I gotta agree with you.... And if HE can almost win against Bush, there ain't NO MANDATE.
Anyway, yeah, great, thanks John, for another convincing speech that will do none of us any good at this late date.
I gotta agree with you.... And if HE can almost win against Bush, there ain't NO MANDATE.
Anyway, yeah, great, thanks John, for another convincing speech that will do none of us any good at this late date.
Looks to me like Bush's remarks hit a nerve. Poor Democrats, they just can't get it right. They had all this bluster and might before the war and they were going to show America that they too wanted to defend America so they made speeches about how 9/11 changed things, and how bad Saddam was, How many weapons he had, and that we couldn't afford to wait until it was too late. But alas, now they want to erase all that and claim that Bush lied even though they said the same or much worse. It's a sad day for America's Democrats and their party because it is now clearer than ever that they have lost all sense of sanity. They can't even remember what they supported and why they supported it, let alone what they said on their own accord.
Poor Democrats, they just can't get it right. They had all this bluster and might before the war and they were going to show America that they too wanted to defend America so they made speeches about how 9/11 changed things, and how bad Saddam was, How many weapons he had, and that we couldn't afford to wait until it was too late. But alas, now they want to erase all that and claim that Bush lied even though they said the same or much worse. It's a sad day for America's Democrats and their party because it is now clearer than ever that they have lost all sense of sanity. They can't even remember what they supported and why they supported it, let alone what they said on their own accord.Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Looks to me like Bush's remarks hit a nerve.
Hey, at least God doesn't tell my candidate what to do. Oh wait, to most Americans, that's a good thing.
lmfao.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,809
- 6,364
- 126
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Looks to me like Bush's remarks hit a nerve.
A "nerve"? Ya, the BS Detector.
GenX, Pabster, Whoozyerdaddy and ShadesOfGrey,
Do any of you have a single point to make in regards to the content of the speech? If not, STFU and duhvert some thread in OT where the topic isn't supposed to be a somewhat serious debate. Kerry gave a detailed indictment of, what he believed, to be the misrepresentations of this administration in selling the war with Iraq. Either discuss or refute the validity of the points he made or just leave the tread alone. Your choice.
Do any of you have a single point to make in regards to the content of the speech? If not, STFU and duhvert some thread in OT where the topic isn't supposed to be a somewhat serious debate. Kerry gave a detailed indictment of, what he believed, to be the misrepresentations of this administration in selling the war with Iraq. Either discuss or refute the validity of the points he made or just leave the tread alone. Your choice.
While I agree with what much of Kerry said, and I'm always impressed with someone who can articulate their ideas in a clear and effective manner, what is cool about this goes even beyond this particular issue. Nobody has touched on it in this thread. It's not about Bush being an ass on Veteran's day, or Kerry being stuck in 2004, it's about the lesson the Dems (or at least Kerry, hopefully he'll pass it on) might have learned from 2004. I think they might be waking up to the need to be strong. Not in the crazy, ranting, enraged, Zell Miller at the Republican convention sense, but in the sense of really taking the opposition to the mat when necessary. Of really fighting for what they believe in. I think a big reason Kerry lost in 2004 went beyond the issues to a general feeling Bush managed to impart on voters, and Kerry did not. That feeling was that Bush "had what it took" to fight terrorism and anything else. He may not have been the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I think people like a leader who stands up for himself and his ideas. I don't find a great deal to admire about Bush, but I'll admit I admire his determination. I don't think Kerry and the Democrats in general were as effective at doing this, but I think they might be learning.
I did. Kerry and other Democrats who are now parroting this "Bush lied" BS are the same ones who laid out very similar cases for the war, infact some of them even went beyond in certain cases. It is obvious that their new position contradicts the position they had before the war. There is no excusing that, and there is no getting around it. It is a matter of public record. It was their own speeches, unless Bush's voodoo moved their lips for them.
So it's unacceptable to change your mind when get new information, is that the system? I personally supported the war when I was convinced Iraq had WMDs...now that I realize that was a load of crap, I'm not quite so pro-war. Now certainly Kerry and the other Democrats in the government would have had access to more information than I did, but probably not as much as President Bush did. Isn't it possible that they too have more information today than the used to, and as a result of that additional information, they changed their minds? What a concept!
We can do it a little sooner... like when we try Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condi, Rove, Libby, and the rest of the administration for various crimes based on their lies, including treason.
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
I think it's good that you're getting out statements like this, and the speech in the OP. Even better, I hope you maintain this through the '08 election and take the Democrats off the cliff like Goldwater did with the GOP in '64. I don't think anything less than a complete and humiliating ass-whooping will get it through your thick skulls, and maybe then you'll sulk away and come up with a workable agenda for the next election, because as of right now you're worse than the President.
Let me give you some honest advice as a "moderate" Libertarian who wants a strong opposition party to President Bush - the rest of America (99% of whom aren't involved in MoveOn) doesn't want to hear this crap. We know full well that Bush didn't handle Iraq very well and can badmouth him on our own without your help. What we want is not stupid partisan finger pointing like you're offering, we want you to offer alternatives to fix it. For christsakes, listen to Joe Lieberman, or Mark Warner, or anyone else who has an IQ above 74 in your party, they're all saying the same thing.
This is the definition of conservatism. Bush et al are merely living it out.
Bush withheld valuable information from Congress.
Yeah, I've got a point. Same old Kerry, the liar, the flip-flopper, now making many of the same ridiculous points that got him his arse handed to him in Election 2004.
Debating the Kerry speech is no more fruitful than debating some posting on a left-wing extremist blog.
While I think trying people for treason is a little extreme, Kerry hit the nail right on the head. Not with what he said so much as how he said it. It's the kind of strong, principled, leader-like statement that was sorely missing from the 2004 election on the Democrat side. The Republicans won, not because of ideas, but because they appeared stronger. I don't think the Dems need to take it to the same nasty, viscious place that the Republicans did, but they just appeared weak. Changing that will certainly help.
Right...except unlike in Election 2004, the majority of Americans might actually agree with Kerry...and if they still do in a few years...
Except even the Democrats disown the loser. Hillary is polling higher than Kerry, Edwards, and a couple other hopefuls COMBINED.
Kerry is just another rich elitist liberal trying to come across as an Average Joe. Unfortunately, he has "dropped the ball" too many times to count.
That's not what I meant. I mean that they agree with his ideas...not that they'd vote for him for President. That's just as dangerous to the Republicans, because while it might not be Kerry that get's elected, it could be another Democrat.
I don't know that they do agree with his "ideas".
If we look back at Election 2004, a large percentage of Kerry voters did not vote for him because they supported his platform or his "ideas". They voted for him just because he wasn't Bush. And while that speaks volumes about the stupidity of his voters, it also leaves one wondering about Kerry's level of support - even in his own ranks.
I never said a person couldn't change their mind. Hey, if kerry and the other Democrats changed their mind for whatever reason they claim is fine, but to make the claim that Bush lied is utterly outrageous.
"I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11th, that question is increasingly outdated."
That would be Senator Jay Rockefeller on October 10, 2002, who was on the Intelligence committee.
He also stated this on October 10, 2002: "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons. And will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years and he could have it earlier."
So we have him talking about 9/11, nuclear weapons, and "imminent threat" even though Bush never said "imminent threat". Who was hyping?
Now on to Kerry.
Try this one on for size:
"As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter. In the wake of September 11, who among us can say, with any certainty, to anybody, that those weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater--a nuclear weapon--then reinvade Kuwait, push the Kurds out, attack Israel, any number of scenarios to try to further his ambitions to be the pan-Arab leader or simply to confront in the region, and once again miscalculate the response, to believe he is stronger because he has those weapons?"
Who is hyping?
Then this gem.
"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. Saddam Hussein's record bears this out.
I have talked about that record. Iraq never fully accounted for the major gaps and inconsistencies in declarations provided to the inspectors of the pre-Gulf war weapons of mass destruction program, nor did the Iraq regime provide credible proof that it had completely destroyed its weapons and production infrastructure.
He has continually failed to meet the obligations imposed by the international community on Iraq at the end of the Persian Gulf the Iraqi regime provide credible proof war to declare and destroy its weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems and to forego the development of nuclear weapons. during the 7 years of weapons inspections, the Iraqi regime repeatedly frustrated the work of the UNSCOM--Special Commission--inspectors, culminating in 1998 in their ouster. Even during the period of inspections, Iraq never fully accounted for major gaps and inconsistencies in declarations provided to the inspectors of its pre-gulf war WMD programs, nor did the Iraqi regime provide credible proof that it had completely destroyed its weapons stockpiles and production infrastructure.
It is clear that in the 4 years since the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out, Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction. According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 kilometer restriction imposed by the United Nations in the ceasefire resolution. Although Iraq's chemical weapons capability was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort over the last 4 years. Evidence suggests that it has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard gas, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX. Intelligence reports show that Iraq has invested more heavily in its biological weapons programs over the 4 years, with the result that all key aspects of this program--R&D, production and weaponization--are active. Most elements of the program are larger and more advanced than they were before the gulf war. Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives which could bring them to the United States homeland. Since inspectors left, the Iraqi regime has energized its missile program, probably now consisting of a few dozen Scud-type missiles with ranges of 650 to 900 kilometers that could hit Israel, Saudi Arabia and other U.S. allies in the region. In addition, Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles UAVs, capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents, which could threaten Iraq's neighbors as well as American forces in the Persian Gulf. "
Hyping?
So while kerry and his pals want to suggest that Bush Lied(TM), I think they should look to their own remarks first to see if those were lies too.
Politics, plain and simple. Kerry believes (and is probably correct) that the average voter is stupid and either won't recall the statements he and his cohorts made pre-war, and/or won't take the time to investigate his own words.
And we need to look a lot farther than Kerry. What about Rockefeller (which was mentioned), Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, the list goes on and on. These idiots put the H in hypocrite.
kerry running for president in 2008. can we beleive this article anymore than we could beleive his articles he wrote in 2004? will he flip flop on this article?
Another brainwashed radical leftist believing the demoncats are the answer to America's problems. i do feel sorry for you and wish you think things through. the demoncats are worse than republicans in ways i cannot describe. i am speaking as a former demoncatic supporter and I supported Goreleoni in 2000.
Bush's war may have been a faulty one, but to excuse Clinton of his wrong behavior during the 90s is even worse. but you are a party animal
Bush's war may have been a faulty one, but to excuse Clinton of his wrong behavior during the 90s is even worse. but you are a party animal
MadRat
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 11,999
- 308
- 126
Did anyone see Roberts and Akito both beleive that term limits on the President are unconstitutional? Go dig through their memorares and enlighten yourselves on the many other untraditional opinions these two have lingering. I can just see it now, Bush runs a third time and wins by a landslide - ignoring the exit polls showing him with less than 10% of the vote.
The majority did see it that way. That is why it took the Supremes to change the outcome.
Quite frankly this whole presidency has been a disaster.
The majority did see it that way. That is why it took the Supremes to change the outcome.
Quite frankly this whole presidency has been a disaster.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter