»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Presidential Debates
| The Alley |
|
Presidential Debates |
|
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas 
|
Instead of seeing analysis of the Debates being hosted in a thread about the election process, I'm hereby opening this thread to contain those little nuggets of insight, evaluation, nuance, and camera angles.  Have fun, speak your mind, and be mindful of other peoples' minds. |
||
| © Copyright 2004 Alastair Adamson - All Rights Reserved | |||
Larry C
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286United States |
Let the games begin. But my mind was already made up!  If tears could build a stairway and memories a lane, I'd walk right up to heaven and bring you home again. |
||
Mysteria
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
Oh, I thought Bush was just as cool as a cucumber, except I could hear his breathing. I do think that Kerry came well prepared with his debate, and I didn't hear his breathing by the way  I thought Kerry had some great questions, that I didn't think got answered the way I wanted them too, but hey, it was a debate right? My favorite was the one from Kerry to Bush about his making decisions, sticking to them, and his question about when does it become just plain stubborn and wrong after everyone wants you to change the decision made? Wish I could hear from a soldier what they think about this debate, I really do. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Senator Kerry was very prepared and very eloquent, and you could see him taking very fast notes while President Bush was speaking. Seeing as how Senator Kerry is a rather verbose speaker, I know getting his responses down to 2 minutes must have been challenging. President Bush was passionate and eloquent, at times, since he tends to speak more 'off the cuff' instead of from prepared, rehearsed notes. Hence his verbal pauses which damaged his message a bit. One thing I did take umbrage at was Senator Kerry using a timed portion of a question to answer the previous question, knowing full well that President Bush would not get a rebuttal. Dirty and disrespectful tactic and outside the bounds of the moderation rules they both agreed to follow. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
I agree Alicat, it bothered me that Kerry snuck in as much as he did. That said, Bush picked up on and used the tactic quite effectively himself. Ultimately, the blame lies in the moderator, who should have stopped them both. I think the cutaways were friendlier to Kerry. He was calm, collected, took notes, while Bush seemed surly and annoyed. |
||
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
 Kerry wins Round One, and I'm not saying that just because I'm voting for him November 2nd, but because I really felt it. Why Kerry Won Going into this debate, Kerry was clearly an underdog to Bush. On the issue of the war on terror, Iraq and foreign policy, some polls have shown Bush has a 30-point lead over Kerry, Most polls even show Bush leading Kerry by a 2-to-1 margin on who they believe would be a better commander-in-chief. Bush could have easily crushed Kerry using his "various positions on Iraq" strategy, relentlessly onslaughting Kerry on his so-called "flip-flopping". Bush possibly could have put this election away by arguing Kerry had no clear position on Iraq. Instead, Kerry came out strong, particularly convincing, and revealed that there are two distinct arguments on the war in Iraq. Judging by the video caps, you could tell Kerry was psyched, happy to be in Miami and to debate the issues, Bush, on the other hand, looked like he didn't want to be there, he acted impatient and peeved. When Bush looked flustered and angry on camera, Kerry managed to keep discipline by penning something down or giving the occasional grin. Kerry clearly did his homework, regardless of how factual or non-factual his research was. He had flavor in his arguments, using data from the FBI/120,000 hours of unviewed al-Qaeda tape, to Bush's father and deciding not to invade Iraq, to his opinion on the Darfur region of Sudan. In addition, he was concise and open enough to understand. His arguments had meat, but he made sure they were arguments the audience could relate to. He wasn't overly wordy or grandiose, he got his message across. Bush, on the other hand, was monotonous and underprepared. Eleven times during the evening he said "It's hard work!". That can certainly explain a lot. So can saying "mixed messages" on and on without re-inforcing the examples. Bush mentioned the $87 billion controversy once, which Kerry clearly found an isthmus through and at the same time used the controversy against Bush in argument, when saying misleading is worse than a mistake of phrasing like that. Bush was inarticulate. He had long breaks between responses, sometimes as much as five seconds. Even on thirty second rebuttals, when it seemed he was determined to say something, he stumbled and showed he actually had nothing to say. He was like an impatient school boy who wanted to get attention. Even Bush's general strengths worked against him Thursday night. he is known for being generally likeable, simple, and having a next-door-neighbor type of personality, one you can easily relate to. But the monotony of saying phrases like "I believe in freedom" or "I believe Iraq wants to be free" proved him all too stoppable. He talked in circles, his language was bland, and, essentially, a bore after the first thirty minutes especially. On top of it all, the lighting system, which would seem to benefit Bush more than Kerry due to Kerry's tendency to speak for long intervals, actually benefitted Kerry more than Bush. Kerry was able to understand how to contain his message in a time limit, while Bush sometimes ran out of things to say when it was still a green or yellow light, sometimes he'd pause and keep talking when the red light was blinking. Kerry's debate wasn't without its flaws, however. There remain some moth-holes on his stance on Iraq, which he will still have to cope with. With that said, Bush will likely remain on top in the polls going into the next debates. However, Kerry can close in the gap in this race and is clearly campaigning like a contender again. Bush gets credit for having a small edge as far as likeability following the debate in a poll. Despite faltering, it wasn't a knockout punch on Bush last night, merely just a round he lost. However, Kerry may have gained likeability from this, another positive indicator for the Kerry campaign. In the end, Kerry was unarguably the winner. Kerry was able to rise above the mass adversity he was facing entering the debate, while Bush seemed to be left debating himself. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Kerry was clearly the winner on style. Bush was clearly the winner on substance. Kerry is a gifted orator. Bush isn't. He's more of an off-the-cuff speaker. Kerry looked well rested and refreshed. Bush looked like he needed a vacation. |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
I thought Kerry did a fine job on substance as well as style. And Bush does need a vacation. As for the debate format, I'd still rather see less rules controlling the debate, more freedom for the opponents to ask/respond directly to one another on AT LEAST one of their own chosen Q's. The President has to be able to perform intelligently 24/7 on the hot seat, so why not allow us to watch them in the heat of debate? It is overly controlled. But this one still felt less 'canned' than the lame debates 4 years ago. Eventually, we each have to vote for whichever one we trust to do the best job. For style, substance, energy and believability, Kerry won round one in my opinion, and that's all it is in the end...my opinion. |
||
|
Goldenrose Member Elite
since 2003-05-30
Posts 3665 |
I have only seen small amounts of this debate, but to my mind this should come squarely down to ''do you want more of your troops to get killed in a war they should never have got into in the first place so that oil can make the president richer, and be alienated by the rest of the world, or do you want, troops back home, peace and respect from the international community'' If its the first vote for Bush..if its the second vote for Kerry. How people look on tv isnt going to stop the killing and dying of innocent people, only in this mixed up image focused world do we get this type of media fishbowl. Vote kerry and get the troops back where they belong and should have been in the first place, HOME. Peace to everyone. Goldenrose. The supreme happiness in life is the conviction that we are loved. Victor Hugo. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
'Peace at any cost' was Kerry's ideology during the Vietnam era. I tend to believe that it is still his ideology today. He believes Iraq is the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place just as he believed Vietnam was. He influenced the politicians to turn their backs on those we pledged to help back then. Do we have any reason to believe that he wouldn't turn his back on those in Iraq that we have pledged to help now? It's easy to be wowed by a smooth-talker. You have to dig a little to try to ascertain the message behind the words. You can't tout the 'wrong war' message and expect additional allies to come on board and help fight, putting their troops lives on the line for the 'wrong war', or continue to ask our troops to lay down their lives for the 'wrong war', or implant in our soldiers' minds "will I be the last to die for the 'wrong war'. Which seems to be what he is saying he will do. It doesn't make sense. I tend to believe he will do exactly what he had a hand in doing with Vietnam. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Kerry didn't turn his back on his comrades, but on a needless and misguided war. What Republicans are calling an early 'flip flop' is actually an example of wisdom and character. Kerry had the courage to serve in Vietnam, catching its horrors first-hand in it's swift boat campaign, which incidentely was one the US militaries biggest mistakes. (Something like a 90% failure/mortality rate.) He then had the courage upon returning home, to stand up against the war and for saving US soldiers. Disgustingly, when Republicans aren't questioning his conviction they're questioning his service. But those who actually served with him know the truth. And on the Veterans United for Kerry site an article poignantly reads: 'John Kerry volunteered for Vietnam, and upon returning home, said the war was wrong; George Bush stayed at home, but insisted the war was right. Who has character?' As for this Iraq, the proper war was abandoned, that against terror and Al-Queda. Bush has carelessly misused resources and more importantly lives for a fabricated war. I believe Kerry will utilize those troops the right way and for the right reasons. It will be an uphill battle, having to clean the Bush mess first and gaining support, but I believe Kerry will, at the very least, do better than Bush has. |
||
|
littlewing Member Rara Avis
since 2003-03-02
Posts 9655New York |
excellent explanation, I could not have stated it better myself Raph. I liked how Kerry noted that we are far extending ourselves in the wrong places and with the wrong organizations. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Here is an enlightening article that brings into focus Kerry's inconsistent positions. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/larrykudlow/lk20041001.shtml Raph, whether Kerry displayed character or not while in Vietnam, Kerry definitely did not display character when he returned from Vietnam (while he was technically still a Commissioned Officer, no less) when he and members of his group met with the enemy in Paris while we were still engaged in that war and returned home advocating the enemy's talking points, and methodically set about to demolish the morale of the troops and the resolve of the people to win the war through the lies and propaganda of the enemy. I think that suggests a person completely devoid of character. If the politicians weren't all running scared at the time because of the devisiveness that his group generated, he would probably have been tried for treason. He's certainly not someone who should be entrusted with the highest office in the land. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
According to Conservative columnist Robert Novak, of Valere Plame fame (who has the inside administration connections to get leaky scoops) in a second Bush administration there will be a hasty withdrawal from Iraq: quote: http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak20.html Now.. onto the debate... How much substance is there in saying 'Hard work' 17 or so times? That's Bush's substance for cleaning up Iraq. The rest of the time he spent mocking Kerry with 'Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time.' Give me a break already. Distortions and Misstatements in the debate; Bush; 'Kerry would withdraw troops from Iraq in six months' What Kerry has actually said is that if his plan is implemented we could significantly reduce troops in six months Bush; '100,000 Iraqi security forces have been trained' Only 8000 have actually been trained fully the rest only received a three-week 'shake and bake' course and somewhere between 40 and 60 percent are going to be fired. Bush; 'We're spending the money' (for Iraqi reconstruction) This is a point of contention even between Republican members of Congress and Senate prompting sharp criticism from McCain, Lugar, and Hagel, they've only spent 1.2 billion of the 18 billion set aside -- meanwhile -- we all know what the problems are there. Bush; ' 75 percent" of al Qaeda leaders have been "brought to justice' Not factual -- the CIA has confirmed 2/3rds of al Qaeda leadership at the time of 9/11 have been killed or captured (for which President Bush deserves our unrestrained applause) but they have actually grown in size and reach to about 18,000 operatives in autonomous cells -- each with its own leader. Bush; '10 million registered to vote in Afghanistan' According to human rights watch they're voting Chicago style there with multiply registered voters. Bush; 'My administration worked with the congress to create the Department of Homeland Security' Not until it opposed it for 9 months it didn't Bush; 'My administration increased spending by about 35% (on curbing nuclear proliferation)' His administration has cut it by 13% Now on to Kerry -- Kerry; '200 billion dollars for the war in Iraq' Come on senator -- it's only 120 and you know it -- isn't 120 a big enough number for you to criticize? Kerry; 'This administration let Osama bin Laden go at Tora Bora because it outsourced it to' yadda yadda yadda... There is no verification that OBL was ever at Tora Bora let alone surrounded -- but it is a fact that we began to rely heavily on Afghan warlords. Kerry; 'They had to close the subway in New York during the Republican Convention)' False: The subway was running -- Penn Station was closed for a period. Kerry; 'Bush administration is spending hundreds of millions on bunker busting nukes' Wrong, $35 million spent -- Right -- $500 million set aside for future budgets if Congress approves the weapon. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Ah yes, speaking of lies and propaganda, more lies from the (SBVT)Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign. The treason you speak of forbids US citizens from negotiating treaties with foreign governments. But Kerry never negotiated or entered any of the talk sessions and therefor wasn't guilty of anyhing Denise. Kerry should be applauded, not lauded, for looking at things from both ends and making an evaluation for himself. That accusation, one of many from the SBVT, is another example of disgusting Bush administration tactics. One that Rep. Senator McCain has spoken out against. And he would know, Bush's campaigners tried to sully his name by questioning his mental fitness(with regards to his years spent as a POW) during their battle for Republican leadership. The SBVT deals with everything but truth, out of it's 254 members, only one served under Kerry. As Jim Rassman who served under Kerry stated: "..their lies cut deep and are directed not just at John Kerry, but at me and each of his crewmates as well. This hate-filled ad asserts that I was not under fire; it questions my words and my Navy records. This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency....” How a man and administration who knowingly used false information, let their sites of the real war, has links to and has protected the Saudis(how's that for being in bed with the enemy), or whose military contracting shows clear bias to Bush family/Republican interests can be deemed more trustworthy and capable is beyond logic. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Raph, the treason I speak of is of a person who is still technically a Commissioned Officer, during a time of war, giving aid and comfort to the enemy by the active dissemination of the enemy's lies and propagandistic talking points for the demoralization of the troops and for the breaking of the will of the people to win. Kerry's actions while in the VVAW were instrumental in Hanoi's victory. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Thanks to others for making some of the same points I was going to make. Admittedly, on reading Denise's first accusations of treason, I thought, "Well, shoot the messenger, will ya?" It's a little bit trickier than that. I'll try to go into this a bit later, but while I think nothing happened in Paris, I do think Kerry let himself be fooled into being used as a propaganda tool. I think the picture at the war crimes/remnants museum is still propaganda. The problem, however, is not treason, it's that Kerry was a man of character and not a diplomat. I think aenimal is right. More later. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Much of the 'propaganda' and enemy 'lies' you speak of Denise, for example a true account of what happened at the Gulf of Tonkin, have proven true today. Kerry saw that truth and felt it neccessary to educate his fellow soldiers, pawns in the horror of Vietnam. What you deem in the interests of the enemy(who incidentely had pledged their alliance before being wrongfully occupied), was in the interest of stopping a bloody and futile war that put his brothers lives at stake. You call it treason, many call it 'doing the right thing'. It may not have been the best way to go about it, but at least he had the courage,wisdom and heart to try. And you're probably sitting there thinking this is a justification for treason, but i think that beats a justification for war anyday. Kerry wanted troops out of the fire and safe, Bush created a fire and threw them in. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
It doesn't matter if they served directly under Kerry or not. He certainly wasn't there long enough to have had too many people serving under him. So what? They were there serving alongside him when he was there, nonetheless. Their memories contradict most of his memories during that time frame. Dismiss them as liars if you wish. "Shoot the messenger" ... a messenger of truth or a messenger of lies, distortions and propaganda? There's a difference. He had a strange way of trying to help his fellow armed services members, accusing them of vicious atrocities, saying that the atrocities were wide spread and system wide and up and down the entire chain of command, instead of the isolated incidents that did occur as they do in any war, to the point that they were spit upon and reviled as nothing more than criminals when they returned home, the overwhelming majority of whom did not commit atrocities and were only there because they were drafted and had no choice but to be there. With a 'friend' like that, you certainly don't need enemies. Ask the veterans what they think of Kerry's "courage, wisdom and heart". He now admits that he was in Paris at least on the occasion of one of the meetings between the representatives of the Viet Cong and the VVAW. Coincidence? I find it hard to believe that he would travel all the way to Paris at the same exact time of the meeting and not actually attend the meeting. He could have chosen any place in the world to have his honeymoon, but he chose that place at that time. But even if he were given the benefit of the doubt about actually attending the meeting, that doesn't excuse his participation in a group, of which he was a leading force, that set about to undermine troop morale and the will of the people to win against the enemy by the spreading of the enemies lies and propaganda. quote: I think that best sums up your value system, Raph. A justification for treason wins out hands down over a justification for war. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Might not be a bad idea, Denise. I suspect you would, as in most things, get a wide range of answers, but speaking as one of those veterans, I can tell you without equivocation … you won't like all the answers. Personally, I can't speak to courage or wisdom or some nebulous quality called heart. But having lived through those years, I feel I can judge veracity. I certainly don't support all of Kerry's claims, which is hardly surprising when you consider that two people viewing the same scene will rarely agree on all the details. But I look at what he says, and I look at what you say, and it's clear to me who was there and who was not. The irony is that even if you knew what you were talking about, even if you were right, you'd still be wrong. The protestors shouldn't be blamed for the withdrawal of troops from Vietnam. Whether they told lies or truths isn't even relevant today. When the will of the people to win can be undermined by persuasion, when their conviction is so weak as to be swayed, there clearly should never have been a war for anyone to protest. If we're going to resort to killing people, we probably should be a little more sure it's the right thing to do. Peaceful disagreement with government policy isn't an act of treason, but rather one of highest patriotism. Those who sit on their collective butts, wrapped in their apathy, are the real traitors to America. Those who blindly follow anyone waving a flag in their face are the real traitors, not just to America, but to all of humanity. We need dissention. We need people who can look at our side, and then look at the enemy's side, and find the courage to tell us when we might be wrong. You don't have to agree with the dissenter. But if you have any conviction in what you believe, you sure as hell shouldn't fear them, either. And when you lose to them, because their truth was ultimately more convincing than yours, you shouldn't call them dirty names thirty years down the road. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: So what??? 3,500 soldiers served on swift boats. Of them 254 refute what Kerry has said. Of the 254, ONE person served under Kerry. They were not serving 'alongside' him, and have no right to refute or call into question his service or medals. Those who DID serve under his command confirm and are appalled by the SBVT, republican sponsored vets many of whom spoke out against Kerry in 1971 at the behest Nixon. And Ron is right, look and you'll find that there are as many vet groups for Kerry as you believe there are against. As for Paris he admits he met with people but never actively negotiated or attended talks. quote: Well it wasn't treason but yes treason in order to educate soldiers of what they were a part of vs the their needless slaughter and exploitation does show my value system. I believe in truth and the preservation of life, silly me. Your justifications for, or outright ignoring of information including Bush links to Saudis, profiteering, false information and the War on Iraq demonstrates yours. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
And btw speaking of treason, the Bush administration leaked the name of a CIA agent for refuting intelligence on Iraq. Releasing the name of an agent is against federal law and an official act of treason. I don't recall anyone being charged. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
As for the first Debate on image quality, Bush did indeed look tired, and Kerry rather rested. I was reminded of another famous televised Presidential debate: the very first one between Kennedy and Nixon. Granted, I wasn't even thought of then, but I have seen it aired many times over the years, and have read much about it, and there are some similarities. Kennedy was in a dark suit to contrast against the bland background, rested, and nicely tanned from a beach vacation prior to the debate. Nixon was just back from a foreign trade trip to China, sick and feverish, in a hastily donned crumpled suit which blended into the background, with his infamous 5 o'clock shadow. Irregardless of what was said, Kennedy came off more presidential and confident, and many were turned off by Nixon's pallor, shadow, and fevered sweat, though they didn't know he was sick, but nervous. Kerry well rested, tanned, and prepared. Bush tired, pale, overprepared. One from a vacation, one from work. I'm not making apologetics. Kerry clearly won the first debate on many fronts, including appearance. |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
Perhaps, this observation is a good reason we should listen to these debates on the radio, or maybe read the candidates transcripts, and turn off the TV. In any event, peevish tired looks or tanned smiling glows alone have nothing to do with my voting decision. I believe (and hope I'm right) that most voters go beyond the surface when making up their minds. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
What someone says is only a fraction of communication though Kacey -- that's why reaction shots ARE important. Body language, tone, gestures, all are important cues to revealing the entire communication -- which is why television is great -- 90% of all information comes in through the eyes. If you only have the audio or the text - you only have half of the story. Re: Ali's last post -- the opposite is true -- Bush took a more casual approach to preparing for the debates according to his handlers -- they just sat around and lobbed questions at each other. Bush isn't studious. Kerry, on the other hand, practiced in a total mock-up of the debates and prepared for days on end. You can look at it as being rehearsed or as being prepared. Another factor that effects the President is the insulation he lives behind. He's totally surrounded by sycophants -- the only people who can come to his rallies are loyal supporters, and the closest a protester can ever get is miles away in a 'free-speech' zone. He isn't used to being challenged. It clearly rattled him. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
No, I wasn't there Ron, but I know people who were. None of them witnessed the so-called atrocities that Kerry and his group claims was so all-pervasive. And I didn't live in a vacuum back here in the States. The fact that people protested the war is not the issue. And the issue is not between protestors and those who blindly follow anyone waving a flag. The issue is in how some decided to protest. Yes, we need dissent. I never said that peaceful dissent was an act of treason. But dissent can be done without crossing the line and back-door dealing with the enemy and funding and participating in an organization that spread the vicious lies and propaganda of the enemy to achieve its goals. And of course it's relevant today whether they told the truth or not. The intervening thirty years doesn't change that. And we didn't lose because their truth was more convincing. We lost because they persuaded people that the lies that they were parading as truth was truth. But even if you believed that I knew what I was talking about, and even if you believed I was right, you'd still believe I was wrong. I wish I could say I was surprised, but I'm not. Raph, how many swift boaters were there during Kerry's 4 months? I'm sure your figure of 3,500 encompasses a greater time frame than 4 months. Most of the 254 were there during that time frame with a few arriving shortly after he left. I believe in truth and the preservation of life too. What I don't believe in is consorting with the enemy. And no, I don't buy into the leftist claims of profiteering as a motive and having been "lied" into or "misled" into Iraq. And I don't believe that the Bush family ties to Saudi Arabia have anything to do with Iraq. Someone in the Bush Administration is suspected of leaking her name. You may recall that there is an ongoing investigation. |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/ one more source for input from veterans |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
However many swift boat crews were out there during Kerry's command does not change the fact that only ONE of 254 served under Kerry and are therefor unfit to comment on the accuracy or legitimacy of his service and the medals he was awarded. The SBVT campaign calls into question not only Kerry but the crews that served under his command. I'd rather take the word of people who were there, people who aren't linked to pro-republican interests thanks. Claims? There is irrefutable evidence that Bush has profited from the war. You're missing the point and ignoring the facts. Whether that was his motive for going to war is not the issue. The issue is that he HAS profited from the war and that his administration has contracted to companies with Bush/Republican interest. At the very least, it's called a conflict of interest. I'm not equating his links to the Saudis with Iraq. What should concern you is that Saudi Arabia, a known breeding ground and haven for Al Queda(you remember them, the enemy before Saddam?) cells, was not deemed a threat or included in the dreaded 'Axis of Evil' If Bush is intent on American safety why are the Saudis not even mentioned or terrorist camps rooted out and destroyed? Why were Saudis flown out of the US after 9/11? Conspiracies aside these are legitimate that raise eyebrows and should be addressed. Sorry suspected of leaking. Well Kerry was suspected of treason and found not guilty. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Back to the debate, Bush tried without success to drive home the Kerry flip-flop issue before and during the debate. I think Kerry is doing well to finally pull himself away from that ridiculous label and just to drive the point home let's take a look at at Bush's record of flip flops during the last 4 years or so brought to you by Veterans united for Kerry. I particularly like the issue I've placed in bold, considering Osama attacked US soil which Kerry reminded Bush during the debate. 1. Department of Homeland Security BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02] ...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02] 2. Weapons of Mass Destruction BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories…for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03] ...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons. And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04] 3. Free Trade BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02] ...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03] 4. Osama Bin Laden BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01] ...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important." [President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02] 5. The Environment BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to…establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00] ...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03] 6. WMD Commission BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04] ...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04] 7. Creation of the 9/11 Commission BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02] ...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02] 8. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04] ...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04] 9. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04] ...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04] 10. Gay Marriage BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00] ...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04] 11. Nation Building BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00] ...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03] 12. Saddam/al Qaeda Link BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02] ...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03] 13. U.N. Resolution BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03] ...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03] 14. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02] ...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03] 15. Campaign Finance BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000] ...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold singing ceremony, 03/27/02] |
||
|
Goldenrose Member Elite
since 2003-05-30
Posts 3665 |
Denise do you know why Bush wasnt in Vietnam? He wasnt there because his daddy (like everything else in his life) made sure he wasnt there. He was off dancing with the devil, taking good long snorts of his dandruff, so even if if was SUPPOSED to be in the air national guard, he would have been totally useless anyway. That is not a nice recomendation for anyone, let alone a PRESIDENT. At least kerry was there, and took wounds for his country, the only wounds Bush took during that war was to his septum. Peace..get the troops from ALL countries back home... Goldenrose. The supreme happiness in life is the conviction that we are loved. Victor Hugo. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
quote: I would agree, as long as we are not fooled into praising arrangement over substance. Kerry did a fine job in presenting, but some of his assertions raised red flags. The only way of conceiving of Kerry as the clear victor in the debate is if you place arrangement on equal footing with substance. For example, Kerry seems to place too great a stake in alliance-building, and his criticism of Bush for acting without the tacit support of the UN, France, Russia, and Germany (all with a venal interest in Saddam's continued rule over Iraq) runs the risk of placing unanimity over our national interests. Kerry's articulation of his position was perhaps more clear, but the substance is problematic. After the debate, I'm not convinced that Kerry has what it takes to prevent another 9/11. In a post-9/11 war, I'm glad we have a Texan as Commander-in-Chief. I'll be watching with great interest Kerry's treatment of domestic issues. He has been an outspoken critic (and supporter) of No Child Left Behind, but I hope he addresses some of the revelations that Bush's first Act have offerred regarding substantive failings of our educational systems to provide the most vulnerable children with a meaningful education. Will he address the real problems, or placate the teacher's unions and school administrator assocations by scrapping the accountability standards his historically friendly special interests oppose? quote: So their time is freed to sift through the rubble of the Sears Tower or Empire State Building after Al Quaida has an opportunity to rebuild itself and attack us again? So Iraq can become another Fundamentalist Islamic state? So terrorists can mow down innocent students in another school? War sucks, but pie-in-the-sky pacifism is not only insane, it also makes the pacifist an accessory to future attacks ... in my opinion. Jim |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Your unspoken assumption, Jim, is that killing people will necessarily stop all those things from happening. While I agree pie-in-the-sky pacifism is a poor answer, I've seen no reason to believe willy-nilly attacks are any more effective. The need to "do something, even if it's wrong" is a common emotion, but one that doesn’t always translate well to international affairs. History, and perhaps none more so than our own, would suggest killing an idealist is easy enough, but bullets seem to have little effect on ideals. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
But the unspoken assumption that the attacks are "willy-nilly" is debatable. The destruction of Al Qaida training camps in northern Iraq, for example, is by no means "willy-nilly" and the families of suicide bombers in Israel are no longer receiving checks from Saddam. Kerry even supported once that the removal of Saddam from power was in the public interest of the United States. As for idealists vs. ideals, for ideals to change, the terrain must be prepared to allow for the change. By suppressing the influence of the fanaticist, you open doors to diplomacy and positive change. The glossed-over achievements in Afganistan and the upcoming elections in Iraq are evidence that military and diplomatic efforts operating on parallel tracks can be effective. For freedom to reign and for individual liberties to thrive, you first must remove the tyrant. On second thought, perhaps we ought to invite Osama over to the states to drink beer, eat wings, and watch an Eagles game so he can see that all this fighting has arisen from nothing more than a big misunderstanding. I'm sure if we gave him the chance, he'd see that the peaceable road is the better and enlightened view, and we can all proceed from there as friends. Osama's a bright guy ... I'm sure he would be amenable to reason. Jim |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
quote:Reb quote quote:jbouder quote * Reb, and Jim, regarding these comments: communication between blind, deaf, or the deaf-blind...this sounds as if you think they only process 10%-50% of the message? That they somehow absorb less than sighted/hearing of the truth' that is out there, that sighted people have some inherently greater ability to 'see the truth' or heaven forbid, that they 'see' with an open mind or open eyes? In real life, I've found those assumptions to be completely false. While I enjoy the visuals, it really doesn't tell me more than I already surmised. I do believe that for some, SHOWMANSHIP can and often does win the day, and appearances can be a detraction from 'seeing' the real issues. I'm not voting for a beauty contestant, nor am I overly concerned that someone appeared to be tired. OF COURSE the man is tired. LOL, I don't support his actions, but don't stress over his looks. And if Kerry had a giant wart on his nose he would still 'look better' to me as the Presidential choice. Sorry, but I absolutely had to zero in on this one aspect of the televised 'debates.' [This message has been edited by Midnitesun (10-05-2004 11:38 AM).] |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
One interesting tidbit which Kerry neglected to mention during the debate was when he was discussing the lack of translators for terrorists related interceptions: this was brought up initially during the Senate hearings after the World Trade Center attack in 2000. You know, on Clinton's watch. By pure bad luck, I reckon, those were the same files Sandy Berger had 'accidentally' stuffed into his socks at the National Archives when he was still with the Kerry campaign in July. I'm sure there is no correlation between Kerry's omission and Berger's 'accident'. Absolutely none. Pure coincedence. |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
It's unacceptable behavior, no matter which 'side' does this, and you'd think after all the previous times people have been caught removing/destroying documents, they'd learn this is NOT the way to win public support. Unfortunately, the list of the cast of characters who've done this kind of thing straddles all party lines as far back as I can remember. I don't think any voter should condone this kind of behavior from ANY public servants or even from the multitude of private consultants/advisors. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Can't argue Alicat, indefensible action on Berger's part and a black eye to Democrats. Sadly, all too common in politics. For god's sakes Berger, if you're going to destroy records, a little subtlety please! grin |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: Really, Raph? When did that happen? Here is a story from a Vietnam Veteran's daughter that might give some insight into the stand that they have taken against Kerry: quote: http://www.operationstreetcorner.com/carolcrowley.htm Goldenrose, all leftist assumptions and nothing more. By the way, Kerry as well as Bush was a child of privilege. Kerry and Edwards are wealthier than Bush, as much as they'd like to portray themselves as the common man's candidates. And did you know Kerry tried twice for a deferment during Vietnam and didn't get them? The Reserve unit he joined just so happened to get called up for service in Vietnam. He didn't volunteer for it. The Reserve unit Bush joined didn't get called up. If it had been, he would have gone too. I don't see praise or blame due either one for their respective situations regarding their presence or absence in Vietnam. I thought this article brought clearly into focus Kerry's victory at the debate: No matter one's position on Iraq, Kerry was the candidate for them due to his masterful doublespeak! They each heard what they wanted to hear from the smorgasbord presented by Kerry. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40764 |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: A poor choice of words on my part, what I mean is he hasn't been found guilty. There's a difference in meeting(being introduced to) and negotiating with and aiding the enemy. As for Kerry attempting to get out of serving, I wouldn't doubt it, he obviously didn't have the connections the Bush family does. Regardless, in the end he did serve and did earn medals in battle while Bush went AWOL. And regarding the doublespeak comment, try sifting through the current administration's spin-doctoring over Iraq. Orwell couldn't have written better. |
||
|
Jaime Fradera Senior Member
since 2000-11-25
Posts 843Where no tyranny is tolerable |
Security or freedom, Tyranny or liberty; Principals or platitudes; An amateur populist Demagog Or a tried and tested leader. Those are the choices. SC |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
YAY! Jaime, glad you were successful in accessing this forum. LOL, and even though you know I have a Kerry sign out in my yard, we will ALWAYS be good friends, able to exchange our reality conversations as well as our fantasies.  happy to have you join the political foray |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
You spelled principles wrong. But perhaps that's the point. Our tried and tested leader has failed. |
||
|
Kaoru
since 2003-06-07
Posts 3892where the wild flowers grow |
I'm saddened because I missed the debates because the weather messes up my sat. signal. I managed to catch a glimpse of some of it, but not enough to give any REAL opinion on it. I know that the way they present themselves seems to be important. Many of you say Bush needs a vacation, I would disagree. I think he's taken enough vacation time.... |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
And seeing how Kerry has the distinction of one of the worst Senate attendance records of all time, I'd say they're about even then.  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
There are certainly enough things in this campaign to make one smile but the draft vote ranks right up there on top. Several weeks ago Kerry insinuated, without being specific, that if Bush were elected there would be an excellent chance the draft would be re-instated. The purpose of this was, of course, to create further anti-Bush sentiment. He failed to mention, of course, that there WAS a bill in the House calling for re-enactment of the draft - and it was introduced by a Democratic senator. Speaker Dennis Hastert, after Kerry's comment, decided to bring it up for a vote. This placed the democrats in an imposible situation. If they voted for the bill, it would become obvious to the public that it was their idea. The vote was yesterday. The bill was defeated 402-2. The two who voted for it were democrats. Even the congressman who introduced it voted against it! Try something else, John... Ya gotta smile.... |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
(giggles) I don't know if anyone else picked this up in last night's VP debate, but there were a few bloopers, and one major blooper made by Cheney. When defending the accusation Edwards made on Cheney and his involvement with Halliburton, Cheney attempted to dodge going into the argument by ordering viewers to go to http://www.factcheck.com/ and to see the facts of Cheney and Halliburton and judge for themselves. What's downright hilarious here is the fact that the very address he specified, with the .com specifically poured from his lips, leads to an anti-Bush web-site, http://www.georgesoros.com/ which actually is hosted by a billionaire investor and philosophist, George Soros, who has been promoting heavily there and on his tour how the war on Iraq and Bush has made the world less safer. LOL! The address Cheney was meaning to give was http://www.factcheck.org/ . And if you read the new article regarding last night's debate on the correct address, even there the Annenberg Political Fact Check admitted that Cheney wrongly implied that they had rebutted allegations Edwards made to him about what Cheney had done as chief executive officer of Halliburton. Though they say that a Kerry ad that accuses Cheney of profiteering off the Iraq contract is false, they say Edwards was talking otherwise about his responsibility in earlier years with the company, which they believe Edwards is particularly correct on. Anyway, I believe the VP debate was virtually a locking of horns. No runaway winner, though I was disappointed by Edwards' overall performance and Cheney did a fairly impressive job, so you have to give Cheney credit for last night especially when, unlike Edwards, he lacks the public speaking abilities and likeability rating. 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 |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Balladeer, that draft topic was more fully explained here: /pip/Forum3/HTML/003291-2.html#42 in MA's Portland Protest Thread, and debunked by me in the subsequent posts. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
How was it debunked? I clearly stated the last names of the two Democrats (Rangel/Conyers) though failing to add the abbreviated party letter next to them, in the original mentioning of the draft in the thread. I also specifically went into detail about this particular bill, House Resolution 163, and said it was not to be confused with the Internet rumor from http://www.theBlatantTruth.org/ of the Bush Administration's own writing of a draft proposal, which I never even mentioned in the PPRC thread. The point is to protest ANY draft proposal, period. We knew it was two Democrats who were trying to launch HR 163. It was a mistake on my part not to specify the (D) next to their names, but I was meaning to do so. I am critical of both corporate parties and though I find the Democrats better than the Republicans overall, they still are corrupted in many ways and quite adversarial. Anyway, I am happy to see this resolution crushed unanimously...except by the exceptional two Democrats. We'll continue to see how the other rumor evolves, and if something is startling or suspicious, we may run an occasional false alarm just to be prepared to protest this possible other draft proposal. 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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You're so right, Noah...that was certainly an OOPS! on Cheney's part...nice to see even politicians are human The one thing that stuck out for me last night was the question that wasn't answered. When the moderator asked Edwards how they were going to form Kerry's proclaimed world coalition to deal with Iraq when France and Germany have just declared that, no matter what, they will play no part in Iraq, Edwards completely ignored the question and went off on another tangent. I would have liked to have heard that answer. So far Kerry has alienated Poland (I'm sure many of you have seen the scathing letter the Polish leader sent yesterday), he has alienated the allies who did join in with troops and support in Iraq, he has alienated the Iraqi new leaders and soldiers, first by insulting the newly-placed Iraqi leader when he spoke in Washington and then by completely disregarding the Iraqi police and army's comtributions and effort in the war. Cheney had to remind him several times that Iraquis were also fighting and dying to bring democracy to their country. Edwards preferred to ignore that so his figures would look more like the way he wants them to look. Now, add France and Germany declaring that they will join no coalition that demands any cooperation on their part and I'd like to know who is left to form this magical coalition Kerry is going to create. I knew as soon as the question was asked that Edwards would not be able to answer it but I was hoping the moderator would press him for an answer....ah, well. You can't have it all... |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
That entire internet hoax on the draft was started by a 'concerned mother' in Pennsylvania who just happens to be the local head of an Anti-Draft PAC. But, as the old saying goes, a lie can run around the world three times before the truth even has its pants on. Also, MA, if you look closely at my comment on your Draft protest inclusion, you would see clearly my statement on the verbatim email inclusion. And if it wasn't verbatim, then there's a whole smorgasborg of identical minded anti-Draft people out there putting the exact same thing in emails and on websites, all at the same time. Group think, or herd mentality? *grin* |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
You're right, Balladeer. I made that observation as well and I don't think effectively followed through in forming a solid argument to back the claim. Here are some other bloopers I observed for the evening. I'll go to Cheney's first: First of all, Cheney was mentioning Kerry and Edwards' records, saying Edwards was virtually absent a majority of the time, and Cheney plays a distinguished role in the votes. Then he goes on saying he never has met Edwards until the debate. Before the war took place, Cheney and Edwards, in fact, did shake hands. And they also met at an Annual National Prayer Breakfast. Secondly, Cheney exaggerated Kerry's voting record on taxes. It's down from the 350 originally claimed by Republicans, but still a stretch when the 98 also include voting for lower taxes. Some of the votes were also cast on a single tax increase. Cheney also distorted Kerry's quote from last Thursday out of context on the "global test". Kerry said in his debate that he would not cede to anyone the right to move pre-emptively against a threat, but that he would do so in a way that proved to Americans and the world that he had taken the action for a legitimate reason. Finally, Chenry clearly said that he never suggested a connection between Iraq and September 11th. However, in 2003, he said that if efforts to establish democracy in Iraq succeeded, "we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." . . . Now, Edwards also stretched a bit at times. Edwards claimed the cost of the U.S war in Iraq is at $200 billion and counting. Cheney was actually closer. The $200 billion includes Afghanistan and the global war on terror. Of course, another $56 billion aside is being pushed through for the war, with half already approved, so it comes a bit closer. But Edwards exaggerated the total. The body armor comment is also a bit off. He seemed to insinuate the 40,000 troops in Iraq didn't have the body armor they needed didn't have any at all. The fact is, they didn't have the most updated brand of armor, but they did have armor nonetheless. . . . Regardless of the errors, both candidates made strong arguments and I don't think either candidate will get much of a bounce from this debate like Kerry did for the first debate with Bush. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
One more for Edwards, Noah. He claimed that a bill was introduced in Congress lowering military salaries and hazardous duty pay even as soldiers were fighting in Iraq. In fact, the bill specifically designated that all soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq were exempt from that bill. You're right, though. I doubt that many minds will be changed by the debate. It was good, though, watching two such talented speakers in action. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I don't think the spirit of Rangel's bill is very well represented here. If you look into the matter I think you'd find that the reason he was proposing it is because IF there was a draft that was administered fairly (IE -- everyone has to serve either in active duty or national service, male and female, rich and poor) then, we'd think DAMN hard before we commited troops into battle. It's Rangel's contention that even the all volunteer Armed Forces unfairly targets the lower income kids because it offers them economic incentives that are difficult to match through any other means. Which, in his opinion, doesn't move us any further from the Economic Cannon Fodder scenario as put forth by Colin Powell. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Oh, and, I wouldn't get too wrapped up in the Berger issue just yet. The Justice Department (that would be John Ashcroft) had been looking into the matter for 8 months to determine if any crime had even been committed before the story was reported at the opportune moment of the release of the 9/11 Commission Report and the DNC in July, then, the Wall Street Journal reported that everything that Berger had taken, whether intentionally or not, were merely copies and that the 9/11 Commission had been given everything anyway and that Berger had been cleared of charges. Then, the National Archives released a statement that the WSJ article was wrong -- that the investigation was still pending, but the JD was still not sure that a crime had been committed -- only a breach of procedures -- and that Berger had only removed copies. Since then, the story has disappeared out of the realm of credible media into the blogosphere -- it's difficult to tell where the surreptitious investigation stands, which just means -- someone, in the current administration, doesn't want this story out there -- even though there was a rumor floated that the White House was going to de-classify the memo that Berger had taken becuase it had information that was embarrasing to Berger. Needless to say -- at the very least Berger's public service career is over -- though he can always be a lobbyist or a Fox News pundit (they'll hire anybody -- like -- Dick Morris for instance). I'm going to talk to one of the 9/11 Commission members tomorrow night -- I'm going to ask about this -- but, I'll bet I won't be able to get a for the record response... whata ya bet? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Um, yeah, and George Soros isn't just any billionaire investor and philanthropist Noah, he's the primary backer of moveon.org. He's released this statement, quote: |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, Reb, we had that draft during Korea and Viet Nam....didn't stop anyone from committing troops to battle then. Actually, to deviate just a minute, I thought the draft was a good thing. No, it's not something I'm going to debate. It's my own opinion based on my own personal experiences. I was a fairly "rough" kid growing up, no family life to speak of and no controls placed on me. My abilities in sports let me get away with anything. When I went into the service it was possibly the first time in my life anyone had actual control over me and I basically went in to avoid the draft which would have gotten me sooner or later. It was the first time I was in a position where I had to follow the rules or else. It was the first time I couldn't just say "screw it", get up and leave. It was also the first time that I felt I really belonged to something. Kids that age want to belong to something, be a part of something. Those with a good family life have that. Those without look for it somewhere. If it's the gang in the neighborhood that makes them feel accepted, they go for it. I know it probably saved me and I can assure you I knew many kids that it saved just as well. I remember that, when the draft was abolished I thought it was too bad and I still think it was. Juvenile delinquency went up dramatically and not by any coincidence. Many kids gravitated to the strongest "father" figure they could find, good or bad. Like I say, this is all from personal experience. I'm not preaching the positives of having a draft- I'm simply saying what it did for me and others I knew. As far as the service is concerned, it's not the army of the past. Back then people who couldn't find work or have any skills were likely to go into the service to get those 3 squares, a guaranteed paycheck and a chance to travel and be part of something. When I went in I went through boot camp and, on the last day, I was told what my job would be and where I was going. These days are quite different. A man can choose which vocation he wants to work in, where he wants to be stationed, receive a fairly good salary, accumulate money for college and have excellent benefits. It is a job that compares very well with good civilian jobs. Yes, it's true that in civilian jobs people don't shoot at you (normally) but the reality is that a microscopic percentage of people in the service see battle or war-time conditions. For most it is a normal job. They can have a home off-base, go to work an 8 hour day and go back home at night. It's not the place where only derelicts and dummies go to anymore. Personally, I would like to see the draft come back because I think it would help many young men. On the other hand, I don't think it would work the way it did back then because it's a different world now in too many sad ways....such is life. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Right, Mike. About the same way you and I "chose" to volunteer for various and sundry duties. What recruiters promise and what the service delivers are just as far apart today as they were forty years ago. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Right.....whatever you say, Ron. |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/11/60II/main616849.shtml For those who think the ones who enlisted are having a great time, are happy they signed on for so many wonderful benefits you might want to visit the above link. "hello muddah, hello fadduh here i am at camp bucca" Just to offer you some reality material before you watch more 'debates.' |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Those mentioned in that interview were MP's. Military Police. That is an MOS, or military occupation. They signed up for that. They chose. Though that interview was done by Mr. Rather back in May, they have long since lost all credibility with me, from forged documents to spreading the draft hysteria under the guise of investigative reporting. They will have to work very hard to regain that. |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
I can't speak for anyone else..but I got exactly what I volunteered for...and wanted to change vocations real quick..but, was too late....The worst part about that war is what is trying to occur now....Wrong war wrong time" attitude while I was shucking rice to hide behind.....That sucks and anyone that feels that way should be put on the front line!!!!!!!!!!!!! And by that, I mean it sure isn't good for the morale of the brave young men that are in the line of fire.... [This message has been edited by Toerag (10-07-2004 04:58 PM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
He was never found guilty because he was never charged or tried due to the political climate of those times, Raph, a climate that he and his group helped engineer. That doesn't mean that he shouldn't have been. I personally don't see much difference if he was merely introduced to the representatives of the Viet Cong and then resumed his honeymoon, or sat in on their meetings with the others from his group, who did sit in on the meetings. He still came back to the states with the enemy's agenda as his agenda, and propagated that agenda by means of lies and distortions at the expense of his fellow soldiers. He was one of the principal leaders of that group. He was their spokesperson. I'm sure he knew exactly what the group was doing in those talks, and I'm sure they had his stamp of approval in attending those meetings. His group also funded Jane Fonda and others of her ilk in their demoralization of the troops and the folks back home. As Toe said, the worst thing that happened to our guys over there was that 'wrong war, wrong time' mentality that they fostered and financed. They also fostered the idea that we had gotten involved in a war that we were not able to win. They were so well-funded and organized and relentless as a political force that they succeeded in their efforts. But that doesn't make what they did right. Sure, they ended the war, which was their goal, but the end does not justify the means that they used to do it. Traitor may be a dirty word, but it's nothing compared to the dirty names Kerry called our troops back then. And the anguish that he caused them and their families by the stigma with which he branded them is all too real. It may have taken the Vets thirty-plus years to let their voices be heard regarding Kerry, but as the daughter of the veteran in the article I referenced said, they aren't motivated by political partisanship. They are speaking out now only because Kerry is running for the highest office in the land, and they know that he is deficient in character for the position. And if I were a betting person, I'd take their word over his anyday. After Kerry is defeated in November, maybe we will finally have that parade for them that they deserve. It is long overdue. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
I agree with you, though I see less relevence with what he did in 1971/1972 compared with his 20 year U.S. Senate record, which I'm still learning a bit about, snippet at a time from FoxNews, since Kerry seems indisposed to letting his fellow Americans know. And a parade for Vietnam Veterans, with tickertape instead of spit, is very long overdue. My dad is 73 now, soon be be 74, but even he would appreciate it. He was in Korea (the forgotten war) and Vietnam (the wrong place, wrong time, wrong war). Public recognition for either would be good. Odd how the U.S. is blamed for Vietnam, and not France, who quickly left French Indo-China after we bailed their butts out. With France, we seem to have a history of doing that. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Between 1845 and 1846 relations between Mexico and the United States pushed past the breaking point over where the border was between the two nations. Historically it had been at the Nueces River but after Texas independence the Texans and President James K. Polk wanted to extend it to the Rio Grande. Polk ordered General Zachary Taylor into the disputed territory with an army that provoked a war that led U.S. troops all the way to Mexico City. Polk claimed that it was a defensive measure and that the Mexicans had provoked a war. The Whigs thought differently. They thought it was a war of aggression. Among those protesting Polk's actions were notable statesmen like Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, former President John Quincy Adams, and a lot of ordinary citizens like Henry David Thoreau who refused to pay his one dollar poll tax. One young Freshman Congressman from Illinois introduced the 'Spot Resolutions' demanding that the President prove to everyone that the spot where initial American blood was shed was actually inside the United States; quote: 'Wrong war, wrong time' was certainly the protest of these great statesmen -- including that young Freshman Congressman, Abraham Lincoln. 'Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you will be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't.' -- Eleanor Roosevelt 'Any man who would refrain from criticizing the President in a time of war is guilty of moral treason.' --Teddy Roosevelt |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Denise, if you turned even one hundredth of the zest with which you attack Kerry, to non-partisan, logical analysis of Bush, his administration and their tactics, then maybe there'd be a point to this discussion. There's a little more than the being Republican at stake here. You're of course, entitled opinion and to your disgust/mistrust of Kerry. What is deeply disturbing, and the reason I won't comment on the matter anymore, is that in the face of all the Bush administration has done with regard to the current war, you've found absolutely nothing disgusting or questionable and everything justifiable. It's never been a matter of Kerry's character or trustworthiness, regardless of the candidate your choice was made long ago. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: Bailed their butts out? The Viet Minh, who fought the French as well as the Japanese, were allies funded by the United States. It wasn't until the Viet Minh declared independance(pledging alliance to the US for recognition of said independance) that the US stepped in against them. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Yes, Ali, complete with tickertape! Someone proud of their record in the Senate would talk about it, I would think. I guess there's not much there to indicate presidential material. And how would we have passed a 'global test', as Kerry proposes that he would have done prior to engaging Saddam if he had been president, with allies such as France, Germany, and Russia, who are now known to have had a very serious financial interest in Saddam remaining in power? What would Kerry have done when they pooh-poohed the idea of going to war to depose Saddam? He wouldn't have gone to war if he wasn't successful in gaining their approval, according to his own words, right? Now, after the fact, we know why we couldn't get their approval. It just wasn't in their financial self-interests for Saddam to be deposed. He owed them TONS of money that they wouldn't get if he was gone. So I guess Kerry really would have put their interests over our interests in the final analysis. Not a good quality in a man who would be president. But wait! Given that it's the wrong war, wrong time, wrong place anyway, according to Kerry, maybe he wouldn't even have sought their approval in the first place because he wouldn't even have considered going to Iraq to begin with? Or maybe it was only wrong because the 'allies' pooh-poohed it? It gets so confusing. Yes, we certainly do seem to have that type of history with France, don't we? L.R., defending a sovereign country, at their request, against communist aggression, and deposing one of the world's most notorious terrorists during a war on terror, are not territorial border disputes. You are comparing apples and oranges. Kerry has one of the strongest anti-war records possible. He even voted against going to war with Saddam when Saddam invaded Kuwait even WITH U.N. and 'ally' support, even with it passing his so-called 'global test'. If Kerry had been president then, Kuwait would now be a suburb of Iraq. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
No Denise -- we're talking about protesting war, not what the terms and conditions of those respective wars were. Teddy Roosevelt's comment happened to be in regards to his criticism of Wilson during WWI. We could equally discuss the Alien and Sedition Act that certainly would have landed Lincoln, Roosevelt, Jefferson, and Kerry in jail. That the atrocities Kerry protested against did happen is fact (there are pictures and film) -- that he is continually misquoted by taking his testimony out of context is a fact -- that he left the VVAW after they became too radical is a rarely discussed fact -- that he had no control over what the Vietnamese would do or not do with his testimony is a fact -- that he had a right to say what he said is a fact -- that that war was a mistake is an opinion held even by Colin Powell -- read the Economic Cannon Fodder thread for a direct quote -- that those who were against Kerry turned his argument against that war into an argument against the soldiers is a disgrace and the main perpetrator is the one John McCain said is dishonest and dishonorable [O'Neal]. |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
Hey Reb and Aenimal...yall want to meet and discuss politics and women over a few beers?...scotch?....okay, forget politics...just wimmen....? |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
sounds good to me Toe  |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
LOL, now that would be a very, very interesting 'debate' and subsequent poll. Methinks a new thread would be required.  |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
Um...uh....ya need a ride aenimal?...LOL |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I don't know Buzz -- don't you think politics is the safer subject? Forget that brown water from across the pond wouldja? Let's just grab a Jack...  |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
Hey reb...I only live about 30 minutes from "Jack's" Daniels Dist., I can almost smell the aroma?...Okay, Jack it is....But politics?....Yea, you may have a point...but I'd imagine the three of us would all agree about women....(you know, what they're good for, how they tax us etc...) |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
There's a thought. I could bring along a bookcase game I just found in a cupboard while looking for a Boy Scout Manual to help the youngest with nocturnal desert critter tracks. Mr. President: Political Campaign and Election Game, by 3M Company, copyright 1967 and 1971. Now, wouldn't that be a hoot! Crazy thing is, I do believe all the cards are still there! Hrm...I wonder if there's any mention of stem-cell research or abortion in there. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Raph, I have to disagree. And wouldn't it be a dull world if we all agreed on everything? I don't think that Bush has handled everything as well as it might have been handled, and he does have some policies and issues that I don't agree with. The Iraq issue just isn't one of them. I see Bush as more competent with regard to the war on terror, someone who will see it through, and won't cut and run and leave a job undone for the sake of being popular. I see him as someone who says what he believes and does what he says. I see Kerry as more of a political opportunist, saying what he believes is politcally advantageous at any given moment, even when those statements are contradictory. My mind wasn't made up ahead of time. I'm not a Republican, and have voted for Democrats in the past. But given the choices that we have been given, and after having seen what each offers, I have to go with Bush. Kerry's record in the Senate, as well as his involvement with the VVAW, of which I only recently became aware, lead me to believe that he is not the man for the job at this time in our history. He has voted against war, even when his 'global test' criteria was fully met (Kuwait). He has consistently voted against a strong defense, against a strong intelligence, against tax reduction, against reforming Medicare and Social Security. L.R., I already stated several times that I am not talking about merely protesting a war. I am talking about consorting with the enemy and becoming their mouthpiece to achieve one's objective. Giving him the benefit of the doubt that his protest was untainted by collusion with the enemy and only used as a tool by the enemy in their propagandistic efforts still doesn't say much for his wisdom in putting himself in such a position in the first place. He should never have involved himself in a group that consorted with the enemy, let alone have become their spokesperson. He should never have promoted and funded their efforts after he learned of their meetings with the Viet Cong. Yes, he eventually did leave that group after talk turned to murdering politicians, but he was still their spokesperson after that meeting for almost two more years, until 1972, according to the FBI. I'm sure there were incidences of atrocities in the war. I'm not disputing that. They happen in every war to some extent. What I am disputing is Kerry's spin that they were widespread, up-and-down the chain of command and embraced as an accepted policy by our military and the branding our troops as war criminals. Kerry even recently said that his rhetoric in his testimony was a bit over-the-top. Kerry had a right to protest, a right to tell the truth. What he didn't have was a right to lie in his quest to end the war. People can read or view his testimony in its entirety and make up their own mind about it. Was it the truth that he told, under oath, or over-the-top rhetoric? Whichever conclusion one reaches, It seems Kerry would agree. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: That this is the extent of your critique of Bush, reveals why utter dismay and disbelief surface in my responses. There are policies and issues that you should be horrified with Denise. We disagree entering Iraq, that's fine, but the tactics with which the administration went forward with the war should disturb you as a citizen. Clear evidence showing the use of false intelligence(debunked not after, but before the war began), clear conflicts of interest(Haliburton to name but one for god's sake!) and the unexplained protection of Saudi Arabia in the no-flight aftermath of 9/11 and more importantly as a target of the war terror? But I do agree with you on one thing, it's been anything but dull arguing our views. I should point out again that I agree with certain conservative views, I'm not anti-Republican. I am, however, against the various and frightening Neo-Con/Religious Reich views Bush has pandered too. More importantly, I'm against an administration that so casually misleads and exploits its citizens. We've seen what Bush can do as a president and based on that and the state we're now in, it's time to seriously rethink and make a change. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Ah, but this is the one thing that I think he should have considered. Actually, I think the whole anti-war movement made this mistake -- to see the Vietnamese communists as innocent victims. My point is that he did make a mistake here. That he should not have been as naive as apparently he was. Luckily, he has grown out of that. Given his comments on Islamo-fascism and others, he fully understands that the world is not one of us versus them, (or if you want, the powerful versus the powerless -- are enemies are power players too) but of realpolitik. I stand by the neo-con vision of stable, secular democratic governments all over the world, but let's not pretend that it's going to happen over night, and let's stop pretending that the rightness of this vision will sustain us when we're dealing with power players. Ah hell, let's just stop pretending. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
"We've seen what Bush can do as a president and based on that and the state we're now in, it's time to seriously rethink and make a change." ...or not. I've seen what Bush has done as president, and based on that and the state we're now in, I vote to give him four more years. Overall, I think he's done a very good job under very tough and trying circumstances. Afghanistan is having free elections right now, Iraq will be having free elections in January. Saddam is no longer around. Iraqi civilians are no longer living under his tyranny and suffering death and brutality at his hands. His sons are no longer raping and torturing women. He can no longer provide safe-haven for terrorists. And when the situation in Iraq is more stable, we will be positioned to deal with Iran and Syria if we need to. Libya turned over its nuclear capabilities and materials. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have pledged their cooperation and help in the war on terror. The suicide bombings in Israel have decreased dramatically since Saddam isn't paying the killers' family members $25,000 any longer. We've discovered the real reason that France, Germany and Russia would not join the coalition. I'd say we and the world are much safer, and smarter, now than we were before. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
It's hard to argue that logic because I see no logic to your comments. That isn't meant as a shot just seems illogical that the rational applied to your critique of other countries, organizations and parties isn't applied to the administration. One issue you continually ignore is that it was never a question of Saddam's tyranny, but whether an attack was justified. Everything the adminstration brought forth to justify their attack on the immenent threat of Iraq has proven false. To sugarcoat this fact, the administration and it's followers instead point to the evils Saddam and we are better off without him. That's simply not the issue, the reasons and manner in which the war has been handled IS. The fact of the matter is the world would be a better place without alot of things. Iranian/N. Korean nuclear ambitions, the instability in many African nations(read up on the attrocities including rape, torture and cannibalism there), Middle East affairs, Haiti and the list goes on. All of these, ALL of these should have taken precedence over attacking Iraq especially with what we now all know. Free elections in Afghanistan, but Afghanistan still isn't secure. Free elections in Iraq, well take a look at the increase in battles and tell me if you think it's secure. Come on, take a good look at Iraq. Even staunch conservatives like Bob Novak are realising what a mess things are. We and he world are much safer, and smarter, now than we were before? Tell that to the families of innocent Spanish, Russian, Israeli,Palestinian,Pakistani and Iraqi victims caught in the crossfire as insurgency, terrorist enrollment and activities have increased and become bolder since the war began. Take care, enjoy your vote |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Raph, you still insist on saying that the President presented Iraq as an imminent threat, when what he did say was that we could not afford to wait, given the realities of 9/11, until the threat was imminent, that when the threat was imminent, it would be too late to act. You may disagree with his rationale, but that is what he said. Despite the liberal contention that Saddam had no connections with Al Qaida, that's just not the case. He may not have had any operational links with 9/11, but that doesn't mean that he didn't have links and didn't provide safe-haven to terorists. There was a report on ABC back in 1998, I believe, that he had offered Osama bin Laden safe-haven, telling him he was welcome in his country at any time. And despite some of their ideological differences, they were willing to work together against the U.S. : "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" type of deal. "Especially given what we now all know", if "what we now all know" turns out to be valid, (I still believe that Saddam shipped what he had to Syria just prior to and during the early part of the war) is Monday-morning quarterbacking, Raph. We went on the intelligence that we had back then. If the intelligence proved faulty, that just highlights the importance of maintaining a sufficient level of funding to ensure a strong, reliable intelligence service, and not significantly reducing funding to it, and hampering its ability to gather reliable intelligence by tying its hands with all sorts of new cumbersome regulations as happened throughout the Clinton years. I don't agree that Saddam's tyranny was never an issue. The rationale to go to war was never 'just about' WMD's. The rationale was that being the type of person that Saddam had proven to be, we could no longer continue to ignore the threat he posed to the U.S., especially in light of the fact that he continued to be uncooperative in any attempts to bring him into compliance with the long string of resolutions regarding his weapons capabilities. Some people seem to forget that Saddam had been playing games with the U.N. for 12 years and had been given many opportunites to come clean. He would not account for many of the weapons that the U.N. knew that he had in the early 90's. Would it have been prudent for the U.S. not to have acted, knowing that he had connections with known terrorists, knowing that he himself was a terrorist who funded terrorists like the PLO, knowing the weapons that he once had, that the world could only assume that he still did have, given the fact that Saddam would not give a full accounting, and when all the intelligence agencies of the world, not just U.S. intelligence, said he still had them? The ball was in his court, clearly, Raph, and he blew it. And why should all of those atrocities in all those other countries have taken precedence? Who's call is that? Saddam was committing atrocities in his country as well. Remember, he's the guy who had people put through meat-grinders while they were still alive. Why not deal with Iraq first, instead of second, third, or fifth, or not at all? Why not? Free elections in Afghanistan, I think Ali said for the first time in 500 years, and where even the women are allowed to vote, yes that is a big deal, a very big deal. And it's a big step in the right direction. Yes, things in Iraq are messy right now, and will get even more so leading up to their elections. That has been predicted for months now. The insurgents are desperate and are acting out their desperation. But is tyranny better than messy? War is messy, but I think most people would agree that their freedom is worth it. The terrorists are the ones who deserve the world's wrath, and are the ones responsible for the deaths that their actions cause, not those who are fighting them. We are making the world safer by standing against them. If they aren't withstood tooth and nail, the world will only become more unsafe as they spread their tyranny and violence without restraint. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: We've discussed this before, I've given examples in other threads of administration members using the words 'imminent', when not using imminent the administration used words suggesting immenence. That you refuse to read or accept them makes these proofs no less valid. quote: It's not a liberal contention but an intelligence community fact. The point is Rumsfield and company told the american public there were links to 9/11 to help justify the war. That was a lie, however you choose to see it, it is a non-truth told to the american citizens in order to sway support for the war. quote: Which is why UN inspectors(regardless of what you'll say about them), should have been able to finish their job along with better intelligence and survellaince to find out the truths we know know. You want to speak of US intelligence/links to Al Queda, how about Saudi Arabia Denise? Saudi Arabia. quote: Certainly not the Bush administration's. That's why UN, NATO and other organizations were created. Yes, you can attack their members and their methods while ignoring methods of the current administrations. quote: Yes I agree, but not now. How can they be fully free elections when parts of the country are still under Taliban threat. Don't innocent people in those parts of the country deserve the right to freedom and to vote? If US states were occupied and in the middle of bloody battles and uprisings, would you want or think it fair that US elections were going on in others? quote: Freedom is a word. Oh it looks beautiful on paper I know, but don't think it means anything right to most Iraqis right now. You're applying western thought and our visions of freedom to another world. Better than messy? So, so easy to say when you're not in the middle of it. Messy comes with no guarantees, though both candidates will tell you otherwise, things could very well turn out worse. Many have learned to live and survive even under tyranny. You think the current upheaval of their lives or life in the aftermath of this war is easier? Even were there to be victory some form of stability it would be tenuous at best. The rise in insurgency and chance of a full scale civil war now and after occupation looms heavy. quote: EXACTLY, which is why Bush really dropped the ball focussing on Iraq rather than Al Queda, not securing Afghanistan first,ignoring Saudi Arabian cells, letting Iran further their nuclear weapons program, not focussing on serious talks and plans for Palestineans/Israel. But we'll just leave it at a difference of opinion. You've made yours known with well thought out responses and your personal rationale. My arguments have been made in the hopes that you'd apply the latter to the current administration as well. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
