Troops back Bush 4-to-1 over Kerry

Osama is not pleased infidels

Osama has told me he is not pleased about this my friends. :angry:

Ali bin Gali - "Terrorists for Kerry"

Troops in survey back Bush 4-to-1 over Kerry

Two-thirds of those responding said John Kerry’s anti-war activities after he returned from Vietnam make them less likely to vote for him.
In the survey of more than 4,000 full-time and part-time troops, 73% said they would vote for Bush if the election were held today; 18% said they would vote for Kerry.
Military personnel who responded to the survey said they were generally happy with their jobs: 73% said they would re-enlist.

When it comes to Iraq, Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards just don’t get it.

If a neutral observer simply listened to the Kerry campaign, he probably would think coalition forces were losing in Iraq. For example, during one of the presidential debates, Sen. Kerry said, “the president made a mistake in invading Iraq.”

Sen. Edwards’ argument against the Iraq invasion rests on the fact that Saddam Hussein wasn’t the one who attacked us on 9/11. This is consistent with Kerry’s previous remark that we “traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.”

The facts tell a different story. The war in Iraq has achieved three national security objectives. Coalition forces ended Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction program, ended his support for terrorism and ended his dangerous regime – a dictatorship that threatened the world.

Iraq maintained the ability to produce weapons of mass destruction. And it wasn’t just the CIA that said so. So did the United Nations. So did every foreign intelligence agency, including the Germans and the French.

The U.N. Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, which gave Saddam one last chance to disarm or prove he had disarmed. He didn’t.

The Duelfer Report (search) notes that Saddam had retained the capability to produce WMDs. “[Saddam] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted,” the report says.

It is true Saddam didn’t have the large stockpiles the world thought he did. Nevertheless, he had the ability to produce such weapons. With hindsight we can see Saddam’s plan was to continue the process of eroding sanctions until they were lifted. Once this happened, Saddam would have had a free hand to re-arm as he saw fit. By removing the regime from power, the U.S. achieved one of its primary goals: Eliminating the threat from Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.

As to the second goal, it’s clear Saddam Hussein supported terrorism.

Ansar-al-Islam (search) was a terrorist organization set up by Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda. In “Hunting Down Saddam, The Inside Story of the Search and Capture,” best-selling author Robin Moore explains how in the opening days of the war, U.S. Special Forces – along with Kurdish fighters – attacked and shut down the world’s largest known terrorist base, Ansar al-Islam’s facility in Iraq.

The Abu Nidal (search) network, which was responsible for the attack on the Achille Lauro (search), also found sanctuary in Iraq. And it’s well known that Saddam gave cash rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. When U.S. forces chased Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (search) out of Afghanistan, he found safe haven in Iraq. Al-Zarqawi’s terrorist network began training well before the U.S. invasion.

It’s not difficult to connect the dots and predict that one day Saddam would have used his terrorist networks to carry out attacks abroad. Recently, we also have learned from Russian intelligence that Iraqi agents were planning terrorist attacks in the U.S. By removing Saddam’s regime from power, we eliminated his ability to export terrorism.

Finally, Saddam Hussein was a threat to the region. He fought Iran for nearly a decade, invaded Kuwait, launched missiles at Israel, used chemical weapons on his own people, continually defied the 1991 cease-fire agreement, shot at U.S. planes patrolling the no-fly zone and consistently undermined the credibility of the United States and the international community.

No one can doubt that this madman, with his history of aggression, was a source of instability in the region. The status quo simply would not do.

When the president’s critics speak of arbitrary timetables and artificial deadlines, remember what the president said when visiting American forces last Thanksgiving. “We did not charge hundreds of miles into the heart of Iraq, pay a bitter cost in casualties, defeat a brutal dictator and liberate 25 million people only to retreat before a band of thugs and assassins.”

Saddam used WMD, maintained the capability to produce them until his last day in power, supported terrorism, and posed a serious threat. Kerry and Edwards don’t seem to understand any of this. When it comes to the global war on terrorism, they just don’t get it.

Jack Spencer is a senior policy analyst for defense and national security at The Heritage Foundation. Craig Carauana, an intern at Heritage, also contributed to this article.

By Jack Spencer

The facts are the facts.

I can’t help but think that the only reason people support Kerry/Edwards is because they are still upset over the 2000 election. Or maybe it’s because they are democrat and the same people are more inclined to believe the democrats over republicans. Either way I guess it doesn’t really matter. Most people seem to pick their favorite team regardless of which team is better.

Truthseeker… keep seeking. You might actually find the truth someday…

Turn down the volume on Fox News (Oxymoron) and make up what is being said… it will be much more accurate.


Quote (DrGuitar @ Oct. 20 2004,14:09)
Truthseeker...... keep seeking. You might actually find the truth someday...

No, dumb ass...

keep listening to Kerry and you might actually hear every side of the story.

Get your head out of your ass and you might try to hear the facts! ???

Truth Seeker,
While I respect your noble undertaking, I must advise you that you may as well be talking to a rock than to try to reason with the liberals that now infest this board. You are outnumbered here, my friend. Try not to give yourself a headache as you bang your head on the wall. :;):

You know I started out a bit harsh. Some on this board didn’t seem to get at what I was saying and it pissed me off.

However, the “liberals” on this board have some valid arguments. I am willing to entertain their perspective and all I ask is that mine is given the same.

BTW, there is plenty of headbanging going on, just not against the wall or over this debate. :;):

Quote (Guest @ Oct. 26 2004,15:12)
... I am willing to entertain their perspective and all I ask is that mine is given the same....

You expect far too much from the average liberal. Whatever valid points you make will most likely be ignored, or "shouted down" in true liberal fashion. You are not dealing with reasonable beings here; they know only rhetoric and slogans, chants and lies, and seething hatred for Bush since he was elected. They are so blinded by this hatred for the president that they are falling for the used-car-salesman approach of St. Moore, and the never-ending pandering of John Kerry. Poor souls, they be.

There’s definately a spiritual battle going on.


Mr. (or Ms, Mrs, or other) Found The Truth, feel free to join in any time. The water is warm. :cool:

More bad news for the Lurchurian Candidate my friends …

Ali bin Gali :cool:

Vietnamese Americans mostly ignore ‘war hero’ Kerry, support Bush
AFP: 10/16/2004

FALLS CHURCH, Virginia, Oct 17 (AFP) - White House aspirant John Kerry is hailed by his Democratic Party as a Vietnam War hero but the senator is waging an uphill battle convincing 1.5 million Vietnamese Americans to vote for him.
Many of them are expected to vote for incumbent George W. Bush in the November 2 presidential polls because decorated naval officer Kerry returned from combat to denounce the United States for going to war against then communist North Vietnam, community leaders say.

Another reason Vietnamese Americans are reluctant to vote for Kerry, who spent four months in South Vietnam, is that he blocked legislation intended to force the current communist government in Vietnam to stop human rights abuses.

A bill tying US aid to improvement on the human rights record in Vietnam was passed 410 to 1 in the House of Representatives three years ago but Kerry blocked it in the Senate, preferring constructive diplomacy.

Following pressure from rights groups which have long charged the communist regime with smothering all dissent and jailing democracy or human rights activists, the bill was resuscitated and again passed the House this year with a 323-45 majority.

The Senate did not endorse it before breaking up for polls.

“Obviously most Vietnamese Americans who lost their homeland to the communists do not like Senator Kerry because he was antiwar and he denigrated the cause of the South,” said Dan Hoang, representative of an advocacy group promoting awareness among Vietnamese American voters.

“But the key reason many of them are expected to vote against him in this election is that he has been very nonsupportive of human rights in Vietnam, which is by far the most predominant issue of the community here,” said Hoang from the Vietnamese American Public Affairs Committee.

At the Eden shopping centre in Falls Church, one of many business areas that cater to the large Vietnamese community in northern Virginia, some establishments displayed posters backing President Bush and running mate Vice President Dick Cheney.

Kerry’s Democratic Party campaigners, who arrived in a van equipped with loudspeakers to woo shoppers, were told they were in unwelcome territory.

“Kerry, go home. We support Bush,” shouted a silver haired ex-military officer with the South Vietnamese government, suggesting that Kerry had abetted the communists and caused American prisoners of war to be not released by his vociferous antiwar campaign on his return from duty.

“We will continue to demand for human rights in our motherland,” he said, repeatedly pointing to a yellow flag with three red stripes fluttering beside the US Stars and Stripes flag on long poles outside the shopping center.

The yellow-red flag represented South Vietnam before the nation fell into enemy hands but Vietnamese American leaders say it is a symbol of resilience and freedom deeply rooted in the cultural heritage of the community.

They have successfully lobbied 70 US counties and cities and several states to pass resolutions honoring and recognizing the flag.

“Our simple understanding is that Kerry supports the communist government in Vietnam. How do you expect us to back a person who supports a brutal regime from which we fled and risked our lives in the process,” said Toam Nguen, 60, a noodle shop owner at Eden Center.

Choked with emotion, he said he had to flee by boat in a perilous journey with his family to the United States on the eve of the fall of South Vietnam to the communists in 1975.

“Now you know why I will cast my vote for President Bush? I have also told my daughter, who is 20 years old, to vote for Mr Bush but I leave it entirely to her to decide,” Nguen said.

While Nguen and other older Vietnamese Americans see Kerry as a turncoat, many younger voters are more open-minded, Hoang said.

Some are eager to put the war behind them and move on, and this is the group which is expected to vote for Kerry, political observers say.

Hoang said that initially, Vietnamese Americans were probably overwhelmingly Republican because of the perception that the party was anti-communist but over time, younger members of the community became Democrats because of “social issues.”

“I would say the predominance of voter registration is probably still Republican.”

Survey shows troops, families support Bush

October 2004

WASHINGTON – The Bush administration’s concerted effort to make sure members of the military vote and have their votes counted could pay off as a survey released yesterday showed overwhelming support for the president among service personnel and their families.
The polling by the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg National Election Survey showed 69 percent of the surveyed military population had a favorable view of Bush, while only 23 percent had a favorable opinion of Sen. John Kerry.
Asked a similar question on whom they trusted more to be commander-in-chief, the service personnel and their family members chose Bush over Kerry 69 percent to 24 percent.

Soldiers’ wives, gather in Tilton to support Bush and Iraq war

AP Staff Writer

TILTON — With controversy over Iraq becoming an increasingly hot topic as the election approaches, a number of military wives and mothers are stepping forward into the political arena to support their loved ones who remain in harm’s way.
On Thursday, Gerry Duncan, a military wife from the southern part of the state, said she was unhappy with claims from Kerry that the troops oppose Bush.
She quoted polling numbers from a military newspaper that showed that 74 percent of active-duty troops support Bush, while only 17 percent are backing Kerry.

“Those are the facts that don’t make the papers,” said Duncan.
More than one of the women said they are upset with efforts by the “partisan media” to depict only the negative happenings of war.

Partisan Media ? :;):