Bush v. Life

I personally am not absolutely pro-choice since the life of the baby is important to me! However I don't understand how some people can be pro-life in the case of abortion but when it comes to innocent civilians' lives... mmm I don't understand how they think!

To clarify what I mean let us check the followings.

1(from BBC)
2(make sure to watch the video)
3
4(watch the video)
5(video #2, after 7th min.)
6
7

Al Gore's Speech

Al Gore gave a speech in Washington, DC yesterday. It didn't have anything less than his previous speech in another event funded by MoveOn.Org! I highly recommend watching the speech on c-span, however I have never been able to watch any videos on c-span's website, since it is almost always very slow and virtually not possible to watch their videos!

Noam Chomsky, in an open letter, asks voters in swing states to vote for Kerry.

Did you know that the value of one vote in Wyoming in a presidential election is equal to the value of 3.75 votes in California, provided the turnout percentage in those states are the same?

I don't know how reliable this statistics is but it is worth reading!

New Round of Attacks on Kerry's Comments

It is absolutely obvious-of course for me!-that Kerry is not going to endanger the security of the United States. As a matter of fact his policies seem more reasonable in reducing terrorism. In an interview with New York Times Magazine he said and I quote:

We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance.

He continues by saying:

As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.

As a result Bush campaign launched a new attack on Kerry.

What is really missing in politics is morality. It seems to me that changing the facts, misleading the public, taking sentences out of context, telling lies as much as possible, personal attacks that are almost always wrong is what the campaigns are based on! Where are the people who claim they are against personal attacks? Where is Sen. McCain who claims to be against personal attacks and misleading the public? Do you see any piece of morality left in the politics?!! Does politics go in the right direction?!

Bush Forgets He Owns a Tree-Growing Company

Last night Bush denied that he owns a timber company and claimed that it is news to him.

BUSH: I own a timber company?

(LAUGHTER)

That's news to me.

(LAUGHTER)

Need some wood?

(LAUGHTER)

Source: CNN

Lets see what FactCheck.Org says about Bush's claim that he doesn't own a timber company.

So Bush was wrong to suggest that he doesn't have ownership of a timber company. And Kerry was correct in saying that Bush's definition of "small business" is so broad that Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business" in 2001 by virtue of the $84 in business income.

Some of Kerry's claims were not correct as the same article states, but I was really curious to know if Kerry was right regarding the timber company.

FactCheck.Org

It is an interesting website. When you enter the website you see Holding Politician Accountable which is something that in my view we desperately need. Below that is a statement from former Democratic Senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

There is an article in FactCheck.Org entitled: Bush Ad Twists Kerry's Words on Iraq which is about a Bush ad. In the Bush ad Kerry is shown saying

It was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision I supported him.

In fact there is something missing here and that is the statement before the above sentence in Kerry's answer to George Stephanopoulos's question. Lets look at the whole conversation between Kerry and George Stephanopoulos as stated in FactCheck.Org:

Q: And Senator Kerry, the first question goes to you. On March 19th, President Bush ordered General Tommy Franks to execute the invasion of Iraq. Was that the right decision at the right time?

Kerry: George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.

Another Kerry's statement that is taken out of context in Bush ad is the following:

I have always said we may yet even find weapons of mass destruction.

Let me quote the following paragraph from FactCheck.Org. You may judge yourself!

Nine months of fruitless searching have gone by since Kerry said on Dec. 14, 2003 that weapons of mass destruction might yet be found in Iraq. But what's most misleading about the Bush ad's editing is that it takes that remark out of a long-winded -- but still consistent -- explanation of Kerry's overall position on Iraq:

The exchange was on Fox News Sunday, with host Chris Wallace:

Q: But isn't it, in a realistic political sense going to be a much harder case to make to voters when you have that extraordinary mug shot of Saddam Hussein...looking like he's been dragged into a police line-up?

Kerry: Absolutely not, because I voted to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. I knew we had to hold him accountable. There's never been a doubt about that. But I also know that if we had done this with a sufficient number of troops, if we had done this in a globalized way, if we had brought more people to the table, we might have caught Saddam Hussein sooner. We might have had less loss of life. We would be in a stronger position today with respect to what we're doing.

Look, again, I repeat, Chris, I have always said we may yet even find weapons of mass destruction. I don't know the answer to that. We will still have to do the job of rebuilding Iraq and resolving the problem between Shias and Sunnis and Kurds. There are still difficult steps ahead of us.

The question that Americans want to know is, what is the best way to proceed? Not what is the most lonely and single-track ideological way to proceed. I believe the best way to proceed is to bring other countries to the table, get some of our troops out of the target, begin to share the burden.

Democratic "Rising Star" and Keynote Speaker Would Consider Missile Strike on Iran

One of the arguments made by the Bush administration in invading Iraq was that the policy of Clinton administration towards Iraq was overthrowing Saddam's regime, so in fact-as the Bush administration argued-their policy was a sort of continuation of Clinton's. Does Obama make excuses for Republicans for invading Iran when it is "necessary"?! Your thoughts?

Lets Check the Facts from where Cheney Suggested!

In the VP debate Cheney refered viewers to factcheck.com but actually he meant factcheck.org. Let us look at what factcheck.org says about Halliburton. Right now the site is down(maybe because of too many visitors), but I got these statements from BBC.

"The vice president wrongly implied that we had rebutted allegations Edwards was making about what Cheney had done as chief executive officer of Halliburton. In fact we did post an article pointing out that Cheney hasn't profited personally while in office from Halliburton's Iraq contracts, as falsely implied by a Kerry TV ad."

The article continues,

"Edwards was talking about Cheney's responsibility for earlier Halliburton troubles. And in fact, Edwards was mostly right."