Bush Vs Kerry

[DudeAsInCool]

As Secretary of State under GWB1, Cheney, based on a contract he procured with Haliburton, did more to downsize the military than Kerry's votes ever did. Check the facts

[Redneck4sure]

Has Kerry ever voted for a weapons system?? I have read he voted against the cruise missle, m1 abrams tank, f14, f15, f16, apache helicopter, anti-missle programs and lots of others I can't remember. He has one of the worst voting records from a military standpoint. I guess his idea of defense is have a million soldiers stand at the coast with sticks.

oops.....I am breaking my "do not debate politics and religon" rule. sorry.

If I see a link I will post it and you can read it if interested. I know you will not change your mind and I feel certain you are smart enough to know that I am not going to change mine.

[DudeAsInCool]

If I see a link I will post it and you can read it if interested.

links are good - reasons why are better. voting against something is one thing - actually implementing a policy to downsize the military is another

***

1992

Cheney pays Halliburton, Brown and Root $8.9 million for two studies on how to downsize the military.

AUGUST: Halliburton is selected by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to do all the work needed to support the military for five years. This is the same plan it had itself drawn up.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/dickcheney/defence.html

[Redneck4sure]

The Center for Security Policy has analyzed more than 75 votes over the past decade cast by Mr. Kerry and other senators. The Washington-based conservative think tank gave Mr. Kerry one of the lowest ratings of any senator.

In 1995, for instance, the group gave Mr. Kerry a rank of five out of a possible 100. In 1997, Mr. Kerry earned a zero from the Center for Security Policy, which identifies its goal as "promoting international peace through American strength."

article

[DudeAsInCool]

In 1997, Mr. Kerry earned a zero from the Center for Security Policy, which identifies its goal as "promoting international peace through American strength."

Was the CONSERVATIVE think tank started by Nixon - sounds like his VietNam peace policy You still didnt respond to my information regarding Cheney's military cutbacks - guess it was ok for him to done so, but no by his oppenent?

[Redneck4sure]

I have no idea who started the group. I have no problems with Cheney or his connections with Halliburton. What's the big deal? Clinton gave Halliburton the same no bid contract but it was ok then but not now. It is both a lie and hypocritical for the dems to say that Halliburton has a no bid deal. They bid and were the low bidder on a program called LOGCAP.

As journalist Byron York has reported, it's not really true that the company got its work without competitive bidding. In the 1990s, the military looked for ways to get outside help handling the logistics associated with foreign interventions. It came up with the U.S. Army Logistics Civil Augmentation Program, or LOGCAP. The program is a multiyear contract for a corporation to be on call to provide whatever services might be needed quickly.

Halliburton won a competitive bidding process for LOGCAP in 2001. So it was natural to turn to it (actually, to its wholly owned subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root) for prewar planning about handling oil fires in Iraq. "To invite other contractors to compete to perform a highly classified requirement that Kellogg Brown & Root was already under a competitively awarded contract to perform would have been a wasteful duplication of effort," the Army Corps of Engineers commander has written.

Then, in February 2003, the Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton a temporary no-bid contract to implement its classified oil-fire plan. The thinking was it would be absurd to undertake the drawn-out contracting process on the verge of war. If the administration had done that and there had been catastrophic fires, it would now be considered evidence of insufficient postwar planning. And Halliburton was an obvious choice, since it put out 350 oil-well fires in Kuwait after the first Gulf War.

The Clinton administration made the same calculation in its own dealings with Halliburton. The company had won the LOGCAP in 1992, then lost it in 1997. The Clinton administration nonetheless awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton to continue its work in the Balkans supporting the U.S. peacekeeping mission there because it made little sense to change midstream. According to Byron York, Al Gore's reinventing-government panel even singled out Halliburton for praise for its military logistics work.

I don't want to confuse the rhetoric with the facts cause I know the dems have a selective memory in addition to being liars but here is the article.

[DudeAsInCool]

I have no idea who started the group.  I have no problems with Cheney or his connections with Halliburton.

The issue we've been discussing is Defense, not Haiiburton, and Kerry and Cheney's support of it. I posted a fact that Dick Cheney cut the military defense under George W. Bush I with Haliburton's help (Haliburton is a side issue). You in turn have suggested that Kerry was weak on defense. I in turn said what about Dick Cheney's gutting of the military after the fall of the Soviet Union when it was perceived that the Russians were no longer a threat The problem with that thinking was the US didnt have a plan for the terrorists, and didnt see them coming--hence the military cuts by Cheney. I cant address the Kerry votes, but my guess is that at the time, he didnt have the forsight either

[Redneck4sure]

I cant address the Kerry votes,

I can---------Flip Flopper!

and you! You!! yesss YOU you sneaky %$#@^$ don't go and change a topic back once I have gone on to something else.

Here is 12 minute documentary of Kerry clips on him flip flopping for 15 or more yrs on Iraq. If interested click on the Watch Now! link located just below and to the right of tv screen that is showing when the home page comes up. I figure it is at least as honest and objective as Michael Moore. It is video of him being interviewed and giving speaches.

Flip Flop here

[DudeAsInCool]

I can---------Flip Flopper!  and you!  You!!  yesss YOU you sneaky %$#@^$ don't go and change a topic back once I have gone on to something else.

Time changes everything as well as people's views. I certainly hope my views change over time - that's called wisdom :bigsmile: But facts do not change - Cheney gutted the military as Secretary of Defense..

Speaking of Terrorism--name me one military or political move that the Bush administration did to stem the tide of terrorism before 911...

[Redneck4sure]

I guess I missed it Dude. All I saw in your post was in 1992 shortly before he left office that he had a study done about downsizing the military. That doesn't bother me near as much as voting against most weapons for the military.

Remember my reasons for not debating politics?

two of them were:

I am not going to change your mind.

You are not going to change mine.

So here we are reaffirming my rules.

I have carpal tunnel in both hands and typing really aggravates it and that is another and probably one of the biggest reasons. I have exceeded my limit for typing so I will quit for a while.

Go watch the video that I linked to above and continue to post away. :good job:

btw if you hear a scrubbing sound......it will be your name being erased from the list.

[DudeAsInCool]

All I saw in your post was in 1992 shortly before he left office that he had a study done about downsizing the military.

He did more than a study - the military cuts were enacted under his purview..

**

In any event, we can agree on one thing - we disagree

[Redneck4sure]

Speaking of Terrorism--name me one military or political  move that the Bush administration did to stem the tide of terrorism before 911...

Almost forgot this one.

He was in office for almost 9 months. Those attacks were being planned for several yrs. What did Clinton do to prevent that in 8 yrs?? Not a damn thing.

But I don't blame either of them. Mistakes were made for yrs but it is a big world, billions of people and it is a dangerous place.

Which reminds me of a song.

The Marmalade - Reflections Of My Life

"The world is a bad place, a sad place, a terrible place to live.

Aw but Lord, I don't want to die......."

and you can get it for free off the internet! :bigsmile:

Edited October 7, 2004 by Redneck4sure

[Redneck4sure]

In any event, we can agree on one thing - we disagree

No :angry:

[DudeAsInCool]

Music to my ears is better than politics ;)

[Redneck4sure]

Music to my ears is better than politics ;)

You want me to sing??

[DudeAsInCool]

You want me to sing??

Ah...no, thank you

[slum_goddess]

you boys...

anyway, what's w/this shit: as soon as kerry's numbers went up, there's this, i mean al queda's gonna blast 'our' kids? what the fuck is up w/that and can't they see not all people are stupid? (not you redneck; i wish every goddamn republican was like you cause of your sensa yooma, hee hee).

Edited October 8, 2004 by slum_goddess

[Redneck4sure]

Well SG a sensa yooma is about the only sensa I got! :)

[DudeAsInCool]

LOS ANGELES TIMES COLUMN: BUSH WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Fri Oct 08 2004 09:46:43 ET

In a LA TIMES column, Jonathan Chait blasts: "To say that I consider Bush a 'bad' president would be a severe understatement. I think he's bad in a way that redefines my understanding of the word 'bad.'

"I used to think U.S. history had many bad presidents. Now, my 'bad' category consists entirely of George W. Bush, with every previous president redefined as 'good.'

"There's also the fact that, on a personal level, I despise him with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns. What I'm saying is, advocating Bush is kind of tricky." But "what I'll argue instead is that his very awfulness is the reason he deserves reelection. Begin with the premise that a second-term Bush administration is unlikely to make things a whole lot worse." Bush's presidency "is a great mass of contradictions. There's an enormous gap between his purported values - fiscal discipline, toughness against terrorists, a commitment to social conservatism - and his true record.

"Sure, it would be emotionally satisfying to see Bush rejected by the voters once again. But maybe, for this president, defeat is too kind a fate."

[method77]

"Sure, it would be emotionally satisfying to see Bush rejected by the voters once again. But maybe, for this president, defeat is too kind a fate."

good one

[joeyz]

you can listen to debates streaming live here -> http://www.npr.org/

[DudeAsInCool]

I didnt see the townhall debate - any thoughts out there?

[Redneck4sure]

I ain't been thinkin lately.

[Kooperman]

John Kerry put forth another solid, mature performance in the second presidential debate tonight. His responses were again concise and focused in comparison to George Bush's, who appears apallingly uninformed. Bush managed to fairly successfully harness the faces of exasperation and anger which hurt him badly in the first debate, but he once again showed numerous flashes of anger and pique at Kerry, the moderator and even the audience, raising his voice on some answers as if unhappy with the question. He actually seems to have some sort of anger management problem. I don't think he's coming across as being reasonable and calm in stressful situations, something required of the president.

Bush loses again....lack of knowledge is really becoming evident. He seems unable to use one idea as a springboard to a deductive response, still falling back on the Republican talking points too often, still letting Kerry keep him playing defense too often.

[Kooperman]

transcript

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6209704/