NationStates Jolt Archive

The Ultimate John Kerry Ad (http://johnkerryads.websiteanimal.com/)

heheh....

At least Kerry agrees with me!

It mixes up quotes from before the Iraq war and after the Iraq war though. Bush did not do what he was supposed to do. He got permission for a war against Iraq, after doing everything possible in the UN, which he did not do. So first Kerry gave him the vote for the war, but after Bush made a mess out of it, he changed his position.

Also now that the facts are out and the senators are seeing the truth, namely that the war was based on lies altogether, it is no surprise that they are not agreeing with themselves before the war on Iraq happened. They now know more than they did know then and thus can make a more qualified decision, which is, the war against Iraq is wrong, not just because Hussein had no WMD, but because the US did it in defiance of the UN charter.

Hmmm, I guess simple people can't understand the magic of selective editing and complex views.

For example. Kerry believes that we are spending too much in Iraq. He also believes more funds are needed. Flip-flop? No, he mererely thinks that the extra funds we require should come from other nations.

He was for disarming Saddam, but against this war. Flip-Flop? No. Facing Saddam has never been an issue. The competency and timing in how it was done is the question.

It's simple. You can believe the guy who got us into this mess, Bush, when he says Kerry is bad, but then offers up no new plan of his own and can't even admit to making any mistakes, or you can believe 48 nobel laureates, countless other scientists, dozens of prestigious business school professors, the international community, Bush own intelligence service, several Repulicans, several generals, several ambassadors and many, many more.

The choice is quite simple.

People continue to say that Kerry voted for the war. He didn't vote for the war, there never was a vote for the war. There was a vote to give the president the go ahead to use force if necessary. When it was taken, it was expected that the president would wait for the inspectors to find WMDs, then go in. Instead, when they weren't found, he decided to attack anyway. Whether you agree with the president or not, kerry never voted for the current situation.

:headbang:

Hmmm, I guess simple people can't understand the magic of selective editing and complex views.

For example. Kerry believes that we are spending too much in Iraq. He also believes more funds are needed. Flip-flop? No, he mererely thinks that the extra funds we require should come from other nations.
lets also note only a FRACTION of allocated money has been spent. lets sap funds from the appropriated money. we are spending money on imaginary things and the rebuilding of iraq instead of us and our stuff.

Anyone seen the Daily Show a while ago where Bush debated himself?

Anyone seen the Daily Show a while ago where Bush debated himself?
LOL

even if the man did change his mind later, what would be so wrong with that?

i mean, given the new information, who the hell wouldn't change their minds unless they were a stubborn ass.

Hmmm, I guess simple people can't understand the magic of selective editing and complex views.

Yeah, it's really amazing how you can make anyone say anything you so desire.

No need!

The Ultimate Kerry Ad is the past 4 years. ;)

Actually, the best John Kerry ad was something I spotted in DC at a pro-choice rally: A sign saying "John Kerry Sucks Less"

Actually, the best John Kerry ad was something I spotted in DC at a pro-choice rally: A sign saying "John Kerry Sucks Less"
Aaah, too true.

If you strongly support the Department of Homeland Security, George W Bush agrees with you.
If you strongly oppose the Department of Homeland Security, George W Bush agrees with you.

If you strongly support a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, George W Bush agrees with you.
If you strongly oppose having the federal government address the issue of gay marriage, George W Bush agrees with you.

If you support pork barrel spending, George W Bush agrees with you.
If you oppose pork barrel spending, George W Bush says he agrees with you.

If you think the US was wrong to not allow the UN weapon inspectors to finish their job in Iraq, George W Bush agrees with you.
If you think the US was right to not allow the UN weapon inspectors to finish their job in Iraq, George W Bush agrees with you.

If you strongly support the 9/11 Commission, George W Bush agrees with you.
If you strongly oppose the 9/11 Commission, George W Bush agrees with you.

If you strongly support increasing port security, George W Bush says he agrees with you.
If you strongly oppose increasing port security, George W Bush agrees with you.

If you strongly support capturing or killing Osama bin Laden, George W Bush agrees with you.
If you think Osama bin Laden doesn't matter, George W Bush agrees with you.

If you think the US can win the war against terrorists, George W Bush agrees with you.
If you think the US can not win the war against terrorists, George W Bush agrees with you.

George W Bush: He agrees with you no matter what you think.

that was pointless/UNORIGINAL u should go to iraq and live there

that was pointless/UNORIGINAL u should go to iraq and live there

I you are commenting on the Bush flip-flop list, yes, it is pointless and unorginal. Referring, of course, to the Bush Presidency. Leave it to Bush II to make Bush I seem like a good President by comparison.

Fewer jobs that 4 years ago.

More terrorists than there were 4 years ago.

More people in poverty in the US.

More personal bankruptcies than in any time in history.

5 million fewer people with health insurance.

The most partisan split in America since the Civil War.

The highest oil prices in history.

and many, many more...

Hah! Excellent commercial ;)

Funny how Kerry wants people to think he only voted for the 'authorization' for war, while in 1991, he hectored the senate about how voting for the option of force was the same thing as voting for a war. Kerry flips again (or was that the flop?).

that was pointless/UNORIGINAL u should go to iraq and live there

Please try to capitalize your written thoughts in the accepted fashion. Not to mention get out of the trailer park every so often.

that was pointless/UNORIGINAL u should go to iraq and live there
What's your point? :rolleyes:

Hah! Excellent commercial ;)

Funny how Kerry wants people to think he only voted for the 'authorization' for war, while in 1991, he hectored the senate about how voting for the option of force was the same thing as voting for a war. Kerry flips again (or was that the flop?).

Two different votes on two different wars! Oh my god, let's lynch him!

Seriously, though, Kerry never voted for "war" on that day in October 2002. Read the original, which is available here in the forums, and you will see the truth yourself...or you can refuse to even look at it and remain a pawn to your ignorance.

That's great! LOL! I'm laughing at this! :P

Two different votes on two different wars! Oh my god, let's lynch him!

Seriously, though, Kerry never voted for "war" on that day in October 2002. Read the original, which is available here in the forums, and you will see the truth yourself...or you can refuse to even look at it and remain a pawn to your ignorance.

Voting for a resolution to authorize war either is or isn't support for war. In '91, he thought it was, but in '02 he thought it wasn't? Meh.

If you strongly support the Department of Homeland Security, George W Bush agrees with you.
If you strongly oppose the Department of Homeland Security, George W Bush agrees with you.

If you strongly support a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, George W Bush agrees with you.
If you strongly oppose having the federal government address the issue of gay marriage, George W Bush agrees with you.

If you support pork barrel spending, George W Bush agrees with you.
If you oppose pork barrel spending, George W Bush says he agrees with you.

If you think the US was wrong to not allow the UN weapon inspectors to finish their job in Iraq, George W Bush agrees with you.
If you think the US was right to not allow the UN weapon inspectors to finish their job in Iraq, George W Bush agrees with you.

If you strongly support the 9/11 Commission, George W Bush agrees with you.
If you strongly oppose the 9/11 Commission, George W Bush agrees with you.

If you strongly support increasing port security, George W Bush says he agrees with you.
If you strongly oppose increasing port security, George W Bush agrees with you.

If you strongly support capturing or killing Osama bin Laden, George W Bush agrees with you.
If you think Osama bin Laden doesn't matter, George W Bush agrees with you.

If you think the US can win the war against terrorists, George W Bush agrees with you.
If you think the US can not win the war against terrorists, George W Bush agrees with you.

George W Bush: He agrees with you no matter what you think.

Well said.

Hah! Excellent commercial ;)

Funny how Kerry wants people to think he only voted for the 'authorization' for war, while in 1991, he hectored the senate about how voting for the option of force was the same thing as voting for a war. Kerry flips again (or was that the flop?).

Kerry gave authorization on the condition that Bush would keep his myriad promises on the subject. The War Authorization is a case of Bush flip-flopping, not Kerry.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=363622

to see Kerry's October 9th, 2002 Senate speech.

Read it, and then tell me how Kerry has flip-flopped.

Kerry gave authorization on the condition that Bush would keep his myriad promises on the subject. The War Authorization is a case of Bush flip-flopping, not Kerry.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=363622

to see Kerry's October 9th, 2002 Senate speech.

Read it, and then tell me how Kerry has flip-flopped.

In '91, authorization meant war, according to Kerry. Nowadays, he's going around claiming he was tricked. He wasn't tricked. He knew what he voted for.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=40&can_id=S0421103

It's simple. You can believe the guy who got us into this mess, Bush, when he says Kerry is bad, but then offers up no new plan of his own and can't even admit to making any mistakes, or you can believe 48 nobel laureates, countless other scientists, dozens of prestigious business school professors, the international community, Bush own intelligence service, several Repulicans, several generals, several ambassadors and many, many more.

BRILLIANT!!! Yes, you can either agree with one guy - apparently the only one, based on your post, who supported going into Iraq - or the numerous others you listed. Because we know there was nobody else who supported going in, right? John Edwards never listed Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as the three top threats to the US, with Iraq being the most urgent threat. Right? John Kerry didn't say, after we had already gone in, that he thought we may still yet find WMDs. Right? It hasn't come out that Saddam himself has said he tried to deceive people into thinking he had WMDs because of his own ego and his own belief that he needed to convey that image so countries like Iran thought he was strong. Right? Saddam's own cabinet members haven't come out and say THEY believed Iraq had WMDs. Right? Russia, France, England, Germany (basically the UN)...they didn't all agree that Saddam definitely had WMDs. Right? Oh that's right, Russia and France were against going in. Oh that's right, it wasn't based on Iraq not having WMDs, it was based on Saddam giving them billions of dollars that he was taking from the Food for Oil scam. That's why France said they would NEVER support the US effort going into Iraq. Not "they'll have to give further proof," but "NEVER."

Look, you can try to throw out your political babble, just as I can counter with mine. The bottom line is that both guys are politicians who are trying to win votes. They each have positives and negatives, depending on who you side with. When it comes to what they will do, it's just a matter of which approach you support. When it comes to terrorists, do you support the "go get them before they get you" approach or do you like the "we'll treat them like crimes when they happen" approach? Are you pro-life or pro-choice? There are differences, but it's not like either man is an evil being who loves to eat human flesh for breakfast. I don't agree with Kerry on most things (though I think he has made some good points), but I don't think he's a bad guy. I'm sure I would like him much more if I could hang out with him at a bar or coffee house than I do in the political arena, and the same goes for G.W. Bush.

Kerry voted forauthorization to use force after all diplomatic possibilities were exhausted. Bush rushed to the war, ignored the UN, threw the weapons inspectors out of Iraq and needlessly sacrificed thousands of Iraqi and American lives. Kerry did not flip-flop. Bush betrayed the US senate by abusing the authority he was entrusted with.

In '91, authorization meant war, according to Kerry. Nowadays, he's going around claiming he was tricked. He wasn't tricked. He knew what he voted for.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=40&can_id=S0421103

READ THE GODDAMNED SPEECH! You obviously haven't. You know are listed in my book as "idiot" since you can't even do something as simple as clicking a mouse button.

Look, since so many people admit that 9/11 changed everything, why can't you let Kerry have that same justification? Different times in 1991, different circumstances, different emotions, different everything.

Now, if you read the words of Kerry's speech, and then find the speech that Bush made that day, it makes it 100% crystal clear that Bush simply went back on his word to congress.

If you disagree, please point out in the actual text the parts that support your argument. Otherwise, you are simply saying something is so merely because you say it is so. You are keeping yourself intentionally ignorant, because the truth may make you realize you were wrong. It sucks to have one's illusions shattered, but hey, it's life. Life is tough. Suck it up and read the speeches.

BRILLIANT!!! Yes, you can either agree with one guy - apparently the only one, based on your post, who supported going into Iraq - or the numerous others you listed. Because we know there was nobody else who supported going in, right? John Edwards never listed Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as the three top threats to the US, with Iraq being the most urgent threat. Right? John Kerry didn't say, after we had already gone in, that he thought we may still yet find WMDs. Right? It hasn't come out that Saddam himself has said he tried to deceive people into thinking he had WMDs because of his own ego and his own belief that he needed to convey that image so countries like Iran thought he was strong. Right? Saddam's own cabinet members haven't come out and say THEY believed Iraq had WMDs. Right? Russia, France, England, Germany (basically the UN)...they didn't all agree that Saddam definitely had WMDs. Right? Oh that's right, Russia and France were against going in. Oh that's right, it wasn't based on Iraq not having WMDs, it was based on Saddam giving them billions of dollars that he was taking from the Food for Oil scam. That's why France said they would NEVER support the US effort going into Iraq. Not "they'll have to give further proof," but "NEVER."

Look, you can try to throw out your political babble, just as I can counter with mine. The bottom line is that both guys are politicians who are trying to win votes. They each have positives and negatives, depending on who you side with. When it comes to what they will do, it's just a matter of which approach you support. When it comes to terrorists, do you support the "go get them before they get you" approach or do you like the "we'll treat them like crimes when they happen" approach? Are you pro-life or pro-choice? There are differences, but it's not like either man is an evil being who loves to eat human flesh for breakfast. I don't agree with Kerry on most things (though I think he has made some good points), but I don't think he's a bad guy. I'm sure I would like him much more if I could hang out with him at a bar or coffee house than I do in the political arena, and the same goes for G.W. Bush.


Look. I'm not, and no one else is saying Bush was the only one who wanted to go into Iraq. Where I strongly disagree with Bush, and this is the same stance Kerry has had all along, is how he went into Iraq, and how long he prepared. Bush, long before the $87 billion dollar appropriations bill, sent numerous soldiers in without armor...then criticizes Kerry for it. Things have not gone well, and Bush has blames every single person but himself.

This is not an election about ideologies, it's about competence. Bush simply can't handle the job, and can't admit it when anything goes wrong. This, my friend, is the antithesis of leadership. Yes, Kerry is flawed. Yes, Kerry may be opportunistic (I think any politician at that level is such,) but he is clearly more intelligent, and much much more knowledgable in getting cooperation.

Yes, Kerry may be opportunistic (I think any politician at that level is such,) but he is clearly more intelligent, and much much more knowledgable in getting cooperation.

I'm not so sure Kerry is more knowledgable in getting cooperation. I think Bush makes a good point when noting that Kerry claims he'll get the support of other countries, though he says it's the wrong war and the wrong time. Why would you support something that's wrong all the way around? Also, how would Kerry have been able to get the initial support of Russia and France when they were being paid off? I will say that the Republicans have tried to make their coalition seem larger than it really is, but Kerry is also wrong by degrading those who are in the coalition. So, again, I'm not so sure he is as knowledgable as people think when it comes to getting cooperation. Plus, it's much easier to say what you would have done after it's already over. I can tell you what lottery numbers I would have played last week had I played and, amazingly, they would all be right.

Look, I'm not saying Bush has done everything correctly with Iraq. It's a situation where things change and original plans have to be scrapped. However, I think Kerry is really taking advantage of the situation and playing politics with it.

As for the flip-flops, I agree that several things have been taken out of context and that the initial "vote for the war" was merely if the other options were exhausted. But it's up to the President to decide when those options have indeed been exhausted. But Kerry has gone back and forth with some statements. For example, he did say not too long ago, that he would still agree with going to war knowing what he knows now (and at that point it was apparent they weren't going to find WMDs). But then he'll turn around and rip Bush for making the choice. It's much easier to be a critic than it is to be the one who actually has to make the call. And I think Kerry realizes that Bush has one way to go for explaining where he stands (his actions speak for themselves), while Kerry can try to straddle the fence and play to everyone. It's politics and they're both trying to tip things their own way to win votes. But to say Kerry is such a genius, a great leader, a more honest guy, blah, blah, blah...I don't buy it.

I'm not so sure Kerry is more knowledgable in getting cooperation. I think Bush makes a good point when noting that Kerry claims he'll get the support of other countries, though he says it's the wrong war and the wrong time. Why would you support something that's wrong all the way around? Also, how would Kerry have been able to get the initial support of Russia and France when they were being paid off? I will say that the Republicans have tried to make their coalition seem larger than it really is, but Kerry is also wrong by degrading those who are in the coalition. So, again, I'm not so sure he is as knowledgable as people think when it comes to getting cooperation. Plus, it's much easier to say what you would have done after it's already over. I can tell you what lottery numbers I would have played last week had I played and, amazingly, they would all be right.

Look, I'm not saying Bush has done everything correctly with Iraq. It's a situation where things change and original plans have to be scrapped. However, I think Kerry is really taking advantage of the situation and playing politics with it.

As for the flip-flops, I agree that several things have been taken out of context and that the initial "vote for the war" was merely if the other options were exhausted. But it's up to the President to decide when those options have indeed been exhausted. But Kerry has gone back and forth with some statements. For example, he did say not too long ago, that he would still agree with going to war knowing what he knows now (and at that point it was apparent they weren't going to find WMDs). But then he'll turn around and rip Bush for making the choice. It's much easier to be a critic than it is to be the one who actually has to make the call. And I think Kerry realizes that Bush has one way to go for explaining where he stands (his actions speak for themselves), while Kerry can try to straddle the fence and play to everyone. It's politics and they're both trying to tip things their own way to win votes. But to say Kerry is such a genius, a great leader, a more honest guy, blah, blah, blah...I don't buy it.

Where to start. First off, if Kerry is elected, it'll be easier for him to say, "look, we got into this shitcan of a war, and it was a mistake. The former administration pushed you away, but now we need your help. In order to make it right, and to make the region stable so that it benefits everyone (since terrorism is global and can strike any country,) the cooperation of the global community is essential. Sorry again for screwing up.

Now, not admitting that mistakes were made keeps everyone out, and is causing coalition members to drop out as well, as Poland is (must not forget Poland!)

Diplomatic pressures could have continued to be applied to France and Russia...especially if their dirty secret came out. What a barganing chip that would have been in different circumstances!

This is not hindsight on Kerry's part. He called it before the war started (please please please read the war authorization speech I linked to earlier.)

Yes, he said he would still vote for the authorization. The reason why is located in his speech that everyone refuses to read.

This war is the wrong war, wrong time. That's what allies are for, to help you get out of messes. What's the point of calling on the aid of an ally if everything is going great?

Yes, both are politicians, but Bush has lied repeatedly on the most grave of subjects, and conducted (or has had conducted on his behalf) absolutely vicious smear campaigns on anyone who would critcize him, including John McCain, a member of his own party. Kerry may be no prize (though I think he's better than his current reputation...we all know Rove is a master smear artist,) but he is head and shoulders above Bush.

Also, if Kerry is so hated by the world, why do the major nations pretty much universally prefer him, as shown by numerous poll?

Doesn't it strike you as odd that the main arguments agasinst Kerry pretty much come from the mouths of Bush or his surrogates, while criticism of Bush is widespread?

How about this?

Bush is the President of the United States. As all Presidents have done since the first George... George Washington, he has placed blame on other political figures. That's what beurocracies do.

John Kerry. He is a Senator fighting for the Presidency. Enough said.

You are all talking about two different political figure heads.

No political figure takes his own opinions and project them. They take the view of those who give the views. Why would a President say something unless his advisors told him it is what the American People need to hear.

I am a Soldier in the United States Army. I have been deployed to the Republic of Korea, to deter a threat by the North Koreans, to the safety of the Democracy of South Korea.

As a Soldier and Citizen, I am NOT voting in this year's election.

Why?

Because I am disgusted with the democratic process of the past year.

I'm supposed to defend the right for people to bicker like babies? Terrorist are not the fault of the United States. So "there's more terrorist now than 4 years ago" is pointless bullshit. 9-11 was planned, for several years, do the math. Sadaam Hussein should have never been put into power (and yes, by the United States, at that!). All that is in the past.

Americans are now crying because they have to deal with terrorism and war?! What have the Isrealites and Palestinians been going through for CENTURIES?!

Welcome to the rest of the world, U.S.

Face the facts. No matter who is/was/will be President, America will always be hated. The same was true for the British Empire, Cold-War Russia, and WWII Germany. There's always a "global bad guy." At least it's us. I trust the U.S. I don't really trust the safety of the world to Iran, North Korea, Russia, or Britain.

People need to stop bickering, and come to the realization my brothers-and sisters-in-arms are dying every day. No, not in a pointless war. No, not in a worthy cause. We are dying because it is our oath to our Nation to do. I don't want to hear another damned thing about the U.S. military in this election. We are not a political tool. No civilian should ever speak ill of the military. If it wasn't for the militias 228 years ago, we wouldn't even be a nation.

Let us do our jobs, by protecting your right to bitch and moan.

How about this?

Bush is the President of the United States. As all Presidents have done since the first George... George Washington, he has placed blame on other political figures. That's what beurocracies do.

John Kerry. He is a Senator fighting for the Presidency. Enough said.

You are all talking about two different political figure heads.

No political figure takes his own opinions and project them. They take the view of those who give the views. Why would a President say something unless his advisors told him it is what the American People need to hear.

I am a Soldier in the United States Army. I have been deployed to the Republic of Korea, to deter a threat by the North Koreans, to the safety of the Democracy of South Korea.

As a Soldier and Citizen, I am NOT voting in this year's election.

Why?

Because I am disgusted with the democratic process of the past year.

I'm supposed to defend the right for people to bicker like babies? Terrorist are not the fault of the United States. So "there's more terrorist now than 4 years ago" is pointless bullshit. 9-11 was planned, for several years, do the math. Sadaam Hussein should have never been put into power (and yes, by the United States, at that!). All that is in the past.

Americans are now crying because they have to deal with terrorism and war?! What have the Isrealites and Palestinians been going through for CENTURIES?!

Welcome to the rest of the world, U.S.

Face the facts. No matter who is/was/will be President, America will always be hated. The same was true for the British Empire, Cold-War Russia, and WWII Germany. There's always a "global bad guy." At least it's us. I trust the U.S. I don't really trust the safety of the world to Iran, North Korea, Russia, or Britain.

People need to stop bickering, and come to the realization my brothers-and sisters-in-arms are dying every day. No, not in a pointless war. No, not in a worthy cause. We are dying because it is our oath to our Nation to do. I don't want to hear another damned thing about the U.S. military in this election. We are not a political tool. No civilian should ever speak ill of the military. If it wasn't for the militias 228 years ago, we wouldn't even be a nation.

Let us do our jobs, by protecting your right to bitch and moan.

Agreed. Isn't it fair to criticize the people in power who face no danger themselves but who sent your bretheren into battle for reasons that now seem flimsy, to say the least? Ultimately it is Bush, who holds the highest office, who must shoulder the responsibility, and thus the blame?

I, for one, am smart enough to be able to seperate the war and the warrior in my mind. Should not our Commander in Chief be able to do the same?

I, for one, am smart enough to be able to seperate the war and the warrior in my mind. Should not our Commander in Chief be able to do the same?

John Kerry couldn't during Vietnam.

I would answer your question (however rhetorical it may be), however my particular opinion on the Presidency and this war are biased, so I shall refrain from commenting.

John Kerry couldn't during Vietnam.

Again, if you read his original speech from the time, he made it quite clear, 100% clear that he was criticizing the policy makers, not the soldiers. Of course, you've only seen quotes taken out of context.

If people keep whining about Bush and Kerry, there might be a vote for "no confidence." Then we'd have to go to socialist! o.O

Again, if you read his original speech from the time, he made it quite clear, 100% clear that he was criticizing the policy makers, not the soldiers. Of course, you've only seen quotes taken out of context.

I know, the wonderful John Kerry was criticizing the policy makers when making the accusations that our soldiers commit atrocities. Makes sense to me. I realize Kerry had issues with the government, but for you to say that his claims were not critical of the soldiers as well is shocking. Come on, I realize you're supporting Kerry, but if you're going to knock Bush for not admitting mistakes, please hold Kerry to the mistakes he has made. Being critical of our troops was one of his biggest flubs.

(OK, I must run now. FYI - I have printed out the speech and plan on reading it shortly)

Thank you very much, Senator Fulbright, Senator Javits, Senator Symington, Senator Pell. I would like to say for the record, and also for the men behind me who are also wearing the uniforms and their medals, that my sitting here is really symbolic. I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of one thousand, which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony.

I would simply like to speak in very general terms. I apologize if my statement is general because I received notification yesterday you would hear me and I am afraid because of the injunction I was up most of the night and haven't had a great deal of chance to prepare.

Winter soldier Investigation

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

see, he was representing others who testified as to their OWN war crimes

Well i am biased myself but i shall comment anyway.

Wanna know the reason why everyone hates America? Because they keep sticking their noses where it doesn't belong. Nuff said. saying that though it is better that the US is policing the world than say Cold War Russia. Kerry should win the election but i find that he didn't run his campaign well which might cause him to lose the election.

2 questions. Firstly why do republicans resort to saying that liberals "Hate America". The amount of bullshit i hear about Kerry and Moore is obsered (SPELLING!!!).
Secondly what do you actually see in George Bush? He is sending away your children into Iraq fighting for people who don't want them in there. But you now have to fix the mess you made but we can't because you have to keep on fighting and dying to keep the peace so you can actually work.

here's the whole thing. Please read it, at the very least so that you have an accurate and unedited reason to dislike John Kerry (though I think this may help you to change your mind.)

http://www.c-span.org/2004vote/jkerrytestimony.asp

While it is a major part of politics to make someone look bad. It also shows how cowardly he/she is. He/she is not confident in his/her abilities,and even though what Kerry said was actually true. It is still a low thing to do. Then again Bush has done the same thing too.

that was pointless/UNORIGINAL u should go to iraq and live there

Awww...Does someone want to take their bat and ball and go home?

:(

I'm not so sure Kerry is more knowledgable in getting cooperation. I think Bush makes a good point when noting that Kerry claims he'll get the support of other countries, though he says it's the wrong war and the wrong time. Why would you support something that's wrong all the way around? Also, how would Kerry have been able to get the initial support of Russia and France when they were being paid off?

I honestly don't know if the verbage is in any of the 'plans', but here's the skinny. The current administration, for whatever reason, refuses to let anyone else in on the rebuilding efforts. Their contention has, and appearently will always be, that if you weren't in the initial alliance, you don't deserve any of the lucrative re-construction work to follow. As long as they continue to keep European companies from making any money in Iraq, European countries will refuse to support the effort.

It's really simple if you want France, Germany, Russia, or Uzbekistan involved. You suck it up, stop giving your Haliburton cronys all the juicy concrats and start spreading the ill gotten gains around. Those other countries would spin on a dime to get involved if there were profit in it.

And before anyone goes off about how it may 'hurt' America, an american company, or our economy, I can only say that America isn't the only country in the world. France and Germany have been our Allies for decades. Making ones allies stronger isn't a bad thing. And in the post 9/11 world, we need our allies as strong and as wealthy as they can be to help us combat terror.

For example, he did say not too long ago, that he would still agree with going to war knowing what he knows now (and at that point it was apparent they weren't going to find WMDs). But then he'll turn around and rip Bush for making the choice.

Now you just called how things were being taken out of context and then follow it up with this? He said he would still agree that the president should have authorization to make that decision. Not that we should have gone to war.

You see, Kerry believes, and on this I disagree with him, that the Executive branch should have the diplomatic option to declare war whenever 'negotiating' with a hostile foreign power who may have ties with terrorism. He believes that congress should grant him that power to use as a last resort whenever dealing with a rogue state. I.E. that the PUSA should have a stick in his pocket whenever needed.

I'm supposed to defend the right for people to bicker like babies?

Unfortunately, yes. If I remember the oath correctly, you swore to protect and defend the nation and it's constitution, which includes freedom of speech. If you don't like it, perhaps you should try and get out.

Americans are now crying because they have to deal with terrorism and war?! What have the Isrealites and Palestinians been going through for CENTURIES?!

You may want to check the facts vis-a-vis Israel and Palestine, you are exaggeratting the timeline a bit. Unless you are trying to include all the tribal factions that fought on the same land. But that statement could equally be applied to 80% of the land within the united states.

Face the facts. No matter who is/was/will be President, America will always be hated. The same was true for the British Empire, Cold-War Russia, and WWII Germany. There's always a "global bad guy." At least it's us. I trust the U.S. I don't really trust the safety of the world to Iran, North Korea, Russia, or Britain.

You are correct. There will always be people who hate us. However, is it not better to have a leader willing to bring allies closer to strengthen our defenses against those who hate us rather than one who willfully disregards and pushes them away?

People need to stop bickering, and come to the realization my brothers-and sisters-in-arms are dying every day. No, not in a pointless war. No, not in a worthy cause. We are dying because it is our oath to our Nation to do. I don't want to hear another damned thing about the U.S. military in this election. We are not a political tool. No civilian should ever speak ill of the military. If it wasn't for the militias 228 years ago, we wouldn't even be a nation.

Let us do our jobs, by protecting your right to bitch and moan.

I disagree with you. Freedom of speech is about people being free to say things even if, and especially when they are unpopular. It is in the constitution as an absolute, not a subjective statement. It is there to protect the speech that I hate, as much as the speech I agree with. I certainly agree that I don't like hearing people disregard the military, but I will happily fight and die to defend their right to do so.

Unfortunately, yes. If I remember the oath correctly, you swore to protect and defend the nation and it's constitution, which includes freedom of speech. If you don't like it, perhaps you should try and get out.

You're right. What was I thinking trying to serve my nation? I have no qualms with defending free speech, however I have absolutely no desire to protect ignorance, and those who dispense it.

You may want to check the facts vis-à-vis Israel and Palestine, you are exaggerating the timeline a bit. Unless you are trying to include all the tribal factions that fought on the same land. But that statement could equally be applied to 80% of the land within the united states.

What I am referring to is the fact that Islamic and Israeli radicals have been fighting for over approx. 2000 years. If you also wish to recognize the Native American "Wars," that would also include England, Spain and France, to name a few, as well as draw a very gray line between war and terrorism. (But wait, aren't those guys our major allies?)

You are correct. There will always be people who hate us. However, is it not better to have a leader willing to bring allies closer to strengthen our defenses against those who hate us rather than one who willfully disregards and pushes them away?

What is the purpose in sucking up to those who would threaten us if we do not agree with their demands. If the United States were also to cease all actions that were not previously approved by the United Nations, would we really have sovereignty, or "bought-out democracy?"

Furthermore, you may want to bring to light the fact the President does not directly lead the nation. As in all bureaucracies, the facts, and decisions, are brought forth by advisors. You can thank the Secretary of Defense (or Secretary of War, if you will) for the Iraqi and Afghanistan conflicts, not the Commander-in-Chief.

I disagree with you. Freedom of speech is about people being free to say things even if, and especially when they are unpopular. It is in the constitution as an absolute, not a subjective statement. It is there to protect the speech that I hate, as much as the speech I agree with. I certainly agree that I don't like hearing people disregard the military, but I will happily fight and die to defend their right to do so.

I agree. I believe it was said best: "I may not agree with a single thing you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." However, I think people need to realize that the majority of troops DO NOT have major disagreements with the war in the Central Theater. We understand why we are there. It is not for oil, it is to spread democracy and freedoms to a region of the world where hate, and terrorism spawns. To say there are no terrorists in Iraq is to also say there are no politicians in Washington, DC.

That ad is for dumb people. Seriously, can you not see the difference between voting FOR the US president to have the authority to go to war against Iraq as a LAST RESORT, when all other diplomatic measures have failed and with the support of the UN and internation community as opposed to being AGAINST invading a sovereign country based on fake intelligence with the support of Britain, Spain and Poland? Don't forget Poland!

~edit~

We understand why we are there. It is not for oil, it is to spread democracy and freedoms to a region of the world where hate, and terrorism spawns. To say there are no terrorists in Iraq is to also say there are no politicians in Washington, DC.

Sorry, I just have to respond to this. Might I point out that we may want to cite the original reason for going to war in this instance. It was not the initial intent of this administration (note, I said administration in deference to your reminder that we are led indirectly by the President... I will address this further in a bit) to bring democracy and freedom to the Middle Eastern region. It was the intent of this administration to stop/remove the weapons of mass destruction from Iraq. As Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, the last desperate attempt at legitimizing this war has been to cry freedom and democracy. When we went to Iraq, we couldn't have cared less if they were free and democratic (as with Afghanistan which was a nation practically practicing genocide against its women).

Regarding the "indirect leadership" of the President, that's a fact. He doesn't have as much power as many people think he has. He does, however, have the power to appoint others to his cabinet. That cabinet (and those appointed members) combined with the President himself, do weild a large amount of power. Please bear that in mind when you imply that the President doesn't call the shots with respect to the war.

Thanks.