I'm Pissed Off At This Editorial in My College Paper

[slinkerwink]

The wingnut Republicans have taken over the college paper at my college, and this one student published her editorial opinion in the paper, and there are so many fallacies in her argument that it's laughable. I'm going to write an editorial in response to that. Thanks to DU, I'll have the resources for that. Here is the editorial opinion written by this woman below:

To the independent mind: Friday, October 8, 2004, was the night of the second presidential debate, focusing on both foreign and domestic policy. Whether you agree with the Bush administration's policies or not, think Bush is an idiot or think that he didn't win the election in 2000, the President dominated the second debate. The President connected; the Senator scolded. Oh, and did I mention that George Bush won?

The President was articulate and factually supported his arguments, but most of all he was funny. Not only was the Texas swagger back in action, but the President had done his homework. Bush attacked Kerry's record in the Senate. Kerry said in the debate that he has had only one position regarding the war in Iraq.

Let's state the truth: Kerry voted for the war but now says it was the wrong war, at the wrong time and in the wrong place. Kerry attacked Bush for not properly funding our soldiers. Kerry even tells a story in which a mother went online and bought armor to send to her son in Iraq. Well, Senator Kerry, why did you vote against the $87 billion for supplemental support for the troops? This money would have bought the armor for that woman's son! Kerry claims that he voted against the $87 billion because he wanted this money to come from the tax cut. Excuse me? I don't think so, Senator. As Bush pointed out in the debate, Kerry voted against the $87 billion because Kerry was trailing Howard Dean in the polls and needed to appeal to the Democratic base that opposes the war in Iraq. This proves that Kerry changes his position for political gain.

Throughout the debate, Kerry stated that President Bush should have created a grand coalition of allies before entering Iraq and that Kerry would support the war if this coalition existed. Really? In the first Gulf War, the coalition consisted of 32 nations including the United States, Britain, Egypt, France, Saudi Arabia and we had UN support. However, Senator Kerry voted against it! Let me repeat this: the United States had a grand coalition and UN support, yet Senator Kerry voted against it. Why should the American people believe Kerry when he says that he would support the current war in Iraq when he voted against the first Gulf War that had this "grand coalition and UN support" that the Senator talks about?

The President did an amazing job at attacking Kerry and revealing him for what he really is, a flip-flopper. Even Howard Dean, during the Democratic nomination process, labeled Kerry as a flip-flopper and sent the Kerry campaign a pair of flip-flops for Christmas.

While I know the majority of Smithies will be voting for John Kerry, I'm asking you to reconsider. Why Kerry? If you can answer this question by listing reasons that don't involve bashing Bush, then I congratulate you. Over the past month I have heard from a variety of Smithies that they are voting for Kerry because, "Bush is stupid. Bush lied to the American people regarding weapons of mass destruction," etc.

Only a few students have said that they're voting for Kerry because of his views of health care, the environment or education. This leads me to believe that Smithies and the American public are not voting for John Kerry as a candidate but only against the other candidate. People are voting for Kerry because they hate Bush, not because they like Kerry. It is a sad day in American politics when the Democratic presidential candidate can only appeal to his radical base, cannot inspire the American public, and the average American ends up voting against a candidate and not for one.

I also would appreciate any advice or comments that you can give that I will use in my response back to this person.

[Wickerman]

1. Make sure and work in that she asks you to say Why Kerry with

out bashing Bush, yet she offered no clear reason why Bush.

This is all she could offer - opinion (and wrong :)):

The President was articulate and factually supported his arguments, but most of all he was funny. Not only was the Texas swagger back in action, but the President had done his homework. Bush attacked Kerry's record in the Senate.

[slinkerwink]

4. haha, I'm glad you pointed that out.

[Atman]

2. This person is seriously Kool-Aided

Be sure to ask if he/she has any opinions of his/her own. You can hear that crap on Rush Limpballs any day of the week. Ask the writer to back up the assertions made, because there is nothing but re-spun spin there. These are supposed to be COLLEGE students, not grade-schoolers! This letter sounds like a 10-year-old wrote it.

[BurtWorm]

3. Ew. A Republican Smithie.

:puke:

Actually any Republican makes me :puke: , but there's something really repulsive about the idea of collegiate wingers.

[slinkerwink]

5. it's "Smithie" not "Smithy"

:-)

[BurtWorm]

13. Kee-rected.

;)

[slinkerwink]

14. thanks!

:-)

[annabanana]

20. collegiate wingers now are the same as they were

40 years ago. Clueless, odd and pathetic.

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. But the collegiate wingers of 40 years ago are now running the country

...into the ground, that is.

[HFishbine]

6. I think he makes a case for Kerry

Maybe not the one you or I would make; maybe not the one he would like to hear, but his last two paragraphs make a valid argument for Kerry -- sad, as he claims, or not.

If you feel compeled to reply, I would take up the argument he stipulates, that Bush is incompetent and a liar and expound upon that.

[Bill McBlueState]

11. hah!

The letter writer says, "Bush is stupid. Bush lied to the American people regarding weapons of mass destruction."

Isn't that reason enough to throw the man out?

[HootieMcBoob]

7. Wow, she got into Smith?

She seems way to stupid to be a Smith student. Just correct everything she's said and you'll be alright. Here's a good response to the Kerry "voted for the war" lie, it's from another post here in DU and I added some stuff myself at the end.

Kerry said at the time of the IWR vote:

"Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only : To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies."

Then bush kicked out the UN weapons inspectors and invaded.

BUSH VIOLATED HIS OWN RESOLUTION.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

See below:

Here's what Bush said in 2002:
Q Mr. President, how important is it that the resolution give you an authorization of the use of force?

BUSH: That will be part of the resolution, the authorization to use force. If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. But it's -- this will be -- this is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say, we support the administration's ability to keep the peace. That's what this is all about.

Okay, once again:

BUSH: It's a chance for Congress to say, we support the administration's ability to keep the peace. That's what this is all about.

Remember? Bush said he wanted the authorization to use force so that he'd have a strong bargaining chip at the United Nations--and that the U.N. would get new inspectors in, and that, maybe, this would lead to Saddam disarming without a war.

That's why Kerry voted for the resolution. As he said at the time:

"Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies."

And we did get new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies. And then Bush blew it by invading anyway. Avoiding war was the specific reason Bush gave to support the resolution. There's nothing incoherent about Kerry's position. Bush blew it. The resolution had the effect (getting inspectors back in) that Kerry had intended. He was right. W was wrong.

(Oh, and when Bush or his spokespeople say "John Kerry voted for the war"--it's a lie.)

Basically, John Kerry voted to give George W. Bush the keys to the family car. Kerry explained to Bush that he would be expected to behave responsibly. Bush accepted this solemn responsibility and then as soon as he got the keys in his hands, like a reckless teenager he took the car and wrapped it around a tree. Now, when Kerry complains about Bush's irresponsible, deadly and costly behavior, Bush, like a spoiled little boy exclaims "you have no right to complain, you're the one who gave me the keys!" John Kerry's only mistake in all of this was that he trusted The President of the United States to act responsibly. It's my own personal opinion that, given the track record of the man occupying the office at that time, he should have known better.

[slinkerwink]

10. thanks for that!

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. Let's not forget that the 'Iraq war resolution'

only became so named after it had passed. Nobody called it that before the vote, and only the far right (and a few prescient lefties) saw it as a resolution to go to war.

[Atman]

26. This is THE Smith College?

I was in Northampton last weekend. It is so heavily Kerry territory, I'd be surprised if this writer can walk to the corner Starbucks now. That is an amazing viewpoint from a town that is the liberal bastion of a state that is itself a liberal bastion. She obviously is an out-of-state student. And if she's going to Smith, her parents are quite well-off. She obviously isn't there on an academic scholarship.

New DUCOMIX today!

[slinkerwink]

27. yep.

We have more Democrats on campus than we do Republicans. They're a very small but vocal minority here. We have over 900 Democrats compared to 100 Republicans in our camnpus organizations.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

8. Simple rebuttal:

Your ignorant piece is proof that the better educated and informed voters back Kerry.

[Bill McBlueState]

9. Kerry's record

I suppose the best thing to do is to take her up on her challenge to "answer this question by listing reasons that don't involve bashing Bush."

I mean, I think Bush's massive failures on pretty much everything are a perfectly valid reason to vote for the other guy. But apparently that doesn't work for everyone.

I personally would write about Kerry's promise to raise the minimum wage to $7 an hour, but you may have your own issues you consider more important. And, forgive the sterotyping, but I doubt the woman who wrote the editorial cares about the minimum wage when mommy and daddy are forking over $30K a year for her to go to a very prestigious women's college in "librul" Massachusetts.

Remember, the facts are on our side. Pick some issues that will resonate with people at your school and write about what Kerry will do to improve their quality of life.

[slinkerwink]

12. yeah, I'm going to do that. Here's the first paragraph I've written so far

It's a rough draft, but here's what the first paragraph says:

The Republican proponent, in her editorial from this past week, asked if it was possible for us to cite reasons in voting for Kerry without “bashing Bush.” What seems to have escaped her is that in her own editorial, she incessantly bashed Kerry without providing any clear reasons to vote for Bush. I find it sad and ironic that she cannot offer clear reasons to vote for Bush without attacking Kerry. Therefore her argument that we cannot offer reasons to vote for Kerry without attacking Bush is flawed because in an election year, you have to compare and contrast presidential candidates’ records. I will attempt to address her question by offering clear and lucid reasons to support Kerry, but she has to remember that it is the incumbent whose record we are addressing. The incumbent cannot escape from his record, and it is the job of the challenger to address the flaws in the incumbent’s record which is why you hear Kerry addressing the flaws in Bush’s record.

[Bill McBlueState]

15. "sad and ironic"

very nice turn of phrase, there!

[slinkerwink]

17. thanks!

[Bill McBlueState]

21. more commentary

I like what you're saying so far. It does read more like an essay than a newspaper editorial, though. Short sentences and paragraphs are more effective.

OTOH, students at your school can probably handle complex ideas much better than the 'tards on this side of the Connecticut. "Yankees Suck" seem to be the only two words most UMass students can string together.

[LiberalAndProud]

29. Excellent!

[slinkerwink]

30. thanks!

[slinkerwink]

16. what did you think of my first paragraph so far?

[Demit]

18. the draft is a very real threat--for women AND for professionals...

In the 3rd debate, Bush said something about fighting the WARS of the 21st century. Plural. He's not stopping with Iraq. And he's running out of warm bodies NOW...where do you think he's going to get them? Kids haven't been falling all over themselves to volunteer...

[slinkerwink]

31. hey! here's my full response!

The staff writer, in her editorial from this past week, asked if it was possible for us to cite reasons in voting for Kerry without “bashing Bush.” What seems to have escaped her is that in her own editorial, she incessantly bashed Kerry without providing any clear reasons to vote for Bush. I find it sad and ironic that she cannot offer clear reasons to vote for Bush without attacking Kerry. Therefore her argument that we cannot offer reasons to vote for Kerry without attacking Bush is flawed because in an election year, you have to compare and contrast presidential candidates’ records. I will attempt to address her question by offering clear and lucid reasons to support Kerry, but she has to remember that it is the incumbent whose record we are addressing. The incumbent cannot escape from his record, and it is the job of the challenger to address the flaws in the incumbent’s record which is why you hear Kerry addressing the flaws in Bush’s record.

Also, it is wrong to assume that Kerry voted against the $87 billion because he was trailing Howard Dean in the primaries. If she is to make an assertion like that, she needs the facts to back that up and I didn’t see that in her editorial. The fact is that there were two bills in regard to the $87 billion supplemental support request. Kerry voted for the first one, which would have paid for the $87 billion with rolling back an equal amount in tax cuts for the rich, and statements made at the time support this argument. Bush had threatened to veto this first bill, and the first bill did not pass Congress. Kerry then voted against the second bill that came up because it put an additional tax burden on our children because the money for the troops came out of our pockets directly without it being alleviated through a tax repeal of the tax cuts for the wealthy.

The vote on the resolution to use force was not a vote to go to war, and statements by Bush himself support this notion. In 2002, Bush said, “that will be part of the resolution, the authorization to use force. If you want to keep the peace, you’ve got to have the authorization to use force.” Bush therefore was saying that the use of force would be a last resort. He violated his own resolution by kicking out the UN weapons inspectors without waiting for a conclusive report on WMD, and invaded Iraq. This is on top of the fact that the resolution, while authorizing force, put heavy restrictions on when force could be used, namely, that diplomacy had to have utterly and completely failed. It is clear that the point of the resolution was "diplomacy first, war as a last resort." Also, there is the argument that Kerry makes that for the diplomacy to work in the first place, you have to have some teeth behind it.

Polls showed that Kerry won the second debate. Here are three polls that showed that Kerry had a conclusive win in the second debate. The ABC poll taken after the debate showed that Kerry won 44-41, the CNN/USA Today Gallup poll showed Kerry won 47-45, and the Democracy Corps poll showed that Kerry won 45-37. It seems that the facts do not meet the staff writer's definition of reality. It’s too bad that reality is often at odds with what the Republicans would like to believe. I would be more than happy to provide links if requested to back up my facts unlike like Sarah Martin has done in her editorial.

I am voting for Senator John Kerry, not because he has a “Texas swagger” or his sense of humor, because it is time to have someone that is intelligent, responsible, and will lead America back to a path where we are respected and admired in the world instead of hated and feared. I am voting for John Kerry, because when he was Senator, he dealt with the BCCI scandal which was an international bank that funneled money to the terrorists in the 1980s. He cut off their funds, and he was one of the few at the time to realize that terrorists depend on funding to carry out their goals. In contrast to that, with Zarqawi on the loose for the past three years, it was only this month that funds were cut off to Zarqawi. I am appalled that it took this long to stop funding to Zarqawi, one of the most wanted terrorists, and it only illustrates the incompetence of this administration in dealing with terrorism.

I also believe that John Kerry will strengthen our environmental record, and join the Kyoto Treaty in order to reduce the effects of global warming. Global warming is a serious threat which this President has ignored for the past three years. John Kerry also will increase more funding for first responders, and make sure that our port security are safe. I worked as an intern in Congress two years ago, and I was astonished to realize how underfunded Homeland Security was, and how dangerously porous our borders are. How can we be safe if over 4,000 illegal aliens, some of which could be terrorists, pass through our borders everyday? It is why I need to elect John Kerry because he can deal with issues like these, and he has the capability to bring together people on both sides of the aisle, instead of dividing them. I wish I had more room to write because I would list hundreds more reasons to vote for John Kerry as President of the United States of America. I am proud of what John Kerry has done, and he will make an excellent President.

[HootieMcBoob]

40. Beautiful!

:toast:

[slinkerwink]

41. thanks!

:-)

[karlrschneider]

42. Another point on the $87B that Kerry voted FOR (* w threatened veto)

was a provision that a large chunk (forget exactly how much) was to be considered a "loan" to be repaid from eventual oil revenues.

[Sparkly]

43. Very good! Please remind her also that the $87 billion passed

There was never any danger of not having appropriations needed. The person who wrote that seems to think the $87 billion didn't pass, and therefore troops didn't have armor they needed.

Chimp send them over there without equipment they needed in the first place. There's still money appropriated for supplies and for whatever reason, they're still short of what they need. It has nothing to do with Kerry's vote on that particular appropriation.

[Bridget Burke]

19. "Texas swagger"?

I've lived in Texas for more than 50 years. Little Georgie's "swagger" has more to do with that harness he's wearing than anything remotely Texan.

There is some validity in her last 2 paragraphs. It's a sad day in American politics when people hate their stupid liar of a president so much that they don't really care about the opponent--they'd vote for a yellow dog. The more I learn about Kerry the more I like him; but I wonder about a Massachusetts resident who speaks about his "radical base".

I thought Smith was a pretty good school. Obviously this writer is descended from a long line of rich alumnae; she surely didn't get in on merit.

[The Revolution]

22. "This money would have bought the armor for that woman's son! "

"This money would have bought the armor for that woman's son!"

The writer seems to be under the impression that the $87 billion bill was defeated by Sen. Kerry's single vote. When it in fact passed by a wide margin. The Senator's vote had no effect on this bill, it would have passed either way. Though a large chunk of the money went to Halliburton, and not to buying equipment for our soldiers. You might want to point all this out.

This vote came after the war had aleady started though. bush sent the troops in without the equipment they needed.

As was pointed out above, I also found it interesting that she attacks people for only being anti-bush and not pro-Kerry, but she offers nothing but anti-Kerry remarks, and says nothing about why anyone should vote for bush. Be sure to use this in a response! :)

[slinkerwink]

25. haha, I did....here's what I've written so far

The staff writer, in her editorial from this past week, asked if it was possible for us to cite reasons in voting for Kerry without “bashing Bush.” What seems to have escaped her is that in her own editorial, she incessantly bashed Kerry without providing any clear reasons to vote for Bush. I find it sad and ironic that she cannot offer clear reasons to vote for Bush without attacking Kerry. Therefore her argument that we cannot offer reasons to vote for Kerry without attacking Bush is flawed because in an election year, you have to compare and contrast presidential candidates’ records. I will attempt to address her question by offering clear and lucid reasons to support Kerry, but she has to remember that it is the incumbent whose record we are addressing. The incumbent cannot escape from his record, and it is the job of the challenger to address the flaws in the incumbent’s record which is why you hear Kerry addressing the flaws in Bush’s record.

Also, it is wrong to assume that Kerry voted against the $87 billion because he was trailing Howard Dean in the primaries. If she is to make an assertion like that, she needs the facts to back that up and I didn’t see that in her editorial. The fact is that there were two bills in regard to the $87 billion supplemental support. Kerry voted for the first one, which would have paid for the $87 billion with rolling back an equal amount in tax cuts for the rich, and statements made at the time support this argument. Bush had threatened to veto this first bill, and the first bill did not pass Congress. Kerry then voted against the second bill that came up because it put an additional tax burden on our children because the money for the troops came out of our pockets directly without it being alleviated through a tax repeal of the tax cuts for the wealthy.

The vote on the resolution to use force was not a vote to go to war, and statements by Bush himself support this notion. In 2002, Bush said, “that will be part of the resolution, the authorization to use force. If you want to keep the peace, you’ve got to have the authorization to use force.” Bush therefore was saying that the use of force would be a LAST resort. He violated his own resolution by kicking out the UN weapons inspectors without waiting for a conclusive report on WMD, and invaded Iraq. This is on top of the fact that the resolution, while authorizing force, put heavy restrictions on when force could be used, namely, that diplomacy had to have utterly and completely failed. It is clear that the point of the resolution was "diplomacy first, war if we really, really have to." Also, there is the argument that Kerry makes that for the diplomacy to work in the first place, you have to have some teeth behind it.

[LiberalAndProud]

28. Kerry voted to give Bush a big stick by voting for the war. And the

decision to do so can be defended. He cannot be faulted if Bush lied when he promised to "speak softly".

Kerry believed that the President needed a promise behind the threat in order to bring pressure to bear on Sadam Hussein. Bush told the senate that he would resort to war only after all other available avenues had failed. HE BROKE FAITH with the Senate.

Kerry's only mistake here was trusting Bush*'s word. His position on the war in Iraq has been unshakable.

At the time of the senate vote for supplemental funding of the war, Bush had not, and still has not, proposed a plan for winning the war. Excuse me, the war has been won, hasn't it? I tend to forget that when I read the new casualty counts. I guess I meant to say, Bush had then, and has now, no plan to win the peace. How can we prosecute a war without a plan beyond "God told me"? He gives us no hope for an end to this madness. He has not even made an attempt to cap the cost. How many more "supplemental funds" will be necessary before we can stamp "Paid in Full" on this folly?
===
Our planet is at risk because Bush* has castrated the EPA. Why is tax money being funnelled into this impotent agency? Bush makes no apoligies for despoiling our environment, but cloaks his environmental terrorism in the guise of The Clear Skies Initiative. "Oil at Any Cost" -- Murder (of Iraqis and Americans), Rape (of our dear mother earth), and plunder (of Iraqi oil fields) -- anything goes to quench our unquenchable thirst for oil!
===
And throw in a word or two about how Bush is BANKRUPTING our nation. If Kerry is tax and spend, Bush is spend and spend and spend and spend ... and let the kids worry about paying the bill.
===
I will stop now. I HATE this pResident.
===

[Mz Pip]

32. Talking points

They must be true because they're said a lot. - Jon Stewart.

These are the same tired talking points the GOP has been using against Kerry throughout the campaign. Wingnut asks for reasons to vote for Kerry that don't involve bashing Bush. Well, duh. This is an election year and if everything were going so swimmingly then the election wouldn't even be close. This is what elections are about - pointing out what's wrong.


You could point out that Bush was going to veto the 87 billion dollar package that Kerry voted for if it had passed. Ask her how come it suddenly became Kerry's responsibility that the troops had no body armor. WHy did Bush send them off to war unprepared in the first place?

And why oh why would anyone want to reward Bush with a second term after he's screwed up this one so badly? This person would have you believe that it is better to vote for a candidate who has screwed things up rather than vote for change and also assumes that support for Kerry is lukewarm. That's a huge assumtion on Wingnut's part. It's also ludicrous to suggest that those who dislike the policies of George W. Bush to vote for him anyway because she doesn't think we really like Kerry.

Oh and this person needs to be reminded that voting for the resolution was NOT voting for the war. It was voting for a RESOLUTION. Big difference IMHO.

Wingnut makes sweeping genralities about Kerry supporters, yet offers no real reason to support a Bush second term. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Kerry has explaned his vote and his policies clearly. If all this person can do is rattle of Repug talkingpoints I wouldn't expect anyone to be able to reason with her. THe biggest flaw in her editorial is that she offers no reason to support Bush other than HE'S not Kerry.

MzPip
:dem:

[slinkerwink]

34. here's my response to her!

The staff writer, in her editorial from this past week, asked if it was possible for us to cite reasons in voting for Kerry without “bashing Bush.” What seems to have escaped her is that in her own editorial, she incessantly bashed Kerry without providing any clear reasons to vote for Bush. I find it sad and ironic that she cannot offer clear reasons to vote for Bush without attacking Kerry. Therefore her argument that we cannot offer reasons to vote for Kerry without attacking Bush is flawed because in an election year, you have to compare and contrast presidential candidates’ records. I will attempt to address her question by offering clear and lucid reasons to support Kerry, but she has to remember that it is the incumbent whose record we are addressing. The incumbent cannot escape from his record, and it is the job of the challenger to address the flaws in the incumbent’s record which is why you hear Kerry addressing the flaws in Bush’s record.

Also, it is wrong to assume that Kerry voted against the $87 billion because he was trailing Howard Dean in the primaries. If she is to make an assertion like that, she needs the facts to back that up and I didn’t see that in her editorial. The fact is that there were two bills in regard to the $87 billion supplemental support request. Kerry voted for the first one, which would have paid for the $87 billion with rolling back an equal amount in tax cuts for the rich, and statements made at the time support this argument. Bush had threatened to veto this first bill, and the first bill did not pass Congress. Kerry then voted against the second bill that came up because it put an additional tax burden on our children because the money for the troops came out of our pockets directly without it being alleviated through a tax repeal of the tax cuts for the wealthy.

The vote on the resolution to use force was not a vote to go to war, and statements by Bush himself support this notion. In 2002, Bush said, “that will be part of the resolution, the authorization to use force. If you want to keep the peace, you’ve got to have the authorization to use force.” Bush therefore was saying that the use of force would be a last resort. He violated his own resolution by kicking out the UN weapons inspectors without waiting for a conclusive report on WMD, and invaded Iraq. This is on top of the fact that the resolution, while authorizing force, put heavy restrictions on when force could be used, namely, that diplomacy had to have utterly and completely failed. It is clear that the point of the resolution was "diplomacy first, war as a last resort." Also, there is the argument that Kerry makes that for the diplomacy to work in the first place, you have to have some teeth behind it.

Polls showed that Kerry won the second debate. Here are three polls that showed that Kerry had a conclusive win in the second debate. The ABC poll taken after the debate showed that Kerry won 44-41, the CNN/USA Today Gallup poll showed Kerry won 47-45, and the Democracy Corps poll showed that Kerry won 45-37. It seems that the facts do not meet the staff writer's definition of reality. It’s too bad that reality is often at odds with what the Republicans would like to believe. I would be more than happy to provide links if requested to back up my facts unlike like she has done in her editorial.

I am voting for Senator John Kerry, not because he has a “Texas swagger” or his sense of humor, because it is time to have someone that is intelligent, responsible, and will lead America back to a path where we are respected and admired in the world instead of hated and feared. I am voting for John Kerry, because when he was Senator, he dealt with the BCCI scandal which was an international bank that funneled money to the terrorists in the 1980s. He cut off their funds, and he was one of the few at the time to realize that terrorists depend on funding to carry out their goals. In contrast to that, with Zarqawi on the loose for the past three years, it was only this month that funds were cut off to Zarqawi. I am appalled that it took this long to stop funding to Zarqawi, one of the most wanted terrorists, and it only illustrates the incompetence of this administration in dealing with terrorism.

I also believe that John Kerry will strengthen our environmental record, and join the Kyoto Treaty in order to reduce the effects of global warming. Global warming is a serious threat which this President has ignored for the past three years. John Kerry also will increase more funding for first responders, and make sure that our port security are safe. I worked as an intern in Congress two years ago, and I was astonished to realize how underfunded Homeland Security was, and how dangerously porous our borders are. How can we be safe if over 4,000 illegal aliens, some of which could be terrorists, pass through our borders everyday? It is why I need to elect John Kerry because he can deal with issues like these, and he has the capability to bring together people on both sides of the aisle, instead of dividing them. I wish I had more room to write because I would list hundreds more reasons to vote for John Kerry as President of the United States of America. I am proud of what John Kerry has done, and he will make an excellent President.

[settembrini]

35. You need to correct one of her most inane statements

"Kerry even tells a story in which a mother went online and bought armor to send to her son in Iraq. Well, Senator Kerry, why did you vote against the $87 billion for supplemental support for the troops? This money would have bought the armor for that woman's son!"

Umm, "this money" was provided - the bill PASSED. Obviously another well-informed chimps supporter. The fact that only about 10% of it has been distributed is Kerry's fault, too, I bet.

[slinkerwink]

36. ok, I'll do that

[Mz Pip]

33. This has good info, too

100 Facts About The Bush Administration
by Judd Legum, The Nation
The non-arguable case against the Bush administration. Read only if you subscribe to a fact-based reality.
http://www.tompaine.com/opinion/#002414

MzPip
:dem:

[slinkerwink]

38. thanks!

[Jack_Dawson]

37. What college?

[slinkerwink]

39. Smith College

it's mentioned up in the thread.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

44. Let's lock them up in GITMO and see how they feel then!!!

:grr:

[slinkerwink]

45. ha