are likely to feel that it is their responsibility to offer up certain “social programs”. This is because they are more likely to believe that it is healthier in the long term for people to do what they can for themselves (even those with “disabilities”) before expecting the government to “help”. It is important to note that the more liberal parties love to play on people’s fears of losing certain “benefits” or point to “perceived losses created by the past more conservative government” during an election if they vote for them (as our own Liberal party did very well in the last federal election—in reality all politicians whatever their political stripe do this to one degree or another). That to me is clearly seems to be what this letter from Senator Kennedy is attempting to do amongst the “disabled” community in the US.
What I do know is that traditionally most in the Deaf community in Canada (Christian or not) tend to vote Liberal/NDP (and perhaps Democrat in the US) because these parties are more likely to do more for them (i.e. social programs, handouts, etc).
I think that the real question here should not be ... “If these facts are true or not” ... but rather ... “Should the Deaf believe that these social programs or handouts are their inalienable right?” ... or ... “Should they consider their own responsibility to pay for some services instead of expecting the government to pay for everything?” (The ADA seems to have planted firmly the first belief in the minds of many Deaf in the US). We need to keep in mind that the more the government pays for the higher the taxes & the more socialist a country gets (Note: This is why Canada’s taxes are so much higher than in the US ... In Sweden the government pays for a whole lot more than even in Canada but their taxes average about 70% – I wonder would anyone in Canada/US really want this?). Traditionally the higher the tax load the more likely that it will lessen the business community’s (or wealthy people’s) desire/motivation to innovate, invest & produce more to create more jobs. Then we have another problem on our hands – higher unemployment rates amongst the Deaf (who are among the first to get “let go” in a difficult business environment). I’d be interested to know how the unemployment rates in the Deaf communities of Sweden—Canada—US compares with “how much each government does for the Deaf in their country”.
An even more important question that the Christian Deaf community especially must ask itself in an election is ... “Which party/candidate is most likely to uphold their moral values & lead the country in a way that is consistent with their beliefs & their country’s heritage” & weigh this information up against what they may or may not view as their “rights under the ADA”. It seems that too often people in general vote very “selfishly” thinking about what each candidate/party can do for them personally or their particular community rather than which candidate/party will do the most for “the greater good of the whole community/country”. This concept of “the greater good” seems to have been lost in our politics & in the courtrooms of North America.
If Christians (regardless if they are Deaf or hearing, disabled or not, white or black, etc) approach their elections this way then they are never “stuck” as your friend seems to think. Yes, it is sometimes a tough choice (i.e. sometimes it seems that we must choose the lesser of 2 or 3 ‘evils’ OR as one retired Canadian politician infamously said during our recent federal election ... “Choosing between the devil we know or the one we don’t know”). But the LORD can give HIS people the wisdom they need if they only ask HIM (James 1:5).
Ultimately, as the Scriptures say, “the king’s (we could legitimately insert president’s or prime minister’s) heart is in the hand of the LORD, HE directs it like a watercourse wherever HE pleases” (Proverbs 21:1). I believe that GOD put George W. Bush in power for these past 4 years to fulfill HIS purposes (whatever they may have been) & will place whoever HE thinks best suits HIS purposes for the next 4 years (as HE has already done here in Canada by placing Prime Minister Paul Martin & a “minority Liberal government” that many Christians here may or may not be happy with).
Last word ... It is kind of ironic but it was a well known, former Democratic president who said these famous words ... “You should not ask what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” I’m not sure if I’m remembering his words exactly but I think this is close ... Can you remember who said this?
I hope this creates a constructive thinking environment for you all,"
Dean Hardy
Be sure to visit Letters From Iraq
My cousin Vance’s North Carolina National Guard unit, the 30/120th lost another soldier last week. SSgt. Michael Voss was killed by one of those insidious IED’s (Improvised Explosive Devices).
The loss of even one soldier, one man, husband, father, son, brother, friend is one too many. There is now a grieving widow, Emily, and two grieving, perhaps bewildered, daughters ages 4 and 5.
I didn’t know Mike Voss, but that’s not important. What is important is that he gave his life serving his country and serving the people of Iraq. Voss had been a soldier since 1988 and served in Panama, Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm before his recent deployment to Iraq.
By all accounts he loved his work serving his country and was a respected leader among his fellow soldiers. Our hearts go out to his family as our prayers surround them. SSgt. Michael Voss gave his life doing what he loved, serving a people he didn’t know, protecting them from an enemy he never saw.
Mike’s death is not in vain, Iraq is step by step, day by day, moving towards freedom from tyranny.
Be sure to visit Letters From Iraq
The loss of even one soldier, one man, husband, father, son, brother, friend is one too many. There is now a grieving widow, Emily, and two grieving, perhaps bewildered, daughters ages 4 and 5.
I didn’t know Mike Voss, but that’s not important. What is important is that he gave his life serving his country and serving the people of Iraq. Voss had been a soldier since 1988 and served in Panama, Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm before his recent deployment to Iraq.
By all accounts he loved his work serving his country and was a respected leader among his fellow soldiers. Our hearts go out to his family as our prayers surround them. SSgt. Michael Voss gave his life doing what he loved, serving a people he didn’t know, protecting them from an enemy he never saw.
Mike’s death is not in vain, Iraq is step by step, day by day, moving towards freedom from tyranny.
Be sure to visit Letters From Iraq
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)