I think he was referring to Florida having major issues with punching a hole through a piece of paper... Or was it in regards to them trying to change the laws and accept 8 different ways to tabulate... Or maybe trying to invalidate the oversea military votes...
Anyways - I agree with Kerry for once! [img]/images/graemlins/laughing.gif[/img]
SEN. JOHN KERRY: "[i]t is something that we know-for instance, Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and there is some evidence of their efforts to try to secure these kinds of weapons and even test them." (CBS’ "Face The Nation," 9/23/01)
[img]/images/graemlins/laughing.gif[/img]
Let me guess Mikie - you're gonna have issues with the words - 'try to secure'...
You know as well as I that this evedence proved to be false.
Um, it was a quote from the guy you support... Care to see dozens of other WMD statements and that we need to move in on Iraq? I can post them if you wish...
So now you're going to say he never had them? He didn't use them on his own people?
The intelligence at the time presented Saddam as a threat. Kerry voted for GW to go to war, as did every other member of congress.
What exactly is it that you think they were basing their vote on?
The vote was NOT to go to war. It was authorizing the use of force IF NECESSARY. That's not the same as voting to go to war. What part of that don't you grasp?
So now you're going to say he never had them? He didn't use them on his own people?
The intelligence at the time presented Saddam as a threat. Kerry voted for GW to go to war, as did every other member of congress.
What exactly is it that you think they were basing their vote on?
The vote was NOT to go to war. It was authorizing the use of force IF NECESSARY. That's not the same as voting to go to war. What part of that don't you grasp?
100% congressional support + intel showing WMD = WAR
What part of that don't you grasp? Any US president given the intel, the global political climate, the fallout from 9/11, the history of Saddam himself, the years of UN sanction violations, the exposed corruption in the UN itself, etc., etc., etc. would have done exactly the same thing.
Blinded by hate, that's what you are. The world is a far better place as a direct result of this war, bad intel or not, and yet you choose to sit there and spew hatred toward your CIC in a time of war.
The Vietnamese have admitted to using the liberal press during the conflict in order to cause dissention amongst the US citizens, to portray a level of warmongering and hate crimes, and to cause social uprisings toward the administration. Stalin invented the craft (read "useful idiot"). Saddam and Osama are perfecting it.
Kerry is hitching his campaign to it. You are falling for it.
"Blinded by hate, that's what you are." What??? You are warmongering and you accuse me of being blinded by hate? Who is doing the hating here? How does preferring peace suggest hate? Take a good look at yourself and think about what you are saying.
"Blinded by hate, that's what you are." What??? You are warmongering and you accuse me of being blinded by hate? Who is doing the hating here? How does preferring peace suggest hate? Take a good look at yourself and think about what you are saying.
I don't consider myself a warmonger. I believe some level of military force is often necessary to preserve the American way. I believe the US has some level of responsibilty to police the world simply because it is the most powerful. I fear some of these dictators that would use that power for pure evil and destruction of my way of life if they were given the opportunity. I trust the US government to conduct covert missions (and large scale offensives as it were) without international support if those missions will lead to my safety at the end of the day. Some of that trust may be misplaced I'm sure, but the principle remains the same.
The war on terror will not go away though. Terrorists are forever plotting your demise, and the best defence is a good offence. If you could prove to me (which you can't because it's not humanly possible) that the war in Iraq was unequivocably unjustified, then I would have no choice but to agree. I don't form my opinions based on my like or dislike of the president.
Since 9/11 I have made a point of reading as much information as I could possibly get my hands on concerning Osama, Saddam, Aphganistan, and Iraq. I have seen enough evidence (some popular, some questionable due to election propaganda, and some un-published by mainstream US media) to prove to me that the war in Iraq was, at the time of the decision, totally justified and supported by those that now criticize.
On top of that I still support it, and have yet to be convinced by a reasonable argument that there are no ties between Saddam and Osama, or that there were no WMDs in Iraq before the war started. I have read reports that indicate both, were not from American media outlets, and although many of them remain "unproven beyond reasonable doubt", show absolute substance.
Politics is a dirty game, and any politician that tries to tell me he is in it to serve the people and not himself obviously hasn't been a politician long enough. They are all self-serving, they all take care of their friends and special interest groups that will help them achieve their goals in life and in business.
At the end of it all, I just want to know that a plane isn't going to land on my head, and some idiot religious zealot is never going to have his finger on the button.
Mike - come on man - and they did vote to give authority to use force... How high are you? Step away from the Lark mobile for a minute - and listen to yourself.
Please don't tell me that even you are going to spin this one...
Giving the Pres full right to use force - did you think he was going to send a valentine...? Er, wait.....yes you would....
OWN these mister!
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"For the United States and Britain, an Iraq equipped with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons under the leadership of Saddam Hussein is a threat that almost goes without description.... France, on the other hand, has long established economic and political relationships within the Arab world, and has had a different approach."-- John Kerry
Let me ask you something? If you have a license to carry a gun, as do I, are you going to go out looking for a reason to kill somebody? I don't think that's what the license if for. I believe that most who voted to authorize the use of force would have preferred to use it as alast resort, not as an excuse to start a war.
The US and UN repeatedly warned Saddam and put pressure on him 15 months prior to going after him... We will skip right on by the dozens of resolutions that he violated the TWELVE YEARS prior to that - so don't tell me it was an 'excuse to start a war'.
I am guessing you missed this part of Kerry's statement - "including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites"...
Last edited by Confrontational : February 13th, 2007 at 02:04 PM.
Before the invasion, Saddam was agreeing with the terms of the UN's weapon inspectors who had found no WMD's, but wanted more time to continue inspections.
Bush already had decided we were going to invade, and the rest is history.
