[BlackGriffen]

Those who read fast can download the 263 page pdf file. For the rest of us, there are the highlights. The section titles are (a summary of the summary, as it were):

• Restore America's Respect in the World and Make us Independent of Mideast Oil
  -Launch and Lead A New Era Of Alliances.
  -Modernize The World's Most Powerful Military To Meet New Threats.
  -Deploy All That Is In America's Arsenal. (they mean diplomacy - not WMDs)
  -Free America From Its Dangerous Dependence On Mideast Oil.
• Create New Jobs, Strengthen the Middle Class, and Ensure Educational Opportunity
  -Reward Companies that Create Jobs in America.
  -Strengthen the Middle Class.
  -Invest in the Jobs of the Future.
  -Restore Fiscal Discipline to Washington.
• Provide High-Quality Health Care, Improve Education, and Strengthen Families
  -Up to $1,000 of Health Care Premium Relief
  -A Health Plan for Every Child
  -Manage Skyrocketing Health Care Costs
  -World Class Education
  -Every Classroom Has a Great Teacher
  -Every Young Person Graduates

They certainly sing a pretty tune...

I must admit that I don't know how specific they get in the book - I'm one of the slow reader people. It's certainly an improvement over what they had a week ago, though.

BlackGriffen

[RAILhead]

Meh. Sounds like a broken record/carbon copy of every other Presidentail candidate in the history of the US. Actually, it sounds more like some of the generalities you'd hear a kid saying as he gave his/her speech during high school graduation.

"When I grow up, I hope to..."

Not impressed with these "details," sorry.

Maury

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:

-Every Classroom Has a Great Teacher

Will they have nice smiles?

Can every classroom have a pet rabbit? I like rabbits.

[Naplander]

Go Kerry

[ebuddy]

Go Tony Blair!

[typoon]

I wonder why Kery hasn't said anything about Heinz shipping so many jobs abroad. I wonder if he will say/do anything about it if he were to become president. I wonder if the Tax incentives that he plans on giving would bring back some Heinz Jobs to the US.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by typoon:
I wonder why Kery hasn't said anything about Heinz shipping so many jobs abroad. I wonder if he will say/do anything about it if he were to become president. I wonder if the Tax incentives that he plans on giving would bring back some Heinz Jobs to the US.

Of course not. That's "real world" stuff, political promises are just make-believe. Everyone knows that. Right?

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Of course not. That's "real world" stuff, political promises are just make-believe. Everyone knows that. Right?

Cuz...you know, going to war on bad intelligence and propping it up as good intelligence to falsely convince the American people that the war was a good idea, then tiptoeing around the revelation of that fact to just say, "aren't we safer, though?"...trying to amend the constitution to remove a right from a minority group that just so happens to have a lot of people afraid of them...diplomatic incompetence...and a general "f**k you, I'm right." attitude to the world and much of the country wouldn't be that "real world" stuff you're talking about would it?

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by typoon:
I wonder why Kery hasn't said anything about Heinz shipping so many jobs abroad. I wonder if he will say/do anything about it if he were to become president. I wonder if the Tax incentives that he plans on giving would bring back some Heinz Jobs to the US.

In case you're not aware, Kerry and his wife have little or nothing to do with Heinz Corp. decisions. It's a public company, with stockholders, and a board of directors, and they determine what happens to the company. Terese Heinz Kerry runs the Heinz Foundations, which are very active in local communities and in giving back. She is a hands-on type, and is very involved; she puts her money where her mouth is.

[typoon]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
Cuz...you know, going to war on bad intelligence and propping it up as good intelligence to falsely convince the American people that the war was a good idea, then tiptoeing around the revelation of that fact to just say, "aren't we safer, though?"...trying to amend the constitution to remove a right from a minority group that just so happens to have a lot of people afraid of them...diplomatic incompetence...and a general "f**k you, I'm right." attitude to the world and much of the country wouldn't be that "real world" stuff you're talking about would it?

Does it really matter? Bush Didn't just get bad intel from the CIA he got it from The Russians and The Brits. He did what he had to on the intel he was given.
We got rid of a ruthless dictator we are Taking the War against Radical Islam to them. We KNOW he had WMD since he gassed his own people. He also has been violating the terms of the first cease fire after the first gulfwar so that alone would warrant military action. Saddam Violated just about ever resolution the UN set forth yet all they still wanted to do was to keep telling him to stop and not do anything about it. resolution 1441 Authorized the use of force if Saddam didn't follow it. He didn't So the US and her Allies did what they had to.

If the liberals in this country and elsewhere would stop there whining and there Hatred for Bush and unite to destroy Radical Islam then the world would be better off. We ALL need to do what needs to be done to fight these scumbags.

We can't just talk and tell them not to hurt us. We also can't just not do anthing and think they won't hurt us. They HATE the west and everything we stand for. Radical Islam needs to be DESTROYED. If it means giving up a few civil liberties to make the country safer so be it. I would rather give up a few civil liberties then get hit again.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by typoon:
Does it really matter? Bush Didn't just get bad intel from the CIA he got it from The Russians and The Brits. He did what he had to on the intel he was given.

Poor George, he's such a victim. The buck stops everywhere and anywhere but him. Blaming the CIA is a stretch - the White House was trying to push the envelope on Iraq and WMDs, and the CIA pulled them back several times. And blaming other countries is just absurd. Since when do we base our actions on intelligence from other countries without confirming it ourselves?

We got rid of a ruthless dictator we are Taking the War against Radical Islam to them.

I agree that we are at war with radical Islamists. In a way it's similar to our wars with the ideologies of fascism in the 40s and communism after that. But Iraq was one of the least radical Islamist countries in the Middle East. And now there's a damn good chance it could become a radical Islamist haven. Saddam was certainly a dictator, but your suggestion that the Iraqi war was part of a larger war against radical Islam just doesn't fly. IMO, if we wanted to fight a war against radical Islamists, just about the worst thing we could do is go to Iraq.

[typoon]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Poor George, he's such a victim. The buck stops everywhere and anywhere but him. Blaming the CIA is a stretch - the White House was trying to push the envelope on Iraq and WMDs, and the CIA pulled them back several times. And blaming other countries is just absurd. Since when do we base our actions on intelligence from other countries without confirming it ourselves? I agree that we are at war with radical Islamists. In a way it's similar to our wars with the ideologies of fascism in the 40s and communism after that. But Iraq was one of the least radical Islamist countries in the Middle East. And now there's a damn good chance it could become a radical Islamist haven. Saddam was certainly a dictator, but your suggestion that the Iraqi war was part of a larger war against radical Islam just doesn't fly. IMO, if we wanted to fight a war against radical Islamists, just about the worst thing we could do is go to Iraq.

Why is blaming the CIA a stretch? Where does he get his intel from? The The local police? They CIA is supposed to be THE intelligence gathering organization in the gov't for things that happen in the world. There were lapese everywhere but the intel on Iraq had to come from somewhere, he didn't just pull it out of the Hat. Also there were known terrorist training camps in Iraq. They may or may not have been related to Osama but If there are terrorist camps then Iraq is part of the war on terror.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by typoon:
Why is blaming the CIA a stretch? Where does he get his intel from? The The local police? They CIA is supposed to be THE intelligence gathering organization in the gov't for things that happen in the world. There were lapese everywhere but the intel on Iraq had to come from somewhere, he didn't just pull it out of the Hat.

Blaming the CIA is a stretch because of what I said in my next sentence - that the CIA was trying to pull the White House back, but the White House just kept pushing it.

Here's one example:

Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley (search), in a rare on-the-record session with reporters, said that he had received two memos from the CIA and a phone call from agency Director George Tenet (search)_last October raising objections to an allegation that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium ore from Africa to use in building nuclear weapons.

As a result, Hadley said the offending passage was excised from a speech on Iraq the president gave in Cincinnati last Oct. 7. But Hadley suggested that details from the memos and phone call had slipped from his attention as the State of the Union was being put together.'

The CIA wrote several memos and Tenet personally called to stop the President from talking about Iraq-Africa nuclear contacts. They actually got them to take it out of a speech in October 2002. But then just a few months later, it slipped back into the State of the Union.

There are many other examples like that. Here's an article talking about this. Although it's partisan, it has a ton of linked sources, so you can judge for yourself whether it's accurate.

[doctorkeyser]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Blaming the CIA is a stretch because of what I said in my next sentence - that the CIA was trying to pull the White House back, but the White House just kept pushing it.

Here's one example:
The CIA wrote several memos and Tenet personally called to stop the President from talking about Iraq-Africa nuclear contacts. They actually got them to take it out of a speech in October 2002. But then just a few months later, it slipped back into the State of the Union.

There are many other examples like that. Here's an article talking about this. Although it's partisan, it has a ton of linked sources, so you can judge for yourself whether it's accurate.

Again, BRussell, please stop with all this quoting, backing up what you say, and displaying yer fancy lernin'. If your information does not come from Fox News, it is flat out false.

[OldManMac]

I just caught your sig, doctorkeyser. Hilarious!

[BRussell]

Originally posted by doctorkeyser:
Again, BRussell, please stop with all this quoting, backing up what you say, and displaying yer fancy lernin'. If your information does not come from Fox News, it is flat out false.

Did you see where that first link I used came from?

I had to go back and turn on signatures to see your signature: "More seldom than not, the movies gives us exquisite sex and wholesome violence, that underscores our values. Every two child did. I will."

I'm not sure I believe that. I'd love to see a video of him saying that.

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by typoon:
<snip>(BRussel covered it)

If the liberals in this country and elsewhere would stop there whining and there Hatred for Bush and unite to destroy Radical Islam then the world would be better off. We ALL need to do what needs to be done to fight these scumbags.

We can't just talk and tell them not to hurt us. We also can't just not do anthing and think they won't hurt us. They HATE the west and everything we stand for. Radical Islam needs to be DESTROYED. If it means giving up a few civil liberties to make the country safer so be it. I would rather give up a few civil liberties then get hit again.

That right there is the real problem with many people in this country. The idea that we shouldn't be allowed to disagree with a person in power in this country just give him a mandate to fight terrorism in a way we happen to disagree with is just absurd. I don't understand where the word "hate" comes from either. I don't hate Bush! I disagree with him and worry about anyone who says I shouldn't because he happens to lead us during a bad time in history.

And since when does Bush know everything about fighting terrorism? Why should disagreeing with him be a hinderance to that cause?

The idea that you would give a few civil liberties than take another attack is much, much worse though. That right there is what we cannot do or we lose the war. The whole reason we have those liberties is because our forefathers did not trust anyone to take them away and give them back again.

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by KarlG:
I just caught your sig, doctorkeyser. Hilarious!

is that real?

[typoon]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
That right there is the real problem with many people in this country. The idea that we shouldn't be allowed to disagree with a person in power in this country just give him a mandate to fight terrorism in a way we happen to disagree with is just absurd. I don't understand where the word "hate" comes from either. I don't hate Bush! I disagree with him and worry about anyone who says I shouldn't because he happens to lead us during a bad time in history.

And since when does Bush know everything about fighting terrorism? Why should disagreeing with him be a hinderance to that cause?

The idea that you would give a few civil liberties than take another attack is much, much worse though. That right there is what we cannot do or we lose the war. The whole reason we have those liberties is because our forefathers did not trust anyone to take them away and give them back again.

I didn't say you hated Bush, What I'm saying is many of the Liberals in this country DO hate him. Yes it is a bad time in history we got attacked. We need someone who is willing to fight back against these radical islamists and NOT just go at this as some law enforcement issue. I also didn't and am not saying he knows everything about fighting terrorism, no one does. We can't just go at these Radical Islamists like we would common criminals. They WANT to kill us and they have declared war on us and our way of life. We need to fight back.

I'm also not saying that the Gov't should be allowed to just go in for no reason and do searches and things. I'm saying that if you are on a watch list or are doing something susupicious they should be allowed to question and or detain you if they feel the need.

[BRussell]

The whole "they hate Bush" line is a ruse. I see no evidence that Kerry voters "hate" Bush any more than Bush voters "hate" Kerry or Democrats or Clinton, for example. If you look at their ads and websites, the Bush campaign has been more negative than the Kerry campaign. I'm so sick of all this Kerry-bashing! Why are conservatives so angry?

[doctorkeyser]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Why are conservatives so angry?

The impending loss by their infallible president is a tough pill to swallow.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by BRussell:
The whole "they hate Bush" line is a ruse. I see no evidence that Kerry voters "hate" Bush any more than Bush voters "hate" Kerry or Democrats or Clinton, for example. If you look at their ads and websites, the Bush campaign has been more negative than the Kerry campaign. I'm so sick of all this Kerry-bashing! Why are conservatives so angry?

I'm not angry, BR, FWIW.

Maury

[BRussell]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
I'm not angry, BR, FWIW.

Maury

No, you're not. I was just being sarcastic anyway.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by doctorkeyser:
The impending loss by their infallible president is a tough pill to swallow.

heh.

It seems the Dems can't do much better.
With the worst Republican president in history running for re-election,
There still ain't nobody willing to bet money on the Democrat winning in November.

Winning this election should be a no-brainer (pun intended) for the liberals. I mean, what more could they want? All they need is ONE PERSON that simply isn't as bad as Dubya. He doesn't even need to be all that good - merely adequate. But noooo, the looney left offers a new idiot - instead of the one we're familiar with.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
heh.

It seems the Dems can't do much better.
With the worst Republican president in history running for re-election,
There still ain't nobody willing to bet money on the Democrat winning in November.

Winning this election should be a no-brainer (pun intended) for the liberals. I mean, what more could they want? All they need is ONE PERSON that simply isn't as bad as Dubya. He doesn't even need to be all that good - merely adequate. But noooo, the looney left offers a new idiot - instead of the one we're familiar with.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
heh.

It seems the Dems can't do much better.
With the worst Republican president in history running for re-election,
There still ain't nobody willing to bet money on the Democrat winning in November.

Eh? What do you think this is? What do you think all of the people who've donated to the Kerry campaign have done?

Winning this election should be a no-brainer (pun intended) for the liberals. I mean, what more could they want? All they need is ONE PERSON that simply isn't as bad as Dubya. He doesn't even need to be all that good - merely adequate. But noooo, the looney left offers a new idiot - instead of the one we're familiar with.

*shrugs*

BG