Before I responde - I don't like either one also.

>Before digging into your political postings here, I want to state that don't like Bush or Kerry.
>
>>True, but the issue is What has Bush done about it?
>>
>> 1. Honesty
>> Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about his sex life. George Bush is applauded for overthrowing two governments (three, if you count Haiti) based on deception. He lied about the threat of Iraq, he lied about the cost, and he lied about the expected outcome. He lied about the purpose of his tax cuts, he lied about education, the environment, energy, and his own past. He lied about the cost of Medicare. Everything he says is choreographed to achieve political gain without consideration for the truth. In Bush's administration, truth takes a back seat to power every time.
>
>Are you sure he "lied"? Did Bush himself analyze the data regarding all this and come to the conclusions himself? I think not. He accepted what others told him. Perhaps the others lied...perhaps not. Keep in mind that even though they voted against the US in the UN, both Russia and France advised the US that Sadaam Hussein was a threat before Iraq was invaded. It also turns out there was great financial gain for both countries and personal financial gain for their Presidents if Sadaam stayed in power.


Bush is the Preident of the United States and the Commander in Cheif. The buck stops there!


>
>I'm not saying this justifies going into Iraq. Afterall, hindsight is always 20/20. At the time we went in, the evidence stongly pointed to Sadaam being a problem. The latest testimony from the chief UN weapons inspector said there were no WMDs and haven't been since the first gulf war, but that Sadaam tricked the world into thinking there was.


Saddam Insane said repeatly over & over the past 12 years that he had no WMD's. The United States insisted
they did


>
>> 2. War
>> History will not be kind to George Bush. In two years he overthrew two governments, and has his eyes on several others. He has ignored the UN, the US public, and 90% of the rest of the world, including millions who protested in the streets. He has violated the US Constitution and international law by attacking Iraq when it was not a threat to anyone. In his empire-building march across the Middle East, he has wasted the lives of thousands. History will wonder why no one stopped him.
>
>We'll see what happens. Reagan didn't get much support in his fight against the Soviets, but time has shown that he was right. Again...I'm not saying GWB was right or wrong...I'm simply giving an opposing view point.


The Soviet Union was a ligitimate threat to the peace of the world. Iraq can't even feed it's own people. Saddam might
have been aggressive to the Kurds, but a conflick internal to another nation is not always the problem of the US. And
I beg to differ - Popular opinion was with Reagan.


>
>> 3. Economy
>> As soon as people saw that Bush might get elected in 2000, the economy started to fall, helped by Bush's talk of recession.
>
>Huh? Perhaps Economics 101 and PoliSci 101 would be good courses for you.


The economy has been on the downswing since Bush took office. How can you say otherwise? I do agree however
that events of 2001 did push that along. But nontheless, it was in decline early in 2001.




>>He, of course, tried to blame Clinton.
>
>Every new President mush inherit what happened before him, including economic policies. A new President simply cannot change things quickly nor at the drop of a hat. Remember that the final Clinton budget began months before the 2000 election and continued six months into the current administration. This is the way it always is. If Kerry is elected, he'll have Bush's budget for his first six months in office.


But the difference is that Bush inhereited a strong economy - Kerry will have one hell of a mess to fix that might take
all 4 years to do.



>>Since then, the economy has dipped in and out of recession, a million jobs have evaporated, deficits are soaring, and Bush's only response is to cut taxes for the wealthy. Every few months he promises that jobs are just around the corner -- if Congress will only approve my tax cuts -- but month after month job statistics give substance to the lie. Bush seems bent on destroying the very institution he heads.
>
>Job statistics, just like any kind of statistics, can be skewed any way you want. For example, the jobs stats most frequently quoted don't include 800,000 new government jobs since Bush took office.


True, but the statistics I'm referring to are from the government - the Bureau of Labor and Statistics. http://stats.bls.gov/


>
>> 4. Liberties
>> Yes, we need to catch terrorists, but we don't need a police state to do it. John Ashcroft has shown no concern for personal liberties, only for catching the "bad guys." Is it really necessary for the government to know what books you read? Is it necessary to read your e-mail? Must librarians be gagged? This slide toward Fascism is as scary as anything else Bush does. And rather than scale back the most egregious aspects of the act, Bush wants to make it even more intrusive.
>
>I assume you're talking about the Patriot Act. Apparently it is pretty much legal. The only part of it to be struck down by the courts just happened this week...and that was a very small part of it.


The issue I have is this; When is enough enough?? Some of the measure the Dept of Homeland Security would have
would infringe in rights basic to the constitution. Freedom means just that. Freedom from goverment intervention.


>
>> 5. Taxes
>> No one likes taxes, but we all pay them in hopes that the government will provide the services we need and want: schools, highways, bridges, and security. Bush, like Reagan before him, intends to choke the government down to size. By cutting taxes, primarily for the wealthy, deficits soar and nothing is left for education, the environment, social programs (including Social Security) or necessary regulation of corporations. After spending $800 billion a year (by independent estimates) on a bloated military, there is no money for books, no money for highways, not even money for the soldiers who must fight his wars. There is no money. But schools must remain open, roads must be repaired, and the sick must find treatment; all this is left to the state and local governments, which are now raising taxes, firing teachers, and cutting services.
>
>I'm seeing some increases here, but not the doom and gloom that you seem to be stating. Don't lump the rest of us in with your state, as it has problems that are fairly uncommon.


True, I do live in California, and everyone know Bush hates this state, but if Bush had his way, we would all see an
increase in taxes - while the rich get richer.



>
>> 6. Environment
>> One of his first acts as president was to raise the allowable level of arsenic in drinking water. Since then, we have seen a continuous assault on the forests, the air, the water, and the land. Global warming threatens to wreak havoc on our economy, our food supply, and our social fabric, but Bush only listens to the scientists on the political right, and they see no reason to panic. Don't worry, be happy.
>During the height of the spotted owl issue in the Pacific Northwest, I worked for a timber company. We owned millions of acres of timberland and had rights to logging on millions of more. In came the environmentalists saying that by cutting down the old growth forests that the spotted owl would become extinct. It only nested on old growth. So, the government declared a no logging zone. If a spotted owl nest was found (even if abandoned), no logging could be done in a 1/4 mile radius around the tree. Guess what? After that, spotted owls were found to be nesting in the tops of telephone poles, new growth trees, etc.

>The ravaging fires a few years ago in Yellowstone were directly attributed to environmentalists pushing through laws that prohibited clearing dead brush and trees from the forest.

>Perhaps things had swung too far to the environmentalist side and the policies had to swing back? Perhaps the current administration has swung them too far back.
>
>Some friends and I were talking just the other day that we've heard little about Mike Leavitt since he resigned as Utah Governor this past summer to become the EPA Administrator. Our conclusion was that he's been taking a balanced approach as neither side has been making much noise about current environmental policies.
>
>> 7. International Relations
>> When you're the strongest nation by a factor of ten, you don't need to play nice. You can be a bully, and if other countries don't like it, too bad. Under Bush, we've seen this arrogant attitude regularly. He walked away from Kyoto, from the land mine treaty, from the international women's rights treaty, and the international criminal court. He ignored the pleas of long-time allies to avoid war, insulting them childishly. It will be decades before we can regain the respect of the world.
>
>I don't know enough about the specific treaties and discussions that you mention to comment on them. However, I do agree that the international image of the US has taken a beating.


Bush has pretty much decided that the United States is accountable to no one else. This is my issue. Thats why the
rest of worls hates us. Even some of our closest allies are distancing themselves from us because of actions like these.
Who are we to thumb our noses at the World Court. The World Court is just that World court - which we are a part
of.




>
>> 8. Secrecy
>> This is the most secret administration in memory. Decisions are clearly being made by corporations and far-right interest groups, but Bush refuses to admit it or to say who is behind such important policies as energy. Government can only be trusted in the sunlight, and this government hides at undisclosed locations.
>
>Are you talking about Haliburton here? I was reading last week that while the procedure for awarding them the contract in Iraq may have been suspect, the GAO has determined they were the only company qualified to get the contract.


The Haliburton and Enron are scandals of enourmous preportions. The GOP grilled Clinton for lying about his sex life, and spent
4 billion of OUR taxpayer dollars investigation him - and all they came away with was that he lied under oath about
a sexual affair. Where was the investigation when Newt Gingrich had his affair? Where is the investigaion about the
power crisis? All politicians are hypocrits, but republicans lead the pak IMHO.



>If you have something different in mind, please post specifics.
>
>> 9. Military
>> We spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined. While most of us appreciate the sense of security a strong military brings, we also question the wisdom of such spending when we have no clear enemy. Iraq was overthrown for about $100 billion. We spend four times that every year on the military. And now Bush wants to build a magical missile shield that no one believes will actually work. Oh, it will cost many billions, and a few select corporations will get rich, but meanwhile we have other needs, desperate needs, that are not being met. We don't even have health care for all our children. We can't even provide breakfast for all our children, or books, or decent schools. But we can kill bad guys better than anyone. And if Bush has his way, we will soon be dropping tactical nuclear bombs on them.
>
>This was addressed earlier in my reply


The military is an insurance policy. The question is how much insurance do we need. The US has at least 15 aircraft
carriers. Each one has support ships and personnel. Who on this planet is going to attack the US with any real
strength matching our own?? Why do we need more funding for the military?? If the Pentagon sold just 1 B1B bomber,
at $200-plus million per aircraft, we could fund every school in California for years! The question again is how much
insurance do we need relative to other national needs such as povery, jobs, health care, schools, etc...



>> 10. Corruption
>> The line between corporations and the government has disappeared during the Bush administration. Corporations give money to elect Bush, then Bush forms policies and rules that favor those same corporations. This is nowhere more evident than in the energy industry, which has sent millions to Bush in the form of campaign contributions, then received billions in return. Think Bush, Cheney, Bechtel, Halliburton, Schultz.
>
>See my above reply regarding Haliburton.
>
>Again, don't read anything into my posting that I support Bush, because I don't...I don't support Kerry either.