Tactics that help keep people ignorant is to take their attention off issues that really have no control by the president. The gay marriage amendment doesn't fall under the duties of the president, yet the religious right makes it an issue. Fact is that people in the states have that decision if the congress makes a proposal, but the president has NO VOTE, not even a veto. If you are for Bush because he asked congress to make such a proposal, then you are not voting for anything that matters. You want that amendment, it is in your power and NOT the President. Bush is only playing on your emotions to get your vote, and in the meantime it doesn't matter what he says because he has no control.

The next issue that is so dumb to vote for Bush on is abortion. It really doesn't matter what his position is because again he has no control. Yes, he can put up his choices for judical positions, but Congress has a veto. So your reason for voting on this point for Bush is in fact no reason.

Now to get to more moronic reason. This is probably one of the dumbest answers I have ever gotten and it was used by a doctor when he no longer could justify voting for Bush. I just don't believe Kerry is the one to replace him. Asked why the only response was I just don't think so. Now when a doctor is so poorly able to talk about his position as to use such a lame excuse, it shows that we have a problem in our voting education. NEVER should we be so indifferent as to vote against a person when the sitting president has such a poor record as this one. There is also a real lack of knowledge of what Kerry's positions on things are because people don't listen to but 2 words, conservative and liberal. Well, that is too broad to vote on anyone. First, what does a conservative stand for? Responsible spending? Smaller Government and to keep government out of our private lives? If so how do you justify a Bush vote? He took office with a $5 trillion dollar surplus, now we have a $5 trillion dollar defecit and no ends to it in sight. Government now is larger, and also has more power to get into your private business. Is that the mark of conservatism? Then how can George W. Bush be considered a conservative when he is anything but showing it?

Bush and 9-11-2001 is given as a reason for so many things it is hard to get to all of them. First, let's look at the attack alone. What we should do is first ask was there any reason to suspect an attack? Seems that in 1993 Osama bin Laden was behind the attack on the World Trade Center in New York City, and so it was conceivable that another attack on it might happen later. The 2000 Olympics a plot was foiled that terrorist had dreamed up, because enough credible people paid attention to intelligence and signs something was about to be tried. It was stopped thanks to the Clinton Administration taking it serious.

The Summer of 2001 was one where all sorts of information was flowing that something big was in the air. The out going Clinton administration had warned the incoming Bush Administration that terrorism was going to be a major concern for them, and even with such knowledge as the 2000 failed attempt, the Cole, Embassy bombings, and increased threats, President Bush took the longest vacation in the history of the presidency, and his National Security Advisor even read a Daily Presidental Briefing to him that was titled, "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN THE U.S." A briefing she would later tell the 9-11 Commission, (Bush appointed commission) that she considered it a historic document. Folks, does this sound like Dr. Rice is either one of the dumbest people to get a Phd. or might just be lying out both sides of her mouth? Now, I don't think you have to be James Bond to figure out after 2000, that Osama bin Laden and his organization were indeed a very serious and real threat, yet with all the obvious signals that came out not one even deterred the President from going on vacation for over 30 days.

Now let's talk Iraq. If anyone listened or has read the State of the Union speech Bush gave on Iraq have weapons of mass destruction, of his being able to in a very small time frame of launching a WMD attack on the USA mainland, and the serious build up of stockspiles of these weapons, one would have to say that he was expressing his most pressing reason for an invasion. Yes, this was even the theme for his pressing the congress to give him backing, which by the way he didn't really have to have, but because of some in his administration he decided to go the congress and United Nations route.

The United Nations was given the word of President Bush that no military action would be taken except as a last resort. A promise he also gave congress. The UN weapons inspectors went in, the whole time Bush saying he didn't feel it was anything but a delaying tactic, which shows no matter what he was not going to accept their findings as good enough. The inspections revealed a stock pile of missles, although not equiped to launch the feared WMDs, the missiles were against the U.N. resolution and Iraq and the inspectors started the destruction of these missles. However, Bush said these missles were in violation and justified an invasion. The rest is tragic American History. We invaded a sovereign nation with the assurance that this nation had weapons of mass destructions, that could even be transported and launched in a short time span against our homeland.

No such capability existed, and so far after all this time, no such stockpiles existed. Fact is that what we found was a decaying infrastruction on the verge of callapse, and a regime fast running out of money. Also found was that no threat to the United States, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or anyone else truly existed and so the Bush Administration changed their song and dance act. Suddenly the key reason was Saddam and Osama Bin Laden had ties. Some of the very evidence the Bush Administration points to validate this claim also invalidates it. a meeting between OBL's organization and Saddam's government proved to be one where Iraq never bothered to accept the deal. Yet this president will point to it and say it is proof solid, although he just happens to leave out the part that no action was taken. He points to the attempt on Saddam's part to kill GWH Bush when the former president visited Kuwait, but this was answered with an air strike. It was an attempt through the Iraqi regime and not OBL, but again this part is left out. Following that attempt, no more actions like that were taken.

Bush tells us a known terrorist was in Iraq and under the protection of Saddam. Problem with that is the known terrorist was in Kirdish Iraq which was NOT under the control of Saddam. No terrorist was known to be present in the areas where Saddam had controlled, and in fact Saddam was high on the list of OBL for leaders he wanted to remove, which included the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia. Saddam was so paranoid of OBL that he would kill islamic people who showed too much interested in the religion. It is also important to add that even George W. Bush said at one time, that there was no connection between Iraq and 9-11-2001, yet now suddenly he is telling there is even though no such evidence is known that justifies it, but instead all known evidence is the exact opposite.

Brings us to the liberation of Iraq. Oh boy is that a far cry from reality. One thing can be agreed on now, terrorist are pouring into Iraq at an alarming rate. Iraqi people have said that at least under Saddam they didn't fear the terrorism they have to live with now and is so wide spread. We have lost over 1000 people we know about, but there are others we don't have the numbers on, like those wounded in action and later died from their wounds. Why you think the pictures of the returning coffins aren't allowed? The number of coffins and the numbers announced don't match up. Yet just this past week Bush painted a rosey picture, that doesn't really match the evidence.

Now these are just some of the things I could go into, but how much more does there have to be to start asking questions and demanding more information? How much longer are we to keep believing statements that don't prove out, and how much longer are we going to listen to Bush mention a global economy and at the same time he is turning more and more countries against the United States? When folks when is enough and we start holding the press and the administration to proving things and giving us the answers? It was like this in the Vietnam years before 68 and we suddenly discovered we couldn't acheive the goal there. Five more long deadly years later, we finally saw the end of our involvement and we were mad. When will we get mad again? 5 years from when more and more of our young folk die? Think America, we can't afford to ignore things and think that will make them not real.