I need some help with this:

During the debate last night, John Kerry, a Democrat guy, said that
Bush was greatly exaggerating the terrorist threat. Do you remember
that?

On his web site is the statement, "John Kerry has the courage to roll
back George Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can
invest in homeland security."

I'm sure there is some rational explanation for this apparent
ambiguity, but damn if I can figure it out. Help.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

Some intersting John F'ing Kerry facts-


KERRY OPPOSED WEAPONS CRITICAL TO RECENT MILITARY SUCCESSES

Running For Senate In 1984, Kerry Promised Massive Defense Cuts. "Kerry in
1984 said he would have voted to cancel . the B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth
bomber,
AH-64 Apache helicopter, Patriot missile, the F-15, F-14A and F-14D jets,
the
AV-8B Harrier jet, the Aegis air-defense cruiser, and the Trident missile
system.
He also advocated reductions in many other systems, such as the M1 Abrams
tank,
the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Tomahawk cruise missile, and the F-16
jet."
(Brian C. Mooney, "Taking One Prize, Then A Bigger One," The Boston Globe,
6/19/03)

Weapons Kerry Sought To Phase Out Were Vital In Iraq. "[K]erry supported
cancellation of a host of weapons systems that have become the basis of US
military might -- the high-tech munitions and delivery systems on display to
the world as they leveled the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in a matter of
weeks." (Brian C. Mooney, "Taking One Prize, Then A Bigger One," The Boston
Globe,
6/19/03)

F-16 Fighting Falcons. "The Air Force would also play an important role
in strikes against high-ranking officials of the Ba'ath regime. On April 4,
two Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcons dropped laser-guided munitions on the
house
of Ali Hassan al-Majid, a.k.a. 'Chemical Ali,' in Basra." (Abraham Genauer,
"Technology And Volume Of Sorties Overwhelmed The Iraqis' Defenses," The
Hill, 5/21/03)

B-1Bs B-2As F-15 And F-16s. "On the night of March 21 alone, the first
of 'shock and awe,' coalition air forces flew nearly 2,000 missions. .
Involved were Air Force B-1B Lancers, B-2A Spirits, . F-15E Strike Eagles
and F-16
Fighting Falcons." (Abraham Genauer, "Technology And Volume Of Sorties
Overwhelmed The Iraqis' Defenses," The Hill, 5/21/03)

M1 Abrams. "'[M1 Abrams] tanks were the sledgehammer in this war,' added
Pat Garrett, an associate analyst with GlobalSecurity.org. 'The tank was the
tool that allowed [the ground forces] to progress as fast as they did.'"
(Patrick O'Connor, "Revolutionary Tank Tactics Alter Iraqi Conflict, Future
Of Urban Warfare," The Hill, 5/21/03)

Patriot Missile. "U.S. Central Command says the Patriots . have improved
to the point where they intercepted nine of the Iraqis' short-range
al-Samoud 2 and Ababil-100 missiles in this conflict." (Andrea Stone,
"Patriot Missile:
Friend Or Foe To Allied Troops?" USA Today, 4/15/03)

AH-64 Apache Helicopter. "Recently, Apaches in Afghanistan achieved
success directly supporting ground troops. . Whether in shaping the battle
in a combined arms Warfighter-type fight where intelligence of the enemy is
known, or by conducting close combat attacks in direct support of a ground
commander,
the Longbow Apache provides significantly increased flexibility and
firepower
for U.S. Army forces ." (Maj. David J. Rude and Lt. Col. Daniel E. Williams,
"The 'Warfighter Mindset' and the War in Iraq," Army Magazine, 7/03)

Tomahawk Cruise Missile. "The first operational use [of Tomahawk cruise
missiles] was in Operation Desert Storm, 1991, with immense success. The
missile has since been used successfully in several other conflicts .
include[ing]
Bosnia . in 1995 and in Iraq again . in 1996 . [and in] strikes against
training camps run by Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network in Afghanistan in
1998.
Cruise missiles were also fired during the air campaign over Kosovo in
1999."
(Vivek Rai, "Cruise Missiles, By Air And Sea," MSNBC.com, Accessed 7/17/03)

Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser. "During Operation Iraqi Freedom, [the Aegis
cruiser] Bunker Hill . was one of the first warships to conduct Tomahawk
strikes against leadership targets in Iraq. The ship launched a total of 31
missiles
during the war. Its embarked . helicopter detachment . supported the rescue
of United Nations workers being forcibly removed from oil platforms in the
Northern Arabian Gulf and provided medical evacuations from the Iraqi city
of Umm
Qasr." (S.A. Thornbloom, "USS Bunker Hill Makes Revolutionary Return,"
NavyDispatch.com, Accessed 7/17/03)

During 1980s, Kerry And Michael Dukakis Joined Forces With Liberal Group
Dedicated To Slashing Defense. Kerry sat on the board of "Jobs With Peace
Campaign," which sought to "develop public support for cutting the defense
budget." ("Pentagon Demonstrators Call For Home-Building, Not Bombs," The
Associated Press, 6/3/88)

Running For Congress In 1972, Kerry Promised To Cut Defense Spending. "On
what he'll do if he's elected to Congress, Kerry said he would 'bring a
different
kind of message to the president.' He said he would vote against military
appropriations." ("Candidate's For Congress Capture Campus In Andover,"
Lawrence [MA] Eagle-Tribune, 4/21/72)


1995: Proposed Bill Cutting $1.5 Billion From Intelligence Budget. Kerry
introduced a bill that would "reduce the Intelligence budget by $300 million
in each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000." There were no
cosponsors of Kerry's bill, which never made it to the floor for a vote. (S.
1290, Introduced 9/29/95)

1995: Voted To Slash FBI Funding By $80 Million. (H.R. 2076, CQ Vote #480:
Adopted 49-41: R 9-40; D 40-1, 9/29/95, Kerry Voted Yea)

1994: Proposed Bill To Gut $1 Billion From Intelligence And Freeze Spending
For Two Major Intelligence Programs. Kerry proposed a bill cutting $1
billion
from the budgets of the National Foreign Intelligence Program and from
Tactical
Intelligence, and freezing their budgets. The bill did not make it to a
vote, but the language was later submitted (and defeated - see below) as S.
Amdt.
1452 to H.R. 3759. (S. 1826, Introduced 2/3/94)

1997: Kerry Questioned Growth Of Intelligence Community After Cold War. "Now
that that [Cold War] struggle is over, why is it that our vast intelligence
apparatus continues to grow even as Government resources for new and
essential priorities fall far short of what is necessary? ." (Senator John
Kerry
Agreeing That Critic's Concerns Be Addressed, Congressional Record, 5/1/97,
p. S3891)

When His Bill Stalled In Committee, Kerry Proposed $1 Billion Cut As
Amendment Instead. Kerry proposed cutting $1 billion from the National
Foreign Intelligence Program and Tactical Intelligence budgets, and freezing
their
budgets. The amendment was defeated, with even Graham, Lieberman and Braun
voting against Kerry. (Amdt.. To H.R. 3759, CQ Vote #39: Rejected 20-75: R
3-37; D 17-38, 2/10/94, Kerry Voted Yea; Graham, Lieberman And Braun Voted
Nay)


After all the above, he has the nerve to say this, after 9/11

12 Days After 9/11: Kerry Questioned Quality Of Intelligence. "And the
tragedy is, at the moment, that the single most important weapon for the
United
States of America is intelligence. . And we are weakest, frankly, in that
particular area. So it's going to take us time to be able to build up here
to do this
properly." (CBS's "Face The Nation," 9/23/01)

SEN. KERRY'S DEFENSE STRATEGY: CUT CRITICAL WEAPONS SYSTEMS

In 1996, Introduced Bill To Slash Defense Department Funding By $6.5
Billion. Kerry's bill had no co-sponsors and never came to a floor vote. (S.
1580,
Introduced 2/29/96; In 1995, Voted To Freeze Defense Spending For 7 Years,
Slashing Over $34
Billion From Defense. Only 27 other Senators voted with Kerry.

Fiscal 1996 Budget Resolution - Defense Freeze. "Harkin, D-Iowa,
amendment to freeze defense spending for the next seven years and transfer
the $34.8 billion in savings to education and job training." (S. Con. Res.
13,
CQ Vote #181: Rejected 28-71: R 2-51; D 26-20, 5/24/95, Kerry Voted Yea)

In 1993, Introduced Plan To Cut Numerous Defense Programs, Including:

Cut the number of Navy submarines and their crews
Reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one
Reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force
Terminate the Navy's coastal mine-hunting ship program
Force the retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the Armed Forces
in one year. (S.1163, Introduced 6/24/93,

Has Voted Repeatedly To Cut Defense Spending, Including:

In 1993, Voted Against Increased Defense Spending For Military Pay
Raise. Kerry voted to kill an increase in military pay over five years. (S.
Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #73: Motion Agreed To 55-42: R 2-39; D 53-3, 3/24/93,
Kerry
Voted Yea) In 1992, Voted To Cut $6 Billion From Defense. Republicans and
Democrats
successfully blocked the attempt to cut defense spending. (S. Con. Res. 106,
CQ Vote #73: Motion Agreed To 53-40: R 38-1; D 15-39, 4/9/92, Kerry Voted
Nay)
In 1991, Voted To Slash Over $3 Billion From Defense, Shift Money To
Social Programs. Only 27 Senators joined Kerry in voting for the defense
cut. (H.R. 2707, CQ Vote #182: Motion Rejected 28-69: R 3-39; D 25-30,
9/10/91,
Kerry Voted Yea) In 1991, Voted To Cut Defense Spending By 2%. Only 21
other Senators
voted with Kerry, and the defense cut was defeated. (S. Con. Res. 29, CQ
Vote #49: Motion Rejected 22-73: R 1-39; D 21-34, 4/25/91, Kerry Voted Yea)

Has Voted Repeatedly To Cut Or Eliminate Funding For B-2 Stealth Bomber.
(H.R.3072, CQ Vote #203: Rejected 29-71: R 2-43; D 27-28, 9/26/89, Kerry
Voted
Yea; H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #310: Rejected 29-68: R 3-41; D 26-27, 11/18/89,
Kerry
Voted Yea; S. 2884, CQ Vote #208: Rejected 43-56: R 8-36; D 35-20, 8/2/90,
Kerry
Voted Yea; S. 2884, CQ Vote #209: Rejected 45-53: R 9-34; D 36-19, 8/2/90,
Kerry
Voted Yea; S. 1507, CQ Vote #174: Rejected 42-57: R 7-36; D 35-21, 8/1/91,
Kerry
Voted Yea; H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #206: Motion Agreed To 51-48: R 36-7; D 15-41,
9/25/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2403, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 61-38: R 7-36; D
54-2,
5/6/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 3114, CQ Vote #216: Rejected 45-53: R 8-35; D
37-18,
9/18/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2182, CQ Vote #179: Rejected 45-55: R 8-36; D
37-19, 7/1/94, Kerry Voted Yea)

Has Voted Repeatedly Against Missile Defense. (S. 1507, CQ Vote #171: Motion
Agreed To 60-38: R 40-3; D 20-35, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1507, CQ Vote
#173: Rejected 46-52: R 5-38; D 41-14, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2521,
CQ Vote #207: Motion Agreed To 50-49: R 38-5; D 12-44, 9/25/91, Kerry Voted

Nay; S. 2403, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 61-38: R 7-36; D 54-2, 5/6/92, Kerry
Voted Yea;
S. 3114, CQ Vote #182: Rejected 43-49: R 34-5; D 9-44, 8/7/92, Kerry Voted
Nay;
S. 3114, CQ Vote #214: Rejected 48-50: R 5-38; D 43-12, 9/17/92, Kerry Voted
Yea; S. 3114, CQ Vote #215: Adopted 52-46: R 39-4; D 13-42, 9/17/92, Kerry
Voted
Nay; S. 1298, CQ Vote #251: Adopted 50-48: R 6-36; D 44-12, 10/9/93, Kerry
Voted
Yea; S. Con. Res. 63, CQ Vote #64: Rejected 40-59: R 2-42; D 38-17, 3/22/94,
Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1026, CQ Vote #354: Motion Agreed To 51-48: R 47-6; D
4-42,
8/3/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1087, CQ Vote #384: Rejected 45-54: R 5-49; D
40-5, 8/10/95, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1745, CQ Vote #160: Rejected 44-53: R
4-49; D
40-4, 6/19/96, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1507, CQ Vote #168: Rejected 39-60: R
4-39; D
35-21, 7/31/91, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1507, CQ Vote #172: Motion Agreed To
64-34: R 39-4; D 25-30, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1873, CQ Vote #131:
Rejected
59-41: R 55-0; D 4-41; I 0-0, 5/13/98, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1873, CQ Vote
#262:
Rejected 59-41: R 55-0; D 4-41, 9/9/98, Kerry Voted Nay; S 1635, CQ Vote
#157: Rejected 53-46: R 52-0; D 1-46, 6/4/96, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2549, CQ
Vote
#178: Motion Agreed To 52-48: R 52-3; D 0-45, 7/13/00, Kerry Voted Nay)

"John H" wrote:


During the debate last night, John Kerry, a Democrat guy, said that
Bush was greatly exaggerating the terrorist threat. Do you remember
that?

On his web site is the statement, "John Kerry has the courage to roll
back George Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can
invest in homeland security."

I'm sure there is some rational explanation for this apparent
ambiguity, but damn if I can figure it out. Help.


I don't want to become that explainer or appologist for John Kerry. I
really
don't have any way to know what his explanation is. But here's one that
I think is about right:

Bush did exaggerate the terrorist threat. He exaggerated the threat that
Saddam
posed. He called Saddam a terrorist - which in fact Saddam was. Saddam had
terrorised his own people and some neighbors over a period of years. But
then
GW Bush also either directly stated or implied that Saddam was a grave
threat
to the US. Bush and his people talked about a nuckular program that could
produce a bomb in 6 weeks or 6 months. They said there were huge stock
piles of bio-weapons and that they knew pretty much exactly where they were.
Bush & Co. talked about moveable trailers used to make bio weapons. They
talked about drone air-planes that could reach the US and harm us. And they
kept calling Saddam a terrorst (which he was) but made it sound like he was
a terrorist connected to 9/11 and-or that would be a terrorist threat to
America.
In light of what has gone on (and not gone on) in Iraq ~ It seems these
claims
are much MUCH exaggerated.

However, that doesn't mean there is no terrorist threat. There are other
terrorist organizations (Al Quada etc.) that may be a true threat to
America.

Read that way, there is no contradiction (or as you call it "ambiguity")
when
one says, "Bush has exaggerated the terrorist threat. But we need to
invest more in Homeland Security." ~ I agree on first blush is does seem
slightly odd. But the point is, it's two DIFFERENT threats.

Another thing, not mentioned in your Kerry quotes, is that it's one thing to
think there is a threat and do everything we can to PREVENT that threat.
It is quite another to go offensive and start a full scale WAR to PREEMPT
what might be a threat. And that second action (preemption) looks and is
very bad when it turns out your preeptive reason was not even true.

Gary

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:32:38 -0500, "Gary Warner"
wrote:


"John H" wrote:


During the debate last night, John Kerry, a Democrat guy, said that
Bush was greatly exaggerating the terrorist threat. Do you remember
that?

On his web site is the statement, "John Kerry has the courage to roll
back George Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can
invest in homeland security."

I'm sure there is some rational explanation for this apparent
ambiguity, but damn if I can figure it out. Help.


I don't want to become that explainer or appologist for John Kerry. I
really
don't have any way to know what his explanation is. But here's one that
I think is about right:

Bush did exaggerate the terrorist threat. He exaggerated the threat that
Saddam
posed. He called Saddam a terrorist - which in fact Saddam was. Saddam had
terrorised his own people and some neighbors over a period of years. But
then
GW Bush also either directly stated or implied that Saddam was a grave
threat
to the US. Bush and his people talked about a nuckular program that could
produce a bomb in 6 weeks or 6 months. They said there were huge stock
piles of bio-weapons and that they knew pretty much exactly where they were.
Bush & Co. talked about moveable trailers used to make bio weapons. They
talked about drone air-planes that could reach the US and harm us. And they
kept calling Saddam a terrorst (which he was) but made it sound like he was
a terrorist connected to 9/11 and-or that would be a terrorist threat to
America.
In light of what has gone on (and not gone on) in Iraq ~ It seems these
claims
are much MUCH exaggerated.

However, that doesn't mean there is no terrorist threat. There are other
terrorist organizations (Al Quada etc.) that may be a true threat to
America.

Read that way, there is no contradiction (or as you call it "ambiguity")
when
one says, "Bush has exaggerated the terrorist threat. But we need to
invest more in Homeland Security." ~ I agree on first blush is does seem
slightly odd. But the point is, it's two DIFFERENT threats.

Another thing, not mentioned in your Kerry quotes, is that it's one thing to
think there is a threat and do everything we can to PREVENT that threat.
It is quite another to go offensive and start a full scale WAR to PREEMPT
what might be a threat. And that second action (preemption) looks and is
very bad when it turns out your preeptive reason was not even true.

Gary


I could buy some of that, but the threat under discussion was the
*current* terrorist threat, not the Saddam Hussein threat.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John H wrote:

I need some help with this:

During the debate last night, John Kerry, a Democrat guy, said that
Bush was greatly exaggerating the terrorist threat. Do you remember
that?

On his web site is the statement, "John Kerry has the courage to roll
back George Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can
invest in homeland security."

I'm sure there is some rational explanation for this apparent
ambiguity, but damn if I can figure it out. Help.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


I didn't watch the program in question, nor have I read any transcripts.

There are many ways Bush has lied and continues to lie about the
terrorist threats. I don't see where that fact conflicts with what you
say is Kerry's statement about cutting tax breaks for millionaires and
investing the proceeds in homeland security.

As an example, and again, this may or may not have anything to do with
what Kerry said or is considering: Bush has done virtually nothing to
protect our ports from what may be inside the containers on container
ships. It is well-known that our ports are virtually unprotected.
Because of Bush's wasting our tax dollars in Iraq and because he cut
taxes, there isn't enough money to do the port scans properly. If tax
revenues were increased and properly spent, there might well be funds to
inspect the cargos of ships.

Is that clear enough for you?




--
Email sent to is never read.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:20:31 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H wrote:

I need some help with this:

During the debate last night, John Kerry, a Democrat guy, said that
Bush was greatly exaggerating the terrorist threat. Do you remember
that?

On his web site is the statement, "John Kerry has the courage to roll
back George Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can
invest in homeland security."

I'm sure there is some rational explanation for this apparent
ambiguity, but damn if I can figure it out. Help.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


I didn't watch the program in question, nor have I read any transcripts.

There are many ways Bush has lied and continues to lie about the
terrorist threats. I don't see where that fact conflicts with what you
say is Kerry's statement about cutting tax breaks for millionaires and
investing the proceeds in homeland security.

As an example, and again, this may or may not have anything to do with
what Kerry said or is considering: Bush has done virtually nothing to
protect our ports from what may be inside the containers on container
ships. It is well-known that our ports are virtually unprotected.
Because of Bush's wasting our tax dollars in Iraq and because he cut
taxes, there isn't enough money to do the port scans properly. If tax
revenues were increased and properly spent, there might well be funds to
inspect the cargos of ships.

Is that clear enough for you?

If the threat is so exaggerated, why spend the money -- the trillions
it would take to inspect the millions of containers entering the
country each year?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John H wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:20:31 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H wrote:

I need some help with this:

During the debate last night, John Kerry, a Democrat guy, said that
Bush was greatly exaggerating the terrorist threat. Do you remember
that?

On his web site is the statement, "John Kerry has the courage to roll
back George Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can
invest in homeland security."

I'm sure there is some rational explanation for this apparent
ambiguity, but damn if I can figure it out. Help.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


I didn't watch the program in question, nor have I read any transcripts.

There are many ways Bush has lied and continues to lie about the
terrorist threats. I don't see where that fact conflicts with what you
say is Kerry's statement about cutting tax breaks for millionaires and
investing the proceeds in homeland security.

As an example, and again, this may or may not have anything to do with
what Kerry said or is considering: Bush has done virtually nothing to
protect our ports from what may be inside the containers on container
ships. It is well-known that our ports are virtually unprotected.
Because of Bush's wasting our tax dollars in Iraq and because he cut
taxes, there isn't enough money to do the port scans properly. If tax
revenues were increased and properly spent, there might well be funds to
inspect the cargos of ships.

Is that clear enough for you?

If the threat is so exaggerated, why spend the money -- the trillions
it would take to inspect the millions of containers entering the
country each year?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


Yes, indeed, and why invade Iraq, kill thousands of Iraqis, see 500+
American soldiers killed...if the threat is exaggerated and you're the
president and you are too stupid to realize that ...or you don't care
one way or the other, because it was high on your agenda to invade Iraq
no matter what?


--
Email sent to is never read.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:34:28 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:20:31 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H wrote:

I need some help with this:

During the debate last night, John Kerry, a Democrat guy, said that
Bush was greatly exaggerating the terrorist threat. Do you remember
that?

On his web site is the statement, "John Kerry has the courage to roll
back George Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can
invest in homeland security."

I'm sure there is some rational explanation for this apparent
ambiguity, but damn if I can figure it out. Help.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


I didn't watch the program in question, nor have I read any transcripts.

There are many ways Bush has lied and continues to lie about the
terrorist threats. I don't see where that fact conflicts with what you
say is Kerry's statement about cutting tax breaks for millionaires and
investing the proceeds in homeland security.

As an example, and again, this may or may not have anything to do with
what Kerry said or is considering: Bush has done virtually nothing to
protect our ports from what may be inside the containers on container
ships. It is well-known that our ports are virtually unprotected.
Because of Bush's wasting our tax dollars in Iraq and because he cut
taxes, there isn't enough money to do the port scans properly. If tax
revenues were increased and properly spent, there might well be funds to
inspect the cargos of ships.

Is that clear enough for you?

If the threat is so exaggerated, why spend the money -- the trillions
it would take to inspect the millions of containers entering the
country each year?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


Yes, indeed, and why invade Iraq, kill thousands of Iraqis, see 500+
American soldiers killed...if the threat is exaggerated and you're the
president and you are too stupid to realize that ...or you don't care
one way or the other, because it was high on your agenda to invade Iraq
no matter what?

So Bush ****ed up and Kerry's doing the same? Is that a good thing?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John H wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:34:28 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:20:31 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H wrote:

I need some help with this:

During the debate last night, John Kerry, a Democrat guy, said that
Bush was greatly exaggerating the terrorist threat. Do you remember
that?

On his web site is the statement, "John Kerry has the courage to roll
back George Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can
invest in homeland security."

I'm sure there is some rational explanation for this apparent
ambiguity, but damn if I can figure it out. Help.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


I didn't watch the program in question, nor have I read any transcripts.

There are many ways Bush has lied and continues to lie about the
terrorist threats. I don't see where that fact conflicts with what you
say is Kerry's statement about cutting tax breaks for millionaires and
investing the proceeds in homeland security.

As an example, and again, this may or may not have anything to do with
what Kerry said or is considering: Bush has done virtually nothing to
protect our ports from what may be inside the containers on container
ships. It is well-known that our ports are virtually unprotected.
Because of Bush's wasting our tax dollars in Iraq and because he cut
taxes, there isn't enough money to do the port scans properly. If tax
revenues were increased and properly spent, there might well be funds to
inspect the cargos of ships.

Is that clear enough for you?

If the threat is so exaggerated, why spend the money -- the trillions
it would take to inspect the millions of containers entering the
country each year?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


Yes, indeed, and why invade Iraq, kill thousands of Iraqis, see 500+
American soldiers killed...if the threat is exaggerated and you're the
president and you are too stupid to realize that ...or you don't care
one way or the other, because it was high on your agenda to invade Iraq
no matter what?

So Bush ****ed up and Kerry's doing the same? Is that a good thing?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


Checking container ships entering and in American ports promotes
homeland security. Invading a country on the basis of bad intel and your
own political agenda does not.

--
Email sent to is never read.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:34:28 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:20:31 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H wrote:

I need some help with this:

During the debate last night, John Kerry, a Democrat guy, said that
Bush was greatly exaggerating the terrorist threat. Do you remember
that?

On his web site is the statement, "John Kerry has the courage to roll
back George Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can
invest in homeland security."

I'm sure there is some rational explanation for this apparent
ambiguity, but damn if I can figure it out. Help.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


I didn't watch the program in question, nor have I read any transcripts.

There are many ways Bush has lied and continues to lie about the
terrorist threats. I don't see where that fact conflicts with what you
say is Kerry's statement about cutting tax breaks for millionaires and
investing the proceeds in homeland security.

As an example, and again, this may or may not have anything to do with
what Kerry said or is considering: Bush has done virtually nothing to
protect our ports from what may be inside the containers on container
ships. It is well-known that our ports are virtually unprotected.
Because of Bush's wasting our tax dollars in Iraq and because he cut
taxes, there isn't enough money to do the port scans properly. If tax
revenues were increased and properly spent, there might well be funds to
inspect the cargos of ships.

Is that clear enough for you?

If the threat is so exaggerated, why spend the money -- the trillions
it would take to inspect the millions of containers entering the
country each year?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


Yes, indeed, and why invade Iraq, kill thousands of Iraqis, see 500+
American soldiers killed...if the threat is exaggerated and you're the
president and you are too stupid to realize that ...or you don't care
one way or the other, because it was high on your agenda to invade Iraq
no matter what?

Does your veering off on a tangent mean that you can't answer the
question?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!