How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Why Not Kerry??   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Why Not Kerry??

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


50 posted 07-14-2004 09:53 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Ron, the presentation was simple. Kerry missed 92% of the votes. That represents the worst record of any congressman. How can that be more simple???

I honestly doubt it could be made more simple, Mike. Trouble is, I don't want simple, especially at the possible cost of deeper understanding. A simple fact is like sugar candy, attracting many, but offering little sustenance. I want more complex carbohydrates in my diet. I crave meat.

quote:
Not meant as an endorsement for either candidate, but don't try and sell the idea you go on hiatus from your U.S. Senate seat and expect to be able to rationalize your absence.

How about a hiatus from being governor of Texas, Tim? Does that work for you?

Of course, if we follow that thought through to its logical end, we should have the same problem with *any* incumbent running for any office. Operating from a position of greater power, incumbents can typically spend less time campaigning than their opposition, but few incumbents can spend zero time campaigning. Maybe Presidents, Senators, and Governors should all be forced to resign in their third year, so they can spend their fourth one getting re-elected?

Actually, I kind of like that idea, not because it would give the job to someone more willing to focus on it (I trust good leaders to delegate wisely), but because it might eliminate some of the short-term, bread-and-circus thinking we often see from incumbents as an election draws near.

quote:
Gephart got blasted for his poor voting record when Lieberman's and Edwards were both about the same percentage, just that they were voting the percentage Gephart was not. Kerry stayed out of the fray because his voting record was a poor 60% of votes cast.

That's certainly getting better. The yardstick offered is still a little murky, but at least we have something available for comparison. It's not meat yet, but at least it's moved a bit beyond simple sugars.

As one delves more deeply, the question might arise as to why NONE of our Senators in recent history even approaches a hundred percent voting record. Is there an inherent problem with the system itself? Or might it be that counting votes isn't a very useful criteria for measuring worth?

Imagine for a moment that you are one of only three people in the whole U.S. Senate and a vote is fast approaching. You have to choose between going to the floor to vote or, perhaps, meeting with a major employer in your state. You with me so far? Now, imagine that you KNOW, with a fairly high degree of certainty, how the other two Senators are going to vote. I put it to you that it would be illogical -- and irresponsible -- to cancel that important meeting UNLESS you suspected your vote was going to be a tie-breaker. It doesn't matter which way the vote goes, if the other two Senators vote in unison with each other the result will not be changed by your vote.

A poor voting record might well mean someone isn't doing their job. Or, it might mean they've been in Washington long enough to have the lay of the land so well mapped they can better direct their efforts where it will do the most good. Unfortunately, a "simple" percentage doesn't differentiate and, too often, can just be misleading trivia.

We need some meat.
LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 06-19-2003
Posts 13093
SE PA


51 posted 07-14-2004 10:07 AM       View Profile for LeeJ   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for LeeJ

more like meat and potatoes both...

you all have made some very good points...and I'm especially greatful for all your assistance in taking the time to elaborate on these issues...

It has definately helped, but I'm still a wash at a stale mate...about who I'm voting for, one thing, it is not going to be Bush, I can't even begin to imagine what another 4 years of him would accomplish...but Kerry????  

Thanks guys...all of you for your patience knowlege and taking the time to credibly bring your views into focus.  

icebox
Member Elite
since 05-03-2003
Posts 4246
in the shadows


52 posted 07-14-2004 12:30 PM       View Profile for icebox   Email icebox   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for icebox

OK, so Kerry's voting record sucks.  Why not look at the votes he did cast and what issues were so strong for him that he got his ass off the bus and went back to Washington to vote.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


53 posted 07-14-2004 04:35 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

ice, you rock! grins
Toerag
Member Ascendant
since 07-29-99
Posts 5839
Ala bam a


54 posted 07-14-2004 05:37 PM       View Profile for Toerag   Email Toerag   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Toerag

icebox....I think he's changed his mind about most of those..two or three times...
Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 11-03-1999
Posts 4427
Oklahoma, USA


55 posted 07-14-2004 05:47 PM       View Profile for Not A Poet   Email Not A Poet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Not A Poet's Home Page   View IP for Not A Poet

Oh, you mean as in "I voted for it before I voted against it?"
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


56 posted 07-14-2004 06:03 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ok, I'll concede the fact that Kerry's voting record was better than Bush's. It was also better than Wally Cleaver, Don Knotts, Madame Theresa and the Backstreet Boys.

I'l also accept that Kerry is so smart he doesn't need to waste his time voting when there are so many other avenues to channel his efforts. Nor does he have to devote time reading homeland security reports since there are obviously other things more important to him......like trying to get elected.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


57 posted 07-14-2004 07:00 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Excellent suggestion, icebox! Let's have a look at his voting record...

From the Congressional Quarterly...


As a senator with the responsibility to cast a vote on a variety of contentious issues, Kerry has had many opportunities to square off with the president. Yet an analysis of Kerry's 2003 Senate voting record shows that he did not show up for most of the Senate's confrontations with the White House.

The publication Congressional Quarterly examined 119 recorded votes held in 2003 in which the president had taken a position. CQ found that Kerry was present for just 28 percent of those votes. In contrast, Kerry's colleague from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy, was present for 97 percent of the votes.

When Kerry showed up, he did indeed vote against the president a significant number of times. In 2003, according to CQ, Kerry sided against the president 70 percent of the time. Kennedy, usually viewed as the gold standard of liberal orthodoxy, voted against Bush 53 percent of the time.

On the issue of showing up for Senate votes, CQ found that Kerry's fellow senators running for president, John Edwards and Joseph Lieberman, also missed a significant number of votes, although far fewer than Kerry did. According to the CQ analysis, Edwards was present for 53 percent of the recorded votes in which the president took a position, while Lieberman was present for 45 percent.

Most senators were present for more than 90 percent of the votes.


From the National Journal...


NATIONAL JOURNAL on Friday claimed Democrat frontrunner John Kerry has the "most liberal" voting record in the Senate.

The results of Senate vote ratings show that Kerry was the most liberal senator in 2003, with a composite liberal score of 96.5 -- far ahead of such Democrat stalwarts as Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton.

NATIONAL JOURNAL's scores, which have been compiled each year since 1981, are based on lawmakers' votes in three areas: economic policy, social policy, and foreign policy.

"To be sure, Kerry's ranking as the No. 1 Senate liberal in 2003 -- and his earning of similar honors three times during his first term, from 1985 to 1990 -- will probably have opposition researchers licking their chops," NATIONAL JOURNAL reports.

Developing...
[The ratings system was first devised in 1981 under the direction of William Schneider, a political analyst and commentator at CNN, and a contributing editor to National Journal, who continues to guide the calculation process. Data processing and statistical analysis were performed by Information Technology Services of the Brookings Institution. A panel of National Journal editors and reporters initially compiled a list of 140 key congressional roll-call votes for 2003 -- 63 votes for the Senate and 77 for the House -- and classified them as relating to economic, social, or foreign policy. Roll-call data was drawn from the Congressional Record.]


Excerpts from the New York Times...

The record is susceptible to two broad strands of attack. Mr. Kerry's rival Democrats point to a series of shifting stands on issues, like his qualified praise for the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress and his vote authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq. They say these are are at odds with his campaign claim to be the "real deal" Democratic alternative to Mr. Bush, capable of "standing up for people and taking on powerful interests," as he says in his stump speech.

"When it was popular to be a Massachusetts liberal, his voting record was that," said Jay Carson, a Dean campaign spokesman. "When it was popular to be for the Iraq war, he was for it. Now it's popular to be against it, and he's against it. This is a voting record that is a big vulnerability against Republicans in the general election. He's all over the place on this stuff."

By contrast, the Republicans seek to paint Mr. Kerry as voting in lock step with, or even to the left of, his fellow Massachusetts Democrat Edward M. Kennedy, long a Republican target and a perennial party fund-raising bugbear.

"Whether it's economic policy, national security policy or social issues, John Kerry is out of sync with most voters," the Republican national chairman, Ed Gillespie, said in a speech on Friday.

. . . .

But on many issues, Mr. Kerry has often struck more nuanced, politically cautious positions than those broad rankings might suggest. After the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, Mr. Kerry proclaimed himself "delighted with seeing an institutional shake-up because I think we need one." A few months later, with President Bill Clinton locked in combat with the Republicans, Mr. Kerry voiced some doubts in a closed-door meeting of senators about the wisdom of trying to raise the minimum wage. And as Mr. Kennedy later recalled, he told Mr. Kerry, "If you're not for raising the minimum wage, you don't deserve to call yourself a Democrat."

. . . .

Like every member of a body that takes thousands of votes a year in committee and on the floor, Mr. Kerry has a detailed record of positions on scores of topics — a potential handicap for any incumbent senator running for the presidency. That may be one reason no one has made the leap directly since John F. Kennedy in 1960.

But unlike some of his colleagues with long records to defend — including Mr. Gephardt, the former Democratic leader of the House of Representatives, who dropped out of the race after his disappointing Iowa finish — Mr. Kerry has never been especially popular with his Democratic colleagues in Congress and the party establishment. They have accused him of being too eager to be in the majority, too quick to position his vote for political advantage.

The rap on Mr. Kerry's Senate career, according to fellow senators and Congressional aides, has been that he is more interested in high-profile investigations — like those into the Bank of Credit and Commerce International and Gen. Manuel Noriega of Panama — than in the grinding details of legislative procedure. He has deferred to his colleague Mr. Kennedy on most bills involving health and education and has few major bills to his name; when asked to summarize his legislative accomplishments, he often seems to struggle.

But among the details of his legislative record, there is fertile ground for attacks. Mr. Kerry voted for the USA Patriot Act, Mr. Bush's No Child Left Behind education bill and the Congressional resolution authorizing the president to use force in Iraq, only to sharply criticize all three once he became a presidential candidate last year. Mr. Kerry counters that his quarrel is with Mr. Bush's execution of the policies, but he struggled for months to explain his shifting stance on the Iraq war.


To see a review of what issues Kerry delt strongly enough about to cast his few votes on, one can go to...
http://issues2002.org/Senate/John_Kerry.htm

Juju
Member Elite
since 12-29-2003
Posts 3353
In your dreams


58 posted 07-14-2004 10:08 PM       View Profile for Juju   Email Juju   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Juju's Home Page   View IP for Juju

I think it was good to pull out facts.....

I think I should work on my spelling

hehehe....... just thoughts
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


59 posted 07-14-2004 10:41 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

Balladeer's figures are pretty well indicative of voting percentages. Most Senators, notwithstanding the perception of certain members of the public, are very dedicated and committed public servants without regard to their political bent.
No matter how you want to spin it, joke about it, or rationalize it, Kerry has taken a hiatus from being a Senator and is not even making a feeble effort to perform his Senatorial duties.  

Each person will have to decide whether that is right or wrong.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


60 posted 07-14-2004 11:40 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

I find it amusing how people keep pointing out that Kerry voted for force against Iraq, saying it's hypocritical he's changed his views on the war.

Kerry was misled with the same false information many of us were. He now knows differently and is attacking the administration and it's tactics.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


61 posted 07-15-2004 12:49 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic candidate John Kerry (news - web sites), whose campaign demanded to know on Wednesday whether President Bush (news - web sites) read a key Iraq (news - web sites) intelligence assessment, did not read the document himself before voting to give Bush the authority to go to war, aides acknowledged.

..from today's news.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


62 posted 07-15-2004 01:00 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Let's see a brief synopsis on Kerry's thoughts on Iraq over the years...

October 1990
Kerry Said “Iraq Has Developed A Chemical Weapons Capability.” “Today, we are confronted by a regional power, Iraq, which has attacked a weaker state, Kuwait. ... The crisis is even more threatening by virtue of the fact that Iraq has developed a chemical weapons capability, and is pursuing a nuclear weapons development program. And Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons of mass destruction in the past, whether in his war against Iran or against his own Kurdish population.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/2/90, p. S14330)

January 1991
Kerry Acknowledged Saddam Working Toward Development Of WMD “For Years.” “If we go to war in the next few days, it will not be because our immediate vital interests are so threatened and we have no other choice. It is not because of nuclear, chemical, biological weapons when, after all, Saddam Hussein had all those abilities or was working toward them for years ....” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 1/12/91, p. S369)

November 1997
Kerry Warned U.S. Senate Of Saddam’s WMD Capabilities. “It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences. Extremely small quantities of several known biological weapons have the capability to exterminate the entire population of cities the size of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. These could be delivered by ballistic missile, but they also could be delivered by much more pedestrian means; aerosol applicators on commercial trucks easily could suffice. If Saddam were to develop and then deploy usable atomic weapons, the same holds true.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

December 1997
Kerry Urged U.N. To Eliminate Iraq’s “Suspected Infrastructure For Developing And Manufacturing Weapons Of Mass Destruction.” “Democratic Senator John Kerry has said: ‘The Security Council should authorize a strong UN military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction.’ He added that ‘Saddam Hussein has intentionally or inadvertently set up a test which the entire world will be watching, and if he gets away with this arrogant ploy, he will have terminated the most important multilateral effort to defuse a legitimate threat to global security.’” (“US Lawmakers Threaten Military Action Against Iraq,” Agence France Presse, 12/12/97)

Kerry Said That If Saddam’s Weapon Capability Was Not Eliminated “We Will Be Called On To Send Our Ships And Our Troops At One Point In The Future Back To The Middle East.” “Saddam Hussein has violated … that standard [against using weapons of mass destruction] on several occasions previously and by most people's expectation, no matter what agreement we come up with, may well do so again. The greater likelihood is that we will be called on to send our ships and our troops at one point in the future back to the Middle East to stand up to the next crisis.” (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)

February 1998
Kerry Said Saddam Had Already Used WMD And Had Intent “To Do So” Again. “[T]here are set of principles here that are very large, larger in some measure than I think has been adequately conveyed, both internationally and certainly to the American people. Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East.” (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)

December 1998
Kerry Defended Clinton’s 1998 Attacks Because Saddam “Is Pursuing … Weapons Of Mass Destruction.” “Americans need to really understand the gravity and legitimacy of what is happening with Saddam Hussein. He has been given every opportunity in the world to comply. The president does not control the schedule of UNSCOM. The president did not withdraw the UNSCOM inspectors. And the president did not, obviously, cut a deal with Saddam Hussein to do this at this moment. Saddam Hussein has not complied. Saddam Hussein is pursuing a program to build weapons of mass destruction.”(Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 12/16/98)

Kerry: “I Am Prepared To Hold Saddam Hussein Accountable And Destroy His Weapons Of Mass Destruction.” (Ronald Brownstein, “Democratic Presidential Hopefuls Differ On War In Iraq,” Los Angeles Times, 10/6/02)


Kerry Said “Threat Of Saddam Hussein With Weapons Of Mass Destruction Is Real.” “The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)


Kerry Called It “Naive To The Point Of Grave Danger” To Leave Saddam “To His Own Devices.” “It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)


Kerry Questioned Saddam’s Actions With Respect To His WMD Capability. “Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don’t even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents? Does he do all of these things because he wants to live by international standards of behavior? Because he respects international law? Because he is a nice guy underneath it all and the world should trust him?” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)

October 2002
“Mr. Kerry … Said Iraq’s Weapons Of Mass Destruction Posed ‘A Real And Grave Threat’ To The United States.” (Dave Boyer, “Key Senators Of Both Parties Back Bush On Iraq War,” The Washington Times, 10/10/02)


Kerry Described Threat Of Saddam Hussein With WMD As Real, But Not New. “[W]e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America’s response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world’s response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 1/23/03)

January 2003
Kerry Said, “If You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me.” (Ronald Brownstein, “On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd,” Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)

Kerry Described Secretary Of State Colin Powell’s Evidence Of WMD In Iraq As “Real And Compelling.” “[Kerry] said the Bush administration has taken too long to make its case for military action, ‘but nonetheless I am glad we’ve reached this moment in our diplomacy.’ Kerry added: ‘Convincing evidence of Saddam Hussein’s possession of weapons of mass destruction should trigger, I believe, a final ultimatum from the United Nations for a full, complete, immediate disarmament of those weapons by Iraq. Over the next hours, I will work with my colleagues in the Senate to fully examine the evidence offered by the secretary for a complete and close reading. But, on its face, the evidence against Saddam Hussein appears real and compelling.’” (Wayne Washington, “Kennedy, Others Question Timing Of Attack But Presidential Hopefuls Back War With Iraq,” The Boston Globe, 2/6/03)

Kerry Said Saddam Hussein’s WMD “Are A Threat.” “I think Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that’s why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him. I think we need to …” (NPR’s “All Things Considered,” 3/19/03)


March 2003
As War Began, Kerry Said Saddam Chose “To Make Military Force The Ultimate Weapons Inspections Enforcement Mechanism.” “Senator John F. Kerry … had lambasted Bush’s diplomatic efforts, despite voting last fall in support of a congressional resolution authorizing military action to disarm Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction. ‘It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism,’ Kerry said.” (Glen Johnson, “Critics Of Bush Voice Support For The Troops,” The Boston Globe, 3/20/03)


June 2003
Kerry Said “It Would Be Irresponsible … To Draw Conclusions” That Suggest President Misled On WMD. ABC’S GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: “I know you said you’re agnostic about whether or not he misled the public on weapons of mass destruction. But do you have a hunch on whether you think they hyped the intelligence?” KERRY: “George, again, I think it would be irresponsible of me at this point to draw conclusions prior to all the evidence being on the table.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 6/15/03)


Decipher it for yourself and draw your own conclusions...
LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 06-19-2003
Posts 13093
SE PA


63 posted 07-15-2004 06:53 AM       View Profile for LeeJ   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for LeeJ

Hey Deer....EASY on the Backstreet Boys...ok...sheeeeshhhhh!     Just kidding.  

If I may, I have a question...regarding 9/11 and Weapons of Mass Destruction...excluding Iraq for a moment but keeping in mind, Bush's reasoning for invading Iraq

Don't you think, if at that time, the terrorists would have had privy to any Weapons of Mass Destruction on 9/11 they would have readily utilized those resources, and yet...they hijacked "our" planes????

My thoughts tend to lean toward the fact that they did not possess these resources...or they would have utilized them, then to their greatest capacity??? Yes?

Therefore...Bush played his cards and conveyed a totally dishonest representation using the Terrorists as a ploy to invade Iraq.  Which I might add, like a fool I trusted our government to do the right thing when it comes to war...I no longer possess that trust.  I'm a patriot...but if we go to war, I want to be certain it is for the freedom of our country and others.  Not for the profit of material gains!  

Most of us agree on that issue I believe, but my question is...this further war on terror, is it, or is it not propaganda due to it being an election year....b/c I'm swaying back and forth here that IF the terrorist had biochemical bombs or nuclear bombs, they would have used them at that time?  Yes

Another theory is, even if they had nuclear bombs, why would they use them?  They want our land, in tact, do they not?

So, my question is, will this be a guise for any upcoming President to use in the future?

Forgive me...I've just so thoroughly lost trust within our Governmental procedures, not to mention the media.  What is one to believe...lest we remember, when reading any article, we are reading an opinion...so are the facts clearly being stated in a biased article, or...are we reading something which has been swayed to the left or the right depending on the party of the writer??????


Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


64 posted 07-15-2004 08:25 AM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Deer how does that change my statement that Kerry was misled with the same false information many were? You use many pre-war and pre-Bush administration quotes on Iraq. Kerry, along with the rest of the world understood and recognized Iraqi possesion of WMDs and materials before the war. That's why resolutions and inspections were put into action.

The question is, at the time of war, was there valid information that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam had not disarmed and that he posed a significant threat. Enough to force an attack? NO. THIS is what Kerry is arguing against and has changed his mind about, the use of false intelligence and allusions to an immenent threat by the administration.

[This message has been edited by Aenimal (07-15-2004 11:44 AM).]

LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 06-19-2003
Posts 13093
SE PA


65 posted 07-15-2004 09:09 AM       View Profile for LeeJ   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for LeeJ

It doesn't change your statement, but I'm going deeper then that...please read again...and remember, I'm curious as to what others think...it's not pro-Bush or Kerry...but more so about the terrorists and if in fact there are these kinds of weapons available to them?  

If so, wouldn't they have used them already?

I don't believe so....I think, they used what they had available...our planes.  

Which helps me further lean toward the idea that this terrorsit thing is blown way out of porportion by both media and government?

Is that, could that also be a likely scenerio?  

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


66 posted 07-15-2004 11:44 AM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Oh not you Lee, was referring to Deer's Kerry quotes.
LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 06-19-2003
Posts 13093
SE PA


67 posted 07-15-2004 02:51 PM       View Profile for LeeJ   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for LeeJ

whoops, so sorry
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


68 posted 07-15-2004 04:25 PM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

quote:
The question is, at the time of war, was there valid information that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam had not disarmed and that he posed a significant threat.


Aenimal:

Just curious ... is this the sole criterion for the Iraq War being just?  Did the U.S. have other legitimate interests in the overthrow of Saddam (who was indisputably a tyrant)?  WMD and collusion with terrorist organizations aside, from a human rights perspective, don't you think Saddam's overthrow was justifiable?

Jim
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


69 posted 07-15-2004 05:46 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

quote:
is this the sole criterion for the Iraq War being just?


No, not the sole criterion, but it's pretty important to have just cause & irrefutable evidence before undermining the UN and more importantly sacrificing the lives of your countrymen. It took more to join the war against facicsm then it did to attack Iraq.

quote:
Did the U.S. have other legitimate interests in the overthrow of Saddam (who was indisputably a tyrant)?  WMD and collusion with terrorist organizations aside, from a human rights perspective, don't you think Saddam's overthrow was justifiable?


jboulder if you are going to take out WMD/terrorism links, NO. They would have been justification, had they been true, to undermine the UN ruling and launch an attack. Without the immenent threat of either the attack is hollow. Launching an unjustified war against a muslim country is simply insane.

The human rights perspective is a secondary issue, it wasn't the reason for the attack. And while I applaud the ousting of a tyrant it doesn't justify lying to the public, undermining the UN and surging into an all out war. There are many undisputed tyrants walking the face of the earth today. Consider China's treatment of Tibet(which the world turns a blind eye to), Fidel Castro's grip over Cuba, and choose any number of Dictators and tribes causing havoc in Africa.

Should Saddam have been ousted? Yes. But at the cost of human lives, world diplomacy and truth? No
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


70 posted 07-15-2004 08:04 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

I absolutely agree with Aenimal.

There is no argument that Saddam was an unjust leader who afflicted harm and malice upon hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens. Already having discovered four hundred thousand graves in Iraqi of innocent victims, getting away with murder is always wrong whatsoever and should be denounced.

However, the fact that the Administration keeps using this argument as wallpaper alone, and saying that he had the potential to build weapons of mass destruction in attempting to justify an invasion is beyond pitiful. There is no clear evidence that Iraq was involved behind 9/11, or even that they have any fraternal connections to al-Qaeda.

Tony Blair has already confessed that they may never find these "weapons of mass destruction" and Bush has admitted they haven't found any yet, yet he continues to use this cardboard frame of Saddam being a malevolent dictator to justify the war. And while I don't believe in war, it's even hypocritical for those for the war in their own reasonable respects to believe that yet have no concern about Iran continuing their nuclear-weapons program, building closr talks with North Korea, etc.

I'm glad Saddam can't torture any civilian anymore, but two or more wrongs don't make a wrong. There could have been a secret operation to capture and arrest Saddam and his top aides, anything like that without the need of war. But lies, exaggerations, and impatience are the three major pillars to this invasion, and no matter what the argument here, three wrongs do not make a right.

(whew) Oh, right, back to Kerry now!

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


71 posted 07-15-2004 08:14 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Lee, I'll try to answer you...

Don't you think, if at that time, the terrorists would have had privy to any Weapons of Mass Destruction on 9/11 they would have readily utilized those resources, and yet...they hijacked "our" planes????

Yes, I certainly feel that, if Bin Laden had nuclear weapons, he would have used them. I don't think anyone felt he had them. Bush's reason for invading Iraq was to make sure he, or others, DIDN'T get them. Every rational person in the 90's, including the UN, felt Iraq had WMD's by the facts that a certain percentage of the gases he used on the Kurds were unaccounted for plus the runaround he kept giving the UN weapons inspectors plus other indications leading in that direction. Remember the scenario which many appear to dis regard. We had been attacked by a terrorist group with thousands of Americans dying. This was an unadulterated declaration of war by the terrorist groups on the United States. Basically the only weapons they used were box cutters and our own planes. Do you feel that the terrorists would like to have WMDS? Of course. Well, there's Iraq, run by a dictator who has expressed his hatred of the US and who has WMDs unaccounted for....a nasty combination. Is it feasable to believe he may be willing to provide WMDs to terrorists for the right price and for revenge against the US for Kuwait? I would certainly think so. That, in my opinion, is why Hussein was taken out...to prevent the possibility of that scenario happening.

Another theory is, even if they had nuclear bombs, why would they use them?  They want our land, in tact, do they not?

No, Lee, they could care less about having our land intact. Their only goal is the destruction of the United States and other democratic countries. They have made that clear. They will willingly die in order to kill Americans....and they do.

Yes, there are those here who will pick apart my explanation for flaws and that's ok...they are my opinions. Let me pose another scenario to you, Lee. Thousands of people die on 9/11. Terrorist groups state they will destroy the US. We do not go after Hussein. Sometime in the future Hussein provides WMDs to a terrorist group and there is another attack on the US in which tens of thousands die. You can bet your bottom dollar that everyone, including the people screaming for Bush's head now, would scream, "What the hell did Bush do?? We had been attacked! He KNEW terrorists would strike again! He KNEW Hussein had WMDs! Why didn't he stop him??? Why didn't he get Hussein out of power??? BUSH is responsible for these tens of thousands of deaths!!!!!!" You think it wouldn't happen that way? Don't believe it for a second. If Bush erred on his actions against Iraq, he erred on the side of safety for the country. If he was correct, we will never know because the future attack will not have happened. The fact that nothing HAS happened is a very good sign, in my opinion...
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


72 posted 07-15-2004 08:49 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Aenimal, I made no claim that my entry was meant to change your statement nor did I make any reference to you at all.

The compilation of Kerry statements were simply meant to show that, since 1990 Kerry has stated in no uncertain terms that Hussein possessed WMDs and must be removed from power. Kennedy, Hillary, Dashell and others made the same statements and I have listed them specifically in other threads here, which most of you have ignored. These "certainties" were based on the intelligence gathered at the time. This was long before Bush was around. Yet I hear no one complaining about that "errant" information. They prefer to claim that it was solely BUSH who came up with the bad intelligence, as if the decade of Democrats calling for Hussein's head due to their certainty of his WMDs never really happened. It's all Bush's fault. If the intelligence which occured mostly under Clinton's presidency was incorrect somehow that's Bush's fault. I find that incredible...

I've seen no one respond to the egg Kerry is wiping off his face right now about those intelligence reports. As I stated above, seems he lambasted Bush about whether or not Bush had read all of the intelligence reports when Kerry himself had not read them, according to his own people. They say he had asked for a one-page, cliff-notes type of summary instead of having to read the full 90 pages. Apparently he didn't have time, sort of like the way he didn't have time to vote or didn't have time to read the latest report on homeland security. Anyone see a recurring theme here...?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


73 posted 07-15-2004 08:52 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Noah, I see once again that your only way of promoting Kerry to to attack Bush. Obviously you are still in a "...because he's not Bush" mode. Thank you. That's was this thread was designed to be
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


74 posted 07-15-2004 09:35 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

While it is true that nothing is going to make me vote for Bush now and I am voting for Kerry by default, how many times do I have to hammer down that I also have an optimistic intent on voting for the ticket because of Edwards re-invigorating the political climate and because the least Kerry could do is improve international relations?

I can agree that it is wrong that Bush should be the sole person to blame in this whole mess, since Bush Sr, Clinton and their administrations were involved in their own ways also, and that people are inclined to believe only Bush should be blamed. Though I have said before that we haven't had a "great" president in many years and said Clinton is probably the best president we've had since the time I was born, I have admitted that I too was disappointed with Clinton's scandals and that he should have treated defense than more just salt on the rim of his coffee mug. But, let's face the facts. 9/11 occurred during Bush's term. You can go on all you want and say it's all because the Clinton Administration leaving us vulnerable that this happened, but anything can happen in nine months and him and his administration should have been more responsible regardless. Not all the matter should be put on Bush's shoulders, but a considerable part is, and using previous administration excuses can't lift the whole mass off.

Frankly, I also am amazed that you seem to refuse listening to my other reasons in my vote for Kerry besides the obvious Bush default. Though you know I am against his policies, I never once specifically wrote "because he is not Bush" anywhere in this thread, you pulled that out yourself. It's not solely because I believe our country needs a change of direction, it's that I believe I have noticed a direction that's worth following. Behind Kerry's shoulder I see a man who I already see many seeing promises in that are not empty. And while I believe no politician can fulfill all promises, Edwards is very genuine in the way he speaks and approaches the public and that well reflects his agenda too I'm sure. Where Kerry stumbles, he will keep the nation upbeat and comfortable, and will make a fine president I imagine.

So, let me get this by one more time. My justifications go beyond just five words, my reasoning is a thesis of twelve words:

"Not only because he is not Bush, but because he's with Edwards!"

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton



"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Why Not Kerry??   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors