Unemployment is barely over 5%. Drop the polemic distortions and try using facts to back up your position.

You can find anything I say offensive; that's nothing new. However, while I think it's honorable to fight for your country (I guess I believe the same thing as McCain and Bush), I do think that your service can be measured and neither Kerry nor Bush really impress me with their service. Does my service, or lack there of, compare with either of theirs? No. There is nothing wrong with me saying that and I would hope that you could try and stop picking at everything I say.

-Rudey

I am curious about something that I hope a Bush supporter can answer. I know that one of the central themes of the Bush campaign has been how Sen. Kerry "flip-flops" on critical issues, while Bush has been firm in his convictions-which is the hallmark of a true commander in chief, according to most Republicans I have heard. But, didn't Bush oppose the 9/11 commission before it convened, but now he accepts its conclusions-which really point to the failures of his intelligence people since it did happen on BUSH'S watch? And since it happened, who took the blame for it? Was anyone fired? Rumsfeld? Rice? Cheney? Anyone???

And what about Yasser Arafat and the PLO? The U.S. is still funding money to him, even though we know that it's not going to the Palestinians who really need it, but into Arafat's pockets. Obviously Bush knows that we are basically funding Arafat's terrorists activities, so Arafat is killing with our money. Why? And before any of you say it doesn't matter what Arafat does, or how it affects the U.S., I say that if we put ourselves in the position of being the world's peacekeepers, it does directly affect us, because the war on terror is a global war.

And if nuclear poliferation really is important in the war on terror, then what is Bush going to do about Iran? Bush did say that Iran is in the "Axis of Evil" with Iraq and North Korea. And really, the whole world knows that Iran is on the verge of becoming nuclear, just like North Korea. While I agree that the U.S. doesn't need approval from France or any other EU country, how will he disarm Iran? Get Israel to take them out? Send troops to Iran?

To me, these are some of the things that are important to me. And since President Bush's message to me is that he is the one to trust to fight the war on terror, I would like to see some discussion about this by some Bush supporters...

Let me ask you something. Did bush flip-flop and change his answer over and over again to basically try and appeal to every voting population on the 9/11 commission?

To me the Iraq warn and Kerry's flip-flopping on it was important because it presents a path I don't want to see. More importantly, this is an issue I have with his Israel policy. He has attacked Israel and supported Arafat among some crowds and then sends his brother over to Israel and publishes a memo to say that he is strongly pro-Israel. Put all the damn politics aside. I read 2 newspapers every day from Israel alone. I am someone who is alive because of the country and its alliance with America. For me that flip-flop is presenting a risk that makes me very scared. I'm sorry but I can't accept it. Had Kerry not made the comments he did, I'd honestly be very confused because he is essentially presenting Bush's policies as his own in Iraq and saying he would be very pro-Israel. It would be very difficult for me to decide who to vote for based on foreign policy then. But this isn't the case.

You brought up Arafat and you're completely correct. This terrorist should have been killed in Libya when Israel had him in the target of a rifle but America didn't allow it. At the same time, this isn't just America. America is not the sole country in this world. The world would not allow this. America has supported Israel at very high levels and worked to isolate Arafat who has stolen from his own people. But it is the countries in the EU that meet with Arafat. It is France that hosts his wife. It was France that managed to introduce a bloody murderer into Iran named the Ayatollah, France that supports this shit bag, and France that propped up Saddam hussein. However why don't you look at what else is happening under Bush. Israel is withdrawing from lands formerly occupied by Egypt and Jordan and heavily populated by Arabs. What has Kerry said he would do with Arafat?? I will tell you that he's presented comment at 2 ends of the spectrum and I'm unwilling to accept that risk.

On Iran, America has been the striving force to confront Iran over its intentions. It was Bush who pushed European countries in the UN and the IEAE to confront the topic. It was America that released intelligence on their nuclear weapons pursuits. The thing is though that Iran, along with Iraq, and North Korea need to start being confronted by the world. It can't be America that constantly does the right thing while Europeans wash their hands with innocent blood over a little money.

At the end of the day it seems none of these topics will even be touched until after the election.

-Rudey

Thank you...See, there is room here for an intelligent exchange of ideas, and I appreciate your response. For me, there are flaws in both Kerry and Bush's positions, and this is one of the reasons that I wish we would hear more about Iran and Arafat, but of course the general population is not interesed in that. I mean, Israel is moving back to its pre 1967 borders, and we have to have a President who is willing to take a stance that is Pro-Israel, and not just kiss ass during election years because they want the Jewish vote. Both candidates are guilty of this in my opinion. Even with Kerry-polls show him with about 70% of the Jewish vote right now, but if he is elected, will he turn his back on those people? Look who he has around him- people from the Clinton administration who loved Arafat. They had Arafat at the White House back then and kissed his ass. We have to be consistent with Israel!

To answer your question, no Bush did not flip-flop. But neither did he acknowledge that it happened while he was in charge. I actually applaud Bush for accepting the findings of the commission- it was non-partisian and therefore more credible for me. I just wanted some acknowledgement in that 9/11 did happen while Bush was in charge, and as leader, there has to be some accountablility in terms of how this happened, and why it will not happen again. Whether it is from Rumsfeld or Cheney or Rice or Bush himself, if I am to vote for Bush, give me this guarantee. Of course, neither candidate can give that, so for me, one of many issues that will decide this election is do I base it on past actions, or future promises?

That he was in charge is merely stating the obvious. To go further than that is at least an implicit confession of fault. Why should he do that when he was in office for less than 9 months, and the institutions responsible for preventing 9-11 were (and are still not) capable of being reformed in 9 months? The WTC was attacked at the beginning of the Clinton Administration. No one would reasonably argue that the 1993 bombing was Clinton's fault. After that happened, he did have 7 1/2 years to do something. More than 8 years passed from the first WTC attack until the second one. That was plenty of time to determine institutional problems, and implement remedies. Nothing significant was done. As I see it, 9-11 could have been prevented, but not in 9 months. The person who needs to ask America for forgiveness is William Jefferson Clinton, and he's not running for office this year.

Hello Brother Russ...

This is one of those moments that we will have to agree to disagree. Because I feel that Bush presided over the worse failure in American intelligence history, and whether it was nine months or nine days or four years, being Commander in Chief is not a "learn on the job" job. The fact is, BUSH was president on 09-11-2001, not Bill Clinton, and the United States was attacked. When the president takes the oath of office, he HAS to be ready to defend this country. Maybe that's unfair and unrealistic, but I would feel the same about Kerry if he were to win. The U.S. cannot be vulnerable during administration changes-I would hope that this is why there is a transition period so that the new administration can have time to make sure that we are protected.

Yes, Clinton should be held responsible for the 1993 WTC attack, but to say that 9/11 was his fault is not appropriate, in my opinion. So my question is simply this-How much time is needed to make sure that this does not happen again? I mean, why should we say that, "yeah it happened, but hey, Bush needed more time to learn the ropes"? We would be quite the forgiving bosses if that were the case.

But on the bright side...You are still my brother...

You seem to make this a Bush runs everything scenario. To me it was not just Bush that failed in allowing 9/11 to happen. I blame every president since Carter along with every government official that had the ability to make an effort to stop this. I don't give a damn whether they are Democrat or Republican, black/white/Mohican. But most of all I blame the killers and murderers and the countries they came from.

-Rudey

Some facts about the economy during the Bush administration.

* Families filing personal bankruptcy set records in 2002 & 2003, in 2003 personal bankruptcies had increased 33% since 2000.

*Bush predicted that the tax cuts would stimulate the economy and create 306,000 new jobs each month, Since the tax bill became law on May 28, 2003 the economy has missed that mark 10 out of 12 months.

*Bush has the worst jobs record of any president running for re-election 1.9 million private sector jobs have been lost since Bush took office.

*Bush has the worst post war economic recovery in history only 142,000 private sector jobs have been created.

While you're busy copy and pasting and not thinking, please take a look at the chart provided earlier from a liberal Democrat newspaper showing employment. Thanks.

-Rudey

Hey chump just presenting the facts your BS chart didn't tell the real story about what's happening in America.

What the hell are you talking about?!?

You're saying it's my chart? No, try again. I don't go around creating economic charts. It is a correct chart that was published in the New York Times.

It doesn't tell the real story about what's happening? But it shows employment movements?? What?

Hey sonny, I'm sorry you can't back up your hot air with facts. I'm also sorry you couldn't address my question earlier to tell me what economic policies bush put into place that hurt people and how. You want to talk about Economics, do it. Please tell me you're an educated voter.

-Rudey

Listen I know your spineless and mindless but aren't the facts that I posted a telling story that Bush's economic policy isn't working, Kid grow some balls and get off mine.

No response? By the way if you're having a difficult life in the last four years it's probably because you're sinning. You are a sinner and are going to hell and that's why the lord hasn't blessed you with great economic benefits!

-Rudey

I see why you defend Bush, so do you hear God talking to you as well.....that had to be the most full of sh#t response ever....and for the record I'm doing quite well financially w/the blessings of the lord. Get your mind right kid are you a psych patient running amok on the state hospital's computer?