Many progressives aren't running in the streets and raving about John Kerry. His speeches bore me to tears and I've been slightly more entertained watching faucets drip.
Kerry wasn't my first choice, but I offer you three reasons why he would make a better president than Bush.
A) Kerry has been a consistent and staunch advocate for environmental protection. Best rating of any 2004 presidential candidate according to the league of conservation voters. Enlightened, far-sighted stances as a legislature. We are at a momentous junction in terms of the integrity of our natural world. We don't need ridiculous 'Day After Tomorrow' scenarios to be in a world of hurt. Even if the conservative (and dire) predictions of most ecologists are exaggeraed, we're looking at leaving a destitute and funereal world for our children and their children. We desperately need proactive leadership and Bush's track record regarding the environment is absolutely dismal. (I'm going to immediately hear flack about Theresa Heinz Kerry's wealth and priviledged status...her multiple trophy homes. So be it. I judge politicians on their policy-making, not on the puirity of their private lives).
B) John Kerry will mend fences and help restore relationships with the world community that have been seriously jeporadized. We are not an insular fortress. We can't continue to go it alone. Kerry's military service and leadership on the international stage give him a level of insight, pragmatic strength, and humility that will serve us well.
C) John Kerry will work to ensure that the middle class does not become a forgotten historical footnote. There is a significant, well-funded movement, spearheaded by certain neocon elements, that believes that a two-tiered society is desirable. The worth of a human being- in the eyes of these people- should be defined by money...old money, preferably...although money gained through cutthroat economic darwinism is acceptable.
The policies of Roosevelt's New Deal were not perfect, but they had the noble objective of ensuring that no one in the United States would be trapped into a caste system. This ideal is under threat...I'd recomend Nickled and Dimed by Barbara Erenreich is you question this. John Kerry has generally worked for policy that maintains this ideal. Certainly, he has never assaulted the roots of egalitarian society in the manner of the current junta.
In short...I view Kerry as something of an establishment politician, and therefore find it hard to rave about him. However, he is a gifted, experienced leader, with international stature, and a history of working to build a just society. I'll gladly vote for him, and not just against the worst president this nation has ever seen (a mound of dirt would make a better president).
Bush or Kerry
-
ilovedrifting
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 9:23 am
- Car: skateboarding and drifting
Nathan wrote:If the Iraqi's could hide over 30 jet fighters in the desert without our satellites or reconaissance drones detecting them, its not too outrageous to think they could have hidden a few missles or equipment for making biological or chemical weapons out there either. Check this out to learn more about the planes: http://www.jinsa.org/articles/...,2186
Reportedly, they only found them because the sand had been blown away to expose the tails of a Mig-25 Foxbat. I personally think that there was materials and intent to create biological or chemical weapons. I mean really, do you think Saddam kicked inspectors out of Iraq numerous times during the 90's just for ****s and giggles? Saddam was out to piss everyone off and further his own goals, no matter what laws or regulations were placed upon him.
Here's a good page about wmd's, al qaida, and the weapons inspectors that hussein would not allow back into Iraq for 4 long years. In fact, he only agreed to let them back in when a substantial chunk of the American military force was standing on his doorstep looking very menacing. Hussein was known to be dishonest, to believe that he did not at the very least WANT wmd's is, in my opinion...nothing more than wishful thinking. Take off the rose colored glasses, and see the world for what it really is.
The military knew that they were hiding the planes in the sand casue they killed them while they were doing it. There was a nice little tid bit on the history channel that when the Americans flew into the Iraqi air space they were surprised not to find any air to air resistance, then they noticed the Iraqis with shovels throwing sand on the planes, as from what one of the pilots said in the show the Americans had no idea why the Iraqis were doing it but to him it didn't matter he killed them while they were doing it anyways. Then there was a nice little video of a missle going right for a plane half burried in sand and a arab with a shovel trying to cover it up. Bush made a promise that hed find the WMD and still hasnt done so, now when that happened all of a sudden liberation of Iraq and toppling the Sadam regime became priority #1, or as Id like to say it smearing s h i t trying to cover it up.
-
ilovedrifting
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 9:23 am
- Car: skateboarding and drifting
we did find weapons of mass destruction"Bush made a promise that hed find the WMD and still hasnt done so, now when that happened all of a sudden liberation of Iraq and toppling the Sadam regime became priority #1, or as Id like to say it smearing s h i t trying to cover it up."
why does nobody know this yet. We found several missiles loaded with serin gas warheads containing enough gas to kill 60,000 people. Now i don't know what your qualifications for a wmd is but as for me this qualifies. 60,000 people is a massive amount of casualties which is aprox. 70 times more people than our military has lost. they may not have been nukes but the fact of the matter is that they were wmds
why does nobody know this yet. We found several missiles loaded with serin gas warheads containing enough gas to kill 60,000 people. Now i don't know what your qualifications for a wmd is but as for me this qualifies. 60,000 people is a massive amount of casualties which is aprox. 70 times more people than our military has lost. they may not have been nukes but the fact of the matter is that they were wmds
AZhitman wrote:While I was pretty much with you through your whole post, I gotta disagree on this point.
No one at that level of government is a "dumbass". Hell, he's not "polished", and his grammar is atrocious. But dumb? No.
I'd hazard a guess he's at least as sharp as Clinton, and truth be told, an IQ test is a POOR yardstick for leadership anyway.
p.s. Great post otherwise spitz!
Hah, I guess it came across as a little harsh. But I think everyone knows the point I was trying to get across.
"The literacy rate of our chilren are unacceptable" - George W. Bush
Liberal columnist attacks Farenheit 9/11, calling it "crap":http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723
Quote »If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock the vote, indeed.[/quote]Quote »To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.[/quote]Quote »Circling back to where we began, why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"? Why instead did they force the United States to switch its regional military headquarters to Qatar? If the Bush family and the al-Saud dynasty live in each other's pockets, as is alleged in a sort of vulgar sub-Brechtian scene with Arab headdresses replacing top hats, then how come the most reactionary regime in the region has been powerless to stop Bush from demolishing its clone in Kabul and its buffer regime in Baghdad? The Saudis hate, as they did in 1991, the idea that Iraq's recuperated oil industry might challenge their near-monopoly. They fear the liberation of the Shiite Muslims they so despise. To make these elementary points is to collapse the whole pathetic edifice of the film's "theory." Perhaps Moore prefers the pro-Saudi Kissinger/Scowcroft plan for the Middle East, where stability trumps every other consideration and where one dare not upset the local house of cards, or killing-field of Kurds? This would be a strange position for a purported radical. Then again, perhaps he does not take this conservative line because his real pitch is not to any audience member with a serious interest in foreign policy. It is to the provincial isolationist.[/quote]-Jesda
Quote »If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock the vote, indeed.[/quote]Quote »To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.[/quote]Quote »Circling back to where we began, why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"? Why instead did they force the United States to switch its regional military headquarters to Qatar? If the Bush family and the al-Saud dynasty live in each other's pockets, as is alleged in a sort of vulgar sub-Brechtian scene with Arab headdresses replacing top hats, then how come the most reactionary regime in the region has been powerless to stop Bush from demolishing its clone in Kabul and its buffer regime in Baghdad? The Saudis hate, as they did in 1991, the idea that Iraq's recuperated oil industry might challenge their near-monopoly. They fear the liberation of the Shiite Muslims they so despise. To make these elementary points is to collapse the whole pathetic edifice of the film's "theory." Perhaps Moore prefers the pro-Saudi Kissinger/Scowcroft plan for the Middle East, where stability trumps every other consideration and where one dare not upset the local house of cards, or killing-field of Kurds? This would be a strange position for a purported radical. Then again, perhaps he does not take this conservative line because his real pitch is not to any audience member with a serious interest in foreign policy. It is to the provincial isolationist.[/quote]-Jesda
spitz7985 wrote:Kerry: In Vietnam whining about a scrape.Bush: In the states toking, drinking and talking baseball.
You decide who would be better.
Lets be objective about this, shall we?
Bush avoided Vietnam and flew jets in Texas and smoked pot and drank.
Clinton avoided Vietnam and smoked pot and drank.
Gore went to Vietnam as a photographer WITH A PERSONAL SECURITY GUARD.
Kerry went to Vietnam for a few months, made up injuries, and then called his fellow soldiers CRIMINALS for political gain.
I'd prefer it if Kerry skipped the war like everyone else, instead of coming home and verbally spitting on our military.
-Jesda
S13GUY wrote:^^http://www.punkvoter.com/dls/dls-flyer-quotes.html
Critiques on intellect. How odd for a president who is also supposed to be a scheming evil genius!
Anyone old enough will remember the same comments about Ronald Reagan.
-Jesda
i<3drifting wrote:we did find weapons of mass destruction"Bush made a promise that hed find the WMD and still hasnt done so, now when that happened all of a sudden liberation of Iraq and toppling the Sadam regime became priority #1, or as Id like to say it smearing s h i t trying to cover it up."
why does nobody know this yet. We found several missiles loaded with serin gas warheads containing enough gas to kill 60,000 people. Now i don't know what your qualifications for a wmd is but as for me this qualifies. 60,000 people is a massive amount of casualties which is aprox. 70 times more people than our military has lost. they may not have been nukes but the fact of the matter is that they were wmds
Where do you come up with this silliness? No missiles loaded with sarin have been found. The closest thing to WMD found in Iraq is one rusty 20 year old artillery round. A far cry from the "tons of WMD" lie the bushies were perpetrating in the run up pre- invasion hysteria.
Here we are over a year since the invasion with all the top scientists, administrators and technicians under US control and not one gram of the supposedly deliberately concealed WMD has been found. The more Blix revealed the baselessness of the bushies' charges, the harder and faster bush pushed for war.
bush is a liar and/or a fool. Either way, it points to a failed presidency.
In the aftermath of 9-11, the congress was willing to give the president the power to wage war. However, no one thought bush would lie in order to excercise that power. bush is an irresponsible putz who doomed us to repeat history and fell a$$ over tea kettle into bin Laden's trap.
i<3drifting wrote:we did find weapons of mass destruction"Bush made a promise that hed find the WMD and still hasnt done so, now when that happened all of a sudden liberation of Iraq and toppling the Sadam regime became priority #1, or as Id like to say it smearing s h i t trying to cover it up."
why does nobody know this yet. We found several missiles loaded with serin gas warheads containing enough gas to kill 60,000 people. Now i don't know what your qualifications for a wmd is but as for me this qualifies. 60,000 people is a massive amount of casualties which is aprox. 70 times more people than our military has lost. they may not have been nukes but the fact of the matter is that they were wmds
FOX- Sarin Gas Found!
""Two explosives experts were treated for minor exposure to the nerve agent, Kimmitt said."
If it were truly sarin...those two people would've been sent home in zinc caskets.
Sarin Profile:
One of the world-s most dangerous chemical warfare agents. Sarin is an extremely toxic substance that disrupts the nervous system, overstimulating muscles and vital organs. It can be inhaled as a gas or absorbed through the skin. In high doses, sarin suffocates its victims by paralyzing the muscles around their lungs. One hundred milligrams of sarin- about one drop- can kill the average person in a few minutes if not given an imediate antidote. Experts say sarin is approximately 600 times as toxic as cyanide.
From another article:
"Former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix, speaking to The Associated Press in Sweden, warned the sarin found in the bomb may be residue from the past "and that's a very different thing from have stocks and supplies."
I'm shocked, the U.S. outperforms the U.N.? Instead of finding an empty warhead they found one with small traces of sarin in it. Spectacular! Just the kind of thing I'd send 700 people to their horrific deaths for...
I'm sure you gave me thirteen months to poke around Israel, I'd find some real WMD's...
Still the point remains that even if there were no WMD's, a noble task has been acomplished...and that IS something worth sending 700 people to their horrific deaths for. Death is a fact of war and every soldier who died joined the military knowing full well what could happen. I sleep better at night knowing Saddam Hussein isn't the leader of a country anymore, do you? I think we need to go pick a few more fights personally...Also, I love how nobody addressed my earlier point. If there were no WMD's or Saddam didn't have aspirations of having them, then why were weapons inspectors removed for 4 years until they were allowed back into the country solely because Saddam was staring down the barrel 250,000 guns. Dont bull**** me on this, we ALL should realize that Saddam at the very least wanted wmd's and could quite possibly have been pursuing them. Oh, and F1seb, thanks for the information, the account I read did not mention that. I'll have to look further into it, its also possible that jets were buried at multiple locations. The point merely was that if they were burying jets then who knows what else they could have buried out there.
Genius? bush a genius? The dolt is an empty vessel.Jesda wrote:Critiques on intellect. How odd for a president who is also supposed to be a scheming evil genius!
Anyone old enough will remember the same comments about Ronald Reagan.
-Jesda
That is why he has to go. The C in C must be in control. bush has no insight, no imagination and no culture. He thinks God told him to invade Iraq. He is putty in the hands of his controllers. Jokes about not finding WMD reveal his mental limitations and resulting lack of comprehension.
Iraq-gate trumps Monica-gate big time.
smithsr dude clam down. this is suppose to be a friendly debate (dont tell theres no such thing) on politics. No one is trying to change anyones mind here. The people here are just expressing their opinions. Like hitman said, ppl can't change unless they want to so what's the point of attempting to convert someone when you'd be getting no where. Moderate your posts so the whole barrel wont get thrown out just bc of a few bad apples.
Mike...:peace
Mike...:peace
-
MaineExport
- Posts: 3784
- Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 3:27 pm
- Car: 95 Nissan 240SX FAL fans AEM intake Hot Shot header Apexi N1 dual Exhaust VLSD ABS NX 50 shot
VimyJ wrote:
bush is a liar and/or a fool. Either way, it points to a failed presidency.
A failed presidency that freed MILLIONS of oppressed people?
It boggles the mind that all liberals can focus on is election politics, when the lives of millions are at stake. Bush lied about nothing. Even if his original reasons for invasion were flawed or based on misinformation, WHO THE HELL CARES?!!! Does this make the end result any less important? Does this mean the lives that were lost to liberate an entire country were in vain? I don't tend to think so.
-
ilovedrifting
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 9:23 am
- Car: skateboarding and drifting
VimyJ wrote:Where do you come up with this silliness? No missiles loaded with sarin have been found. The closest thing to WMD found in Iraq is one rusty 20 year old artillery round. A far cry from the "tons of WMD" lie the bushies were perpetrating in the run up pre- invasion hysteria.
Here we are over a year since the invasion with all the top scientists, administrators and technicians under US control and not one gram of the supposedly deliberately concealed WMD has been found. The more Blix revealed the baselessness of the bushies' charges, the harder and faster bush pushed for war.
bush is a liar and/or a fool. Either way, it points to a failed presidency.
In the aftermath of 9-11, the congress was willing to give the president the power to wage war. However, no one thought bush would lie in order to excercise that power. bush is an irresponsible putz who doomed us to repeat history and fell a$$ over tea kettle into bin Laden's trap.
first off, we did find those missles i was listening to the rush limbaugh show and he reported, I don't remember how long ago, that we had found several of those missiles in iraq.you call bush a liar, bush never lied please explain this too me cuz he never lied. if you're are talking about him supposedly lying about wmds then you are wrong for 1 reason. THERE WHERE WMD's
MaineExport wrote:A failed presidency that freed MILLIONS of oppressed people?
Yes, a failed presidency that "freed" Millions of oppressed people. Freeing people was never the agenda in Iraq, it was the excuse. It was a political loop hole that consoled people here while we went in and carried out a more political and business oriented agenda.
Rush Limbaugh is just like Micheal Moore, take everything with a grain of salt because they are so intent on making everything support their extremist views, that they tend to bend facts to make people believe them. Both are certainly worth watching/listening to in my opinion, just for the exposure to different ideas, but don't take everything they say to be absolute truth. Evaluate things on your own and try coming to your own conclusions.
"Freeing the poor Iraqis" is a smoke screen to try to make Americans feel better about 100s of US citizens needlessly killed and maimed.
The Shia will gain control. Civil war is a certainty. Iran will begin to exert its influence and Iraqi Shia will be receptive. The Kurds will agitate for their own state which will anger Turkey and Iran. Iraq will become another hotbed of anti US muslim extremists which will not make the wobbly Saudi monarchy any more stabile.
I must confess that at one point I began to think I had underestimated bush. That occured when he had piled up about 50k troops in Kuwait causing SH to bend over backwards for Blix, et al. enabling questionable weapons sytems to be destroyed and free access to any and all suspected Iraqi WMD sites.
Stupidly, instead of using this show of force to get action from SH, bush invaded! bush had a bloodless victory on his hands and he botched it horribly! Logically, the only conclusion that can be dran it bush had no intention of not invading Iraq. It was invasion all the way. World opinion, common sense and history was complately ignored for political gain. bush snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
"bush the war time hero president! bush the liberator! bush the protector!", the uninformed and 9-11 stunned electorate would chant. "Iraq was responsible for 9-11!", these frightened people would conclude. "Iraq had attacked the US!" and "Iraq is a war on terror" the ignorant would cling to.
France is the enemy according to some right wing numb nuts because they refused to back an invasion of a country that was no threat to the US, had never attacked the US, was proving to be in compliance with UN WMD resolutions and had no meaningful material or philosophical links to AQ. Meanwhile, France (along with other righteous countries like Germany, Canada and even Russia) fought and are fighting against AQ and Taliban in Afghanistan right frigging now.
The bushies like to play people for fools.
The emporer has no clothes.
The Shia will gain control. Civil war is a certainty. Iran will begin to exert its influence and Iraqi Shia will be receptive. The Kurds will agitate for their own state which will anger Turkey and Iran. Iraq will become another hotbed of anti US muslim extremists which will not make the wobbly Saudi monarchy any more stabile.
I must confess that at one point I began to think I had underestimated bush. That occured when he had piled up about 50k troops in Kuwait causing SH to bend over backwards for Blix, et al. enabling questionable weapons sytems to be destroyed and free access to any and all suspected Iraqi WMD sites.
Stupidly, instead of using this show of force to get action from SH, bush invaded! bush had a bloodless victory on his hands and he botched it horribly! Logically, the only conclusion that can be dran it bush had no intention of not invading Iraq. It was invasion all the way. World opinion, common sense and history was complately ignored for political gain. bush snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
"bush the war time hero president! bush the liberator! bush the protector!", the uninformed and 9-11 stunned electorate would chant. "Iraq was responsible for 9-11!", these frightened people would conclude. "Iraq had attacked the US!" and "Iraq is a war on terror" the ignorant would cling to.
France is the enemy according to some right wing numb nuts because they refused to back an invasion of a country that was no threat to the US, had never attacked the US, was proving to be in compliance with UN WMD resolutions and had no meaningful material or philosophical links to AQ. Meanwhile, France (along with other righteous countries like Germany, Canada and even Russia) fought and are fighting against AQ and Taliban in Afghanistan right frigging now.
The bushies like to play people for fools.
The emporer has no clothes.
Who cares if we found WMD's or not...or even if Bush genuinely wanted the Iraqi people freed (I think he did). The fact of the matter is that he was the cause of a good thing happening, there is no denying that. At least he wasn't cheating on his wife and staining some interns dress while he should have been working. It blows me away that people could be Clinton fans after that, I mean really...the dirty bastard cheated on his own wife, thats inexcusable. I agree that Rush tries to convince people that he's right, but I cant think of a single instance he hasn't had A source at least. Its not like he's just making **** up. Furthermore, allow me to make my point AGAIN:"If there were no WMD's or Saddam didn't have aspirations of having them, then why were weapons inspectors removed for 4 years until they were allowed back into the country solely because Saddam was staring down the barrel 250,000 guns. Dont bull**** me on this, we ALL should realize that Saddam at the very least wanted wmd's and could quite possibly have been pursuing them."Before attacking Iraq we asked Saddam Hussein to give a full disclosure of all the weapons he had, we found it insufficient and funny enough, even France was in agreeance with us. I'll find a source for this later.
Vimy...try spewing some truth instead of left wing propoganda, you have no way to know if the Kurds will clamor for their own state or anything else, despite what you might think you are NOT Ms. Cleo. You know, of all the people I know, from left wing liberals (yes, I DO have some liberal friends, crazy eh?) to the staunchest Republicans, I haven't once heard any of this: "bush the war time hero president! bush the liberator! bush the protector!", the uninformed and 9-11 stunned electorate would chant. "Iraq was responsible for 9-11!"This is putting words in peoples mouths that just aren't there in enough instances to matter.
I can't believe how backwards some people's grasp of reality is. Iraq claimed it had was in compliance with UN resolutions and Blix was sent to confirm his compliance and his claims. No WMD. bush invaded despite the fact that all his assertions of an Iraqi threat were completely bogus.
The invasion of Iraq was stupid and lying about the reasons for a purely political and unnecessary war is repugnant. Comparing a personal marital problem to the 100s of US dead, 1000s maimed and 100s of billions thrown away is ridiculous. Talk about your dirty bastards. You have to put things in their proper perspective.
Sure haven't seen much of Rummy or Rice lately. America needs regime change immediately.
Imagine if Clinton had been stupid enough to try a stunt like this.
The invasion of Iraq was stupid and lying about the reasons for a purely political and unnecessary war is repugnant. Comparing a personal marital problem to the 100s of US dead, 1000s maimed and 100s of billions thrown away is ridiculous. Talk about your dirty bastards. You have to put things in their proper perspective.
Sure haven't seen much of Rummy or Rice lately. America needs regime change immediately.
Imagine if Clinton had been stupid enough to try a stunt like this.
Jesda wrote:Lets be objective about this, shall we?
Bush avoided Vietnam and flew jets in Texas and smoked pot and drank.
Clinton avoided Vietnam and smoked pot and drank.
Gore went to Vietnam as a photographer WITH A PERSONAL SECURITY GUARD.
Kerry went to Vietnam for a few months, made up injuries, and then called his fellow soldiers CRIMINALS for political gain.
I'd prefer it if Kerry skipped the war like everyone else, instead of coming home and verbally spitting on our military.
-Jesda
I respect your opinions and knowledge, but it seems like you're stretching for this one. He did not "make up" injuries. Yeah, two of them were HARDLY serious. One was slighly worse and cost him two days of service. Yeah, he pussied out and transfered out of Vietnam. But he still WENT TO VIETNAM.
I looked up what you said about him calling fellow soldiers criminals. I'm not sure if you looked into it in detail. I know you said you are active on ircpolitics.org and I read the Barbara Stock article on that site which is very similar to your quote.
So here's what I found:
Quote »After abandoning his challenge to Drinan, Kerry joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War and testified before the Senate, where he slammed the soldiers he served with as war criminals.
GIs in Vietnam, Kerry said, had "personally raped [Vietnamese civilians], cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephone to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."
Kerry later admitted he hadn't personally witnessed any of the atrocities he claimed his fellow soldiers had committed.[/quote]This is from a Bush supporting site, http://www.newsmax.com/archive...shtml
Do you really think that those things didn't happen? Look at the scandal going on right now in Iraq, sounds very similar to this. I don't find it hard to believe, however, I think it was wrong of Kerry to claim something he did not personally see unless he was clear when testifying that he did not see it himself. I don't know if that was the case. The Bush supporting author makes his political position clear in the way he wrote that article and I feel like I'm not getting the whole story.
Isn't it funny that even the Russians thought Iraq was planning attacks against the US? "ASTANA, Kazakhstan - Russian President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites) said Friday his government warned Washington that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime was preparing attacks in the United States and its interests abroad — an assertion that appears to bolster President Bush (news - web sites)'s contention that Iraq (news - web sites) was a threat. "
From here: http://story.news.yahoo.com/ne..._iraq
Keep in mind, Russia did NOT support the war in Iraq and Putin was openly vocal against it soon after the onset. Despite their political stance on the war, even they had intelligence information that would support a US led attack upon Iraq.
From here: http://story.news.yahoo.com/ne..._iraq
Keep in mind, Russia did NOT support the war in Iraq and Putin was openly vocal against it soon after the onset. Despite their political stance on the war, even they had intelligence information that would support a US led attack upon Iraq.
VimyJ wrote: Comparing a personal marital problem to the 100s of US dead, 1000s maimed and 100s of billions thrown away is ridiculous. Talk about your dirty bastards. You have to put things in their proper perspective.
No, his personal marital problems show the character of the man, a man who was leading the most powerful nation in the world. How could he be trusted to have Americas best interest at heart when he couldn't even be honest and upstanding within his own family? I'll come back at you later about the UN resolutions, and WMD argument...I'm at work and crazily enough, need to work.