You need to do some research yourself. You espouse your opinion as if it
were fact. I am not a big Kerry fan and you are entitled to your opinion but
you should take the effort to check the LOC and get it right. Cheney tried
to cut the Defense budget far beyond anything Kerry has disagreed with.
While bush was drunk and in rehab I was fighting for my life. The very week
bush deserted I lost 38 brothers. Where were bush and Cheney during my War?
If Kerry were given the opportunity to have a little one on one in the
jungle with either of these cowards they would crap their pants.
Dick Cheney: Soft on Defense
May 20, 2004
By Evelyn Pringle
Every single time I hear Chief Chickenhawk Cheney challenging John Kerry's
military readiness, I see red. Cheney once told reporters, "I had other
priorities in the '60s other than military service," when asked why he
didn't serve in Vietnam. I can't help but wonder how many soldiers in Iraq,
if given the chance, might say that they have more important priorities to
attend to in 2004.
Kerry not only volunteered for military service, he specifically volunteered
to serve in Vietnam at a time when Cheney went to great lengths to obtain
five deferments to evade service. Kerry served two tours of duty in Vietnam.
He was awarded three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, a Silver Star, and a
Presidential Unit Citation for Extraordinary Heroism.
And yet Cheney, whose only experience with military service comes from
sending other people's children off to die, has the gall to question Kerry's
ability to handle matters of defense and national security, and his
suitability to be commander-in-chief during a time of war.
Over the next several months, voters will compare the military backgrounds
of the candidates in order to decide who can best serve the country in a
time of war. In order to do that, they must be given the truth, instead of a
steady diet of disinformation from TV ads and dozens of talking heads on
cable news shows.
In campaign speeches all over the country, Cheney has charged that Kerry
would not be a strong president because during his years in the senate, he
opposed some key weapons programs. Here's what he said about Kerry when he
spoke at Westminster College: "The senator from Massachusetts has given us
ample grounds to doubt the judgment and the attitude he brings to bear on
vital issues of national security."
Cheney is a complete hypocrite for criticizing Kerry's voting record against
defense programs, in light of the fact that when he was secretary of defense
during the first Bush administration, Cheney himself presided over the
biggest cutback in defense programs in modern history. Between 1989 and
1993, he cut many of the exact same programs that he now assails Kerry for
voting against.
The RNC Smear Machine Goes Into Overdrive
One of the latest Bush-Cheney TV ads portrays a B-2 stealth bomber flying
over a battlefield and disappearing into thin air, to make voters think that
Kerry voted to cut programs critical to national defense. Yet, if the truth
be known, it was Cheney and Bush Sr., who canceled the B-2 bomber program,
at the same time that they opposed upgrading the M1 Abrams tank, recommended
cutting the F-14 fighter jet, and opposed buying more F-15s.
*********************************************************
I believe the last bill that Sen. Kerry introduced in the senate was a
little after the first WTC bombing. In this bill he was trying to
reduce intelligence funding by $7 Billion. His own party did not
support that bill.
***********************************************************
The minute that Kerry appeared to be the likely nominee, Republican pundits
took to the airwaves in droves. RNC chairman Ed Gillespie led the pack.
Gillespie said Kerry voted to cut $1.5 billion from the intelligence budget,
but he conveniently left out half the story. Kerry never did any such thing.
According to John Pike, who runs the globalsecurity.org Web site, the truth
is that the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) had appropriated $1.5
billion for a spy satellite that was never launched. So the Senate passed an
amendment to get a refund for a program that had already been canceled.
There's no doubt that Gillespie knew this charge was dishonest when he made
it.
Never too far from any mud-slinging contest, Chickenhawk Gingrich always has
to put in his two cents, "I think the more that the president and the
Republicans describe accurately - they don't have to exaggerate at all; they
just have to describe accurately and calmly - what it means...to have voted
against every major weapon system," he said on Fox's Hannity and Colmes, "I
think if they stick to that and stick to the facts, Senator Kerry will react
by saying that he's being smeared by his own record."
Apparently nobody listened to Newt's advice about not exaggerating. Sean
Hannity certainly didn't when he chimed in with: "He's (Kerry) voted against
every major weapons system we now use in our military." Every major weapons
system, huh Sean? Yeah right.
Hannity's participation in feeding the public disinformation is not a bit
surprising, but he's not the only media person to repeat the Republican
mantra, without checking out the truth or falsity of the accusations.
In February, the RNC released a report that listed 13 weapons systems they
said Kerry had voted to cut, apparently implying that he should have voted
differently. The list included Patriot air-defense missiles, B-2 bombers,
Tomahawk cruise missiles, Apache helicopters, and others. However, the
report omits the fact that ten of the votes that were cited were the result
of Kerry's vote on bill S. 3189, the "Fiscal Year 1991 Defense
Appropriations Act." It was one vote on one bill. There were no separate
votes on the ten programs listed.
Soon after the list was made public, CNN's Judy Woodruff took the bait and
repeated the charge while interviewing Democratic Rep. Norm Dicks. "The
Republicans list something like 13 different weapons systems that they say
the record shows Senator Kerry voted against. The Patriot missile, the B-1
bomber, the Trident missile and on and on and on," she said.
Dicks explained how Kerry merely voted on a single bill and Woodruff seemed
amazed. She asked: "Are you saying that all these weapons systems were part
of one defense appropriations bill in 1991?" Duh - yeah, Judy, that's
exactly what he was saying. I wonder who's in charge of fact-checking (if
anyone) at CNN these days?
Woodruff wasn't the only CNN reporter who gave Republicans air time to
distort the facts about Kerry's voting record. In an interview with Wolf
Blitzer, Republican strategist Ralph Reed said Kerry's record was one of
"voting to dismantle 27 weapons system, including the MX missile, the
Pershing missile, the B-1, the B-2 stealth bomber, the F-16 fighter jet, the
F-15 fighter jet, cutting another 18 programs, slashing intelligence
spending by $2.85 billion, and voting to freeze defense spending for 7
years."
Here again, had someone at CNN done just a little research, it wouldn't have
taken much time to figure out that, at worst, Reed was a bald-faced liar, or
at best, that he was totally ignorant about the defense programs that Cheney
fought to get rid of the last time there was a Bush in the White House.
Hypocrisy in Action
In fact, the testimony during the hearings on the Appropriations Bill proves
that Bush Sr. and Cheney were pushing for even deeper cuts. Cheney berated
Congress for not approving more: "You've squabbled and sometimes bickered
and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that
don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new
requirements. You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s - all
great systems, but we have enough of them," he claimed.
Here's the hypocrisy of this issue. The same M-1 tank, F-14, and F-16
fighters that Cheney mentioned in his testimony are all on the list of
programs they now say Kerry was wrong to vote against. And if that's not bad
enough, here's what Cheney said during a recent interview on Fox: "What
we're concerned about ... is his (Kerry's) record in the United States
Senate, where he clearly has over the years adopted a series of positions
that indicate a desire to cut the defense budget, to cut the intelligence
budget, to eliminate many major weapons programs."
I know of only one reporter, Fred Kaplan, who actually did do a fact check
on the accuracy of the RNC report. He took the time to look up the Senate
voting records and found out that ten of the thirteen items on the list were
included in one single vote. Based on his review of the information, Kaplan
said the report "reeks of rank dishonesty."
Before the media sanctioned the criticism of Kerry's record, it should have
compared how closely his voting record was aligned with Bush Sr.'s proposed
cuts in defense programs that he outlined in his 1992 State of the Union
Address. Here's what was said: "After completing 20 planes for which we have
begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber.
We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new
warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new
production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any
more advanced cruise missiles. The reductions I have approved will save us
an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut
defense by 30 percent since I took office."
Next, reporters should have checked out Cheney's testimony (given three days
later) before the Senate Armed Services Committee, in which he bragged about
all the cuts that he had made in the defense budget: "Overall, since I've
been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by
well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. And now we're adding to
that another $50 billion of so-called peace dividend," he said.
Finally, the media should have reviewed Colin Powell's testimony, as
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the same hearings, where he
proposed specific radical cuts in the (1) Army divisions by one-third; (2)
aircraft carriers by one-fifth; and (3) the overall armed forces by 500,000.
Something is very wrong with this picture. Kerry now stands accused of
voting for proposals to cut defense programs that were presented to him by
Bush Sr., Cheney, and Powell. This has got to be the definition for
hypocrisy with a capital H.
Chasing the Chickenhawks
For Democrats, bashing Kerry's voting record was bad enough, but the straw
that broke the camel's back came when Cheney and his minions took to the
airwaves and waged a full-blown assault on the credibility of Kerry's
military service record in Vietnam.
Kerry obviously decided he'd had enough and came out with both barrels aimed
at the top two chickenhawks. "I think a lot of veterans are going to be very
angry at a president who can't account for his own service in the National
Guard, and a vice president who got every deferment in the world and decided
he had better things to do, criticizing somebody who fought for their
country and served," Kerry told the Dayton Daily News. "I think it's
inappropriate. I think it shows how desperate the Republicans are. They
don't have a record to run on. They have a record to run away from," he
said.
DNC chairman, Terry McAuliffe, also came out swinging. He accused Cheney of
being "the Bush Campaign's Attack Dog in Chief," and rebuked Cheney for not
serving when it was his turn. "When John Kerry was risking his life for his
country in Vietnam," McAuliffe said, "Dick Cheney was getting deferments
because, in his words, he had other priorities than military service. And he
feels qualified to tell us that John Kerry won't do whatever it takes to
defend America?"
That's right. Where was Bush for the better part of that year when he was
AWOL? And what qualifies Cheney to decide whether Kerry has what it takes to
defend our country? I hope Kerry and McAuliffe keep chasing those
chickenhawks until they're forced to answer those questions
-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
Behalf Of Denys Beauchemin
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 12:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Site to Research Editorial Opinions?
You can look at government sources for this info. The bills and votes
of senators and congressmen are matter of public record.
I believe the last bill that Sen. Kerry introduced in the senate was a
little after the first WTC bombing. In this bill he was trying to
reduce intelligence funding by $7 Billion. His own party did not
support that bill.
I am not aware of a single piece of legislation that carries Kerry's
name as the main sponsor. I'm sure that if one existed, he would have
talked about it during his acceptance speech at the DNC. As it is, he
only spent 20 seconds on his 19 years in the US Senate.
Denys
-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Art Bahrs
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 11:55 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [HP3000-L] OT: Site to Research Editorial Opinions?
Hi Glenn, Denys, Wirt and Others :)
Ok... Glenn you raise a issue (in an oblique way) that I am trying
to
research on Senator Kerry (as well as a Senator from my state (and no I
don't mean Senator Gordon))
How/where can I find a record of Laws/Bills/Legislative 'stuff'
authored by a given Senator? As well as a record of a given Senator's
voting history... without editorial comments... "just the facts, ma'm"
hehe I have heard from at least 3 reliable off list sources that Kerry
has
not gotten a single bill into law... I find that hard to believe for any
senator... let alone a 3+ termer!
I am failing in my search tho' I did find the www.thomas.loc.gov
site
that was good... Anyone know of a good site?
Thanks,
Art "Wants the facts not editorials :) " Bahrs
=======================================================
Art Bahrs, CISSP Information Security The Regence
Group
(503) 553-1425 FAX (503) 553-1453
|---------+-------------------------------->
| | "Glenn Paden" |
| | <[log in to unmask]
| | gs.ca.us> |
| | Sent by: "HP-3000 |
| | Systems Discussion" |
| | <[log in to unmask]
| | DU> |
| | |
| | |
| | 09/03/2004 09:40 AM |
| | Please respond to |
| | "Glenn Paden" |
| | |
| | |-------------------||
| | | [ ] Secure E-mail ||
| | |-------------------||
|---------+-------------------------------->
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------|
|
|
| To: [log in to unmask]
|
| cc:
|
| Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT Deny's Don't Bite [was: Simple
Truths] |
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------|
Deny,
I'll save my 'mind numbingly boring, bandwidth wasting' longer version
until
later. I will say in short that I would divide the content of Senator
Millers' speech into two parts. The first part being irrelevant and
unimportant personal information that I will not dispute and the second
part
complete and total vitriolic distortion of the truth.
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: Denys Beauchemin [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 3:23 PM
To: 'Glenn Paden'; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: [HP3000-L] OT Deny's Don't Bite [was: Simple Truths]
I knew it was not a trick.
I watched the Democrats respond to Sen. Miller's comments throughout the
day and read some stuff at various newspapers.
The gist of the responses is pretty similar to Wirt's executive summary,
which he graciously posted earlier, and just as informative. It seems
that no one could point to something in Sen. Miller's speech and say
"that's false" or "that's simply not so."
The pundits did try to create controversy on some issues like "are you
questioning the patriotism of the Democrats (Matt Lauer)?"
What Sen. Miller did was detail John Kerry's 19-year record in the US
Senate. This was something that Kerry and the Democrats avoided at all
costs at their convention and throughout the campaign.
Senator Kerry's positions on things are very difficult to pin down. If
I, a political junkie of sorts, can't say with any degree of certitude
where Kerry stands on the war on terror (AKA WW IV,) the economy, health
care, taxes and homeland security, and this after watching the
Democratic convention, then the average person is probably totally in
the dark.
By not defining himself, Kerry has left it up to the Republicans and
others to do that for him, and so far this week, they have been pretty
effective.
Oh and please don't send me to Kerry's web site. I have already visited
it enough to know that I will not find a direct answer there either.
Interestingly enough, I have spent far more time at Kerry's web site
than I have at W's site.
Denys
-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn Paden [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 4:50 PM
To: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: [HP3000-L] OT Deny's Don't Bite [was: Simple Truths]
Having no desire to launch another rehashing of opinions already posted
before I will limit my comments to say there was no trick in my comment
and
that Zell Miller grossly mischaracterized both GWB and JK and
Democratics.
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: Denys Beauchemin [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 1:37 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT Deny's Don't Bite [was: Simple Truths]
I don't think it is a trick; Glenn has been pretty forthright throughout
these discussions. I truly believe he thinks last night Sen. Zell
Miller made some statements that Glenn considers outrageous. Whether he
will share with us what these statements might be, that he considers
outrageous or if he just made a baseless comment remains to be seen.
Denys
-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Johnson, Tracy
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 3:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT Deny's Don't Bite [was: Simple Truths]
Importance: Low
Deny's don't bite. He's really making the statement that you were
"disturbed", to which you agree with by replying. It is a trick.
The only thing YOU said were "Enjoy!" and the "Thank You ... " sentence
at the end. Other than that, all you sent was a quotation.
BT
Tracy Johnson
MSI Schaevitz Sensors
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
> Behalf Of Denys Beauchemin
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 3:33 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Simple truths
>
>
> Ok, I'll bite. What outrageous things are you referring to?
>
> Denys
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glenn Paden [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 2:10 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: [HP3000-L] OT: Simple truths
>
> Denys,
>
> I see you too were disturbed by the outrageous things Zell
> Miller said.
>
> Glenn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Denys Beauchemin [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 10:35 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Simple truths
>
> Transcript of Democratic Senator from Georgia, Zell Miller's
> speech last
> night at the Republican Convention in New York City.
>
> Enjoy.
>
> Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller
> Family has been born: Four great grandchildren. Along with
> all the other
> members of our close-knit family, they are my and Shirley's most
> precious possessions.
>
> And I know that's how you feel about your family also. Like
> you, I think
> of their future, the promises and the perils they will face.
> Like you, I
> believe that the next four years will determine what kind of
> world they
> will grow up in. And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has
> the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my
> family?
>
> The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you
> tonight. For my family is more important than my party. There
> is but one
> man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that
> man's name is
> George Bush.
>
> In the summer of 1940, I was an 8-year-old boy living in a
> remote little
> Appalachian valley. Our country was not yet at war, but even
> we children
> knew that there were some crazy men across the ocean who would kill us
> if they could. President Roosevelt, in his speech that summer, told
> America "all private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense
> repealed by an overriding public danger."
>
> In 1940, Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee. And there is no
> better example of someone repealing their "private plans"
> than this good
> man. He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime
> draft, an unpopular idea at the time. And he made it clear
> that he would
> rather lose the election than make national security a
> partisan campaign
> issue.
>
> Shortly before Wilkie died, he told a friend, that if he
> could write his
> own epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president" or "here
> lies one who contributed to saving freedom," he would prefer
> the latter.
>
> Where are such statesmen today? Where is the bipartisanship in this
> country when we need it most? Now, while young Americans are dying in
> the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our
> nation is being
> torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic
> obsession to
> bring down our Commander in Chief.
>
> What has happened to the party I've spent my life working in? I can
> remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to
> fight for freedom over tyranny. It was Democratic President
> Harry Truman
> who pushed the Red Army out of Iran, who came to the aid of
> Greece when
> Communists threatened to overthrow it, who stared down the Soviet
> blockade of West Berlin by flying in supplies and saving the city.
> Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats
> and Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would
> not falter.
>
>
> But not today.
>
> Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's
> Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.
> And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American
> troops occupiers rather than liberators.
>
> Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin
> Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.
>
> Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is
> free because
> Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.
>
> Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free
> today from the Baltic to the Crimea, from Poland to Siberia, because
> Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.
>
> Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for
> the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier.
> And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad; they
> preserve it
> for us here at home.
>
> For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the
> reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press.
>
> It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.
>
> It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to
> protest.
>
> It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose
> coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to
> abuse and burn that flag.
>
> No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of
> this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that
> our soldiers
> are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home. But
> don't waste
> your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their
> warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution.
> They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that
> which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided
> foreign policy.
>
> It is not their patriotism - it is their judgment that has been so
> sorely lacking. They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace.
>
> They were wrong.
>
> They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war.
>
> They were wrong.
>
> And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two
> Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. Together,
> Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won
> the Cold War
> and that is now winning the War on Terror.
>
> Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his
> best to shut
> down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but
> Americans need to know the facts.
>
> The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the
> bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.
>
> The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes
> against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.
>
> The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's
> Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator
> Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.
>
> The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those
> Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15
> Eagles, that
> Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this
> very city after 9/11.
>
> I could go on and on and on: against the Patriot Missile that
> shot down
> Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis
> air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against
> the Trident missile; against, against, against.
>
> This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our
> U.S. Armed
> Forces?
>
> U.S. forces armed with what?
>
> Spitballs?
>
> Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty
> weeks of campaign rhetoric. Campaign talk tells people who you want
> them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you
> really are deep
> inside. Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use
> military force
> only if approved by the United Nations. Kerry would let Paris decide
> when America needs defending.
>
> I want Bush to decide.
>
> John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to
> outsource our
> national security. That's the most dangerous outsourcing of all. This
> politician wants to be leader of the free world.
>
> Free for how long?
>
> For more than 20 years, on every one of the great issues of
> freedom and
> security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more
> wobbly than
> any other national figure.
>
> As a war protester, Kerry blamed our military.
>
> As a Senator, he voted to weaken our military. And nothing shows that
> more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective
> armor for our troops in harm's way, far away.
>
> George Bush understands that we need new strategies to meet
> new threats.
>
> John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday's war. George Bush believes we
> have to fight today's war and be ready for tomorrow's
> challenges. George
> Bush is committed to providing the kind of forces it takes to root out
> terrorists.
>
> No matter what spider hole they may hide in or what rock they crawl
> under. George Bush wants to grab terrorists by the throat and not let
> them go to get a better grip. From John Kerry, they get a
> "yes-no-maybe" bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and
> confuse our friends.
>
> I first got to know George Bush when we served as governors
> together. I
> admire this man. I am moved by the respect he shows the first
> lady, his
> unabashed love for his parents and his daughters, and the fact that he
> is unashamed of his belief that God is not indifferent to America.
>
> I can identify with someone who has lived that line in
> "Amazing Grace,"
> "Was blind, but now I see," and I like the fact that he's the same man
> on Saturday night that he is on Sunday morning. He is not a slick
> talker but he is a straight shooter and, where I come from,
> deeds mean a
> lot more than words. I have knocked on the door of this
> man's soul and
> found someone home, a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of
> tempered steel. The man I trust to protect my most precious
> possession:
> my family. This election will change forever the course of
> history, and
> that's not any history. It's our family's history.
>
> The only question is how. The answer lies with each of us. And, like
> many generations before us, we've got some hard choosing to do. Right
> now the world just cannot afford an indecisive America. Fainthearted
> self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world. In
> this hour of danger our President has had the courage to stand up. And
> this Democrat is proud to stand up with him.
>
> Thank you.
>
> God Bless this great country and God Bless George W. Bush.
>
>
>
> Denys
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
=======================================================================
======
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This communication, including any attachment, contains
information that may be confidential or privileged, and is intended
solely for the entity or individual to whom it is addressed. If you are
not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are
hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
message is strictly prohibited. Nothing in this email, including any
attachment, is intended to be a legally binding signature.
=======================================================================
======
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
