Mothering Forum banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,556 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Should Kerry win, I pray Bush leaves him the same parting gift as Clinton bestowed on Bush upon his departure. Al Qaeda, Iraq, and North Korea. It is only fitting, and the old saying, "what comes around goes around" springs to mind.<br>
Clinton and his Democratic administration failed us. Their approach was REACTIONARY and did nothing to prevent any of the attacks to our country. He treated the first terrorist attack on the WTC as if it was a simple law enforcement problem, devoid of any foreign implications. Al Qaeda didn't just spring to life upon Bush's election....this group was well-known to Clinton, yet he did NOTHING. It was during Clinton's 8 YEAR tenure in office that Al Qaeda's attacks began against our country. Plans were unearthed as to Al Qaeda's intent to destroy New York's tunnels and bridges and the UN building, and to destroy 11 passenger jetliners all while they succeeded in bombing American embassies in Africa TWICE, bombed US bases in Saudi Arabia, and atacked the USS Cole. The final culmination of the violence we were forced to experience (and probably not the last) was on September 11, 2001.<br>
Iraq's military infrastructure was largely destroyed after it's defeat in the Gulf War. While Clinton got his rocks off, SH methodically took the opportunity to rebuild his army, kick out the UN arms inspectors, all while getting the $ he needed to rearm with phantom oil for food programs.<br>
And now we come to North Korea......North Korea decides sometime in 1994 that it wants a piece of the action and is interested in developing nuclear weapons, but balks at allowing inspectors to monitor the manufacturing. Enter former President Jimmy Carter. He travels to North Korea to try and work out a deal. A compromise is reached, but in Clintons eagerness to declare a victory (over what who knows) he never monitors the situation and in 2002 we find out we are back to square one...only now North Korea proclaims to have nuclear weapons built and at the ready. To date they are assertive, agressive and IMO almost cocky about it.<br>
Does anyone else see the writing on the wall.....do you think we will be forced to deal with North Korea next? YES!<br>
Clinton left Bush to deal with bin Laden, Jong, and SH. It has been said what is seen as Clinton's failures were in fact deliberate acts.<br>
Let's leave the Republicans with this mess. They'll take the fall for it and all of the slack that comes with it. And so it has come to pass....<br><br>
Kerry's voting record on defense mirrors those of the liberal left mindset. He has voted for at least 7 major reductions that directly affect our ability to defend ourselves.<br>
Since 1972, Kerry has made it abundantly clear that the United States defense is not a priority to him and this mindset will lead us into another war. I am afraid that Kerry does not and will not have the balls to protect the United States people and our interests. He has see-sawed between publicly supporting and condeming the war in Iraq, depending on what the situation calls for.<br>
Kerry the Senator voted for the authorization to use military force, and now Kerry the candidate claims that wasn't really his intent. Say what?<br><br>
I have tried to imagine Kerry as President, and visions of pardons keep dancing in my head.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,623 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">Kerry's voting record on defense mirrors those of the liberal left mindset. He has voted for at least 7 major reductions that directly affect our ability to defend ourselves.</td>
</tr></table></div>
What 7?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,966 Posts
This looks like it could shed some light:<br><br><a href="http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=177" target="_blank">http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=177</a><br><br>
ETA:These might help also.<br><br><a href="http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kerry-military-votes.html" target="_blank">http://www.fair.org/press-releases/k...ary-votes.html</a><br><br><a href="http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/" target="_blank">http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/</a><br><br>
Joyce in the mts.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,606 Posts
dallaschildren <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/bow.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="bow">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
516 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>dallaschildren</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">I have tried to imagine Kerry as President, and visions of pardons keep dancing in my head.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
<br>
Perhaps the "pardons" will be "Pardon me Iraq, I'm sorry my predecessor killed 1,000's of your people (including a WEDDING PARTY!!!)" or "Pardon me World, I'm sorry that we were unable to fund any sort of women's health organizations and consequently women around the globe have become ill or died." or "Pardon me allies I'm sorry my predecessor snubbed his nose at you and made fun of you, I hope you can forgive us American's."<br><br>
Let's hope the only pardon he doesn't do, is to pardon Bush and his clan for all the wrongdoing they have done.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
516 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>dallaschildren</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">Since 1972, Kerry has made it abundantly clear that the United States defense is not a priority to him and this mindset will lead us into another war. I am afraid that Kerry does not and will not have the balls to protect the United States people and our interests.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
Yet from 1966 to 72 he was fighting over in Vienam. Perhaps you forgot he knows what war is like, while Bush, Cheney and the other hawks only know that war means money.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,425 Posts
dallaschildren, did you watch a commercial and then post this? Because it sounds like the ad I saw (that is referenced in the links from Joyce).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,556 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Actually there were MORE than 7...my apologizes...<br><br>
1996 - Introduced bill to slash defense dept. spending by 6.5 Billion<br>
1995 - Voted to freeze defense spending fpr 7 years for a total of 35 Billion dollars lost<br>
1996 Budget resolution - Transfer said savings above to job training<br>
1993 - Intro'd plan to cut the number of Navy subs and crews, reduced the number of Army light infantry units to 1, reduce tactical fighters in Air Force, terminate coastal mine hunting, AND force the retirement of at least 60,000 members of the armed forces.<br>
1993 - voted against military pay raises<br>
1992 - voted to cut 6 Billion from defense budget<br>
1991 - voted to take out another 3 Billion from defense<br>
1991 - voted to cut defense spending again by 2%<br>
Furthermore, voted repeatedly to cut or eliminate funding for the B-2 bomber<br>
Voted repeatedly against Missile Defense..this set of weapons systems became the basis of our military defense when we removed SH from power.<br>
He feels that we no longer need certain "military hardware" as the Cold War is past...makes you go hmmmmm, doesn't it?<br>
What do we not need Mr. Kerry?<br>
1. F-16 Falcons<br>
2. B-1B's, B-2A's, F-15's, and F-16's<br>
3. M1 Abrams<br>
4. Patriot Missiles<br>
5. AH-64 Apache helicopter<br>
6. Tomahawk Cruise Missile<br>
7. Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser<br><br>
And if not to add insult to injury, in the 1980's, John Kerry sat on the board of "Jobs With Peace Campaign" a liberal left group who aims to develop public support for cutting the defense budget. While running for Congress in 1972, Kerry is quoted as saying he will promise to cut Defense spending if he's elected to Congress, and vote against military appropriations.<br><br>
Hey John....reality check...we're not living in Candyland....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,556 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>playdoh</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">dallaschildren, did you watch a commercial and then post this? Because it sounds like the ad I saw (that is referenced in the links from Joyce).</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
<br>
Won't dignify this with a response...just a <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/ROTFLMAO.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="rotflmao">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,556 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>Levi's Mom</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">Yet from 1966 to 72 he was fighting over in Vienam. Perhaps you forgot he knows what war is like, while Bush, Cheney and the other hawks only know that war means money.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
Yes, we know..here it comes...the Kerry camp will claim he is a decorated Vietnam Vet hence instant credibility. But wait a minute...didn't he throw away his medals? Yes I distinctly remember he did, but he got them back and now pulled them out just in time to make them useful to his campaign.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,556 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>Levi's Mom</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">Yet from 1966 to 72 he was fighting over in Vienam. Perhaps you forgot he knows what war is like, while Bush, Cheney and the other hawks only know that war means money.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
<br>
Oh and politics and money go hand in hand...doesn't matter which party you are affliated with.<br>
BTW, did you know that Kerry's wife Teresa HEINZ Kerry is worth MILLIONS? Second marriage and he scored bigtime! <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/wink1.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="wink1">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,277 Posts
<b>Truth & Consequences: The Bush Administration and September 11</b><br><br>
"The Bush Administration released the government's annual report on terrorism, but unlike previous Administrations, it decided to specifically omit an "extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A senior State Department official told CNN <b>the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden.</b>" Similarly, AP reported in 2002 that the Bush Administration's "national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions." [Source: CNN, 4/30/01; AP, 6/29/01]<br><br><a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=43926&printmode=1" target="_blank">http://www.americanprogress.org/site...26&printmode=1</a><br><br><b>U.S. Concludes Bin Laden Escaped at Tora Bora Fight</b><br><br>
"The Bush administration has concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the battle for Tora Bora late last year and that <b>failure</b> to commit U.S. ground troops to hunt him was its <b>gravest error in the war against al Qaeda</b>, according to civilian and military officials with first-hand knowledge."<br><br><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62618-2002Apr16?language=printer" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer</a><br><br><b>Avoiding attacking suspected terrorist mastermind Zarqawi</b><br><br>
"The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and <b>the White House again killed it</b>. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.<br><br>
“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey."<br><br><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/</a>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,277 Posts
<b>Iraqi Oil Will Pay For This</b><br><a href="http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/iraqquotes_web.htm" target="_blank">http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/iraqquotes_web.htm</a><br><br><b>A terribly expensive war</b><br><br>
"The nation was assured before the war that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for rebuilding and occupying Iraq; the implication being that this venture would be of only moderate cost to the taxpayers. Iraq's oil revenues are projected at $16.6 billion this year. Once the money is deducted to renovate the oil fields after years of neglect and mismanagement, what's left might not even be enough to fund the new interim Iraqi government. <b>With the $160 billion or so we have spent so far, plus another $66 billion next year, the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan could be more than $220 billion by the end of fiscal 2005.</b><br><br><a href="http://www.cincypost.com/2004/05/14/edita051404.html" target="_blank">http://www.cincypost.com/2004/05/14/edita051404.html</a>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,277 Posts
<b>Hail The Liberators!</b><br><br>
"MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?<br><br>
"VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, <b>because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators</b>. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House."<br><br><a href="http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/cheneymeetthepress.htm" target="_blank">http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel...etthepress.htm</a><br><br>
Recall that one of those Iraqis was the stooge Ahmad Chalabi who hadn't been back there in 40 years. he's run into some troubles these days, maybe you've heard:<br><br><b>Iraqi Police Raid Home of Pentagon Ally</b><br><br><a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040520/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_3" target="_blank">http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...e_mi_ea/iraq_3</a><br><br>
And what did this "ally" do for us:<br><b>Iraqi Exile Group Fed False Information to News Media</b><br><br>
"Feeding the information to the news media, as well as to selected administration officials and members of Congress, helped foster an impression that there were multiple sources of intelligence on Iraq's illicit weapons programs and links to bin Laden....<br><br>
"U.S. intelligence officials have determined that <b>virtually all of the defectors' information was marginal or useless</b>, and that some of the defectors were fabricators or embellished the threat from Saddam."<br><br><a href="http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines04/0316-02.htm" target="_blank">http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/...04/0316-02.htm</a>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,966 Posts
First off...it occurs logically to me:<br><br>
The only reason we have SO much info on Mr. Kerry's voting record...is that his career in DC, has spanned probably about 30 years now in comparison with GW's sorry 3+ years as pResident and Commander-In-Chief. The long laundry list of Mr. Kerry's votes DOES prove my point: Kerry has so many more years of fully-developed and honorable service to this country, and I am sure that his decisions were made based on the best interests of his constituents and our country also- and that list also points out that he can make the hard decisions and not just be a "yes" man...just as it should be. In addition, let me point out the fact that Mr. Kerry was NOT President of the United States in any of those votes.<br><br>
In the Bush administration, however, NOTHING is a matter of public record, in fact, there is so much secrecy, that the 9/11 Commission cannot even do their job which is, in part to find all information pertinent to creating a plan for vastly improving our response to such attacks. Would that Mr. GW Bush's records were so wide open and the pertinent info easily available, that such a vastly important part of our defense and national security- our response in a terrorist attack such as the one on 9/11- COULD make us all feel much more safe.<br><br>
Secondly...MY spouse inherited a great deal of money a few years back, which was at terrible cost of loved ones' lives. I find it terribly petty that Ms. Heinz-Kerry's tragic loss is only seen as Mr. Kerry's gain, implication being that he is avaricious. In fact, by the way, in all articles both complimentary and not that I have found, it is acknowledged that Ms. Heinz-Kerry's and Mr. Kerry's money is kept seperately. He is a millionaire in his own right, though at the time of their marriage he was worth only a few or perhaps several million dollars.<br><br>
I am no fan of Mr. Kerry either, but PUH-LEEEZE.<br><br>
Joyce in the mts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,623 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>dallaschildren</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">Actually there were MORE than 7...my apologizes...<br><br>
1996 - Introduced bill to slash defense dept. spending by 6.5 Billion<br>
1995 - Voted to freeze defense spending fpr 7 years for a total of 35 Billion dollars lost<br>
1996 Budget resolution - Transfer said savings above to job training<br>
1993 - Intro'd plan to cut the number of Navy subs and crews, reduced the number of Army light infantry units to 1, reduce tactical fighters in Air Force, terminate coastal mine hunting, AND force the retirement of at least 60,000 members of the armed forces.<br>
1993 - voted against military pay raises<br>
1992 - voted to cut 6 Billion from defense budget<br>
1991 - voted to take out another 3 Billion from defense<br>
1991 - voted to cut defense spending again by 2%<br>
Furthermore, voted repeatedly to cut or eliminate funding for the B-2 bomber<br>
Voted repeatedly against Missile Defense..this set of weapons systems became the basis of our military defense when we removed SH from power.<br>
He feels that we no longer need certain "military hardware" as the Cold War is past...makes you go hmmmmm, doesn't it?<br>
What do we not need Mr. Kerry?<br>
1. F-16 Falcons<br>
2. B-1B's, B-2A's, F-15's, and F-16's<br>
3. M1 Abrams<br>
4. Patriot Missiles<br>
5. AH-64 Apache helicopter<br>
6. Tomahawk Cruise Missile<br>
7. Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser<br><br>
And if not to add insult to injury, in the 1980's, John Kerry sat on the board of "Jobs With Peace Campaign" a liberal left group who aims to develop public support for cutting the defense budget. While running for Congress in 1972, Kerry is quoted as saying he will promise to cut Defense spending if he's elected to Congress, and vote against military appropriations.<br><br>
Hey John....reality check...we're not living in Candyland....</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
<br>
You must understand, many of us do read the other side. This is nearly verbatim from the RNC's talking points and most of us recognize it as such.<br><br>
But, please, laugh away at those of us who don't think for a minute that you're not cutting and pasting.<br><br>
Seems VP Cheney (who was not VP then, merely the secy of defense) thinks we don't need most of those same weapons.<br><br><div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on January 31, 1992, Cheney stated:<br><br>
Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. ... You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s -- all great systems ... but we have enough of them.<br><br>
Cheney's requested cuts came on the heels of President George H.W. Bush's announcement in his State of the Union address three days prior:<br><br>
After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles.</td>
</tr></table></div>
JITM's linkage debunk the rest of it.<br><br>
O'Reilly, Hannity and Limbaugh (dope fiend) are LIARS!<br><br>
Let them keep on .................. we're ready.<br><br><br>
Oh, and I didn't ask how many. I asked which ones. You haven't answered.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
492 Posts
Oh come on, dallaschildren. Don't you read the news? When these ads came out claiming Kerry was weak on defense, stories everywhere set the record straight. Kerry voted for reductions in defense that DICK CHENEY proposed when he was secretary of defense. These were not reductions that were opposed by Republicans.<br><br>
Just one example, from the Factcheck article:<br><blockquote><p>It is true that when Kerry first ran for the Senate in 1984 he did call specifically for canceling the AH-64 Apache helicopter, but once elected he opposed mainly such strategic weapons as Trident nuclear missiles and space-based anti-ballistic systems. And Richard Cheney himself, who is now Vice President but who then was Secretary of Defense, also proposed canceling the Apache helicopter program five years after Kerry did. As Cheney told the House Armed Services Committee on Aug. 13, 1989:<br><br></p></blockquote><b>Cheney</b>: "The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward, AH-64; . . . I forced the Army to make choices. I said, "You can't have all three. We don't have the money for all three." So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out. That would save $1.6 billion in procurement and $200 million in spares over the next five years."<br><br>
Two years later Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle as well. It was among 81 Pentagon programs targeted for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. "Cheney decided the military already has enough of these weapons," the Boston Globe reported at the time.<br><br>
Does that make Cheney an opponent of "weapons vital to winning the war on terror?" Of course not. But by the Bush campaign's logic, Cheney himself would be vulnerable to just such a charge, and so would Bush's father, who was president at the time.
Further reading:<br><br><a href="http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040429/news_1n29cheney.html" target="_blank">http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...n29cheney.html</a><br><br>
"WASHINGTON – Vice President Dick Cheney, who has been charging that John Kerry would be a dangerous president because he opposed many key weapons that the military now relies on, himself presided over the biggest cutbacks in defense programs in modern history when he was secretary of defense under the first President Bush."<br><br><a href="http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/" target="_blank">http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/</a><br><br><a href="http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=155" target="_blank">http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=155</a><br><br><a href="http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=177" target="_blank">http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=177</a>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,997 Posts
How can anyone actually believe that "more weapons=more security" when it comes to protecting a country against terrorists???<br>
A missile defense system will not protect us against someone flying a passenger jet into an office building!! If we had known every detail of Sept11 the day before it happened, all the bombs in the world would not have prevented it (unless we blew up the planes in flight with hundreds of our own citizens on board - not a good solution, IMO)<br><br>
The only thing that will protect our country from those who hate us is for all of us as Americans to be conscious of our place in the global community. I may not be a huge fan of Kerry, but I will vote for him because I think, if nothing else, he realizes that our actions (militarily and politically) have real consequences in the world.<br><br>
Cutting the bloated Pentagon budget puts us in a lot less danger than, say, unilaterally and pre-emptively attacking another sovereign nation. I hope our next president understands that, even if a lot of our citizens don't.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
19,789 Posts
<img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/clap.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="clap"> Thank you Shannon!<br><br>
I am *sick* *sick* *sick* of people directly equating random "defense" spending and national security.<br><br>
I like Kerry's idea of trashing star wars and using that money to raise pay for soldiers MUCH better.<br><br>
I think the world would be a lot safer with more social nets... can we count those as defense spending? <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/orngbiggrin.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="orange big grin"><br><br>
In addition, what's up with the Clinton bashing? Hmmm, it's as if our country was *safer* then. As if protecting against terrorism was being performed effectively. How all the terrorist attacks under Bush's watch prove he is somehow a better protector is beyond me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,800 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">am *sick* *sick* *sick* of people directly equating random "defense" spending and national security.</td>
</tr></table></div>
When it comes to adequately supporting important social issues like education, Republicans love to claim you can't fix a problem by "throwing money at it."<br><br>
Funny how when it comes to getting tax $$$ into defense contractors' pockets, you can't throw the money fast enough.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top