1st Presidential Debate thread

[DanTheManPR]

It just finished about one minute ago, I liked how well-disciplined everyone was. I listened on the radio for the most part, but I glanced at the TV every so often, and at least they didn't smirk at each other.

My initial reactions:
A lot of rhetoric, but at least it was all the rhetoric in an hour and a half format - definitely better than sound bites. They repeated a lot of stuff (I heard Kerry said "90 percent of the casualties, 90 percent of the cost" about three times). They both practiced a lot for this - although Kerry sounded a little more natural when he talked (as any slick polititian should).

[RHooks]

It was brutal. Bush isn't going to win anyone to his cause based on that perfromance. We have Don Knotts for a president.

[Nyghtfall]

I watched the debate in its entirety. For the first time in this entire campaign, I want to vote for Kerry not because he's not Bush, but because he's John Kerry.


Kerry ROCKED!!!!


:rock:

[Rafal Dudek]

bah! Bush was all too defensive. Now... the big question is.... who spinned more facts around.

[RHooks]

I watched the debate in its entirety. For the first time in this entire campaign, I want to vote for Kerry not because he's not Bush, but because he's John Kerry.


Kerry ROCKED!!!!


:rock:

Kerry said nothing of substance all night long. He just said it very well.

[DanTheManPR]

Conduct your own debate! (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/analysis/toons/2004/09/29/mitchell/index.html)

[Nyghtfall]

Kerry said nothing of substance all night long. He just said it very well.

:wtf:

Ok, which debate did YOU watch?

On a humorous note:

Curly Tales of War Pigs Blog (http://jackpinesavage.blogspot.com/2004/10/post-debate.html)

:lol:

[RHooks]

:wtf:

Ok, which debate did YOU watch?



The one where two goobers I wouldn't hire to run a fast food restaurant were trying to convince the American sheeple to elect them to the most powerful office in the world. Was there another one?

:scared:

[Lou Cypher]

Basically it was a draw.

Lou :globe:

[Mr. Natural]

CNN says Kerry won. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/fri/index.html)
I did manage to watch most of it until I dozed off. :sleep: :lol:
I think a lot of folks who watched it already have their mind made up and unlikely to have changed those minds.
Those who are undecided may have been more impressed with Kerry over Bush.
I could agree with Rhooks in that all politicians basically say a lot but nothing of meaning.

I think the whole election should boil down to this. You have 2 choices. If you like the way things have gone for the past 4 years and want more of that, then vote for Bush.
If you want to see some change, then vote for Kerry. Although I'm not sure if the change will really be any better.
The real problem is the way the American government as a whole is run. I guess some get annoyed at my constant criticism of the government as a whole. Hey I'm very happy to be an American and feel very thankful that I am a resident of this country.

If I vote I'll probably vote for Kerry. My vote won't count for much though because my girlfriend is republican. :doa:

[Ojnod]

I think Kerry rocked the house. He was clear with his issues and put Bush on the defensive (then again I think the media did that and it was inevitable). I was not much of a Kerry fan before and I was taking the same stance that nyghtfall was taking, but this made me change my mind and like him more. However, I want to hear the 3rd debate the most. IMO, either president could get us out of this war equally fast, but the economy, jobs, outsourcing, taxing, etc. are going to be different.


Then again, what does it matter, I miss the vote by 10 days anyway....

[Gaim Mastr]

Kerry said nothing of substance all night long. He just said it very well.


I'm sorry that's all you got from his side of the debate.


What I got out of it was that Bush was very clearly stating that he wouldn't change anything and that his best plan is to continue doing exactly what he's been doing so far. The idea of someone not learning from their own past doesn't appeal to me.

Kerry on the other hand stated that he'd do things differently. Perhaps most notably he'd work toward patching the strained relations between the US and the rest of the world. And he did this while very clearly stating that he would not hinge America's defense or right to take action on what other countries or the UN said.

As much as many people are thoroughly unimpressed with the UN and the actions (or inactions) of countries like France, Russia, Germany and China, the undeniable fact is that America cannot succeed with an isolationist mentality. Like it or not, we really do need to put forth a lot more effort to patch strained relations with many of the other countries on the planet.


When Bush justified using military force to defend the US against those who attacked us, and then Kerry pointed out that Saddam didn't attack us, I thought that was a very good move.


Unlike Bush, Kerry wants to do more to properly equip and bolster our military in Iraq. Kerry knows that it's too late now to just turn around and pull out of Iraq, as does Bush. But the major difference is that Kerry is willing and honest enough to say that we've got a serious problem over there. While Bush continually stated that a Commander in Chief should not be sending that kind of message to our troops or our coalition partners. And therein lies the biggest problem that I can see. Bush considers admitting to a mistake as a sign of weakness. Kerry believes that the first step to fixing a problem is to first admit that there is one. I believe the same thing.

The way Bush has gone about this whole Iraq war has caused the rest of the world to basically just sit back make us finish the job all on our own. Now the UN and other countries are saying "America made the mess on their own, so they can clean it up on their own." Does anyone really think that the UN or other countries are looking at Iraq and saying that they're just waiting for the chance to jump in and join the US efforts ??

Hell no. They see the mess over there. They see that each month larger volumes of American servicemen are being killed.

Kerry says that he'd work harder to get international support in Iraq. Of course, that's far easier said than done. But at least he's willing to put forth a lot more effort than Bush is.


One point where I agree with Bush over Kerry is on North Korea. I agree that we need to refrain from negotiating with little Kim and maintain our efforts to work with China and Russia and use their influences to halt Kim's nuclear weapons programs. Of course, that's only as long as real progress is being made. In the past two years, I'm not aware of any such progress.




Basically it was a draw.

I really don't see how you can come to that conclusion. Bush stands for continuing to do the same things he's done in the past with no change of tactics. Kerry sees the same ultimate goal as Bush, but is willing to try different tactics in hopes of better accomplishing the goal.

Whether you think that continuing to isolate the US from the rest of the world and concentrate our military and interests in Iraq instead of on al Queda hot spots or North Korea or Iran is still the best way to go; or you think that Bush's execution of the plans haven't gone as well as they should; the two men have different methods of obtaining the same goals. I don't see how you can call that a draw.

[RangerRick]

I did not see much of the debate, if you want to call it that. In reality, there was very little debating.
From remarks that I've seen in print and on the radio, neither one said anything new that they did not say before.
The thing is: Kerry says what he thinks people want to hear, not what he believes. The proof is in how many times Kerry has changed his stance, depending on which group he is talking to.

I do not like many things Bush has said or done, but I can trust Bush much more so than Kerry.

We know what we have with Bush. Do you really honestly know what you're going to get with Kerry?

[Bruenor]

We know what we have with Bush. Do you really honestly know what you're going to get with Kerry?

That's a pretty sad statement of American politics in general. It's like saying "I know what I'm going to get staying with an abusive spouse, I don't honestly know what I'm going to get if I do something different, therefore I won't even bother trying."

Seriously, what kind of message does that really send?

[Nyghtfall]

Do you really honestly know what you're going to get with Kerry?

Yeah... a lot of change that I'd like to see happen.

My question to you is: Are you so untrusting of Kerry that you'd rather have more of the same with Bush than take a risk on different leadership under Kerry?

[RangerRick]

Yeah... a lot of change that I'd like to see happen.

My question to you is: Are you so untrusting of Kerry that you'd rather have more of the same with Bush than take a risk on different leadership under Kerry?

Then you're only fooling yourself if you really belive that.

' Be careful what you wish for, you just may get it.'

What is there about Kerry that I can Trust? He has changed his tune on multiple issues, you cannot deny that, try as you might. The facts speak for themselves.

If Kerry has what it takes, then why does he not speak more of his past 20 years in office? There's nary any talk of that. I wonder why?

[Gary V.]

Most of you would support just about any democrat running for president. However, I have to agree Kerry came across as more prepared, more intelligent, and more presidential than Bush last night. I gotta admit I was impressed with Kerry. I was 70% leaning towards Bush and about 30% towards Kerry. Now I'm around 60% Bush, 40% Kerry.

Kerry still has a long ways to go to get me to vote for him, and I can't imagine his goofy wife as First Lady. Social issues will probably keep me from voting for Kerry in the long run. I grew up in the same environment as Bush; I know a lot of you think us religious, conservative folks are kooks, but I gotta stick to my core beliefs. The Democratic Party definitely does not lend itself to my vote in that area.

Bottom line: I really wish I had a viable third choice.

[RangerRick]

Bottom line: I really wish I had a viable third choice.

I could not agree with you more!

But to add to that, a viable choice with a chance to win!

[Cloudw4lker]

[QUOTE=RangerRick] What is there about Kerry that I can Trust? He has changed his tune on multiple issues, you cannot deny that, try as you might. The facts speak for themselves.QUOTE]

from a comic in the newspaper a few weeks back, done in writing.

An subborn person | A Smart person . .| A focused Politician | A inconsistant Politician

I'm not changing my|Based on new . . .|I'm not changing my |Based on new statistics
mind no matter . . . |statistics I change|mind no matter what|I change my Opinion
what . . . . . . . . . .|my opinion . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |



If you can't piece that together, it basically means a smart person changes what they will do based on new stats and a stubborn person won't. And in the eyes of us, a smart politician won't change there opinion because they made promises but a stupid politician will change because they heard something new.

Even simpler, stupid people are smart politicians but smart people are stupid politicians.

If the war on Iraq was thought to cost 100,000,000$ then bush says, ok I'll do it then they start doing it and it costs 10,000,000,000$ would you still do it because you promised to?

[NotSoFast]

Why I can't vote for Kerry...

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/RNC091604.wmv

[MasterChief]

Of course Bush embarassed himself like he always does but I don't think Kerry did that well either. I'm so sick of politicians anyway, and Kerry's type is exactly the kind that gets on my nerves...he'll say whatever he thinks we want to hear and to hell with what he really feels. And it's not just him either, it's all politicians.

On a side note, am I the only one that thinks Kerry looks like a dead guy? I mean, seriously, he looks like a zombie...I'm not even kidding.

[NotSoFast]

Not so much a dead guy. More along the lines of an Easter Island statue.

http://www.btinternet.com/~parrothouse/ranoranaku.jpg

[RHooks]

I kept waiting for Bush to say "Why the long face, John?"

:wink: :lol:

[Gaim Mastr]

heh, yeah, Kerry as all the charisma of an Al Gore. :eek:

I don't know what's with the Democrats' determination to end all charisma as we know it. Clinton was loaded with it. After him comes who.......... Al Sharpton ?? :scared:

[Lou Cypher]

Originally posted by Gaim
Quote:
Originally Posted by lou
Basically it was a draw.


I really don't see how you can come to that conclusion. Bush stands for continuing to do the same things he's done in the past with no change of tactics. Kerry sees the same ultimate goal as Bush, but is willing to try different tactics in hopes of better accomplishing the goal.

Whether you think that continuing to isolate the US from the rest of the world and concentrate our military and interests in Iraq instead of on al Queda hot spots or North Korea or Iran is still the best way to go; or you think that Bush's execution of the plans haven't gone as well as they should; the two men have different methods of obtaining the same goals. I don't see how you can call that a draw.As for saying it was a draw, I was just repeting what Joe Lockhart said right after the Debates ended. But myself, I do think Kerry came across much better than Bush style wise, but that didn't surprise me because Kerry's been debating since he's been 15.

But Bush, something wasn't right about him at the debate, he seemed tired and a little unfocused at the begining, he wasnh't at his best that night. Bush had a chance to end this thing, but he missed some oportunities to do so, he wasn't prepared enough for this. I thought if he said "It's hard work" one more time I was going to scream.

Kerry on the other hand was the same old Kerry, He attacks bush for being unalateral in Iraq but he wants to be unalateral when it comes to N.korea, is that a flip-flop, maybe not but it's surely inconsistant. This exchange clearly went to Bush as a win.
But there was a classic Kerry flip-flop and he did it within one paragraph, he said "No President, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.", but in the very next sentance he say's "But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test". Nice one, he'll protect us but he'll get the U.N.'s permision first.
My feeling is that Kerry won on style and Bush won on substance, but the American public cares more about style than substance when it comes to debates. But what Kerry did that was more impotant was that he shored up his base, just look at Nyghts reaction to it.

Lou :globe:

edit: But in the end can you really truely believe what Kerry say's, as evidence in NotSoFast's video he posted.

[Lou Cypher]

As for Kerry's look, I was watching TV one day and Dana Carvy was on and he's tallking about both candidates. He starts talking about Kerry and in a impression only he could do say's "Hello, I'm John Kerry and I'm half Basset Hound", man it was funny!

Lou :globe:

[SupaTroopa]

He attacks bush for being unalateral in Iraq but he wants to be unalateral when it comes to N.korea, is that a flip-flop, maybe not but it's surely inconsistant. This exchange clearly went to Bush as a win.


Well North Korea admits to and has nuclear military capabilities and has, for whatever reason, made veiled threats and seems to also enjoy defying the UN.

This is different from Iraq that has been weakened severly by years of sanctions, had no significant military power of any kind, and apparently no evidence of significant amounts of WMD's...none. Saddam isn't the only crazy dictator type or government force in the region or the rest of the world.

When Russia clearly threatened us with nuclear weapons we dealt with them regardless of the UN. NK should be handled the same way.

Kerry glossed over some things regarding his votes on certain issues, but you know, politicians are there to change their mind, they are there as our representatives and when the public opinion is leaning a certain way, a senator should respect that.

Bush and the right wing mantra is to "be decisive and stand by your convictions at any cost." Well that's fine and good in theory but as with Iraq hardly always works.

It is also how you breach the sanctity of the separation of religion and state. Our country was founded as result of religious oppression...lest anyone forgets.

Therefore I cannot support "King George" or his cronies ever again. Kerry is the lesser of two evils to me.

[Lou Cypher]

Why are you bringing up religen(sp)?, not once was it ever part of the debate.

This is different from Iraq that has been weakened severly by years of sanctions, had no significant military power of any kind, and apparently no evidence of significant amounts of WMD's...none. Saddam isn't the only crazy dictator type or government force in the region or the rest of the world.Your statement about WMD is made in hindsight, at the time before going to war everyone thought Iraq had WMD, so your point about multi/unalateral talks are moot. Kerry has always spoke the mantra of the U.N. and multilateralism, he can't have it both ways.

Comparing N.Korea to Russia doesn't work either, first Russia was a global threat with Land based ICBM's that could hit any target in the world along with long range bombers and a formitable submarine fleet that could park off itself off the coast of the U.S.
N.Korea on the other hand is a reginal threat, probibly has two or three nukes and probibly has no way to deliver them easily to a target. They do have long range missles but there not ICBM's, so you need the people most effected by that threat in talks and Bush outlined that at the debates.

Kerry glossed over some things regarding his votes on certain issues, but you know, politicians are there to change their mind, they are there as our representatives and when the public opinion is leaning a certain way, a senator should respect that.Yes, I can respect someone changing there minds but not on the scale of John Kerry. He does it week by week, month by month, tell me what changed in the world in the short few weeks from when he said it would be irresponsible not to vote yes to fund our troops to voting against funding our troops?

Lou :globe:

[Gaim Mastr]

But there was a classic Kerry flip-flop and he did it within one paragraph, he said "No President, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.", but in the very next sentance he say's "But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test". Nice one, he'll protect us but he'll get the U.N.'s permision first.


So you're saying that just because Kerry is more willing to work with the UN and other countries than Bush is means that he'd only hinge America's defense on UN resolutions ??

Sorry Lou, that dog doesn't hunt.



N.Korea on the other hand is a reginal threat, probibly has two or three nukes and probibly has no way to deliver them easily to a target. They do have long range missles but there not ICBM's, so you need the people most effected by that threat in talks and Bush outlined that at the debates.

Just a point of fact here, North Korea already has missles capable of hitting the Western US. Even if they aren't tipped with nuclear warheads, which I believe they are, how long would it be before a country capable of nuclear technology is able to fit one of their rockets with a nuke ??

[Lou Cypher]

Originally posted by Gaim
Quote:
Originally Posted by lou Cifer

But there was a classic Kerry flip-flop and he did it within one paragraph, he said "No President, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.", but in the very next sentance he say's "But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test". Nice one, he'll protect us but he'll get the U.N.'s permision first.



So you're saying that just because Kerry is more willing to work with the UN and other countries than Bush is means that he'd only hinge America's defense on UN resolutions ??

Sorry Lou, that dog doesn't hunt.Right Gaim, keep telling yourelf that :rolleyes: , it's as clear as a bell, he won't do a preemptive strike unless he gets permission, ie; "Global test".


Quote:
N.Korea on the other hand is a reginal threat, probibly has two or three nukes and probibly has no way to deliver them easily to a target. They do have long range missles but there not ICBM's, so you need the people most effected by that threat in talks and Bush outlined that at the debates.


Just a point of fact here, North Korea already has missles capable of hitting the Western US. Even if they aren't tipped with nuclear warheads, which I believe they are, how long would it be before a country capable of nuclear technology is able to fit one of their rockets with a nuke ??No Gaim, thats not a fact, it's an estimate. And what country are you talking about, sure "a" country could fit a nuke on a missle but that doesn't meen N.korea can. But lets say their missle can hit the west coast of the U.S., their targeting system is probibly poor and it wouldn't be very accurate. If it was a conventional warhead what do you think we would do?, lets say it was a nuke?, what do you think we would do?, the leader of N.Korea is crazy, not stupid.

Lou :globe:

[Gaim Mastr]

Right Gaim, keep telling yourelf that :rolleyes: , it's as clear as a bell, he won't do a preemptive strike unless he gets permission, ie; "Global test".


When you start resorting to outright lies to bolster your side of an argument or debate, trust me, you've already lost.

What's next along that twisted reasoning, lou ??

Lemme guess...... Kerry really wants to merge the US with France because he's repeatedly stated that he'd work to patch strained relations with France. And of course, anyone who can't see that is just fooling themselves.

:face4:


No Gaim, thats not a fact, it's an estimate.

You're not doing too well here, lou. :no:

In February of 2003 while testifying at a Senate committee hearing in Washington, CIA Director George Tenet was asked whether North Korea had a ballistic missile capable of reaching the U.S. West Coast. His response...


Tenet

I think the declassified answer, is yes, they can do that.

North Korea has been developing missiles such as the Taepodong-1 and -2, with ranges of up to 6,000 km (3,750 miles). U.S. officials said that February that Pyongyang had a three-stage Taepodong-2 missile that could reach the West Coast of the United States.



But lets say their missle can hit the west coast of the U.S., their targeting system is probibly poor and it wouldn't be very accurate.

Well that might give you a warm fuzzy feeling inside, but not me.


the leader of N.Korea is crazy, not stupid.

He starves his own people while focing all schools to teach only that Westerners are evil and we're the cause of all their problems. He threatens to use his nuclear weapons on his own people if the US makes any threatening moves.

That may not be actions of a stupid man in your book, but it is in mine. He's both crazy and stupid. Little Kim isn't the leader of North Korea because he was smart enough to win popular support. He was placed in power by the demands of his dictator father.

[Lou Cypher]

Originally posted by Gaim
Quote:
Originally Posted by lou
Right Gaim, keep telling yourelf that , it's as clear as a bell, he won't do a preemptive strike unless he gets permission, ie; "Global test".



When you start resorting to outright lies to bolster your side of an argument or debate, trust me, you've already lost.

What's next along that twisted reasoning, lou ??

Lemme guess...... Kerry really wants to merge the US with France because he's repeatedly stated that he'd work to patch strained relations with France. And of course, anyone who can't see that is just fooling themselves.Ok Gaim, how is that a Lie?, if it is it's should be easy to prove, and tell me, then what does "Global test" mean?
Boy Gaim, why are you so fixated on France, your imagination runneth over. And please Gaim, stay away from the Koolaid.

I concede on the missile issue :thumbup:, but that still doesn't make him a global threat like the Soviets were.

Quote:
the leader of N.Korea is crazy, not stupid.


He starves his own people while focing all schools to teach only that Westerners are evil and we're the cause of all their problems. He threatens to use his nuclear weapons on his own people if the US makes any threatening moves.

That may not be actions of a stupid man in your book, but it is in mine. He's both crazy and stupid. Little Kim isn't the leader of North Korea because he was smart enough to win popular support. He was placed in power by the demands of his dictator father.For years he's made similer statements, he's not going to risk a direct nuclear confrontation with the U.S.. He's not going to risk losing everything his father gave him, that would be suicidal, and thats another thing he's not.

[Rafal Dudek]

His name is Pyong Yang... I'd be pretty pissed too if my parents named me that LOL :p:

[Nyghtfall]

From americablog.org:

http://www.nyghtfall.com/bush_headlights.jpg

'Nuff said.

[NotSoFast]

What would you have suggested the President do on 9/11? Run around like a chicken with it's head cut off? He remained calm and collected and got as much information as possible before acting. He then grounded all air traffic to prevent more possible terrorist crashes. I know reading to elementary school kids isn't as exciting as if he had been in the Oval Office "moistening" his cigars, but that's where he was. It would not have been good to just jump up and start screaming and shouting. Perhaps he should have just ignored the whole thing like Clinton did when the WTC was bombed by the truck in the underground parking garage? Ignore it like Clinton did when the USS Cole was bombed? Ignore it like Clinton did when several US and Ally embassies were bombed all over the world?

Personally I would rather have a man of action as my President instead of a coward that sat back and was too afraid of what a confrontation might do to my image. In case you haven't noticed, since the US and it's Allies went to war over there, there have been no more terrorist attacks here. Coincidence? 'Nuff said. :rolleyes:

[Nyghtfall]

What would you have suggested the President do on 9/11?

Very calmly interrupt the children, explain that he had an important matter to take care of elsewhere, and then left the building.

[Lou Cypher]

John Kerry admited that he sat for 40 min. "unable to think" after the WTC attack until the pentagon was hit.

Lou :globe:

[Gaim Mastr]

Ok Gaim, how is that a Lie?

You know it, I know it, anyone who's heard Kerry state repeatedly that he wouldn't hinge America's defense on the UN or any other country knows it. That makes it a lie. And that's the end of that particular discussion as far as I'm concerned.



What would you have suggested the President do on 9/11? Run around like a chicken with it's head cut off?

So that's the only other option ??
He could only either sit there for seven minutes with a deer-caught-in-the-headlights look or run around like a decapitated chicken. I'll see your emote and raise you one... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


And yeah yeah, we all know that Clinton failed in many aspects and that al Queda gained more and more power on his watch.

Thank God Clinton isn't running for office this year. And as I recall, Clinton was a part of these presidential candidate debates. Now that we've got that out of the way...


Personally I would rather have a man of action as my President...


A man of action ??

:lol2:

A man of action wouldn't have been notified that the country may be under attack and then just remain sitting in front of school children like a speechless statue for seven more minutes after the second plane hit the WTC. :no:





I think Bush did a couple of things right on that day. He didn't jump to conclusions and just launch missiles at some target. But beyond that, let's not over-credit the man for things he didn't do.

The FCC grounded all remaining flights that day, not Bush. While the president does have the authority to do that, news of flights being grounded all over the US hit the airwaves BEFORE Bush ever moved his but from in front of the children and issued a single order. That's the FCC working at a critical time while your "man of action" was still stunned motionless for several additional minutes.

What else might you have credited Bush with on 9/11.…….. ordering military jets to begin patrolling the skies and shoot down high jacked airlines ??

Nope. It was Vice President Cheney who did that.

What should Bush have done ??

Step one would have been to get off his butt, inform the children that some unexpected business has come up and excuse himself from the school to his transportation while getting intel and issuing executive orders. THAT'S what a "man of action" would have done. And if the country is under attack, you have to assume right off the bat that the president himself could be a target. For that fact alone he should have removed himself as far from a building full of children as soon as possible.

I agree with what Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian at the University of New Orleans had to say about Bush's 'action'…


[quote]Bush should have immediately excused himself and started figuring out what was happening and what he could do. "The way to project calm and strength is to take care of business. Character is not defined in good times, when you've been properly briefed, it's defined when you're in a desperate crisis situation.


After a few days passed and Bush's slow-firing neurons finally processed what was going on in the country, your "man of action" could have asked us citizens to do virtually anything. He had our full attention and cooperation. And what did Mr. Action do at this critical time? He told us all to go out and…….. go shopping, spend money. Because if you don't go shopping, then "they win".


I'm due for another good chuckle. Would someone please post more about how Bush is strong leader and a man of action for me ?? :lol3:

[NotSoFast]

I don't see how anyone can vote for a man who has not mentioned one word about what he would do about any of the issues. "I have a plan" doesn't cut it for me. Kerry has been shown on video saying that he "fully supports" the President's actions in the Middle East then turns around and berates him for sending troops. He voted for the war and voted not to fund it. He voted against seperate punishments for harming an unborn child when the mother was injured in a crime. I suppose these things don't matter. "He's not Bush" is good enough, no matter what the man stands for.

[Gaim Mastr]

John Kerry admited that he sat for 40 min. "unable to think" after the WTC attack until the pentagon was hit.

Lou :globe:



Kerry, like the rest of us in the world, wasn't the acting president. We're afforded that luxury. The sitting president isn't.


As for Bush's petrified by fear 7-minutes, sure, put his inaction in the best light that you can. Go ahead and talk about how he was thinking of the kids, wanting to project "calm" and "strength". I don’t care how much pro-Bush spin you apply, I'm confident that a solid majority of those who've watched that footage of him just sitting there, waiting for other people to tell him what to do and how to proceed are coming away with just one thought in their heads, "That man had no freakin' clue what to do under tough circumstances".

You Bushies can make all of the excuses that you want to. We were all shocked and stunned on that terrible day. But that footage will continue to prove reality without the spin. And in the voting booths this November it's going to be on a lot of people's minds, as it should.

[RangerRick]

I'm due for another good chuckle. Would someone please post more about how Bush is strong leader and a man of action for me ??


And just what makes you think, or better yet, what proof do you offer, that Kerry is a better solution?

You know it, I know it, anyone who's heard Kerry state repeatedly that he wouldn't hinge America's defense on the UN or any other country knows it. That makes it a lie. And that's the end of that particular discussion as far as I'm concerned.


Such rhetoric from you Gaim! That statement sounds a lot like something Terry would say.
And were you one of the pundits who said Bush lied about WMDs? When Bush relied on information given him by what was thought to be at the time 'reliable resources'?

I thought the definition of a lie was when you knowingly deceive(yeah, yeah, I know the response to that. "Bush doesn't have a clue!") someone.

And as for Kerry, and his flip-flopping, that is more a defintion of what a lie is. Kerry knowingly is deceiving people. And a lot of that is on small things!
I'd hate to see what he'd do if he were president.

[Gaim Mastr]

I don't see how anyone can vote for a man who has not mentioned one word about what he would do about any of the issues. "I have a plan" doesn't cut it for me.


Step one is to pull yourself away from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh for two seconds. :wink:
After that, a wealth of legitimate information becomes available to you. For instance Kerry has mentioned that anyone with Internet access can go to http://www.johnkerry.com for more details on his plans and stances on the issues.

Now, you many not agree with is positions on the issues outlined on his website. But don't say that Kerry has been tightlipped on what the details of his plans are while Bush's number one rubberstamp response is always "stay the course".



Kerry has been shown on video saying that he "fully supports" the President's actions in the Middle East…


And was this when Bush sold the American and British public on Saddam having WMDs and was working with al Queda ??

Yes, Bush forcing the CIA to provide false information and doctor reports against Saddam fooled Kerry, just like it did virtually all Senators, Congressmen and civilians.

Aside from that though, after the truth came out, I'd have to know the precise context in which Kerry supposedly spoke those words.


He voted for the war and voted not to fund it.


Answer me this, WHY did he vote against that particular bill to fund the military ??

What was his motive ??

Does anyone actually believe that Kerry just woke up that day, cleared his throat, and in a Mr. Mackey voice said, "uh…. funding the military is a bad thing, m'kay" ??

Give me a break.

You guys keep hounding on the fact that he voted against that particular bill, yet never once gave a motive why. And isn't that the real issue here, WHY he voted against it ??



He voted against seperate punishments for harming an unborn child when the mother was injured in a crime.


Had to do with the double jeopardy law of not prosecuting a person twice for the same crime. What, Bush thinks that unborn fetuses should have all the rights of a born child in this country ??

If so, then why hasn't he pushed for social security or other benefits/registrations for a new citizen at the moment of conception, or during the 3rd trimester, or whatever ??

When it comes to prosecuting people, he has no problem regarding unborn fetuses as having the rights of individualized US citizens. But when it comes to all of the other rights that US citizens have, oh, well, it'd be ridiculous to apply those to something that hasn't even been born yet.

Typical hypocritical BS from Bush. :face4:



I suppose these things don't matter. "He's not Bush" is good enough, no matter what the man stands for.

Of course. When all else fails, just start throwing out ridiculous and unsubstantiated spin.

If you don't agree with Bush, then those things must not matter to you at all.

If you don't like Bush, it's not because of what he stands for, it's just because…… WHAT ???

Why do you think that so many people really hate Bush ??

They like what he stands for but they just don't like his hair style ??
Too much of a '90s look ??
Oh, I've got it. They like what he stands for, but people in this country just can't stand to have a president who isn't over 6',3" tall ??

I've got news for ya, NSF, people don't like Bush because of what he stands for, not in spite of it.

[Gaim Mastr]

I'm due for another good chuckle. Would someone please post more about how Bush is strong leader and a man of action for me ??


And just what makes you think, or better yet, what proof do you offer, that Kerry is a better solution?


In that statement I was only referring to the crap so many Bushies spew about him being a strong leader and a man of action.

What "solution" are you asking for specifically ??

Solution to the whole presidency over the next four years thing ??

If so, you need to go out and do your own research. There's tons of info out there and I'm not about to pound out the equivalent of the Encyclopedia Britannica and post it for you.



You know it, I know it, anyone who's heard Kerry state repeatedly that he wouldn't hinge America's defense on the UN or any other country knows it. That makes it a lie. And that's the end of that particular discussion as far as I'm concerned.


Such rhetoric from you Gaim!

Okay, prove me wrong. Show me one instance in Kerry's entire life where he said that as president he would never use military action to defend America unless he got permission from the UN first.



And were you one of the pundits who said Bush lied about WMDs? When Bush relied on information given him by what was thought to be at the time 'reliable resources'?

"Reliable sources" is Bush's spin. Ex CIA director Tenant has already testified that the intel given to Bush stated that there is no positive proof of Saddam having WMDs or that he's an imminent threat to the US.

As for me, I've always said that it was Saddam's responsibility to prove that he DIDN'T have any WMDs. And since he said that he supported terrorism and refused to fully cooperate with WMD inspectors, we should have gone in and bombed his butt into oblivion. Yeah, I'd supported the war in Iraq. I just had no idea that Bush would have gone about it with such amazing incompetence.




I thought the definition of a lie was when you knowingly deceive someone.

Agreed



And as for Kerry, and his flip-flopping, that is more a defintion of what a lie is. Kerry knowingly is deceiving people. And a lot of that is on small things!
I'd hate to see what he'd do if he were president.

Like I'd said, I'm not going to defend against his flip-flopping, because I know he's done it on multiple occasions.

But as a voter I have to ask myself if the things he's flipped on, and the manner in which he's done it, are worse than voting for a guy who refuses to admit to mistakes or change his tactics, and who's repeatedly promised more of the same over the next four years.

[Gaim Mastr]

As for the Bush Administration intentionally fudging the facts about Saddam having WMDs and being an imminent threat, here's one for you from one of the champions of right-wing Republican, biased media.......... beloved Fox News...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110527,00.html


"We may have overestimated the progress Saddam was making" toward its nuclear acquisition program, Tenet said. But Saddam had the intent and capability to quickly convert dual-use facilities for chemical weapons and intended to develop biological weapons, he said.

"Intelligence does not know if production took place and those weapons have not been found yet," he told an audience at Georgetown University.


We all knew that Saddam was attempting to make WMDs. And that he would have loved to get his hands on a nuke warhead or two. No doubts at all.

But that's not what the Bush Administration fed to the American and global public. Him, Rumsfeld, Powell, Cheney and others stated unequivocally and without hesitation that Saddam absolutely, positively did have WMDs and an active WMD program. Am I the only one who recalls when Powell held up photos in front of the UN and told everyone "here's your proof", supposedly showing an actual active WMD manufacturing plant in Iraq ??

Bush was told that it was "likely" that Saddam had an active WMD program. Bush spun that to the American people by telling us that according to the best intel in the world, he absolutely did have an active WMD program.

And since war should only be a last resort, Bush should have waited until he had better intel. But he didn't. He lied to the American public like he lied to the world, knowingly, intentionally. And proceeded to send us into war with absolutely no exit plans after the initial battles were ended.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm


I may not know where Kerry sits on all of the issues. But I know where Bush sits and I really don't like it.


Now, if Bush had just come right out and said only that Saddam was a continued threat to world peace, I'd still have supported going in and removing him. But when he added all these other factors into it via lying to us all, he lost my support…. permanently.

[RangerRick]

"Reliable sources" is Bush's spin. Ex CIA director Tenant has already testified that the intel given to Bush stated that there is no positive proof of Saddam having WMDs or that he's an imminent threat to the US.



Do you know for a fact that all intelegence came thru Tenant? I don't think so! Do you remember how there was such an uproar on how the different intelegence communities did not talk to one another?

And I suspect that Tenant was trying to CYAing.


After that, a wealth of legitimate information becomes available to you. For instance Kerry has mentioned that anyone with Internet access can go to http://www.johnkerry.com for more details on his plans and stances on the issues.


That's his stance today. what will it be tomorrow, or next week?
:lol: :rolleyes:


On a side not in regards to Iraq. Kerry has stated that he wants to put another 40000 troops into Iraq, but has not said where those troops will come from.

Here's my take on it My son will most likely be going to Iraq in Dec, after MP training in Nov. Today, a tour is 1 year. The orders my son has states that he could be there 2 years.
I do not think it requires a brain surgeon to figure out where Kerry will get the additional troops, and theses are guard units, not regular army.

I fear Kerry will do more to put our troops in harms way if he gets elected, than if Bush is re-elected.

[RangerRick]

Kerry, like the rest of us in the world, wasn't the acting president. We're afforded that luxury. The sitting president isn't.

Yeah. The sitting president is supposed to be a machine. God forbid he show any human response!

[NotSoFast]

On a side not in regards to Iraq. Kerry has stated that he wants to put another 40000 troops into Iraq, but has not said where those troops will come from.



But I thought Kerry was opposed to the war in Iraq? Oh, wait, that was his stance on it last week.

This back and forth stuff won't solve anything. Bush supporters won't switch and vote for Kerry, no matter what either says or does.

Also, enough about the FOX news. I have 2 words for you "Dan Rather". That cancells anything Fox has done or said for the Right-Wing side.

[Gaim Mastr]

Well, I can understand not wanting to have your own child sent to any war at any time.

Yes, Kerry did say he'd put 40,000 more troops in Iraq, which sure as hell isn't going to be easy. He's probably just blowing smoke. I can't really see how he'd get that many more volunteers.

On the other shoe is Bush, who maintains a hard military stop-loss (backdoor draft). So, if Kerry wins, your son will probably get sent into Iraq and serve two years instead of one. But if Bush wins, your son could be forced to remain there for 3, 4, even 5 years or longer.

Under Kerry, more people are likely to be sent to Iraq.
Under Bush, the same people are likely to be kept there much longer than they should be.

For a concerned parent, it's a no-win situation.

As a non-parent, I have to side with more fresh troops while bringing home some long overdue soldiers instead of siding with keep the same troops in there many months/years after they should have come home.



Yeah. The sitting president is supposed to be a machine. God forbid he show any human response!

Hey, no doubt at all that his was a very human response. I understand that. But when we elect a single person to be our primary leader, shouldn't we also expect him/her to react to highly stressful situations better than the average citizen ??

I don't think that's too much to ask for without expecting someone to be an emotionless robot.

The FCC reacted better.
Cheney reacted better.
NYC Mayor Guilianni reacted better.
the folks working in flight towers across the country reacted better.
the police and firemen who rushed to the crash sites reacted better.

I mean, come on. We should have a few minimum standards for the number one person in this country.



Also, enough about the FOX news. I have 2 words for you "Dan Rather". That cancells anything Fox has done or said for the Right-Wing side.

Uh........ Dan Rather is still alive ?? :wtf:

:wink:


Talk about someone who should have retired after sweating his way through the elections four years ago on national TV. :lol:

[SupaTroopa]

I don't have time to quote and respond to every counter-point Lou, and rest assured I would if I did right now, but the let's just wrap it up by saying our current president is a moron and bold faced liar, is short-sighted, tied to too many corporate interests, and has NO IDEA what it is like to be involved in a war from a soldier's perspective.

Kerry is the lesser of two evil's to me, therefore he gets my vote this year.

Anything but Bush is my slogan!

[RangerRick]

I don't have time to quote and respond to every counter-point Lou, and rest assured I would if I did right now, but the let's just wrap it up by saying our current president is a moron and bold faced liar, is short-sighted, tied to too many corporate interests, and has NO IDEA what it is like to be involved in a war from a soldier's perspective.

Kerry is the lesser of two evil's to me, therefore he gets my vote this year.

Anything but Bush is my slogan!

Keep wearing those blinders. He may be a moron, but saying he's a bold faced liar and saying that Kerry isn't is stretching things way too thin! :mad:

I'll say it agian, Kerry has told so many lies(can you say flip-flop), no one knows what the truth is anymore coming from his camp.

I do not fault you not trying to point-counterpoint things, but you should stop believing everything @moveon.org and other slanted web sites post. They are no better, and may be worse than sites like that for the republicans.

Typical liberal statements and esposing!
"Truth! You don't want to know the truth" is a great line!

And pretty apropro here.

[Ojnod]

Slightly off-topic but....

Aren't senators SUPPOSED to vote the way the people who elected them want? Now I am not saying that John Kerry was influenced by his fellow citizens, but I haven't heard otherwise. Politicians are not supposed to vote for what they want the last time I checked. If this is really a democracy, and we are electing these officials they should be listening to the people that elected them. This certainly does not always happen but in some cases maybe it did.

[Nyghtfall]

Anything but Bush is my slogan!

And, at this point, any support for Bush is a character flaw as far as I'm concerned.

[Gary V.]

Any support for Kerry is a character flaw as far as I'm concerned. :rolleyes:

BTW, I took a test to see if I am conservative or liberal. I found out I am a John McCain style conservative. I can definitely live with that. If your score added up to a 50 you are ultra liberal, a 0 is ultra conservative along the line of Pat Buchanan. President Bush is in the 5 range. My score was a 12. Kerry is a 45.

[Ojnod]

Any chance we could get a link to the test? Last time I took one of those tests it said I was 68% for the socialist guy :lol:. The next "real" politician that it chose for me was Dean at like 45%, Kerry at 35%, and Bbush at about 10%.

[RangerRick]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SupaTroopa
Anything but Bush is my slogan!


And, at this point, any support for Bush is a character flaw as far as I'm concerned.


This is a case of 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' in that should Kerry get elected, I know I'll be able to say 'I TOLD YOU SO!"

But then it's too late, and you'll regret your decision, where I won't regret mine.

[NotSoFast]

http://johnkerryads.websiteanimal.com/

Just click on the "Welcome" on the left side. :thumbup:

[Lou Cypher]

Originally posted by Gaim
Quote:

Originally Posted by lou
Ok Gaim, how is that a Lie?

You know it, I know it, anyone who's heard Kerry state repeatedly that he wouldn't hinge America's defense on the UN or any other country knows it. That makes it a lie. And that's the end of that particular discussion as far as I'm concerned.Sorry Gaim, thats not gonna work, he said ....
"No President, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America., But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test".
It's pretty clear, that he won't conduct a preemptive strike unless it passes a Global test, ie; permission. And you still haven't answered a direct question, what does "Global test" mean??

A man of action wouldn't have been notified that the country may be under attack and then just remain sitting in front of school children like a speechless statue for seven more minutes after the second plane hit the WTC


What would you have suggested the President do on 9/11?
I think Bush did a couple of things right on that day. He didn't jump to conclusions and just launch missiles at some target. But beyond that, let's not over-credit the man for things he didn't do.

The FCC grounded all remaining flights that day, not Bush. While the president does have the authority to do that, news of flights being grounded all over the US hit the airwaves BEFORE Bush ever moved his but from in front of the children and issued a single order. That's the FCC working at a critical time while your "man of action" was still stunned motionless for several additional minutes.
You need to get your facts striaght Gaim, first it's the FAA not the FCC, because your wrong, it was 37 minutes from the time the south tower was hit to the time the FAA halted all air traffic over the U.S.

9:03 a.m.: A second hijacked airliner, United Airlines Flight 175 from Boston, crashes into the south tower of the World Trade Center and explodes. Both buildings are burning.
9:40 a.m.: The FAA halts all flight operations at U.S. airports, the first time in U.S. history that air traffic nationwide has been halted.
link (http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/chronology.attack/)

Quote:

Originally Posted by lou Cifer
John Kerry admited that he sat for 40 min. "unable to think" after the WTC attack until the pentagon was hit.

Lou FPRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT="



Kerry, like the rest of us in the world, wasn't the acting president. We're afforded that luxury. The sitting president isn't.
Well Kerry isn't the rest of us, he's running for the "Office of the President", he's applying for a job and we the American people will be his employer if he gets the job. And when someone applies for a job you look at there resume(sp), character and how they will perform under stress, Bush sat for 7 minutes and Kerry sat for 35 minutes, who handled that stressful day better?
This is what kerry said.....
"We watched the second plane come in to the building," Mr. Kerry said. "And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think, and then boom, right behind us, we saw the cloud of explosion at the Pentagon."
Quote:

Kerry has been shown on video saying that he "fully supports" the President's actions in the Middle East…


And was this when Bush sold the American and British public on Saddam having WMDs and was working with al Queda ??

Yes, Bush forcing the CIA to provide false information and doctor reports against Saddam fooled Kerry, just like it did virtually all Senators, Congressmen and civilians.
Gee, Bush is pretty good. I guess he also fooled the the U.N., Germans, French, Russians, Jordanians, Egyptians, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and others. And there were ties between Iraq and Al Queda, as reported in the 9-11 commission report.

Quote:

He voted for the war and voted not to fund it.


Answer me this, WHY did he vote against that particular bill to fund the military ??

What was his motive ??

Does anyone actually believe that Kerry just woke up that day, cleared his throat, and in a Mr. Mackey voice said, "uh…. funding the military is a bad thing, m'kay" ??

Give me a break.

You guys keep hounding on the fact that he voted against that particular bill, yet never once gave a motive why. And isn't that the real issue here, WHY he voted against it ??
It was pure politics Gaim, it was a "Protest Vote", John Kerry and Joe Biden tacked on an amendment to the 87 billion funding bill, but it was seen as Kerry's amendment. Kerry wanted the 87 billion tax cut repealed to pay for the funding, at this point Kerry was for the 87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. But Kerry's amendment was rejected and that is when Kerry turned his back on the troops, the co-sponser to the amendment, Joe Biden, he voted in favor of the 87 billion funding when the rubber hit the road. John Edwards joined Kerry in voting against the 87 billion funding. And I allmost forgot, there was was the Howard Dean factor.
This is some of what he said to ABC.............

Asked if he would vote against the $87 billion if his amendment did not pass, Kerry said, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible."

Kerry argued that his amendment offered a way to do it properly, "but I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job."
link (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Politics/tapper_kerry_040319-1.html)

Quote:

He voted against seperate punishments for harming an unborn child when the mother was injured in a crime.


Had to do with the double jeopardy law of not prosecuting a person twice for the same crime. What, Bush thinks that unborn fetuses should have all the rights of a born child in this country ??
California has had a law like this for years, but thats not the reason he voted against it, his concern was that it might undermine Roe vs. Wade.


Quote:

Originally Posted by RR
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaim
You know it, I know it, anyone who's heard Kerry state repeatedly that he wouldn't hinge America's defense on the UN or any other country knows it. That makes it a lie. And that's the end of that particular discussion as far as I'm concerned.


Such rhetoric from you Gaim!

Okay, prove me wrong. Show me one instance in Kerry's entire life where he said that as president he would never use military action to defend America unless he got permission from the UN first.
Ok, is this close enough.....
The Times ignored another awkward moment—when Kerry called himself stupid for once saying that U.S. troops should only be deployed at the directive of the U.N.
link (http://www.aim.org/aim_report/1630_0_4_0_C/)

Quote:

And were you one of the pundits who said Bush lied about WMDs? When Bush relied on information given him by what was thought to be at the time 'reliable resources'?

"Reliable sources" is Bush's spin. Ex CIA director Tenant has already testified that the intel given to Bush stated that there is no positive proof of Saddam having WMDs or that he's an imminent threat to the US.
First, Bush never said there was an imminate threat from Iraq. You wrote Ex CIA director Tenant has already testified that the intel given to Bush stated that there is no positive proof of Saddam having WMDs or that he's an imminent threat to the US, but at Tenant's resignation he described how he had reassured an uncertain President Bush that the intel on Iraqi WMD was "a slam dunk.
link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12440-2004Jun3.html)

As for the Bush Administration intentionally fudging the facts about Saddam having WMDs and being an imminent threat, here's one for you from one of the champions of right-wing Republican, biased media.......... beloved Fox News...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110527,00.html

Quote:

"We may have overestimated the progress Saddam was making" toward its nuclear acquisition program, Tenet said. But Saddam had the intent and capability to quickly convert dual-use facilities for chemical weapons and intended to develop biological weapons, he said.

"Intelligence does not know if production took place and those weapons have not been found yet," he told an audience at Georgetown University.

Again, Bush never said there was an imminate threat from Iraq, period!. this article was published after the War and has no bearing on the Intel we thought we had.

But that's not what the Bush Administration fed to the American and global public. Him, Rumsfeld, Powell, Cheney and others stated unequivocally and without hesitation that Saddam absolutely, positively did have WMDs and an active WMD program.
Everyone else in the world thought the same thing, this mantra is getting old!

And since war should only be a last resort, Bush should have waited until he had better intel. But he didn't. He lied to the American public like he lied to the world, knowingly, intentionally. And proceeded to send us into war with absolutely no exit plans after the initial battles were ended.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
Well your wrong Gaim, he recieved bad intel just like everone else, so he didn't lie. As for this video, which was month's before 9-11, thousands apon thousands of intel was recieved and new things are learned everyday, so a threat assesment on a country can change dramitically in over a year.

Lou :globe:

[NotSoFast]

Slightly off-topic but....

Aren't senators SUPPOSED to vote the way the people who elected them want? Now I am not saying that John Kerry was influenced by his fellow citizens, but I haven't heard otherwise. Politicians are not supposed to vote for what they want the last time I checked. If this is really a democracy, and we are electing these officials they should be listening to the people that elected them. This certainly does not always happen but in some cases maybe it did.

Actually, this isn't a Democracy. If it were, the people themselves would have voted for or against the war.

[0x64657200 0x6A61636B616C00]

Originally posted by Gaim
First, Bush never said there was an imminate threat from Iraq. You wrote Ex CIA director Tenant has already testified that the intel given to Bush stated that there is no positive proof of Saddam having WMDs or that he's an imminent threat to the US, but at Tenant's resignation he described how he had reassured an uncertain President Bush that the intel on Iraqi WMD was "a slam dunk.
link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12440-2004Jun3.html)


Again, Bush never said there was an imminate threat from Iraq, period!. this article was published after the War and has no bearing on the Intel we thought we had.



Lou;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html)


Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril."
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html)

The danger to America from the Iraqi regime is grave and growing. The regime is guilty of beginning two wars. It has a horrible history of striking without warning. In defiance of pledges to the United Nations, Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. Saddam Hussein has used these weapons of death against innocent Iraqi people, and we have every reason to believe he will use them again.

We cannot leave the future of peace and the security of America in the hands of this cruel and dangerous man. This dictator must be disarmed. And all the United Nations resolutions against his brutality and support for terrorism must be enforced. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021005.html)

THE PRESIDENT: I'm confident a lot of Democrats here in Washington, D.C. will understand that Saddam is a true threat to America. And I look forward to working with them to get a strong resolution passed.

Prime Minister Blair, first of all, is a very strong leader, and I admire his willingness to tell the truth and to lead. Secondly, he has -- continues to make the case, like we make the case, that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace; that for 11 years he has deceived the world. For 11 years, he's ignored the United Nations, and for 11 years he has stockpiled weapons. And we shouldn't deceive ourselves about this man. He has poisoned his people before. He has poisoned his neighborhood. He is willing to use weapons of mass destruction. And the Prime Minister continues to make the case, and so will I. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020924-1.html)

But I also told them that if they would not act, if they would not deal with this true threat we face in America, if they would not recognize that America is no longer protected by oceans and that this man is the man who would use weapons of mass destruction at the drop of a hat, a man who would be willing to team up with terrorist organizations with weapons of mass destruction to threaten America and our allies, if they wouldn't act, the United States will -- we will not allow the world's worst leaders to threaten us with the world's worst weapons. (Applause.) (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020923-2.html)

[Gaim Mastr]

First off, let me say that I'm about done discussing this presidential
election with you, lou. Your bias has really turned ugly. And it's gotten
to the point where you're just making things up, and using half-truths and
innuendos to make your points. Frankly, I'm not interested in investing my
time with people like that. So unless your show a real willingness to be at
least somewhat open minded, this is my last reply to you on the subject.



Sorry Gaim, thats not gonna work, he said ....
"No President, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor
would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United
States of America., But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do in a way
that passes the test, that passes the global test".
It's pretty clear, that he won't conduct a preemptive strike unless it passes
a Global test, ie; permission. And you still haven't answered a direct
question, what does "Global test" mean??


Odd how you only used PART of his statement. Well, not really. :face4:


Here's the rest of what Kerry said, which answers your question, irrespective
of whether you acknowledge it or not..


No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor
would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United
States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the
test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your
people understand fully why you‘re doing what you‘re doing and you can prove
to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world
for the presentation he made to the United Nations.

I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis
sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the
middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said,
“Here, let me show you the photos.” And DeGaulle waved them off and said,
“No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good
enough for me.”

How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what
we‘ve done, in that way? So what is at test here is the credibility of the
United States of America and how we lead the world. And Iran and Iraq are
now more dangerous—Iran and North Korea are now more dangerous.


You need to get your facts striaght Gaim, first it's the FAA not
the FCC, because your wrong, it was 37 minutes from the time the south tower
was hit to the time the FAA halted all air traffic over the U.S.

Thanks for clearing that up, and you're right. Bush didn't halt flights in
the first seven minutes of sitting there like a statue; he didn't halt
flights 37 minutes later either. :lol:


Well Kerry isn't the rest of us, he's running for the "Office of
the President", he's applying for a job and we the American people will be
his employer if he gets the job.

Not in September of 2001 he wasn't. Also, it's the job of the Senators and
Congressmen to remain inactive and by the phone so that they can be issued
orders from the Secret Service and the President. So him remaining
motionless for 30+ minutes isn't an issue. But Bush WAS the president at
that time.

Now, Kerry and others hanging out by the phone waiting to be contacted may
bother you, but I don't mind saying that it doesn't bother me in the
slightest.


Gee, Bush is pretty good. I guess he also fooled the the U.N.,
Germans, French, Russians, Jordanians, Egyptians, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and
others. And there were ties between Iraq and Al Queda, as reported in the
9-11 commission report.

I don't pass US security off on the UN, Germans, French, Russians,
Jordanians, Egyptians or any other country. Apparently they're good enough
for you though. So Clinton and Al Gore screwed up, no doubts. So what?
Neither of them were president in September 2001 or after.


It was pure politics Gaim, it was a "Protest Vote", John Kerry and
Joe Biden tacked on an amendment to the 87 billion funding bill, but it was
seen as Kerry's amendment. Kerry wanted the 87 billion tax cut repealed to
pay for the funding, at this point Kerry was for the 87 billion for Iraq and
Afghanistan. But Kerry's amendment was rejected and that is when Kerry turned
his back on the troops, the co-sponser to the amendment, Joe Biden, he voted
in favor of the 87 billion funding when the rubber hit the road. John Edwards
joined Kerry in voting against the 87 billion funding. And I allmost forgot,
there was was the Howard Dean factor.
This is some of what he said to ABC.............

Asked if he would vote against the $87 billion if his amendment did not pass,
Kerry said, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our
troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply
cutting and running. That's irresponsible."

Kerry argued that his amendment offered a way to do it properly, "but I don't
think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not
give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going
to cut and run and not do the job."

Typical Republican spin. Tell me lou, did you pull that right out of the
Republican handbook on Kerry-bashing or what ?? :lol:

Now that we've all seen the Republican spin, let's look at what Kerry
actually stated...

I made a mistake in the way I talk about it. He made a
mistake in invading Iraq. Which is a worse decision?

Now, I voted the way I voted because I saw that he had the policy wrong and
I wanted accountability. I didn't want to give a slush
fund to Halliburton. I also thought the wealthiest people in America ought to
pay for it, ladies and gentlemen. He wants your kids to pay for it. I wanted
us to pay for it, since we're at war. I don't think that's a bad
decision.


California has had a law like this for years, but thats not the reason he voted against it, his concern was that it might undermine Roe vs. Wade.

Even if, for the sake of argument, Kerry didn't wan't to undermine Roe vs. Wade, I support his decision and have absolutely no problem with it.

And it still doesn't negate Bush's hypocritical stance on doing an end-run around America's Double Jeopardy law just for politics.



Ok, is this close enough.....
The Times ignored another awkward moment—when Kerry called himself stupid for once saying that U.S. troops should only be deployed at the directive of the U.N.

Here's the full story (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4772030)

MR. RUSSERT: And people refer back to an interview when you first ran for Congress, back with The Harvard Crimson, where you said, "Kerry said the United Nations should have control over most of our foreign military operations. I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

SEN. KERRY: That's one of those stupid things that a 27-year-old kid says when you're fresh back from Vietnam and angry about it. I have never, ever, ever, in any vote, in any policy, in any speech, in any public statement advocated any such thing in all of the years I've been in elected office. In fact, I say the following and I say it very clearly, I will never cede the security of the United States to any institution and I will never cede our security to any other country. No country will have a veto over what we need to do to protect ourselves. But, that said, I will be a president who understands, as every president of the last century did, Tim, that multilaterism is not weakness, it is strength, and we need a president who understands how to reach out to other countries, build alliances. His father did a brilliant job of it. We need to do the kind of alliance-building that we have done traditionally.

So he did say it once way back when he was young and just back from fighting in 'Nam. What I see here is Kerry as a man willing to publicly admit his mistakes and make amends for them. Things that Bush ardently refuses to do.



Again, Bush never said there was an imminate threat from Iraq, period!

Elvis never did no drugs !! :lol:


Well your wrong Gaim, he recieved bad intel just like everone else, so he didn't lie.

Elvis never did no drugs !! :lol:

[Lou Cypher]

First off, let me say that I'm about done discussing this presidential
election with you, lou. Your bias has really turned ugly. And it's gotten
to the point where you're just making things up, and using half-truths and
innuendos to make your points. Frankly, I'm not interested in investing my
time with people like that. So unless your show a real willingness to be at
least somewhat open minded, this is my last reply to you on the subject.Sure I'm biased against Kerry, just like your biased against Bush, thats what usually happens when someone has strong feeling for a certain subject or person. But I'm willing concede a point when I'm wrong, and I have, will you?. Why are you done discussing this issue with me Gaim?, Just because you put forth your point of view doesn't end the debate, people are going to disagree with you on this subject. And how has it turned ugly, passionate maybe but not ugly.

As for the Global test question which you haven't answered, we'll have to go with Kerry's then....where your countrymen, your
people understand fully why you‘re doing what you‘re doing and you can prove
to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons., sounds like he needs permission slip from the world.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lou
Well Kerry isn't the rest of us, he's running for the "Office of
the President", he's applying for a job and we the American people will be
his employer if he gets the job.


Not in September of 2001 he wasn't. Also, it's the job of the Senators and
Congressmen to remain inactive and by the phone so that they can be issued
orders from the Secret Service and the President. So him remaining
motionless for 30+ minutes isn't an issue. But Bush WAS the president at
that time.

Now, Kerry and others hanging out by the phone waiting to be contacted may
bother you, but I don't mind saying that it doesn't bother me in the
slightestI stand by what I said, He's running for President NOW and his performance under stress at the time is relevent, like it or not. As for "hanging out" by the phone waiting to contacted was never mentioned as far as I know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lou
Gee, Bush is pretty good. I guess he also fooled the the U.N.,
Germans, French, Russians, Jordanians, Egyptians, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and
others. And there were ties between Iraq and Al Queda, as reported in the
9-11 commission report.


I don't pass US security off on the UN, Germans, French, Russians,
Jordanians, Egyptians or any other country. Apparently they're good enough
for you though. So Clinton and Al Gore screwed up, no doubts. So what?
Neither of them were president in September 2001 or after. I don't pass US security off on the UN, Germans, French, Russians,
Jordanians, Egyptians or any other country either, you obviuosly missed the point. You said... And was this when Bush sold the American and British public on Saddam having WMDs and was working with al Queda ??

Yes, Bush forcing the CIA to provide false information and doctor reports against Saddam fooled Kerry, just like it did virtually all Senators, Congressmen and civilians.,and I pointed out that all these other countries/people had the same conclusion.

Typical Republican spin. Tell me lou, did you pull that right out of the
Republican handbook on Kerry-bashing or what ??

Now that we've all seen the Republican spin, let's look at what Kerry
actually stated...

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd Debate
I made a mistake in the way I talk about it. He made a
mistake in invading Iraq. Which is a worse decision?

Now, I voted the way I voted because I saw that he had the policy wrong and
I wanted accountability. I didn't want to give a slush
fund to Halliburton. I also thought the wealthiest people in America ought to
pay for it, ladies and gentlemen. He wants your kids to pay for it. I wanted
us to pay for it, since we're at war. I don't think that's a bad
decision.What spin Gaim?, you just proved my point, he said....
"Asked if he would vote against the $87 billion if his amendment did not pass,
Kerry said, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our
troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply
cutting and running. That's irresponsible."

Kerry argued that his amendment offered a way to do it properly, "but I don't
think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not
give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going
to cut and run and not do the job."
Because he couldn't get his way on how this bill was going to be payed, he voted against funding of body armmor and other supplies in a time of War for our troops, period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lou
California has had a law like this for years, but thats not the reason he voted against it, his concern was that it might undermine Roe vs. Wade.


Even if, for the sake of argument, Kerry didn't wan't to undermine Roe vs. Wade, I support his decision and have absolutely no problem with it.

And it still doesn't negate Bush's hypocritical stance on doing an end-run around America's Double Jeopardy law just for politics.Agree

Quote:
Originally Posted by lou
Again, Bush never said there was an imminate threat from Iraq, period!


Elvis never did no drugs !!Prove it that Bush ever said there was an "imminate threat" from Iraq, you can't because it's a lie, and if it wasn't you would have linked it.


Quote:
Well your wrong Gaim, he recieved bad intel just like everone else, so he didn't lie.


Elvis never did no drugs !! Well since you replyed the same way immediatly above I guess you have no retort to the statement.

Lou :globe:

[Gaim Mastr]

Sure I'm biased against Kerry, just like your biased against Bush...

Don't even try it !!

I've openly and very harshly criticized Kerry and the whole Democratic party on these forums, and on more than one occasion. Show me ONE instance where you've done the same to harshly criticize Bush and the Republicans !!



Because he couldn't get his way on how this bill was going to be payed, he voted against funding of body armmor and other supplies in a time of War for our troops, period.

Because his way made sense !!

We, the tax paying people, SHOULD require some accountability whenever a president asks for $87 billion of our money for ANY reason !!

And Kerry's requirements for accountability, no Halliburton handouts, and having a valid plan to pay it back was absolutely a reasonable requirement. What you SHOULD be perplexed about is why Bush didn't think any of that was necessary. Especially when the country is in a recession and the national deficit is at an all time high.


Prove it that Bush ever said there was an "imminate threat" from Iraq, you can't because it's a lie, and if it wasn't you would have linked it.

I am absolutely mystified about your thinking. :wtf2:

What, the links that Baron von Binary provided weren't enough for you ??

Okay, lou. Even though I don't, let's just say that I concede that Bush never claimed that Iraq was an imminent threat.

Why would you defend a president who rushed our country into war against another country when said president never considered that other country to be an imminent threat ??

How in any way does that make sense to you ?? :wtf:

Going to war is supposed to be the absolute LAST resort. If Bush didn't think that Iraq was an imminent threat then he can't claim that military action was used as a last resort. We never go to war just because we don't like someone! If we did, Cuba would have been shelled decades ago.

[Lou Cypher]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lou
Sure I'm biased against Kerry, just like your biased against Bush...

Don't even try it !!

I've openly and very harshly criticized Kerry and the whole Democratic party on these forums, and on more than one occasion. Show me ONE instance where you've done the same to harshly criticize Bush and the Republicans !!There are some issues I have with Bush and Republicans, I'm sure I've voiced them in the past.


Quote:

Because he couldn't get his way on how this bill was going to be payed, he voted against funding of body armmor and other supplies in a time of War for our troops, period.

Because his way made sense !!

We, the tax paying people, SHOULD require some accountability whenever a president asks for $87 billion of our money for ANY reason !!

And Kerry's requirements for accountability, no Halliburton handouts, and having a valid plan to pay it back was absolutely a reasonable requirement. What you SHOULD be perplexed about is why Bush didn't think any of that was necessary. Especially when the country is in a recession and the national deficit is at an all time high.It didn't make sense, he was asking for something he knew damn well he wasn't going to get. He wanted a repeal of the Tax cuts which were very popular with americans and a cornerstone of Bush's economic plan. Our troops needed that funding and it wasn't the time to play politics with there lives, and again, Kerry himself said it would be "irresponsible" to vote no on the funding bill, which he did. But if he was so concerned about paying for it, why didn't he introduce a Bill in the senate later proposing a way to pay for it, like cutting spending somewhere else in the National budget.


Quote:

Prove it that Bush ever said there was an "imminate threat" from Iraq, you can't because it's a lie, and if it wasn't you would have linked it.

I am absolutely mystified about your thinking.

What, the links that Baron von Binary provided weren't enough for you ??
Okay, lou. Even though I don't, let's just say that I concede that Bush never claimed that Iraq was an imminent threat.

Why would you defend a president who rushed our country into war against another country when said president never considered that other country to be an imminent threat ??

How in any way does that make sense to you ??


Going to war is supposed to be the absolute LAST resort. If Bush didn't think that Iraq was an imminent threat then he can't claim that military action was used as a last resort. We never go to war just because we don't like someone! If we did, Cuba would have been shelled decades ago.
So I guess it's a lie then, I don't know why your so "absolutely mystified", facts usually aren't mystifying. And lets not " let's just say that Bush never claimed that Iraq was an imminent threat", because it's a Fact that he never said it was.
The reason I supported, and so did you I believe was if we waited for it to become an imminate threat then it would be to late, Saddam was known to use WMD's and thus made him someone we could not take a chance on. This is what the President said about it........

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.

Lou :globe:

[Nyghtfall]

What spin Gaim?, you just proved my point, he said....
"Asked if he would vote against the $87 billion if his amendment did not pass, Kerry said, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply
cutting and running. That's irresponsible."

Kerry argued that his amendment offered a way to do it properly, "but I don't
think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not
give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going
to cut and run and not do the job."

Because he couldn't get his way on how this bill was going to be payed, he voted against funding of body armmor and other supplies in a time of War for our troops, period.

Here's a recent news article (http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/special_packages/election2004/9938074.htm
) that, in a couple of small paragraphs, finally reports how this whole $87 billion thing played out:

Kerry did vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq and voted against the $87 billion funding bill, which passed the Senate. However, he voted for a resolution that would have paid for the war by repealing Bush's tax cuts. The measure failed and Kerry subsequently voted `no' on the final funding bill.

Bush has flogged Kerry with that vote throughout the campaign, even though Bush threatened to veto the bill because it contained some measures that he didn't like.

And, Lou, before you try and counter with this Bush quote from the same article:

"Sen. Kerry decided supporting the troops, even while they were in harm's way, was not as important as shoring up his own political position," Bush said. "In times of great threats to our country, at a time of great challenge in the world, the commander-in-chief must stand on principle, not simply stand on political expediency."

Kerry's political position wanted to insure accountability within the Administration. Bush wanted to insure plausable deniability if he ****** up.

As for Bush claiming that the Commander-in-Chief needs to insure our military has everything they need, here's what his $87 billion funding bill has helped pay for:

Unit Refused Iraq Mission (http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1107&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041016%2F0702031960.htm&sc=1107&photoid=20041015JX104)

WASHINGTON (AP) - Relatives of soldiers who refused to deliver supplies in Iraq say the troops considered the mission too dangerous, in part because their vehicles were in poor shape.

[Gaim Mastr]

There are some issues I have with Bush and Republicans, I'm sure I've voiced them in the past.

First, make an insulting accusation about me then shrink away when called to task on it.

Absolutely pathetic. Just like the rest of the garbage in your post and pretty much everything else you've been posting in here lately.


Congrats, Lou. You've done what only a very few people have actually accomplished across hundreds of forums over the years. You've managed to utterly eliminate any and all interest that I could possibly have in discussing a wide-ranging topic with you.

Disagreeing is one thing, but your level of BS is so over the top that your conduct about this presidential election on these forums makes Jerry Falwell look like a totally open-minded moderate who never obscures the facts.


You can respond to my posts if you wish, but rest assured that I will absolutely be ignoring every one of yours.



That's it. buh-bye :wave:

[Lou Cypher]

Quote:
There are some issues I have with Bush and Republicans, I'm sure I've voiced them in the past.


First, make an insulting accusation about me then shrink away when called to task on itI'm sorry you don't like what I said, but it was a sincer(sp) answer.


Absolutely pathetic. Just like the rest of the garbage in your post and pretty much everything else you've been posting in here lately.Since you can't refute what I'm saying on certain subjects you attack me, sweet.


Congrats, Lou. You've done what only a very few people have actually accomplished across hundreds of forums over the years. You've managed to utterly eliminate any and all interest that I could possibly have in discussing a wide-ranging topic with you.

Disagreeing is one thing, but your level of BS is so over the top that your conduct about this presidential election on these forums makes Jerry Falwell look like a totally open-minded moderate who never obscures the facts.
Hmm, throughout this debate I have conceded points that you or I have brought up, admiting I was wrong. I have found that on this subject you will not concede one inch, even when the facts prove me right. You can huff and Puff, and claim all I say is BS when in fact, it is a disagreement. You can dissmiss me, accuse me of twisting facts or anything you want, but that doesn't make you allway's right.

Lou :globe:

[night]

Democrats say there's no Al Quaeda in Iraq i read the newspaper and they say that Al QUaeda carry out yet another attack in Iraq. now you know why NOT to vote for Kerry.

[Gaim Mastr]

Democrats say there's no Al Quaeda in Iraq i read the newspaper and they say that Al QUaeda carry out yet another attack in Iraq. now you know why NOT to vote for Kerry.

Wow, was that a confused sense of reasoning. :lol:

Just for the record, before the war everyone was told that Saddam had al Quaeda connections. Then after a while it was learned that there wasn't an al Quaeda connection. Now, many months later, some of the foreign terrorists have pledged their alliance to al Queada.

And all of that is pretty much agreed upon by Republicans and Democrats alike. If you wouldn't want to vote for either Bush or Kerry, that's fine. But please do it for legitimate reasons, not some terribly bastardized, twisted sense of the available facts.

[Lou Cypher]

Night, this is the information reported in the 9-11 Commision Report.

Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.


Link (http://ctstudies.com/Document/911_Commission_Overview_of_Enemy.html)


Lou :globe: