John Glenn (DEMOCRAT) said this ----- It should make us all think a little:
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January. In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American cit y, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq .

When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, tell them the following:


FDR (DEMOCRAT) led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us; Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ... an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman (DEMOCRAT) finished that war and started one in Korea . North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ... an average of 18,334 per year.

John F. Kennedy (DEMOCRAT) started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson (DEMOCRAT) turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ... an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton (DEMOCRAT) went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
This one is a fact that should not be ignored.

In the years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and, North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. And the Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking.

But Wait, There's more.


It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno (DEMOCRAT) to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.

We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton (DEMOCRAT) to find the Rose law firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida !!!

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military morale is high!
The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.

But Wait ...There's more!

JOHN GLENN (on the Senate floor - January 26, 2004)

Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one man's explanation of why men and women in the armed services do what they do for a living.
This IS a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never served think of the military.

Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn):
'How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?'

Senator Glenn (D-Ohio): 'I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't mycheckbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. < /SPAN> It was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the daily cash receipts to the bank. I ask you to go with me, as I went the other day... to a veteran's hospital and look those men .. with their mangled bodies ... in the eye, and tell THEM they didn't hold a job!


You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee ... and you look those kids in the eye and tell them that their DAD'S didn't hold a job.



You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags. You stand there, and you think about this nation, and you have the gall to tell ME that those people didn't have a job?

What about Metzenbaum? For those who don't remember During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA .

Now he's a Senator!

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English thank a Veteran.

I respect the democrats because they want to see every American have the right to vote and actually have their votes counted in contrast to the conservative republicans who want only the wealthy and powerful to have that right. Looking at their most recent speeches, in PollclaSh. The republicans want the status quo and forget that we are still working to make this a more perfect union. Yes, the right-wing republicans would prefer to return to the days of slavery and when they "won" the Southwest from Mexico. The truth hurts sometimes but if what I'm writing hurts you then you must surely be a ultra right-wing republican.

Oh Kimberly, maybe you should crack open a history book sometime and read up on the Civil War era. You might discover that the fellow who emancipated the slaves was a Republican named Lincoln. Oh My Goodness! He wasn't a Democrat? Shame, shame. As far as 'conquering' the Southwest, again, look in the history books, nations are continually conquering other nations and taking the real estate as their own. Should the U.S. feel guilty about taking the Southwest? Are you kidding? Just look across the border and tell me how much better the U.S. Southwest would be under Mexican rule. And as far as voting is concerned, the Democrats would be happy to allow all the illegal immigrants to vote, why not, the Democrats in Chicago have been allowing dead people to vote for years! Also Kimberly, before you accuse me of being a Republican, let me assure you that it is my fondest hope that someday we can line up all the politicians from both parties against a wall and give them what they really deserve!

When I lived in Albuquerque, I heard a lot about the dead Latino Democrats rising from the dead on election day. I never actually saw it happen.

Kimberly sui, you raise a tough issue, and BTW, I am not a right-winger Repub, but there IS merit in only allowing people who have an investment in the community (AND WHO WORK) to vote. I would definitely be in favor of not allowing any person who lives on welfare to vote. Authority = responsbility, and voting is a form of authority. If you have no responsibility, why should you have the authority?

People who work, invest, and build in the community are the givers. Others reach out with an up-turned palm to take. Is it that much of a stretch to conjecture that the "givers" are more qualified to form a reasonable effective government of a community.

Not allowing taking welfare class to vote is very similar in concept to not allowing young children to vote. Society has developed certain standards which define responsibility, and these include working, giving to the community, and personal independence. What the difference between young child on the mothers breast, and a big child on the government's breast? They are both kids. Neither have demonstrated the responsibility which would validate their input of authority.

Kimberly, I have no idea of what you are talking about...especially in regard to Republicans wanting to go back to the days of slavery. Are you aware of the fact that the longest serving United States Senator is a Democrat AND a former Ku Klux Klan member? Did you know Byrd once vowed he would "never submit to fight beneath that banner (the American flag) with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

Yeah, the Democrats elected him to Congress anyhow. This man is now 3rd in line to the Presidency. Just thought you might want to know. Now please tell us again how Republicans are seeking a return to slavery.

Lincoln personally disliked slavery, but his Emancipation Proclamation was 100% political and not ethical/moral. He said, "if I could save the union by retaining slavery, I would do it...."

"What the difference between young child on the mothers breast, and a big child on the government's breast? They are both kids. Neither have demonstrated the responsibility which would validate their input of authority."

I'm gonna memorize this one!

The Republican party used to be known as the “progressive” party, and the Democrat as the conservative old school, so it may not be fair to go back too many years to support claims of the current parties. Remember Reagan’s statement about switching from the Democrat to Republican party because he claimed their values got switched. When Lincoln’s Republican party was new, I think it was the progressive, or liberal party of that day.

I though that the above article sort of justified current Bush's actions based on the sins of former Democrats. I doubt that too many would compare FDR’s actions after Pearl Harbor, and the Hitler reign of terror in Europe, with Bush’s actions in Iraq. As far as Vietnam and Korea, I agree with the author that those wars were also unjustified. I doubt if they are as unjustified as Iraq, but only history will tell.

Regarding voting rights, I think it wrong to encourage the public masses to vote. The message is how important it is to vote and exercise your rights. It is presented like you are doing the country a favor by checking that box. But you don’t see much campaigning about educating yourself on the depth of the issues.

It may be unreasonable to prevent people from voting based on education and knowledge of political events, but I think it would be reasonable to cut the encouragement for the public to vote. Those who care about the issues will vote, and those who don’t care or don’t bother to become accurately informed should be encouraged to stay home.

Just my opinion.