This was passed to me, but I can't understand it. Maybe you can.

I'm trying to get all this political stuff straightened out in my head so I'll know how to vote come November. Right now, we have one guy saying one thing. Then the other guy says something else. Who to believe. Lemme see; have I got this straight?

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...

Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good..
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists- good...
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...

Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good...
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...

No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
No WMD found Iraq - bad...

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad...

Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...

Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good...
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...

Milosevic not yet convicted - good...
Saddam turned over for trial - bad...

Ahh, it'* so confusing!

Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax burden on Americans, and then calculates the "Tax Freedom Day". This is the day after which the money you earn goes to you, not the government. This year, tax freedom day was April 11th. That'* the earliest it has been since 1991. It'* latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in 2000. Notice anything special about those dates?

Recently, John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave no explanation and provided no data for this claim.

Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy men. Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas. Kerry owns four mansions, all worth several million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho is an old barn brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average A-frame).

Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does that sound right? The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has figured out a way to avoid paying his own.

Only 48 days until the election.

I vote noone! And always will!

Those are some very good points. And what about Kerry and the rest of the Democrats all backing the Afghan and Iraq campaigns 100% in a non-election year? Now what?

Gimme a break.

This reminds me-I was reading an editorial in the paper yesterday that began similarly to others I've read. It said the Clinton administration repeatedly warned the Bush administration that Osama bin Laden was a threat and that the Bush administration ignored it. Because I keep hearing it but don't know what source it came from, I was curious if there was any documentation or anything.

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...

Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...

Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...

Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax burden on Americans, and then calculates the "Tax Freedom Day". This is the day after which the money you earn goes to you, not the government. This year, tax freedom day was April 11th. That'* the earliest it has been since 1991. It'* latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in 2000. Notice anything special about those dates?

Things like this are designed to provoke thought in a particular direction on the basis that those who read it are either not aware of the facts or don't care to look them or accept partial truths.

Seems to me that top quality polictical leaders are in short supply on both sides of the border.

Cheers,

It is tradition that the Senate grant the President his wishes on matters of foreign policy. Rarely are such topics the subject of much debate among Senators.

Cheers,

Well you can blaim the majority of Americans for the same thing. Hell just look at the polls: http://uspolitics.about.com/library/...ts.htm#overall
MANY people that once approved of the Iraq invasion now don't. Who can blame them? WMD'* tured out to be a pipe dream, there were no ties to terrorists (there were some in north-east Iraq but Ansir Alislam wanted to overthrow Saddam for being outside "Islamist zone." i.e. not his friends), and he never threatened America. NOW we have a failed state thats a santuary for terrorists, well over 1000 dead, and the increasing number of 'insurgents' ARE a threat to America. Gee, what a wonderful job he'* done. *slides out the back door*

I disagree. I followed that whole charade VERY closely. Every Senator and Representative was ADAMANT about getting into Afghanistan as soon as possible, and publicly backed the Iraq invasion repeatedly. The Senate and House didn't have a say in the Afghan campaign, yet they STILL backed it fully......when there wasn't an election on the line.

I heard a good one today that I agree with....

Kerry flip flops his decisions......
Bush always makes the wrong decision.

I'm not American.... but if I was, I would have voted Bush in the last election... why... because I thought he would make the more interesting President... I think I was right, but not interesting in a good way... from my Cdn point of view.

I think it'* time for a change.... I'd vote Kerry.

That'* my 2cents Cdn. From my view up here north of the border... I think we would all vote Kerry. The best thing out PM did for us was keep us out of the war.

I think the real reason we went to Iraq, was to get a foot hold in the area for our real threat, and that is Iran. Iran runs their terorist network much quieter and more efficiantly than Iraq, cuz Saddam is/was a blow hard, to self absoprbed in his own ****. Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone but his own people and the Kurds.

The real threat is Iran, who is much more subtle and organizied in there dealings w/ Bin Ladden, and in the Arab terrorist community. But Bush couldn't have gone to war against Iran, no "probable cause". So Saddam was the scapegoat for this war. Easy pickins, so to speak. Bottom line is, once there, we the U.*. will be there for along time, REGARDLESS of who is president, for the very reasons I mentioned.

You have Iran, Syria, even our sometimes ally Saudia Arabia, who btw, has more terrorist per capita than either Iran or Iraq. BUT right in between,..is the US military, ain't it lovely! I mean that seriously. It'* much better being right next door to the terrorists, than across the world!