Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 137
  1. #61  
    Seems to just repeat the administration line to me mate. I'm far from persuaded by that article.
    Animo et Fide
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    Seems to just repeat the administration line to me mate. I'm far from persuaded by that article.
    you dont see the problem of kerry voting against a war that had multilateral support? you dont see that contradiction?
  3. #63  
    if kerry had a strong voting record, i could consider him as a strong candidate. but looking at this vote against the gulf war... when it had all the factors hes wishing bush had now for our current iraq war, i cannot view him as anything other than a failure in credibility. id be nervous with him at the helm.
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    if kerry had a strong voting record, i could consider him as a strong candidate. but looking at this vote against the gulf war... when it had all the factors hes wishing bush had now for our current iraq war, i cannot view him as anything other than a failure in credibility. id be nervous with him at the helm.
    The only person that is strong in that family is Teresa Heinz Kerry. Oh, and BTW, why does she still hang on to her dead Republican husband's name?? She married Kerry in 1995, isnt it about time she drops the Heinz part
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    i do apologize for not linking this story instead. i know it is a long post, but i found this article to be EXTREMELY interesting.

    www.townhall.com

    by larry elder
    "DEBATOR VS LEADER"

    Polls show President Bush lost the first debate against Democratic presidential contender John Kerry. Why? Bush failed to respond to Kerry's assertions.

    Let's deal with them.

    Did Bush irresponsibly use the "authority" given him by Congress? The president spent 18 months generating domestic and international support to deal with Saddam Hussein.
    The president sought and obtained approval -- including John Kerry's -- for authority to use force. After all, Saddam stood in defiance of numerous United Nations resolutions and -- in a post-9/11 world -- what commander in chief could responsibly sit by and ignore a ruler who used chemical weapons on his own people; whose military fired on British and American planes patrolling the no-fly zones; whose regime paid $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers; and who had ties (if not operational cooperation) with terrorist groups, including al Qaeda?
    Was anyone talking about ignoring him?

    The intelligence community thought -- with good reason -- that Saddam stockpiled WMD.
    Thought he could have stockpiled wmd, no-one knew, which is why inspections were going ahead.

    Former Clinton CIA Director R. James Woolsey notes that Iraq admitted making 8.5 tons of anthrax, which -- reduced to powder -- could fill a dozen easily portable suitcases, and believes that Iraqi WMD-related material "probably" entered Syria months before the war. Former President Bill Clinton, on July 22, 2003, said, " . . . [I]t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons [in Iraq]."
    Unaccounted for is not the same as existing.

    Did Bush fail to build a "genuine" coalition of nations? The president sought and received a unanimous U.N. resolution requiring Hussein to come completely clean about his WMD program. Anything short would trigger "serious consequences." Yet Kerry wishes us to believe that "serious consequences" meant something less than the war. Kerry calls the current coalition "coerced and bribed." Even though he voted for the authority to go to war, Kerry's most recent version says, "It is not the kind of coalition we were described when we were talking about voting for this." In 1991, with a "genuine" coalition for the Persian Gulf War, Kerry voted against it.
    Nearly everybody thought that serious consequences did not authorise war. And why bring the last war into it? You could just as easily make the arguement that that vote shows Kerry isn't one to be lead by the crowd and has the resolution to vote with his principles.

    Were the inspections working? Define "working." Even Hans Blix acknowledged that but for America placing tens of thousands of troops around Iraq, Saddam Hussein would not have allowed the inspectors back in. Iraq Survey Group leader Charlie Duelfer concluded, "Now maybe [Saddam] didn't have weapons today, but I think there is certainly evidence of his intention to develop those weapons once the attention of the U.N. and the international community changed to other matters." Meanwhile, under the U.N.'s oil-for-food program, companies from France and Russia -- among others -- aided Saddam in stealing as much as maybe $10 billion, with some money likely going into the hands of terrorists.
    Yes, the pressure put on enabled the inspections to work. The point is they were working, so why stop them when they said they only needed a few months to finish the job? What has the oil-for-food program got to do with that? There is a false equivalence being set up.

    Did Bush divert attention and resources away from Osama bin Laden to pursue Saddam Hussein? Approximately 18,000 U.S.-led troops, working with some 70,000 Pakistani troops, patrol the Afghanistan/Pakistan border looking for Osama bin Laden. Would John Kerry support a knock-'em-down, house-to-house, pull-people-out-of-holes, stop-and-question-everybody approach? After all, Kerry said, as commander in chief, he intended to conduct more "sensitive" foreign policy. Does Kerry suggest that the commander in chief resolve one terror threat before going to another, expecting each terrorist to halt terrorist activity and patiently wait his turn to be dealt with?
    Those troops would be the ones skirting around the edges of the Tora Bora because there aren't enough of them to go in and do the job properly, yes?

    Did Bush make the case that Saddam had something to do with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks? The Bush administration never accused Hussein of specific involvement in the attacks. The 9/11 Commission did, indeed, find ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, but called them not operational. Should a president wait until they become operational?
    Not if there was any evidence they were going to become operational, which there wasn't. Why not concentrate on all the links which were operational first? They clearly still are, and haven't been damaged by the Iraq war.

    Former Clinton CIA Director Woolsey said, "Iraq's ties with terrorist groups in the '90s are clear . . . with a decade of connections between Iraq and al Qaeda, including training in poisons, gases and explosives. There was no need to show that Iraq participated in 9/11 . . . describing occasional cooperation of the sort that is well chronicled was quite sufficient."
    This would be the same CIA that said Iraq had WMD right? I don't think their intelligence on the activities of Iraq can have much credibility now.

    Is Iraq not even close to the center of the War on Terror? In December 2001, John Kerry said, "[Saddam] is and has acted like a terrorist, and he has engaged in activities that are unacceptable." A few days later, Kerry expounded, "I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein."
    It's the means by which we continue that are under debate, no-one is suggesting that Saddam should have been given free rein.

    Should the United States have "tested" Iran by providing them with nuclear fuel? Even the Iranians scoffed at Kerry's assertion, pointing out they are capable of making their own nuclear fuel. "One should not put one's fate in the hands of others. It would [be] irrational," said Iran Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi. "What guarantees are there? Will they supply us one day, and then if they want to, stop supplying us another day?"
    So is the author suggesting we should just do what the Iranians want to do?

    Come Nov. 2, expect the American people to draw a distinction between a debater and a leader.
    They are both debaters, one is better than the other. One is a leader now, and not a good one in many people's eyes, will the other one be better? Only one way to tell.
    Treobk214, that article has far more holes in it than the ones I've pointed out. We should always try to seek the truth, right now Bush and Blair certainly aren't providing it. Articles like that, which lump together lots of different ideas in one paragraph, never follow thoughts through and use false parallels certainly don't help to clear things up.
    Animo et Fide
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    The only person that is strong in that family is Teresa Heinz Kerry. Oh, and BTW, why does she still hang on to her dead Republican husband's name?? She married Kerry in 1995, isnt it about time she drops the Heinz part
    Why should a woman change her name at all?
    Animo et Fide
  7. #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    Why should a woman change her name at all?
    Why answer a question with a question?
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    Why answer a question with a question?
    Don't you like my question?
    Animo et Fide
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    Don't you like my question?
    This is the same tactic used by the Dems in the US. Never answer the question. Why not ask your question after you answer mine
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  10. #70  
    but peter, this is puzzling. why would kerry campaign on multilateral support for a war as the right way, after he voted against a war that was handled in the very manner he demanded was necessary?

    why don't people get this?

    everyone knows saddam needed to be removed from kuwait. it had multilateral support (the gulf war) now after all that was done, kerry STILL VOTED AGAINST IT.

    mixed messages? I certainly think so. I think this is a glaring fault in the kerry ticket - no question. inconsistencies everywhere you look.
  11. #71  
    bush may not be the polished speaker kerry is, but you know where he stands.

    kerry looks and speaks well, but what he will ACTUALLY DO is an entirely different story.

    that's the essential difference. we DONT know where kerry stands. I mean, he'll say one thing and make it sound great, make you believe he'lll save us from all our troubles. that he has the plan, the answers.

    but does he? truthfully? I find no assurance that he will stick to the promises he's giving now based on the way he's taken these positions on iraq - where removing iraq from kuwait was multilaterally supported. and kerry claims to bring all nations to the table? how? when he has disagreed with those countries on very obvious problems like what to do regarding the iraqi invasion of kuwait?

    I have zero confidence in kerry.
    I think its whatever is popular with the people to gain approval.. his voting record shows me evidence of nothing else.
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    This is the same tactic used by the Dems in the US. Never answer the question. Why not ask your question after you answer mine
    My question was designed to cause introspection, grasshopper.
    Animo et Fide
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    why would kerry campaign on multilateral support for a war as the right way, after he voted against a war that was handled in the very manner he demanded was necessary?
    Because 9/11 changed things for him as well, maybe?
    Animo et Fide
  14. #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    Because 9/11 changed things for him as well, maybe?
    Bingo!
    You don't stop laughing because you grow old. You grow old because you stop laughing.
    -Michael Pritchard
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    Oh, and BTW, why does she still hang on to her dead Republican husband's name?? She married Kerry in 1995, isnt it about time she drops the Heinz part
    Her CHILDREN have that name. It is also clear that she loved her late husband, and they were married for a long, long time. HE DIED.

    Have you ever experienced a loss like that? What does it matter if she still uses his name? Does that make her a bad person?

    Sometimes your comments absolutely astound me.
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurokitty
    Her CHILDREN have that name. It is also clear that she loved her late husband, and they were married for a long, long time. HE DIED.

    Have you ever experienced a loss like that? What does it matter if she still uses his name? Does that make her a bad person?

    Sometimes your comments absolutely astound me.
    Took the words out of my mouth. Thanks Eurokitty.
    I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.
    -Sir Winston Churchill.
  17. Talldog's Avatar
    Posts
    157 Posts
    Global Posts
    291 Global Posts
    #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurokitty
    What does it matter if she still uses his name? Does that make her a bad person?
    Naomi Wolfe seems to think so.

    http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/...thesexes/9911/
    Talldog
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by Talldog
    She's also a radical feminist. She hardly reflects the views of the average American woman. (Do we really want to get into a discussion about the feminist movement? )
  19. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurokitty
    Sometimes your comments absolutely astound me.
    Likewise. I'm sure

    I didnt realize that her children used Heinz Kerry also.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  20.    #80  
    Consider this a pre-emptive warning to not insult one another. Haven't seen it this far in the thread, but if this were a forest fire situation, I see dry wood everywhere and someone is lighting a campfire....
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions