NationStates Jolt Archive

History is not on your side, my friend. As I said, EVERY society was brutal and religiously zealous at one point or another. The actions of the Allies in WWI and after (specifically their insistence on "punishing" the Germans by stepping on their already crippled economy after the war was over,) had a direct effect in creating the desperation that lead to people electing Hitler.

People aren't necessarily good or bad. We react to our surroundings, and if our surroundings are bad, then we are generally bad. If our surroundings are good, then we are generally good. It's called self-interest, and usually no one is willing to die for an ideal if their life is pretty good.

I'm not talking about "shaking hands with evil," god, why is everything always an either/or proposition with you people? I'm talking about fighting a savvy war where we place as much emphasis on eliminating the motivations behind suicidal hatred as well as strategically fighting the enemy wherever they may concentrate.

You are right. People aren't very nice, naturally. We, as a species, tend to be greedy, agressive, self-centered, and judgemental. It's a HUGE step from that to saying that we're naturally bloodthirsty religious zealots with a wanton disregard for our lives and the lives of anyone else.

Like I said, unless we focus some of our energies on intelligently limiting the reasons for hate, the only alternative we are left with is genocide, and I will not support that. Ever.

Nice little box you put that in, and I'm glad you can see that people are not generally good. But you are deceiving yourself if you dont beleive that their are those who are bloodthirsty religious zealots with a wanton disregard for life, there are. And those people will not be satisfied until all we stand for is defeated or absorbed into their way of life. Thats fact. And like I said, Lets get rid of the Powerful bad guys first, then and only then can we concentrate on a more peaceful world, where education and care can have a meaningful impact.

umm uhh, Im not sure that it has disappeared. What I am sure of is that so many have been griping about it in the senate, that Correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that much of that funding was voted down. If not, then I'd say, we're spending it? I really don't know, why is there some huge consipiracy theory that I missed out on?
Rob

Well, the GAO is pretty sure that it's unaccounted for. It's been spent by Halliburton, but no one seems to know on what. It's not exactly a "conspiracy theory" when it's a government office that is releasing the info that the money is missing. Is every bit of information that is critical of Bush or his handling of things an easily dismissed conspiracy to you?

Nice little box you put that in, and I'm glad you can see that people are not generally good. But you are deceiving yourself if you dont beleive that their are those who are bloodthirsty religious zealots with a wanton disregard for life, there are. And those people will not be satisfied until all we stand for is defeated or absorbed into their way of life. Thats fact. And like I said, Lets get rid of the Powerful bad guys first, then and only then can we concentrate on a more peaceful world, where education and care can have a meaningful impact.

Sigh. It's really sad that the world can correctly summed up like that. I really don't think people are bad by nature - I've met very few. It's really a shame that the state of the world can reduce whole nations to that sort of conflict.

Nice little box you put that in, and I'm glad you can see that people are not generally good. But you are deceiving yourself if you dont beleive that their are those who are bloodthirsty religious zealots with a wanton disregard for life, there are. And those people will not be satisfied until all we stand for is defeated or absorbed into their way of life. Thats fact. And like I said, Lets get rid of the Powerful bad guys first, then and only then can we concentrate on a more peaceful world, where education and care can have a meaningful impact.

I didn't say that there weren't those that were bloodthirsty zealots. I'll not let you dismiss my argument by mis-stating it (the famous straw man technique.) I'm just saying that there are definite reasons, some but not all aggravated by the US, why they are the way they are. I'm also saying that our adventure in Iraq is reinforcing those definite reasons to our detriment.

You seem to think that the region is over-run by unhuman monsters who are bent on world domination. Sorry, they are humans, and they are humans who have been driven to the edge. Yes, there are many who will never give up their fight, but we do ourselves no service by creating situations where those who will die to kill us are replaced faster than they die. There are moderates in the movement who are only going along with it because they see no other alternative. It is those moderates we have to convince, and our Iraqi war has made that job nearly impossible. We've shifted many moderates who would never have attacked us into the the group that will die to see us gone.

Our war, which was supposed to be against the "Powerful bad guys" has now, due to the bungling of the Bush administration, shifted into a war with the common Iraqi. The "Powerful bad guys" are laughing at us from Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and 54 other countries while we go recruiting for them in Iraq.

You're really gonna have to try harder than that. Are you really whipping out that old chestnut? Saddam was a bad guy, so it's all okay? No, sorry, we have bigger things to worry about.

And again, pretending there isn't another way to go about things is just putting your head in the sand. I'm sure there where people in the British army who derided the notion that you can fight a war without marching in columns. That didn't mean there wasn't a better way to go about things. Try harder.

Really, are there bigger things? This war is all encompasing, not a microcosim. We are fighting what is not just unconventional, but a completely different kind of war. We can't just dust off the old play books, in that you are correct. But to remove the potential for a misstep in this new evolution of war is a perfectionist notion at best. No its not just ok, there are many more to deal with, but there's only so many steps you can take at a time, Osama and his buddies are spread throughout the world, not just in afganistan, and if we beleive that they are the only ones to be concerned with we are missing the greater part of the picture. We cannot suffer states who promote, or deal in terror to persist, they must be put to rest. They are the ones who engender the hate, they teach it from childhood. Sure now they can look at us and say See told ya so, but they are the ones who by their own twisted sense of right and wrong have brought this wake up Bell of Liberty and Freedom down on their heads. See, lets do somthing to piss off really big guy and when he hits us lets say its all his fault, see I told you he was a warmonger. Bush or Kerry, Kerry has shown that although he may attempt to say I'll fight the war, his history shows he wont. He seems to have a natural aversion to war not that that is bad in its own right. no one should like war, its just I would not be comfortable with someone who only seems to say what seems right at the moment to court his voters or vote depending on which way the wind blows to run a war on terror. On the other hand we have Bush, who no matter how much some may complain he tends to stick to his guns, regardless of the back lash. He is the type who can lead in a time such as this, when a strong back and determination are not just needed but essential. As we have both said, this requires a different approach from any other war, and due to that, mistakes will be made, its a new ball game, hopefully we will learn from any mistakes we make, and I'm sure we will. It's just to easy for Kerry and the other Democrats, or any others to point fault when the Commander and Cheif is navigating unknown waters, if you dont beleive that Kerry and the rest aren't in this argument for political gain, especially with the trouble their party is having, your wrong. Would they have done things different, possibly, perhaps not, that is unfortunatly only up for speculation, will they do anything at all if they win? Or will Kerry bring all our boys home and forget about it. I dont know that either once again speculation. What we do know is that we have a leader unafraid to act, to make the tough decisons, and that is at least some comfort. Consider this, without even trying, President Bush has (depending on the poll and day) at least almost half if not over half of the support of those polled. And hes just doing what he believes to be right. Kerry and camp are fighting and pandering all the way and are only just measuring up. I think that is testament enough as to the leadership ability of President Bush.
Rob

Well, the GAO is pretty sure that it's unaccounted for. It's been spent by Halliburton, but no one seems to know on what. It's not exactly a "conspiracy theory" when it's a government office that is releasing the info that the money is missing. Is every bit of information that is critical of Bush or his handling of things an easily dismissed conspiracy to you?

Nope, I've just missed the recent news, work and all that, I would be just as intersted to find out where that information came from hopefully not CBS LOL, but if in reality the $ is seemingly missing, I would say a report detailing the spending would be in order. Of course Halliburton is an easy target, and a good one for the K camp.
Rob

Really, are there bigger things? This war is all encompasing, not a microcosim. We are fighting what is not just unconventional, but a completely different kind of war. We can't just dust off the old play books, in that you are correct. But to remove the potential for a misstep in this new evolution of war is a perfectionist notion at best. No its not just ok, there are many more to deal with, but there's only so many steps you can take at a time, Osama and his buddies are spread throughout the world, not just in afganistan, and if we beleive that they are the only ones to be concerned with we are missing the greater part of the picture. We cannot suffer states who promote, or deal in terror to persist, they must be put to rest. They are the ones who engender the hate, they teach it from childhood. Sure now they can look at us and say See told ya so, but they are the ones who by their own twisted sense of right and wrong have brought this wake up Bell of Liberty and Freedom down on their heads. See, lets do somthing to piss off really big guy and when he hits us lets say its all his fault, see I told you he was a warmonger. Bush or Kerry, Kerry has shown that although he may attempt to say I'll fight the war, his history shows he wont. He seems to have a natural aversion to war not that that is bad in its own right. no one should like war, its just I would not be comfortable with someone who only seems to say what seems right at the moment to court his voters or vote depending on which way the wind blows to run a war on terror. On the other hand we have Bush, who no matter how much some may complain he tends to stick to his guns, regardless of the back lash. He is the type who can lead in a time such as this, when a strong back and determination are not just needed but essential. As we have both said, this requires a different approach from any other war, and due to that, mistakes will be made, its a new ball game, hopefully we will learn from any mistakes we make, and I'm sure we will. It's just to easy for Kerry and the other Democrats, or any others to point fault when the Commander and Cheif is navigating unknown waters, if you dont beleive that Kerry and the rest aren't in this argument for political gain, especially with the trouble their party is having, your wrong. Would they have done things different, possibly, perhaps not, that is unfortunatly only up for speculation, will they do anything at all if they win? Or will Kerry bring all our boys home and forget about it. I dont know that either once again speculation. What we do know is that we have a leader unafraid to act, to make the tough decisons, and that is at least some comfort. Consider this, without even trying, President Bush has (depending on the poll and day) at least almost half if not over half of the support of those polled. And hes just doing what he believes to be right. Kerry and camp are fighting and pandering all the way and are only just measuring up. I think that is testament enough as to the leadership ability of President Bush.
Rob

Wow...
That speech almost made me go out and buy a US-flag g-string.

Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps you are not fighting a war? That in fact, you are dealing with terrorism, and not an army or a country? That perhaps this is one problem that cannot be solved by a war? Sure you may call it the "war on terror®", but it's kind of like declaring a war on cancer, isn't it? Who are you going to invade? A country that quite possibly has a high percentage of cigarette smokers? (...and then it turns out they don't even own cigarettes. But that's allright, they were planning to go to the store... Well, ok, they might have been planning to build a store but then they buried it in small pieces in the desert...)

I didn't say that there weren't those that were bloodthirsty zealots. I'll not let you dismiss my argument by mis-stating it (the famous straw man technique.) I'm just saying that there are definite reasons, some but not all aggravated by the US, why they are the way they are. I'm also saying that our adventure in Iraq is reinforcing those definite reasons to our detriment.

You seem to think that the region is over-run by unhuman monsters who are bent on world domination. Sorry, they are humans, and they are humans who have been driven to the edge. Yes, there are many who will never give up their fight, but we do ourselves no service by creating situations where those who will die to kill us are replaced faster than they die. There are moderates in the movement who are only going along with it because they see no other alternative. It is those moderates we have to convince, and our Iraqi war has made that job nearly impossible. We've shifted many moderates who would never have attacked us into the the group that will die to see us gone.

Our war, which was supposed to be against the "Powerful bad guys" has now, due to the bungling of the Bush administration, shifted into a war with the common Iraqi. The "Powerful bad guys" are laughing at us from Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and 54 other countries while we go recruiting for them in Iraq.

No I dont believe the region is overrun with inhuman monsters, if you have read any of the other posts ive made here you would understand that. I believe that our belief of equality of man and our unalienable rights extends to all of mankind, not just americans. I believe that this war we face is not just for our own gratification of some kind of revenge, but rather a war for liberty and freedom. I do however believe that there are those just as you have specified that will not give up their fight, and those must be defeated. Even Kerry states that. The bungling you speak of and the war with the common people, that is simply untrue. We have taken great pains, and more casualties in this war than would be nessissary due to our devotion to protect and not harm the civilian base in Iraq. With all the ugliness going on right now one could imagine it would be easy just to march around and kill anyone who even appeared for whatever reason to be suspicious. But that is not the case, we instead continue to decently fight this war sparing civilians with our own in many cases, to reduce their casualties. Those other countries will also see their day of reckoning if they do not change their ways. As for the others being recruited to their cause, unfortunatly those people have placed themselves in a precarious situation, and for those who are mearly stooges for the greater cause, I feel truly sorry. However, if anyone decides to stand in the way of our reenlightenment to our purpose (life liberty and pursuit of happiness for all mankind) they will fall, as misguided or otherwise cohearsed it doesn't matter, we cant stop each foe and ask, do you really mean to do this? In this war as in all others, you have your believers who are the rally cry to others who just join up for the feel good moment, but in the end they all account for being there, unfortunatly thats the nature of war. Lastly I for one, and there are many like me as well who don't buy into the notion that we make everyone hate us, some perhaps, but most of that would be reactionary to our current envolvment or other actions we were pressed to make. But most seem to be bred of either a religious or social dislike, or even hatred for the ideals we stand for. Like it or not. Hopefully you will rest easier not haveing to blame yourself living in such a successfull and wonderful country, we are not to blame. That is like saying the court is responsible for putting the guy away for murdering someone, when in fact it is only his for commiting the crime in the first place.
Rob

Wow...
That speech almost made me go out and buy a US-flag g-string.

Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps you are not fighting a war? That in fact, you are dealing with terrorism, and not an army or a country? That perhaps this is one problem that cannot be solved by a war? Sure you may call it the "war on terror®", but it's kind of like declaring a war on cancer, isn't it? Who are you going to invade? A country that quite possibly has a high percentage of cigarette smokers? (...and then it turns out they don't even own cigarettes. But that's allright, they were planning to go to the store... Well, ok, they might have been planning to build a store but then they buried it in small pieces in the desert...)

Ok now this conversation has degraded, the word war is only used in the context of its meaning, not the way at which it is run. We are fighting and people are dieing on both sides, I'd say thats war enough for anyone. The rest of this statement......I find it hard to believe that this can be treated as a joke, it's not. Your freedom, mine, and the hopes of so many others rest in our ability to run this war. Could be there was some bad info, yet it could be that they did take it somewhere else. We do know that he has used it, and on his own, what makes you so sure he wasnt at least trying to get it.
Rob

Bush's lies about the reasons for going into Iraq, the current state of Iraq, and who was going to receive the biggest chunk of the tax cuts.

Who cares about the biggest chunk of tax cuts. Of course if you make more you're going to get a bigger chunk from any tax cut. The money is however more significant to the lower income families.

Can you honestly tell me you know the truth of why we went to war with Iraq. To do so, you'd need a top secret clearance level in the government. Go apply for one, it only costs 100,000 or so dollars to apply. Anything you read/see in the news and anything you read on a website is just a bunch of speculation. If you can show me someone who has a top secret clearance level who is posting this crap about this so called "truth" then I encourage you to inform me because a publication of anything labled "Top Secret" or "Classified" is a criminal act. Any of your references have on this issue do not have any credibility.

Do you know the state of Iraq? I do. I was there. Are they better off now than they were? Perhaps not. Should we have taken Suddam out of control? Yes. He was a bad man. I really hope you aren't buying everything the media is publishing. The media exagerates things. Please tell me this isn't your reference.

Ok now this conversation has degraded, the word war is only used in the context of its meaning, not the way at which it is run. We are fighting and people are dieing on both sides, I'd say thats war enough for anyone. The rest of this statement......I find it hard to believe that this can be treated as a joke, it's not. Your freedom, mine, and the hopes of so many others rest in our ability to run this war. Could be there was some bad info, yet it could be that they did take it somewhere else. We do know that he has used it, and on his own, what makes you so sure he wasnt at least trying to get it.
Rob

Our freedom is at risk because of the terrorists? Sorry dude, but they have no capability to occupy our country and force martial law on us. Our security is at risk. Our freedoms are only at risk if our leaders are willing to trade our freedoms for greater security. Too many people have died securing those freedoms for me to pussy out and say, "Oh yes, big government, keep us under constant surveilance so that we can be safe from the big bad terrorists who will attack each and every American town!"

Nope, there are some things worse than death. I'll take Kerry and more freedoms, thank you. Oh, Kerry's plan for keeping us safe also sounds better. All in all, I see no reason to keep Bush around at all. He should retire permanently to Crawford.

Here's Kerry's plan: http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0924.html

Who cares about the biggest chunk of tax cuts. Of course if you make more you're going to get a bigger chunk from any tax cut. The money is however more significant to the lower income families.

Can you honestly tell me you know the truth of why we went to war with Iraq. To do so, you'd need a top secret clearance level in the government. Go apply for one, it only costs 100,000 or so dollars to apply. Anything you read/see in the news and anything you read on a website is just a bunch of speculation. If you can show me someone who has a top secret clearance level who is posting this crap about this so called "truth" then I encourage you to inform me because a publication of anything labled "Top Secret" or "Classified" is a criminal act. Any of your references have on this issue do not have any credibility.

Do you know the state of Iraq? I do. I was there. Are they better off now than they were? Perhaps not. Should we have taken Suddam out of control? Yes. He was a bad man. I really hope you aren't buying everything the media is publishing. The media exagerates things. Please tell me this isn't your reference.

Is the CIA exaggerating things? Are Bush's own partymembers exaggerating things? Does the fact that people are kidnapped in broad daylight and then beheaded mean anything to you?

I assume you were a member of our armed forces in Iraq? Did you have intimate knowledge of the entire operation? Were you freely able to venture anywhere you wanted?

2700 seperate attacks on US soldiers in Iraq in August is the estimate I read. Is this an exaggeration? I see another soldier was killed today. One of your comrades-in-arms? Are you saying his death is not that bad?

Was Saddam a bad guy? Yes. Is his removal worth it if it further erodes the security of the US? No. Period. All the indications are that we are less safe now than we were pre-9/11. Of course, I don't have top secret clearance to know for sure, all I can do is wade through the information, find the strongest arguments, fact check occasionally, read opposing points of views so that I can decide between them and use my judgement as well as I can.

My best judgement is that Bush absolutely has to go, and if I had my choice, he would be impeached right now and hopefully removed from office.

Oh, and as far as your "top secret clearance" argument goes, well, I think it is another indictment that so many of this administration's activities are deemed "national security," like secret energy taskforce meetings right when the biggest case of corporate fraud (likely involving many of the same people,) was unfolding. They've used security too much as a shield to cloak their incompetence. Enough!

Ok now this conversation has degraded, the word war is only used in the context of its meaning, not the way at which it is run. We are fighting and people are dieing on both sides, I'd say thats war enough for anyone. The rest of this statement......I find it hard to believe that this can be treated as a joke, it's not. Your freedom, mine, and the hopes of so many others rest in our ability to run this war. Could be there was some bad info, yet it could be that they did take it somewhere else. We do know that he has used it, and on his own, what makes you so sure he wasnt at least trying to get it.
Rob

My freedom ? I'm quite confident that America's attacks in the middle east have absolutely no influence whatsoever on me or my freedom... Unless, of course, you correct me and give me a reasonable explanation of how anti-american islamic extremists are a threat to us Icelanders. :rolleyes:

Besides all that...I'm not the one living in a Orvellian nightmare being surveilanced by my government or running the risk of being thrown into jail for clipping my nails at an airport...
So...Yes, your freedom is affected by this "war".
My freedom is still intact.
Yes, it's a war now that you people have invaded the middle east...But war on terror? pfffff... :rolleyes:

My freedom ? I'm quite confident that America's attacks in the middle east have absolutely no influence whatsoever on me or my freedom... Unless, of course, you correct me and give me a reasonable explanation of how anti-american islamic extremists are a threat to us Icelanders. :rolleyes:

Besides all that...I'm not the one living in a Orvellian nightmare being surveilanced by my government or running the risk of being thrown into jail for clipping my nails at an airport...
So...Yes, your freedom is affected by this "war".
My freedom is still intact.
Yes, it's a war now that you people have invaded the middle east...But war on terror? pfffff... :rolleyes:

Your freedom, I can't say, depends on what it's worth to you.
OK Icelander, it's good to know your so proud. However, it bears to reason that anytime terrorists attack, have attacked, or may attack, things change. Perhaps if you care to walk down this road of enlightenment you will understand. Other countries, ones opposed to this war have had their citizens killed for no reason other than that the people we are fightig are simply evil, disgusting excuses for human beings with no regard for civil liberty or human rights. By their continued PROOF of their twisted mentality they are only underllining the reason they must be fought. The world in general has been lax on the subject of terror, allowing a marked foothold in many of todays societies, including Ameria. Unfortunately, here in America we got a wake up call. Hopefully its not one you or your country will have to experience. Terror has permiated our world for too long, not just in the middle east but in europe, asia, and many other places around the globe. Never has it ever met with decisive action, not till now. This war is far from perfect (their is no perfect war) but we are learning. Some sacrifices have to be made to protect freedom, YES freedom. Ask people in Israel how free they feel when they could get killed coming home from work, or when sending their children off to school, wondering if they'll ever return alive. That is NOT freedom. Complain about it if you want, but let me ask a few questions, what has you or your country done? What have you ever stood for? Would you face a hidden foe or bury your head in the sand to try to ignore it? By ignoring terror you only strengthen their resolve, that they can get away with whatever they choose to do, no matter how horrific. So go ahead, only worry about yourself, cause it seems to be a well accepted notion, as long as your not affected, why worry or bother. While you and other people promote this kind of selfish idea (one here in america that was all to pervasive), our men and women and those of other determined nations will selflessly take this fight to those who would support or use terror, potentially even against you.
But then again, if you do your best to stay off their radar, take no stand, maybe they wont notice you.
Rob

Our freedom is at risk because of the terrorists? Sorry dude, but they have no capability to occupy our country and force martial law on us. Our security is at risk. Our freedoms are only at risk if our leaders are willing to trade our freedoms for greater security. Too many people have died securing those freedoms for me to pussy out and say, "Oh yes, big government, keep us under constant surveilance so that we can be safe from the big bad terrorists who will attack each and every American town!"

Nope, there are some things worse than death. I'll take Kerry and more freedoms, thank you. Oh, Kerry's plan for keeping us safe also sounds better. All in all, I see no reason to keep Bush around at all. He should retire permanently to Crawford.

Here's Kerry's plan: http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0924.html

My fellow Americans, the most urgent national security challenge we face is the war against those who attacked our country on September 11th, the war against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. As president, I will fight a tougher, smarter, more effective war on terror. My priority will be to find and capture or kill the terrorists before they get us.

Ok, first, its not just Osama and the boys, with this statement he has already shown us his dangerous lack of vision. The issue of terror and our war is not just with Al Qaeda, not just revenge. Its an all meat dont spare the onions please campain against terror, wherever it resides. Side note WOW, that last sentence sounds alot like preemtive attacks.

When we look at the images of children brutalized by remorseless terrorists in Russia, we know that this is not just a political or military struggle – it goes to the very heart of what we value most – our families. It strikes at the bond between a mother and child. As president, I will make it my sacred duty to be able to say to every mother and father in this country, I am doing everything in my power to keep your children safe.

Seems he begins to acknowledge that the terror is world wide, but then he just goes on with family, a valid point but that MOTHER and CHILD bond stuff, I would've thought the strike was much more involved, like what about fathers and child, or friends, neighbors. HMMM, Doesn't he support abortion?

We owe the American people a real debate about the choices President Bush has made… and the choices I will make… to fight and win the war against terrorism.

How?

President Bush was right to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban. I supported that decision. So did our country and our allies. So did the world.

What a surprise, he thinks we need the OK from EVERYONE, what ever happend to our Soverign ability to make decisions. He would have us waiting on a UN or France with ties to nations who either promote or prosper from doing business with terrorist nations.

But since then, again and again, the President has made the wrong choices in the war on terror… around the world and here at home.

Instead of using U.S. forces to capture Osama bin Laden… the President outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, who let bin Laden slip away. That was the wrong choice.

Ok, so he doesn't want us to work with the native citizens. Wow, what happend to his grand coalition, oh, maybe thats just for big nations, you know the ones that count. Like lets say, oh yea France. (have they fought a war without us in the last 100 years?)

Instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan… the President rushed to a new war in Iraq. That was the wrong choice.

Really, the way I remember it, we had pretty well devistated those poor idiots in Afganistan. We had them on the run or hiding out. Those are both conditions associated with losers. They had lost that battle, but the war rages on, in countries that either have or could potentially serve thier needs or the needs of other terrorists around the globe. Saddam showed the ability to use terror against his own, and his desire for bigger weapons was no secret, along with his defiance to the world, he was an obvious first choice to attack after Afghanistan begain to wear down. Course I guess we couldve waited, so he could better prepare, or perhaps even help our enemies. By the way, WHERE WAS THE RUSHING? Bush went to the UN, and Congress on more than one occasion about Iraq, as a matter of fact, President Bush got permission, (not that he had to), before going in. Go get better lines Mr. Kerry.

Instead of listening to the uniformed military, his own State Department, Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress, and outside experts about how to win the peace in Iraq… the President hitched his wagon to the ideologues who told him our troops would be welcomed as liberators. That was the wrong choice.

Wow, wrong choice, what the liberator part, cause I know plenty of guys who have been there fighting this war and many of them were so moved by the support and thanks from the Iraqi civillians that they beamed in telling it or teared up. Besides, I saw it on TV. Those people seemed DAMN HAPPY, they burned all those pictures and tore down that statue. What a wonderful thing to have HOPE after all that tyranny. Maybe he means he should have listened to all those other people, were they saying we wouldnt be welcomed as liberators, if they did, good thing he didnt listen to them. By the way who are these mysterious outside experts. I'll bet not a single one of them has to bear the weight of or run a war like this. OH YEA, there has NEVER BEEN another war like this. DUH.

Instead of responding to the greatest intelligence failure in our history with a rapid overhaul of our intelligence system … the President dragged his feet and actually resisted reform. After opposing the 9/11 Commission, after trying to block its extension, after finally agreeing to testify, but only with Vice President Cheney at his side, he still refuses to fully implement the Commission’s recommendations. Those were the wrong choices.

Come on, resisted reform? Dragged his feet? First of all Mr. Kerry, I'm not sure if you support quick rash action or long contemplated discussions of what must be done. It seems that for America you would rush to fix things without taking the time to consult all the different "experts" (hope you wouldve gotten it right, otherwise, oopps), but on the other hand when it comes to the actuall war on terror ( you know the part that has to do with OUR national security and bringing those who only need time to plan and enact any new plans), you would rather wait and give them their time in order to please everyone before acting. What a dim-wit. I'll bet everyone even cheered for this backwards mind set. Guess the jokes on them, didnt get me though.

Instead of proposing a Department of Homeland Security … the President actually opposed it – and then exploited it for political purposes. That was the wrong choice.

Wait, is he complaining that the President flip floped, guess it takes one to know one. OK that was childish, but really, where was the opposition or the exploitation.

Instead of expanding programs to keep weapons of mass destruction in Russia out of terrorist hands… the President first tried to cut the programs… and even after 9/11 did too little to strengthen them. That was the wrong choice.

By expanding programs, I think he means to Buy off those who would sell those weapons, certainly he doesn't mean for us to directly meddle in another nation, oh-my-Gawd! that would be like, scandleous. To actually go in and try to stop possible supposed but probably there weapons from falling into the wrong hands, I JUST CANT BELIEVE IT. Oh, wait, isn't that what we are doing? Besides, when it comes to keeping weapons out of terrorists hands Mr. Kerry, NOTHING is EVER enough, only problem is getting all that legislation past all those Liberal ninnies, who only want it to wait so they can do it themselves and get all the credit, paying no heed to the dire need. I'm sorry does that sound unfair, shurely not all Liberals would do that, but isn't that the same kind of crap you expect us to beleive of President Bush? Get over yourself.

Instead of facing the urgent nuclear dangers in North Korea and Iran… he allowed these dangers to mount on his presidential watch. That was the wrong choice.

And do what Mr Kerry, cause you see, now your really starting to show how much of an idiot you believe the american public is. What would you have him do, surely not rush off to war with them, not while we still have troops on the ground in Afganistan. Or maybe you would have him work with the locals, to try to weed out those weapons. Mr Kerry, you are a MORON. Stop with the double talk, I know I'm not falling for it. Besides, I seem to remember us working with Iran, and as for North Korea, lets see if we can remember how it was they got the tech needed to build a viable missle that could reach our western seaboard, and which president it was who actually thought he did something about it by TALKING. Sure reason with a sick demented man like him, sure.

Instead of speaking forcefully to the Saudis and others about terrorist financing … the President has said little and done less. That was the wrong choice.

I gotta call BS, I remember the speach he made to all countries concerning the support or financing of terrorists, what was it he said, something like your either with us or against us and some other stuff, geee, I seem to be forgetting already, now that you pointed it out. We all saw the meetings hes had with the Saudis, gee I guess Mr Kerry you just thought they got together to play golf. Said little, done less....what a load of crap. He has said plenty, and obviously done much more than you approve of. More double talk, cant seem to please this guy. Hate to be his wife, kids, co-worker.........

Instead of providing our police, firefighters, and ambulance drivers with the equipment they need… instead of protecting ports, trains, subway lines and highways… instead of defending nuclear plants and chemical factories… this President under-funded homeland security. That was the wrong choice.

Ok now he wants to spend more money? I thought he was against all this spending. So, he would bolster our emergency services, give money to stop the sale of weapons to terrorists, better protect our ports of travel not to mention nuclear and chemical plants, mount some kind of action against Iran and Korea (at the same time?) Overhaul the intellegence community, and continue the war in Afganistan, not to mention all his domestic stuff, Im stunned..........Once again, how much is enough, It's NEVER enough, but there are limits to our budget, one which has already been busted so bad you cant shut up about it.. so far though, you would have done more, and spent more. How can you fault him for the deficit on one hand and not doing enough on the other. Your brainless mutterings are a general anestetic to the millions of americans who actually use theirs for more than keeping their ears seperated.

Instead of bringing the world together against the terrorists… the President alienated the countries whose help we need to defeat them. That was the wrong choice.

How many contries are currently in our coalition? Sure we need the cooperation of other good countries to win this war, but we dont need those who would hinder our ability to promote it either. Alienation.....of who? Other countries that support or receive some gain from terrorists, cant ever expect them to go along with it. Countries who whould rather ignore the problem for fear of getting involved might cost them somthing? Would you want these countries on your coalition Mr Kerry, I hope not or you are an even bigger idiot than I first suspected.

Yet, in the face of all the misjudgments, all the miscalculations, and all the mistakes, the president still says he wouldn’t do anything different. I would. I will make very different choices in the war on terrorism. I know what has gone wrong… and what needs to be done.

Ok...Mr Man, Mr Hindsight, Mr I know what has gone wrong, Duh, care to share? or are you just trying to sound good. Could be somethings could be done differently, but so far, I haven't heard anything except you complaining, what would be your choices, not for the past, but for the future, the past, that's just toooooo easy, youve already seen the outcome, god what a cheater. Bet he got all his tests the day before, or better yet had someone else take it so he could copy all the right stuff and change the wrong ones. I only know of one word for someone like that, WUSSSS, (actually I know more than that, I just wont use them here. The mike might still be on..)

I begin with this belief: The war on terror is as monumental a struggle as the Cold War. Its outcome will determine whether we and our children live in freedom or in fear. It is not, as some people think, a clash of civilizations. Radical Islamic fundamentalism is not the true face of Islam. This is a clash between civilization and the enemies of civilization; between humanity’s best hopes and most primitive fears. The danger we face today will become even greater if the terrorists acquire what we know they are seeking – weapons of mass destruction, which they would use to commit mass murder. We are confronting an enemy and an ideology that must be destroyed. We are in a war that must be won.

Ok tell us what we already know, or are you just trying to prove that you understand......(sounds like he means to make this a global war, watch out all you pacifists, I think you need a new candidate, but then again, you might be right, could be he's just lying about it all to get elected so he can stop the war and play Mr Higher Ideal while the terrorists sharpen their blades and perfect their plans.) Oh no, did he say stop them from getting WMD!! hows he gonna know who has them, rely on intelligence reports, hope there all correct or someone might get upset, or maybe he'll just knock on Mr bad guys door and ask to see if he has anything, and if he does, Mr bad guy will undoubtedly gleefully give it all up. Always wants it both ways this one, but then again I'm not convinced he even knows what hes thinking without asking an expert or consulting a poll.

Americans know this. We understand the stakes. On September 11th there were no Democrats, no Republicans. We were only Americans. We all stood together. We all supported the President. We all prayed for victory, because we love our country and despise everything our enemies stand for.

God Bless America, sad it takes something like that to stop all the double talk and bring us together. Then again, anything else would've been political suicide. No, I don't really think that ALL of them were calculating at that point.

But three years after 9/11, we see our enemies striking -- in Spain, in Turkey, in Indonesia, in Kenya, and now every day -- in the most despicable and gruesome ways in Iraq, which was not a terrorist haven before the invasion. In fact, there were more terrorist attacks in the world last year than the year before. And we see an administration in confusion; we hear the president, the commander in chief, proclaiming one day that this war can’t be won and then saying something different the next day. And we hear the Secretary of Defense himself wondering whether the radicals are recruiting, training, and deploying more terrorists than we’re capturing or killing.

Boy this guy gets me, he makes it way to easy. GET THIS, Iraq was not a terrorist haven. Saddams whole regime was a terrorist organization, which is in part what we are facing today. Of course others have come in to help, why, because we have kicked them out of their house, their HAVEN. Darn, used to a well respected terrorist could walk down the streets, get a drink, check out some chicks ankles and then smack her a good one. Heck a good terrorist used to be able to get some anytime he wanted, just go rape someone. But now, now we got all thes damn americans running around, messing up all our fun. We cant even show our face anymore, when we go out to bomb someone, we might get killed... can you belive that. What I can believe is that we have these nasty people pretty worked up and they called in some favors and asked some buddies to come help them out....Duh Mr. Kerry...what did you expect. Of course there are more attacks, they are trying to demoralize the world so that anyone helping to support this war will stop, and they hope the world will put pressure on us to quit, that is just expected. We are facing a war that in reality can never be won, not completely, there will always be another Saddam, another Osama. There will always be someone ready with another bomb, rifle, or package of anthrax. Thats just Life. Go get one, you'll see. Sad thing is, I have to explain this to you. Watch out Mr President, The Demoncrates are out for blood, so dont talk off the top of your head, dont keep it real, better get a good writer instead, cause they are gonna use anything they can, even the obvious and try to find some way to twist it around and use it against you.

Then, yesterday, when asked about conditions in Iraq, Secretary Rumsfeld told Congress, and I quote: “Let’s pretend, hypothetically, that you get to election time in January and let’s pretend that it’s roughly like it is, or a little worse, which it could be, because you’ve got to expect it to continue….So be it, nothing is perfect in life.” If there was any doubt that the leaders of the Bush Administration are living in a fantasy world of spin, I think Secretary Rumsfeld put that doubt to rest.

Fantasy World of Spin?? Sounds like hes just telling it like it is. I know all you highbrow elitists dont wanna keep it real, who knows maybe your life has been perfect (snicker snicker). And yes, we do have to expect it to continue, and get worse, this war is only just heating up. As you stated Mr Kerry, this war is far reaching and has an almost cold war mystery about it, thats the way it is when fighting a foe you cant see until they make a move. Course thats why we have the Patriot Act, (its called that cause all good citizens who have nothing to worry about are Patirots) with that we can help identify bad guys before they get the chance to strike. Course, some people are against that, guess they have something to hide, maybe they arnt a patriot they dont like the sacrifices need to protect us, or just maybe they live in a fantasy world. Which are you, or should we take a poll to find out?

We need to end this confusion. We need national leaders who will face reality – not only in Iraq but in the war on terror. And we need a president who has no doubt that the war on terror can and must be won.

REEAALLY....seems to me that the only one in a fantasy world is you. But then again you probably really believe in some kind of utopian society. Ok, maybe not could be your reality is based on what someone else tells you, that sounds more like it. Problem is your trying to come up with material to knock down one of the most successfull/well liked presidents weve had in a long time. He has continually had high numbers, how by keeping it real, it must really drive you and the rest of your posse nuts that he's not even TRYING to court the voters, he's just being open and honestly displaying himself but you are beating your head against the wall just to keep up. Saying whatever is need to try to get the next vote. Take YOUR mask off and lets see whos in there. Reality is understanding that the world will NEVER be perfect.

The invasion of Iraq was a profound diversion from the battle against our greatest enemy – Al Qaeda -- which killed more than three thousand people on 9/11 and which still plots our destruction today. And there’s just no question about it: the President’s misjudgment, miscalculation and mismanagement of the war in Iraq all make the war on terror harder to win. Iraq is now what it was not before the war – a haven for terrorists. George Bush made Saddam Hussein the priority. I would have made Osama bin Laden the priority. As president, I will finish the job in Iraq and refocus our energies on the real war on terror.

Ok, I've already covered this lie your trying to propigate, Iraq has always held Terrorists. Al Qaeda is one of our greatest enemys, but today we know they are not just in Afganistan, but all around the world. Guess what, that means you gotta take it to other countries. Besides you already said you would stop the possiblity of WMD or other weapons getting into the hands of terrorists, how would you do that, invade I dont know maybe IRAN, N. Korea, you already said you would've done something about them. You really need to listen to yourself before you move on to the next sentence, you just might not contridict yourself at every turn. By the way, Is Al Qaeda the only real war on terror, man am I releived, we wont have to worry about all those other terrorists.

I will wage this war relentlessly with a single-minded determination: to capture or kill the terrorists, crush their movement and free the world from fear. To destroy our enemy, we have to know our enemy. We have to understand that we are facing a radical fundamentalist movement with global reach and a very specific plan. They are not just out to kill us for the sake of killing us. They want to provoke a conflict that will radicalize the people of the Muslim world, turning them against the United States and the West. And they hope to transform that anger into a force that will topple the region’s governments and pave the way for a new empire, an oppressive, fundamentalist superstate stretching across a vast area from Europe to Africa, from the Middle East to Central Asia.

Dont you mean simple-minded, please Mr Kerry, you are making yourself out to look like an idiot. (perhaps that cant be helped) anyone can see the multiple contridictions you are making. You want to free the world from fear, doesn't the Iraqi people count? Capture and Kill the terrorists CRUSH thier movement, isnt that precisely what we are doing now. How can that be a single-minded determination if you dont want to include other terrorist states like uhh lets seeee, hmm, oh yea IRAQ, oh wait I forgot you do want to include other states just not Iraq, you would rather it be IRAN, or N. Korea. Isn't that three...afgan..iran...n korea...so that would be Tri-Minded? But Bush made a mistake, by focusing on Iraq and Al Qaeda? Oh and didn't you just say and I quote, "It is not, as some people think, a clash of civilizations. Radical Islamic fundamentalism is not the true face of Islam" yet now you say and I quote again, "To destroy our enemy, we have to know our enemy. We have to understand that we are facing a radical fundamentalist movement with global reach and a very specific plan. They are not just out to kill us for the sake of killing us. They want to provoke a conflict that will radicalize the people of the Muslim world, turning them against the United States and the West. And they hope to transform that anger into a force that will topple the region’s governments and pave the way for a new empire, an oppressive, fundamentalist superstate stretching across a vast area from Europe to Africa, from the Middle East to Central Asia." So, are we facing radical fundimentalists or not, you do make this way to easy.


The American people have a right to hear the answer to a fundamental question: How are we going to win this war? What is our strategy for eliminating the terrorists, discrediting their cause, and smashing their forces so that America can actually be safer?

Ok....I'm listening.

Every week too many American families grieve for loved ones killed in Iraq by terrorist forces that weren’t even there before the invasion. The jihadist movement that hates us is gaining adherents around the world. An estimated 18,000 al Qaeda trained militants are operating in 60 countries around the world in a dangerous and more elusive network of extremist groups. Al Qaeda shouldn’t be hitting us anywhere. They should be losing, everywhere. We should be winning, everywhere.

If, going to 2 (yes count them 2 afgan, and iraq) was a miscalculation, a mistake, then how by your own standards and information is 60 ok? or do you just expect to stay in Afganistan and have all these baddies come to you? Perhaps you could promise them all free catsup and theyll just come running, NO I know, you could do a catsup for guns program, that just might work. HOW do you propose to win everywhere at the same time, huh?

That will take time. It will not be easy. But it can be done. And I have a comprehensive strategy for victory over terrorism.

Ok, here we go...............................

First, I will build a stronger, smarter military and intelligence capability to capture or kill our enemies.

Havent we done that............................we already have the best equiped military (that is when you vote to give them the money) and how do you expect to make intelligence better, use mind reading, we already have the best satillites, and air survalence available, and we even already have spies, what more is there?

As president, I will expand our Army by 40,000 troops so that we have more soldiers to find and fight the enemy. I will double our Army Special Forces capacity. And we will accelerate the development and deployment of new technologies to track down and bring down terrorists.

We are already developing tech faster than we can keep up, sure try to accelerate it course I guess you could subsidise it more, throw a little more money their way, maybe they could do better, you are daft if you dont think they are already doing all they can to come up with the next best thing, there is WAY TOO MUCH money in it not to, but you can spend even more if you want, guess well see taxes at 60% and thats for everyone, unless you dont want to work, in that case he's got a plan so you can get free money. Expand the Army by 40,000 how, did I hear Kerry mutter Draft under his breath. Maybe thats his answer to the welfare system, ha ha.

I will strengthen our intelligence system to detect and stop the terrorists before they can strike. By the morning of September 12th, everyone in America knew that our intelligence wasn’t as good as it needed to be. But three years later, believe it or not, we read that the CIA unit charged with finding bin Laden has fewer experienced case officers today than it had before 9/11.

Sounds like the Patriot Act........Wait Bin Laden, oh yea, that guy, we almost forgot, like their not looking for him, course he could be dead, or maybe, just maybe, our intelligence system is already better and working very well, numbers, and experience dont always equal better, but then again I dont guess a "big" government guy like you could possibly understand that. Besides, has everyone forgot that our last president had the opportunity to have Osama handed to us........guess you forgot that part.

When I am president, that will change. I will act immediately to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations. I will create a National Intelligence Director with all the budget and personnel authority the Commission says is needed to keep us safe. I will double our overseas clandestine service, train the linguists and Arab experts we need, and make sure the operation – hunting down bin Laden and al Qaeda -- has all the resources it needs.

Ok, so your still trying to get us to believe that we are not currently acting with due dilligence in fighting this war. You could say that one man, even the President is woefully incompetant, but to expect america to swallow the idea that all our millitary heads in the Pentagon and all the good folks in our various intelligence agencies (especially after the rake over the coals they alreay got) are not doing their best to acheive victory, you have mistaken the American public for sheep, and you a sheep dog.

I will make Afghanistan a priority again, because it is still the front line in the war on terror.

Really, didn't you just say it was spread over 60 nations...make up your mind already.

As president, I will not subcontract the fight to warlords who are out for nothing but power and personal gain. I will help the government of Afghanistan expand its authority beyond Kabul to the rest of the country. I will lead our allies to share the burden, so that NATO finally provides more troops. I will show the world that America finishes what it begins.

Nice, I imagine you will personally interview anyone to help us, and twist the arm of NATO and our allies....And we WILL finish this, if you will just be sure to vote for the funds needed, and keep your devisive mouth shut....sorry got carried away.

Second, I will move decisively to deny the terrorists the deadly weapons they seek.

I don't mean to nit pick but, I'm pretty sure he's already at 4 or more. Yes, yes, youve already said that....aside from the obvious, which is what we are doing.........whats your plan.

Those weapons were not in Iraq. But tons and kilotons of poorly secured chemical and nuclear weapons are spread throughout the former Soviet Union. Twelve years ago, we began a bipartisan program to help these nations secure and destroy those weapons. It is incredible – and unacceptable -- that in the three years after 9/11, President Bush hasn’t stepped up our effort to lock down the loose nuclear weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere. More such materials were secured in the two years before 9/11 than in the two years after.

Ok, haven't you just been the magic ball of answers, Duh..the past, we know now, hello. "in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere." Once again you haven't made clear how it is you would do this, how many countries, and how much is already in the wrong hands?

see next post...............

When I’m president, denying our most dangerous enemies the world’s most dangerous weapons will become the central priority for America.

Like it's not a priority? Get real. No one in the Bush admin. or anywhere else in our gov. has a deathwish, not for themselves or their families. Get Real. Oh Im sorry central priority, wait , I thought you said that was going to be Al Qaeda. Or is it that you are now suggesting it is possible to do more than one thing at a time. That doing so wouldnt be a mistake.

I will secure all nuclear weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union within four years. At President Bush’s pace, it will take 13 years.

HOW With the former Soviet Union broken into so many new and not always congenilal nations, how do you know the number of weapons or materials, and how do you expect them to all cooperate.

I will seek a verifiable global ban on the production of materials for nuclear weapons.

Verifiable......sounds alot like weapons inspectors......UN here we come. Wait what if not all countries agree, say for instance FRANCE, surely you wouldn't do nothin to them, right? And If you do ban the production of nukes then that means for those who decide to make it, its worth more money. And, if you ban it that means the good countries will go along and stop, but the bad guys wont, so where does that leave ya.....dont forget the lessons of the cold war.

Nowhere is the nuclear danger more urgent than in Iran and North Korea.

What ya gonna do, knock on their doors and say PLEASE stop.

This week, Iran announced its intention to process enough raw uranium to create five nuclear weapons.

I will make it clear to Iran that we will lead an international effort to impose tough sanctions if they do not permanently suspend their uranium enrichment program and provide verifiable assurances that they are not developing nuclear weapons.

Oh boy tough sanctions, guess we'll trade uranium for food so their people dont suffer.

Yesterday, there were reports that North Korea are preparing to fire an intermediate-range ballistic missile that may be able to carry a nuclear warhead. I will work with our allies to get the six party talks with North Korea back on track -- and I will talk directly with the North Koreans -- to get a verifiable agreement that will eliminate their nuclear weapons program completely and irreversibly. We have to get serious about diplomacy with North Korea now. Only then will we have the support of our allies for action if diplomacy fails.

No We Dont NEED to Talk or NEGOTIATE with Mr. Kim, we need to remove him from power, he is a sick twisted and immoral peice of human garbage, and must be delt with a such. You CANNOT expect him to hold to any agreement no matter how you think you will verify it. Liberals, always want to try to reason with evil people, would someone please name ONE time when that worked. If ya keep on doing the same thing, what do you get, the same damn results you got last time.

Third, as president, I will wage a war on terrorist finances every bit as total as the war we wage on the terrorists themselves. We will trace terrorist funds to their sources and freeze the assets of anyone -- any person, bank, business or foreign official -- who is financing terrorism. I know how to do this. As Senator, I exposed and helped dismantle an international bank that was one of the early financiers of terrorism. We did it by following the money. We can and must do the same to choke off the dollars that are funding al Qaeda and its allies. On this, I will grant no one a "free pass.”

"I know how to do this." Why does that sound like a little kid whose just learning to tie his shoes, and wants to do it on his own. Sorry, I could'nt help but wonder who he's trying to convince. By the way...I'm certain that we are already doing this.

As president, I will do what President Bush has not: I will hold the Saudis accountable. Since 9/11, there have been no public prosecutions in Saudi Arabia, and few elsewhere, of terrorist financers. I will work with our allies, with the World Bank and international financial institutions to shut down the financial pipeline that keeps terrorism alive. And I will pursue a plan to make this nation energy independent of Mid East oil. I want an America that relies on our own innovation and ingenuity, not the Saudi Royal Family.

We are stopping the funds, that is already fact, try something else. Oil, thats a good one, President Bush had a great idea to make us less dependant, its called the Anwar but apparantly we had too many problems with that one, environmental issues or something. How does Mr Kerry expect to do that hmmmm. I'd sure like to see him force everyone to change to fuel cells or elect cars, airplanes, trains, etc. What A DOPE. I guess he might have to trade in his SUV.

Fourth, as president, I will make homeland security a real priority by offering a real plan, and backing it with real resources.

Wow..........................what

The first task is to prevent terrorists and their tools of destruction from entering our country.

OK, ok, I'm with ya....

We know that al Qaeda members and other terrorists could cross into America from Mexico and Canada. We are now told that America’s borders have grown even more porous since September 11. And 9/11 Commission staff report that our border inspectors don’t even have the “training” and “basic intelligence” information to keep out terrorists.

We are now told by...................who. And, what more training do our good men and women of the border patrol need....see someone.....stop em.

At our seaports we’re physically inspecting only 5% of the cargo coming into America. The Bush Administration is spending more in Iraq in four days than they’ve spent protecting our ports for all of the last three years.

Sure Lets inspect it all, first though, why dont you tell us how you want to do that, it is a good idea, but so is inspecting all the trains and inland boats and trucks, cause the items need to build devistating bombs can be found at your local feed store. So, this all sounds great, but how to do it. Oh and Duh, of course you spend more, so would you with all your plans to go into over 60 countries, It's WAR.

At our airports, there has been some progress, but there is far more to do. According to news accounts, the terrorist aviation list only includes those who are a danger to aviation. This is ridiculous. It should include every suspected terrorist who is a danger to anything, anywhere in our country.

Whose news accounts.......too vague......maybe it was CBS.

Terrorists used explosives to bring down two planes in Russia. Yet here in America, the system for detecting explosives carried by passengers fails to pass our own government’s tests. And here’s something that makes no sense at all: your luggage is x-rayed when it’s put on the plane, but the cargo on the hold underneath seldom is.

I agree that is not a good situation, thanks for being so quick with that, gee I haven't heard that a hundred times before. They are working on it, unless you want to spend the money to make it go faster, I'm sure they would like the help, every airports baggage handling area has to be retrofitted, thats money (and not little bucks) for parts alone, now figure man hours, down time and now multiply that by the Thousands of airports we have, and it cant just be in our country, all flights coming in to our country should be from airports equiped the same way.........this becomes a logistical nightmare all its own. So thanks for the heads up Mr Kerry, if you will set up funding for this and actually get all your buddies to sign it, Im quite sure everyone will thank you.

This has to change. In a Kerry-Edwards Administration, we’ll give inspectors at our borders access to the terrorist watch lists. At our ports, we will provide a 600 percent increase in support for the most promising cargo inspection programs. In our airports, we’ll install the equipment to check passengers for explosives to screen cargo just like we screen baggage. And across the country, we will make sure our police, firefighters, and ambulance drivers have the latest radios, hazmat suits, decontamination facilities, and emergency operation centers they need to respond effectively in a crisis.

Wow, thats alot, lot of Money. Lets do it I'm all for it.

This is all common sense; but none of it is a priority for the Bush Administration. Here’s what’s on their agenda. Costly new nuclear weapons we don’t need that risk fueling a new arms race. And committing to a missile defense system that could eventually cost $100 billion doesn’t yet work and won’t stop likely threats to our security.

None a priority to Bush, OK, yea thats it, they don't care about the borders or inspecting cargo, ok I'll buy that, and another load of crap for good measure.

Near here, in the Philadelphia region, there are eight chemical plants where a terrorist attack could endanger a million people. But this President allowed the chemical industry to derail commonsense measures for chemical plant security. As president, I will protect them.

Sure, I believe that the chemical industry knowing they are a target have decided to forgo measures to secure their plants. Guess at the best theyll be out of a job, the worst, theyll be dead along with a few thousand others. So instead SUPER KERRY to the rescue, He'll protect them.

At a time when police officers are more critical than ever to our homeland security, this President gutted the program to put 100,000 new police on our streets. I will restore that funding and make sure the money reaches our first responders.

Sure................

This President has failed to provide even a nickel in his budget to safeguard our railroads and subways – leaving millions of people every day more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. We will invest more than $2 billion in new funding to protect our transit systems, so that what happened in Madrid doesn’t happen here.

Sounds like the Kerry Gov will get all your paycheck.............better think about welfare, you might make more that way. Seriously, not that this is bad in general.....but these promises are just not adding up. I cant believe this guy is griping about the current budget......oh yea he just wants more of your money.

Fifth, as we go after the terrorists and secure our homeland, I will focus on the long-term frontline of this war. To defeat the terrorists’ aims, we must deny them recruits and safe havens.

Ok yea!!!!!!! oh....isnt that once again....what we are already doing???

For al Qaeda, this war is a struggle for the heart and soul of the Muslim world. We will win this war only if the terrorists lose that struggle. We will win when ordinary people from Nigeria to Egypt to Pakistan to Indonesia know they have more to live for than to die for. We will win when they once again see America as the champion, not the enemy, of their legitimate yearning to live in just and peaceful societies. We will win when we stop isolating ourselves and start isolating our enemies. The world knows the difference between empty promises and genuine commitment.

Just like liberating Iraq......amazing how he left them out.......perhaps he just doesnt like people from Iraq........na. Shut up, we already are the champion, not the enemy.....why don't you go ask an ordinary Iraqi citizen. And it looks like we are poised to carry on this war of liberating the world of terror, but we still need the support of our citizens to do it........SO WHY DONT YOU STOP DEMORALIZING THE PEOPLES SUPPORT FOR THIS WAR.

So we will win when we show that America uses its economic power for the common good, doing our share to defeat the abject poverty, hunger, and disease that destroy lives and create failed states in every part of the world. The world’s poorest countries, suffering under crushing debt burdens, need particular attention. As president, I will lead the international community to cancel the debt of the most vulnerable nations in return for them living up to goals of social and economic progress.

Good solid idea. I don't see why you haven't proposed that already.

We will win when we work with our allies, to enable children in poor countries to get a quality basic education. More than 50 percent of the population in the Arab and Muslim world is under the age of 25. The future is a race between schools that spark learning and schools that teach hate. We have to preempt the haters. We have to win the war of ideas. New generations must believe there is more to life than salvation through martyrdom.

Sure, another good yet obvious idea, one that Im sure will be put into action in each country as we remove their terrorist leaders. Until then HA, lets see you try. I doubt very seriously that this isnt already on the way.

Sixth, we will promote the development of free and democratic societies throughout the Arab and Muslim world. Millions of people there share our values of human rights, and our hopes for a better life for the next generation. They are facing their own struggle at home against the forces of fanaticism and militancy. They are our natural allies. Their lost trust in our intentions must be restored. We must reach out to them and yes we must always promote democracy. I will be clear with repressive governments in the region that we expect to see them change – not just for our sake but for their own survival.

I think this is definately what is already happening, dont think anyone missed your snipe about lost trust. This is precisely the job we are doing now, without the restoring trust part, but with you and others spouting all kinds of garbage, don't think it doesn't get back to the rest of the world, you may very well be the cause if we do loose some trust.

As president, I will lead a massive national effort to improve our outreach to the Muslim world. We will train a new generation of American scholars, diplomats, and military officers, who know this region just as we built our knowledge of the Soviet Empire during the Cold War. I will convene a summit with our European partners and leaders from the Muslim world to strengthen mutual understanding, economic growth and the fight against terror.

Ok, think its gettin done already.......movin on.

Let it be clear that the issue here is advancing democracy in Arab nations, not yielding to pressure to undermine Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East. Our alliance with Israel – the survival and security of Israel – are non-negotiable. The only solution is a Jewish state of Israel living side by side in security and peace with a democratic Palestinian state.

Yehaw a conservative ideal if ever I heard one.

Finally, we will be stronger if we do not go it alone. As president, I will rebuild and lead strong alliances. This is not only critical to our military operations; it is essential to every other measure we must take, from tracking down terrorists, where we need the intelligence cooperation of other nations, to homeland security, where we need their help to stop terrorists and their weapons before they ever reach our shores.

Mr Kerry, we do have strong alliances, unfortunatly, some of our old buddies decided to go their own way for their own reasons, please dont have seperation anxiety, we've got some new friends now, besides, the old ones will be back, give them time, course they may have to play nice.

We will not succeed in destroying freedom’s adversaries if we are divided from freedom’s friends. The terrorists certainly understand that. They are making a special effort to set off bombs in Turkey, Morocco and Indonesia. They want to keep other countries from standing with us in the war on terror. They know what the Bush administration has been so reluctant to admit -- that we are weaker when we fight almost alone. We are safer and stronger, in our capacity to capture and kill terrorists when we fight with allies by our side.

What did I say a LOOOONNGG time ago........we know this is what they are doing, no surprise, but you cant force those nations who do not want to be a part, to do it. As long as they dont support or harbor terrorists they can go their own way. After we make it substantially safer for them, theyll be back. With the oil issues that you soke of earlier, why do you think we started in the oil rich middle east??????? We knew that for national security we could not have one of the biggest terrorist crackpots in control of and within such proximity to other rich countries that could possibly be put in jeporardy or extorted. We needed to stableize that part of the world and he was the shakyest part. Considering the amount of money flowing into his and surrounding countries....where do you think (being muslim nations) that the majority of funds are coming from? Considering the options.....and the criteria for a jumping off point.......Iraq was the perfect choice, and Saddams defiance the perfect reason.

But the Bush administration would have you believe that when it comes to our allies, it won’t make a difference who is president. They say the Europeans won’t help us, no matter what. We’re not going to get more cooperation in the war on terror, no matter what. Ordinary people around the world will resent us, no matter what. But I have news for President Bush: just because you can’t do something, doesn’t mean it can’t be done.

OK, MR, oh I'm sorry SUPER KERRY, those nations will not help until they are comfortable with the situation, or if after thought decide to help. Other countries already "in bed" with terrorist states or groups will not be coming to our side without a fight.

The first President Bush waged the first Gulf War with a real coalition that fought with us on the battlefield and paid virtually the entire cost of that war. President Clinton built a real coalition in Kosovo, and now virtually every soldier on patrol there comes from a foreign country. During the Cold War, every American president understood what is still true today: The strength of our country is vital but so is the character of our country. It is better to be an America that rallies others to our cause than an America that has to go it alone.

Dont even start on character......you would have us believe that because you are the one exacting the war on terror that the perception would be different.....when you have virtually said you would do the same things, only more? Besides...where was your voice when our last president made this whole country look like a bunch of naive idiots. Besides, one would think you should have to have character before you have license to throw it around, last I checked you were still changing your story to fit the line.......take this speech for example........full of conridictions. Oh and by the way.....why don't you stop lieing about our current coalliton, and please stop saying it's not a real coalition..we have many countries who are with us and they deserve your respect just as much as your cherished yellow nations. At least they have the character to get involved.

I believe we can win the war on terror. We can defeat, capture and kill those who commit terror. I have just outlined a strategy for victory.

You basicly outlined the current strategy, with some name changes, higher taxes (you do like BIG gov) and basiclly alot of desenting statements that not only tried to belittle what we are already doing, but repeatedly contridicted yourself.

I know this struggle will be waged in many ways and many places. I know that it will be a long and difficult struggle. I know we have to be resolute in confronting the evil that exists in the world. But in the end, one of our greatest strengths, one of our greatest safeguards, is that America can be the ideal that inspires others everywhere. If we again become that beacon of hope, we will discover in ourselves the most powerful and useful weapons in the war against the terrorists. Because if we are true to ourselves, terrorists cannot defeat the values and vision that have made America great.

Ok must be the big finish..................Hmmm......I hope after all this he will stop busting on Bush....He's just sayin the same stuff.

No American mother should have to lie awake at night worrying whether her children will be safe at school the next day. No one should fear visiting our nation’s capitol or our greatest cities because they might be attacked.

We can all agree.......

Our hope – our determination – is nothing less than this: to live our lives confident that we are safe at home and secure in our world. And that is the great victory I will fight for as your President.

Thank you, God bless you and God bless America.

Thank goodness the end.......No more rehashing, no more complaining only to say youd do the same or "worse" by you previous stand. This guy is an obvious farce, Anyone who can't see that is not paying attn. he makes it all too easy to see.

Worst...analysis...of...a...speech...ever.

For example, handing over control of Afghanistan to the warlords is not "working with global allies."

Seriously, how many times do you have to lie in one two posts?

I'd analyse your whole analysis, but really, you failed yto use ANY facts in your little presentation, all you used was a smear campaign that showed just how limited your brain capacity is.

Bush did oppose the the creation of Homeland Security, and then took credit for it, and all you can do is dany the fact?

Idiot. Really.

Comletely and utterly misinformed. It's sad, really.

Ok, first, its not just Osama and the boys, with this statement he has already shown us his dangerous lack of vision. The issue of terror and our war is not just with Al Qaeda, not just revenge. Its an all meat dont spare the onions please campain against terror, wherever it resides. Side note WOW, that last sentence sounds alot like preemtive attacks.

One paragrah, and he has a dangerous lack of vision? All he' saying is that the emphasis should have remained on Al Qaeda. He's right.

Seems he begins to acknowledge that the terror is world wide, but then he just goes on with family, a valid point but that MOTHER and CHILD bond stuff, I would've thought the strike was much more involved, like what about fathers and child, or friends, neighbors. HMMM, Doesn't he support abortion?

Okay, you've already contradicted your first paragraph. Would you like Kerry to list every single kind of family bond? Seems kinda like a digression to me.

We owe the American people a real debate about the choices President Bush has made… and the choices I will make… to fight and win the war against terrorism.

How?

Uhhh, by having a debate?

President Bush was right to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban. I supported that decision. So did our country and our allies. So did the world.

What a surprise, he thinks we need the OK from EVERYONE, what ever happend to our Soverign ability to make decisions. He would have us waiting on a UN or France with ties to nations who either promote or prosper from doing business with terrorist nations.

Standard hack form off attack. Rephrase what someone says, and then attack your own turn of phrase. This is called "straw man" and only idiots use it.

But since then, again and again, the President has made the wrong choices in the war on terror… around the world and here at home.

Instead of using U.S. forces to capture Osama bin Laden… the President outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, who let bin Laden slip away. That was the wrong choice.

Ok, so he doesn't want us to work with the native citizens. Wow, what happend to his grand coalition, oh, maybe thats just for big nations, you know the ones that count. Like lets say, oh yea France. (have they fought a war without us in the last 100 years?)

Straw man again. The Warlords are anti-central government thugs who have noproblem supporting terrorism, as long as it keeps them in power and money. He mentioned nothing about France, but you seem to be fixated on them.

Instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan… the President rushed to a new war in Iraq. That was the wrong choice.

Really, the way I remember it, we had pretty well devistated those poor idiots in Afganistan. We had them on the run or hiding out. Those are both conditions associated with losers. They had lost that battle, but the war rages on, in countries that either have or could potentially serve thier needs or the needs of other terrorists around the globe. Saddam showed the ability to use terror against his own, and his desire for bigger weapons was no secret, along with his defiance to the world, he was an obvious first choice to attack after Afghanistan begain to wear down. Course I guess we couldve waited, so he could better prepare, or perhaps even help our enemies. By the way, WHERE WAS THE RUSHING? Bush went to the UN, and Congress on more than one occasion about Iraq, as a matter of fact, President Bush got permission, (not that he had to), before going in. Go get better lines Mr. Kerry.

Bush rushed, even though he had reports on his desk stating that an attack on Iraq would lead to destablization and the uniting of terrorist, insurgent, and pro-Saddam forces. In other words, the creation of terrorists where there were none. Bush also went in before proper equipment was secured for our forces. Bush went in without a post-Mission Accomplished (ha!) plan. All signs of rushing. Seriously, what's wrong with you?

Instead of listening to the uniformed military, his own State Department, Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress, and outside experts about how to win the peace in Iraq… the President hitched his wagon to the ideologues who told him our troops would be welcomed as liberators. That was the wrong choice.

Wow, wrong choice, what the liberator part, cause I know plenty of guys who have been there fighting this war and many of them were so moved by the support and thanks from the Iraqi civillians that they beamed in telling it or teared up. Besides, I saw it on TV. Those people seemed DAMN HAPPY, they burned all those pictures and tore down that statue. What a wonderful thing to have HOPE after all that tyranny. Maybe he means he should have listened to all those other people, were they saying we wouldnt be welcomed as liberators, if they did, good thing he didnt listen to them. By the way who are these mysterious outside experts. I'll bet not a single one of them has to bear the weight of or run a war like this. OH YEA, there has NEVER BEEN another war like this. DUH.

Too bad Iraq hasn't been liberated from anything yet. Sure the people were happy at first. Saddam was gone! Then the people saw how piss-poor the postwar planning was, and now they are one pissed set of people. Hope after a tyranny is a great thing, unfortunately what they now have is more death and destruction per day than they had under Saddam. All for a war that didn't need to be fought.

Instead of responding to the greatest intelligence failure in our history with a rapid overhaul of our intelligence system … the President dragged his feet and actually resisted reform. After opposing the 9/11 Commission, after trying to block its extension, after finally agreeing to testify, but only with Vice President Cheney at his side, he still refuses to fully implement the Commission’s recommendations. Those were the wrong choices.

Come on, resisted reform? Dragged his feet? First of all Mr. Kerry, I'm not sure if you support quick rash action or long contemplated discussions of what must be done. It seems that for America you would rush to fix things without taking the time to consult all the different "experts" (hope you wouldve gotten it right, otherwise, oopps), but on the other hand when it comes to the actuall war on terror ( you know the part that has to do with OUR national security and bringing those who only need time to plan and enact any new plans), you would rather wait and give them their time in order to please everyone before acting. What a dim-wit. I'll bet everyone even cheered for this backwards mind set. Guess the jokes on them, didnt get me though.

Oh please. The Bush opposed the creation of the 9/11 panel. So, basically, he wasn't even trying to find out what went wrong with our intelligence. Then, after a long process by the 9/11 panel, the 9/11 panel showed a long, thoroughly thought-out list of things needed to be done to improve our intelligence...and Bush resisted it. Bush doesn't want to give funding power to the National Security director. Looks like you're the dim wit here. Pick up a book or two.

Instead of proposing a Department of Homeland Security … the President actually opposed it – and then exploited it for political purposes. That was the wrong choice.

Wait, is he complaining that the President flip floped, guess it takes one to know one. OK that was childish, but really, where was the opposition or the exploitation.

The President did flip-flop. He literally opposed the creation of Homeland Security, then he literally took credit for it's creation. Don't see why you have a hard time understanding, maybe because you lack the actual facts, you partisan hack?

Instead of expanding programs to keep weapons of mass destruction in Russia out of terrorist hands… the President first tried to cut the programs… and even after 9/11 did too little to strengthen them. That was the wrong choice.

By expanding programs, I think he means to Buy off those who would sell those weapons, certainly he doesn't mean for us to directly meddle in another nation, oh-my-Gawd! that would be like, scandleous. To actually go in and try to stop possible supposed but probably there weapons from falling into the wrong hands, I JUST CANT BELIEVE IT. Oh, wait, isn't that what we are doing? Besides, when it comes to keeping weapons out of terrorists hands Mr. Kerry, NOTHING is EVER enough, only problem is getting all that legislation past all those Liberal ninnies, who only want it to wait so they can do it themselves and get all the credit, paying no heed to the dire need. I'm sorry does that sound unfair, shurely not all Liberals would do that, but isn't that the same kind of crap you expect us to beleive of President Bush? Get over yourself.

A fwe problems: First, Bush has cut programs to SECURE LOOSE NUKES! Hello? Duh. Kerry want to fix that, and you bag on him. Hope you like glowing nuts, since loose nuke would be where terrorists would get their bomb material. I guess Iraq was more important :rolleyes: The problem isn't getting legislation past the liberal, since Republicans control both houses. You really are ignorant, aren't you?

Instead of facing the urgent nuclear dangers in North Korea and Iran… he allowed these dangers to mount on his presidential watch. That was the wrong choice.

And do what Mr Kerry, cause you see, now your really starting to show how much of an idiot you believe the american public is. What would you have him do, surely not rush off to war with them, not while we still have troops on the ground in Afganistan. Or maybe you would have him work with the locals, to try to weed out those weapons. Mr Kerry, you are a MORON. Stop with the double talk, I know I'm not falling for it. Besides, I seem to remember us working with Iran, and as for North Korea, lets see if we can remember how it was they got the tech needed to build a viable missle that could reach our western seaboard, and which president it was who actually thought he did something about it by TALKING. Sure reason with a sick demented man like him, sure.

No double-talk at all. It's just past your intellectual level apparently. Bush took his eye off N Korea and Iran to attack Iraq. Apparently, you do not understand the power of diplomacy or that there are other ways to address the danger of a country without attacking it. Obviously, your apprioach to the Cold War would have been nuking the Soviet Union?? They had their share of madmen, but we managed to keep them in check wothout going to war. Perhaps Bush could learn from his Republican forebears. Idiot.

Instead of speaking forcefully to the Saudis and others about terrorist financing … the President has said little and done less. That was the wrong choice.

I gotta call BS, I remember the speach he made to all countries concerning the support or financing of terrorists, what was it he said, something like your either with us or against us and some other stuff, geee, I seem to be forgetting already, now that you pointed it out. We all saw the meetings hes had with the Saudis, gee I guess Mr Kerry you just thought they got together to play golf. Said little, done less....what a load of crap. He has said plenty, and obviously done much more than you approve of. More double talk, cant seem to please this guy. Hate to be his wife, kids, co-worker.........

I gotta call double BS. Yeah, Bush said that you were either for us or against us, then he forbade anyone to investigate the Saudi's, even though 15 of the hijackers were Saudi. Bush has labeled anything having to do with the Saudis and 9/11 as national security secrets. Why? To protect his buddies. The double-talk is Bush's in this case. He's given the Saudis a free pass. God you're a moron.


Instead of providing our police, firefighters, and ambulance drivers with the equipment they need… instead of protecting ports, trains, subway lines and highways… instead of defending nuclear plants and chemical factories… this President under-funded homeland security. That was the wrong choice.

Ok now he wants to spend more money? I thought he was against all this spending. So, he would bolster our emergency services, give money to stop the sale of weapons to terrorists, better protect our ports of travel not to mention nuclear and chemical plants, mount some kind of action against Iran and Korea (at the same time?) Overhaul the intellegence community, and continue the war in Afganistan, not to mention all his domestic stuff, Im stunned..........Once again, how much is enough, It's NEVER enough, but there are limits to our budget, one which has already been busted so bad you cant shut up about it.. so far though, you would have done more, and spent more. How can you fault him for the deficit on one hand and not doing enough on the other. Your brainless mutterings are a general anestetic to the millions of americans who actually use theirs for more than keeping their ears seperated.

Still cheaper than a war in Iraq that wasn't necessary....

Instead of bringing the world together against the terrorists… the President alienated the countries whose help we need to defeat them. That was the wrong choice.

How many contries are currently in our coalition? Sure we need the cooperation of other good countries to win this war, but we dont need those who would hinder our ability to promote it either. Alienation.....of who? Other countries that support or receive some gain from terrorists, cant ever expect them to go along with it. Countries who whould rather ignore the problem for fear of getting involved might cost them somthing? Would you want these countries on your coalition Mr Kerry, I hope not or you are an even bigger idiot than I first suspected.

How many countries? A lot. How many actually contribute anything. Very very few. That's why, boys and girls, America is paying 90% of the price in money and men. Oooooooooo, great coalition, Mr Bush. It's funny that you think we can't get support from countries that supported us before, then stopped supporting us when Bush was elected...sure is a funny coincidence...hmmmmm.

Yet, in the face of all the misjudgments, all the miscalculations, and all the mistakes, the president still says he wouldn’t do anything different. I would. I will make very different choices in the war on terrorism. I know what has gone wrong… and what needs to be done.

Ok...Mr Man, Mr Hindsight, Mr I know what has gone wrong, Duh, care to share? or are you just trying to sound good. Could be somethings could be done differently, but so far, I haven't heard anything except you complaining, what would be your choices, not for the past, but for the future, the past, that's just toooooo easy, youve already seen the outcome, god what a cheater. Bet he got all his tests the day before, or better yet had someone else take it so he could copy all the right stuff and change the wrong ones. I only know of one word for someone like that, WUSSSS, (actually I know more than that, I just wont use them here. The mike might still be on..)

Yes, hindsight is an advantage. But Bush is saying he wouldnt have done anything different EVEN WITH THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT!!!! What a moron! Uhhhh, he's outlining his choises, but you prefer to stick your fingers in your ear and just bash his character with the same baseless attacks that were handed to you by Mr Rove. Yeah, Kerry is the wuss. Kerry was the one who ran from Vietnam, and Bush was the guy who took enemy fire. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Bush would wet himself if he were in personal danger.


Well, it pretty much keeps going on like this. All you do is deny reality and make cute but incorrect jokes. I'm appaled at how little in-touch with reality you are, but so be it. I've come to expect it from Bush supporters.

I'm appaled at how little in-touch with reality you are, but so be it. I've come to expect it from Bush supporters.

And therein, friends and neighbors, is the rub. One man's "reality" is another man's nightmare.

I guess you are not American right, perhaps you would like to add your invaluable input and insights to this conversation? How long would you have thought it through, how many countries would have to align for you to do something about terrorism in general. How many polls would you take to make sure everyone would still like you.

Actually, I am American. What made you think otherwise? The fact I said "your President?" That's just because I didn't vote for him. And I think the Republican Party is an absolute disgrace for even letting him on the ticket four years ago. But they had to didn't they? They couln't allow someone to be president who could actually think for himself could they? But I digress.

Or would you instead decide to make money off the deal,
Are you referring to the fact that Halliburton won a no-bid contract to go into Iraq and clean up the oil fields BEFORE Bush supposedly "decided" we had to invade? Or is it something else?

Or how about other countries, who are supposidly your allies but have ties to the terrorists?
Like for instance...Saudi Arabia? The Bush family's good buddies? Yeah, can you elaborate on THAT?

Even when the country who is trying to counteract the worst scourge on the face of the planet (terrorism) is the same nation that helped to save so many others butts on D day. Guess no one remembers that.

Unfortunately, most don't. It's true that the US bailed the world out of WWII. But it's not a rule of global diplomacy that you have to stand behind a country forever just because you were once allied with them. If that were the case, we should have never invaded Iraq, right? They were once our allies when they were fighting Iran. I mean who gave them the technology to go and gas the Kurds? We did! Iraq was our ALLY. Oh wait, but were they really? Cause that's right, we were also selling arms to Iran at the same time. So does that negate the fact we were Iraq's ally, since we were only PRETENDING to be friends with them?

So I ask you this:
if you feel we should be able to go into any country that has terrorst activity (and this is something GB Junior has actually said, BTW) why have we not yet invaded Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Israel, Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Somalia (Wait, we did that. Nevermind about Somalia), Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia and The Phillipines? And what about all those European countries with terrorist activity? Let's add Turkey, Italy, Spain, France, Germany, England and Russia. I guess there's even terrorist activity in the United States, wow! The hijackers plotted the attacks from within our own borders. Those planes didn't originate from Paris (though I surmise Dick Cheyney is still looking for proof that they did). So I guess we're going to need to attack ourselves, now won't we?

Gymoor, (re: point by point rebuttal above)
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Thank you for doing what I didn't have the time or energy to do.
But still, they won't believe; refuse to see the "big picture."
*sigh*

Gymoor, (re: point by point rebuttal above)
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Thank you for doing what I didn't have the time or energy to do.
But still, they won't believe; refuse to see the "big picture."
*sigh*

No problem. I should have done a more complete job, but the sheer weight of denial I had to push through was exhausting.

They don't see the big picture because they're too enmenshed in the "you're either with us or against us" idea. For example, because France and Germany balked at helping us with Iraq, the Republicans think that we can never count on their help again. They believe that negotiation is the same as "asking permission." :rolleyes: When you get right down to it, France and Germany were right to oppose our attack of Iraq. They were unconvinced by our WMD argument...and they were right! Yet the Republicans would say that France and Germany stabbed us in the back. Really, it seem more rational to say that we stabbed them in the back, by demonizing them for having very rational arguments against our going into Iraq.

You're either with us or against us, therefore if you criticize the President, you are un-American. If you believe differently, you want the terrorists to win. If you want more international cooperation, that means you are surrendering your autonomy. WTF? I didn't realize that was an either/or proposition. Thanks for boiling it down to two choices, then then telling me if I didn't pick your choice, then I am a traitor.

This is really fuzzy, dangerous, manipulative, proto-fascist thinking people.

ANY TIME someone tells you there are only two choices, throw the BS flag!

"Intentional Bullshit. 5 Yards and a loss of credibility! Repeat statement, this time without being an asshole." (American Football reference, for those not familiar with the penalty flag.)

Please, for the love of all things good and grand, don't give your stamp of approval to this kind of governMental. What ever you think of Kerry (and I know many won't budge on their opinion of Kerry, even when all their bones of contention are refuted.) don't re-elect someone who shows this kind of incompetence. It sends a bad message.

If Kerry bungles as bad after his four years, then fire him as well. But to keep an obvious incompetent, just because you have doubts about his successor, is an open invitation at outright character assasination for all further Presidential elections. You will send the message that the President is not accountable, as long as he can paint his opponent out to be and ogre. You will be encouraging greed and deception, based merely on uncertainty about Kerry.

When a President performs this badly, he must be fired. Period. End of story. Only by being hard and resolute, can we re-take the honor of the Presidentcy. If it means some resulting chaos in order to do so, so be it. If it works for Iraq, then it works for choosing our Presidents.

Do NOT give George W the thumbs up for continuing his dishonest and broken policies! Please! Vote 3rd part if you have to, but do not condone this kind of malfeasance in the Whitehouse!

I don't know what else I can say. Does anyone care? Is there anyone out there who whose mind is moved at all by my words here? Has anyone here ever changed their minds, or is everyone completely calcified in their thought?

"Intentional Bullshit. 5 Yards and a loss of credibility! Repeat statement, this time without being an asshole."

ROTFLMAO
I'll be using that henceforth. I'll give you credit whenever possible. Maybe we can get the mods to design a "flag-throwing" smile or icon. You wouldn't even have to use words, just respond and throw the flag. Well done.

No problem. I should have done a more complete job, but the sheer weight of denial I had to push through was exhausting.

They don't see the big picture because they're too enmenshed in the "you're either with us or against us" idea. For example, because France and Germany balked at helping us with Iraq, the Republicans think that we can never count on their help again. They believe that negotiation is the same as "asking permission." :rolleyes: When you get right down to it, France and Germany were right to oppose our attack of Iraq. They were unconvinced by our WMD argument...and they were right! Yet the Republicans would say that France and Germany stabbed us in the back. Really, it seem more rational to say that we stabbed them in the back, by demonizing them for having very rational arguments against our going into Iraq.

You're either with us or against us, therefore if you criticize the President, you are un-American. If you believe differently, you want the terrorists to win. If you want more international cooperation, that means you are surrendering your autonomy. WTF? I didn't realize that was an either/or proposition. Thanks for boiling it down to two choices, then then telling me if I didn't pick your choice, then I am a traitor.

This is really fuzzy, dangerous, manipulative, proto-fascist thinking people.

ANY TIME someone tells you there are only two choices, throw the BS flag!

"Intentional Bullshit. 5 Yards and a loss of credibility! Repeat statement, this time without being an asshole." (American Football reference, for those not familiar with the penalty flag.)

Please, for the love of all things good and grand, don't give your stamp of approval to this kind of governMental. What ever you think of Kerry (and I know many won't budge on their opinion of Kerry, even when all their bones of contention are refuted.) don't re-elect someone who shows this kind of incompetence. It sends a bad message.

If Kerry bungles as bad after his four years, then fire him as well. But to keep an obvious incompetent, just because you have doubts about his successor, is an open invitation at outright character assasination for all further Presidential elections. You will send the message that the President is not accountable, as long as he can paint his opponent out to be and ogre. You will be encouraging greed and deception, based merely on uncertainty about Kerry.

When a President performs this badly, he must be fired. Period. End of story. Only by being hard and resolute, can we re-take the honor of the Presidentcy. If it means some resulting chaos in order to do so, so be it. If it works for Iraq, then it works for choosing our Presidents.

Do NOT give George W the thumbs up for continuing his dishonest and broken policies! Please! Vote 3rd part if you have to, but do not condone this kind of malfeasance in the Whitehouse!

I don't know what else I can say. Does anyone care? Is there anyone out there who whose mind is moved at all by my words here? Has anyone here ever changed their minds, or is everyone completely calcified in their thought?

Of course, you also make points that are valid no matter your belief, however, your point of view and your laundry list (which is surprisingly just like Kerrys, could be your Kerryized) is only the same stuff we heard from Kerry. And unfortunatly, you seemed to miss the obvious. Kerry would do the same as Bush, he just has to bitch about it first. He continualy contridicted himself....if you think Ive been taken over by the Bush doctorine, You are just as closed minded as I, so don't pretend to be anything else. By the way which books, mags, tv news do you watch? Come on tell the truth.
One thing is for certain, I can't prove it all, neither can you, it all comes down to a matter of choice in belief thats all. Oh and I didn't call you a Moron, I was speaking of Mr Kerry, sorry you took it so personal, perhaps now you know how it feels to be a Bush supporter with so many people hacking away on these boards. I tried to be nice, I just had to let of a little steam. Thanks for being my sounding board.
Rob

Actually, I am American. What made you think otherwise? The fact I said "your President?" That's just because I didn't vote for him. And I think the Republican Party is an absolute disgrace for even letting him on the ticket four years ago. But they had to didn't they? They couln't allow someone to be president who could actually think for himself could they? But I digress.


Are you referring to the fact that Halliburton won a no-bid contract to go into Iraq and clean up the oil fields BEFORE Bush supposedly "decided" we had to invade? Or is it something else?


Like for instance...Saudi Arabia? The Bush family's good buddies? Yeah, can you elaborate on THAT?



Unfortunately, most don't. It's true that the US bailed the world out of WWII. But it's not a rule of global diplomacy that you have to stand behind a country forever just because you were once allied with them. If that were the case, we should have never invaded Iraq, right? They were once our allies when they were fighting Iran. I mean who gave them the technology to go and gas the Kurds? We did! Iraq was our ALLY. Oh wait, but were they really? Cause that's right, we were also selling arms to Iran at the same time. So does that negate the fact we were Iraq's ally, since we were only PRETENDING to be friends with them?

So I ask you this:
if you feel we should be able to go into any country that has terrorst activity (and this is something GB Junior has actually said, BTW) why have we not yet invaded Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Israel, Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Somalia (Wait, we did that. Nevermind about Somalia), Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia and The Phillipines? And what about all those European countries with terrorist activity? Let's add Turkey, Italy, Spain, France, Germany, England and Russia. I guess there's even terrorist activity in the United States, wow! The hijackers plotted the attacks from within our own borders. Those planes didn't originate from Paris (though I surmise Dick Cheyney is still looking for proof that they did). So I guess we're going to need to attack ourselves, now won't we?


Answer to question 1. Cause you said us Icelanders in referance to yourself, wow what a hard conclusion for me.

the rest............Proof Proof Proof. All I ever hear is all this banter, but no facts. You sound like a Kerry clone. Sorry, thats how I see it.
Rob
Oh to answer the last question, only so many bites at a time, each will undoubtedly get its turn. And dont be silly we wont attack ourselves, but we should police ourselves, even down to checking the books of private companies if needed.

Of course, you also make points that are valid no matter your belief, however, your point of view and your laundry list (which is surprisingly just like Kerrys, could be your Kerryized) is only the same stuff we heard from Kerry. And unfortunatly, you seemed to miss the obvious. Kerry would do the same as Bush, he just has to bitch about it first. He continualy contridicted himself....if you think Ive been taken over by the Bush doctorine, You are just as closed minded as I, so don't pretend to be anything else. By the way which books, mags, tv news do you watch? Come on tell the truth.
One thing is for certain, I can't prove it all, neither can you, it all comes down to a matter of choice in belief thats all. Oh and I didn't call you a Moron, I was speaking of Mr Kerry, sorry you took it so personal, perhaps now you know how it feels to be a Bush supporter with so many people hacking away on these boards. I tried to be nice, I just had to let of a little steam. Thanks for being my sounding board.
Rob

The consequences are far too dire to play "musical White House."

Answer to question 1. Cause you said us Icelanders in referance to yourself, wow what a hard conclusion for me.
Did not.
Perhaps you were referring to
My freedom ? I'm quite confident that America's attacks in the middle east have absolutely no influence whatsoever on me or my freedom... Unless, of course, you correct me and give me a reasonable explanation of how anti-american islamic extremists are a threat to us Icelanders.
Seems to be a case of mistaken identity.

the rest............Proof Proof Proof. All I ever hear is all this banter, but no facts.
Re: Halliburton:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-06-16-halliburton_x.htm
Re: The House of Saud/Bush connection:
I got so many hits from that Google search, it almost made my computer crash. I think this has been pretty well laid out in all forms of press worldwide. If you still don't accept it as fact, then you are completely blind to truth. But that's OK, at least you're a patriotic American who follows Bush, come hell or highwater.
Re: Support of Iraq during conflict w/ Iran:
Ditto above, this is common knowledge at this point. I should be asking you for proof the US *didn't* support Iraq.
Re: US selling arms to Iran during conflict with Iraq:
You're kidding, right? You want me to give you proof of this? Don't you remember the hearings? Ollie North took the fall, he admitted it.
You sound like a Kerry clone. Sorry, thats how I see it.
No need to be sorry, a lot of neo-conservatives erroneously think the same thing. It just so happens I am not a Kerry supporter either. Don't make the mistake that if someone is against the Bush administration, they are a card-carrying liberal. The Democratic Party wouldn't touch my political philosophies with a ten-foot pole.

Oh to answer the last question, only so many bites at a time, each will undoubtedly get its turn. And dont be silly we wont attack ourselves, but we should police ourselves, even down to checking the books of private companies if needed.
I'm all for that last part. Can we start with the ones with which high-ranking Bush administration members have a financial interest? To be fair we can do the same for the next Administration, should Kerry win the election.

if you think Ive been taken over by the Bush doctorine, You are just as closed minded as I, so don't pretend to be anything else.
Surely, you didn't just admit to being close-minded, DID you? I'll let that slide and chalk it up to .. I dunno, something. The word eludes me at this hour. But after reading the above statement I take back what I said earlier about you being a blind follower of Bush.
I know the following was directed at another poster, but I'll give you my answers anyway
By the way which books, mags, tv news do you watch? Come on tell the truth.
Books: Things that were written before we were born (including The Bible, even though I don't trust any of the hundreds of translations at all). And I say this without knowing how old *you* are, so that should tell you something.
Mags: Natural Health, Natural Home, Organic Style and Prevention. Because, unlike many fundamentalist Christians, I do *not* believe that sustainable living is a Satanic plot put forth buy the United Nations to further an agenda of eradicating Christianity. Trust me here, there *are* those that do. I certainly hope no one here is one of them. And no, I won't give you sources. I refuse to give those people press.
TV News: Fox News Channel. CNN and MSNBC are full of whiney liberals. I would much rather watch arrogant conservatives, they're much more entertaining.
Sidenote: are you aware there are forms of News other than television? I hope so. You can read almost any newspaper in the world online. I personally listen to the BBC World Service on NPR in the middle of the night.
One thing is for certain, I can't prove it all, neither can you, it all comes down to a matter of choice in belief thats all.
Agreed. Just remember, my choice of belief is better than yours.
Just kidding.
Sort of.
:D

The consequences are far too dire to play "musical White House."
So I guess after Bush wins the election, we'll be seeing a call to repeal the 22nd amendment? Great, just great. When this theocracy is established, or reestablished as it were, would we have to call him King George the IV? (As we didn't acknowledge the son that took over for that hack George the III). Or would we call him George the V? (Since we should probably invade Great Britian because, well, aren't there terrorists in London and don't *they* have Weapons of Mass Destruction? Maybe we'll kick those royal bluebloods out of Windsor Castle and hand it over to Laura and the Girls for some remodeling)? Or would he simply be King W?

Republicans, please note, the above is an attempt at humor. No, I'm not a comedian. If I were, I'd be doing stand-up on tour and wouldn't be hanging out on this obtusive forum. I apologize if my desire for a laugh has eclipsed my absolute need to be afraid of terrorists, or liberals and has offended you.
And with that, good night!