PAUL JOHNSON

The great issue in the 2004 election - it seems to me as an Englishman - is,
How seriously does the United States take its role as a world leader, and
how far will it make sacrifices, and risk unpopularity, to discharge this
duty with success and honor? In short, this is an election of the greatest
significance, for Americans and all the rest of us. It will redefine what
kind of a country the United States is, and how far the rest of the world
can rely upon her to preserve the general safety and protect our
civilization.

When George W. Bush was first elected, he stirred none of these feelings, at
home or abroad. He seems to have sought the presidency more for dynastic
than for any other reasons. September 11 changed all that dramatically. It
gave his presidency a purpose and a theme, and imposed on him a mission.
Now, we can all criticize the way he has pursued that mission. He has
certainly made mistakes in detail, notably in underestimating the problems
that have inevitably followed the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime in
Iraq, and overestimating the ability of U.S. forces to tackle them. On the
other hand, he has been absolutely right in estimating the seriousness of
the threat international terrorism poses to the entire world and on the need
for the United States to meet this threat with all the means at its disposal
and for as long as may be necessary. Equally, he has placed these
considerations right at the center of his policies and continued to do so
with total consistency, adamantine determination, and remarkable courage,
despite sneers and jeers, ridicule and venomous opposition, and much
unpopularity.

There is something grimly admirable about his stoicism in the face of
reverses, which reminds me of other moments in history: the dark winter
Washington faced in 1777-78, a time to "try men's souls," as Thomas Paine
put it, and the long succession of military failures Lincoln had to bear and
explain before he found a commander who could take the cause to victory.
There is nothing glamorous about the Bush presidency and nothing
exhilarating. It is all hard pounding, as Wellington said of Waterloo,
adding: "Let us see who can pound the hardest." Mastering terrorism fired by
a religious fanaticism straight from the Dark Ages requires hard pounding of
the dullest, most repetitious kind, in which spectacular victories are not
to be looked for, and all we can expect are "blood, toil, tears, and sweat."
However, something persuades me that Bush - with his grimness and
doggedness, his lack of sparkle but his enviable concentration on the
central issue - is the president America needs at this difficult time. He
has, it seems to me, the moral right to ask American voters to give him the
mandate to finish the job he has started.

This impression is abundantly confirmed, indeed made overwhelming, when we
look at the alternative. Senator Kerry has not made much of an impression in
Europe, or indeed, I gather, in America. Many on the Continent support him,
because they hate Bush, not because of any positive qualities Kerry
possesses. Indeed we know of none, and there are six good reasons that he
should be mistrusted. First, and perhaps most important, he seems to have no
strong convictions about what he would do if given office and power. The
content and emphasis of his campaign on terrorism, Iraq, and related issues
have varied from week to week. But they seem always to be determined by what
his advisers, analyzing the polls and other evidence, recommend, rather than
by his own judgment and convictions. In other words, he is saying, in
effect: "I do not know what to do but I will do what you, the voters, want."
This may be an acceptable strategy, on some issues and at certain times. It
is one way you can interpret democracy. But in a time of crisis, and on an
issue involving the security of the world, what is needed is leadership.
Kerry is abdicating that duty and proposing, instead, that the voters should
lead and he will follow.

Second, Kerry's personal character has, so far, appeared in a bad light. He
has always presented himself, for the purpose of Massachusetts vote-getting,
as a Boston Catholic of presumably Irish origins. This side of Kerry is
fundamentally dishonest. He does not follow Catholic teachings, certainly in
his views on such issues as abortion - especially when he feels additional
votes are to be won by rejecting Catholic doctrine. This is bad enough. But
since the campaign began it has emerged that Kerry's origins are not in the
Boston-Irish community but in Germanic Judaism. Kerry knew this all along,
and deliberately concealed it for political purposes. If a man will mislead
about such matters, he will mislead about anything.

There is, thirdly, Kerry's long record of contradictions and uncertainties
as a senator and his apparent inability to pursue a consistent policy on
major issues. Fourth is his posturing over his military record, highlighted
by his embarrassing pseudo-military salute when accepting the nomination.
Fifth is his disturbing lifestyle, combining liberal - even radical -
politics with being the husband, in succession, of two heiresses, one worth
$300 million and the other $1 billion. The Kerrys have five palatial homes
and a personal jet, wealth buttressed by the usual team of lawyers and
financial advisers to provide the best methods of tax-avoidance. Sixth and
last is the Kerry team: who seem to combine considerable skills in
electioneering with a variety of opinions on all key issues.

Indeed, it is when one looks at Kerry's closest associates that one's doubts
about his suitability become certainties. Kerry may dislike his
running-mate, and those feelings may be reciprocated - but that does not
mean a great deal. More important is that the man Kerry would have as his
vice president is an ambulance-chasing lawyer of precisely the kind the
American system has spawned in recent decades, to its great loss and peril,
and that is already establishing a foothold in Britain and other European
countries. This aggressive legalism - what in England we call "vexatious
litigation" - is surely a characteristic America does not want at the top of
its constitutional system.

Of Kerry's backers, maybe the most prominent is George Soros, a man who made
his billions through the kind of unscrupulous manipulations that (in Marxist
folklore) characterize "finance capitalism." This is the man who did
everything in his power to wreck the currency of Britain, America's
principal ally, during the EU exchange-rate crisis - not out of conviction
but simply to make vast sums of money. He has also used his immense
resources to interfere in the domestic affairs of half a dozen other
countries, some of them small enough for serious meddling to be hard to
resist. One has to ask: Why is a man like Soros so eager to see Kerry in the
White House? The question is especially pertinent since he is not alone
among the superrich wishing to see Bush beaten. There are several other huge
fortunes backing Kerry.

Among the wide spectrum of prominent Bush-haters there is the normal
clutter of Hollywood performers and showbiz self-advertisers. That is to be
expected. More noticeable, this time, are the large numbers of novelists,
playwrights, and moviemakers who have lined up to discharge venomous salvos
at the incumbent. I don't recall any occasion, certainly not since the age
of FDR, when so much partisan election material has been produced by
intellectuals of the Left, not only in the United States but in Europe,
especially in Britain, France, and Germany. These intellectuals - many of
them with long and lugubrious records of supporting lost left-wing causes,
from the Soviet empire to Castro's aggressive adventures in Africa, and who
have in their time backed Mengistu in Ethiopia, Qaddafi in Libya, Pol Pot in
Cambodia, and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua - seem to have a personal hatred
of Bush that defies rational analysis.

Behind this front line of articulate Bushicides (one left-wing columnist in
Britain actually offered a large sum of money to anyone who would
assassinate the president) there is the usual cast of Continental suspects,
led by Chirac in France and the superbureaucrats of Brussels. As one who
regularly reads Le Monde, I find it hard to convey the intensity of the
desire of official France to replace Bush with Kerry. Anti-Americanism has
seldom been stronger in Continental Europe, and Bush seems to personify in
his simple, uncomplicated self all the things these people most hate about
America - precisely because he is so American. Anti-Americanism, like
anti-Semitism, is not, of course, a rational reflex. It is, rather, a mental
disease, and the Continentals are currently suffering from a virulent spasm
of the infection, as always happens when America exerts strong and unbending
leadership.

Behind this second line of adversaries there is a far more sinister third.
All the elements of anarchy and unrest in the Middle East and Muslim Asia
and Africa are clamoring and praying for a Kerry victory. The mullahs and
the imams, the gunmen and their arms suppliers and paymasters, all those who
stand to profit - politically, financially, and emotionally - from the total
breakdown of order, the eclipse of democracy, and the defeat of the rule of
law, want to see Bush replaced. His defeat on November 2 will be greeted, in
Arab capitals, by shouts of triumph from fundamentalist mobs of exactly the
kind that greeted the news that the Twin Towers had collapsed and their
occupants been exterminated.

I cannot recall any election when the enemies of America all over the world
have been so unanimous in hoping for the victory of one candidate. That is
the overwhelming reason that John Kerry must be defeated, heavily and
comprehensively.

++++++++++++++++++

A little biographical info on Paul Johnson in case someone hasn't heard of him...

British historian Paul Johnson is one of those wizards
of the typewriter who can put together very fat books fairly quickly. Plus, they're fun to read and at least 92 percent accurate in fact and analysis.

The most famous of his works is Modern Times, a searing and sweeping tale of an often-thrilling, often-tragic, finally-over century. Other of his fat books include The Birth of the Modern, which takes hundreds of pages to tell the story of fifteen historically jam-packed years; and, his latest, A History of the American People, which annoyed some British critics who never got over the loss of 1783. They're annoyed that Paul Johnson likes the United States. (Bugs the hell out of some American critics too.)

The story of America is essentially one of difficulties being overcome by intelligence and skill, by faith and strength of purpose, by courage and persistence. America today, with its 260 million people, its splendid cities, its vast wealth, and its unrivaled power, is a human achievement without parallel....The great American experiment is still the cynosure of the world's eyes. It is still the first, best hope for the human race. Looking back on its past, and forward to its future, the auguries are that it will not disappoint an expectant humanity.

Johnson never converted to the word processor. He types up the main part of his manuscript on one machine, and the footnotes on another.

We like Paul Johnson because he used to be a raving left-winger who saw the light and now tells the story of mankind with passion and verve from a staunchly pro-freedom perspective. He doesn't insinuate his opinions in the guise of pseudo-detached pseudo-objectivity. He throws his spirit wholesale into the tale.

So what.. you found a raving NeO-Con writer who knos nuting about our revered sooon to be Great Leader John Kerry!
This man just writes from hate and dosnt unersand a tru inteluctual like Kerry.

Kind bored and work, and thought I'd beat Ray-B - JohnnyK - Screwie and the usual suspects to the punch.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: I cannot recall any election when the enemies of America all over the world have been so unanimous in hoping for the victory of one candidate. That is the overwhelming reason that John Kerry must be defeated, heavily and comprehensively. ++++++++++++++++++

Man don't waste your time it came from a www.votebush.com/readthisstory site. Just read the closing statement....I didn't even bothering reading it all seemed like a lot of b/s .... unless
Canada, France, Britain, Spain, Japan, Australia, Mexico, Germany and Russia are considered your enemies because the MAJORITY of those countries would LOVE Kerry to win.

quote Originally posted fierobear: Aw, other countries don't like us. Boo-f**king-hoo.

If this is your mentality good luck.....and it's not that other countries don't like Americans they don't like the moron running it....they feel that the WORLD is a much unsafer place with him as President of the United States.

[This message has been edited by MontrealMike (edited 10-19-2004).]

Maybe if you had bothered to read it you might have a little better chance at responding in a way that means something...

I don't see any hate written into those words... Both of you two that responded so angrily are the ones who sound like you are filled with hate. Name calling always seems to be the way with the other side...

And you say this was posted on some 'votebush' site.. Well... That may or may not be the case that it can be found on that site, but it certainly wasn't written by anyone on that site. It was written by a well-respected British author. He may not always be popular because he makes the big mistake of liking Americans, but as the statistic show, he has about a 92% accuracy record after all the spin of the other side subsides.

By the way, the supposed 'votebush' site you listed isn't even a site.... But thanks for listing it to make some people think it was real.

[This message has been edited by Songman (edited 10-19-2004).]

quote Originally posted by Songman: By the way, the supposed 'votebush' site you listed isn't even a site.... But thanks for listing it to make some people think it was real.

haha n/p

quote Originally posted by MontrealMike: Man don't waste your time it came from a www.votebush.com/readthisstory site. Just read the closing statement....I didn't even bothering reading it all seemed like a lot of b/s .... unless Canada, France, Britain, Spain, Japan, Australia, Mexico, Germany and Russia are considered your enemies because the MAJORITY of those countries would LOVE Kerry to win.

Well, I don't know what you are talking about. Australia, Mexico, and Russia want Bush. Germany doesn't care. and I don't care what France wants. So what's your point?

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Well, I don't know what you are talking about. Australia, Mexico, and Russia want Bush. Germany doesn't care. and I don't care what France wants. So what's your point?

Comon Toddster I got backup for my statement wheres yours?
https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/026889.html

Germany doesn't care? ......Don't you remember what topics you reply to?
https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/026843.html

quote Originally posted by MontrealMike: Comon Toddster I got backup for my statement wheres yours? https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/026889.html Germany doesn't care? ......Don't you remember what topics you reply to? https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/026843.html

You're kidding right? Don't you watch the news up there in......Oh yeah, you're in Canada, you only get CNN.

1) Putin 'endorsed' Bush just yesterday
2) Vincente Fox 'endorsed' Bush months ago
3) John Howard endorsed Bush recently and won in a landslide over the anti-war candidate in Australia just last week, a tacit endorsement of the Iraq War by the entire nation.
4) Germany is not saying **** at the moment because they are hip deep in the oil-for-food scam and they don't want to make waves.
5) The French...**** 'em. Under Chirac France's economy is the worst in the modern Industrial world with virtually ZERO growth in the last 15 years. France is on the verge of bankruptcy as a nation and they are determined to go down arrogantly proud of their own stupidity. Fine. See if we care this time. I for one am sick of bailing France out of trouble.

PS, backing-up your statements with OTHER Pennocks threads is NOT backing them up.

[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 10-19-2004).]

Once again back-up of your statements would be nice....Hey did you know pigs fly?
Edit
I am not talking about one person I am talking about a majority of a countries population....this edit doesn't mean I don't want back up of statements either. Also I mentioned 9 countries you only followed up on four (with unconfirmed information)

P.S
http://www.canada.com/search/story.html?id=aee88ae1-1db7-47d3-87f6-32b8fa21ff11
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/0b76459e-1c80-11d9-8d72-00000e2511c8.html

[This message has been edited by MontrealMike (edited 10-19-2004).]

'majority of a countries population'

Todd, he means those people that the media finds to put on TV yelling how much they hate America.. Not the REAL majority.

Nation's leaders are supposed to represent their people. Im noticing a trend from the Liberals. If they see something that they don't want to be true, or they don't like an opinion, they will turn real nasty and refuse to acknowledge it. That are start attacking the poster or the writter of the article and call them names. I guess if you can beat them, curse them out. This article did not come from a vote for Bush site neither, it was emailed to me. If people are not willing to read the articles before they critique them, they should not bother to make any half-cocked comments.

quote Originally posted by MontrealMike: If this is your mentality good luck.....and it's not that other countries don't like Americans they don't like the moron running it....they feel that the WORLD is a much unsafer place with him as President of the United States.

I guess it all depends on which side of the border you are on. I feel safer with Bush and the Republicans in power. The Democrats had their chance with terrorism, and did NOTHING. I don't feel very secure with an administration that does nothing.

actually it doesnt even matter what side of the border. I know that most people out west would much rather have bush then kerry as president. Thats the problem with canada too ppl out east who like to make the wrong decision. Hell look at our own goverment out elections are a joke since its over basicly over with just ont and que voting. And dont even get me started on what i think of queerbec.

quote Originally posted by neyven: I know that most people out west would much rather have bush then kerry as president.

Anyone else notice that all through the prairies wether in usa or canada they're is a a high support for bush but all the way on the east or all the way on the west theyre is more support for Kerry. Cowboy and Farm area "REPRESENT!"

BTW what happened to Toddster and his links he was going to show me

[This message has been edited by MontrealMike (edited 10-20-2004).]

Final bump before this gets buried.

Well, MontrealMike, you have shown your true "character". The typical eastern city type dweller who thinks he is so intellectual that he deserves more of a hearing than the dumb, stupid laborer like the midwestern farmer or cowboy. It must be a tremendous burden for you to be SO smart and have to live in a world with all these dumb midwestern americans messing things up. If only intelligencia like you and John Kerry could make the decisions of the world, it would be such a better place.

I'm FINALLY starting to understand it now. But, please, be patient with me, as I live in the midwest so it takes me a little longer to keep up with you intelligent people.

The above was my way of saying that I will not get on a person for believing differently than me, but I will call you out if you are an ARROGANT JERK.

No actually I was just stating that their seems to be some sort of coincidence why a majority of people in the prairie or farmlands vote Bush. "Represent!"

quote Originally posted by MontrealMike: Once again back-up of your statements would be nice....Hey did you know pigs fly? Edit I am not talking about one person I am talking about a majority of a countries population....this edit doesn't mean I don't want back up of statements either. Also I mentioned 9 countries you only followed up on four (with unconfirmed information) P.S http://www.canada.com/search/story.html?id=aee88ae1-1db7-47d3-87f6-32b8fa21ff11 http://news.ft.com/cms/s/0b76459e-1c80-11d9-8d72-00000e2511c8.html

No. No you are NOT talking about the majority of the population. Polls do NOT represent the majority opinion. VOTES DO! For example, the Australians JUST last week re-elected Prime Minister Howard based on a PRO-IRAQ WAR position. End of debate. You lose. Thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you.

quote Originally posted by MontrealMike: No actually I was just stating that their seems to be some sort of coincidence why a majority of people in the prairie or farmlands vote Bush. "Represent!"

I wonder if it is also a coincidence that these 'farmers' that you look down on so much are also the salt of the earth kind of people who still care about their neighbors and lived by the rules of the Good Book... If you needed a friend to help you out, you could go to one of these people any day over a snotty Canadian computer salesman with an attitude. Represent that!

[This message has been edited by Songman (edited 10-20-2004).]

http://www.electoral-vote.com

Only time will tell

[This message has been edited by MontrealMike (edited 10-20-2004).]

Yes it will.. if you have watched that site at all you know it has gone like a roller coaster..

Go figure. I like that site too.. But amazingly, even Tim Russert, who is about as middle of the road as I have seen in a news man says that if the election were held today Bush would win. I have no idea how he comes up with that but I like it!

Clinton didn't do anything eh?

On February 10, 1995, a counterterrorism bill drafted by the Clinton Administration was introduced in the Senate as S. 390 and in the House of Representatives as H.R. 896.
The bill, after being beaten todeath by republicans in comittee, was later rebranded The Patiot Act.

Not only did the Clinton White house draft the patiot act in 1995, no one in the REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED senate took it seriously. That goes for the same bill introduced by Democrats in the House.

White House fact sheet on the counter-terrorism measures signed into law by President Clinton on October 9, 1996:

The House of Representatives enacted HR 3593, the Aviation Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1996 on August 2. Provisions on wiretapping were removed after protests by civil liberties groups. The Senate is planning to take up the bill this week. Rep. Henry Hyde also introduced HR 3960, which contains expanded wiretap powers, which the Senate may attempt to include in their version of the bill.
The G-7 Ministerial Conference on Terrorism issued a resolution in Paris on July 30 calling for governmental cooperation on encryption policy and terrorist use of "electronic or wire communications systems and networks."
Text of the July 29, 1996 White House Fact Sheet on terrorism calling for new laws expanding warrantless roving and wiretaps and access to consumer information, and restricting cryptography.
Coalition letter against counterterrorism proposal signed by ACLU, NRA, EPIC, NACDL and other groups.
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers press release on coalition letter.
Join the Global Internet Liberty Coalition to oppose international efforts to restrict free speech and privacy online.
The Senate Defense Appropriations bill with a provision introduced by Senator Diane Feinstein to ban bomb makering material off the Internet. Congressional testimony of EPIC Advisory Board member Frank Tuerkheimer before the U.S. Senate on banning bomb making instructions on the Internet.

1995-1996 Counterterrorism Bill Files
Final text of Public-Law 104-132 counter-terrorism bill enacted by the Congress in May 1996. Most wiretap and privacy invasive provisions were removed.
PL 104-93, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996. Included provisions that allowed easier access to credit reports.
Text of the H.R. 2703/S. 735, the Effective Death Penalty and Public Safety Act of 1996, approved by the House of Representatives, March 14, 1996 .
Coalition letter opposing HR 2703 and other terrorism bills, December 6, 1995.
Letter from 20 law professors opposing terrorism bill.
Statement of Gun Owners of America opposing bills.
Statement of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers opposing bills.
ACLU Statement opposing HR 1710, December 6, 1995.
Text of the Republican terrorism bill, S. 735, the Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act of 1995, passed by the Senate, June 1995.
Draft of the Clinton Administration's Terrorism Inititiative from May 1995.
EPIC Letter to Senator Specter on revising the Attorney General's Guidelines on Domestic Security Investigations.
EPIC Press Release on letter to Senator Specter.
EPIC Wiretap Page for information on fighting the funding for the Digital Telephony Bill, a key element of the counterterrorism proposals.
S. 761, The Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995 - the revised Democratic counterterrorism bill.
Congressional Record Overview, of S. 761.
Text of the origional Democratic counterterrorism proposal, S. 390, Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995.
HR 68 The FBI Counterintelligence Act of 1995.
Analysis of the Constitutionality of the prohibition on contributions and immigration court provisions of the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995 (S. 390) by Prof. David Cole in HTML and text.
ACLU Statement on Clinton Administration's counterterrorism proposals.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I guess it all depends on which side of the border you are on. I feel safer with Bush and the Republicans in power. The Democrats had their chance with terrorism, and did NOTHING. I don't feel very secure with an administration that does nothing.

[This message has been edited by Jeremiah (edited 10-20-2004).]

Jeremiah, although I usually tend to disgree with your conclusions, you do normally have some pretty good arguments on your side...

The problems I have with this latest one are:

Yes, Clinton did a lot of talking. Introduced lots of bills. He did the same thing in the environment and then never actually did anything with either one of them... Talking is not doing...

If the Patriot Act is a Clinton baby, why now are the Democrats talking about how bad it is and blaming it on Bush?

Here's my electoral vote map. http://www.electionguide04.com/straw_poll_october.adp

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 10-20-2004).]

I like that! It won't let me vote though!

Let's see how long it takes people to accuse AOL or being Bush puppet's and 'fixing' their polling.

Hey a bit o/t but did any of you hear Bush reasoning on why he made it illegal to import medication from Canada?

HORSTMAN: Mr. President, why did you block the reimportation of safer and inexpensive drugs from Canada which would have cut 40 to 60 percent off of the cost?

BUSH: I haven't yet. Just want to make sure they're safe. When a drug comes in from Canada, I want to make sure it cures you and doesn't kill you.

We have a thing here called the FDA. It is here for a reason. The reason is to make sure that drugs are safe for use by Americans. I'll have to assume that Canadian drugs do not have FDA testing and approval... Way to go, Mr President!

Here's a quote on the same subject from another forum...

quote Posted by Raziaar: I think you guys are overreacting. I'd still like precautions when it comes to drugs of any type entering the country. We've already got corporations in this country that are killing our peopl off with drugs. You don't know how many commercials we have from law firms here about popular drugs that were marketed on TV just a few days ago that have been reported to cause death in many many people, and continue to do so. The law firms are just trying to get money, to get people to sue these companies, but the threat is still very real. On countries with less restrictions when it comes to drug manufacturing, i'd be even more worried about what might possibly come into the united states, unless it is FDA approved(even then, i'd be cautious). Tons of drugs in the united states are not FDA approved, and yet they make it into our homes. Besides, for the quote in the original post, can you guys do any better to make bush look bad, but mutilate his quote into something that of course sounds stupid? His actual quote didn't sound anywhere remotely as stupid as that. Fact of the matter is, there are drugs from canada that can kill you, and drugs from every country in the world probably no doubt.

BTW - What is your reason for asking? Does Canada need some more of this evil American money? I thought you guess were slamming the President for sending American jobs overseas and now you are trying to slam him for not buying Canadian drugs, for whatever reason.

[This message has been edited by Songman (edited 10-20-2004).]

You have to sign in to your AOL account to vote in the poll I posted.

Partisan quackery, I guess (at least, that is what I would chalk it up to). I was against s. 390 when it was proposed (though it hardly made a ripple) just as I am against the patriot act now. The provisions are too broad and, frankly, I don't like how 1984ish they are.

This is just one of a number of Clinton proposed measures for counter-terrorism, especially on the heals of the trade center bombings. Eventually s390 was watered down considerably into s375, proposed by bob dole, and passed into law. The s375 was a lot of Clinton's work, but mostly it granted prosecutorial remedies for terrorism. The fact is Clinton did do a number of things, including proposing a very aggressive anti-terror bill that simply didn't pass the muster of the republican controlled congress. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying democrats are better than republicans on terror. The simple and honest truth is that our government failed us in the 90's - not just Clinton. But to say Clinton did nothing is just wrong. Like they say, 9/11 changed everything, and given he was promoting drakonian legislation in the 90's before 9/11, it seems to me like he was thinking with a post-9/11 mentality pre-9/11.

quote Originally posted by Songman: If the Patriot Act is a Clinton baby, why now are the Democrats talking about how bad it is and blaming it on Bush?

[This message has been edited by Jeremiah (edited 10-20-2004).]

BUSH: Bob, we relied upon a company out of England to provide about half of the flu vaccines for the United States citizen, and it turned out that the vaccine they were producing was contaminated. And so we took the right action and didn't allow contaminated medicine into our country.

We're working with Canada to hopefully -- that they'll produce a -- help us realize the vaccine necessary to make sure our citizens have got flu vaccinations during this upcoming season.

....Oh all of a sudden our drugs our good now....geeez

KERRY: The reason health care costs are getting higher, one of the principal reasons is that this administration has stood in the way of common-sense efforts that would have reduced the costs. Let me give you a prime example.

In the Senate we passed the right of Americans to import drugs from Canada. But the president and his friends took it out in the House, and now you don't have that right. The president blocked you from the right to have less expensive drugs from Canada.

And yes the response that Bush gave to that response just shows what a dumbass he is....he makes it sounds like some 3rd world country

[This message has been edited by MontrealMike (edited 10-20-2004).]

No, it makes it sound like he is WORKING WITH Canada.. And once the FDA approves the drugs for mass distribution in this country, then they'll be let in... Exactly the same as the post I did made it sound... And it made it sound like his #1 priority is the safety of Americans, just like it should be.... Of course he is not going to just let drugs in from anywhere without testing.

How you turned that into Bush acting like someone is a 3rd world country I'll never know! Sheesh!

[This message has been edited by Songman (edited 10-20-2004).]

Well if you don't think drugs are already very well tested in Canada, I would also think that for some reason you think were some 3rd world country I think

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/feature/magazine/2001_03/drugs.htm

It has nothing to do with that.. You are the one who hates the US.. I have never even come close to sounding like I hate Canada.. Actually I kinda like Canada, in spite of some of it's citizens who are a pain in the butt...

The fact is that this country has laws and standards and they have to be upheld. Why would we take drugs from a Canadian company that haven't passed the same tests we make American companies pass? That is just crazy... You're search for partisan crap to blame on President Bush has made you stop thinking clearly.

[This message has been edited by Songman (edited 10-20-2004).]

Hey I like the USA I actually want to move down there several years from now...as I have stated before I DONT LIKE BUSH. Having drugs being imported from Canada was going on for some time now....and the moron decides to ban that ....for the US economy it probably would be a good thing (for americans to buy american products).....but for the people who can't really afford it....oh well sucks for them.

[This message has been edited by MontrealMike (edited 10-20-2004).]

Sure, if you change the facts to suit your arguments you can say that... Bottom line is, American drug companies have to have their drugs pass FDA. Foreign drug companies have to do that same.. I am sure there are some Canadian drugs that are being exported into this country. But after the contaminated drugs from England we have to look closer.. Sorta like we only looked at terrorism as a foreign problem until it hit us at home.

quote Originally posted by Uaana: So what.. you found a raving NeO-Con writer who knos nuting about our revered sooon to be Great Leader John Kerry! This man just writes from hate and dosnt unersand a tru inteluctual like Kerry. Kind bored and work, and thought I'd beat Ray-B - JohnnyK - Screwie and the usual suspects to the punch.

ROFL, since when do I belong in that list No offense Rayb or JohnnyK Screwie, the raving liberal! Yeah!

[This message has been edited by Screwie (edited 10-20-2004).]

quote Originally posted by Songman: Sorta like we only looked at terrorism as a foreign problem until it hit us at home.

"Records at Britain's Department of Health show that the plant's owner, Chiron Corp., warned officials of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the British Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency on Sept. 13 that potential contamination problems remained unresolved at the plant, according to Alison Langley, a senior spokeswoman at the department."

First of all it wasnt as if England sent the drugs the FDA, and they tested them and it proved to be contaminated. England told the FDA they would not be able to supply it because it was contaminated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18795-2004Oct8.html

[This message has been edited by MontrealMike (edited 10-20-2004).]

What is your point? That has nothing to do with anything. I never said the FDA found out about the contamination. Still... Why should foreign drug makers not have to have anything they want to sell to the US approved by our standards?

Car manufacturers have to make their cars pass US specs to be imported here. I know you see the point even though you keep trying to throw the attention somewhere else.

First, let me give you my credentials: In my previous life I worked as a QC analyst at Eli Lilly and before that in drug discovery (at the same company). The job sucked so I went to grad school... but enough about me.

The reimported drugs are just that, they were mostly manufactured in the US (and puerto rico, korea, japan etc) but all sites pass FDA, EDA, Mexican drug regulators, Japanese Drug inspections... you name it, the works (I worked with at least 3 drug agencies). The drugs manufactured were done so in these nations under the auspicates of the parent company, meaning any drug you take in America was made in the same plant as those shipped to Canada. The safety issue is bogus, it assumes that the drugs we get from Canada might be forgeries made in black market labs - something that can happen to anyone when they buy from a discount drug store on the internet, be it an American company or not, so there is nothing wrong with the Canadian drug supply, indeed the Canadians rarely stopped by to inspect our plants because how thorough the FDA and EDA investigate.

Off topic a bit though, the fact that we caught the contaminated batch isn’t surprising. The testing protocols are so rigid (I know, I wrote a lot of them for Xigris and Forteo) that any degree of impurity would not go unnoticed. The problem is usually when something is found to be out of spec the cost of changing the system is astronomical. Not necessarily in changing the equipment out (big pharma farts that kind of money every day) the cost is in the literally thousands upon thousands of man hours to recertify every new piece of equipment, to write and approve the new methods, to test new methods, to run the mandatory practice lots… we are talking a year – if they work 24 hour shifts, to get this done. When it is all said and done the regulatory agencies must come in and certify the results and they seldom do on their first visit. The problems they find must be fixed, each one of those require a new protocol, testing and certification, taking another 6 months. During this whole period drug manufacturing at this plant has shut down, all its employees are no longer agents of profit but are now working to correct a minor problem… say a leaky coolant tank that has gotten a few ppm of ethylene glycol into the drug batch or a solvent container that rusted or a valve that refused to open preventing the full reaction from proceeding.

I personally joined the ‘million dollar club’ when I discovered the solvent containers used to distribute acetic acid for cleaning were improperly sealed and were used on pervious lots. Sure, the fix cost a million bucks, but it isn’t something the FDA will ever find unless they looked REALLY hard. The people they put into my position play words like a Steinbeck. I became extraordinarily good at saying something that admits problems but exonerates even the most deplorable of oversights as acts of excusable and irrelevant triviality.

The fact that they reported the contamination says something about the degree of contamination or the honestly of those making the vaccine.

quote Originally posted by Songman: Sure, if you change the facts to suit your arguments you can say that... Bottom line is, American drug companies have to have their drugs pass FDA. Foreign drug companies have to do that same.. I am sure there are some Canadian drugs that are being exported into this country. But after the contaminated drugs from England we have to look closer.. Sorta like we only looked at terrorism as a foreign problem until it hit us at home.