John Kerry for President!!!!!

“Thank you for making my point roseymonster. Before the war David Kay felt that there were weapons, and even if there weren't the only way we were going to find that out was to get rid of Saddam.

David Kay before the war:

"Iraq stands in clear violation of international orders to rid itself of these weapons."

And did Iraq stand in violation? Yes, part of the order is documentation. Iraq, even when given the chance to document what happened to the stockpiles of weapons that there is no question that he had and had used in the past, did not produce any such documentation. Why would Saddam not do this? Yes he could have wanted to keep the illusion of power over his neighbors. Even if that is the case, it does not excuse us from eliminating a potential threat when there was no other reasonable way to verify that the weapons were not there.”

“Did you even read what's printed up there Bison? It's Kay saying there wouldn't be and wasn't a damn thing. Even Rummy said that.

This issues has been beaten to death and I will not discuss it anymore with anyone on here.

Bush lied. Soldiers died. End of story.”

“Did you not read what I posted on here roseymonster?

I gave you a direct quote by Kay about his position before the war.

Your quote from him about what he found AFTER he had an opportunity to actually get in there and find the truth isn't germane to his position beforehand. What is germane is that he would not have had that opportunity had the war not taken place.”

“"What is germane is that he would not have had that opportunity had the war not taken place." - Bison.

This is insane logic. Kay went in BEFORE the war and came back (against his desire) and said nothing was found. And Bush and crew still mouth the rhetoric that they know there are WMDs there and we need to get them? What sense does that make?”

“Roseymonster - you have completely mischaracterized Kay's position he did NOT say before the war that there were no WMD, as a matter of fact he said just the opposite and I gave you the quote.”

“Again rosey -

From Sept. 2002 (Before the war)

"Iraq stands in clear violation of international orders to rid itself of these weapons."

- David Kay.”

“You gave two quote from Kay rosey -

"I don't think they existed."

and

"What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the [1991] Gulf War and I don’t think there was a large-scale production program in the Nineties."

Both of these quotes are from January 2004, let me do some math for ya rosey... January 2004 was well after the war began.”

“Bison,

I am actually willing to go with you on the spirit of the German/Japan argument.

And I'd like to take the analogy a bit further. Once we declared war on all these countries, we didn't immediately invade Japan. We may have wanted to. They may have done something very bad to us. But it would have been a suicide mission until we had built ourselves into a position to win.

We WERE justified in invading Iraq. Iraq had violated the cease fire agreements that ended the Gulf War. Hussein was a despotic leader. The no fly zones and oil for peace program had major flaws.

However, we needed to fight a war that we could win. And we needed to take on the enemy of greatest threat - Al Qaeda.

So, my question, Bison, is when, exactly, will the car bombs stop? And how long until the militant Iraqis get good enough to blow up a really big barracks or something?

This was a stupid, foolish war in a tactical sense. It was a STRATEGIC error, not a philosophical one.

Where's Osama?”

“I won't go so far as to say that I agree with even the spirit of the Germany/Iraq analogy. It's too weak with obvious differences in context and action. It's a red herring.

If Bush was keen on removing saddam, I have made the case that it could have been done with a great deal less expense all around, but it would have required patience, diplomacy, and a non-dismissive stance toward international law. There were good humanitarian reasons for demanding the overturn of saddam's regime and there were reasons to see a large return on investment for a friendly government there, but the reckless method of entering into Iraq without a way to win the peace constitutes incompetence, IMO.”

“"arc - I guess a joke that has to be explained is not a goot joke.”

Laqtis


Happens to me all the time. It’s hard to pick up on irony when you can’t see facial expression or tone of voice. You’re cool. I take what you say in a good light anyway. Even if some of your intended irony goes over my head.




“I was pointing out the ironic/hpyrocritical additude that the US has against the UN. We (Saddam and the US) share/d the same view point about them, but in our case, we just used the UN to get Saddam.”

Reeeeeeally? You’re pretty cynical. Cynicism can cloud objective judgement.




“Say what ya will about the UN. Just 10 years ago, they we a vital force during the first Gulf war.”


The UN wasn’t vital, George HW Bush was the vital force. He gathered a coalition of countries without U.N. help:


A long series of UN Security Council and Arab League resolutions were passed regarding the conflict. One of the most important was Resolution 678, passed on November 29, giving Iraq a withdrawal deadline of January 15, 1991, and authorizing "all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660", a diplomatic formulation authorizing the use of force.


One day after the deadline for Resolution 678 expired, the US and its coalition invaded Iraq. The UN did not approve this action nor did it send troops. And this sounds suspiciously similar to the sequence of actions that occurred after the UN passed resolution 1441 authorizing "serious consequences" if Iraq did not comply with weapons inspections. Although "serious consequences" to the UN usually means another round of diplomatic slaps on the wrist while people die (Think Rwanda. Think Bosnia. Think Sudan).




“By us underminding them, we have weaken that IGO and have made them uneffective by that action.”


The US is just a member of the UN. We certainly do not dictate their actions. Nor do we have much effect on what they choose to do. The UN now says that the US and Briton violated international law. This jibes nicely with the many UN resolutions condeming and censuring the US over the years. The UN voted for the removal of the US from the UN Human Rights Commission. China, Russia, Syria, Libya, and Sudan have better records on human rights? Riiiiiiiiiiight.




“Everything that has been built up through 20 years of STRONG foreign policy, has been crapped down the drain in less than 2 years.”

What are you talking about? The US has made mistakes in the past and will continue to make them. You make it sound as if the US was the world’s darling before Bush came to office. Here’s some history for the hard of remembering:

1. November 1979 a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran.

2. In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut killing 63 people.

3. 1983, a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed.

4. December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait

5. September 1984, another van was driven into the gate of the US Embassy in Beirut

6. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid.

7. August, a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed.

8. 1985, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed.

9. Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killed 259.

10. In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

11. 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured.

12. In November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women.

13. In June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500.

14. The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors.

15. 9/11

Golly gosh, laqtis, that’s OVER 20 years of exemplary foreign policy that we aggressively screwed up in 2 short years. YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!




“Our lack on consistancy fuels the fire of terrorism for decades to come.”


It would seem that our CONSISTENT position of non-aggression for over twenty years has already fueled those fires and ruined your imaginary partisan utopia.




This post is already too long. Your argument doesn’t hold water and I’m leaving for the weekend. Hope you have a great weekend.






“Bush lied. Soldiers died. End of story."

roseymonster


I guess it really is that simple to some, even though Kay, US intelligence, British intelligence, Russian intelligence, and many others all had have publicly stated that they had reason to suspect WMD. So, …what rosey? You think Bush went to Iraq incognito, personally gathered his own data, saw that there were no WMD, then came back and lied? Or are you accusing all of his sources, WHO HAVE PUBLICLY STATED that they suspected WMD, and just accidentally refer to them collectively as Bush? Are you the illegitimate crack baby of Al Sharpton and Janeane Garofalo?”

“Arclite: walking contradiction.”

“"Are you the illegitimate crack baby of Al Sharpton and Janeane Garofalo?"

arclite
04:30:04 PM
09/17/04

Now that's damn funny.”

“You’re pretty cynical. Cynicism can cloud objective judgement.

[/arclite]”

“NYT/CBS Poll (hardly a Bush loving poll) Bush By 9. Poor Johnboy's goin' down in flames a la his old boss.”

“All I can say at this point is that if Kerry wins, he'll be President.

Okay, it's FRRRIIIIDDDAAAYYY... time for some beers down at Yagers. Bye!”

“The real bad news for the libs from inside the poll - Bush carries more Reps than Kerry carries Dems, Bush carries mor libs than Kerry carries cons, Bush carries independents by 8%. And the real kicker (drum roll please) Bush beats Kerry by a whopping 23% in strong support. That's an extra 23% who are definitely going to vote and vote for that candidate.”

“WOW! Those are great numbers for a guy who's going to lose the election!

At least he'll have that.”

“Ahh! Yes Phaedrus you should be allowed to smile at the bad news. If your old pal Sen. Kerry had ever bothered to take a position on anything things wouldn't be so bleak. I still can't wait to get to the debates where the good Sen. will be asked "What's your position on the war?"”

“What's Bush's position on war?

"All fer it. Long as I don't have ta go. nowuttamean?"”

“the rythem method”

“You have to respect a man who can make a decision.”

“I'm going to drive my car after drinking heavily. George made a decision to do that, he is a man, so I guess, according to your logic, he deserves repect.

There is no logic in your statement bacpac.”

“I think the Kerry campaign strategy and your strategy to focus on personal decisions 30 years ago will cost Kerry the election.

I think that focusing on Kerry's record in the senate for the past 20 years will cost Kerry the election.

Bush in '04.”

“what's Bush's position on the war?

I'm not exactly sure. People call Kerry a flip flopper, but Bush hasn't exactly remained consistent either. His rhetoric on the war has changed more and more the more days go by without any WMD being found. Now that it's obvious there were no WMDs, the war was about taking out a tyrant who tortured his people. whatever
Bush is more of a flip flopper than Kerry”

“Three years ago, Bush lied to the country and the world, and invaded Iraq. George made the decision to do that, he is a man, so I guess, according to your logic, he deserves respect.

There is no logic in your statement bacpac.

Ten years ago, Bush ran a baseball team called the Texas Rangers, with money one of his dad's buddies gave him. The team did #&%!$ty under his leadership, but, he convinced the public to tear down a perfectly good stadium, and build a new one (all with taxpayer dollars), and then promptly sold the team, making hundreds of millions of dollars on the deal. the team still sucked, but it's value was increased because taxpayers built a new stadium for him.

George made the decision to do that, he is a man, so I guess, according to your logic, he deserves respect.

There is no logic in your statement bacpac.

DOES ANYBODY SEE A PATTERN HERE?

Heck, I'll spell it out for you. Bush is a moron, who routinely mades bad decisions, and is put into situations to make bad decisions based on his greedy handlers who want money. He hasn't earned anything in his life on his own, he makes these bad decisions that screw the people he leads, or his customers, or potentially his passangers. Yet he stands by his idiotic decisions so he deserves respect.

My turn. People who endorse and stand by people who make routine idiotic decisions don't deserve respect. Afterall, respect is something you earn, not something you demand.”

“President Bush is consistent in making the tough decisions. I respect that.”

“Yep Consistently dumb, idealistic to a point of absurdity, and consistently wrong in the predicted outcomes.

No wonder you respect that.”

“"My turn. People who endorse and stand by people who make routine idiotic decisions don't deserve respect. Afterall, respect is something you earn, not something you demand."

Buddha Bear
10:19:45 AM
09/18/04

In that case I will be sure to withhold respect from John Kerry's supporters in the future.”

“Bush's position on the war:

Saddam represented a threat to the US and had to be removed, and a democratic gov't put in place afterwards, we will stay as long as we have to and do whatever it takes to achieve these goals.

I fail to see where Bush has flipped on that, consistency from day one.

Kerry: Well, on some days Saddam represented a threat, but on other days he didn't. On somedays he needed to be removed, on other days he didn't. On somedays this was the right war at the right time, on other days this was the wrong war at the wrong time, on yet other days this was the right war at the wrong time, the only one I haven't heard is that this was the wrong war at the right time, but there still 40+ days to go so I'm sure he'll get around to that position.”

“Expect that to be mirrored, if so.”

“That was in response to your respect comment.”

“Once again Phaedrus you missed the fact that the post was intended to point out the absurdity of BB's.”

“I can respect that, Phaedrus.”

“Ahh! we now see fully and completely the absurdity of the liberal mind. It is okay for liberals not to respect people who don't agree with them, but it is not okay for a conservative to not respect a liberal because the liberal doesn't agree with the conservative. The hypocrisy is blinding me.”

“"Saddam represented a threat to the US......"

With non-existent weapons and no plan to use them.

War is a racket and someone is making money on this war.”

“It's not about disagreement.”

“Bison's obviously having a hard time with the language today.”

“Yes it is MarkO, read BB's post he refers to "routine idiotic decisions." Tens of millions of people in this country disagree with that sentiment. Does it ever occur to you that all of that both sides of an argument can draw valid, though differing, conclusions. This is the problem with so many liberals (and some conservatives, take bacpac for instance) around here. They just don't get that sometimes its not all cut an dried, and both sides can draw valid conclusion that should be respected by the other.”

“"Bison's obviously having a hard time with the language today."

Phaedrus
01:12:22 PM
09/18/04

How exactly?”

“fact: There are no weapons and therefore, no threat.

There is nothing to differ about.

New excuses have been cooked-up and spun for Bush's war in Iraq.”

“Fact - Saddam had provided material support to islamist terrorists, including those that killed Americans.

Fact - Saddam had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda.

Fact - Saddam had in the past possessed and used WMD.

Fact - Saddam was given an opportunity to document what had happened to the weapons that we knew that he had possessed, he did not do so (We were supposed to take his word for it that they were gone? ridiculous).”

“Millions of people in this country believe that Saddam had something to with 9-11.

Millions of people in this country can't think for themselves.

Thats much the Republican base.”

“Millions of people in this country believe Michael Moore's lies. Mtnsteve speaks as though these people are thinking for themselves.”

“No one is saying that Saddam was not a threat. When you pick a fight, you go after those that pose an IMMEDIATE THREAT and save your resources for another fight. You don't stretch your self (money, materials and man power) so far out, that you cant go after the guy that started it all, or protect you boarders and ports.

We have spent billions on this war, while leaving our ports, railroads and nuclear facilities open to attack.

It's called prioritizing.

We got Saddam alright, now we don't have the money to protect ourselves at home.”

“"Fact - Saddam had provided material support to islamist terrorists, including those that killed Americans."

Saddam paid families of Palestinian suicide bombers after the fact.
They did not committ their crime on his orders.
Why did he pay them?
I suppose to show his disdain for Israel and the U.S.

"Fact - Saddam had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda."

That's a stretch.
Bush had contacts with the Taliban, as seen in Farenheit 9/11.
One might say that Bush therefore was part of the 9/11 attacks.
It would be fuzzy/circular logic, though.”

“I see...EVERYTHING Michael Moore said was a lie? Most folks I have heard from, even the Liberals, seem to be able to thread there way through what is true and what is Michael Moores bias, to filter out what is true. Many liberals I know have commented on how much of the movie was totally slanted.

Once again....MILLIONS of people still think Saddam was behind 9-11, the vast majority of these folks are Republicans.”

“"Fact - Saddam had in the past possessed and used WMD."

That was in the '80s.
He received material support from the Reagan administration.
I love the photo of Donald Rumskull shaking hands with his buddy Saddam.

"Fact - Saddam was given an opportunity to document what had happened to the weapons that we knew that he had possessed, he did not do so (We were supposed to take his word for it that they were gone? ridiculous)."

No, but "we" should have taken the word of U.N. inspectors who could not find the mythical weapons.”

“UN inspectors who constantly complained that they were being interferred with.”

“So we went to war, spent billions and lost over a thousand American, 20/30 civilians lives because the inspectors were being interfered with?”

“That would be 20,000 to 30,ooo civilians.”