Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 107
  1.    #41  
    bush lied to take us to war?

    dude! kerry used the very same lies to try and convince us we needed to disarm hussein!!!!!!!

    COME ON, PEOPLE, WAKE UP!!!

    Kerry would have led us into iraq just the same.. see www.kerryoniraq.com talk about dysfunctional goings on in american households today, please click on documentary #1.
    THIS IS DYSFUNCTIONAL.

    hell, folks, the interviewer actually pointed out that kerry was AHEAD of bush in his pro-iraq war stance. kerry states, yes, I certainly am.

    goto the site folks, its kerry himself saying this.

    im overkilling this site, but people NEED to see this, if they are going to claim BUSH LIED.

    please,folks, kerry was the strongest pro-iraq candidate during the primaries.
  2. #42  
    Would we be at war with Iraq were it not for the attacks on 9/11 ?
    Possibly. The majority of this administration have long been looking to take Iraq. With the jingoism this Country was going through (and I was right there with everyone else) after the UNRELATED attacks it was fairly easy for these machiavellian weasles to do so with majority public approval (confusion) but I think they would have still figured out a way to try.
  3. #43  
    KKena,

    Please, "so you're saying Iraq was involved with 9-11" argument is so old. No one is saying this.

    Iraq was not involved with 9-11
    Al-qaeda was involved with 9-11
    Iraq was involved with Al-qaeda. (Please read first of three before resorting to aforementioned old argument)



    Your logic is flawed. 1 does not imply 2.

    1. Al-qaeda brought down the towers
    2. Iraq is involved with Al-qaeda (but not 9-11 there is your fallacy).
    3. Iraq is openly hostile to the U.S., is in a technical state of war with the U.S., has fired upon countless US aircraft, attempted to assainate a U.S. President, have used WMD's, won't let anyone check to see if they anymore WMD's.
    4. We attack Iraq
  4.    #44  
    machiavellian weasels? heehee. this coming fr”
  5. #45  
    im overkilling this site, but people NEED to see this, if they are going to claim BUSH LIED.
    Kerry was for contnued containment and pressure on Iraq. If hhe had chosen to invade Iraq, he would have done so with the cooperation and commitment of our significant historical allies. (Who BTW are the major users of Iraqi oil AND about to become a tougher competitor in the global capitalism game, perhaps a reason to take the oil and not share with them?) etc etc.

    The reason people say Bush lied is because this administration desperately stretched and misled intelligence to do their invasion and now it's biting them in the ***.
  6.    #46  
    coming from someone supporting a guy who married a woman with A LOT OF MONEY.

    isn't that the premise? position people around you who are of good financial means for your own selfish future gain?

    please, if ever there was a machiavellian weasel, its kerry
  7.    #47  
    kerry supported the same stretched lies, guys. FERVENTLY.
  8. #48  
    You heard about Oil-For-Food right? They wouldn't have gone along if FDR was President.

    I think Democrats miss the whole point:

    1. We'd been pressuring them for 12 years
    2. The sanctions weren't working thanks to the real coalition of the bribed (Russia,China,France and Germany).
    3. Saddam refused WMD inspections, and we had good reason not to take his word for it.

    This sentence should proabably read like this:

    The reason people say Bush lied is because in, the opinion of some who have no evidence and contradict the findings of the 9-11 commission, this administration desperately stretched and misled intelligence to do their invasion and now it's biting them in the ***.
  9. #49  
    1. Al-qaeda brought down the towers
    2. Iraq is involved with Al-qaeda (but not 9-11 there is your fallacy).
    3. Iraq is openly hostile to the U.S., is in a technical state of war with the U.S., has fired upon countless US aircraft, attempted to assainate a U.S. President, have used WMD's, won't let anyone check to see if they anymore WMD's.
    4. We attack Iraq
    Iraq had NO connection with Al-qaeda. Philisophically opposites. Don't hand us that enemy of my enemy crap either.

    We had more control over Iraq prior to the invasion than we do now. The inspectors were on the ground and were gaining the access they needed. Did we have to wave a stick at them to get cooperation often yes. The US told the inspectors to get out cause we were invading. And the reason the inspectors couldn't find WMDs is because THERE WEREN'T ANY and the World would have known that if the inspectors were given more time. Probably why the Bush admin RUSHED to invade thus the fawking mess we have now.
  10. #50  
    coming from someone supporting a guy who married a woman with A LOT OF MONEY.

    isn't that the premise? position people around you who are of good financial means for your own selfish future gain?

    please, if ever there was a machiavellian weasel, its kerry
    Pretty petty shot and please use dictionary.com if you are unsure.
  11. #51  
    1. We'd been pressuring them for 12 years
    2. The sanctions weren't working thanks to the real coalition of the bribed (Russia,China,France and Germany).
    3. Saddam refused WMD inspections, and we had good reason not to take his word for it.
    The sanctions WERE working. The Iraqi military became less lethal every year since the first Iraq war. At which time Cheney himself said Iraq was not a significant military threat to it's neighbors.

    Saddam TRIED to refuse inspections like a bratty child eventually giving in after being thretened with a spanking. Yea, an annoying game to have to play BUT a 1000+ military families would probably prefer that game to invading the country.
  12. #52  
    kerry supported the same stretched lies, guys. FERVENTLY.
    CITE! And don't just link to that frigging website. Copy and paste the quote here.
  13.    #53  
    oh wow, how wrong you are.

    kerry repeatedly stated we needed to disarm iraq in any form necessary, and AFTER supporting bush's invasion of iraq and removal of saddam, he claimed that he would not actually lower costs of the war (remember the $120 billion?) he would spend MORE. how ever much was needed to win.

    THESE ARE KERRY'S OWN FREAKING WORDS, FOLKS.

    I just can't get over the denial. people just can't accept the reality that kerry is a blatant liar/flipflopper.

    just amazing!!!!
  14.    #54  
    what are you, too lazy to make 2 clicks and listen to kerry make these statements himself, dathomas?

    geezus. this is why you don't accept what's going on here, you don't even WANT to look into the truth.

    look its very, very simple. you'll see.. goto the site, and click on the top documentary of kerryoniraq. - the one giuliani and the rest of the sane individuals are recommending we all listen to before voting.

    im on the treo, so linking that is not as easy. just click on the site and click on the doc. not that hard.
  15. #55  
    treobk214 - I consider myself an independent. May I offer this suggestion: instead of being so angry and outraged at Kerry (after all he didn't win the elections yet), concentrate on what is alluring to you in Bush. Your anger at Kerry and the tone of your posts could hardly convince an independent voter like myself that you are voting for Bush because you like him, but rather voting for him because you hate Kerry. I know you are not trying to convince me or anyone, but read between the lines, nevertheless. I am only 22 and I do not pretend to know everything (I can google information just fine, but big deal!), but I think I am much turned off by anger. Several posters here, on both sides of the isle, have shown restrain in their postings and therefore reassured me that we are all Americans who love our country and will do anything to protect it (and its first amendment!). Kerry and Bush are both included.
    Last edited by Dee Zaster; 10/22/2004 at 08:09 PM.
  16.    #56  
    70% of the military support bush.
    I have several friends in iraq right now, captain, and all of them as well as the soldiers with them are pro-bush.

    GO FIGURE, GUYS.
  17.    #57  
    I do not mean to offend you with statements that appear to be angry.

    I am simply very passionate against a candidate which I think will hurt us, while his followers think he will improve a situation which they deem a mess in iraq.

    my points here are that the moves to iraq on kerry's behalf were just as aggressive as bush's.
    now suddenly we forget kerry's pro-war statements and call bush the liar.

    I see this as unbelievably hypocritical, and respond to it as such, but please forgive the heated animations at times.

    I just feel strongly about this.
  18. #58  
    Kerry was simply responding to the spin of this administration and don't suggest that Kerry had access to the same information. That has been insinuated by spinsters in the past and it's simply not true. I'm not going to watch a film specifically made to appear a certain way. That's like me pointing you to 9-11 to prove a point.
  19.    #59  
    my question to you is this.

    I think kerry wants to withdraw from iraq, which I can't say I disagree with, however there is a situation to consider.

    for whatever its past, iraq now harbors many al qaeda terrorists. we are fighting them there.

    now, if we pull out of iraq, where are the alqaeda going to go?

    they will come to america again.

    right now, at least we have highly trained men and women as well as special forces to fight them.

    if al qaeda comes to america, because there is no longer a battlefield for them to attack us on (iraq), what are we going to do then?

    honestly, where are they going to go if we leave iraq?
    america, europe, africa, south america?

    no matter what you do, they're coming after you. so what's the proper move, pull out and let them gather strength? or fight them away from out homeland?

    they are an insanely determined cult. its not like playing the pacifist's role will appease them. they are going to try attacking us again.

    so, do we pull out, and wait for the next attack?

    or do we use our military might, take a proactive stance in eliminating these threats, and defend ourselves, lowering their means by which they might attack us again here in the us?

    bush is proactive, guys.
    kerry I see as not sure of what exactly to do, but whatever other nations feel should be done is what he will do. he doesn't strike me as someone who will act on our interests, but rather he would act on the opinions of other nations in any action he'd take in defending us.

    that's just not a winning leadership.

    bush stands strong. terrorists know this. as ruthless as the terrorists are, bush is equally as ruthless in his determination to get them.

    the terrorists know this, which is why they appear to be trying to influence the elections by attempting to make us look bad in iraq. if they didn't fear bush, they wouldn't step up attacks in iraq during a time when bush's position is up to an election.
  20. #60  
    "coming from someone supporting a guy who married a woman with A LOT OF MONEY.

    isn't that the premise? position people around you who are of good financial means for your own selfish future gain?

    please, if ever there was a machiavellian weasel, its kerry"

    TreoBK214 you are totally out of line with this post. Stop flaming so much, calm down, and breathe.

    As has been posted before, you level of anger will not convince anyone of anything other than that you are unreasonable and arrogant. I'm sure you are not really that way so please calm down and stop flaming.
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions