Straightforward attacks on Bush's botched foreign and fiscal policy, contrasting between the promises and the results.

But is there still anyone out there that hasn't heard these arguments before? Is John really going to win any new voters over with these words?

I know this plays well with the base. His words resonate with me. However Kerry would have to screw up pretty bad to lose my vote right now. I want Bush held accountable for his screw ups. Does anyone think this plays well with the swing crowd?

I've gotten used to Bush allowing his supporters to lie on his behalf, particularly with regards to Kerry's military record (i.e. his straight faced assertions that Kerry served honorably, while he lets the Swift Boat Veterans lie for him), but when he himself started lying in his speech last night about Kerry's voting record on military and veteran issues, I was sickened. A good rebuttal to this nonsense can be found at http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=177. I also found on Kerry's official web site (you have to look for it) a list of Cheney's votes against military and veteran funding during the several years he was a member of Congress. It's well worth checking out, and is well documented.

A brilliant move? It's a desperate move. I smell fear, both in the Kerry camp and on this site..

Brett -

The smug attitude with which you say you "smell fear" is far more appropriate for a sporting championship playoff game than for a presidential race. You act as if all that matters is which "team" wins. It's not about team Republican or team Democrat. It's about the future of this country. It's easy to wave a banner and cheer for your side. It's a lot more difficult to make a decison based on a thorough examination of the facts. Doesn't it bother you that the President lied last night? Or does it not matter to you because he's on your team, and you're willing to support whatever activity it takes to win? Personally, I believe that the anything-to-win attitude, the team spirit (and it's on both sides) is precisely what is wrong with American politics today.

the anything-to-win attitude, the team spirit (and it's on both sides) is precisely what is wrong with American politics today.

OK, let's talk about that. Were you in favor of the Iraq war? Since 3/4 of Democratic voters opposed it, I am going to assume that you opposed it as well. Yet, you have nominated, and continue to support, a man who voted in favor of the war, and who regularly railed against Saddam's evil and the need to go after him in late 2001 and 2002. Would you have voted in favor of the war? I doubt it. Would you have made those statements about the need to go to war against Hussein as part of the war on terror, as Kerry did? I doubt it.

Therefore, you have nominated, and continue to support, a man who either

• actually opposed the war, and thus was disingenuous when he voted for it; or

• actually favored the war, and is being disingenuous now when he criticizes it.

You nominated a man who disagrees with the vast majority of Democrats on the core issue of this election. You did so because you thought that man would be the "electable" candidate. Now do you want to talk about doing anything to win the election?

I happen to agree wholeheartedly with the President on his approach to the war on terror, which includes the war in Iraq. That's why I support him. I'm certainly not on the Bush team; I just don't trust Kerry to fight the war effectively.

I've seen that argument about Kerry's votes before; "it's just an omnibus bill, he didn't vote against specific weapons." Sorry, but it's BS. Kerry specifically and repeatedly opposed important defense systems in the 80s. See this Kerry campaign document if you're interested:

http://www.gop.com/media/PDFs/KerryOnDefense1984.pdf

Brett, Step out of the Black and white world. Kerry voted to give the President authority to go to war IF The PRes. met certain bench marks. Bush did NOT do what he promised he would do when he agreed to the terms set by congress. Thus his rushed to war without following the LAW which is illegal. The problem you have with Kerry appears to be that he is Smart. Your not use to that as a Bush supporter. Kerry voted for this authority because he did NOT want to give up the option for any President, including himself.

My understanding is that Kerry voted to allow the President to make decisions he believed were necessary to deal with the Iraq threat, so, based on what I know, the entire phrasing of your post is really off-base.

Actually, at first I did support the war because I believed the President that Iraq was a threat to us. I still don't believe the American public is being told the truth about it. Besides, the post-war situation has been so poorly handled that I think we need a different approach to the whole mess. I don't trust the President on this anymore. Is a person not allowed to modify their position based on new information?

Bush last night seemed to present a new rationale for the war, which implied to me that Iraq isn't the last middle east country we'll be invading. It sounded to me as if he believes we need a primarily democratic middle east in order to prevent further expansion of terrorist activity. I'm willing to give that argument some serious thought, but I'm not sure that it is correct. I'd love to see further discussion on it here.

In any case, you missed or ignored my point. Does it not bother you that the President lied about Kerry's votes on funding for the military? Isn't that beneath the President and demeaning to his office? Or are you OK with that sort of rhetoric if it helps your team win? I think that the simplified team mentality with which so many people approch politics today is harmful. When Republicans and Democrats hate each other and politicians lie about their opponents in order to sway votes their way, to me it is wrong.

Kenji, it's an actual campaign document from Kerry in 1984. Hosted on a GOP server, for obvious reasons, hence the URL.

Closet, you're right, I ignored your point, because I don't believe that the President lied. I thought I had made it clear with that document -- when Kerry voted against those weapons, he wasn't "sending a message". He was voting against weapons. Point out to me what specifically Bush lied about, and we'll talk.

It sounded to me as if he believes we need a primarily democratic middle east in order to prevent further expansion of terrorist activity. I'm willing to give that argument some serious thought, but I'm not sure that it is correct.

Yes, that's right. He's been talking about this for some time, but it always gets second or third billing, which is a shame. This is the connection between Iraq and the war on terror. A huge reason for the rise of terrorism is the abominable state of the Middle East. Repressive governments, poor populations, no education to speak of, no economic opportunity, and women kept in bondage. Of course people are filled with hate -- I would be too.

Capitalist democracies, on the other hand, don't produce terrorists. If we can turn Iraq into a functioning free-market, self-governing society, it would go a long way toward showing the Middle East that another way is possible. I always thought this was the best rationale for the Iraq war -- but they don't listen to me in Washington and so they went with WMD instead.

I'm not a team player. Or if I am, I'm a bad one. I've voted Democrat in every election. Until this one.

My understanding is that Kerry voted to allow the President to make decisions he believed were necessary to deal with the Iraq threat

Yeah, that's right. He voted to authorize the use of force, if the President found it necessary. And he did.

Read your answer again. What, exactly, does that mean? Was Kerry for the war or against it? Where does he stand now? You don't know, and I don't blame you. Kerry doesn't know. No one knows. That's the problem.

The problem you have with Kerry appears to be that he is Smart. Your not use to that as a Bush supporter.

No Comment.

they don't listen to me in Washington and so they went with WMD instead.

They went with the WMD because they had decided to bomb Iraq before Bush set foot in office and they knew that the only way to get a significant portion of Americans behind the action was to play the terror card and to scare the people into a war. However, in typical Bush reckless and underachieving fashion, they failed to adequately plan for the war, to gain significant ally support for the war, to analyze how the Iraqi people would respond to the war, and to prepare for the post-war re-construction.

I think Kerry was charitably giving Bush the benefit of his doubts when he gave him authorization for war. I think that had he known how reckless Bush would be, he would not have done so. If Kerry had been commander-in-chief, I think he would have seen through the falsified "evidence" (as many people against the war did) and would have concentrated American resources on finding Bin Laden and on successfully rebuilding Afghanistan before embarking on an elective war.

Brett -

That is an interesting document. But as I think about it, its existence is not contradictory to Kerry's claim that he was voting against weapons systems that Cheney said were not wanted or needed, or that the $87 billion this year was, like any giant funding bill, kicked around a bit by both sides, and the Kerry's vote against it was a protest vote made because the bill was sure to pass. Of course, that, too, could be a clever lie someone thought up to cover his behind. Some of the veteran/military funding bills Cheney is said to have voted against in the 1980s are HUD bills that contain quite a lot of other things as well, and he may have been voting against them, too. As long as we have enormous bills containing many unrelated provisions, politicians will always have someplace to hide.

Regarding capitalism stopping the breeding of terrorism, I can't help but think of what is happening in Russia, where internally bred terrorism based in large part on religious differences is tearing away at the country (I may be mistaken, but hasn't Russia gone capitalist?). And, of course, we've had our own terrorist problems (remember Tim McVey in Oklahoma?). And we have anti-government factions forming in rural areas all across this country who are talking revolution and who may resort to terrorist tactics to lash out at the government they hate (our government). So I don't think it's as simple as all that. Listening to people like Michael Savage is terrifying in itself. He believes this is purely a war between Islam and Judaism/Christianity, and that it will turn into a religious nuclear war, in which, of course, Christians and Jews will win.

What's the truth in all of this? I sure as hell don't know.

<h1></h1>

There is sooo no bandwidth for Kerry words, pro or con. He's about the 'lebenteenth candidate the D's have gotten with - Gore, Dean, Edwards, Gen. Who'sis, Gephardt, Mosley-Braun, McCain, Sharpton -- it don't matter if the D.candidate du jour is a five-foot albino sasquatch because I/we don't care who's name is against the napoleonic religious kook in there now -- l'idiot, c'est moi.

Bush is a murderer, liar, thief, traitor, drunken imbecile. All bandwidth on Bush, he is to melt. Any talk of his opponent is another trick by someone trying to hide that they and Bush share sin, shame, and crime, in murder, lies, thievery, treason, sotted psychopathy. There is nothing to say but Bush is cinder. The only comment is Bush failure and crime and imprisonment. The only story is Bush defeat. Nothing else moves. Only Bush's demise, and deservedly. No one is worse than him. I don't know how the Gang Of Psychos GOP voters embrace Bush's decayed flesh, and it is the only question this campaign. There is no question of anyone who campaigns against Bush Republicans. All questions are one: How do R's stand themselves and their evil.

<h1></h1>

Tenskwtawa - They stand it because they don't see it and they refuse to believe it when it's pointed out to them. In fact, they view Clinton as being the exact same way you have described Bush. Not for one second to they give any credence to what you say, and they never will. Look how they continue to excuse and embrace that two-faced drug-addicted Limbaugh. Even Sizemore managed to raise $100,000 last year. That said, I'd wager you would be just as likely to forgive the people on your own side and just as likely to discard criticisms against them. Party loyalty is a fascinating thing, and political campaigns end up putting the worst face on everyone.

Brett Again, you just don't get it. The reason Kerry will Not go on the record saying he is against the war; how is he suppose to lead the troops in Iraq when he wins the Presidency. He doesn't want to put the troops into a position where they are fighting a war that there commander is against. Get it now? Kerry is a year ahead of you and a responsible adult.

As for the original vote for authority, that vote gave the Pres. the upper hand in ALL aspects of the situation. He could have used the threat of war to get more inspectors into the country, prop up oppostion withing the country, any number of things besides all out war. From the view point of Iraq, Kerry's vote showed a unified country ready to strike if they did not open up the country. It worked Saddam did open the country to inspectors, showed he didn't have WMD, and yet Bush went in anyway Killing 1,000 soldiers even after Inspectors said they did NOT have WMD. He sold the war on WMD's, He was wrong, case closed.

primarily democratic middle east in order to prevent further expansion of terrorist activity. I'm willing to give that argument some serious thought,

Muslims don't want secular democracy, they want Islamic law. First read "Imperial Hubris" by anonymous. You can check it out at the Mulnomah County Library. That's a good place to start.

"A huge reason for the rise of terrorism is the abominable state of the Middle East. Repressive governments, poor populations, no education to speak of, no economic opportunity, and women kept in bondage. Of course people are filled with hate -- I would be too.

Capitalist democracies, on the other hand, don't produce terrorists. If we can turn Iraq into a functioning free-market, self-governing society, it would go a long way toward showing the Middle East that another way is possible. I always thought this was the best rationale for the Iraq war -- but they don't listen to me in Washington and so they went with WMD instead."

The perfect quote to demonstrate why you and the rest of Bush's supporters are clueless on the Middle East. Just like you can make a secular, centrally based, non Islamic government in Afghanistan right? And how many seconds would the Karzi regime last if the US pulled military support? You insist on framing the Middle East people’s condition through your own eyes, how you view the world. If you spent some time at the library researching what Muslims think, you would quickly realize how hopelessly flawed your and the R’s logic is. Muslims do not want democracy, and many Muslims consider any type of government that is not based on what they consider infallible Islamic law (i.e. God's Law) to be an affront to God. You clearly haven't taken the time to try to understand Muslim beliefs system and society. Bush and the rest of the R’s fall into the same trap. There is no excuse for ignoring the known facts and making up some cock-eyed explanation of the situation. Why don’t you guys ever bother to check the known facts before you act? Perhaps it is pure arrogance. Perhaps there is some truth to claims that Bush and the Rs have some other evil agenda, and you are just a pawn in their game.

I've voted Democrat in every election. Until this one.

I can't believe this based on your posting I have read. You are a conservative to the core.

Right on Tim, but don't underestimate this bunch. They do understand the Middle east, but interms of conversion. The region may NOT want "democracy" but when WE are done with them they will. This is a crusade to convert and for those who won't they will be labeled terrorist and will be destroyed. Don't assume they don't have a plan. Its better for them if the world thinks them inept, then to actually understand the plan.

If you spent some time at the library researching what Muslims think

Muslims do not want democracy, and many Muslims consider any type of government that is not based on what they consider infallible Islamic law

Do you really think a group of people as large as the entire Muslim population can be categorized like this? It's absurd to suggest that every Muslim wants a theocratic government. Worse, it's despicable to suggest that it's OK for Muslim populations to be kicked, beaten and stomped into submission by their own governments, in the name of "stability". That's Kissinger talk. Muslims deserve the same human rights as the rest of us do, and should be supported in their struggle to achieve them.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Do you recognize that? Does it say "all Christian men", or "all non-Muslim men"? Does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights say anything about Muslims not qualifying for equality?

The region may NOT want "democracy"

It's the region's corrupt, oppressive governments that don't want democracy, because they would be thrown out on their asses. Of course the people want democracy; I'm not suggesting they are going to end up with American-style government, but they are certainly entitled to the right of self-determination.

This is what confounds me about today's Democrats -- they are AGAINST democracy.

<h2>Brett, Go rent Lawrence of Arabia some time. Its not like what is going on in Iraq is new.</h2>