For the last fucking time....Kerry DIDN'T vote FOR THE WAR!!!

[Snake Doctor]

Kerry didn't say he would have gone to war knowing then what he knows now.

He said he would have voted to give the president authority. That's a very important distinction.

The U.S. was trying to get the UN to pass a resolution and make Saddam Hussein let the weapons inspectors into his country.
The only way to force his hand was with the "threat" of military force. Therefore Senator Kerry still would have voted the same way.

Then, after Sadam shocked us all and let the inspectors in, the use of force was no longer necessary.
But George W Bush didn't seem to care about that and went to war anyway.

The reason Kerry now supports sending more troops into Iraq if necessary is because Dubya has gotten us into a mess and we can't just cut and run....we have to have a stable government in Iraq before we pull out.

So the differences between the two are
1) Kerry would have voted to give the president authority to go to war if necessary, but if he was commander in chief would not have actually gone to war because we had weapons inspectors on the ground and force wasn't necessary.

2) Now that Dubya has gotten us into a royal mess, Kerry would tell the American people the truth about the situation in Iraq, rather than painting some rosy picture for us, and do what is necessary to stabalize things there.

3) Since most of the rest of the world is pissed off at us, because Dubya basically told the UN to go fuck itself ("you're going to be irrelevant" were the exact words) we need a new commander in chief with new credibility to go to our allies and get them to help shoulder some of the military and financial burden of rebuilding Iraq.
Most of our allies know that the right thing to do is to send troops and money into Iraq, because a stable middle east benefits them as well, but they don't want to do anything to help Bush get re-elected after the way he tried to bully them before. So a change in the Oval Office is necessary to get help from our allies.

Any more questions?

[Ice]

Hi Lenny

[jawanda]

If you believe that John Kerry DIDN'T vote FOR THE WAR!!!

...


...


Then you HATE AMERICA!

Why do you hate america?


-p

[uno]

Shhh... let them think thats what it means.

[WarChild]

Ridiculous.

Nowhere did John Kerry say he would NOT have gone to war. He is fond of saying he would have "done things differently". Show mw where John Kerry said he would not have gone to war.

Instead of retyping in my own words, I'm just going to post someone else's:

"As James Madison put it, "In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." But Kerry, and a majority of senators and House members, ignored that wisdom and voted for a use-of-force resolution that Sen. Robert Byrd (D.-W.Va.) rightly denounced as a "blank check" to the president. The language of that resolution was clear: "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." Thus, Congress left it up to the president ("he determines") to decide whether and when to initiate the war.

Kerry has since complained about how the president exercised that authority. Bush, he says, violated Congress' trust by not building a large enough coalition and getting the U.N. on board, "...and that's why I was upset about it."

But if Kerry was upset, he has only himself to blame. Complaining about the president using the authority you've granted him is rather like locking the barn door after you've deliberately let the cows out."

[Rich]

The people who don't realize that already, are never going to change their minds. Two word talking points work on these people, not common sense.

[WarChild]

Originally posted by Rich
The people who don't realize that already, are never going to change their minds. Two word talking points work on these people, not common sense.

Can you produce a Quote in which John Kerry has specifically said he would NOT have gone to war? Everything I've heard and read always has him saying he would have done it differently.

I hope such a quote does exist.

[uchase/webpry]

Originally posted by Lenny2
Kerry didn't say he would have gone to war knowing then what he knows now.

Any more questions?

Kerry didn't say he would have picked those powerball numbers knowing then what he knows now.

agreed ??

[Doctor Dre]

Originally posted by jawanda
If you believe that John Kerry DIDN'T vote FOR THE WAR!!!

...


...


Then you HATE AMERICA!

Why do you hate america?


-p

Is he a terrorist too ?

[Dead13]

Originally posted by Rich
The people who don't realize that already, are never going to change their minds. Two word talking points work on these people, not common sense.

"Tax Cuts" and "Praise The Lord" are phrases straight from Satan I am sure of that now.

[jawanda]

Originally posted by Doctor Dre
Is he a terrorist too ?

Most likely.

[CET]

Originally posted by Lenny2
Kerry didn't say he would have gone to war knowing then what he knows now.

He said he would have voted to give the president authority. That's a very important distinction.

The U.S. was trying to get the UN to pass a resolution and make Saddam Hussein let the weapons inspectors into his country.
The only way to force his hand was with the "threat" of military force. Therefore Senator Kerry still would have voted the same way.

Then, after Sadam shocked us all and let the inspectors in, the use of force was no longer necessary.
But George W Bush didn't seem to care about that and went to war anyway.

The reason Kerry now supports sending more troops into Iraq if necessary is because Dubya has gotten us into a mess and we can't just cut and run....we have to have a stable government in Iraq before we pull out.

So the differences between the two are
1) Kerry would have voted to give the president authority to go to war if necessary, but if he was commander in chief would not have actually gone to war because we had weapons inspectors on the ground and force wasn't necessary.

2) Now that Dubya has gotten us into a royal mess, Kerry would tell the American people the truth about the situation in Iraq, rather than painting some rosy picture for us, and do what is necessary to stabalize things there.

3) Since most of the rest of the world is pissed off at us, because Dubya basically told the UN to go fuck itself ("you're going to be irrelevant" were the exact words) we need a new commander in chief with new credibility to go to our allies and get them to help shoulder some of the military and financial burden of rebuilding Iraq.
Most of our allies know that the right thing to do is to send troops and money into Iraq, because a stable middle east benefits them as well, but they don't want to do anything to help Bush get re-elected after the way he tried to bully them before. So a change in the Oval Office is necessary to get help from our allies.

Any more questions?

1. He was always for the war, he just didn't want a republican to have credit for it.

2. Another resolution would have made 18 in 12 years. What makes him think that resoution #18 would mean anything more to Saddam then resolutions 1-17?

3. War was never declared, because the original gulf war never ended, we were in a period of cease fire, which Saddam chose to break on almost a daily basis, which in itself was enough for us to kick his ass.

[12clicks]

Originally posted by Lenny2

Any more questions?

No, just a comment. Intelligent people know you're lying and the rabble don't vote. Save your breath.

[wdsguy]

...

[gornyhuy]

If you vote for Kerry, the terrorists have already won.

[Snake Doctor]

Originally posted by 12clicks
No, just a comment. Intelligent people know you're lying and the rabble don't vote. Save your breath.

Don't you have some spyware to peddle?

[12clicks]

Originally posted by Lenny2
Don't you have some spyware to peddle?

your mom said I could wait until after you clean your room.

[Snake Doctor]

Originally posted by 12clicks
your mom said I could wait until after you clean your room.

Ron you're getting rusty....you usually have much better material than that.

[12clicks]

Originally posted by Lenny2
Ron you're getting rusty....you usually have much better material than that.

I just go thru the motions with idiots. There's really no need for me to try anymore. In the old days I used to expose idiots. Today you expose yourselves. I just kinda laugh along at your stupidity.

what do you do in this business again?

[Snake Doctor]

Originally posted by WarChild

But if Kerry was upset, he has only himself to blame. Complaining about the president using the authority you've granted him is rather like locking the barn door after you've deliberately let the cows out."

That's a ridiculous point of view.
That's like saying if a Senator voted to give the President fast track authority to negotiate trade deals, and then the president negotiates a horrible deal for the American people, that its the Senator's fault that we got into a bad trade deal.

The vote was to give him authority, authority which congress believed the president would use wisely. They had a handshake agreement with the president agreeing to exhaust diplomacy and do this through the U.N.
(If you remember at first the president asked for authority to invade....then the Senate said no we'll only give you authority if you go through the U.N.)

Kerry says he would have done things differently...I.E. let the weapons inspectors do their jobs and make their final report to the U.N. before invading a country....rather than relying solely on the bad intelligence we had at the time.

Also waiting until we had international support to not only win the war but also win the peace, if war was deemed necessary.
Bush 41 was a good example of exactly how to put an international coalition together to do something of this magnitude.
Dubya is a perfect example of how NOT to run your foreign policy.

We've lost ALOT of credibility in the world and we need a new "CEO" if you will for our stock price to go back up.
(pardon the cliche's)

[Snake Doctor]

Originally posted by 12clicks

what do you do in this business again?

I convince surfers to buy what I'm selling rather than hijacking their computers with adware/spyware.

What do you do at night when I'm sleeping?

[Rich]

Originally posted by WarChild
Can you produce a Quote in which John Kerry has specifically said he would NOT have gone to war? Everything I've heard and read always has him saying he would have done it differently.

I hope such a quote does exist.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...litics_of_iraq

[Rich]

Originally posted by Lenny2
I convince surfers to buy what I'm selling rather than hijacking their computers with adware/spyware.

ouch

[WarChild]

Originally posted by Rich
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...litics_of_iraq

Interesting read.

Although I don't believe John Kerry to be a "Flip-Flopper" as die hard Bush fans do, I also think his position on this issue is changing. This is not what he originally said. It's hard to tell with John Kerry, because he isn't very clear.

[crowkid]

Originally posted by Lenny2
Kerry didn't say he would have gone to war knowing then what he knows now.

He said he would have voted to give the president authority. That's a very important distinction.

The U.S. was trying to get the UN to pass a resolution and make Saddam Hussein let the weapons inspectors into his country.
The only way to force his hand was with the "threat" of military force. Therefore Senator Kerry still would have voted the same way.

Then, after Sadam shocked us all and let the inspectors in, the use of force was no longer necessary.
But George W Bush didn't seem to care about that and went to war anyway.

The reason Kerry now supports sending more troops into Iraq if necessary is because Dubya has gotten us into a mess and we can't just cut and run....we have to have a stable government in Iraq before we pull out.

So the differences between the two are
1) Kerry would have voted to give the president authority to go to war if necessary, but if he was commander in chief would not have actually gone to war because we had weapons inspectors on the ground and force wasn't necessary.

2) Now that Dubya has gotten us into a royal mess, Kerry would tell the American people the truth about the situation in Iraq, rather than painting some rosy picture for us, and do what is necessary to stabalize things there.

3) Since most of the rest of the world is pissed off at us, because Dubya basically told the UN to go fuck itself ("you're going to be irrelevant" were the exact words) we need a new commander in chief with new credibility to go to our allies and get them to help shoulder some of the military and financial burden of rebuilding Iraq.
Most of our allies know that the right thing to do is to send troops and money into Iraq, because a stable middle east benefits them as well, but they don't want to do anything to help Bush get re-elected after the way he tried to bully them before. So a change in the Oval Office is necessary to get help from our allies.

Any more questions?

Yea, I got one, but it depends on the meaning of the word is is.

[Rich]

Originally posted by WarChild
Interesting read.

Although I don't believe John Kerry to be a "Flip-Flopper" as die hard Bush fans do, I also think his position on this issue is changing. This is not what he originally said. It's hard to tell with John Kerry, because he isn't very clear.

Flip flopping is such a stupid fucking CNN word. People have to change positions when circumstances change. If you don't change your attitude when you find out that you're wrong then you're not a good leader.

The question is, if you know what we know TODAY, would you still go to war. No WMD, no 9/11 or Al Queda ties, lying Ahmed Chalabi being a spy for Iran, etc etc etc. Bush says yes, which makes no sense to most people. Kerry says no. That's not a flip flop, that's common sense.

[WarChild]

Originally posted by Rich
Flip flopping is such a stupid fucking CNN word. People have to change positions when circumstances change. If you don't change your attitude when you find out that you're wrong then you're not a good leader.

The question is, if you know what we know TODAY, would you still go to war. No WMD, no 9/11 or Al Queda ties, lying Ahmed Chalabi being a spy for Iran, etc etc etc. Bush says yes, which makes no sense to most people. Kerry says no. That's not a flip flop, that's common sense.

I think Kerry is just changing is positions as the polls change. He could have come out and said "No I wouldn't have voted for the war" in the first place. He didn't though. He said he'd have voted for authority to go to war, but have handled it differently.

Anyways, I see your point.

[SuckOnThis]

Originally posted by Rich
Flip flopping is such a stupid fucking CNN word. People have to change positions when circumstances change. If you don't change your attitude when you find out that you're wrong then you're not a good leader.

Did someone say flip flop?

Flip: Denounced "nation building" prior to Election 2000
Flop: Currently in the process of spending a trillion dollars destroying and then "building" Iraq

Flip: Denounced "judicial activism" during debate with Gore
Flop: Eagerly used judicial activism to steal White House in December 2000

Flip: Fought establishment of Dept. of Homeland Security
Flop: Supported establishment of Dept. of Homeland Security

Flip: Fought establishment of 9-11 Commission tooth and nail
Flop: Supported establishment of 9-11 Whitewash Commission when political pressure became too great

Flip: Dedication to preserving life, even in the form of cells.
Flop: Decimated civilian families with bombs, killing babies, children and adults alike.

Flip: The war on terrorism cannot be won.
Flop: I think we will win the war on terrorism

Flip: Says he's a recovering alcohlic
Flop: keeps falling off his bike...

[12clicks]

Originally posted by Lenny2
I convince surfers to buy what I'm selling rather than hijacking their computers with adware/spyware.

What do you do at night when I'm sleeping?

sleep like a baby.
what do you do during the day while I'm working on the internet?

[Danny_C]

Giving a "war president" authority to go to war is the same as voting for the war, I would think. And it's not like Bush's intentions were a big secret. Plans for unilateral invasion were being discussed all over the media before Congress even cast their votes. Maybe Kerry doesn't watch the news?

[Snake Doctor]

Originally posted by Danny_C
Giving a "war president" authority to go to war is the same as voting for the war, I would think. And it's not like Bush's intentions were a big secret. Plans for unilateral invasion were being discussed all over the media before Congress even cast their votes. Maybe Kerry doesn't watch the news?

First of all, Bush didn't refer to himself as a "war president" until long after he invaded Iraq, so its not like they were thinking "should we give this war president authority"

Secondly, yes there were plans for a unilateral invasion which is why congress insisted that Bush do this through the U.N. before they voted to give him any authority.
He agreed and then reneged on his deal with congress.

If YOU were watching the news back then you'll remember congress was furious because they felt that Bush should have come back to them again before invading unilaterally, because the gentleman's agreement they had with him stipulated things be done through the U.N. and not unilaterally.
Dubya's lawyers told him that he didn't have to go back to congress again, so he basically flipped the bird to congress and their authority as well as most of the world community.

[mardigras]

If you really want to know what John Kerry thinks about the war in Iraq take time to read the words of the man himself.

[Tom_PMs]

Good try, Lenny, but people will buy the latest sound bite regardless of the facts, lmao.

Some of us know the difference between saying "If you HAVE to, then you can.", and "Go do it now!".

Voting to grant Bush authority is like me giving Bush $10,000 to go bid on artwork at an auction. I say to him, "You can use up to $10,000 if you have to".
Then Bush goes and on the first item he bids the whole $10,000.

That doesnt mean I would have done the same thing, or that I would have used it at ALL. It means HE did what he did after I trusted him to be smart and prudent.


BUT.. people love sound bites.

[12clicks]

Originally posted by Lenny2
First of all, Bush didn't refer to himself as a "war president" until long after he invaded Iraq, so its not like they were thinking "should we give this war president authority"

yeah, that war in afghanistan and all those war on terror speeches were just for yuks.

Originally posted by Lenny2
Secondly, yes there were plans for a unilateral invasion which is why congress insisted that Bush do this through the U.N. before they voted to give him any authority.
He agreed and then reneged on his deal with congress.

dear idiot, do you know how congress "insists" on something? the vote on the exact wording of what they want done. Congress never insisted on "doing this thru the UN" no matter what you and kerry say now.

Originally posted by Lenny2
If YOU were watching the news back then you'll remember congress was furious because they felt that Bush should have come back to them again before invading unilaterally, because the gentleman's agreement they had with him stipulated things be done through the U.N. and not unilaterally.
Dubya's lawyers told him that he didn't have to go back to congress again, so he basically flipped the bird to congress and their authority as well as most of the world community.

odd how "congress" means a minority of congress when you're a liberal trying to rewrite history.

[mardigras]

Originally posted by Tom_PM


Voting to grant Bush authority is like me giving Bush $10,000 to go bid on artwork at an auction. I say to him, "You can use up to $10,000 if you have to".
Then Bush goes and on the first item he bids the whole $10,000.

Nope. I can't let analagies go when they are incomplete
Bush would have to swear the item was worth bidding the whole $10,000 on despite numerous art critics informing him that it was worthless, later admitting he realizes it's worthless and tell you to this day he would pay $10,000 for it again.

[angelsofporn]

This argument is simple. If you want to lose your adult biz then vote for bush. A-S-Hhahahahaha will be back if Bush is.
Thats all i need to know.

[Snake Doctor]

Originally posted by 12clicks
yeah, that war in afghanistan and all those war on terror speeches were just for yuks.

I was referring to the time Bush referred to himself as a "war president"
It was on Meet The Press with Tim Russert on Feb 8 of this year.

Originally posted by 12clicks

dear idiot, do you know how congress "insists" on something? the vote on the exact wording of what they want done. Congress never insisted on "doing this thru the UN" no matter what you and kerry say now.

http://www.roundupnews.com/news/2002...q-296260.shtml

A few quotes....
"The overwhelming consensus," Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said Friday, is that the president "ought to be very careful about the deployment of military personnel and weaponry."

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said, "The United States must lead the diplomatic high ground and use a multilateral approach to disarmament with the support of friends and allies."

The bill Congress passed requires Bush to notify Congress, before or within 48 hours after an attack on Iraq, that further diplomatic efforts would not have protected U.S. national security, and to explain to Congress how the military action will not hurt the war on terrorism.

We had weapons inspectors on the ground, there was no threat to our national security from Iraq.
The military action has also hurt the war on terrorism, tying up our limited resources in Iraq when they should be used to find the people that actually did attack us.

Originally posted by 12clicks

odd how "congress" means a minority of congress when you're a liberal trying to rewrite history.

Is that really the best you can do? Use the "L" word and think that's enough to discredit my point of view?

Speaking of minority and liberals....Senators Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar, and Lindsey Graham....all REPUBLICANS, have recently attacked Bush for the way he's handled Iraq.

You're a one trick pony Ron.....you'd vote for Adolf Hitler if he supported a flat tax.

[Basic_man]

Bush is a dumbass! VOTE KERRY !

[12clicks]

Originally posted by Lenny2
I was referring to the time Bush referred to himself as a "war president"
It was on Meet The Press with Tim Russert on Feb 8 of this year.

what tyou're refering to is irrelevant. Pretending that no one knew what Bush meant after declaring war on terrorism and attacking afghanistan is the only relevant point or lack there of.

Originally posted by Lenny2
http://www.roundupnews.com/news/2002...q-296260.shtml

A few quotes....
"The overwhelming consensus," Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said Friday, is that the president "ought to be very careful about the deployment of military personnel and weaponry."

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said, "The United States must lead the diplomatic high ground and use a multilateral approach to disarmament with the support of friends and allies."

The bill Congress passed requires Bush to notify Congress, before or within 48 hours after an attack on Iraq, that further diplomatic efforts would not have protected U.S. national security, and to explain to Congress how the military action will not hurt the war on terrorism.

We had weapons inspectors on the ground, there was no threat to our national security from Iraq.
The military action has also hurt the war on terrorism, tying up our limited resources in Iraq when they should be used to find the people that actually did attack us.

as I said, *minority*
proving my point by posting two quotes from several hundred representatives doesn't help your argument.

Originally posted by Lenny2
Is that really the best you can do? Use the "L" word and think that's enough to discredit my point of view?

Speaking of minority and liberals....Senators Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar, and Lindsey Graham....all REPUBLICANS, have recently attacked Bush for the way he's handled Iraq.

wrong, dope. what they did was question his handling of it. None of them questions us being there and none of them thinks kerry would do better. I'm sure you had a point in your mind to write this but it didn't translate once it was removed from fantasy land.

Originally posted by Lenny2
You're a one trick pony Ron.....you'd vote for Adolf Hitler if he supported a flat tax.

oh look, the loser used the "hitler" card.
why not scream "haliburton" too. that always makes the liberal point.

[gothoes]

has anybody heard of some pending law, that requires 18-26 year olds to serve 2 years of national service?

[trouserrat]

Originally posted by mardigras
Nope. I can't let analagies go when they are incomplete

You should probably learn how to spell analogies before you try to complete them.

[12clicks]

Originally posted by gothoes
has anybody heard of some pending law, that requires 18-26 year olds to serve 2 years of national service?

yeah, its a liberal lie.
there's no *pending law* of any kind.