Kerry, open mouth, insert foot.

[melody1181]

Ya know, I have never considered myself a republican or the other major choice. How anyone can support this sorry excuse of a "man" and what he said is STUPID.

He insulted the Men and Women who entered our volunteer Armed Forces of free will. The people protecting our freedom all over the world. Our military may be far from perfect and the people in it are human but they are more intelligent than that person. If the Dems want to acheive there goal they need to put a sock in Kerry's mouth.

Oh crap.
Seems perfectly obvious to me that he was talking about the troops.
Does this mean I'm one of Bush's people?
If so, can I get paid for it?
Will I have to stop being a registered Dem.?
Who knew listening to what somebody said could get so complicated?!

[Seascamp]

And then, a pictorial right from the heartland, courtesy Col. Brice.

[Arrow]

Rev,

You're right we should notignore what is going on in the world. I ampaying attention.What I see is a world turned up side down.Our country is disdained and lookeddownupon as heavy handed and imperilistic because we gave millions of people the opportunity to cast a vote for a democratic form of government. Someone with a bomb strapped to their body takes advantage ofany everyday outing with your family to blow you all to kingdom comeand many in the "international" community consider him a freedom fighter.:cd:

[exlrrp]

As President Bush throws himself into the final days of a particularly nasty campaign season, he?s settled into a familiar pattern of ugly behavior. Since he can?t defend the real world created by his policies and his decisions, Mr. Bush is inventing a fantasy world in which to campaign on phony issues against fake enemies.

In Mr. Bush?s world, America is making real progress in Iraq. In the real world, as Michael Gordon reported in yesterday?s Times, the index that generals use to track developments shows an inexorable slide toward chaos. In Mr. Bush?s world, his administration is marching arm in arm with Iraqi officials committed to democracy and to staving off civil war. In the real world, the prime minister of Iraq orders the removal of American checkpoints in Baghdad and abets the sectarian militias that are slicing and dicing their country.

In Mr. Bush?s world, there are only two kinds of Americans: those who are against terrorism, and those who somehow are all right with it. Some Americans want to win in Iraq and some don?t. There are Americans who support the troops and Americans who don?t support the troops. And at the root of it all is the hideously damaging fantasy that there is a gulf between Americans who love their country and those who question his leadership.

Mr. Bush has been pushing these divisive themes all over the nation, offering up the ludicrous notion the other day that if Democrats manage to control even one house of Congress, America will lose and the terrorists will win. But he hit a particularly creepy low when he decided to distort a lame joke lamely delivered by Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. Mr. Kerry warned college students that the punishment for not learning your lessons was to ?get stuck in Iraq.? In context, it was obviously an attempt to disparage Mr. Bush?s intelligence. That?s impolitic and impolite, but it?s not as bad as Mr. Bush?s response. Knowing full well what Mr. Kerry meant, the president and his team cried out that the senator was disparaging the troops. It was a depressing replay of the way the Bush campaign Swift-boated Americans in 2004 into believing that Mr. Kerry, who went to war, was a coward and Mr. Bush, who stayed home, was a hero....When the president of the United States gleefully bathes in the muck to divide Americans into those who love their country and those who don?t, it is destructive to the fabric of the nation he is supposed to be leading....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/02/op...thu1.html?_...

[exlrrp]

You know how much I love to post Bush's discharge because it shows the most disgraceful military service ever, so I willhere too.
Or explain why his "honorable discharge" shows NONE in his qualifications box. They spell it out in capital letters too: N-O-N-E, so they REALLY wanted us to know that George BUsh was absolutely and completely disqualified from doing ANYTHING in the military. Anybody else have NONE in their qualifications box? ( I have 8 items and I was just a Sp/4)
Our commander in chief was completely unqualified to do ANYTHING in the military when discharged, not even paint rocks white. Don't take my word for it, read it right off the discharge.
if you look at the medals and awards box, you see that the TXANG credited him with NO medals at all (TAFCS and TAFMS are NOT medals!) even though he got an NDSM and a bolo badge.

Bush ended his pilots career suspended from flying for failing to take his flight physical. from correspondence with other ANG pilots I know that this is unheard of.

Question; How did George BUsh get paid for his last 47 days, over 14 months, as a pilot when he had been suspended from flying? The answer is: fraudulently. George Bush was paid as a pilot to be a pilot on 47 days when he was suspended from flying AND when both the units he was allgedly participating say he wasn';t there. Not only that, he was paid for many days that the units weren't even training.

Both the two units he was allegedly attending say unequivocally that he wasn't there during this time and their records show it. So how did Bush get paid for time in these units for work he had been suspended form doing.

These are all obvious questiions about BUsh's "service" that never got asked: why did the public pay Buish to be a pilot for 47 days after he had been suspended from flying. What did he do to earn his pay when both units he could have been in say he wasn't there?
What happened, when they released Bush's papers is that they started Switfboating Kerry right away to take the heat off of scrutiny of BUsh's service. This was the hidden, and most important part of the Swiftboating--to distract attention away from Bush's service. And with the help of the compliant corporate media, it worked like a charm--Americas never had it explained ot them how a apilot was paid for 47 days of flight pay after he was suspended from flying.
It worked so well theyre pulling uit out and trying it again---except Kerry's not running this time.

[exlrrp]

In this paper we see Col Killian definitely sayin Bush wasn't there. He didn't sign this because its all false, but his name is on the bottom. They say unequivocally that Bush wasn't in this unit all the time.
The alabama unit has always said he wasn't there during this time.
Bus was suspended from flying in August of this year by Killian when Killian said he wasn't there--how did THAT work?
So how did Bush get paid for 14 days this year when both units he could have been in say he wasn't there?

[revwardoc]

If anyone can tell me of anything good that George Bush's administration has accomplished, I'd be more than happy to listen.

[revwardoc]

Here ya go, Arrow.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...LL.xml&src=rss

LONDON (Reuters) - The United States is seen as a threat to world peace by its closest neighbors and allies, with Britons saying President George W. Bush poses a greater danger than North Korea's Kim Jong-il, a survey found on Friday. A majority of people quizzed in three out of four countries polled also rejected the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. The findings came just days before the U.S. mid-term congressional elections, with a growing number of U.S. voters wanting their troops in Iraq to be brought home. Britain's Guardian newspaper said it carried out the survey along with Israel's Haaretz, La Presse and Toronto Star in Canada and Mexico's Reforma

In Britain, which alongside Israel is traditionally a close Washington ally, 69 percent of those questioned said they felt U.S. policy had made the world less safe since 2001. A majority of Canadians and Mexicans agreed, with 62 percent of those polled in Canada and 57 percent in Mexico saying their neighbor's policy had made the world more dangerous. As for Israel, just 25 percent of people asked said Bush had made the world safer, while 36 percent felt he had upped the risk of conflict and a further 30 percent said at best he had made no difference. Israelis alone were in favor of Bush's decision to invade Iraq, with 59 percent for the war and 34 percent against. The ratio was starkly different in the three other nations.

Some 89 percent of Mexicans felt the invasion to topple Saddam Hussein was unjustified, as did 73 percent of Canadians and 71 percent of Britons, the survey said. The perceived failings of U.S. foreign policy placed Bush alongside al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, North Korean leader Kim Jong-il and Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a cause of global anxiety, it said. North Korea's nuclear test last month drew worldwide condemnation, while Western powers are trying to force Iran to scale back atomic work they fear may be used to make bombs. Iran says its aims are purely peaceful. Asked whether they thought the U.S. leader was a great or moderate danger to peace, 75 percent of British people said yes. Some 87 percent felt the same about bin Laden, while Kim scored 69 percent and Ahmadinejad clocked 62 percent.

Just 23 percent of Israelis said Bush he represented a serious danger, with 61 percent disagreeing. ICM interviewed 1,010 adults from October 27-30 in Britain. Professional local opinion polling was used in the other three countries, the Guardian said. In Israel, 1,078 people were asked, 1,007 were quizzed in Canada and 1,010 in Mexico.

[SuperScout]

Have you seen or heard of a terrorist atack on America in say, five years or so? Is that good enough?

Just read the words of the terrorists:

Everybody has an opinion about next Tuesday's midterm congressional election in the U.S. ? including senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND who say they hope Americans sweep the Democrats into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq, a move, as they see it, that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.

The terrorists told WorldNetDaily an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are "tired."

They rejected statements from some prominent Democrats in the U.S. that a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency, explaining an evacuation would prove resistance works and would compel jihadists to continue fighting until America is destroyed.

They said a withdrawal would also embolden their own terror groups to enhance "resistance" against Israel.

"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND.

"This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud," said Jaara, speaking to WND from exile in Ireland, where he was sent as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the church siege.

Jaara was the chief in Bethlehem of the Brigades, the declared "military wing" of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party.

Together with the Islamic Jihad terror group, the Brigades has taken responsibility for every suicide bombing inside Israel the past two years, including an attack in Tel Aviv in April that killed American teenager Daniel Wultz and nine Israelis.

Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, said the Democrats' talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel "proud."