|
Video Library coming soon
New Politics |
Please click here and check out Social Kats Herbal Facts site
Welcome Page!
|
SocialKat's Recommended File
Daily Blog Keep up to date to where I am and what I'm up to! |
| Send SocialKat Feed-Back |
|
big date base of every kind of product and money making opportunities, updated often
HAHAHAHA SOOOOO FUNNY PAGE
Is Bush Doing A Good Job?
Take Our Poll And You Can Get A
Free Laptop Computer
www.will-bush-win.com
|
Gepheardt trickle effect |
 Gepheardt trickle This is
so Lame
I laughed so hard at this one.... Actually there all pretty funny no matter your poitics
|
||||||
 Ask Rush
|
|
||||||
 |
|
||||||
| Talk Radio Clips click to listen to your choice below.. download Media Player | NSA Story
Drive-By Media Recycles Old NSA Story, |
||||||
| Bush Tax Cut Worked Better Than Expected |
Senator Dubin, You Dumb...DURBIN:
Of course. If we knew that there was a domestic telephone conversation
involving a would-be terrorist, they should be tapped; they should be
eavesdropped.
|
||||||
|
Only the Rich Pay Taxes! The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes The Top 1% Pay More Than a Third: 34.27% |
Ted "Señor Swimmer" Kennedy at DC Rally | ||||||
 Welfare
Liberation Plan Freaks Out Dems
March 27 1995
Capital Gains Mania capital March22, 1995Tom Daschle show part1 |
 Kevorkian
On Christ |
| T |
|
|
Want Tax
Reform? Stop Paying Taxes Kerry's plan to learn from Al Gore's attempt to steal the election and do it well
IN The NEWs ... FACTS...not...FICTION |
|
 Trip to Isreal |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| On March 29, 2006, President
Bush Delivered Remarks At Freedom House And Discussed Critical Aspects Of
Our Mission In Iraq. The President discussed the stakes in Iraq,
our efforts to help the Iraqi people overcome past divisions and form a
lasting democracy - and why it is vital to the security of the American
people that we help them succeed. Free societies are peaceful societies, and
the only path to lasting peace is the expansion of freedom and democracy.
Iraqis Are Working To Overcome Past Divisions Today, Iraqis Are Working To Resolve Tensions And Divisions That Saddam Hussein Aggravated Through Ethnic Cleansing And Sectarian Violence. The argument that Iraq was "stable" under Saddam - and stability is now in danger because we removed him - is wrong. While liberation has brought its own challenges, Saddam's removal from power was the necessary first step in restoring stability and freedom to Iraqis. To Prevent Iraq's Different Groups From Coming Together To Challenge His Regime, Saddam Undertook A Deliberate Strategy Of Maintaining Power By Dividing The Iraqi People. He brutally repressed different Iraqi communities and pitted them against one another. By displacing communities and dividing Iraqis, Saddam sought to establish himself as the only force that could hold the country together.
We Know Iraqis Can Live Together Peacefully. Iraq is a nation with many ethnic, religious, sectarian, regional, and tribal divisions - and before Saddam, Iraqis from different communities managed to live together. Even today, many Iraqi tribes have both Sunni and Shia branches, and in many small towns with mixed populations, there is often only one mosque, where Sunnis and Shia worship together. Intermarriage is common, with mixed families that include Arabs, Kurds, Sunnis, Shia, Turkmen, Assyrians, and Caldeans. The Obstacles To Democracy Are Being Overcome To Foment Sectarian Division, The Enemy Is Employing Saddam's Tactics - Killing And Terrorizing The Iraqi People.
The Free Citizens Of A Free Iraq Are Calling Saddam Hussein To Account. The former dictator is answering to a judge instead of meting out arbitrary justice - and Iraqis are replacing the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law. Victory In Iraq Is Critical To American Security Our Work In Iraq Is Difficult But Vital To Our Security. The terrorists know that when freedom sets root in Iraq, it will be a mortal blow to their aspirations to dominate the region and advance their hateful vision. They are determined to stop the advance of freedom in Iraq, and we must be equally determined to stop them. If We Leave Iraq Before The Iraqi People Are Capable Of Defending Their Own Democracy, The Terrorists Will Win. The Iraqi government is still in transition, and Iraqi Security Forces are still gathering capacity. If we leave Iraq before they are capable of defending their own democracy, the terrorists will achieve their stated goal: they will turn Iraq into a safe haven, seek to arm themselves with weapons of mass murder, and use Iraq as a base to overthrow moderate governments in the Middle East and launch more attacks against America and other free nations.
|
For Immediate Release
Remarks by the Vice President at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and
Museum
10:41 A.M. PST
Senator Kerry's voting record on national security raises some important questions all by itself. Let's begin with the matter of how Iraq and Saddam Hussein should have been dealt with. Senator Kerry was in the minority of senators who voted against the Persian Gulf War in 1991. At the time, he expressed the view that our international coalition consisted of " shadow battlefield allies who barely carry a burden." Last year, as we prepared to liberate Iraq, he recalled the Persian Gulf coalition a little differently. He said it was a "strong coalition," and a model to be followed. Six years after the Gulf War, in 1997, Saddam Hussein was still defying the terms of the cease-fire. And as President Bill Clinton considered military action against Iraq, he found a true believer in John Kerry. The Senator from Massachusetts said, quote, "Should the resolve of our allies wane, the United States must not lose its resolve to take action." He further warned that if Saddam Hussein were not held to account for violation of U.N. resolutions, some future conflict would have " greater consequence." In 1998, Senator Kerry indicated his support for regime change, with ground troops if necessary. And, of course, when Congress voted in October of 2002, Senator Kerry voted to authorize military action if Saddam refused to comply with U.N. demands. A neutral observer, looking at these elements of Senator Kerry's record, would assume that Senator Kerry supported military action against Saddam Hussein. The Senator himself now tells us otherwise. In January he was asked on TV if he was, quote, "one of the anti-war candidates." He replied, "I am." He now says he was voting only to, quote, "threaten the use of force," not actually to use force. Even if we set aside these inconsistencies and changing rationales, at least this much is clear: Had the decision belonged to Senator Kerry, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, today, in Iraq. In fact, Saddam Hussein would almost certainly still be in control of Kuwait. (Laughter.) Senator Kerry speaks often about the need for international cooperation, and has vowed to usher in a "golden age of American diplomacy." He is fond of mentioning that some countries did not support America's actions in Iraq. Yet of the many nations that have joined our coalition - allies and friends of the United States - Senator Kerry speaks with open contempt. Great Britain, Australia, Italy, Spain, Poland, and more than 20 other nations have contributed and sacrificed for the freedom of the Iraqi people. Senator Kerry calls these countries, quote, "window dressing." They are, in his words, "a coalition of the coerced and the bribed." Many questions come to mind, but the first is this: How would Senator Kerry describe Great Britain - coerced, or bribed? Or Italy - which recently lost 19 citizens, killed by terrorists in Najaf - was Italy's contribution just window dressing? If such dismissive terms are the vernacular of the golden age of diplomacy Senator Kerry promises, we are left to wonder which nations would care to join any future coalition. He speaks as if only those who openly oppose America's objectives have a chance of earning his respect. Senator Kerry's characterization of our good allies is ungrateful to nations that have withstood danger, hardship, and insult for standing with America in the cause of freedom. Senator Kerry has also had a few things to say about support for our troops now on the ground in Iraq. Among other criticisms, he has asserted that those troops are not receiving the materiel support they need. Just this morning, he again gave the example of body armor, which he said our administration failed to supply. May I remind the Senator that last November, at the President's request, Congress passed an $87 billion supplemental appropriation. This legislation was essential to our ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan - providing funding for body armor and other vital equipment; hazard pay; health benefits; ammunition; fuel, and spare parts for our military. The legislation passed overwhelmingly, with a vote in the Senate of 87 to 12. Senator Kerry voted no. I note that yesterday, attempting to clarify the matter, Senator Kerry said, quote, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." (Laughter.) It's a true fact. (Laughter.) On national security, the Senator has shown at least one measure of consistency. Over the years, he has repeatedly voted against weapons systems for the military. He voted against the Apache helicopter, against the Tomahawk cruise missile, against even the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. He has also been a reliable vote against military pay increases - opposing them no fewer than 12 times. Many of these very weapons systems have been used by our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are proving to be valuable assets in the war on terror. In his defense, of course, Senator Kerry has questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all. Recently he said, and I quote, "I don't want to use that terminology." In his view, opposing terrorism is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering, law enforcement operation. As we have seen, however, that approach was tried before, and proved entirely inadequate to protecting the American people from the terrorists who are quite certain they are at war with us - and are comfortable using that terminology. I leave it for Senator Kerry to explain, or explain away his votes and his statements about the war on terror, our cause in Iraq, the allies who serve with us, and the needs of our military. Whatever the explanation, whatever nuances he might fault us for neglecting, it is not an impressive record for someone who aspires to become Commander-in-Chief in this time of testing for our country. In his years in Washington, Senator Kerry has been one vote of a hundred in the United States Senate - and fortunately on matters of national security, he was very often in the minority. But the presidency is an entirely different proposition. The President always casts the deciding vote. And the Senator from Massachusetts has given us ample doubts about his judgment and the attitude he brings to bear on vital issues of national security. The American people will have a clear choice in the election of 2004, at least as clear as any since the election of 1984. In more than three years as President, George W. Bush has built a national security record of his own. America has come to know the President after one of the worst days in our history. He saw America through tragedy. He has kept the nation's enemies in desperate flight, and under his leadership, our country has once again led the armies of liberation, freeing 50 million souls from tyranny, and making our nation and the world more secure. (Applause.) All Americans, regardless of political party, can be proud of what our nation has achieved in this historic time, when so many depended on us, and all the world was watching. And I have been very proud to work with a President who - like other Presidents we have known - has shown, in his own conduct, the optimism, and strength, and decency of the great nation he serves. Thank you very much. (Applause.) END 11:08 A.M. PST
KERRY AND THE BIG DIG
Critics question candidate's links to project's insurerWASHINGTON -- A Senate colleague was trying to close a loophole that allowed a major insurer to divert millions of federal dollars from the Big Dig. Senator John F. Kerry stepped in and blocked the legislation. Over the next two years, the insurer, American International Group, paid Kerry's way on a trip to Vermont and donated at least $30,000 to a tax-exempt group Kerry used to set up his presidential campaign. Company executives donated $18,000 to his Senate and presidential campaigns. Were the two connected? Kerry says not. But some government watchdogs said they see the tale of the Massachusetts senator's 2000 intervention, detailed in documents obtained by the Associated Press, as a textbook case of the special interest politicking that Kerry rails against on the presidential trail. "The idea that Kerry has not helped or benefited from a specific special interest, which he has said, is utterly absurd," said Charles Lewis, head of the Center for Public Integrity , which just published a book on political donations to the presidential candidates. "Anyone who gets millions of dollars over time, and thousands of dollars from specific donors, knows there's a symbiotic relationship. He needs the donors' money. The donors need favors. Welcome to Washington. That is how it works." Kerry's office confirmed yesterday that as a member of the Senate Commerce Committee he persuaded committee chairman John S. McCain, Republican of Arizona, to drop a provision that would have stripped $150 million from the project and ended the insurance funding loophole. The Massachusetts Democrat actually was angered by the loophole but didn't want money stripped from the project because it would hurt his constituents who needed the Boston project finished, spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said. When the "AIG investment scheme [came] to light, John Kerry called for public hearings to investigate the parties involved and the legality of the investment practices. However, he firmly believed cutting funding for the Big Dig was not the answer," Cutter said. Instead of McCain's bluntly worded legislation, Kerry asked for a committee hearing in May 2000. Kerry thanked McCain at the start of the hearing for dropping his legislation, and an AIG executive was permitted to testify that he believed the company's work for the Big Dig was a good thing even though it was criticized by federal auditors. "From the perspective of public and worker safety and cost control, AIG's insurance program has been a success," AIG executive Richard Thomas testified. Asked why Kerry would subsequently accept a trip and money from AIG in 2001 and 2002 if he was angered by the investment scheme, Cutter replied: "Any contributions AIG made to the senator's campaign came years after the investigation." The New York-based insurer, one of the world's largest, declined to comment on its donations to Kerry, simply stating, "AIG never requested any assistance from Senator Kerry concerning the insurance we provided the Big Dig." During the 1990s, Kerry and the state's senior senator, Democrat Edward M. Kennedy, helped win new federal funding for the project as its costs skyrocketed. In 1998, Kerry was credited with winning $100 million in new federal funding. But in 1999, the Transportation Department uncovered a financing scheme in which the project had overpaid $129.8 million to AIG for worker compensation and liability insurance that wasn't needed, then had allowed the insurer to keep the money in a trust and invest it in the market. The government alleged AIG kept about half of the profits it made from the investments. Outraged, McCain submitted legislation that would have stripped $150 million from the Big Dig and banned the practice of allowing an insurer to invest and profit from excessive premiums paid with government money. But Kerry and Kennedy intervened, and McCain withdrew the legislation in 2000 in favor of the hearing. In September 2001, Kerry disclosed to the Senate ethics office that AIG had paid an estimated $540 in travel expenses for a speech Kerry gave in Burlington, Vt. A few months later in December 2001, several AIG executives gave maximum $1,000 donations to Kerry's Senate campaign on the same day. The donations totaled $9,700 and were followed by several thousand dollars more over the next two years. The next spring, AIG donated $10,000 to a new tax-exempt group Kerry formed, the Citizen Soldier Fund, to lay groundwork for his presidential campaign. Later in 2002, AIG gave two more donations of $10,000 each to the same group, making it one of the group's largest corporate donors. Representative James P. McGovern, Democrat of Worcester, credited Kerry for getting McCain's legislation blocked in favor of a hearing, saying Massachusetts lawmakers "were on the side of good government here but also concerned the language might go too far and put more of a burden on a Massachusetts project."
© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.
Dan's Bake Sale: The Four-Part Series... In Fort Collins Colorodo
High speed Part1 Part2 Part3 Part4 56k low speed Part1 Part2 Part3 Part4
|
If you don't like my page
All I can say is.....
I'll hug your Elephant if you Kiss my America
Home Blog Photo Gallery Opportunities Products Contact About Me Resume Page1 Page2 Politics --- Live Journal
Politics Favorite Links Recommended Downloads
Red
Skeleton on Patriotism
Eye Brow Lies
I
raised the Taxes too much
Ron
Wyden can't find Bosnia
Kennedy babbles
5 Principles
Nutty over Mummy
Patsy
Schroeder on Martha Washington
CellPhoney Cancer
America Has Lost it's Soul
Laugh Cry
Koko the Gorilla
Oil Ignorance and
brainwashing
il
prices are always in the news, and yet because we've failed so miserably
to teach economics in this country, most people have no idea how they're
set. They seem to think that there are some Big Oil guys who control the
price. It was their fault, we were told, when the prices spiked during
Clinton's last days - even though the truth was that the failure to
build refineries, useless environmental regulations and an
over-dependence on foreign oil caused the spike.
