NationStates Jolt Archive

Kerry starts to grow a spine:


http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0920.html

Here are the main points from Kerry's speech on Iraq yesterday:

The war on Iraq was a mistake -- war was unnecessary because the inspections were working: "Today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no -- because a commander in chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe."

Iraq distracted from the war on terror: "The president claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight."

President Bush misled us about the reasons for the war before it occurred: "He failed to tell the truth about the rationale for going to war. And he failed to tell the truth about the burden this war would impose on our soldiers and our citizens. By one count, the president offered 23 different rationales for this war."

President Bush is still misleading people about Iraq, painting an optimistic picture directly contradicted by his own intelligence officials: "In June, the president declared, 'The Iraqi people have their country back.' Just last week, he told us: 'This country is headed toward democracy. Freedom is on the march.' But the Administration's own official intelligence estimate, given to the president last July, tells a very different story. According to press reports, the intelligence estimate totally contradicts what the president is saying to the American people."

Bush went to war for ideological reasons and consistently misjudged the situation on the ground: "This president was in denial. He hitched his wagon to the ideologues who surround him, filtering out those who disagreed, including leaders of his own party and the uniformed military. The result is a long litany of misjudgments with terrible consequences. The administration told us we'd be greeted as liberators. They were wrong. They told us not to worry about looting or the sorry state of Iraq's infrastructure. They were wrong. They told us we had enough troops to provide security and stability, defeat the insurgents, guard the borders and secure the arms depots. They were wrong. They told us we could rely on exiles like Ahmed Chalabi to build political legitimacy. They were wrong. They told us we would quickly restore an Iraqi civil service to run the country and a police force and army to secure it. They were wrong. In Iraq, this administration has consistently over-promised and under-performed. This policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence. And the president has held no one accountable, including himself."

John Kerry has a four-point plan to fix our Iraq policy:

"First, the president has to get the promised international support so our men and women in uniform don't have to go it alone. It is late; the president must respond by moving this week to gain and regain international support. The president should convene a summit meeting of the world's major powers and Iraq's neighbors, this week, in New York, where many leaders will attend the U.N. General Assembly. He should insist that they make good on that U.N. resolution. He should offer potential troop contributors specific, but critical roles, in training Iraqi security personnel and securing Iraq's borders. He should give other countries a stake in Iraq's future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq's oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process."

"Second, the president must get serious about training Iraqi security forces. The president should urgently expand the security forces training program inside and outside Iraq. He should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double classroom training time, and require follow-on field training. He should recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries. And he should stop misleading the American people with phony, inflated numbers."

"Third, the president must carry out a reconstruction plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people. One year ago, the administration asked for and received $18 billion to help the Iraqis and relieve the conditions that contribute to the insurgency. Today, less than a $1 billion of those funds have actually been spent. I said at the time that we had to rethink our policies and set standards of accountability. Now we're paying the price. Now, the president should look at the whole reconstruction package, draw up a list of high visibility, quick impact projects, and cut through the red tape. He should use more Iraqi contractors and workers, instead of big corporations like Halliburton. He should stop paying companies under investigation for fraud or corruption. And he should fire the civilians in the Pentagon responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction effort."

"Fourth, the president must take immediate, urgent, essential steps to guarantee the promised elections can be held next year. If the president would move in this direction, if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and forces, train the Iraqis to provide their own security, develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people, and take the steps necessary to hold credible elections next year -- we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring all our troops home within the next four years."

But is it enough?

ROFL
Wait until next week, when John Kerry comes out to apologize for his remarks and to present the other side, which is equally possible and plausible.

Did you hear? Bush and Kerry are gonna debate!
It will be a lot like when Kerry debated with Nader.
Two hours were spent discussing both sides of the issues.
Then Nader got to speak.

ROFL
Wait until next week, when John Kerry comes out to apologize for his remarks and to present the other side, which is equally possible and plausible.

Did you hear? Bush and Kerry are gonna debate!
It will be a lot like when Kerry debated with Nader.
Two hours were spent discussing both sides of the issues.
Then Nader got to speak.

So are you saying that you disagree with what John Kerry said? Care to contradict any of it?

Also... You are insiuating that Kerry is a Flip Flopper but are you trying to assert that Bush is not?

Please list some Kerry flip-flops and put intelligence in them and not stupid blurbs like "He voted for the war before he voted against it" - because if you knew anything about anything then you wouldn't say that.

ROFL
Wait until next week, when John Kerry comes out to apologize for his remarks and to present the other side, which is equally possible and plausible.

Did you hear? Bush and Kerry are gonna debate!
It will be a lot like when Kerry debated with Nader.
Two hours were spent discussing both sides of the issues.
Then Nader got to speak.
Very droll. :p
The curse of people who think too much. They can't help themselves when given the opportunity to speak but to fill in as much time as possible, analysing the topic from every point of view.
Hence the appeal of Bush: he can ony think along one track in any one year (2002: Osama Osama Osama. 2003: Saddam Saddam Saddam. 2004: Saddam Saddam Saddam), which is misinterpreted as decisiveness.

I, and obviously a majority of the country, seem to prefer a candidate who does have a history of decisiveness. Not to mention that Kerry's idea of giving America back to the poor seems to be by marrying the rich. First wife was worth 300 million, according to Esquire magazine. Second wife is wroth 700 million, according to same source. Data has been verified. Rather unlike Dan Rather's little blunder there. And you can criticize me if you want, but at least I didn't copy/paste my entire post.

Now, if you "know anything about anything," you would understand that Kerry's plan is BS. Why? Because every plan he comes up with does nothing. And then Bush comes up with a plan that does... nothing. And the reason most of the country likes Bush better, according to the latest polls, is that he at least keeps his ideas going the same direction. Kerry, on the other hand, changes his mind on a weekly basis. Even his favorite hobby, windsurfing, relies on which way the wind blows.

Thank you and have a nice day.

Did you happen to catch John Edwards on Lou Dobbs's show this afternoon? He actually busted out with the l-word--lies. I wonder why the Democrats have such a hard time with calling liars out.

Its not the Democrats that have trouble calling liars out. Its Kerry. Because if you had asked me before the Democrats nominated Kerry, I would have said that they should win hands down. Even though I'm a Republican. Do you know why Kerry is managing to lose, even when everything is going his way? Because, according to Jon Stewart, he sounds like more of a dick telling the truth than Bush does when he is lying.

Nah--the problem with Democrats being scared to use the l-word predates this election cycle. I suspect it goes back to our touchy-feely side that wants to avoid making harsh judgments and doesn't want to assume the worst of our opponents.

But damnit, sometimes it's not just a mistake and it's not just being misleading. When Cheney says there's a connection between the 9/11 attacks and Iraq, he's telling a lie, and not just a lie, a big, fat, fucking lie. When Dennis Hastert says that George Soros is part of an international drug ring, it's a big, fat fucking lie. And when George W. Bush says that the situation is improving in Iraq, it's a big, fat, fucking lie. There's no other way to put it that's accurate.

Did you happen to catch John Edwards on Lou Dobbs's show this afternoon? He actually busted out with the l-word--lies. I wonder why the Democrats have such a hard time with calling liars out.
Cause they would have to start out with Dan Rather, then move to Bill Clinton, then to Al Gore, then to Jean Francois Kerry. They only have 42 days left, and that's not enough time to finish the list of liars in the Left.

Cause they would have to start out with Dan Rather, then move to Bill Clinton, then to Al Gore, then to Jean Francois Kerry. They only have 42 days left, and that's not enough time to finish the list of liars in the Left.

Seriously, have the lies of the left been anywhere near the size and scope of the right's lies? What's worse, fibbing about SUV's, or actively lying about the war?

Seriously, have the lies of the left been anywhere near the size and scope of the right's lies? What's worse, fibbing about SUV's, or actively lying about the war?
"I didn't inhale"
"I didn't have sex with that woman"
"I only threw ribbons, not medals"
"I threw someone else's ribbons"
"I feel your pain"
"I did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it"
"It all depends on your definition of 'is'"
"I don't fall, the SOB knocked me down"

you know whats funny about all this flip flopper bullshit"

kerry never voted to go to war with iraq
there was NEVER a vote to go to war with iraq

however

there wasa vote to give the president the power to fix iraq if it proved a threat

THAT kerry voted for

And when George W. Bush says that the situation is improving in Iraq, it's a big, fat, fucking lie. There's no other way to put it that's accurate.
FYI:
Last month, the British Army fired 100,000 rounds of ammunition in southern Iraq.
The base in al-Ammara sustained more than 400 direct mortar hits.
The British battalion there counted some 853 separate attacks of different kinds: mortars, roadside bombs, rockets and machine-gun fire.
No British regiment has had such intense "contact", as they call it, since Korea.
...
Last month, five cleaning ladies at a British base were murdered on their way to work.
Two local translators disappeared. Their severed heads were found outside the front gate.
...
I met one of the senior civilian political advisors to the military command.
Every time he came to Basra things seemed a "step change worse", he said.

From:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3675538.stm
This is in Basra, one of the safe cities you never hear much about.
And Bush tells us that the situation is improving.

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.
-- Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945

"I didn't inhale"
"I didn't have sex with that woman"
"I only threw ribbons, not medals"
"I threw someone else's ribbons"
"I feel your pain"
"I did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it"
"It all depends on your definition of 'is'"
"I don't fall, the SOB knocked me down"
oh yeah thats far more important than

"Iraq has ready to use WMD"
"Well we didnt go to Iraq over WMD"
"You cannot differentiate between Al-Qaeda and Saddam"
"There was no indication al-qaeda would attack the US"

"I don't fall, the SOB knocked me down"
Righhttt.....Saying a bodyguard knocked you down is equivalent to saying Saddam is linked to Al Qaeda and has a Nuclear weapons program.

You smell that, folks? That's the smell of desperation from the Bush camp.

"I didn't inhale" I only snorted coke with one nostril
"I didn't have sex with that woman" Hmmm, I didn't realize Clinton was running. Either way, I could care less about a politician's sex life
"I only threw ribbons, not medals" no proof he didn't Especially since he still has his medals
"I threw someone else's ribbons" Proof he didn't?
"I feel your pain" WTF? Clinton again. And not even a lie, but just a catchphrase
"I did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it" Damn straight he did. He was right both times too. The Republican bill frittered away money and STILL didn't get the men their armor.
"It all depends on your definition of 'is'"Not a lie, but definitely a weasally way to duck the question. Clinton again though...
"I don't fall, the SOB knocked me down! Like you wouldn't be pissed if an accident happened to make you look like an ass while the microscope was on you? Geez

Red added by me

You smell that, folks? That's the smell of desperation from the Bush camp.
Righttttttt. The only desperation I see is the kind that leads Lefties to create obvious forgeries and try to pass them off as the story of a lifetime. I hope all the crow y'all on the Left have been eating this week washes down well with your Kool-Aid.

Righttttttt. The only desperation I see is the kind that leads Lefties to create obvious forgeries and try to pass them off as the story of a lifetime. I hope all the crow y'all on the Left have been eating this week washes down well with your Kool-Aid.
you mean like right wingers creating def-con levels to cover john kerry poll leads and appearances?

Righttttttt. The only desperation I see is the kind that leads Lefties to create obvious forgeries and try to pass them off as the story of a lifetime. I hope all the crow y'all on the Left have been eating this week washes down well with your Kool-Aid.
Except now it looks like those documents might have been made by an ex-Nixon hand named Roger Stone. You really ought to keep up with the news better Panhandlia.

Righttttttt. The only desperation I see is the kind that leads Lefties to create obvious forgeries and try to pass them off as the story of a lifetime. I hope all the crow y'all on the Left have been eating this week washes down well with your Kool-Aid.

hmmm, that'd make me feel bad if there weren't, admittedly unsubstantiated as of yet, rumors that those memos originated with the Right.

Let's see how this all plays out until we get on our high horses, shall we?

you mean like right wingers creating def-con levels to cover john kerry poll leads and appearances?
For once, I have no idea what you're talking about, and I am actually glad. Have you been toking it up with TRA??

For once, I have no idea what you're talking about, and I am actually glad. Have you been toking it up with TRA??
lets see
oh look, john kerry is going to be on a very popular morning talk show, better go have a discussion with kofi annon, whom i loathe

hmm, kerry's up in poll numbers, better increase the terror alert level about information that we've had for 5 or more years

For once, I have no idea what you're talking about, and I am actually glad. Have you been toking it up with TRA??

He's referring to the two occasions when the threat level was raised right after a Kerry rise in the polls (after announcing Edwards, and after the DNC.)

Both these terror alerts were based on old and somewhat hazy intell.

Coincidence? Maybe. Highly fortuitous coincidence for the Bush camp.

You smell that? You guessed it, it's rat.

Except now it looks like those documents might have been made by an ex-Nixon hand named Roger Stone. You really ought to keep up with the news better Panhandlia.
That's right. A former Nixon staffer "created" some forgeries and passed them off to a former Texas National Guardsman who has a huge axe to grind against Bush.

And somehow, when the whole fiasco is exposed, the "author" manages to get away with his identity only the subject of speculation.

Grasping at straws, aren't we? Your side lost its chance to blow open the whole deal...and because of all the lying and stonewalling the last few weeks, your side now has ZERO credibility regarding all the speculation about the real author. For my money, I say Burkett or Lockhart made the forgeries.

Lockhart? Now who's grasping? There's even less of a connection for him. Give me a break.

That's right. A former Nixon staffer "created" some forgeries and passed them off to a former Texas National Guardsman who has a huge axe to grind against Bush.

And somehow, when the whole fiasco is exposed, the "author" manages to get away with his identity only the subject of speculation.

Grasping at straws, aren't we? Your side lost its chance to blow open the whole deal...and because of all the lying and stonewalling the last few weeks, your side now has ZERO credibility regarding all the speculation about the real author. For my money, I say Burkett or Lockhart made the forgeries.
0 credibility being accused by you is still plenty of credibility to people who havnt formed opinions because of petty partisanship

Lockhart? Now who's grasping? There's even less of a connection for him. Give me a break.
So you deny that the CBS producer called Lockhart after talking to Burkett and had Lockhart call Burkett? Funny, cause Lockhart admits it, and such fabrications are the specialty of the Clintonistas now running the Kerry circus.

Lockhart and Begala and Carville have something to do with the whole turgid affair. Bank on it.

So you deny that the CBS producer called Lockhart after talking to Burkett and had Lockhart call Burkett? Funny, cause Lockhart admits it, and such fabrications are the specialty of the Clintonistas now running the Kerry circus.

Lockhart and Begala and Carville have something to do with the whole turgid affair. Bank on it.
Lockhart admits the phone call. He answered the questions as to what was said between him and Burkett. Stone gives a no comment when asked. Gee--I know who I'm going to suspect.

And pray tell, what other "fabrications" have the Carville/Begala/Lockhart triumverate been involved in?

"I didn't inhale"
"I didn't have sex with that woman"
"I only threw ribbons, not medals"
"I threw someone else's ribbons"
"I feel your pain"
"I did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it"
"It all depends on your definition of 'is'"
"I don't fall, the SOB knocked me down"
I have one that trumps ALL of the above. Read below all about Number One Priority Osama Bin Laden, or is that number two or is it oh never mind?

MODED!

Yeah I see the Bushites doing nothing but grasping at straws myself. Replicons: "Let's change the subject to Dan Rather cuz he didn't check his source because he hates Bush. Yeah lets not talk about Bush and his failures anymore, because we can't pin anything on Kerry."

He's referring to the two occasions when the threat level was raised right after a Kerry rise in the polls (after announcing Edwards, and after the DNC.)

Both these terror alerts were based on old and somewhat hazy intell.

Coincidence? Maybe. Highly fortuitous coincidence for the Bush camp.

You smell that? You guessed it, it's rat.

Wow. The conspiracy theories never cease to amaze me. Can you possibly fathom how many actionable intelligence reports the government receives every single day? And the threat level, as a result, has only gone up a few times, usually surrounding IMPORTANT NATIONAL EVENTS. People wishing to do harm don't care who specificly they hit, as long as it makes headlines.

Of course the threat level went up! The DNC and Kerry's announcement were both very large, and very inviting targets.

The government never can catch a break from people like you. If the DNC had been attacked, your post would then read that the government did nothing. Since it was kept safe, you accuse them of conspiracy. You are a hypocrite.

I, and obviously a majority of the country, seem to prefer a candidate who does have a history of decisiveness.

Is that the same majority who voted for Bush last time? *LOL* :D

Wow. The conspiracy theories never cease to amaze me. Can you possibly fathom how many actionable intelligence reports the government receives every single day? And the threat level, as a result, has only gone up a few times, usually surrounding IMPORTANT NATIONAL EVENTS. People wishing to do harm don't care who specificly they hit, as long as it makes headlines.

Of course the threat level went up! The DNC and Kerry's announcement were both very large, and very inviting targets.

The government never can catch a break from people like you. If the DNC had been attacked, your post would then read that the government did nothing. Since it was kept safe, you accuse them of conspiracy. You are a hypocrite.

Hmmm, Methinks thou dost protest too much. After all, all I said was that it was a pretty convenient coincidence. That much can't be denied. Also, the terror alerts were based on intelligence (old and unspecific intelligence at that,) that had nothing to do with the DNC. Also, are you saying the RNC wasn't an important national event?

Suddernly, you're very defensice. You call me a hypocrite, and then you use a hypothetical situation to back it up. Of course your hypothetical situation would back you up, you created it, not I.

I could as easily say, "If aliens landed and anally probed you, you'd blame it on Kerry!" This, of course, has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Go ahead and keep rationalizing the continuing parade of coincidences, misdirections, outright lies and ineptitudes the Bush administation shows at every turn.

Conspiracy theories are only crazy if they're not true. Denial is a short-term comfort at best.

I

hmm, no response.