More odd things kerry says

[XZeroII]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4400168/

I am convinced that we can prove to the American people that we know how to make them safer and more secure with a stronger, more comprehensive and more effective strategy for winning the war on terror than the Bush administration has ever envisioned,? Kerry said in remarks prepared for delivery at the University of California at Los Angeles.

And what strategy would that be, Mr Kerry?

Democrat John Kerry outlined his plan to combat terrorism Friday that relies on stronger intelligence-gathering, law enforcement and international alliances

Ok, read this.

Now read this...

Kerry referred to reports that Pakistani forces may be moving in to capture al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, in remote areas along the Afghanistan border, but criticized Bush for failing to capture him earlier. ?We had him in our grasp more than two years ago at Tora Bora, but George Bush held U.S. forces back and instead called on Afghan warlords with no loyalty to our cause to finish the job

So let me get this straight...According to Kerry we are supposed to go to the UN when we want something done, but then he criticizes Bush because we didn't go off on our own! MAKE UP YOUR MIND!


This guy is looking more and more whacky by the minute

 

[BugsBunny1078]

All political strategy. You just say whatever everyone wants to hear so that you have one soundbyte to let each specific interest hear. Once the interest group hears their soundbyte you are an acceptable candidate to them(especially if it is their first impression of you).

 

[Dragnov]

The connection between those two statements is weak at best.

I wouldn't exactly call Afghan warlords as part of an international alliance...

 

[nutxo]

Luckily most people that say they will vote for Kerry use the same circular logic in many of the arguments they make.

 

[kylebisme]

that would be nice if it were true nutxo; considering the logic presented here is hardly circular!

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
that would be nice if it were true nutxo; considering the logic presented here is hardly circular!

gimem a break, ive been down with the flu for a week and the fog is just lifting from my brain

 

[GoPackGo]

What bothers me most about kerry is not that he protested the war, but he protested the troops.

The more that comes out of that mans mouth, the less I like.

 

[manly]

There's little correlation between the two issues, so the only odd thing is your mis-interpretation. On Al Qaeda, there was clearly an international coalition supporting ousting the Taliban. All Kerry is saying, whether or not you agree, is that OBL was within the grasp at Tora Bora if G.W. Bush is as decisive as he likes to appear.

OTOH, he asserts that invading Iraq without true international support was not the right decision; besides basing the necessity for war on exaggerated, hyped-up intel for a WMD threat which did not exist, which is another issue entirely.

Whichever side you are on, it's still an open question if Al Qaeda is on the ropes, or if invading Iraq is effective policy for combating terrorism (I suspect it isn't).

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: manly
There's little correlation between the two issues, so the only odd thing is your mis-interpretation. On Al Qaeda, there was clearly an international coalition supporting ousting the Taliban. All Kerry is saying, whether or not you agree, is that OBL was within the grasp at Tora Bora if G.W. Bush is as decisive as he likes to appear.

OTOH, he asserts that invading Iraq without true international support was not the right decision; besides basing the necessity for war on exaggerated, hyped-up intel for a WMD threat which did not exist, which is another issue entirely.

Whichever side you are on, it's still an open question if Al Qaeda is on the ropes, or if invading Iraq is effective policy for combating terrorism (I suspect it isn't).

The point that I am trying to make regarding his comments is that he said that we should rely on our allies to do work with us. In other words, we should not act w/o their help. Then, he comes back and criticizes Bush for not taking the initiative and going after OBL when he had the chance. Which does he want??? According to his philosophy of getting international support before lifting a finger, he would have done the exact same thing that Bush had done regarding OBL.

 

[dmcowen674]

"More odd things kerry says"

Don't believe he can say anything more odd than Bush. Time for a different "odd speaking Politician" to get a shot in there.

 

[manly]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: manly
There's little correlation between the two issues, so the only odd thing is your mis-interpretation. On Al Qaeda, there was clearly an international coalition supporting ousting the Taliban. All Kerry is saying, whether or not you agree, is that OBL was within the grasp at Tora Bora if G.W. Bush is as decisive as he likes to appear.

OTOH, he asserts that invading Iraq without true international support was not the right decision; besides basing the necessity for war on exaggerated, hyped-up intel for a WMD threat which did not exist, which is another issue entirely.

Whichever side you are on, it's still an open question if Al Qaeda is on the ropes, or if invading Iraq is effective policy for combating terrorism (I suspect it isn't).

The point that I am trying to make regarding his comments is that he said that we should rely on our allies to do work with us. In other words, we should not act w/o their help. Then, he comes back and criticizes Bush for not taking the initiative and going after OBL when he had the chance. Which does he want??? According to his philosophy of getting international support before lifting a finger, he would have done the exact same thing that Bush had done regarding OBL.

And there was a broad international coalition in the war in Afghanistan, that even included the Taliban's staunchest ally, Pakistan. At best, you're making a circular argument here based on two different conflicts.

 

[Nitemare]

Kerry flip flopping on what he says and straddling the fence on difficult issues? Surely you jest

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: manly

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: manly
There's little correlation between the two issues, so the only odd thing is your mis-interpretation. On Al Qaeda, there was clearly an international coalition supporting ousting the Taliban. All Kerry is saying, whether or not you agree, is that OBL was within the grasp at Tora Bora if G.W. Bush is as decisive as he likes to appear.

OTOH, he asserts that invading Iraq without true international support was not the right decision; besides basing the necessity for war on exaggerated, hyped-up intel for a WMD threat which did not exist, which is another issue entirely.

Whichever side you are on, it's still an open question if Al Qaeda is on the ropes, or if invading Iraq is effective policy for combating terrorism (I suspect it isn't).

The point that I am trying to make regarding his comments is that he said that we should rely on our allies to do work with us. In other words, we should not act w/o their help. Then, he comes back and criticizes Bush for not taking the initiative and going after OBL when he had the chance. Which does he want??? According to his philosophy of getting international support before lifting a finger, he would have done the exact same thing that Bush had done regarding OBL.

And there was a broad international coalition in the war in Afghanistan, that even included the Taliban's staunchest ally, Pakistan. At best, you're making a circular argument here based on two different conflicts.

Broad just not deep