Even though I am an ardent Bush supporter, Kerry without a doubt won the first debate. I could tell within the first 20 minutes that Kerry was doing better than normal, and Bush worse than normal. Kerry is an impressive debater, and I think it is lame that some conservative pundits fail to acknowledge that Kerry won. If they don't acknowledge Kerry's success, then we will be hypocrits like the Leftists in this nation.

However, Kerry's inconsistency and flip-flops is reassuring. If he continues he will not have a core in terms of where he stands. Even in the debate he flip-flopped.

For example, his 'claim' is that the US needs more allies in dealing with Iraq, yet criticized Bush for having multi-lateral talks with North Korea, when it is clear Pyongyang falls more under the sphere of influence of Beijing than it does Washington DC.

Kerry also mentioned the lack of armament for our troops and blamed it on the President. In fact, blame lies on both sides of the aisle, but Kerry himself should know about this issue since he personally voted against it.

Kerry cannot be the optimal war time leader on the grounds that he doesn't even know if he supports the war in Iraq. Remember, American, British (MI-6), Russian, Egyptian and Jordanian intel all claimed that Saddam had WMDs. If we never went after Saddam and were currently pressuring North Korea, liberals would be crying "What about Iraq? Why don't you go after Iraq?"

Plus Saddam had ties through al-Qaeda, though not 9/11. Ansar al-Islam, an al-Qaeda affiliate, had a terrorist camp in Northeast Iraq. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaeda agent attacking our troops now was in Baghdad in 2002, a year before we attacked, recieving care in one of Uday's clinics, following an injury sustained in Tora Bora, Afghanistan.

When Kerry insulted Interim Prime Minister Allawi (calling him a puppet) of Iraq, on his visit to the US last month, I was appalled that Kerry could say something so low, while our troops are fighting to protect Allawi's status in the interim government (Note: The terrorists call Allawi a puppet too--once again liberals and terrorists share the same message)

At a time when the American people must defeat terrorism and liberalism, we cannot afford to elect the most LIBERAL SENATOR in the senate as President.

IceBuster, I am uncertain as to the accuracy of this information, but I could certainly be wrong. In any event, more funding is certainly needed to further this research and bring it to fruition. The govt. funds other medical research, refusing to fund this on religious grounds is a violation of the Constitutional requirement of seperation of church and state, in my opinion.

Henry L.,

I don't recall Kerry criticizing Bush for engaging in any multi lateral negotiations with anyone, but again, I could be wrong.

The intel in question was tainted and manipulated and wrongly interpreted by an administration with an agenda.

As to the issue of Kerry voting against the appropriation of $87 billion for the war effort, that was done for two reasons; First, to protest the way Bush took us to war and did not live up to the understanding that Kerry and others had as to the process leading up to any military action, and Second, to protest extensive tax cuts that favored the wealthy, while simultaneously spending this money for an unjust war. Kerry knew full well that the bill would pass with or without his vote, and took that opportunity to make a political statement and demonstrate his opposition to the President's agenda.

As to Hussein's alleged Al-Queda connection, if a terrorist in the U.S. sought and received medical treatment at a hospital in NYC, does that mean that Rudy Guiliani is connected to Al-Queda?

I am highly insulted that you equate me with a terrorist. How dare you! That is a short sighted and invalid allegation, and a cheap shot!

And exactly HOW do you plan to defeat liberalism? The last time I checked, we live in a free society, not a fascist military state. As long as we practice democracy and have a free and open society, you will have liberalism, as you put it. But then, I suppose you would prefer a fascist military state, where you and the rest of the neo-cons can control what everyone says, thinks, reads, views on TV, hence the right wing support of Bush's patriot "ACT", aptly named because that is exactly what it is... an ACT!

Gerg,
I said nothing about the assault weapon bill. I said EVERY ANTI GUN BILL. Your correlation is rediculous manipulative, typically ignorant, reactionary and outright wrong.

The assault weapon ban is a whole seperate issue. You know we have to find a way to stop those drive by bayonettings and folding stock pistol whippings.

In certain bills directed at banning semi automatics the definitions classifying the guns to be banned were so broad and loose that they would have included most of our semi shotguns because of the loose pistol grip definition. Just like the browning auto five he accepted as a gift in a campaign stop in the mid west last month.

Also in his vote on banning ammunition that was capable of penetrating bullet proof vests it would have effectively banned all centerfire rifle ammunition used by hunters on deer today. Bullet proof vests are made to stop handgun bullets not rifle rounds.

Nutosalt.

Neither elloquent nor accurate, just ignorant.

How long do we allow these terrorist harboring/manufacturing nations to continue to produce them?
How do you know that that nation is not ready for democracy?
Are you an expert of foreign matters?

""If he still had WMD's, then where are they? And even if did have some limited arsenal, he was clearly no threat to the U.S.""

We dug up completely buried soviet mig 29's out in the desert. I would think the WMD would be much easier to bury. No threat to us you say but how do you rationalize leaving him in power after he gassed 300,000 humans to death? Who else has the resources to do the job?

""In a very real sense, the more we do so, the greater that risk becomes.""

That is the exact response the terrorists are trying to achieve! They want us to run like Spain did with our tail between our legs! We are being handcuffed by the ultra-liberals and peacenick morons while we should be far more aggressive and put an end to this as quick as possible.

Henry L
You are right. In years gone they would have been considered treasonous acts.

If a high ranking terrorist recieved preferential or any treatment at any medical facility with ties to any government figure I think there would be a lot of hard questions asked.........
:rolleyes:

Whew! Where to begin? First, my profound respects to CTO, and the challenges to you and yours. I'm sure there is no one on CTF who does not hope and pray for only the best for your little one's future. My little caveat is not intended for offense; just an observation.

The one slight wrinkle in the ointment here, is that while most people do, indeed, support the concept of stem cell research, most also get a bit queasy whense reminded that it is EMBRYONIC stem cell research we are talking about here; i.e. the used of Aborted fetuses/babies! Public support drops precariously, when people are reminded of this one, salient point. I, get nauseated at the thought, myself. But Dr. Mengele would be so proud!

HenryL, Where the hell have you been hiding? I feel like Custer at the Little Bighorn!!!I don't mind fighting the Liberal Indians, or even going down in a blaze of glory, but it was gettin' a mite bit lonesome, here! Welcome to the fray, mein kameraden!

Mr. sKerry's record on 2nd Amendment issues, is abysmal, at best; downright treasonous, at worst! Much as I enjoy, and support, hunting, that ain't what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights! Nope. I don't hunt with a banana clip or a bayonet when I hunt; but it is what I defend my home and hearth with!

(Want my guns, "Neo-coms?" Fine. Come and get 'em; anytime. One small problem.....you get 'em ammo first!)

Libs have their litmus test for canidates; I have mine. Any "gummint" man who does'nt trust citizens with their guns, I don't trust; it's that simple. I'll vote for Bush on 2nd Amendment issues only, need be. Fortunately, there will be other reasons.

As to the issue that we sold Saddam his WMD's. Any American who may have sold said WMD technology to the Iraqui's has been, or will be, prosecuted. It was illegal to so, and was never Government policy. However, our less-than erstwhile "allies", Le Francais und Der Deutsch, had no such scruples! They did! No wonder they oppose us ever step of the way! Pierre and Fritz shudder at the thought of this fact being revealed. And the UN & Koki Annan and his Oil for Food Scandal? The final chapter has yet to written on that debacle!

N2S, my fellow American, said Hmmmmmmmm.......Reckon we should tell that to the Krauts and the Japs?

I might also respectfully suggest you read up a tad bit more on Saudi history. The Islamic religious fervor we Westerners refer to as Wahhabism, was embraced by the new Saudi regime, starting in the '20's. (Ibn Saud, of the Arabian interior, wrestled power away from Husein, the Grand Sherif of Mecca. Ibn's great-great- grandfather was an ardent follower of Abd-el-Wahab. Hence the name "Saudi" Arabia, and the state doctrine of Wahhabism.. Husein was no fanatic, although he was a direct descendent of the Prophet Mohammed.)

The present government would like nothing better than to distance themselves from Wahhabism now. They are finding it extrordinarily difficult to extract themselves from their self-imposed tar-baby. Any attempts must, of regime survival necessity, be slow, gradual, and cautiously undertaken. but they're making an effort, and that's a good start. No one every said reform, in the interest of geo-political stability was going to be easy!

Yes, the Saudi government can seem rather duplicitious, at times. But, as stated, sometimes it's difficult to change a system of your own making! It shall be a long, precarious road to change. It is in our, and the worlds, best interest to support them in their endeavor. To label the Saudi regime as fanatic and extremist, is a grave overstatement.

The best interests of America dictate that we become energy self-sufficient. While alternative sources of energy, (wind, solar,geo-thermic, etc.), are all fine and good in the long run, we still need oil, for the foreseeable future. Reasonable and responsible domestic oil/coal production is still necessary, (yet seems to opposed by the Neo-lefties at virtually every turn). This may well be in the Bush family's interest, but, since it is also in our nation's, frankly, I don't give a hoot!

We take a great risk in our present adventure in the Middle-East. But, should we actually succeed, the rewards will be many, and quite resplendent. Some say "F" Bush! Others say, "F" Kerry! I say, "F" the Frogs, "F" the Krauts, and "F" the Terrorists, all reactionaires to a brighter, democratic future!