Reply With QuoteThe liberals are losing the argument so they have to change the subject. Typical.
You can't do one without the other, without looking like a hypocrite Yonivore.
The liberals are losing the argument so they have to change the subject. Typical.
I'll take your refusal to respond as agreement.
Refusal to respond means it doesn't matter. Say Kerry Flip flopped. Argue it all you want. His decision to oppose the Iraq war as his campaign platform is the right one.
That's a priceless visual.I still like the Hulk Hogan vs. Sadaam steel cage match idea
But, he supported Iraq -- by vote and by declaration, just last month.
Which is it? Really? I think the country deserves an answer.
What would it matter. He didn't have the final say in sending troops there anyways. It's Bush's war, and its an unmitigated disaster.
So, he just throws he votes around and says whatever -- because "it doesn't matter?"
I see.
I agree.It's Bush's war, and its an unmitigated disaster.
Sincerely,
Saddam Hussein
Bush had the final say?
Kerry voted for it, too.
By the way, we're winning the war.
And, when the terrorists are defeated in Iraq, I expect you to apologize to all the soldiers that fought their asses off while you pooh-poohed their efforts here at home in an attempt to undermine the President for political gain.
Kerry does not share any of the responsibility in the final decision to send our troops to Iraq. At that point it was out of his hands.
You guys make it sound like this is a shock to you. That this is changing your vote. Its not and you know it. So gee why are you bringing it up? Hmm let me think about that one for a while.
I'm not saying he changed his vote. He's changed his mind on the Iraq issue 4 ing times, jeeze...what does he believe?
This is the right decision. Thats all that matters.
Kerry is nothing but an empty suit he is willing to say anything to become president. Give me a ing break about how this is what he really believed in all along.
How does that make him any different from Bush?
"This is the right decision. Thats all that matters." .........And what will you say when he flips again next month Despurate?
The one thing to say for Bush is that he is willing to make a decision and stick with it, regardless of how it would affect his chances of reelection.
What John Kerry saidKerry: Two years ago, Congress was right to give the President the authority to use force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. This President ... any President ... would have needed the threat of force to act effectively. This President misused that authority.
Bush: Today, my opponent continued his pattern of twisting in the wind, with new contradictions of his old positions on Iraq.
Kerry, 2002: The Senate can now make a determination about this resolution and, in this historic vote, help put our country and the world on a course to begin to answer one fundamental question - not whether to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, but how.
Kerry: The power entrusted to the President gave him a strong hand to play in the international community. The idea was simple. We would get the weapons inspectors back in to verify whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And we would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam: disarm or be disarmed.
Bush: My opponent looked at that intelligence, as he had for many years since he had been in Washington for a long period of time, and voted "yes" when it came to the authorization of the use of force.
Kerry, 2002: I have said publicly for years that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein pose a real and grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region.
Kerry: Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there was no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, no other imminent threat, the United States should have invaded Iraq?
Bush: He apparently woke up this morning and has now decided, no, we should not have invaded Iraq, after just last month saying he still would have voted for force, even knowing everything we know today.
Kerry, 2002: Today the administration has refocused their aim and made clear we are not in an arbitrary conflict with one of the world's many dictators, but a conflict with a dictator whom the international community left in power only because he agreed not to pursue weapons of mass destruction ... I am pleased that the Bush administration has recognized the wisdom of shifting its approach on Iraq.
Kerry: I would have tightened the noose and continued to pressure and isolate Saddam Hussein - who was weak and getting weaker - so that he would pose no threat to the region or America.
Bush: Incredibly, he now believes our national security would be stronger with Saddam Hussein in power, not in prison.
Kerry, 2002: ou make it clear to the world that we are contemplating war not for war's sake, and not to accomplish goals that don't meet international standards or muster with respect to national security, but because weapons inspections may be the ultimate enforcement mechanism, and that may be the way in which we ultimately protect ourselves.
Kerry: Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in . But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.
Bush: Today he said, "We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure." He's saying he prefers the stability of a dictatorship to the hope and security of democracy.
Kerry, 2002: As much as we decry the way he has treated his people, regime change alone is not a sufficient reason for going to war, as desirable as it is to change the regime.
Kerry: Can anyone seriously say this President has handled Iraq in a way that makes us stronger in the war on terrorism? By any measure, the answer is no. Nuclear dangers have mounted across the globe. The international terrorist club has expanded. Radicalism in the Middle East is on the rise. We have divided our friends and united our enemies.
Bush: I couldn't disagree more. And not so long ago, so did my opponent. Last December, he said this: "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not safer with his capture don't have the judgment to be President or the credibility to be elected President."
Kerry, 2002: Last week the Secretary of State and on Monday night the President made clear we would go to war only to disarm Iraq.
Kerry: We must have a great honest national debate on Iraq. The President claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight.
Bush: He also changed his mind and decided that our efforts in Iraq are now a distraction from the war on terror, when he earlier acknowledged that confronting Saddam Hussein was critical to the war on terror.
Kerry, 2002: By casting about in an unfocused, undisciplined, overly public, internal debate for a rationale for war, the administration complicated their case, confused the American public, and compromised America's credibility in the eyes of the world community. By engaging in hasty war talk rather than focusing on the central issue of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the administration placed doubts in the minds of potential allies, particularly in the Middle East, where managing the Arab street is difficult at best.
September 20, 2004
Speech at New York University
George W. Bush's take
September 20, 2004
Bush's remarks
What John Kerry said
October 9, 2002
Kerry's Iraq war resolution speech
But what about just last month where he said he would have still have gone in knowing what he does now? Why must you go back to 2002 when last month is staring you in the face? You are just adding fuel to the fire where he changes his position quite frequently!
I notice you didn't address the flip-flop of him saying he'd of done just what the President did, only different.
Again its the right decision, and that is all that matters.
Kerry got too worried about politics and was afraid of becoming another McGovern. You and I know thats what happened. The one lovely thing about this is it doesn't make an iota of difference. This is what Kerry believes. He's following his heart now. And its the right decision.
So, he'd rather be a Dukakis? That's fine by me.
If you ask me it is W. who has fallen into the pattern of LBJ. Both led the country into wars under false pretenses. Both were in way over their heads once they got the country into those wars. Both politicized the war against the wishes of the commanders on the field. Both were slaves to the country's military/industrial complex. Both kept increasing the number of forces in the field as it became more and more evident that the war they were fighting was a losing effort. Both had bigger battles to fight somewhere else. Both had an average of 49% approval rating, and both served only one term.
If you ask me danny has no clue what he is talking about. He just read some rantings on an extremist left wing message board comparing Iraq to Vietnam and he thought that sounded cool. Give it a rest already chump.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions