John Kerry for President!!!!!

“Oh please stop feigning ignorance, Phaedrus.”

“Kerry has a record of being anti-military.”

“The WOT is a misnomer. The war is against militant Islamofascism.

Bush is lying to us again?”

“Sure, and in the endgame, wouldn't the threat of terrorism be a nuisance

Hopefully. And your point is?

That Kerry was right to address the idea of getting to that point. Your partisan hackery of his statement, while in step with the rest of the Bush team, is the "gaffe".

Right now we need decisive action - not a left-footed sensitive policy of negotiation and appeasement. Strong action by the Bush team - regardless of its wisdom - has been enough to prevent another 9/11. For now, this is what we need. It's depressing that so many fools are so self-absorbed that they can't see the forest for the trees here

LOL! The forest for the trees! The long-term picture is certainly not one that favors American invasions and occupations of islamic countries in a self-defeating attempt to quell a religious movement.

9/11 won't happen again with a strong homeland defense, and a presidential administration that prioritizes terror, rather than refusing to "swat at flies".”

““Please explain how a Kerry victory will be a victory for the terrorists, Mutt.”
Phaedrus
8:12:59 AM
10/21/04
ignore this user
edit this message

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Oh please stop feigning ignorance, Phaedrus.”
Mutt
8:14:39 AM
10/21/04

Pretty typical of you. State an untenable position, and pretend everyone else is ignorant to question you.”

“So John Kerry is pregnant?”

“Simple enough
“Kerry has a record of being anti-military.”
bbw
8:14:49 AM
10/21/04

Yeah. As president, he'll probably ignore any terror threats in favor of developing a missile defense system and taking a vacation.”

“The long-term picture is certainly not one that favors American invasions and occupations of islamic countries in a self-defeating attempt to quell a religious movement.

Gawd! To believe that, you have to ignore all the progress we've made as a direct result of having force in the region that's ready to mobilize in short order. Regardless of whether the WOI was the best choice or not, you cannot ignore the successes thus far. Plus you make it sound like we've conquered a country to be our colony. We're giving Iraq back. We're letting them elect whoever they please. Even Bush was saying that an elected Islamic government would be acceptable. Hell Iran recently endorsed Bush over Kerry for this reason.

You accuse *me* of hackery, yet you blatantly ignore important bits of the picture. Pathetic, Phaedrus.”

“Pretty typical of you. State an untenable position, and pretend everyone else is ignorant to question you

Pretty cheap tactic, Phaedrus. I'm proud of you.

When you have the terrorists themselves saying their September offensive was in part designed to sway the elections, and much of the Muslim world abuzz with this speculation, it's become apparent that a Kerry victory will be a terrorist victory, not unlike Spain's recent past. Even if Kerry is elected purely for domestic concerns, that doesn't change the fact that in *their* perspective, this will be a victory; and make no mistake - it will embolden them.”

“The missle defense system was largely responsible to the downfall of the Soviet Union. A more likely scenario is that Kerry would do nothing. That is his record in the Senate. Twenty years and not a single bill authored into law.”

“Gawd! To believe that, you have to ignore all the progress we've made as a direct result of having force in the region that's ready to mobilize in short order. Regardless of whether the WOI was the best choice or not, you cannot ignore the successes thus far.

Successes? Such as? Please leave Libya out of this when you make your point. The Bush admin needed the political capital of letting them back in, and did so without any concessions they would not have been willing to make before we invaded Iraq. So please explain to me, oh wise one, how the for-all-intents-and-purposes-unilateral invasion of Iraq has really helped win the WOT. I've asked for this bit of apparently faith-based info from you time and again without response.

I've shown a list of negative consequences of the invasion, and I've yet to see evidence of gains that outweigh them. Iraq is a win for terrorists at this point, and it's one you can lay directly at the feet of GW.

Plus you make it sound like we've conquered a country to be our colony. We're giving Iraq back. We're letting them elect whoever they please. Even Bush was saying that an elected Islamic government would be acceptable. Hell Iran recently endorsed Bush over Kerry for this reason.

We'll see, as far as that goes. I have good reason not to take this administration at its word on that count.”

“That freakin does it. If Iran endorsed Bush, I have to vote for Kerry!”

“So you're willing to ignore Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, and Egyptian cooperation? They sure as hell weren't cooperating before the war! When Egypt tells Syria to back off of Lebanon, you know some drastic changes in the ME has taken place! When the Crown Prince cracks down on Islamofascists even though it's caused a low-level civil war, you know some drastic changes in the ME has taken place! When Syria has quietly cracked down on some of its troublemakers, you know blah blah blah...

I never pretended the WOI was the best option. In fact, I've always said I opposed its timing. But the fact remains, even though it burns your socialist britches that the POTUS acted unilaterally, we have seen results.

Now, was it worth it? The problem with discussing this particular issue with you phaedrus, is that you'll keep moving the goalposts further back. Another cheap debate trick. Did I teach you that?

Oh, and if your list of negatives includes pissing off Old Europe, you can just leave it tucked in the "fails the laugh test" file.”

“So you're willing to ignore Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, and Egyptian cooperation? They sure as hell weren't cooperating before the war! When Egypt tells Syria to back off of Lebanon, you know some drastic changes in the ME has taken place! When the Crown Prince cracks down on Islamofascists even though it's caused a low-level civil war, you know some drastic changes in the ME has taken place! When Syria has quietly cracked down on some of its troublemakers, you know blah blah blah...

The real problem with all of this is that we can't prove that it has anything to do with invading Iraq! It seems to me that we could have gotten the same cooperation after 9/11 with the ousting of the Taliban and a buildup in forces in the region without destabilizing Iraq.

I never pretended the WOI was the best option. In fact, I've always said I opposed its timing. But the fact remains, even though it burns your socialist britches that the POTUS acted unilaterally, we have seen results.

1. Socialist this, beeotch!
2. You're right. Invading Iraq was a poorly-timed decision.

Now, was it worth it? The problem with discussing this particular issue with you phaedrus, is that you'll keep moving the goalposts further back. Another cheap debate trick. Did I teach you that?

The costs keep going up, and even you have to agree that the post-war planning, and overall stretegy for the region was horribly flawed going in. The idea here is that we could have gotten the same results without the cost. True or false?”

“The real problem with all of this is that we can't prove that it has anything to do with invading Iraq!

Well that's a weasel statement if I ever read one! What do you attribute the about face to? Sympathy for the U.S.? Occam's razor, phaedrus. When we quit being SA's guarantor of security, and we had several armored divisions in Iraq that could easily sweep into their territory, and we had a semi-crazy POTUS demanding cooperation, what the heck do you think motivated the Saudis to suddenly start cracking down? edit: at their own very considerable expense?
last edited: 10/21/04 11:06:47 AM”

“"Plus you make it sound like we've conquered a country to be our colony. We're giving Iraq back."
- Mutt
10:24:31 AM


Jeeze mutt - I thought the whole point of the invasion was to secure resources and build permanent military bases. At least that's what you've been claiming for the last 18 months. Will you quit flip-flopping so much?”

“You don't think the same effect would have been seen with those troops we committed to Iraq on standby in the gulf?”

“secure resources and build permanent military bases

How does that equate to running a country or turning it into a colony? Basing rights and oil contracts != imperium.”

“No Phaedrus, it was the imminent, credible threat of overwhelming power - in place - that convinced them. Sitting in the Gulf would've been weak. Come on, just admit your line of reasoning is weak. Regardless of whether you think Iraq was a mistake, you have to (if you wan tto be intellectually honest) admit we've gained cooperation from previously uncooperative countries.”

“Failures, breed voters, who are failures, to continue the failures.

example: Kerry wins all three debates. Bush's numbers don't go down. Way to back a loser!”

“Mutt, To invade another country we would have to abandon Iraq, and the world knows it.”

“But who's to know we wouldn't do it? That's the rub, buddy.”

“So really, what you're espousing is that we have a president that appears to be, to the rest of the world, insane?

You picked the right candidate for that.

I would say that giving moderate muslims a voice by not intentionally driving them into the arms of the idealogues is a better strategy. I guess you'd disagree with that.”

“Mutt is right, Bush is so friggin' stupid, he may try to invade another country eventhough we don't have the troops, moral authority, world support or supplies to do it. It's that kind of insane thinking that keeps the world on thier toes, and our soldiers uneccisarily in harm's way.”

“damn, Phaeddy beat me to it!”

“We'll have to leave it at that for now, Phaedrus. It's time for my lunch hour nap!”

“Why bother napping when it does nothing to refresh your brain cells.”

“It's like 9:30 in the morning here!

Someone else help me work off the caffeine!”

“Thursday, October 21, 2004 -- 12 days
Neil Boortz--Daily program notes--Boortz.com
(I'd post the link but it changes daily accordingly)

DIE FIGHTING FOR AMERICA ... BAD. DIE FIGHTING FOR THE UNITED NATIONS ... GOOD.

My God, folks. What has to happen here? Do you have to be hit over the head by an anvil? Do you have to be slapped across the face with a shovel?

Have you heard the latest from The Poodle? John Kerry has a 20-year record in the United States Senate, along with two decades of public statements to go with it, but so far the press has given him a complete pass on his comments regarding the use of American armed forces outside our borders. The media continues to toe the Democratic company line from that The Poodle went to Vietnam, got a few medals, and that means that he's fully qualified to be the Commander in Chief. That liberal record in the Senate and his history of public statements are just small footnotes.

The Washington Post ran a story yesterday about John Kerry's approach to foreign policy. Here's one paragraph from that article:

"Kerry's belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, 'If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no.' "

Read it again, folks. Then read it again after that. This isn't some ancient yammering from Kerry back in the 1970's. This is contemporary Kerry. This is Kerry after having served a decade in the Senate. This is Kerry saying that it OK for Americans to die fighting for a cause ratified by the United Nations, but not OK for American soldiers to sacrifice their lives just fighting for the United States ... fighting for their country. America is not worth dying for. Dying for the United Nations is.

This is a virtual repeat of Kerry's statement in the 1970's that it was his belief that U.S. troops should only be deployed outside of the United States with the permission of the United Nations. Oh, to be sure ... he's tried to back off from that statement during this presidential campaign, but I have this nasty tendency to believe what people tell me when they're not running for office, rather then when they're fishing for my vote. Now we see that Kerry reiterated his feelings just ten years ago!

Put these statements together with some other favorites .. the famous "global test" line for instance. Can it be any more clear? Kerry is, as I have been warning for six months, soft on sovereignty. Kerry, as president, would feel compelled to play a grandiose game of international "Mommy May I?" before he takes steps to protect this country and its citizens. Oh ... and don't forget that Kerry feels that terrorism was just a mere nuisance prior to September 11th. Tell that to the families of the Marines who died in the Khobar towers, the families of sailors killed on the USS Cole, and the families of those who died in the first attack on the World Trade Towers.

And did you hear Kerry yesterday? He was addressing the question of whether or not he would have removed Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. He says he would have, but only if he had been able to develop the appropriate international coalition. That means France and Germany. Well, there was no way in hell France and Germany were going to participate in dethroning their Sugar Daddy ... so that means that if it had been Kerry's call, Saddam Hussein would still be running the show in Iraq today. But wait! There's more! Please remember that Kerry also voted against removing Saddam from Kuwait! The reality is that if the great and wonderful John Kerry had been making the decisions Saddam would today be ruling over both Iraq and Kuwait .. and God only knows what else.

What does it take to make you Democrats understand? What does it take to make those of you with those Kerry / Edwards bumper stickers and yard signs understand the danger that this man presents to our country? Do you really believe that the American Commander in Chief should seek some sort of global permission, or the blessings of the United Nations before he can act in the defense of our homeland and our neighbors? Do you really believe that it OK for Americans to die in battle, just so long as they're fighting under the flag of the United Nations?

You hate Bush? You hate his swagger? You despise his smirk! You think he stole the election? Fine! Is that hatred strong enough for you to jeopardize the safety of our country just to wipe that silly grin off his face? Is that burning hatred so strong that you can sit back and say "well at least Bush isn't the president" after the next terrorist attack on our homeland?

Look at this man! I used to think that he was just an empty political vessel. Not so. John Kerry is a dangerous politician bent on granting to the majority of Europeans that which they desire so strongly, a weakened United States. He denigrated our servicemen and women when he returned from Vietnam, and he dishonors them and all that they stand for now by saying that while it is OK for them to die for the United Nations, their lives should not be put on the line for their own country. This is a man who truly believes that the United States is little more than a member "state" of the great and exalted UN.

This country's salvation may lie in you having one quick pang of consciousness when you walk into that voting booth on November 2nd. When you stand there ready to cast your vote you'll have the spirit of international Islamic terrorism on one shoulder trying to guide your hand toward a vote for John Kerry. On the other shoulder will be the ghosts of the Khobart Towers, the USS Cole and of 9/11 urging you to set your petty hatreds aside and vote for the only man who you truly know will take the fight to the Islamic terrorists ... regardless of whether or not Kofi Annan approves.

Generations of Americans are depending on you to do the right thing.”

“The Red Sox win. You know what that means, don't you? President John Kerry, that's what it means.”

“No more curse of the Chimpino?”

“NEW YORK — John Kerry (search) believes he lost to President Bush because of the video from Usama bin Laden (search) that surfaced just days before the Nov. 2 presidential election.

The Massachusetts senator told FOX News' senior correspondent Geraldo Rivera that he believes he lost because the tape may have scared the American electorate.

Rivera spoke to Kerry on Thursday as the senator and a slew of other notable names — including wife Teresa Heinz Kerry, actors Robin Williams and Morgan Freeman and comedian Chris Tucker — were in a holding room prior to the processional leading up to the formal opening of the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Ark.

"Tough luck, Senator," Rivera said to Kerry, referring to the Democrat's election loss.

Trying to recount Kerry's words verbatim, Rivera said Kerry responded by saying:

"It was that Usama tape- it scared them [the American people]."

Rivera said Kerry said the tape came out too late for his camp to rebut and the Democratic campaign couldn't counteract it in time for the Tuesday election.


"Sen. Kerry clearly believes not only is it the security issue that cost him the election, but very specifically the Usama tapes coming out in the 11th hour," Rivera reported Friday.

Kerry also acknowledged that the security issue in general hurt him in the race, Rivera said.

The broadcast of the tape from the Al Qaeda leader jolted the campaign's closing days, accentuating the terrorism theme with a reminder of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

In the tape, aired by the Arab television network Al-Jazeera, bin Laden spoke directly to the American people. He admitted for the first time that he carried out the Sept. 11 attacks and said the attacks would have been less severe if Bush had been more alert.

He promised to lay out "the best way to avoid another Manhattan" and told Americans, "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands."

The tape caused Kerry to revive his contention that Bush missed an opportunity to capture or kill bin Laden during the Afghan war. The Democratic challenger asserted throughout the campaign that U.S. forces could have run down bin Laden in the Tora Bora (search) mountains in late 2001 if they had gone after him on the ground, and he blamed Bush for the decision to let Afghan forces lead that chase.

But during the campaign, Republicans insinuated that terrorists would prefer to see Kerry in office, saying the Massachusetts senator would be too soft in the War on Terror.

Some political observers believe that many Americans voted for Bush not only because of his strong stance in the War on Terror but because they held tight to the adage of, "you don't change horses in midstream."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, in responding to the FOX News report, said she does believe the bin Laden tape favored the president a little but would not say it outright tipped the election.

"It was a reminder he [bin Laden] still at large," she told FOX News. "I think what we could see in the polls a real lead for Kerry and that made a couple points difference … I think it had an effect."


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139060,00.html”

“http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/

"This just in...

In a shocking historical moment, one of the two Thanksgiving turkeys pardoned by President George W. Bush has turned in his resignation, preferring to die rather than be pardoned by someone who refused to pardon human beings in Texas. The turkey, "Biscuits," was promptly drafted and is being shipped to Iraq.

The other turkey, "Gravy," pledged eternal fealty to Bush and is considered front runner to the first available seat on the Supreme Court.

We'll be stuffing more into this story as it develops.”

“he still woulda lost without the tapes, but it mighta been closer”

“Best thread EVER! Thanks for bringing back up!

BTW- I have heard the estimates that say as many as 70% of the Kerry votes were simply "he's not Bush" votes.”

“Before I looked, I thought you wrote that, Tilt.

I am so disappointed that you're not that funny.”

“I can't believe none of the lefties here did post something to the effect that same week we go blasting into Falluja Bush let's a turkey off the hook.

Save the turkeys! Eat an Islamofacist!”

“Hey, I'm not the one who supports a war criminal.

You guys raised hell about Vince Foster for 6 years, yet the body bags arrive at Dover week in and week out.

I agree. Is isn't funny worth a #&%!$.”

“My gut, of course, says that Kerry is just throwing out an excuse.

But, it really would have only taken 75,000 votes in Ohio to change the election. That's out of how many millions in the state. Sure, it's not 500 like in Florida 2000, but it's still a pretty small margin.

There are probably a hundred reasons for that 75,000 vote margin. All of them are plausible. After further review, this one is plausible.

The biggest one - I think - is that Democrats didn't do anything different this time. They sat on what they thought was a lead. The operating assumption was that during economic troubles and a poorly managed war, the Democrats could run a risk-free, middle-of-the-road, please-everybody campaign for president and still win.

It ALMOST worked. Kerry should have taken a few more chances, like maybe supporting a ban on late term abortions or pushing to increase troop levels in Iraq or pushing for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Shake things up and drive to Bush's weaknesses.”

“You may be right, lurker.

And maybe if Kerry had taken a stand on ANYTHING he may have got more votes.”

“I wonder if he doesn’t run next time if he’ll be out there screeching like a howler monkey against the new republican like Algore was. Man, he’s still bitter after all this time. I bet he’ll end up like Ray Finkle from Ace Ventura. "Laces out Marino!! Laces OUT!"”

“What tape??? I never saw any tape did you folks see any tape?

And why haven't any of you lib's here cried about the 15+ million he left in the bank? Its been a week already since that has aired and nothing.”

“Dang! You guys are sure gracious in victory.”

“Yeah, I remember seeing mention of the tape real briefly. When I read the transcript though it said something totally different then what I was hearing on the news. I got the impression that he planned on striking again regardless of the election outcome and I remember distincly hearing that he said more attacks will come if we re-elect GW.”

“Yeah, I saw a part of that tape. Osama said if it weren't for Bush...the attack on America would've been less severe. That's funny....instead of taking out the Twin Towers....we'll just bomb a couple of your oil reserves, or bridges.”

“Dang! You guys are sure gracious in victory.”

Violin
9:46:37 AM
11/20/04

Could Kerry show less grace? Blaming Osama for his lost election? Would something like that have cost a candidate like Wesley Clark the election?”

“Kerry lost the election beause too many morons voted, it's that simple.”

“I am so glad I didn't vote for either one of those bozo's.

Both parties are really gonna have to show me someone worth while in 08 or I won't vote again.”

“Ewker, what kind of response is that?! If you don't vote, you lose your voice. Do you think either one of the parties cares if you don't vote? That is a risk they'll both take, trust me. If you vote on the issues, and make the candidate secondary, you'll be much more informed, and hopefully make a much less pained decision.

Good luck!”

“My gut tells me that Kerry voted to authorize Bush to go to war, believing that it was the wrong choice - but believing that he didn't stand a chance of being elected President if he didn't. That created a fundamental contradiction and incoherence that made it impossible for him to launch a coherent critique of the Iraq war.”