NationStates Jolt Archive


377 Tons of Bullsh*t

Lunatic Goofballs
28-10-2004, 05:27
Okay, This is hard for me to say because I hate the arrogant prick but; How can anyone blame Bush for the missing explosives?

Is Dubya a master strategist? Hardly. He couldn't even figure out when he should report for duty. He couldn't chew a pretzel. He waves to blind men. A pillar of sharp thinking he isn't. Bush most likely had nothing to do with the decisions of what constituted high priority locations in Iraq to guard. He probably had nothing to do with the military blunder of a disappearance of that magnitude.

If I can blame Bush for anything it is in not securing adequate troops, both U.S. and International to make certain all objectives could be met. He was more concerned with a U.S. Victory than with a victory.

But does anybody honestly think He's calling the shots on Iraqi strategy? As badly bungled as the War on Terror is, I just don't see his degree of bungling.

So don't blame Bush for things he can't control. Blame him for the things he can. :D
Sdaeriji
28-10-2004, 05:29
Man, you really need to stop with these serious posts, man. I see your name and expect something humorous, not actual political conversation. You're confusing me.
Khockist
28-10-2004, 05:31
Doesn't matter. God is on his side, didn't you know that? I mean why did God destroy all of his investments and make him trade really awesome baseball players? So he could go to the bottom and the next logical step is the Whitehouse. But just check something out next time he makes a speech. He doesn't speak while Dick Cheney is drinking water...
Lunatic Goofballs
28-10-2004, 05:32
Man, you really need to stop with these serious posts, man. I see your name and expect something humorous, not actual political conversation. You're confusing me.

Sorry. The Lunar Eclipse is warping my fragile mind. http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0304/aetsch/cheeky-smiley-005.gif
Pepe Dominguez
28-10-2004, 05:32
Bush never waved to a blind man.... (or Stevie Wonder, depending on which version of the myth you believe). Seriously though, the weapons were gone before we got there, and the proof's going to have to hit the air in the next few days.. there's too much for the media to bury. Anyone hear from Kerry lately? You'd think CBS would figure out that keeping Bush as their top story, especially when they'll have to retract it eventually, is a bad way to put Kerry in the spotlight.. ;)
Waynesburg
28-10-2004, 06:01
Let's see who thinks is smarter when this story is all said and done.
Kerry for calling out Bush demanding for answers when all the facts were not accounted for?
Bush for not saying anything until all the facts are accounted for?
Pantylvania
28-10-2004, 06:01
they weren't missing before Bush kicked the UN weapon inspectors out of Iraq in March
Waynesburg
28-10-2004, 06:23
they weren't missing before Bush kicked the UN weapon inspectors out of Iraq in March
You know this for a fact, right? Also, Bush didn't kick out the inspectors before the invasion as he had no authority to do so.
THE LOST PLANET
28-10-2004, 06:27
I don't blame Bush for being the dim bulb on the tree, I blame the people who think that such a dullard should be our Commander-in-Chief. You don't blame a pig for being a pig, but you should try to smack some sense in the guy trying to teach it to sing.
MunkeBrain
28-10-2004, 06:29
You know this for a fact, right? Also, Bush didn't kick out the inspectors before the invasion as he had no authority to do so.
Apparently Pantlyvania is one of the inspectors who discoved the explosives were missing.
Incertonia
28-10-2004, 06:32
If I can blame Bush for anything it is in not securing adequate troops, both U.S. and International to make certain all objectives could be met. He was more concerned with a U.S. Victory than with a victory.
Here's the thing, LG--Bush and his administration overrode the military people who told him they needed more troops. As a result, we have tons of explosive missing--whether it's 377 or 30, it's still tons of explosives, and we know some of it was there because an NBC reporter saw some of strewn on the ground from where bunkers had been blown open by aerial attack. She was an imbed for NBC News. So because the initial planning was so slipshod, we can blame Bush and his administration for the aftermath, namely, the missing munitions.
Pepe Dominguez
28-10-2004, 06:35
Here's the thing, LG--Bush and his administration overrode the military people who told him they needed more troops. As a result, we have tons of explosive missing--whether it's 377 or 30, it's still tons of explosives, and we know some of it was there because an NBC reporter saw some of strewn on the ground from where bunkers had been blown open by aerial attack. She was an imbed for NBC News. So because the initial planning was so slipshod, we can blame Bush and his administration for the aftermath, namely, the missing munitions.

Yeah.. Bush overrode "the military people."
Incertonia
28-10-2004, 06:39
Yeah.. Bush overrode "the military people."His administration did, and as he's the head of that administration, the buck stops with him.
MunkeBrain
28-10-2004, 06:49
Yeah.. Bush overrode "the military people."
Bush sat down to a conference call before the war and asked each commander if he had everything he needed. Each said Yes. This is just a trite person making hay of nothing
Pepe Dominguez
28-10-2004, 06:52
His administration did, and as he's the head of that administration, the buck stops with him.

You realize that the military isn't one person, with one opinion, right? Unless you think Bush just fires everyone who disagreed with him on any issue, like Kerry's suggesting (wrongly) about Gen. Shinseki...
Goed
28-10-2004, 07:12
You realize that the military isn't one person, with one opinion, right? Unless you think Bush just fires everyone who disagreed with him on any issue, like Kerry's suggesting (wrongly) about Gen. Shinseki...

But I do know the chain of command, and what he says goes.

If he says "these are the troops we're sending," then the generals and whatnot can't say "No"
Pantylvania
28-10-2004, 07:43
You know this for a fact, right? Also, Bush didn't kick out the inspectors before the invasion as he had no authority to do so.Yes, assuming there's not some vast conspiracy to trick the world.

"The explosives -- considered powerful enough to demolish buildings or detonate nuclear warheads -- were under IAEA control until the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003." http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.explosives/

"2003
January
IAEA inspectors view the explosives at Al-Qaqaa for the last time. The inspectors take an inventory and again place storage bunkers at Al-Qaqaa under agency seal.
February
IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei tells the United Nations that Iraq has declared that “HMX previously under IAEA seal had been transferred for use in the production of industrial explosives.” This apparently didn’t include the HMX that remained under seal at Al-Qaqaa.
March 9-15
Nuclear agency inspectors visit Al-Qaqaa for the last time but apparently don’t examine the explosives because the seals aren’t broken. The inspectors then pull out of the country." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933

"Before the war, the explosives were being monitored by the IAEA because they can be used in nuclear bombs to trigger a nuclear explosion." http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-10-25-missing-explosives_x.htm

"IAEA inspectors visited the site in late 2002 and early 2003 before the war, sealing and tagging the stockpiles of “high explosives.”" http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136663,00.html



As for Bush kicking the weapon inspectors out,

"Yesterday UNMOVIC, the [International] Atomic [Energy] Agency and myself got information from the United States authorities that it would be prudent not to leave our staff in the region. I have just informed the Council that we will withdraw the UNMOVIC and Atomic Agency inspectors,..." http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=433&sID=7


But hey, maybe it's all just a vast conspiracy to hide whatever Waynesburg thinks is the truth
Waynesburg
28-10-2004, 07:55
Yes, assuming there's not some vast conspiracy to trick the world.

"The explosives -- considered powerful enough to demolish buildings or detonate nuclear warheads -- were under IAEA control until the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003." http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.explosives/

"2003
January
IAEA inspectors view the explosives at Al-Qaqaa for the last time. The inspectors take an inventory and again place storage bunkers at Al-Qaqaa under agency seal.
February
IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei tells the United Nations that Iraq has declared that “HMX previously under IAEA seal had been transferred for use in the production of industrial explosives.” This apparently didn’t include the HMX that remained under seal at Al-Qaqaa.
March 9-15
Nuclear agency inspectors visit Al-Qaqaa for the last time but apparently don’t examine the explosives because the seals aren’t broken. The inspectors then pull out of the country." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933

"Before the war, the explosives were being monitored by the IAEA because they can be used in nuclear bombs to trigger a nuclear explosion." http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-10-25-missing-explosives_x.htm

"IAEA inspectors visited the site in late 2002 and early 2003 before the war, sealing and tagging the stockpiles of “high explosives.”" http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136663,00.html



As for Bush kicking the weapon inspectors out,

"Yesterday UNMOVIC, the [International] Atomic [Energy] Agency and myself got information from the United States authorities that it would be prudent not to leave our staff in the region. I have just informed the Council that we will withdraw the UNMOVIC and Atomic Agency inspectors,..." http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=433&sID=7


But hey, maybe it's all just a vast conspiracy to hide whatever Waynesburg thinks is the truth
You can link as many stories as you want, the fact is there is no clear answer at this point. And "it would be prudent not to leave our staff in the region" is vastly different then being kicked out. Like I said, Bush did not have the authority to kick somebody out of Iraq prior to the invasion. Nice play on words.
Gymoor
28-10-2004, 08:21
You can link as many stories as you want, the fact is there is no clear answer at this point. And "it would be prudent not to leave our staff in the region" is vastly different then being kicked out. Like I said, Bush did not have the authority to kick somebody out of Iraq prior to the invasion. Nice play on words.

WHen someone says, "hey, get out, because we're gonna start dropping bombs," I usually take it as a sign that I've been kicked out.

If you would prefer, I could rephrase it. How is this?

"Had their mission prematurely terminated by indirect threat of death or dismemberment."
Pantylvania
28-10-2004, 08:22
You can link as many stories as you want, the fact is there is no clear answer at this point. And "it would be prudent not to leave our staff in the region" is vastly different then being kicked out. Like I said, Bush did not have the authority to kick somebody out of Iraq prior to the invasion. Nice play on words.No, it's not a fact. It's your opinion that UN tags on the weapons are no clear answer. It's my opinion that the UN reports and tags before the war do constitute clear evidence that the weapons were still there shortly before the war. And "it would be prudent not to leave our staff in the region" is exactly what it means to be kicked out when you put those words back into the context of a message from an invading force.
Waynesburg
28-10-2004, 08:25
WHen someone says, "hey, get out, because we're gonna start dropping bombs," I usually take it as a sign that I've been kicked out.

If you would prefer, I could rephrase it. How is this?

"Had their mission prematurely terminated by indirect threat of death or dismemberment."
Yup, more symanitcs in this thread. They were given notice of the invasion and advice to get out. Never "kicked" out
Refused Party Program
28-10-2004, 08:41
Yup, more symanitcs in this thread. They were given notice of the invasion and advice to get out. Never "kicked" out

Dropping a bomb on someone's house but advising them to get out first isn't giving them much of a choice.
Anbar
28-10-2004, 08:55
I don't blame Bush for being the dim bulb on the tree, I blame the people who think that such a dullard should be our Commander-in-Chief. You don't blame a pig for being a pig, but you should try to smack some sense in the guy trying to teach it to sing.

Well said.

Bush is, indeed, only to blame insofar as he's the one who stretched our troops too thin to properly do their jobs. I don't blame Bush for this specific incident, just for creating the conditions for it.
Goed
28-10-2004, 09:52
Yup, more symanitcs in this thread. They were given notice of the invasion and advice to get out. Never "kicked" out

If I hold a gun to your head and demand you to leave your house, I'm not kicking you out. I'm giving you a notice of invasion and advice to get out.

...right?
Waynesburg
28-10-2004, 10:12
If I hold a gun to your head and demand you to leave your house, I'm not kicking you out. I'm giving you a notice of invasion and advice to get out.

...right?
Bush wasn't holding a gun the heads of the weapons inspectors. Poor analogy.
Goed
28-10-2004, 10:22
Bush wasn't holding a gun the heads of the weapons inspectors. Poor analogy.

Fine.

I hold a bomb over your house and say "you might wanna leave." But I'm not kicking you out, am I?
Waynesburg
28-10-2004, 10:29
Fine.

I hold a bomb over your house and say "you might wanna leave." But I'm not kicking you out, am I?
Another poor analogy.
He informed the UN Security Council, he did no threaten them with bombs, guns, knives, or anything else. If you libs want to keep believing Bush "kicked" the weapons inspectors out, then that's your God given right, I guess.
Goed
28-10-2004, 10:30
Another poor analogy.
He informed the UN Security Council, he did no threaten them with bombs, guns, knives, or anything else. If you libs want to keep believing Bush "kicked" the weapons inspectors out, then that's your God given right, I guess.

I'm not threatening you.

I'm just informing you that a bomb is about to be dropped on where you are.

It's not a threat. By all means, you can stay. Maybe you'll survive, I dunno.
Waynesburg
28-10-2004, 10:34
I'm not threatening you.

I'm just informing you that a bomb is about to be dropped on where you are.

It's not a threat. By all means, you can stay. Maybe you'll survive, I dunno.
I'll go back to having a conversation with my big toe that was more intelligent then this one is.
Goed
28-10-2004, 10:35
I'll go back to having a conversation with my big toe that was more intelligent then this one is.

Just admit that you're wrong already.

No need to be a troll about it.
Refused Party Program
28-10-2004, 10:37
I'm not threatening you.

I'm just informing you that a bomb is about to be dropped on where you are.

It's not a threat. By all means, you can stay. Maybe you'll survive, I dunno.

Actually it's more like "we're dropping a bomb on your neighbourhood...etc" because they obviously weren't going to target Mr Blix' giant cueball. Or maybe that's what they want us to think.
MunkeBrain
28-10-2004, 18:21
There weren't any dangerous weapons in Iraq. It was unnecessary to go in there. We now know there were no weapons of mass destruction. Bush lied. So what the hell? Even if it's missing, it's harmless, right
Ashmoria
28-10-2004, 18:41
Okay, This is hard for me to say because I hate the arrogant prick but; How can anyone blame Bush for the missing explosives?

Is Dubya a master strategist? Hardly. He couldn't even figure out when he should report for duty. He couldn't chew a pretzel. He waves to blind men. A pillar of sharp thinking he isn't. Bush most likely had nothing to do with the decisions of what constituted high priority locations in Iraq to guard. He probably had nothing to do with the military blunder of a disappearance of that magnitude.

If I can blame Bush for anything it is in not securing adequate troops, both U.S. and International to make certain all objectives could be met. He was more concerned with a U.S. Victory than with a victory.

But does anybody honestly think He's calling the shots on Iraqi strategy? As badly bungled as the War on Terror is, I just don't see his degree of bungling.

So don't blame Bush for things he can't control. Blame him for the things he can. :D
bush can be blamed for the general but not the specific.

there are (or perhaps WERE) massive amounts of munitions that went unguarded from the time of the invastion until NOW. this 380 tons is the LEAST OF IT. where else are all these bombings coming from? its not like the average iraqi had bombs at home that they are now using to disrupt the american occupation.

i see it as a symptom of his mismanaging the iraq war more than an unforgivable mistake. after all, there are mistakes in ALL wars, good and bad.

bush is at fault for bad planning, rushing in, not realizing that there was more to guard than the oil ministry, for believing that ANY country would welcome an occupation.

its not like bush was standing at the gate, gun in hand. but he is responsible for EVERYTHING that goes on under our occupation, good and bad. if iraq ends up the democratic flower of the middle east, it will be to bush's credit; if it ends up a nightmare of civil unrest, its to his blame.
Isanyonehome
28-10-2004, 19:31
I am just curious.

If in fact these explosives were removed during or after the American invasion, how exactly did the looters/terrorists get them out of the facility? Thats a lot of material to load into trucks and transport. Not to mention that the area is patrolled and US supplies are moving up and down the road. Add into that all the aerial survelance we must of had looking for large groups of non coalition forces moving around.
MunkeBrain
28-10-2004, 19:34
I am just curious.

If in fact these explosives were removed during or after the American invasion, how exactly did the looters/terrorists get them out of the facility? Thats a lot of material to load into trucks and transport. Not to mention that the area is patrolled and US supplies are moving up and down the road. Add into that all the aerial survelance we must of had looking for large groups of non coalition forces moving around.
When American soldiers arrived, they noticed many tire tracks out of the area, and there are satelite pictures showing lots of large vehicles there leading up to the liberation of Iraq.
Show Choir Realm
28-10-2004, 19:45
There weren't any dangerous weapons in Iraq. It was unnecessary to go in there. We now know there were no weapons of mass destruction. Bush lied. So what the hell? Even if it's missing, it's harmless, right
You contradicted yourself. Pretty sad, actually, since you only wrote three sentences.

The evidence pointed towards the fact that Saddam had WMD's. Saddam wanted us to think he had WMD's. Everyone thought he had WMD's. The fact that he didn't doesn't make Bush a liar. It doesn't even make the intelligence community a liar. If I'm not mistaken, even Hans Blix thought Saddam had WMD's.

And here's the part where I wonder how 377 tons of explosives are harmless.
Democrat People
28-10-2004, 19:56
did you ever think that both kerry and bush are both total lying bastards? In 2001 the bush administrations was sure and confident of Saddam have no WMDs (soory i hate using that term but im not typing out the whole thing) then after 9/11 he pussyfooted around in afghanistan letting most of Al quida get away. In cluding everyones favorite anorexic Osama Bin Laden. Mostly this was all a prelude to dupe america into going into iraq. im not saying that we shouldnt bee there. Im just saying there were little if any WMDs. (no one associated with saddam after the gulf war, they were too scared to. and he didnt have the resources on his own.) But he has taken way too long with his assult on iraq just so his #1 investment stock keeps growing. United Defence makes bush his money cause he keeps them busy makeing weapons round the clock. Kerry keeps saying the same shit over and over again. He is a total liar just as bush is he lied about vietnam he lies about what his own mother even said to him on her death bed. He didnt deserve those purple hearts. Plus he resembles Herman Munster so much its creepy. so pick between your giant douche and turd sandwich. Myself? Im doing a write in for Noam Chomsky.
MunkeBrain
28-10-2004, 19:59
You contradicted yourself. Pretty sad, actually, since you only wrote three sentences.

The evidence pointed towards the fact that Saddam had WMD's. Saddam wanted us to think he had WMD's. Everyone thought he had WMD's. The fact that he didn't doesn't make Bush a liar. It doesn't even make the intelligence community a liar. If I'm not mistaken, even Hans Blix thought Saddam had WMD's.

And here's the part where I wonder how 377 tons of explosives are harmless.
Sorry, I didn't put the sarcasm tags on the post. Read my other posts on the topic. If there was 377 tons of Explosives, they certainly wern't trucked around on streets secured by america troops. This is a leftist attempt to swing the massses to their platform of hate and race-baiting.
Indiru
28-10-2004, 20:03
Let's see who thinks is smarter when this story is all said and done.
Kerry for calling out Bush demanding for answers when all the facts were not accounted for?
Bush for not saying anything until all the facts are accounted for?


Emm...didn't Dubya go to WAR when all the facts weren't accounted for?
MunkeBrain
28-10-2004, 20:04
Emm...didn't Dubya go to WAR when all the facts weren't accounted for?
Yeah, 12 years of intelligence, 12 years of sanctions, and 12 years of UN and French ineptitude. All acounted for.
Indiru
28-10-2004, 20:07
did you ever think that both kerry and bush are both total lying bastards? In 2001 the bush administrations was sure and confident of Saddam have no WMDs (soory i hate using that term but im not typing out the whole thing) then after 9/11 he pussyfooted around in afghanistan letting most of Al quida get away. In cluding everyones favorite anorexic Osama Bin Laden. Mostly this was all a prelude to dupe america into going into iraq. im not saying that we shouldnt bee there. Im just saying there were little if any WMDs. (no one associated with saddam after the gulf war, they were too scared to. and he didnt have the resources on his own.) But he has taken way too long with his assult on iraq just so his #1 investment stock keeps growing. United Defence makes bush his money cause he keeps them busy makeing weapons round the clock. Kerry keeps saying the same shit over and over again. He is a total liar just as bush is he lied about vietnam he lies about what his own mother even said to him on her death bed. He didnt deserve those purple hearts. Plus he resembles Herman Munster so much its creepy. so pick between your giant douche and turd sandwich. Myself? Im doing a write in for Noam Chomsky.

Nice South Park reference :D But, the way I see it, Kerry is the lesser of two evils. Purple hearts or not, Kerry was THERE and put himself there to fight for his country (obviously he didn't expect to be swiftboat captain) but at least he didn't dodge the draft like Bush. And Kerry is redundant? Bush used the phrase "we're turning the corner" 23 times in five speeches.
Isanyonehome
28-10-2004, 20:21
Nice South Park reference :D But, the way I see it, Kerry is the lesser of two evils. Purple hearts or not, Kerry was THERE and put himself there to fight for his country (obviously he didn't expect to be swiftboat captain) but at least he didn't dodge the draft like Bush. And Kerry is redundant? Bush used the phrase "we're turning the corner" 23 times in five speeches.

Actually, Kerry did the EXACT same thing Bush did. Kerry applied for and entered the Naval RESERVES. Unfortunately for him, his unit got mobilized while Bush's didnt. Neither had any control over that.

In addition, when Kerry applied for swift boat duty, it was one of the safest jobs in Vietnam(The vietnamese having no navy). It was only shortly after he got his command that the doctrine concerning swift boats changed(it was decided they would be used to patrol rivers instead of shoreline), and it went from one of the safest jobs to one of the most dangerous.

Nothing in Kerry's behaviour is any differant that Bush's. The only things we dont know is how Bush would have acted if his unit got called up. We also dont know how Bush would have acted after the war if he had to fight.

Given his dad's heroism in WWII, I would bet that his dad would have smacked him silly if he became a war protester.
MunkeBrain
28-10-2004, 20:23
Actually, Kerry did the EXACT same thing Bush did. Kerry applied for and entered the Naval RESERVES. Unfortunately for him, his unit got mobilized while Bush's didnt. Neither had any control over that.

In addition, when Kerry applied for swift boat duty, it was one of the safest jobs in Vietnam(The vietnamese having no navy). It was only shortly after he got his command that the doctrine concerning swift boats changed(it was decided they would be used to patrol rivers instead of shoreline), and it went from one of the safest jobs to one of the most dangerous.

Nothing in Kerry's behaviour is any differant that Bush's. The only things we dont know is how Bush would have acted if his unit got called up. We also dont know how Bush would have acted after the war if he had to fight.

Given his dad's heroism in WWII, I would bet that his dad would have smacked him silly if he became a war protester.Excellent post, filled with ponts that many here often overlook. As Darth Vader would say: "Impressive!"
Show Choir Realm
30-10-2004, 01:25
Nice South Park reference :D But, the way I see it, Kerry is the lesser of two evils. Purple hearts or not, Kerry was THERE and put himself there to fight for his country (obviously he didn't expect to be swiftboat captain) but at least he didn't dodge the draft like Bush. And Kerry is redundant? Bush used the phrase "we're turning the corner" 23 times in five speeches.
Why does having served in Vietnam as a Swift Boat Captain make Kerry more qualified to be President than Bush? I mean, really, let's look at the situation. Kerry was in command of three boats. He shot a guy. That makes him more fit to lead troops than Bush, who was a fighter pilot and also has military experience (albiet not in combat)?

Commanding an entire army is so different from commanding three glorified speedboats that Kerry's experience won't help him a bit as commander-in-chief.

It's funny, because Clinton dodged the draft, too, and that didn't make him a bad President.
Lunatic Goofballs
30-10-2004, 01:30
Why does having served in Vietnam as a Swift Boat Captain make Kerry more qualified to be President than Bush? I mean, really, let's look at the situation. Kerry was in command of three boats. He shot a guy. That makes him more fit to lead troops than Bush, who was a fighter pilot and also has military experience (albiet not in combat)?

Commanding an entire army is so different from commanding three glorified speedboats that Kerry's experience won't help him a bit as commander-in-chief.

It's funny, because Clinton dodged the draft, too, and that didn't make him a bad President.

I think that the only valuable military experience that Kerry has over Bush is a healthy respect for war. If Kerry endorses military strikes, I'd believe they were necessary. Bush, in my eyes, doesn't have that trust.

By no means is this an endorsement of Kerry for President. I'm merely pointing one of the pros about Kerry.
Indiru
30-10-2004, 01:41
Unlike Bush, Kerry realizes that people DIE in war and it's a last resort. I wasn't saying that Kerry's military experience makes him more fit to lead, I was just combating the "Yeah, but it was three MINOR purple hearts" thing. Kerry is more fit to lead for three main reasons:

1. He doesn't try to legislate his personal and religious beliefs on others.
2. Bush has lost the rest of the world's respect for America, and one of Kerry's goals is to get that back.
3. Kerry looks at things BEFORE he makes decisions and if your argument is that Kerry is a flip flopper and Bush is a strong decisive leader...do you want a decisive leader who makes the WRONG decisions? And then after all the evidence has been proven he's wrong he doesn't admit he made the wrong decision? And doesn't try and fix the mistakes?
Diamond Mind
30-10-2004, 07:07
Why does having served in Vietnam as a Swift Boat Captain make Kerry more qualified to be President than Bush? I mean, really, let's look at the situation. Kerry was in command of three boats. He shot a guy. That makes him more fit to lead troops than Bush, who was a fighter pilot and also has military experience (albiet not in combat)?

Commanding an entire army is so different from commanding three glorified speedboats that Kerry's experience won't help him a bit as commander-in-chief.

It's funny, because Clinton dodged the draft, too, and that didn't make him a bad President.
Except for those 8 years when we never heard the end of it, is that what you're talking about? All the whining about Clinton still after 4 years, I can't hear the liberals, please! But then back to the topic and how full of shit Bush is now that we can see the explosives ON VIDEO

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1
So how many times did the Bush campaign lie about this? They gave at least three different stories including bashing Kerry in the meantime. Not to mention that they knew about it for a long time and covered it up for so long. "God doesn't want me to admit any problems"