The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-24 14:10:26

Come on now, everybody knows we really did it for the oil.

Actually, that depends on how exactly you mean that. In the sense that we did it to have the nation sitting on the world's second-largest oil reserve doing business with us in a closed agreement instead of joining OPEC, you may have a case.

Unfortunately, most people claiming "we did it for the oil" mean that Bush and Cheney did it to steal the oil so they could make money. Which begs the question, why not just buy Saddam's oil? Cheaper, easier, less political fallout.

Ian Flint · 2004-06-24 18:17:00

Cobra,

You talk of invading Iraq and changing their regime to intimidate North Korea and other nations. I agree that it works to a certain extent. But why don't you agree that assassinating a leader to intimidate other leaders is just as effective with less blood shed? Or if you agree that it is just as effective, why don't you think it should be done?

Certainly, but if you really want to see the world hate us just wait until we start bumpin' off foreign leaders we don't like in the dark of night.

How is that different than preemptively invading a country to kill or capture its leaders?

By the way, George W. did try to assassinate Saddam just as I mentioned earlier (bombing his palace, or wherever he was) just before our invasion. Also, didn't our CIA assasinate some democratically elected leaders in the following countries: Iran, Chile, Guatemala, and about 3 or 4 more?

It seems they are following my advice, but they are going after the democratic leaders instead of the dictators! :laugh:
I guess dictators make better puppets. ???

By the way, I am totally against offensive wars...oops we call them preemptive these days, don't we? But, if we just have to go around "changing regimes," we should do just that -- Change Regimes. Drop thousands of paratroopers into the capitol city and shoot all "regime loyalists" then exit in helicopters. Send in an assasin with some poison. Heck, we can even use a tactical nuke to take out a hardened bunker. Whatever we do it should only take days to get in and out, not years. Who cares who fills the "regime void." They will know they must comply with the "U.N. resolutions" in the future. How is this any worse (morally, ethically) than conventional warfare? And hey, Georgie still gets to look like the hotshot cowboy, while avoiding a long drawn out occupation with a daily death toll. It's a win-win situation for everybody...except of course the old "regime".

I hate that word, by the way. "Regime"...Why don't we call our little "Administration" a regime. It's not like we elected them all personally, for heavens sake. I guess it's easier to start a war against a "regime" than an "administration." ???

MarsDog · 2004-06-24 18:41:43

Nations have interests, not morals.
People expect morals from the US and become disillusioned.
Some did not respect US power, and met their end.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-06-24 18:44:49

encourage dirty coal power and cut funding to fuel-efficent car and fusion power research,
Coal is cheap and available. He hasn't cut funding to fuel efficient car research, he's in fact been supportive of Hydrogen power, and fusion research has been limping along for years with inadequate funding continually 'justified' by lack of results. It's a cycle that has been going on long before Bush 41 took office, let alone George W.
and gotten virtually every country on Earth to hate the US more than they ever have.
So accepting your premise, which is a gross exaggeration; is being popular and not rocking the boat more important than doing what's right? Bearing in mind that those who have railed against the Iraq war have completely lost any credibility they may have had on human rights issues.
The unfortunate thing is, you're probably so backed up into your beliefs that you're not going to change your views no matter what anyone says.
Not at all, just skeptical of counter-claims. As I'm sure you are as well. If a single half-assed argument could sway us from our beliefs they wouldn't be worth much, would they?

Hm, good point in the last line. No matter how hard we try you're probably not going to get me to support Bush and I'm probably not going to get you to vote for Kerry. Oh, well, there are plenty of worse things I could do with my time.

Well, let's start at the top. You say that coal is cheap and availible. True. It's also the dirtiest major power source availible. Just because McDonald's is cheaper and more availible than healthy food doesn't mean you should eat from nothing but the golden arches.

Yes, I'm afraid Bush actually has cut funding to fuel efficent car research. Clinton mandated that all cars get at least 40 mpg by 2010, I recall, and Bush removed that mandate shortly after getting in office to appease his hard-right voting base. The hydrogen fuel cell stuff isn't going anywhere in this country for the same reason that natural gas cars never went anywhere, it would be ludicrously expensive and hard to replace over 150,000 gas station with H2 stations. The fuel cell initiative is a bluff meant to sway centrist democrats.

No, I don't mean to say that all of our presidnets should jump on the bandwagon and do whatever is popular amongst the EU and UN, but c'mon man. Don't you think that our reputation among the UN is a teensy bit of red flag? The rest of the world sees us as agressive, trigger-happy cowboys looking for a fight, something's got to be going wrong when that happens.

Btw, I never rallied against the war in Iraq, if that's what you're trying to get at. Anyway, I think that people who opposed Iraqi Freedom still have credibility in the human rights arena, they just didn't consider the whole picture. I admit, considering everything that I consider now, I would have supported the war in Iraq last year (assuming that I didn't know that we'd be stuck there in a quagmyre for over a year). However, at the time I was only looking at the direct cost of the war, not the benefits of it. For that matter, it's really a matter of opinion weither or not the war in Iraq is a big leap forward in human rights, look at the whole picture. Yes, there is no more Saddam, torture chambers, mass graves, or acid vats, but nearly 1,000 Americans and far far more Iraqis have died, people are afraid to leave their homes over there and the terror world has recieved quite a stir. I like my seat on the fence for this issue.

Just FYI, it's not like Bush has a whole lot more integrity than Kerry. Yes, Kerry probably will change his opinions on many subjects mid-term, because he is a politician. That's what politicians do. Good politicians wouldn't, but real ones do, everybody in Washington changes thier views on a dime to satisfy thier voting base. In Bush's case, his voting base is the far-right conservative population. That's why he invokes God all the time, this is a very hard-core christian group that includes most of the creationists and anti-progress guys out there. Almost all of Bush's decisions revolve around making this group happy.

One more thing, can you please tell me why Kerry will do such a worse job with the economy than Bush? I'm just curious

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-25 06:45:24

. But why don't you agree that assassinating a leader to intimidate other leaders is just as effective with less blood shed? Or if you agree that it is just as effective, why don't you think it should be done?

To use assassination in such high profile cases as Iraq would require a shift in US policy. Gerald Ford prohibited the US from assassinating foreign leaders by Executive Order, formalizing long-standing policy.

It may well happen quietly from time to time, but sometimes one man really does make all the difference. Sometimes not.

Heck, we can even use a tactical nuke to take out a hardened bunker. Whatever we do it should only take days to get in and out, not years. Who cares who fills the "regime void." They will know they must comply with the "U.N. resolutions" in the future.

Say we nuked Saddam in his bunker. Just a little tactical nuke, tiny one. Now the UN is really upset, but Saddam's dead. Qusay would have taken over so let's say we got him too, and the other brother Uday. Then some other regime figure takes over, al Duri maybe. Whatever the case, we have a new dictator in Iraq who understands the consequences of flaunting international law but really wants some payback. he works against us quietly while outwardly complying, just like Saddam. So what have we gained?

Well, let's start at the top. You say that coal is cheap and availible. True. It's also the dirtiest major power source availible. Just because McDonald's is cheaper and more availible than healthy food doesn't mean you should eat from nothing but the golden arches.

It's a matter of priorities. In general the American people seem to want energy sources that are:
a) cheap
b) clean
c) not dependent on hostile foreign powers.

Pick any two. Except maybe cheap and clean for the moment. Bush opted for "cheap" as the priority. Not everyone agrees, but whatever the outcome someone's gonna be left out.

Yes, I'm afraid Bush actually has cut funding to fuel efficent car research. Clinton mandated that all cars get at least 40 mpg by 2010, I recall, and Bush removed that mandate shortly after getting in office to appease his hard-right voting base.

There's really two ways of fulfilling that mandate. The easiest is to build little four (or two!) cylinder econo-boxes. American's don't like those, they don't sell. No one drives them and autoworkers lose their jobs. Not a good move.

Build the cars people want but make them meet the mandate. Hybrid technology could do this, Ford already has a hybrid vehicle, GM and Chrysler may as well. The technology is still in its infancy, but may be the immediate answer. Though it only prolongs the problem, rather than solving it.

In either case, government regulation isn't the answer. Don't force it. If you really want to bring the weight of government down to speed things along, offer people tax incentives for driving those vehicles. Probably don't need to, given the reduced costs for gas driving one, but it couldn't hurt. I'm always for cutting taxes. The key is to make the automakers see a real market if they can make the technology work in the way their customers want. Make a hybrid Suburban with the same performance and you'll have a winner. Just try to copy the little hybrid Hondas, and it's just not gonna be anything but a niche market.

. Don't you think that our reputation among the UN is a teensy bit of red flag? The rest of the world sees us as agressive, trigger-happy cowboys looking for a fight, something's got to be going wrong when that happens.

Problem is, the UN isn't exactly a paragon of virtue itself. It has its share of dictators and thugs, most of whom hate us. On top of that, the UN hates Israel, and we get some of that heat too. It's alot like a community setting up a neighborhood watch and letting all the burglars and muggers have a say.

A little UN condemnation is reassuring.

One more thing, can you please tell me why Kerry will do such a worse job with the economy than Bush? I'm just curious

President's have very little direct power over the economy. They get blamed when it's bad and take credit when it's good, but they really only have two things they can do.
a) Raise or lower taxes.
b) Pressure the Federal Reserve to raise or lower interest rates.

That's about it. I expect that Kerry would raise taxes, which is bad for a recovering economy as it grows nothing but government. Government is a drain on the economy rather than a stimulus because it produces nothing. His plan to "create" 2 million new jobs is also troubling, how can a President create jobs? Either expand the military, which I don't see him doing, or hire more government workers, who take revenue from the country in the form of taxes while producing nothing.

Neither candidate should be running on the economy as it kinda makes them both look like fools, but they always do anyway...

Run on the economy and look like fools.

dicktice · 2004-06-25 10:41:43

Cobra: I'm generally sympathetic with your views, but when you blithely write "nuke Saddam in his bunker" I have to take exception. You must know one nuke leads to another. Of course you do, so how about an admission that you were just kidding around, eh?

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-25 10:48:26

Cobra: I'm generally sympathetic with your views, but when you blithely write "nuke Saddam in his bunker" I have to take exception. You must know the one nuke leads to another (of course you do) so admit that you were just kidding around, eh?

Actually, I was just addressing Ian's "tactical nuke" comment, kinda knocking the suggestion it was attached to.

I certainly wasn't advocating playing loose with the nukes, as I'm sure neither was Ian.

smurf975 · 2004-06-25 14:56:32

We are in a war and the enemy is the radical strain of Wahabi Islam.

I once read that Wahabi Islam was invented by a Swiss based American think-tank that only knew Arab and Islamic culture from books and CNN. And that the report was written for the American government, no one ever questioned it and so it became a popular idea. I think this is very possible, as I know that right after 9/11. The American government was having problems with finding Arab translators. Which show they didn't have real contacts with the Arab world except for some armchair scholars.

I can't find the article at this moment but here are a few links:
http://www.ahle-sunnat.org.uk/WAHABI.html]link 1
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/ency … .html]link 2
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&l … a%3DN]link 3
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&l … n.net]link 4
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&l … x.com]link 5

If you looked at the links you will know understand that Wahabism is actually just the house of Sa'ud, which are the rulers of Saudi Arabia and from which the name Saudi (Arabia) came from. The rulers of Saudi Arabia don't have much to do with terrorism. Well they are fighting it them self’s now.

Basically Wahabism is related more to the rulers of SA then Islam it self. Alqauda, who support conservative Islam is not related to it.
---
Just two of my cents, no arab, muslim expert myself.

smurf975 · 2004-06-25 15:15:05

Come on now, everybody knows we really did it for the oil.
Weapons of mass destruction, sure. Terrorism, maybe. Even so, if Saddam Hussein had been dictator of a few thousand square miles of sparse, basaltic mountain scrub instead of one of the highest yield oilfields on the planet, he'd still be sitting pretty in his palace.
The threshold of "evidence" was low because the United States needed it to be.

I think they did it for the Dollar not oil. Iraq wanted euros for oil and other opec countries may have followed.

smurf975 · 2004-06-25 15:16:46

Also, didn't our CIA assasinate some democratically elected leaders in the following countries: Iran, Chile, Guatemala, and about 3 or 4 more?

America does whats good for the American people not for those little countries.

flashgordon · 2004-06-25 19:55:01

i find it remarkable that nobody has replied to my comments about the damage of georgie boy period; i guess like Michael Moore, my points are too good.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-25 23:50:33

Okay, I'll bite.

i'm afraid I have to debate these pro-Bush arguements.
Firstly, the only reason Bush is into space right now at all is because of the Chinese; now, Bush didn't come into presidency thinking about space; Chinese space activities FORCED themselves on him; i've read quotes from georgie boy on space exploration websites before he became president saying space is an extreme solution from extremists.

So? What's more important, motives or results? If Bush gets results what difference does it make if it's to stay ahead of the Chinese? A similar paradigm worked before.

Now, same thing with Kerry; maybe he doesn't(do you really think Georgie boy cares about space?); but, he will be forced to support and find a way to space as any president would.

Based on what, exactly? Continuing on the same path we've been on is next to useless, and Kerry shows no inclination whatsoever to deviate from it.

Secondly, if you havn't noticed, Georgie boy tends to get us into trouble with wars and debts and the national debt is being used as an arguemnt against space development.

This war isn't a one-sided adventure, debt has plagued us for the last century and a half, and the debt has always been used as justification by those who seek to cut space spending.

Your points need some sharpening here.

flashgordon · 2004-06-26 13:01:24

you seem to not have read what I said at all; i now consider you bought by President bush jr.

smurf975 · 2004-06-26 13:21:09

Are US local governments such as states, cities and counties allowed to borrow money in the same way that the federal government does?

Rxke · 2004-06-26 15:05:30

Errr... The Kerry factor.

http://www.informationweek.com/story/sh … 2101977]30 Billion for Tech?

"According to Kerry, an anticipated $30 billion in revenue from selling unused analog television spectrum would pay for the technology plan. High-tech companies such as Intel have supported the sale of unused spectrum for data transmission and other applications, but television broadcasters have opposed the move."

(NASA is in the list too, but he's concentrating on startups, so it seems...)

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-26 16:39:31

you seem to not have read what I said at all; i now consider you bought by President bush jr.

:laugh: There's a cogent argument.

"According to Kerry, an anticipated $30 billion in revenue from selling unused analog television spectrum would pay for the technology plan. High-tech companies such as Intel have supported the sale of unused spectrum for data transmission and other applications, but television broadcasters have opposed the move."

The analog television frequencies have been one of many factors used in phantom budgeting for years, it factored into the Clinton Administration's "surplus" as well. It's a projection, and an optimistic one.

The basic idea is that government, who acts as steward over public airwaves, can sell the old analog frequencies since the HD frequencies will phase them out of use. This is expected to raise anywhere from $20 billion to upwards of $100 billion by the wildest estimates. Problem is, they all depend on a timetable for the sale that was never realistic. They can't do it until 80% of the households in each of the ten major television markets has an HDTV receiver, not just an HD 16:9 screen, but actual over the airwaves HD reception capability. It's not happening as quickly as some expected, so including the anticipated revenue in any budget proposal at this stage is premature.

smurf975 · 2004-06-26 16:46:59

Why do you need a HDTV receiver when "simple" digital receiver should do ? I mean upgrade from analog NTSC-->digital NTSC-->HD digital.

Just plain NTSC TV encoded in MPEG 2/4 should free up the airwaves (actually more then HDTV) and a decoder should not cost more then $25.

For most TV programs I don't really care about HDTV, PAL/NTSC is enough being digital should make PAL/NTSC even better.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-26 17:17:56

Why do you need a HDTV receiver when "simple" digital receiver should do ? I mean upgrade from analog NTSC-->digital NTSC-->HD digital.

They (FCC, Congressional committees, industry etc.) worked out in considerable detail the conditions under which the public airwaves could be sold. It was decided that 80% in each top 10 market would be the optimal point, otherwise they'd sell off the frequencies and many if not most people wouldn't be able to watch TV for free anymore, which would allow the broadcast networks to worm out of their "public service" obligations.

On the other hand, once you go HD it ruins everything else.

For most TV programs I don't really care about HDTV, PAL/NTSC is enough being digital should make PAL/NTSC even better.

NTSC is horrible, I'll be glad to see it go. PAL is marginally better, due to a few simple 'duh' format features. 25fps film to 50fps video being a huge one, compared to NTSC's 24fps film to 29.97fps video. Argh.

How do we get on these tangents. ???

Mad Grad Student · 2004-06-27 22:30:57

So, Cobra, you don't think that fixing the environment is important? I suppose that everyone can have their own opinions, but global warming is a fact. No matter how much we bicker, argue, and debate about the issue, the Earth is heating up and humans play the center role in it. By supporting the dirtiest form of power out there, Bush is contributing to a long line of politicians that have decided to leave the issue of fixing this problem to the next guy. How many times can you do that before, well, we're in another ice age? Granted, Kerry probably isn't going to make any paradigm shifts in our policy, but democrats are more Earth-friendly than republicans.

If we don't do something about global warming soon, well, have you seen The Day After Tomorrow, Cobra? That's a gross exaggeration of what will happen, but the point remains, if we let this situation continue, we will face rapid, global, catastrophic climate change. Within ten years of whenever most of the icecaps get melted, temperatures will drop up to ten degrees Farenheit, Europe will look like Siberia, and China will go dry and hungry. In other words we have a cold, dry, and very, very hungry EU and China on our hands. That's not a pretty picture. Last year, the Pentagon made a report on this sort of climate change, and thier conclusion was not very bright. Either we get clean power soon, or Earth won't be able to support all the humans on it anymore. The price we pay for not heeding thier warnings outweighs that of the Kyoto Protocalls by, say, a thousand to one. We need to drop coal and get nuclear back on track asap. That's the only power source clean, cheap, and powerful enough for humanity's needs, until fusion, at least.

Actually, the automakers would have been able to meet the requirements of 40 mpg if they had been kept on track. Okay, so you don't like mandates, let's do it the republican way, incentives. Incidentally I like this way better too. You give the automakers big incentives for making thier cars more fuel efficient and less polluting, perhaps in the forms of cash prizes a la the X-Prize. There is no way on Earth Kerry is going to do this, he's a democrat, but at least he'll probably do something about the subject, unlike Bush.

I've noticed that all of your arguments have a serious flaw. Yes, you seem to be pretty determined to defend Bush at every turn, but you just automatically imply that Kerry is worse without supporting this claim. I ask you, what is so bad about Kerry?

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-28 05:41:34

So, Cobra, you don't think that fixing the environment is important? I suppose that everyone can have their own opinions, but global warming is a fact. No matter how much we bicker, argue, and debate about the issue, the Earth is heating up and humans play the center role in it.

Within the relatively brief timeframe we've been keeping records, temperatures appear to be rising, mildly. This is a fact. That humans play a central role, and by implication can halt it, is an assertion. A theory. Humans most certainly are a factor, but may others are at work. Climate shifts have happend constantly throughout our planet's history, long before greedy Republicans starting burning coal. To assert that this time it's all our fault is senseless. The oceans release massive amounts of CO2, particularly in the last decade, cows are the leading source of methane in the atmosphere, a single volcano spews more filth into the air than years of Beijing factory work. Humans are pumping out greenhouse gasses, but we are neither the sole nor the largest source. Increased fuel efficiency and industrial regulation isn't going to make a significant difference, except adeversely on the economies of developed nations. Which to some enviromentalists is the entire point.

We need to drop coal and get nuclear back on track asap.

I agree. Unfortunately, many in the enviromentalist movement hate nuclear as much as coal. Damned if you do, damned if you don't...

I've noticed that all of your arguments have a serious flaw. Yes, you seem to be pretty determined to defend Bush at every turn, but you just automatically imply that Kerry is worse without supporting this claim. I ask you, what is so bad about Kerry?

First off, I'm overall quite critical of Bush, particularly on domestic issues. I'd like to see him replaced by a better candidate, Kerry just doesn't come close to being it.

The reasons for this opinion are fairly simple. On issues where his stand is clear from his record (gun control, defense, taxes) I strongly disagree with him. With relation to our current war his position has become essentially to do what Bush is doing, but not to like doing it. Not exactly a compelling reason to support him. It leads one to believe he will seek a quick exit over a successful operation, all while raising taxes at home (which will kill the economic recovery)

But then no one is actually going to vote for Kerry. They're voting against Bush. In a very real sense John Kerry is meaningless, and his vaporous and shifting positions of late are a good reflection of this.

In this election we have two uninspiring centrists to choose from. One is a soft front for the Right, the other is a puppet of the Left. For some, change is enough of a reason to vote against the incumbent. I need to be convinced.

Bill White · 2004-06-28 12:17:21

Kerry says he favors space prizes. http://www.spacepolitics.com/]Look here.

Its a blog so the link will move. If I remember I will try to perma-link.

smurf975 · 2004-06-28 12:22:56

What I like about Kerry is that he favours "green energy" I put it in quotes because green energy doesn't mean just tree huggers but alternative forms of energy.

What I dislike about him is that he is just more of the same but possibly not Bush. I think thats a bad argument and motivation.

If Nader would run in Europe I would vote for him no question. He is the most like what I think. Some political parties here in Europe should look at Nader as I think his ideas would have more support in Europe then in the USA.

smurf975 · 2004-06-28 12:28:19

I just want to add that you are making the mistake at just looking at the person and not the team behind him. As the team will handle most of the tasks of ruling America they are basically more important on whats going to happen and change.

MarsDog · 2004-06-28 12:38:44

People have even gone as far as to say that the oil interests own the White House.
Kerry gets in , he will have the same masters.

smurf975 · 2004-06-28 12:42:44

People have even gone as far as to say that the oil interests own the White House.
Kerry gets in , he will have the same masters.

Well if you think of oil as energy then I think that any industrialized country is dominated by its energy demands and its (foreign) supply.

Only way to break this circle is:

1. Live like the Amish.
2. Alternative forms of energy.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-06-24 14:10:26

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#52 2004-06-24 18:17:00

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#53 2004-06-24 18:41:43

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#54 2004-06-24 18:44:49

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#55 2004-06-25 06:45:24

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#56 2004-06-25 10:41:43

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#57 2004-06-25 10:48:26

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#58 2004-06-25 14:56:32

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#59 2004-06-25 15:15:05

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#60 2004-06-25 15:16:46

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#61 2004-06-25 19:55:01

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#62 2004-06-25 23:50:33

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#63 2004-06-26 13:01:24

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#64 2004-06-26 13:21:09

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#65 2004-06-26 15:05:30

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#66 2004-06-26 16:39:31

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#67 2004-06-26 16:46:59

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#68 2004-06-26 17:17:56

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#69 2004-06-27 22:30:57

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#70 2004-06-28 05:41:34

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#71 2004-06-28 12:17:21

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#72 2004-06-28 12:22:56

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#73 2004-06-28 12:28:19

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#74 2004-06-28 12:38:44

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#75 2004-06-28 12:42:44

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

Board footer