Wow, if I were able to make all the important decisions in my life based on hind-sight--something akin to flawless prognostication of projected results, I would have never decided to wear *that* skirt, never have gotten married, and would have won every Texas Lotto since 1992.
And then turned around and started critcizing all of the unhappily married, skankily dressed, poor mofos.
Actually, no....I probably still would have worn that skirt.
SW - This isn't so much an indictment of Bush for "not knowing" as it is his supporters for having different standards for their candidate and the press.
anyone else have that good feeling of knowing your voting for the right man when you see others such as ice on the other side of the fence.....
I am not surprised that Ice is voting for the 21st century version of Jimmy Carter....what an idiot.
Um, there are different standards for a president and the press you Idiot. The press is supposed to be unbiased and rely on nothing but facts. They are not a branch of the US Government. The President, doesn't pretend to be unbiased or without an agenda, his agenda is to agressively defend this country, and at times he has to make decisions on that issue based on guesses and judgement. The justification and right, to take us into Iraq were already there...WMD or no.
Our governments main purpose is many things...one of which is to protect the citizens of the United Stats, sometimes from each other, sometimes from outside threats, and sometimes from itself...
The main purpose of the press is report the truth p e r i o d.
It's a stupid ing comparison when it compares the number of deaths caused by the press VS the President's decision to take us into war. No decision by the press should ever result in a ing death.
It's ing moronic to think we can have a war without deaths and we'd have never won a single ing war with the mindset you guys have on this subject.
Last edited by whottt; 10-09-2004 at 12:37 PM.
Whereas the government can just make up? That's OK with you?The press is supposed to be unbiased and rely on nothing but facts.
I must have missed that part.
Sometimes the government has to act without having all the facts...like for instance in the Deulfer report...not one time does it say that those tubes could not possibly be used for a centrifuge. Every single expert said it is possible...Including a CIA operative(who we had to rely on because Clinton and Kerry cut the intelliegence budget and let our nuclear intelligence go into the toilet), who said it was very possible.
Should we wait and find out the hard way that Saddam was going to go to the effort to use those tubes as centrifuges?
Then you guys would be ing ing and whining saying we had intelligence that said those tubes could be used for that purpose and the Bush administration ignored it...Conspiracy...
The Press never has to make that kind of decision.
Edit: Nevermind. That post certainly won't win me any friends here with the Bush people .. so, I'll just keep my opinions to myself.
I support Kerry and I'll leave it at that.
Last edited by dcole50; 10-09-2004 at 04:01 PM.
We didn't know it was faulty at the time...who would you rather give the benefit of the doubt...Saddam or us? I choose us.No, but we should not just let this administration off the hook for invading a country that was not a threat to the United States on the account of faulty intelligence.
You'd rather us get nuked because we were afraid to act than toppple a dictator because we weren't?
Good lord, you are insane..
Look at it this way...which seems more unlikely to you...
1.That 19 unarmed, Mid Eastern men are going to board 4 planes owned by United and American Airlines on 911, and in a span of 45 minutes, use a coordinated suicide to attack the Pentagon and destroy the World Trade Center, in the single biggest mass murder/attack on US Soil in US history...
Or..
2.That Saddam is going to use those tubes for centrifuges...
Think about it for just a second...
When he hasn't let UN Weapons inspectors on Iraqi soil in 4 years.
When our CIA opp who has the most experience with centrifuges says those tubes have the capability to be used for that purpose.
When our intelligence and the British intelligence arrive independently at the conclusion that Saddam has WMD. When everyone in the world believes he is a threat.
When Saddam himself is trying to give his own general the illusion that he possess WMD.
When at the conclusion of the Persian Gulf War...we found out that Saddam's Nuclear Program was far more advanced than anyone suspected.
Which of those two seems the more realistic threat to you?
Would you rather we find out the hard way that our intelligence was accurate?
Blame Clinton, he let our intelligence deteriorate to the level where we had to act on sparse intelligence. Blame Kerry, he sat on the Sentate Intelligence committee every year of Clinton's presidency and did nothing more than cut the budget.
Blame Clinton for not taking Osama when he had the chance.
There is certainly enough evidence there to justify our cause of action and there is nothing to show that we are worse off for taking Saddam out of power.
Wrong, less than 1100 soldiers have lost their lives in this war.3,000 US soldiers have lost their lives and the war isn't over yet.
Tell you what...why don't you go look at the numbers of soldiers who have died in our other wars and see if you would rather be fighting in those wars or this one...
See if you would rather be fighting in a war with a democrat as president or a republican.
See how long this war has been underway compared to our other major wars. We have been there a year and a half...what were you expecting?
We would never have won a war with your mindset...we would have lost every major war we entered. We wouldn't be the United States...we'd still be a ing British Colony.
Only if we elect the man that helped us lose the Viet Nam War...the man who engaged in secret meetings with our enemy during the Viet Nam War. A man who voted against one of the most sucessful wars in World History...when the entire world was on our side.This has Vietnam written all over it.
They did post a threat. Maybe not a certain threat but they posed a threat...I'd say that, in theory, Saddam Hussein posed a bigger threat than 19 unarmed mideastern men.I just think we shouldn't attack nations who posed no threat to the US.
[quote] We should be focused on nations who are actually harboring terrorists (Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.) and this hunt should not have shifted from the real threat (Osama) to a dictator who has no WMD's.[quote]
There's just one problem....We didn't defeat any of those countries in a war and have them violate the conditions of their surrender for 12 years, while the UN and Clinton administration did nothing about it. They were not in violation of a UN Resolution giving us the right to declare war upon them for violation that resolution. Only Iraq did that.
On top of that...taking our Iraq first makes it easier to go into those countries should we have to do so in the future.
Logistically we are now in a better position to take on Iran.
We now are ensured of the Oil resources to take on Sadi Arabia, without facing a world wide Oil crisis, should we have too.
Besides, by taking out the weakest millitary threat first we send messages to those countries to get their act together or else we will not hesitate to act millitarily...
By taking out Iraq first, we might not have to go to war with those countries.
I'd rather go to war with the county with 20 million people and a beaten down millitary than a country with 60 million and a relatively state of the art millitary.
Call me ing funny but that just seem to be a little bit smarter to me.
You show me another Democrat and I'll show you a better presidential candidate.
At least when Dean said he was AntiWar he had the guts to say what he meant. Kerry doesn't.
I deleted my post because I didn't want to get into this, but c'mon, don't take everything you see on those idiotic Swift Vote Vets ads. Do some research.
I based nothing on the swiftboat adds.
At no point did the swiftboat adds claim he had secret meetings with the North Vietnamese...at least not the ones that I saw. That claim is based on my own research...and his anti war protests did aid the enemy...are you telling me that if you saw thousands of protesters burning the Iraqi flag and saying down with Saddam it wouldn't have given you encouragement? They are no different than us.
If all of a sudden you see a bunch of Republicans coming in here denouncing Bush you wouldn't feel more confident about Kerry's chances? Anytime you have a conflict it's always good to see signs of cracking on the opposite side of the conflict. Protesting is one thing...writing books with mocking Iwo Jima and the American Flag on the cover, is entirely another. Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, we are losing this war...I know if I was the enemy I'd love the things Kerry says. I'd know it's just a matter of time until I won. I'd know it's just a matter of time until he gave up.
And you must remember...Kerry is running on an anti war platform, not a democratic platform.....if he wants to get re-elected he is going to have to stay out of wars. No wars are great...but sometimes the war comes to you...and that's what happened to Bush.
2.He did vote against the Persian Gulf War...it's fact. That war, Iraq was clearly in the wrong, we had the backing of the UN, we had a coalition that basically included the entire world, including Iran, Russia, China and Saudi Arabia...and he still voted against that millitary action.
There is nothing that will ever make Kerry support a war, I don't care what the threat is against us. He just won't come out and say it. That is too extreme of a viewpoint to lead this country in this world environment. It is too pacifistic in an unpacifistic world.
It's like a rabbit in a den of wolves preaching vegetarianism and universal brotherhood...that rabbit is about to be torn apart, eaten alive and out.
Again, show me another democrat and I'll show you a better candidate than Kerry.
The ad I saw did. I think there's a big difference between aiding enemies and protesting a war which he fought for his country in. You and I obviously just subcscribe to different poltical beliefs and I'll leave it at that and stick to the basketball talk.
One last thing, however .. you feel other Democrats could run a better campaign than Kerry and I would agree with that. I wanted Gephardt to run for the Democratic party. I don't think Bush is the best man to lead the country, though, and that's why I'm not voting for him.
If given a chance to choose anyone running in 2000 to have lead our country, I'd choose John McCain. I think he was the strongest candidate from either party that year. Just to show you all that I don't have Democratic blinders on or anything of that nature.
Me either...I voted for Gore in 2000(but in hindsight I am glad Bush got elected)and I like McCain too.
Voted for Gore? Guess I might have misjudged you as being biased then.
And I love McCain. He is one of the few politicians I trust. I never feel like he is feeding me bull .
I wasn't crazy about Gore but I despised Bush...I had a perfect record on picking presidents in my voting lifetime up until the 2000 elections.
My family think I am schizophrenic for changing my stance on Bush. I lead the anti-Bush brigade in my houseold in 2000. Same criticisms liberals make about him now...He's big oil, he doesn't care about the environment, his cabinet is past it's time, all he's worried about is money.
But then Sept 11th.
If you look through the demonization campaign that has been done to the Republicans and Bush...I mean it's gone way too far and if people really want to throw conspiracy theories around there are lot more historical reasons to suspect the Democrats of being behind September 11th than the Republicans.
If you look through the very well done demonization campaign, and you are willing to consider the fact that, it is possible to be about big oil without being the antichrist, it's possible to be about big oil and still be more patriotic than mercenary.....and open minded enough to consider that the enemy just might be the terrorists(look at the history of the middle east) and not our President...
You see that Bush in his good old boy way, is a very good President to have in this environment. He loves this country with a passion and he will not let anyone hurt it. He will do anything, and I mean anything, to protect it....and everybody that hates us knows it.
I gurantee you that, Syria, the PLO, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt and Iran are doing everything in their power to keep the monster they created from pulling another September 11th...because the leaders of those countries know...if it happens again Bush is going to go and take their countries from them, even if he has to use nuclear weapons to do so...and he doesn't care if the UN or Europe supports us. There is no way to destroy this country in a millitary war so...
Those guys that created the terrorist movement are on our side now, even if they don't say it out loud(because their own monster will overthrow them if they do).
We may still get hit by a terrorist attack...but it won't be because of the agenda of the state sponsors of terrorism...it'll be because the Islamic movement has grown out of control..to the point that it now threatens a lot of the leaders(the monster's creators) of those countries as well.
The scariest man in the world right now is George W Bush...and sad to say but the reason terrorism is so strong in the middle east is because it works over there, they respect power, control and fear...they do not respect liberalism and peaceful intentions...they'll cut your throat every time.
Listen to any terrorist talk and after the usual BS about the Palestinians you will hear them say we are evil because of our sexuals rights, our womens rights and our religious freedoms.....
Putting a guy in the office who won't force the issue with those leaders will be a bad thing...because they won't have to worry about the ramifications of their monster doing more damage to the US, they'll be free to sit back and blame their corrupt cultures and governments and brutal human rights practices on the USA instead of accepting responsibility for it......and with most of those countries having a 50%-60% literacy rate and high poverty...they'll be plenty of new terrorists coming up.
It'll be business as usual with the monster growing more and more out of control. It's time to stop running from this and pretending it'll go away. It's also time to stop pretending that all anyone is looking for is just a little compassion and understanding. Sometimes it's a battle for power and for control...and I'd much rather see the USA win that battle than the Millitant Islamists. We are still the good guys in this world.
Last edited by whottt; 10-09-2004 at 10:54 PM.
Whott sure has a way of hijacking threads.Um, there are different standards for a president and the press you Idiot. The press is supposed to be unbiased and rely on nothing but facts.
It's funny that someone who probably watches FOX news religiously is complaining about political bias and the lack of real facts on the News. There are very few facts on Fox News. I urge everyone to go out and rent the do entary Outfoxed and I guarantee you'll to stunned at the tricks that FOX uses to push their obvious political and social agenda. You'll never be able to watch Fox News again without laughing.
The U.S. Energy Department said it was highly unlikely and that's good enough for me.Sometimes the government has to act without having all the facts...like for instance in the Deulfer report...not one time does it say that those tubes could not possibly be used for a centrifuge. Every single expert said it is possible...Including a CIA operative(who we had to rely on because Clinton and Kerry cut the intelliegence budget and let our nuclear intelligence go into the toilet), who said it was very possible.
What the are you talking about secret meetings? The Swifties are way ahead of you...At no point did the swiftboat adds claim he had secret meetings with the North Vietnamese...at least not the ones that I saw. That claim is based on my own research
CNNTrip to Paris
The latest ad, led "Friends," accuses Kerry of "secretly meeting with enemy leaders in Paris," where the U.S. government was involved in off-and-on peace talks with the North Vietnamese.
"Even before Jane Fonda went to Hanoi to meet with the enemy and mock America, John Kerry secretly met with enemy leaders in Paris, though we were still at war and Americans were being held in North Vietnamese prison camps," the ad says.
Kerry made no secret of his trip to Paris, France, in the summer of 1970, either at the time or since. He even spoke about it during testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971.
"I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government," Kerry told the committee, referring to the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong delegations by their formal names.
At the time of the trip, Kerry was a 26-year-old antiwar activist who had just been separated from active duty in the Navy as a decorated lieutenant.
Kerry, a leader in the group Vietnam Veterans Against the War, told the committee he wanted elected officials, including President Nixon, to declare a cease-fire and set a date for a U.S. troop withdrawal.
Kerry said the North Vietnamese representatives indicated that "if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal, the [U.S.] prisoners of war would be returned."
The chairman of the committee, Democratic Sen. J. William Fulbright of Arkansas, told Kerry that Congress had "no capacity ... to go out and negotiate a cease-fire. We have to persuade the executive [the president] to do this for the country."
Kerry, the son of a career Foreign Service officer, replied that he understood.
"I realize that even my visits in Paris -- precedents had been set by Senator [Eugene] McCarthy and others [who had visited Paris] -- in a sense are on the borderline of private individuals negotiating," Kerry said.
U.S. law forbids private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments on matters such as peace treaties.
Peace movement
Kerry has told biographers and reporters that his 1970 trip to Paris was a fact-finding mission to the protracted and often stalemated peace talks.
The negotiations went on for five years before Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and North Vietnamese leader Le Duc Tho signed accords in January 1973 providing for a U.S. withdrawal from South Vietnam and the release of American POWs by North Vietnam.
John O'Neil, a longtime critic of Kerry's antiwar activities and one of the founders of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, defended the latest ad.
"There is no record of what he did at the meeting. He met with the chief negotiators for the enemy. He had no right to do that as a private citizen. He had no right to do it as a naval officer," O'Neil said.
Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Stanley Karnow, who covered the Vietnam War as a journalist, said American peace activists, elected officials and diplomats frequently passed through Paris in those days.
"In the peace movement, there was all kinds of showboating. There were people who were frivolous; there were people who were serious," Karnow said. "You'd go over and listen to one of these [North Vietnamese] guys recite some propaganda. You didn't learn very much."
As for the swift boat group's allegation that Kerry met with the enemy, Karnow said, "Half the Washington press corps met with the enemy. We went to dinner with the enemy -- to get information. American officials certainly met with the enemy in the course of the talks."
Chad Clanton, a spokesman for the Kerry campaign, said the Swift Boat Veterans are "a group that has as much credibility as a tabloid magazine."
"The American people are tired of this kind of junkyard politics. They want an honest discussion about how we're going to clean up the mess in Iraq and strengthen our economy," he said.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
