If Kerry wants to avoid the dishonor of voting for a war of choice, he has to admit that toppling Saddam Hussein was in some sense necessary. Indeed, Kerry said before the war that Saddam had to accept "rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise" (he didn't), or face "enforcement" (he did). John Edwards was even more forthright. Liberal critics have accused Bush of calling Iraq an "imminent" threat -- in their minds, the ultimate in dishonest exaggeration -- but that word never passed Bush's lips. Edwards, in contrast, used it multiple times in reference to Iraq.

John "Imminent" Edwards now has forgotten his earlier alarmism. "When John Kerry is president of the United States," he said the other day, "no young American will ever go to war needlessly because America has decided to go it alone." How does a war against an "imminent" threat suddenly become "needless"? And again, why would Edwards, together with Kerry, vote to authorize such a "needless" war?
Courtesy of Cox & Forkum

lol.


u right wing loonies get funnier and funnier everyday.


first of all, Kerry and Edwards voted for the war based on the evidence and argument presented by THE PRESIDENT, who we are now finding out more and more each day that he was bending the truth about it, or at least blinding himself to the potential of faulty intelligence with his desperate desire to make a case for war in Iraq.


u also seem to forget that when the war in Iraq was voted on, was barely a year or so after 9/11... the American public and politicians on Washington were still rallying behind our president during times of crisis.

many of us were skeptical about the motives for war, but Americans trusted the president, and after 9/11 the WORLD supported America, and we supported the president believing he was doing what was in the best interest of our country.


not even 3 years later, that has all changed.

we are finding more and more that our fear was manipulated and our trust was betrayed... that includes John Kerry and John Edwards.

and just like MOST Americans, the majority of whom recent polls now show no longer support the war, once the truth has started coming out Kerry and Edwards have changed our minds.

Good luck there in November, chico...Lurch/Breck Girl ain't gonna be changing too many minds across America...

Changing one's mind is easy.

Staying the course is leadership.

Baby Huey, when push comes to shove even Kerry admits he would act the same as Bush did, and is doing.

Maybe there is hope.

But they also voted against paying for it. That is like parents telling the child that they can go to the movie, but won't give them the admitance price. Your point is,..........well, pointless.

another swift monday morning quaterback.

No sane person wants war.
The US wants leadership. GWB is providing that but not changing policy with every opinion poll the Clinton ran the government.

The message to the world:
"If you attack the US we take the war to you."
Is that wrong? To stand up up for the people who lost their lives on 9/11?
Well??

Deafening silence from the Liberal Moonbats as usual when an objective rebuttal is posted...

That's their modus operandi.

1) Start many threads that incite anger, and have very little basis on reality.

2) Ignore all rationality, and address no specific points.

3) When losing ground, change topic.

4) When all is lost, go start 10 more threads.

It's actually amusing watching old TQ jump through the hoops.

Something tells me we'll get a reply shortly.

I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it." Mar 16, 2004

Kerry doesnt "admit" he would act the same as Bush.

he simply acknowledges the reality that, however flawed the initial motives, we are now in a war that we cannot simply just back out of.

America DOES have to "stay the course" and finish what Bush has started in Iraq, but "staying the course" doesnt mean being hard-headed and continuing on with a failed strategy that has no pre-determined, thought out end game..

and effective LEADERSHIP doesnt involve alienating our country from its allies and their resources, which would be helpful right about now in our multi-theatre war campaign...

as i said before, people voluntarily line up to follow a REAL leader.
they dont need to be convinced... or tricked.




this whole "opinion poll policy" rhetoric u righties keep spilling is really so desperate and shameful it should be beneath u.


Bush's policy in Iraq should NOT have anything to do with opinion polls.
but neither should it have anything to do with sticking with a failing war strategy simply to avoid admitting mistake.

our strategy in Iraq is failing right now.

American troops keep dying, Americans keep getting taken hostage and beheaded, Iraqi civilians keep dying, Iraqi politicians keep getting assassinated, the middle east is growing INCREASINGLY unstable, our economy keeps adding on to the ever increasing national debt with half a trillion dollar budget defecits to pay for this war (and the sweet-heart no-bid overpriced contracts offered to Halliburton for reconstruction)...

..and youre telling me this is leadership????




what does 9/11 have to do with Iraq?

when did Iraq ever attack or even threaten us?

obviously they had nothing to threaten or attack us with



nice try exploiting the tragedy of 9/11 in order to divert attention away from the fact that your buddy Dubya's Iraq policy (and foreign policy in general) is a complete and utter disaster which has alienated us from the rest of the world, diverted resources from the War on Terror (which Iraq had NOTHING to do with) and is costing the American taxpayers BILLIONS.

good job, but diversionary tactics dont work here buddy.




sorry, i was off attending to the real world (so many women, not enough time )

dont in any way think any of your insubstantive, ideological neo-con drivel had me so stumped as to be incapable of response.

it should be obvious by now that ANYTHING u righties throw at me, John Kerry or the democratic party will be quickly rebuffed and refuted without hesitation.




1) i didnt start this thread. as a matter of fact, this board seems to be filled with half-witted righties that have no platform other than to nit-pick and mudsling at liberals and democrats. this message board is like one big meaningless episode of Joe Scarborough or Bill O'Reilly.

2) ive address MANY specific points. u on the other hand have made 2 posts which, like this one, are full of a whole lot of rhetoric but not very much fact.

3) no one has changed topic. u are trying to portray Kerry in a negative light, and i am explaining his position, as well as the position of MANY Americans who at one time supported the war but now think it was a mistake.

4) ive started maybe 2 threads on this board. as i said, it seems u righty neo-con fascists seem to have the overwhelming majority of pointless, hate-filled partisan posts.

it seems u righty neo-con fascists seem to have the overwhelming majority of pointless, hate-filled partisan posts

Only rebutting the left-wing Moonbats who are losing their arguments by the day. Seems Bush didn't lie after all? Seems Bush's economy is on the best roll in the past several years etc. etc.

If Kerry's the best you can field...you're doomed

I would just about agree with that. I do not think Kerry is the answer and Bush will go down as the worst President in history.

As usual in Politics, there is not much choice.

My vote -anyone but Bush!

Wrong, you radical bleeding heart Bush-hating hippy.

Bush bended NOTHING, he relied on faulty intellegence, that DOESN'T make the war immoral.

Just like all liberals, you claim to be for freedom, yet you TURN YOU BACK on the 25 million+ people who are crying out for it, YOU'RE NOTHING BUT A RADICAL LEFT HYPOCRIT.

Our noble President Bush WAS doing what was best for country, it was either "take the word of a madman, or defend America."

M I've done tons of research and have truly decided that Kerry would be a much better President in office than Bush. Bush is taking us no where. All he's doing is polluting the world and saving his oil company along with other major companies money. His plan to go to war wasn't very thought out either. I agree It was good to get Saddam out of power, but his plan to rebuild Iraq wasn't thought out enough.[QUOTE] We know more about war than we know more about peace, more about killing than we know about living. -General Omar N. Bradly

John Kerry in Quotes:

"If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act." A Sep 6, 2002 Op-Ed, "We Still Have A Choice On Iraq," The New York Times

Gee, sure sounds to me like he's saying that if the UN does not act, we have the right to act alone!! Hear that MORON.ORG!!(Moveon.org)

That is without a doubt the most profound statement you have made all day. And you didn't even have to break into a sweat either.

"To render possible a peaceful solution, inspections should be given the necessary time and resources. However, they cannot continue indefinitely. Iraq must disarm. Its full and active cooperation is necessary. This must include the provision of all the additional and specific information on issues raised by the inspectors as well as compliance with their requests, as expressed in particular in Mr. Blix' letter of Feb. 21, 2003. The combination of a clear program of action, reinforced inspections, a clear timeline and the military build up provide a realistic means to reunite the Security Council and to exert maximum pressure on Iraq. "
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/24/...ain541801.shtml


"Last November 8, this council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous vote. The purpose of that resolution was to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. Iraq had already been found guilty of material breach of its obligations, stretching back over 16 previous resolutions and 12 years


I asked for this session today for two purposes: First, to support the core assessments made by Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei. As Dr. Blix reported to this council on January 27th, quote, "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it," unquote.

And as Dr. ElBaradei reported, Iraq's declaration of December 7, quote, "did not provide any new information relevant to certain questions that have been outstanding since 1998."


POWELL: Let me pause and review some of the key elements of this conversation that you just heard between these two officers.

First, they acknowledge that our colleague, Mohamed ElBaradei, is coming, and they know what he's coming for, and they know he's coming the next day. He's coming to look for things that are prohibited. He is expecting these gentlemen to cooperate with him and not hide things.

But they're worried. "We have this modified vehicle. What do we say if one of them sees it?"

What is their concern? Their concern is that it's something they should not have, something that should not be seen.

The general is incredulous: "You didn't get a modified. You don't have one of those, do you?"

"I have one."

"Which, from where?"

"From the workshop, from the al-Kindi company?"

"What?"

"From al-Kindi."

"I'll come to see you in the morning. I'm worried. You all have something left."

"We evacuated everything. We don't have anything left."

Note what he says: "We evacuated everything."

We didn't destroy it. We didn't line it up for inspection. We didn't turn it into the inspectors. We evacuated it to make sure it was not around when the inspectors showed up.

"I will come to you tomorrow."

The al-Kindi company: This is a company that is well known to have been involved in prohibited weapons systems activity.


Let me play another tape for you. As you will recall, the inspectors found 12 empty chemical warheads on January 16. On January 20, four days later, Iraq promised the inspectors it would search for more. You will now hear an officer from Republican Guard headquarters issuing an instruction to an officer in the field. Their conversation took place just last week on January 30.

POWELL: Let me pause again and review the elements of this message.

"They're inspecting the ammunition you have, yes."

"Yes."

"For the possibility there are forbidden ammo."

"For the possibility there is by chance forbidden ammo?"

"Yes."

"And we sent you a message yesterday to clean out all of the areas, the scrap areas, the abandoned areas. Make sure there is nothing there."

Remember the first message, evacuated.

This is all part of a system of hiding things and moving things out of the way and making sure they have left nothing behind.

If you go a little further into this message, and you see the specific instructions from headquarters: "After you have carried out what is contained in this message, destroy the message because I don't want anyone to see this message."

"OK, OK."
http://www.cbsnews.com//stories/2003/02/05...ain539459.shtml


Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its president,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized member states to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

http://www.cbsnews.com//stories/2003/02/05...ain539459.shtml

Cleo, can i get the cliff notes please?

That is the condensed version. If that's too much nothing I can do to help you.

Here's something to help these Lefty Moonbats think a little clearer. Put one of these on that protrusion above your neck and you'll get a clue!

wuz de mada cuz? yo reading skills lacking?

Kerry Losing Ground Among Hispanics In Arizona

Seems that his recent pander to La Raza where he offered a roadmap to citizenship for illegals, is bearing bitter fruit. No wonder Kerry's pulling his advertising from the Grand Canyon State.

In April, about 31 percent of Hispanic voters favored Bush, compared with about 60 percent for Kerry and 9 percent undecided, de Berge said. Results from the July poll show Bush is now favored by about 47 percent of Hispanic voters, compared with Kerry’s 42 percent.

Overall, the results of the survey conducted by the Behavior Research Center in Phoenix show Bush leads Kerry 48 percent to 36 percent, with 16 percent of the respondents undecided. Those numbers are almost identical to a poll done late last month for KAET-TV (Channel 8), which showed Bush ahead of Kerry 47 percent to 35 percent.

The poor showing for Kerry, D-Mass., in the new survey comes largely because he has lost support among Hispanics, according to Earl de Berge, research director for the center. There was a smaller shift among registered independents, according to the results.

http://www.aztrib.com/index.php?sty=24831

Cleo and Boon Mee, I compliment you on your wisdom and political insight.

Reading about Sen. John Kerry’s recent tour of the Midwest in his attempt to connect with rural Americans.

He was asked if he thought it was important for Democrats to affirm the right to bear arms. He said, “No, I think it’s important for people to be who they are, I’m just being who I am. I’ve gone deer hunting and duck hunting long before I thought of getting into politics. I support the Second Amendment.”
Which way is it?

He was asked, after trapshooting in Holmen, what kind of hunting he preferred. His answer, “Probably, I’d have to say deer. It’s tough, depending on where you are. I go out with my trusty 12-gauge double barrel, crawl around on my stomach, I track and move and decoy and play games and try to out smart them. You know, kind of play the wind.”

I’m no expert, but I’ve hunted deer for 20 years. I also asked some avid deer hunters, guys who sit from dawn until dusk, live in deer camps without running water, and use outdoor toilets. Never have they heard of “crawling around on my stomach” to bag a deer. It’s obvious this guy hasn’t hunted a deer in his life! It should also be obvious this character will say and do anything to “connect” with voters!

Gun owners should beware. The voting record of this man is inconsistent with his quotes.

Someone should have asked him what he wears for footwear when hunting. I guarantee it wouldn’t have been “Iceman boots” from La Crosse Rubber Mills; it would have been “flip-flops” from Boston!
HUGO HACKBARTH
Eau Claire