NationStates Jolt Archive

From Meet the Press on January 11, 2004

I think the judgment of a nominee (Howard Dean) who doesn't understand that having Saddam Hussein captured will make it extraordinarily difficult to be able to beat an incumbent wartime president who captured Saddam Hussein. . . . Saddam Hussein took us to war once before. In that war, young Americans were killed. He went to war in order to take over the oil fields. It wasn't just an invasion of Kuwait. He was heading for the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. And that would have had a profound effect on the security of the United States. This is a man who used weapons of mass destruction, unlike other people on this Earth today, not only against other people - but against his own people. This is a man who tried to assassinate a former president of the United States, a man who lobbed 36 missiles into Israel in order to destabilize the Middle East, a man who is so capable of miscalculation that he even brought the war on himself. This is a man who, if he was left uncaptured, would have continued to be able to organize the Baathists. He would have continued to terrorize the people, just in their minds, because of 30 years of terror in Iraq.

end of quote

And now compare his most recent statement where Iraq was the wrong place, wrong war, wrong time.

One question for Kerry: WHAT IN THE WORLD DO YOU BELIEVE?!

Quotes like the ones above are going to be the reason why Bush kicks tail tomorrow night.

I don't think Kerry will be reading these forums, so don't hold your breath waiting for him to answer.

Bush will only kick tail if he can avoid thinking on his feet...Karl Rove may be a media manipulation genious, but "strategery, sovereignenities, and the country of Africa" can bring Bush down.

Bush will only kick tail if he can avoid thinking on his feet...Karl Rove may be a media manipulation genious, but "strategery, sovereignenities, and the country of Africa" can bring Bush down.

Why is politics so body-oriented?

Feet, tail, Bush...

I'll answer for Kerry

Kerry believes what every other rational person does at this point. He believes that Saddam was an evil man, capable of just about any act. Kerry also believes that Saddam should have been captured.

Now, how Kerry's views differ from the current administration's is like this:

The was no imminent threat from Saddam, so nothing would have been lost by waiting for an undetermined time for more international support, full supply of body armor to the men, better training and equipment for insurgency, better intelligence on conditions of key political factions in Iraq, more international support and aid, and full exploration of better/less destructive/more moral ways of conducting the regime change.

In the meantime, while our satellites and agents monitored the Iraq situation with the help of the UN and the UN weapons inspectors, we could have kept our primary focus on Afghanistan, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Osama Bin Laden. We could have done more to stabilize that country, and used it as a true beacon of our good intentions in the Middle East, helping to convert more moderate muslims to our cause.

Now, knowing what he knows today about how the war on Iraq would be carried out, Kerry says he would not have voted for it. I really can't blame him, can you?

if by kick tail you mean look likea buffoon at the hands of a more skilled debater, yes he will

have you seen bush without a script? can you say "i dont think we can win the war on terror"

There is a saying that hindsight is 20/20. Yes, you can regret a decision that you made, yes you can even change your mind about the decision you made, but come on. Kerry has flipped and flopped so much we can't tell where he stands.

There is a saying that hindsight is 20/20. Yes, you can regret a decision that you made, yes you can even change your mind about the decision you made, but come on. Kerry has flipped and flopped so much we can't tell where he stands.
only if your an idiot or just a republican

There is a saying that hindsight is 20/20. Yes, you can regret a decision that you made, yes you can even change your mind about the decision you made, but come on. Kerry has flipped and flopped so much we can't tell where he stands.

Is it just me, or does this person sound like a PR person for Bush?

From Meet the Press on January 11, 2004

I think the judgment of a nominee (Howard Dean) who doesn't understand that having Saddam Hussein captured will make it extraordinarily difficult to be able to beat an incumbent wartime president who captured Saddam Hussein. . . . Saddam Hussein took us to war once before. In that war, young Americans were killed. He went to war in order to take over the oil fields. It wasn't just an invasion of Kuwait. He was heading for the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. And that would have had a profound effect on the security of the United States. This is a man who used weapons of mass destruction, unlike other people on this Earth today, not only against other people - but against his own people. This is a man who tried to assassinate a former president of the United States, a man who lobbed 36 missiles into Israel in order to destabilize the Middle East, a man who is so capable of miscalculation that he even brought the war on himself. This is a man who, if he was left uncaptured, would have continued to be able to organize the Baathists. He would have continued to terrorize the people, just in their minds, because of 30 years of terror in Iraq.

end of quote

And now compare his most recent statement where Iraq was the wrong place, wrong war, wrong time.

One question for Kerry: WHAT IN THE WORLD DO YOU BELIEVE?!

Quotes like the ones above are going to be the reason why Bush kicks tail tomorrow night.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't think Kerry visits this forum. Maybe you should write him a letter or something. :cool:

if by kick tail you mean look likea buffoon at the hands of a more skilled debater, yes he will

have you seen bush without a script? can you say "i dont think we can win the war on terror"


You left out the "...in four years" part at the end. Wait, you meant to do that to make Bush look bad.

No I am not a PR person for Bush. Just a conservative college student that cares to see Bush elected. Kerry cannot be trusted as president. If his only justifications for being elected by this nation are that I'm a Vietnam vet, and I'm not Bush, then thats not enough. Give me a reason to vote for you instead of voting against the other guy. He hasn't done that, and I'm not expecting him to.

And to those whose only response is Kerry doesn't read these forums, why don't you actually respond to my post instead of being a smart aleck.

There is a saying that hindsight is 20/20. Yes, you can regret a decision that you made, yes you can even change your mind about the decision you made, but come on. Kerry has flipped and flopped so much we can't tell where he stands.
One of the most persistent arguments against Kerry from the Bush camp is his “flip-flop” attitude regarding every issue known to man. Indeed, for a person to change his stance on important issues in order to win an election would make him a verifiable, grade-A douchebag. The website linked to above contains a very long and detailed list, no doubt the hard work of two dozen political science undergrads looking to justify their existence. I read perhaps the first two thirds and skimmed the rest, because, as you're sure to notice, patterns begin forming very quickly. Some of the deception attempts are clever, even downright sneaky. Others are less well disguised. Let's take a look at a few of the ploys used by this page:

Observe the liberal usage of paraphrasing. In bending words to fit situations, the “...” is mans best friend. Perhaps it's that... excluding... certain pieces... [makes] excerpts more... convincing. Granted, it could be the case that these are earnest summaries of what was said, but it seems that many times the ellipsis is heading off in a different direction (Affirmative Action, Raising Taxes During Economic Downturn, Litmus Tests for Judicial Nominees, Federal Health Ben efits, Burma Sanctions, 1991 Iraq War Coalition). Also, there are abundant examples of paraphrasing not involving our three-dotted friend that are clearly quotes taken far out of context, or that have a misleading title that does not at all match the quote listed below (Iraq War, Gay Marriage Amendment, Attacking President During Time of War, Death Penalty for Terrorists, Cuba Sanctions, Health Coverage, Ballistic Missile Defense).

Additionally, there are a number of “flip-flops” that do not appear to be “flip-flops” at all. At best, they are minor shifts in opinion, and some of them are not even shifts, but two different opinions about two separate issues (Tapping Strategic Petroleum Reserve, War on Terror, Military Experience as Credential For Public Office, Medical Marijuana, Cuba Sanctions, Gay Marriage Amendment, Both Sides on the First Gulf War).

Of all these accusations, there are a few I would hope that John Kerry and any sensible person would “flip-flop” over, given events that have transpired since the original quote and the more recent one. For starters, I am happy that Kerry and many others are actively trying to do away with the Patriot Act, despite the fact that it was passed almost unanimously. Shortly following 9/11, the general sentiment around America was a desire to hunt down terrorists at all costs, even at the expense of a violation of personal privacy. Times have changed between then and now, and while the Patriot Act may have served its purpose in fighting terrorism, it's now being abused for non-terrorism causes, and that needs to stop. Also among notable “I would'da changed my mind too” scenarios:
Death Penalty for Terrorists (One quote was taken before 9/11, the other was taken after)
No Child Left Behind (Kerry voted for this act, and now thanks to gross mishandling by the Bush administration, it is largely a failure... even Republicans disapprove of how Bush has handled No Child Left Behind)
NAFTA (Originally voting for this in 1993, after witnessing its less-than-stellar outcome, Kerry has expressed regret ten years later)
Leaving Abortion Up to the States (Originally for this approach in 1972, Kerry changed his stance in 1985. I think 13 years is a fair time to re-evaluate one’s position.)
Litmus Tests for Judicial Nominees (With the original quote from 1986, I think it’s fair to slightly change one’s position over the course of almost two decades.)

This is not even to mention the numerous “flip-flops” that show Kerry supporting or not supporting something based on how he voted on a particular resolution. I have not the time nor the energy to look up and read through years-old legislation to find the true purpose of each resolution, but we can just assume that the Bush website has properly paraphrased these for us, right?
-Www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com

Possibly the most clever political website ever. Oh next to NationStates, of course...

You left out the "...in four years" part at the end. Wait, you meant to do that to make Bush look bad.

the four more years was never part of the quote im referring to, heres some transcript for you

Lauer: Let me ask you about deficits — this year, $445 billion. That’s ballpark. You think that's pretty good?

President Bush: Yeah, I do. I do.

...

President Bush: Well, I think it does in the long run. I really do. And I think it's very important for those of us running for office to explain how we're going to deal with the deficit. I’ve laid out a specific plan that shows the deficit being reduced by half in five years. It's going to require fiscal sanity in Washington, D.C.

Lauer: If the deficit does not come down, if you can't pay it down in half by 2008, will you raise taxes?

President Bush: It's going to come down by half. That’s the goal. I mean I…

...

Lauer: You said to me a second ago, one of the things you'll lay out in your vision for the next four years is how to go about winning the war on terror. That phrase strikes me a little bit. Do you really think we can win this war on terror in the next four years?

President Bush: I have never said we can win it in four years.

Lauer: So I’m just saying can we win it? Do you see that?

President Bush: I don’t think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world — let's put it that way. I have a two-pronged strategy. On the one hand is to find them before they hurt us, and that's necessary. I’m telling you it's necessary. The country must never yield, must never show weakness and must continue to lead. To find Al-Qaeda affiliates who are hiding around the world and want to harm us and bring ’em to justice — we're doing a good job of it. I mean we are dismantling the Al Qaedaas we knew it. The longterm strategy is to spread freedom and liberty, and that's really kind of an interesting debate. There's some who say, ‘You know certain people can't self-govern and accept, you know, a formal democracy.’ I just strongly disagree with that. I believe that democracy can take hold in parts of the world that are now non-democratic and I think it's necessary in order to defeat the ideologies of hate. History has shown that it can work, that spreading liberty does work. After all, Japan is our close ally and my dad fought against the Japanese. Prime Minister Koizumi is one of the closest collaborators I have in working to make the world a more peaceful place.

didnt he say you cant force democracy on people once?

No I am not a PR person for Bush. Just a conservative college student that cares to see Bush elected. Kerry cannot be trusted as president. If his only justifications for being elected by this nation are that I'm a Vietnam vet, and I'm not Bush, then thats not enough. Give me a reason to vote for you instead of voting against the other guy. He hasn't done that, and I'm not expecting him to. addressed in my follow up

And to those whose only response is Kerry doesn't read these forums, why don't you actually respond to my post instead of being a smart aleck.
why should they resond? you dont provide any INTELLIGENT information in your post. why whould we listen to you and not kerry, you claim the only thing kerry is running on is he is not bush, yet the only thing you havt to counter him is he is a supposed flip-flopper.

-Www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com

Possibly the most clever political website ever. Oh next to NationStates, of course...

Unshamed Christians you just got MODED!

Also if you are not a PR man for Bush maybe you can intelligently talk about Kerry rather than spout tired old party lines that have long been refuted (flip-flopper :rolleyes: , I'm not Bush :rolleyes: - Have you nothing of substance to share with the class?).

If you don't like flip-floppers then why do you like Bush despite the long list of flip-flops we got on him (see my signature)?

Here you go. Here's John Kerry's detailed plan for fighting the war on terror in the world and in our back yard.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0924.html
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0924.html

Feel free to disagree, but please don't say that he doesn't have a plan. That's just ignorance.