The political view of an independent voter

Just my opinion, but I do think it is safe to say that the President has become tiresome to the general population... However, they might find it more interesting to think of things in a more obvious way... commonsense shall we say.

When one goes to war, as we did, using somewhat loose terms as to why, people need to assess the reasoning, without being told by the press.

Is it possible that the US needed to get in closer to an area ready to go off... an area able to buy countries to do their dirty work / launch nukes, sell nuclear technology, etc., places that avidly despise anyone who doesn't wear black during the summer.... (ok, so that's a lil extreme but seriously, lol).... these countries have displayed their desires every chance they've had, while slapping oil on their face & yelling war-cries.... so in a sense, YES... it is a war over oil, just not the way most have been trained to think.

Can't exactly twirl a lasso up in the air and shout that out from the White house, but it'd be less boring if the real stories came falling out of the Prez' mouth while ripping up the grass, driving his golf cart through the white house lawn... but that's just a theory as well, lol.

But really.... should the world kick back on their lofty arses and wait for these whack-jobs to be seaworthy before nudging in closer to those who use a checker board to plan the next world war??? C'mon, we either needed to slide in the middle, or buy them the game "Risk", that-a-way when their investors in South Korea, Iran, and so-on come over to play, they'll all get a more modern look at the way things are done, once out of the stone-age.

Point is... Not even Matt Damon, (a Democrat) could be heard giving praise to the President for the worthy works he's done, over the loud sounds of the wimps we've become... why is that you say??? Because the "United", in the "we" stand is only when the majority are standing behind those who have the balls to take the heat to protect out country, vs. selling it out for popularity and star statues like some "former" Presidents, and even worse.... some of their wives, have. But then again who am I to judge the Academy Awards? HA, take that, lol, just kidding...

That being said... I think the only hope we have of being entertained is to elect someone from the cast of the Sopranos, or start casting the next "survivor USA" where the Governments are pitted against other Governments from opposing countries in a yearly, fight till death match.... Now that's a reality I'd find more entertaining... however my money is on the Cinderella Man in office.... cuz I like it when the scrawny guy stands up, versus hiding behind a peace sign.... reminds me of a time when "old school" was a saying that had real value, not just more crap you hear someone say on MTV.

The reason research is important should be obvious, but for those who don't get it, let me just add this.... One day, after many, many new drugs, vaccines etc., have been tested in these outside countries, everyone will benefit & be free to have relations without dying from it.... think about it, you want testing to be done here, or abroad?

President Bush talked about the goals when he made the first announcement of PEPFAR.

"This comprehensive plan will prevent 7 million new 'AIDS' infections, treat at least 2 million people with life-extending drugs, and provide humane care for millions of people suffering from AIDS, and for children orphaned by AIDS."

Oddly enough "One" excludes contributions made by the President, & or their websites, etc... Guess it's not Hollywood enough, butaaaaaa in any event, I don't give two-shits as long as we're all working on a cure that the children of our future can benefit from. You don't have to be personally effected to want sex to be healthier for future generations.

Matt Damon urges funding for AIDS overseas

NATASHA T. METZLER

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Actor Matt Damon is back from a trip to Africa with a passion for fighting AIDS and praise for President Bush's relief program.

"The work that's being done and the people that I met who are on the front lines there, I just came away feeling like we're going to beat this," he said in a telephone interview Wednesday.

Damon returned April 29 from a six-day trip to Africa. He spent most of his time there in Zambia, which had an HIV/AIDS prevalence rate of 16.5 percent in 2003, according to the CIA's World Factbook. The U.S. prevalence rate was 0.6 percent in 2003.

Damon visited a number of sites including a clinic sponsored by the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, an independent charity.

"You walk into these clinics; you're surrounded by people who are alive and well because of the president's plan and because of this money," he said.

Damon's trip was organized by the DATA Foundation, a nonprofit Africa advocacy group, and the ONE Campaign, a coalition of groups working to fight AIDS and poverty.

ONLY a coward would turn a blind eye to what Iraq, (and the UN) was doing, "the food oil program" comes to mind. BUTAAAAAAA as an American I guess some of you are too fat to care about the world we ALL live in, when it comes to making real sacrifices.

REAL HUMANITAIANS stand up for woman & children, allow them to read, write & hopefully someday live freely as we do... Education is not just for the oil-rich, or men.... which I might add openly take aim at our known Allies every chance they get...

Small price to pay to give someone else a chance to be free to attend school, or to learn what it's like to live without fear of being gases by your own leaders, and or condemned to death without a trail.

So, for all you that are crying about what you don't have, or the cost of gas, I say this.... When you stop killing unborn children here, we'll talk again, ya upside-down know-it-alls

Mercury poison

After dragging their feet for decades, the FDA was finally forced to actively addressing the issue of thimerosal as a preservative in vaccines. Under the FDA Modernization Act (FDAMA) of 1997, the FDA conducted a comprehensive review of the use of thimerosal in childhood vaccines. Conducted in 1999, this review found no evidence of harm from the use of thimerosal as a vaccine preservative, other than local hypersensitivity reactions (Ball et al. 2001).

As part of the FDAMA review, the FDA evaluated the amount of mercury an infant might receive in the form of ethyl mercury from vaccines under the U.S. recommended childhood immunization schedule and compared these levels with existing guidelines for exposure to methyl mercury, as there are no existing guidelines for ethyl mercury, the metabolite of thimerosal. At the time of this review in 1999, the maximum cumulative exposure to mercury from vaccines in the recommended childhood immunization schedule was within acceptable limits for the methyl mercury exposure guidelines set by FDA, ATSDR, and WHO. However, depending on the vaccine formulations used and the weight of the infant, some infants could have been exposed to cumulative levels of mercury during the first six months of life that exceeded EPA recommended guidelines for safe intake of methyl mercury.

As a precautionary measure, the Public Health Service (including the FDA, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and the American Academy of Pediatrics issued two Joint Statements, urging vaccine manufacturers to reduce or eliminate thimerosal in vaccines as soon as possible (CDC 1999) and (CDC 2000). The U.S. Public Health Service agencies have collaborated with various investigators to initiate further studies to better understand any possible health effects from exposure to thimerosal in vaccines.

Eventually both sides of the isles that remain greedy will scare us into submission to some point... and with the trends we see it won't be hard to continue at a rate impossible for the average consumer to contemplate, let a lone debate or dispute.

Mothers cannot take their child from a hospital without their first shots laced with Mercury, or they would be arrested for refusal,( Mercury has been stopped recently in the last couple of years, but for anyone who has children older than this we face the challenges that accompany the effects on our children & adults who also were treated with these high levels of toxins),. I am not against modern medicine but I am however against being force to use the additional & obsolete additives that are slid in along side of these products, rather that be food, water or medications, synthetic or natural.

Is the FDA at fault? No, we are because we refuse to stand together on any given issue to demand change. The things we argue with one another over could be settled if we banded together for the betterment of each other's lives... rich & poor alike.

Doctors need to be involved more often in the education of all medicine & not just the ones they receive from pharmaceutical companies and or are taught to give for a said condition. These are people as a whole who truly care, yet they too get caught up in the dealing of drugs versus the added minds needed to promote health base on our organic nature as humans.

We cannot allow other living creatures to suffer & become a corporate product even further, when it is clear that our mainstream food sources need to be radically changed to eradicate the ill effects closely related & in conjunction with other elements in our daily environment that cause the destruction of overall health .

We've allowed these wave to ripple across America & divide us. We create situations that cause not only consumers medical conditions in part but the need to rely on, and eventual sustain ourselves with medications prescribed to counter these effects... we then are faced with being gouged by these same companies for our addiction/medical needs.

Just frustrated at the lack of education in the field of medicine we practice & the lack of power we refuse to flex because somehow they've done such a good job pitting us against one another we no longer see each other as allies & fellow human beings that are afflicted by the same ailments.

Major international seed corporations have filed dozens of patents on new biologically-engineered technologies that cause seeds to become sterile, according to non-governmental watchdogs on agriculture.

The "terminator technology" involves the insertion of certain genes into seeds that make the resulting plants unable to reproduce seeds of their own.

Seeds that have been genetically altered to produce high yields or to resist insects and droughts cannot be reproduced without the corporation's permission.

Such technology, however, has come under heavy criticism worldwide since small-scale farmers, particularly in developing countries, who depend on saving seeds fear the new technique will force them to buy expensive seeds each year.

News of the "terminator" first appeared when the United States granted a patent on the technique to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Mississippi-based Delta and Pine Land Co. a seed company being eyed by biotechnology giant Monsanto for possible takeover.

Although not yet commercially available, the technology can be used on wheat, cotton, soybeans and other crops.

A report by the Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI), a non-governmental organization (NGO), warns that many other seed and pharmaceutical giants -- including Novartis and Seneca -- have such terminator seeds in the pipeline.

Other companies, including Pioneer Hi-Bred, Rhone Poulenc and Dupont, have developed similar techniques to produce sterile seeds.

"The patents reveal that engineered seed sterility is not an isolated research agenda," said Pat Mooney, director of RAFI. "Every major seed and agrochemical enterprise is developing its own version of suicide seeds."

The RAFI report said that the patents show that companies are developing seeds whose genetic traits can be turned on and off by an external chemical " inducer" -- mixed with patented pesticides or fertilizers produced by the same company.

Early in the next century, farmers may be forced to plant seeds that will produce crops only if sprayed with a carefully prescribed chemical regime that includes a patented pesticide, fertilizer or herbicide, RAFI said.

The British seed giant Seneca, for example, has developed a technology that would render the crops yielded by its seeds stunted or impaired if not regularly exposed to certain patented chemicals sold by the company, said Mooney.

U.S.-based Monsanto has also applied for a patent on a technology that would make a seed unable to germinate unless it is exposed to a specific chemical, he said.

And the Swiss firm Novartis has received a patent for a technique that regulates a number of developmental processes in plants -- including germination, sprouting, flowering and fruit maturation.

"If the companies can genetically program seeds to perform only with the application of proprietary pesticide or fertilizer, it means they will increase sales of their patented agrochemicals and other inputs," notes Edward Hammond, a researcher at RAFI.

Monsanto spokesman Jay Byrne, however, denies that companies are conspiring to create a cycle of dependency, as suggested by RAFI. But he admits that corporations are looking into such techniques "as a way to protect their billions of dollars of investment into research on biologically-engineered products."

Monsanto estimates that it takes 10 years and about $300 million to create commercial products -- like its genetically-altered corn, cotton and potatoes -- that contain a gene from a bacterium that produces the insect-killing toxin called "Bt."

"Any company is going to be looking at ways to protect their investment, " said Byrne.

Since the "terminator" and other technologies are not yet on the market, Monsanto is currently trying to recoup its huge investments by requiring farmers in the United States and Canada, who plant the genetically-altered seeds, to buy new supplies each year instead of replanting.

U.S. and Canadian farmers who choose to plant these seeds must sign an agreement to allow Monsanto researchers to inspect their fields for several years to make sure that the seed has not been replanted without repurchasing the seed. Anyone breaking the agreement is hauled into court.

Monsanto said "terminator" would provide a technical fix to this problem and would make the company more at ease selling such seeds in other countries.

Critics of the terminator-type technologies say they could spell disaster for world's food supply, since more than one billion farmers -- primarily small farmers in Africa, Asia and Latin America -- depend on collecting seeds yielded by their crops.

When farmers save seeds, they choose the most productive or resistant strains to replant, resulting in continued adaptation of crops to their unique farming environments.

Concern over the impact of "terminator" technology on these small farmers has led to the governments of India and The Netherlands to condemn the new technique.

Many agriculture and environmental organizations worldwide -- including the Chilean-based Center for Education and Technology and the Union of Concerned Scientists -- have called for an outright ban on the "suicide " seeds.

The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, a major international agricultural research network funded by the United Nations and the World Bank, has recommended that its 16 member institutes ban the technology in their crop improvement research programs.

Monsanto's Jay Byrne said that the company would not force any farmer to buy its technologies. He said farmers are free to save traditional seeds as they have always done.

Yet small-scale farmer advocacy organizations in developing countries worry that these terminator-type technologies will become widespread and governments may force small farmers to purchase such seeds.

Their fears are increasing as private sector investments in agricultural biotechnology research begins to dominate the agricultural research agenda.

Most of the developing countries are cutting back their financial support for public biotechnology agricultural research programs, said Per Pinstrup-Andersen, director of the International Food Policy Research Institute here, who supports the use of biotechnology in agricultural research.

"The assumption is that the private sector will take it over, but the private sector is not going to generate the kind of technology the small farmer needs until that small farmer is up at a certain level and can afford to pay for it," he said.

Once I have cooled down somewhat I will return to address these issues. R~

John Kerry's five points healthcare plan

Straight from his website...
"electronic medical records, patient registries"
(the above statement in blue can be found at Kerry's website under the bold print midway down the page, look for: Reward Health Care Organizations and Physicians that Invest in Modern Information Systems
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/health_care/health_care.html

Here is a link that describes "electronic medical records, patient registries", The following is a quick QUOTE from their front page, "EmergisoftED allows us to track patients electronically in every stage of their environment and keeps the record moving with the patient and gives everyone access to that record no matter where they are."
http://www.emergisoft.com/productinfo/emergisofted/index.asp

Now we know that things have been going in this direction anyway, and would eventually set the stage for VeriChip, & or a type of tracking/rating system....however who do you think will expedite this even faster? John Kerry has already said he is for the fingerprint and iris eye scans for immigration during the 3rd debate in Tempe, Az., so it would be just as easy to slide this in under his healthcare plan that he stated "if you don't want to take it, you don't have to. If you like your high premiums, you keep them. That's the way we leave it."
(Below is a link that you can find a full transcript of the 2004 debates where the above quote in blue was taken from, it will be a little more than half way down the page, the question being asked is about immigration)

Yeah for now and he isn't even President yet, just wait until his 5 point system bankrupts all the other health care providers and insurance companies. Think UPC code. The identifier, emblazoned on a food item, brings up its name and price on the cashier's screen. The VeriChip itself contains no medical records, just codes that can be scanned, and revealed, in a doctor's office or hospital. With that code, the health providers can unlock that portion of a secure database that holds that person's medical information, including allergies and prior treatment. The electronic database, not the chip, would be updated with each medical visit. But the chip's possible dual use for tracking people's movements is obvious.

The FDA approval was for Digital Angel's technology and the use of the chips, which the company still makes. Applied Digital and its VeriChip Corp. subsidiary use Digital Angel's products under license. Note that the new CEO of Digital Angel Kevin McGrath, replaced Van Chu, who was made CEO in early November, when Digital Angel bought Chu's company, OuterLink Corp. in Concord, Mass. OuterLink makes satellite tracking systems.

This is in-part from the VeriChip website in the FAQs.

Q: What is “the chip”?

Q: How about other uses of VeriChip? Isn’t it used for security screening?

A: We are promoting VeriChip as a universal means of identification. We expect it to be used in a variety of applications including financial and transportation security, residential and commercial building access, military and government security.
http://www.adsx.com/faq/verichipfaq.html

It's hard to believe some of the subjects as of late... the newest "technology" is touted as the, "Implantable Chip Approved for Medical Records"

Give it a rest already... No one with any amount of intelligence thinks this is a step in the right direction, yet the FDA Clears the first implantable Microchip for Human Use.

The FDA has approved the first implantable radio frequency identification microchip for human use. Known as VeriChip, they are claiming the device is designed to help "doctors" quickly access a patient's medical records.

The chip is about the size of a grain of rice and contains a 16-digit verification number that is picked up by a scanner that emits a small amount of radio frequency that activates the chip and transmits the number back to the scanner.

BUT on their website, under the F.A.Q.s you'll see that they have bigger plans... I wonder what Movie Star or Singer they'll have representing this as the newest "Life saving" device?

A: VeriChip is an inert, encapsulated microchip that is energized and transmits its information when activated by a VeriChip reader. Because VeriChip is so small (about the size of a pen point) it is virtually undetectable and practically indestructible once inserted under your skin. The chip has a special polyethylene sheath that helps skin bond to it – so it stays in place. Since the chip has no battery, there are no chemicals to worry about and the chip never “runs down”; its expected life is up to 20 years.

Q: Is there a fee for the GVS (Global VeriChip Subscriber) Registry service?

A: The GVS Registry subscription fee is $9.95 per month, billed automatically to subscriber’s credit card.

Q: How about other uses of VeriChip? Isn’t it used for security screening?

A: We are promoting VeriChip as a universal means of identification. We expect it to be used in a variety of applications including financial and transportation security, residential and commercial building access, military and government security.

Psst... No one had better tell Senator Kerry about this lil gem... especially after how he replied to the question about immigration during the 3rd debate in Tempe, Az. (For those of you who missed it, I will quote what he said)...

SENATOR KERRY: And we're not doing what we ought to do in terms of the technology. We have iris identification technology. We have thumbprint, fingerprint technology today. We can know who the people are, that they're really the people they say they are when they cross the border. We could speed it up. There are huge delays. The fact is our borders are not as secure as they ought to be, and I'll make them secure.

One thing is for curtain, we cannot pretend that we truly care about human life if we can't even decide what it is or when it begins. I see no reason to be forced to choose between the life of a child sitting next to me or the life of an unborn child I've yet to see, do you? Thank you for your time and consideration...

ADDITIONAL FACTS

Moreover, there are distinct advantages to using adult stem cells over embryonic stem cells. For example, one advantage is that there would be no rejection from transplanting one’s own isolated adult stem cells into one’s tissues. Use of human embryonic stem cells requires lifelong use of drugs to prevent rejection of the tissue.

By contrast, one grave disadvantage to using embryonic stem cells is that, injected into the body, embryonic stem cells can produce tumors from rapid growth. In the words of Michael Shamblott, a researcher in John Gearhart’s lab at Johns Hopkins, “Injected into the body, stem cells can produce tumors.” (See http://hopkins.med.)

During the 2nd debate, Senator Kerry sidesteps the question being asked about Stem cell research using embryonic stem cells taken from aborted fetuses, cloned human cells, etc. and opted to only discuss frozen embryos stored at fertility clinics, clearly ignoring the fact that cloning and aborted fetuses will also be used under this law if passed.

Here is the actual question asked:

MR. GIBSON: Senator Kerry, the next question is for you, and it comes from Elizabeth Long (sp).

Question: Senator Kerry, thousands of people have already been cured or treated by the use of adult stem cells or umbilical cord stem cells. However, no one has been cured by using embryonic stem cells. Wouldn't it be wise to use stem cells obtained without the destruction of an embryo?

SEN. KERRY:

I think we can save lives. Now, I think we can do ethically guided embryonic stem cell research. We have 100,000 to 200,000 embryos that are frozen in nitrogen today from fertility clinics. These weren't taken from abortion or something like that, they're from a fertility clinic, and they're either going to be destroyed or left frozen.

When asked a straight question about abortion, the Senator once again skirts the question and very well I might add, with the following reply.

Question: Senator Kerry, suppose you were speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder, and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?

SEN. KERRY: I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now. First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic. Raised a Catholic. I was an alter boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. Helped lead me through a war. Leads me today.

But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that. But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. I can talk to people as my wife Teresa does, about making other choices and about abstinence and about all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society. But as a -- as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation and I have to make that judgment.

Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro- abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the Constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise. That's why I think it's important.

That's why I think it's important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning. You'll help prevent AIDS. You'll help prevent unwanted children, unwanted pregnancies. You'll actually do a better job, I think, of passing on the moral responsibility that is expressed in your question. And I truly respect it.

MY REPLY: GREAT answer, smooth as silk BUT once again he avoids the real question being asked. No one asked him about his faith, no one asked him about his ideas on "family planning"... Basically the question being asked was, "Do we have freedom of religion"? We do not believe in abortion & yet our hard earned money is paying for millions of abortions each year.

During the 3rd debate in Arizona, Senator John Kerry made the following statement to the question asked being asked about immigration, this is what he said & I quote...

MR. SCHIEFFER: Senator?

SEN. KERRY: Four thousand people a day are coming across the border. The fact is that we now have people from the Middle East, allegedly, coming across the border.

And we're not doing what we ought to do in terms of the technology. We have iris identification technology. We have thumbprint, fingerprint technology today. We can know who the people are, that they're really the people they say they are when they cross the border. We could speed it up. There are huge delays.

The fact is our borders are not as secure as they ought to be, and I'll make them secure.

Ranting & Raving Sept. 9th 2004, (American soldiers, we reached 1000 deaths in the Iraq war)

Can anyone say that the 405,399 American lives lost during W.W.II was in vain? How about the Korean war, where we lost 36,574, or the Vietnam war were we lost 58,209 American soldiers. I'm not sure how one could measure another's life, but I sure the hell am not going to pretend their lives meant nothing by claiming they fought & died in wars that had no significance to the people they were trying to aid. How Mother Teresa-ish of us to say that our lives.. the privileged American lives, are more worthy then those who do not even have the right to their own faith, to education, nor to vote. How easy it is to be an American civilian & how honorable it is to be an American soldier who gave their freedoms so that others may know they are not alone in the world of many terrorist, often times their own leaders.

We are not perfect, nor are our soldiers but this is not a perfect world and we must do our part. I can't imagine being in harms way, seeing death on a constant bases & then hearing so many at home say it is an unjust war. Life is unjust, is it more unjust for our men to die then a child in another country because we are too comfortable complaining about our own woes? If not us then who? Who was willing to stand up to the power of money? Iraq made so many suffer, as do other countries... Africa comes to mind as well, were the land is rich yet the people are poor. Why do we need to send so much money to all parts of Africa when their land is rich in Gold & Diamonds? Why do we need to give freedom to those in Iraq, build schools little girls can attend, when Iraq has black gold enough to supply the world?

One thing is for sure, in my mind anyway... is NONE of these soldiers died in vain. I wish nothing but love to mankind but it seems we are destined to roam the world fighting our own nature... it is beyond heartbreak, far beyond understanding but we must not turn our backs on our own because we don't like how a war has come about. As for strategy I think we not only made the right decision but used the best opportunity to enter this war... Why? Because in any fight, rather it's a street-fight, playground, prison or in a battle field, you must strike the largest, the fastest... after they are down you'll notice that the others have decided not to join in... if you retreat until another day you'll see a line forming. We waited 8 years too long and gave far too many an opportunity to build strength. We are playing a game we can't win, but we will buy more time.

Our soldiers will do their best, as they have always done in the past 200 years... we have made our mistakes, too... yet we continue to try and help those who otherwise would live & die never knowing life... they can't even breath without fear, shall we stand on the sidelines & allow them to strike fear into the hearts of the American civilians too, just because some feel we need permission from others who choose to do nothing?

I would never say that a man who died in W.W.II was more courageous nor fought in a more just war then Vietnam, no more than I would say the men fighting in Iraq are fighting for oil & or were sent there for unjust reasons. I am not the type that can sit back and think it's okay for my neighbor's child to be raped while I said or did nothing... anyone who thinks it's okay for "others" to live in hell while they cry about how hard it is to live in the garden deserves a swift kick in the ass. IMHO that is... That being said it is never easy, nor should we ever become so jaded we don't cry for each one we lose... one being the same as a thousand.

I am sincerely disheartened by John Kerry and his running mate. Most recently his Ad that suggest the Bush administration should object to an Ad placed by Swift Boat for Veterans. Here's the problem, IMHO

Kerry is the one who is asking us to look at his war records, we have... and not only is it fair to question them but we must do so to consider all sides before voting. Many of us do not see Kerry as a bad person, we however do see the need to confront him on issues he's brought to the forefront. ANYONE who earns 3 purple hearts, 1 bronze star & a silver medal in four months without needing to take off any time for injury should be questioned as most of us already have. After Kerry gets his walking papers & metals he returns to the US to slander his fellows soldiers, (not simply the government but his fellow soldiers) then later wants them to support him??? And please remember that Kerry is after all throwing insults again at our current President about his war record in Iraq, the same war he voted for. So when we see this we all must question his record. How is it that you fight in a war & or vote for it, but then turn around & thrash on everyone else who fought the same war? The comments Kerry made,( in 1971 ) were not about the government but what he said of his fellow soldier & again I remind you that now all these years later he wants these same men he spit on to vote for him blindly...

John Kerry is asking SWIFT BOAT to stop their freedom of speech, how nice... so now freedom of speech only applies when someone wants to thrash their fellow soldiers record and or the current President's decision to go to war? Lets be fair, shall we?

Again, this is my personal thoughts... no need to be offended just thinking out loud.

This isn’t some wild hypothetical, it’s a historical fact. Ten days after Saddam Hussein issued an edict in October 29, 1997 kicking U.S. weapons inspectors out of Iraq, John Kerry stood on the floor of the United States Senate and said:

"We must recognize that there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has any intention of relenting. So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation."

Kerry went on to argue that the threat Saddam posed was so serious that it justified unilateral military action, if necessary:

"while we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise."

Only days before, President Clinton had “drawn a line in the sand” with Iraq over the expulsion of U.S. inspectors, saying the U.S. and the U.N. had to “be very firm” with Iraq.

The rest, of course, is history – and not a very pretty one at that. Read through this timeline of events and you’ll see that while there were lots of meetings, discussions, debates, and negotiations that offered the illusion progress was being made, problems were being solved, and threats were being dealt with, nothing of any substance really took place.

In the end, after all of the sharp rhetoric, threats and negotiation, the "line in the sand" was washed away with no consequence for Hussein. Saddam played cat-and-mouse with the U.S. and the U.N. for nearly a year before finally booting UNSCOM out of Iraq altogether in August 1998.

The response? On September 9, 1998 the UN Security Council passed yet another resolution “condemning” Iraq’s lack of cooperation with inspectors. Three weeks after that the United States Congress passed (and President Clinton eventually signed) The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, making regime change in Iraq the official policy of the United States government.

Finally, on December 16, 1998 the U.S. launched Operation Desert Fox, a four-day bombing campaign against military targets in Iraq. Two days after Desert Fox concluded, Fred Kaplan (no rabid right-winger, mind you) wrote:

One question has emerged in the aftermath of President Clinton's four-day bombing campaign against Iraq: What was that all about?

If his aim was to put a dent in Saddam Hussein's ability to produce chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons, the dent was not a large one.

If, as some of the air war's targets suggested, Clinton was trying to destabilize Hussein's regime, he did not hit its foundations hard enough.

Speaking of the Pentagon's estimates of damage, John Pike, a specialist with the Federation of American Scientists, said Saturday night, ''It doesn't look like they did anything on what they said they were going to do, and not enough on what they were actually doing.''

According to the Pentagon's most recent figures, the attacks hit a total of 97 targets over the four days. The strikes damaged beyond repair only a few of the targets - the weapons sites, military headquarters, and industrial facilities that Pentagon planners thought had to be hit to accomplish the mission.

''I'm mystified why they stopped the campaign just as they had amassed sufficient force to complete the job,'' Pike added.

More forces, including another aircraft-carrier battle-group and more than 70 additional combat planes, had just arrived Friday.

''You don't deploy 70 aircraft halfway around the world just so they can fly one combat sortie,'' Pike said.

Iraq's nuclear and chemical materials were NOT attacked...

AGAIN, Food for thought...Here is Mr. Kerry...

And I quote with dates, etc.,..check the records yourself!

“There is an inescapable reality that, after all the effort of recent years, Saddam Hussein remains the international outlaw he was when he invaded Kuwait. For most of a decade he has sent himself outside international law, and he has sought to avoid the efforts of the international community to insist that his nation comport itself with reasonable standards of behavior and, specifically, not equip itself with implements of mass destruction which it has shown the willingness to use in previous conflicts.” Congressional Record, November 9, 1997

“We must recognize that there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has any intention of relenting. So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded towards his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, this nation.” Congressional Record, November 9, 1997

“Should the resolve of our allies wane to pursue this matter until an acceptable inspection process has been reinstituted—which I hope will not occur and which I am pleased to say at this moment does not seem to have even begun—the United States must not lose its resolve to take action.” Congressional Record, November 9, 1997

“In a more practical vein, Mr. President, I submit that the old adage ‘pay now or pay later’ applies perfectly in this situation. If Saddam Hussein is permitted to go about his effort to build weapons of mass destruction and to avoid the accountability of the United Nations, we will surely reap a confrontation of greater consequence in the future.” Congressional Record, November 9, 1997

“It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were able to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences.” Congressional Record, November 9, 1997

“Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so.” Press Conference, February 23, 1998

“Saddam Hussein has not complied [with inspectors]. Saddam Hussein is pursuing a program to build weapons of mass destruction.” Press Conference, December 16, 1998

FACT... Kerry made the above statements during 97-1998, long before Bush Jr. was in office yet he recently stated the following...

“We were misled—misled not only from the intelligence but also in the way that the President took us to war.” “Fox News Sunday,” January 25, 2004

“[Bush] misled every one of us. I will not let him off the hook throughout this campaign with respect to America’s credibility and credibility to me because if he lied he lied to me personally.” BBC, June 19, 2003

“[The Bush Administration] ought to be held accountable for using the ‘weapons of mass destruction’ argument. Dick Cheney and others in the administration misled the American people with respect to the true status of the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” CBS “Face the Nation,” January 25, 2004

How is it that Kerry made all those statements in 97-98 & yet wants everyone to believe that Bush was the one misleading us, LOL... These are FACTS... Does this guy really think people are so stupid he can now twist things around & point the finger at someone else after he crammed these statements down everyone's throat like medicine for years prior to Bush Jr. coming into office??? Call Ben & Michael & ask them what they think of his B.S.

Seriously... As late as January of 2003 Kerry made the following statements. Exactly how long does this guy want us to believe he was duped???

“According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 kilometer restriction imposed by the United Nations ceasefire resolution. Although Iraq’s chemical weapons capability was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort over the last four years... Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives which could bring them into the United States homeland.” Senate Floor, October 9, 2002

“We need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation... And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.” Georgetown University, January 23, 2003

“...the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” Georgetown University, January 23, 2003

And again... FROM JOHN KERRY HIMSELF... Oct. 2002

And while the administration has failed to provide any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance?

So how is it that Mr. Kerry is now so adamant about claiming President Bush has lead us into a war in Iraq based on false information? The quotes above speaks volume about John Kerry's inability to make decisions that he stands up to, making him very undesirable for a candidate for President/head of our US military.