"Safer" due to restricted civil rights. Which good things? People all
around the world hating us? High gas prices, lousy economy that's
finally starting to get better despite the idiot in the WH? Oh, those
things.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart Senior" wrote in message
t...
The liberals want to make it sound as though we're losing
ground. They conjure up pessimism and negativism. They
have to make it all up. Liberals do not look at the good
things that have happened. They don't see them, don't recognize
them, or acknowledge them, because they don't want people
to be or feel happier, or safer. They want to paint the blackest
picture and they want American's to buy into this bull****.

America is a safer place, liberals are not happy about it. They
want you to think they are going to be able to solve the problem
when the reality Kerry has gone from supporting the war, to
saying he would continue on our present course, to now saying,
"I am against the war."

Here it goes again, Kerry is against the war. Our troops
overseas can count on one thing. They will die for our
country and Kerry will be apologizing to our enemies.
The military can count on one thing, not being able to count
on Kerry to follow through on what he voted for.

CHENEY: When Congress voted to authorize force against
Saddam Hussein, Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards both
voted "yes." Now it seems they've both developed a convenient
case of campaign amnesia. The last thing our nation needs is
politicians who support a decision to go to war and then try to
rewrite history and then fail to support the troops they voted to
send into battle.

*********************************
Kerry has done just that, so has Edwards, they both voted for
the war then they voted against the $87 billion. Now they're
trying to say that they would do it better then do it smarter but
they won't say how and won't answer the hard questions.

Now:
KERRY: [on 60 Minutes] "I'm against this war."

KERRY: "In the two years since 9/11, less nuclear materials
have been secured than in the two years prior to 9/11."

HOLBROOKE [Kerry advisor on the Today Show with:
Katie Couric] He's talking about North Korea. The facts
speak for themselves, North Korea is more dangerous today
than it was before this administration came into power. Katie
looks at Newt and says, is that a valid criticism in your view?

***********************************
What about the US and Soviet arms reduction agreements?
***********************************

GINGRICH: Senator Kerry misses deliberately, as a campaign
device, a whole series of events. Libya has given up its
chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and admitted,
by the way, that it was lying to the world for years, which
our CIA reported accurately was the case. Iran has now
admitted that for 18 years it lied to the International Atomic
Energy Agency, which is a multinational effort the United
States is participating in. Five countries, the United States,
Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea, are pressuring
North Korea in a multilateral effort, precisely the kind of
things, by the way, that Senator Kerry says he favors. Iraq
no longer has a dictator trying to acquire weapons of mass
destruction, something which, by the way, the British, Italian,
and French intelligence agencies ten days ago reported once
again that they were trying to buy uranium from Niger while
Saddam was dictator, something which had been disputed
by some people. And A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani physicist
who was the leading proliferator in the private sector
worldwide, has now been stopped from that proliferation,
and the Pakistani government has clamped down. The world
is still dangerous. There are real steps that have been taken.

KATIE COURIC: "Newt, you think the administration would
do it differently if it had to do it all over again?"

GINGRICH: Let's look at the facts. It is a fact that George W.
Bush had the guts to go into Afghanistan, something Clinton
never did. It is a fact that while both Richard and I favored
replacing Saddam Hussein it is George W. Bush who had
the guts to replace him. What's Kerry saying, is Kerry saying
he would invade North Korea? What is his complaint? I want
to talk here, Richard, but what would you do in North Korea?
If you're not willing to invade Iraq, if you don't think invading
Afghanistan was right, what would do you in North Korea?
Not talk about, what would you do against the most dangerous
dictatorship on the planet?

HOLBROOKE: Newt, North Korea actually has weapons of
mass destruction.

GINGRICH: Right and got them under the Clinton administration.

HOLBROOKE: No, they got them before the Clinton administration.

***********************************
At least they built up dramatically under the Clinton administration
***********************************

HOLBROOKE: I would continue the six-part talks but make an
all-out effort to put more pressure directly on North Korea.

GINGRICH: And how would you do that?

HOLBROOKE: The administration's refusal to talk directly to North
Korea even though the South Koreans and the Chinese have said go
ahead and do it is an inexplicable triumph of ideology over substance.

GINGRICH: So you would put pressure by talking with them, you'd
put pressure by meeting with them, this is pressure?

***********************************
Are you laughing as hard as I am? This is pressure?
***********************************

HOLBROOKE: No, it's a complete -- you know it's a complete package.

GINGRICH: No. Are you prepared to invade North Korea or is this
just more rhetoric without any substantive action?


No answer.
***********************************
How can you criticize and then suggest you would both do
nothing differently, and attack N. Korea in the same breath????

I want an answer to this question!
**********************************

KERRY: I think the president made a mistake in the way that he took us to
war.

STAHL: Was the war wrong?

KERRY: I am against the war. The way the president went to war was wrong.

************************************
Kerry voted for it and now says "I'm against the war". He is tap dancing
around the issues and saying the way the president went to war was wrong.
President Bush asked for and got Kerry's vote. Congress got it's chance,
another vote, another debate and, another resolution. President Bush did
not
proceed until he had the votes of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House, the
whole government, the whole Congress, and he didn't proceed until he had
two resolutions. Now Kerry wants to pretend that he never cast that vote.

Someone, please send a cows backbone, to Kerry. He is spineless.

Boston Globe editorial on spineless John Kerry.
http://news.bostonherald.com/electio...rticleid=29108