Giving me a headache

[wyomingtim]

I am honestly trying to watch the debate at the moment...but I am getting a headache trying to listen to Kerry. First he says wrong war, wrong time, wrong place. Then he says that winning the war is essential. Then he says It was a mistake for Bush to "rush into war." THen he says, when asked if troops are dying for a mistake, that no, they are not. I wish he would just tell people how he actually feels/believes about the issues and base his campaign off of that. I hate all of the same flip flops and excuses he keeps giving for saying them. Oh well, better try to listen to some more...hope I have enough Excedrin.

 

[feclnogn]

Kerry is however better at deleviring his lines. right now i think kerry is winning this debate.

 

[JohnSWA]

Unfortunately, I have to agree!

Personally, I feel that Bush is more genuine in his beliefs and his resolve, but Kerry was much more relaxed and elloquent in his delivery.

Kerry won this debate hands down.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by wyomingtim:
I am honestly trying to watch the debate at the moment...but I am getting a headache trying to listen to Kerry. First he says wrong war, wrong time, wrong place. Then he says that winning the war is essential. Then he says It was a mistake for Bush to "rush into war." THen he says, when asked if troops are dying for a mistake, that no, they are not. I wish he would just tell people how he actually feels/believes about the issues and base his campaign off of that. I hate all of the same flip flops and excuses he keeps giving for saying them. Oh well, better try to listen to some more...hope I have enough Excedrin.

Tim
ARe you not able to see that these are complicated questions?
It is the wrong war, as we should be fighting the war on terror, and catching bin laden.

It was the wrong time, as we don't have the troops to fight two wars at the same time.

It was a mistake to rush to war in Iraq, when we had not finished the War on Terror.

If you want to take them out of context, then that is good for the "sound bite" generation.

But if you want to think thru the answers, I am sure you will not see flip flops. Or at least not the magnitude of Dubya's with his no 9/11 commission, yes commission, WMDs, no WMDs....etc..etc...

 

[wyomingtim]

OK, then enlighten me oh wise one...

From Kerry: It is every president's right for preemptive action, but it should be done with global approval.

I am sorry, the rest of the world can suck ass when it comes to preemptive action to ensure the security of the US. You really think the french or germans give a rats ass about our safety? They would prefer us out of the way so they can progress on their views of how the world should be.

 

[Nemont]

EG,
I had a tough time following Kerry's North Korea discussion. He is upset with the Pres. for unilateral action in Iraq and upset with the Pres. for pursuing multilateral 5 nation discussion in North Korea?

How does Kerry plan to gather support for what he has called the wrong war, at the wrong time for the wrong reason, (Oh yeah and BTW we have to win it). He is telling his potential allies "we are in a quagmire here come join us". Maybe I am just not "nuanced" enough to fully understand his supposed "consistent" position on Iraq.

Nemont

 

[JoseCuervo]

So the "pre-emptive" action in Iraq was to protect the US from the non-exsistent WMDs or from the non-existent links to Al-Quaida? Last I had heard, the pre-emptive strike was to save the 5000 Kurds who were gassed 15 years earlier.... (Kinda bit late don't you think???)

 

[wyomingtim]

Once again, you are trying to turn the conversation in the direction you want it to go.

Answer me this question: Do you think that we should have global approval (i.e., France, Germany and Russia) before we take preemptive action?

 

[JoseCuervo]

Yes, you should have approval/support/coalition for your action if you DON'T have a plan for what you will do after the "catastrophic success". BushSr. said he would not go into Bagdahad because it would be a quagmire. And his son is proving him correct.

If the "global approval" wasn't so important, why did Colin Powell go to the UN seeking such? Why did Dubya brag about the coalition of the willing, the super powers of Costa Rica and similar????

 

[Nemont]

EG, You may not want to send people to snopes.com because they will see things like this which snopes has verified as true.
Don't know how the dems can say anything about being misled or lied to. I think they many have convient amnesia re: Saddam, Iraq and WMD

Nemont

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

You know, I did not see a single one of them say "only with Global approval." Did I miss that part?

 

[feclnogn]

EG


below is a link to an 11 minute video of what Kerry has said on Iraq. What I find interesting is that in 1998 Kerry was calling for puting troops on the ground in Iraq and said we should do it even if the allies such as France and Russia sat on the sidelines. Now I know this isn't Michael Moore so I assume it won't be worthy of your time but ya can't change the fact that some when it suited them were calling for exactly what Bush wound up doing.

Kerry On Iraq

 

[JoseCuervo]

Fecl,

You have any idea how long it would take me to download an 11minute video on my dial-up???

I'll take your word for it....

Nemont,
I dismiss all the Senator's comments after Jan 2001 as based on bad information provided by Dubya's intelligence department. Senators do not have their own intelligence departments.

 

[Nemont]

Nemont,
I dismiss all the Senator's comments after Jan 2001 as based on bad information provided by Dubya's intelligence department. Senators do not have their own intelligence departments.

EG, HUH? The president used nearly all of Clintons intel people because he wanted continuity.

Nemont

 

[A-con]

Kerry attacked Bush on "Nukes in N. Korea" at least five times, but wasn't it Clinton that sold the N.Koreans the tecnolagy ? Bush should have hammered him on that. Kerry clearly won the debate, Bush passed/missed chance after chance to clean Kerrys clock.

 

[1_pointer]

IMO, these debates won't be too good of a thing for GW. I think the less he's in front of a camera speaking the better off he'll be. He's just not a very good speaker. Kerry is better, IMO, in thinking on his feet and delivering a speech.

PS- Note that I did not say Kerry was a better candidate.

 

[Ithaca 37]

I got tired of hearing Dubya whine about what a hrad job he had. Kerry definitely came across much better. I wish Ralph Nader had been there!