Wether Kerry is the best man for the job or not, this line "your people understand fully why you‘re doing what you‘re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons" is very true. Had Bush been able to prove half of the allegations for invading Iraq, his credability would be greater. Now he has shifted to a stand that we invaded Iraq to free the Iraqi's and that a free nation will harbor no terrorists, thus making us safer. Perhaps President Bush has forgotten about Tim McVeigh. 33% of terrorists attacks on US soil have been from inside. While I agree that Kerry saying approval was the wrong thing, I thought he explained it well. Bush usually get's labelled as not speaking well, but I think Kerry is at least as guilty. And yes, if you are going to critisize what someone says, it does matter if you quote them accurately, it adds to your credability, or subtracts from it. I know you will never support Kerry, or any liberal, but if they are truly so bad, you should not need any spin to critisize them.

If you keep repeating that last line, it might be true someday!

Jeasbury, I saw more cops on the street in New England at that time. Just because YOU didn't see it, doesn't make it false.

 

That's the whole point, isn't it? We could not prove the allegations without invading because Saddam did not comply with UN resolution 1441.

1. He frustrated the efforts of the UN weapons inspectors.
2. He had used WMD's before and not proved that they had been destroyed.
3. He broke the terms of the ceasefire from GW 1.
4. He was trying to aqquire nuclear technology, freely available to any Muslim madman from AQ Khan.

Under those circumstances, there was no option but to invade and find out for ourselves.
IF Saddam had complied, he would still be in power but he called the bluff and lost.

The USA (and allies) enhanced their credibility by showing that they would stand up to this crap.

 

momalle1,

You know me well enough that I don’t go around mis-quoting people to prove my points and in the rare cases that I do I admit it as I did in my previous post. However I didn’t mis-quote what Kerry met which was that he has two sides to acting in America’s security.

One was that he does not believe he needs anyone’s permission if he believes there is a legitimate threat and his other belief is America’s needs global approval, or in his words “to pass a test”. It means the same thing, you know it means the same thing and I really believe you know that I don’t make false statements purely to give a completely different meaning to what someone may have stated, in this case Kerry.

I don’t support Kerry because he does not have America’s best interest at heart but rather his own where on the other hand President Bush does not have his own interest at heart but America’s and he proved that by his actions. His past 4 years have seen many political gambles that most Presidents would have never taken so they would almost be assured another 4 years. Clinton would have never invaded Iraq because it would have been too much of a political risk for him and he would not have taken it.

Kerry talks too much and promises too much and wants to bloat the current deficient with social program spending. He has no plans, no hope and no vision. Kerry wants to return us to pre 9/11 and pretend nothing happen the day when over 3,000 innocent children, women and men were slaughtered in cold blood for no reason at all.

He further proved his point during the debate he stated right on TV he would have rather used the current money spent in Iraq on social programs for American’s. So in other words he wouldn’t mind taking the bullets and guns away from the soldiers in Iraq. It was just another flip-flop on Kerry’s part, one minute he states he wants to put more troops in Iraq, give them more weapons etc and then he wants to take everything away from them and I guess give them bats and clubs to fight the NON-terrorist that are in Iraq. It goes back to his proven track record on the subject ”I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against the $87 billion” Kerry has no problem putting soldiers in dangerous situations and then leaving them there to make it on their own because he is not about to give them what they need.

Goes back to his years when he first got out of Vietnam and screwed his fellow soldiers who were still fighting and those who were prisoners that got more torture due to Kerry’s words in front of Congress…

That’s why Kerry’s past is so important because Kerry’s past has NOT changed, he is still the same little coward he was back then excect now he would be screwing more then just those soldiers in Iraq but every single American child, women and man because his flip-flopping and waiting for the worlds permission to protect ourselves would open us up to more terrorist attacks here in the homeland.

Sorry but not a chance I am worth taken, and YES I am thinking about my daughter and all the other innocent children in this situation because it’s called “responsibility” and “accountability” something many people like Kerry have no idea about nor will they ever…

 

Yes, I think about my daughter in every decision. We could go back and forth until after the election about mind changes, failed promises and differences of policy about ANY candidate for any office. President Bush has also done his share of flopping, not all related to 9/11. The "wether or not we needed to invade Iraq" is an important question, and as far as I've seen, is a major determinant as to if you support President Bush or not. I do believe that both candidates have what they feel is best for America, as you and I do, though those ideas can vary greatly.

While I know it's difficult to keep up on everything (we have lives outside of politics), I do get bothered when I see things that are simply not true. As long as we are dealing with facts, I am more than willing to discuss and debate how things should be. Different viewpoints, in an open minded environment are what's made this country what it is - the best! I know you disagree and feel that every liberal idea should be discarded, but a lot of good has come from both sides. I think at our age, we have made up our minds for the most part, about how things should be. It's difficult, but important to stand on principles, but to pay attention, things change, the world changes.

Here's an example (or two).

UN Resolution 1441. Fact, it does exist and does spell out many things. You feel the US has the right to enforce that, I feel that a UN resolution should be enforced by the UN. If we felt the need to invade Iraq, we should have had other reasons, but we should not have used another parties resolution to justify what we did alone.

Many people believe that Kerry spent four months in Vietnam. Not true, and I'll call anyone on it. If you are going to critisize the guy, get your facts straight, and you can't do that by listening to only one source of news.

And your own quote "There is NO WMD’S in Iraq and that is a proven fact", that's NOT even close to what he said.

If you have a history of always saying what is true, people will listen. If you say ONE THING that is a lie, people will not forget and it will cast a doubt on everything else you say. I know it hasn't been discussed much here, but the Swiftboat Vets is a great example. John O'Neill and co. have been proven to have more lies than you "can shake a stick at". I know people that believe everything in that book. While I'm sure some of what is in there is true, when you come at me quoting that book, I lose all interest in what you are saying.

Here's a bottom line. I would surely not vote for "anyone but Bush", if Nader was my only other choice, I would vote Bush. Given the current choices, I simply can not support someone who is so inter-twined with PNAC and their global-domination agenda. PNAC's arrogance is extremely appalling. If PNAC is allowed to continue their efforts via President Bush and whomever their next candidate is, your daughter and my daughter will be fighting a war to push "American Values" around the globe. I would think that you, of all people, would be well educated about PNAC, if not, you should be. I am NOT willing to lay down my life, or my only daughters for this agenda, you'll have to come up with something better.

 

Wow, here we go again... I've learned to stay away from Bush/Anti-Bush/Kerry discussions that continually come up on here, as no amount of facts or reasoning ultimately changes anyones opinions. The one (and only) point I think we can all agree on, is that everyone of us has our nation's best interest and well-being in mind and heart in each of our individual beliefs and ideas that we consider to be in the best interest for all. When opinions differ, we all pretty quickly seem to forget this. I've found some pretty laughable opinions posted on here (no names mentioned) aswell as some pretty well thought-out opinions I dont' necessarilly agree with. Such is the entire premise of a democracy. Atleast in November we all have the right to vote for what be believe in, see who comes up on top, and go forwards (hopefully) together as one. I encourage some of the extremist on both sides to post what you believe in, and to try to resist flaming everyone else that doesn't agree with your version to a T. As far as the debates are concerned, it is pretty evident that what you ulitimately heard, and who you thought won is solely based on the color of glasses you watched the debates with. I personally think Kerry helped himself out moreso then Bush, and is the better speaker/debater of the two, although when it's all over we're going to be voting for the content, not the speech.

 

momalle1,

You bring up a good debate topic with the PNAC (Project for New America Century). I don’t necessarily believe they are for world domination so much that what they are really about is pushing for more open democratic rule in many nations that by and large suppress their people. When you suppress people you create angry people, abused people, and people that generally have no hope.

It’s almost as simple as looking at it as the “has” and “has nots” (rich vs. non-rich) in our own society. The “non-rich” feel that those that are “rich” MUST give back to them, the “non-rich” feel, because of years of liberal propaganda, they are entitled to what the “rich” have, or at least to a nice chunk of it.

The difference in our society is NO one is holding the “non-rich” back from going out there and “earning” what they want and achieving as much as they want if they work hard enough and if the right opportunities present themselves. The fact of the matter is not all “non-rich” will become “rich” that is just reality but at least they have an opportunity, due to the freedom in this country, to try and achieve that.

In other countries, like the Middle East, those people rarely if ever have that opportunity but their governments use other propaganda against them to help keep them suppressed and the propaganda they feed their people is that it is America’s fault for their particular situation when in fact it’s not.

So, what to do to help solve this problem or at the very least help to dissipate as much of the false information and propaganda as we can? That is the ultimate debate and the side I would lean on at the moment is to try and see if it is possible to bring some stability and some freedom to the Middle East. Iraq is that testing ground and for good reason.

Past administrations (democrat and republican) did very little to nothing to absolve the situation in the Middle East and it’s hatred towards America even though it is due to America, as well as other free nations, they have survived. If no one bought their oil they would basically all starve to death since they have basically no other commerce to offer the world. This money made few people in the Middle East very rich and helped them to continue to repress their people along with the teaching in their schools that America is evil, America is to blame for your misfortune…

So, the question is what do you do? We have to do something, ignoring it did not work, appeasing them did not work, and giving them more money in aid will not work. The United Nations approach did not work and I do not think it’s an option to “try and understand them”. We don’t need to understand them, they need to understand us and they are never going to have the opportunity to understand us unless they live in a free society how every you wish to define that.

Repressed people are angry people, people with no hope, people who are prime targets for terrorist recruitment so you have to deal with the issue at hand, how do deal with repressed people?

I am not saying that PNAC is the absolute answer but they are presenting and bringing a solution to the table, so what are the other proposals?

 

And as anyone who has been involved with cops can attest that they are not exactly truthful.
You just might be experienced lieing, its so obvious that shrub has lied to us, congress, the senate, the un, the world.

I also saw more cops on the street in LA, it was in the papers.

Boo Hoo, I'm being taxed. How else is this burden of an ill executed war going to be paid for? Iraqui oil? HA!
Guess again.

 

Someone open a window, Spork is stinking up the place again...

AGAIN OUT OF CONTEXT (not so) swift boat 527 talking points.
You've lost credibility by blindly parroting swift boat smears and trying to pass it off as factual.
You don't do the research you claim you do, and you reject anything that doesn't fit your narrow pin headded belief system.

Read this and stop with the distortions.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=244

You are living up to my claim that you are a right wing extremeist.

 

Burt has admitted as much many times before:

https://www.f150online.com/forums/sh...t&pagenumber=6

 

loudist,

You continue to wear your blinders and not accept any truth whatsoever. Since you seem incapable to do any research on any manner on your own I will assist you. First here is a link that has Kerry’s testimony to the:

Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971

Kerry based his statements and accusations on his anti-war groups supposed "Winter Soldier Investigation." Some of the excerpts from his testimony that did indeed cause more harm to other solders held as POW in Vietnam were:

Kerry had absolutely no proof that any of his statements were fact but made them anyway. Read that statement carefully and tell me if you were the enemy, that wouldn’t feed the fire, furthermore tell me that for nut cases like the Vietnamese, or today’s terrorist they wouldn’t take that statement above as fact as use it as justification to be even more brutal to those they had captive and under their control.

If you try to tell me Kerry’s statements made no difference to how POW’s were treated you are beyond lost.

Here is another interesting link that breaks down the outright deception of Kerry and company with their sham on the "Winter Soldier Investigation":

The fraud of the Winter Solder investagration

Kerry made statements for his own political self interest and NEVER thought of what his actions might cost in either further death of POW’s or worse treatment of POW’s. Kerry never took the time to “think”.

This has nothing to do with the Swift Boat men who has as much right to state their opinions as do any other citizen however you continue to prove that you have absolutely no tolerance for anyone who disagrees with you and points you in the direction of the truth.

You continually try to label me an “extremist” even though I am not. I am simply a conservative but since that makes me different then you, since I continue to try and point you towards the truth it’s in direct disagreement with your views and thus it is considered “extreme”.

It is truly sad when a very small minority in our society think of the truth as “extreme” I know CBS feels the same way as you so at least you’re not alone…

 

01, We have been trying in the middle east for a long time, and we have not done very well. I don't know what the anwer is, but I don't think that their dictatorships are 100% responsible for their hatred of us. I don't think they ALL hate us either, just a very vocal and violent minority. A lot of the hate also stems from our support of Isreal. If that support is the right thing to do, then we must be willing to accept the backlash, if it isn't, we should get out. I really don't think our government is all that symathetic to Isreal's plight, I think it's the only Middle East influence we have a grip on. I agree with you 100% that what we have is far and away the best, I don't want to force it on anyone. If anyone asked for our help, I'm all for it, like some of what we are doing in China now.

The middle east is a violent place and has been for a long time, it probably will be well past our life times. Now that we are in Iraq, we have to see it to completion. I would love to see the Iraqi's free and in love with it. I also think once we acheive that, we won't be so amiable with Isreal, once that happens, and we are more allied with Iraq, and muslims, I think we will be on the proper path to more peace with the Middle East and peace in the middle east. We must be seen as a helper and not a pusher.

 

momalle1,

I agree with your post for the most part. I would disagree that we have been trying in the Middle East for a long time. I think many things we did in the Middle East in the past had a direct correlation to the cold war and winning it as we have and to secure a future of oil supplies.

Many things we did were out of necessity for that time in history. In any regards the Muslims in the Middle East are much different then we are different values and different realities of what the world should be like.

I also agree that the vast majority of Muslims do not hate us and actually practice and/or believe in peace and not violence. It is for the large number, not by percentages of the population, but just numbers of extremist that we have to do something, if for nothing else but to teach them plain and simple, if you act out against America and make America feel threaten you will pay the price and most likely with your life.

I do not think we should be force feeding anyone anywhere are particular democratic structure, or our particular democratic structure, but I do believe we have to do something and if that is freeing a repressed Middle East society so they can form their own structured democratic system then so be it. If it helps to open the doors to information then it will help many in the Middle East to one day understand what America is all about and it is not about taking over and making cloned Americas all over the world.

In any regards it is at least trying to do something that has hope at the end of the tunnel rather then ignoring it or just pretending everything is great. We can no longer afford to just stand around and “hope” things get better because they won’t.

As far as Israel is concerned the easy answer would be to just walk away and let the chips fall were they may. That is a move France would make and not think twice about. I think we have a responsibility as a free and moral nation to not walk away from a country that wants to be free and wants our support and protection to maintain their freedom. To turn our backs on Israel would be to turn our backs on the very basic principles that made our country great which is freedom is a God given right and not a man given right.

 

In an April 4 NewsMax.com article, B.G. "Jug" Burkett, co-author of Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of Its Heroes and Its History (Verity Press Inc., 1998), revealed the plan to smear Senator John Kerry's (D-MA) Vietnam War record; this plan surfaced in the form of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. On the August 26 edition of FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes, Burkett followed Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in issuing a series of false attacks against Kerry's military record: He attempted to link Kerry's post-Vietnam War service to Jane Fonda; claimed Kerry "was never for peace" and that Kerry "call[ed] Vietnam veterans murderers and rapists"; and flip-flopped on whether Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony was "radical."

Burkett sought to link Kerry to Jane Fonda

Burkett began his appearance on the FOX News Channel program by invoking the common right-wing tactic (as demonstrated in a February 19 column by Robert Novak and by bumper stickers for sale) of seeking to link Kerry to actress and prominent antiwar activist Jane Fonda, which has even involved the doctoring of a photograph to make it appear that Kerry stood alongside Fonda while speaking at an antiwar protest. Burkett remarked on Hannity & Colmes that there were "several outrageous things that are in that era between John Kerry and Jane Fonda. I mean, they toured the country. They made speeches." When confronted by show co-host Alan Colmes about the "false impression" he was creating by linking Kerry and Fonda, Burkett furthered his claim: "They were on the same agenda. They lectured at universities. He -- Kerry was the headliner. She was the secondary speaker."

Although Kerry and Fonda did both appear at an 1970 antiwar rally in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, CNN noted that the Kerry campaign "stressed that Kerry and Fonda were only acquaintances, and the meeting took place two years before Fonda took a controversial trip behind enemy lines and posed for pictures on a North Vietnam army anti-aircraft gun which prompted her angry detractors to dub her 'Hanoi Jane.'" CNN noted that "Kerry aides said he did not support Fonda's trip to Vietnam," and Fonda "said that she does not recall meeting Kerry during the antiwar movement." For her part, Fonda remarked: "Any attempts to link Kerry to me and make him look bad with that connection is completely false. We were at a rally for veterans at the same time. I spoke, Donald Sutherland spoke, John Kerry spoke at the end. I don't even think we shook hands."

Burkett claimed Kerry "was never for peace"

Of Kerry's protests of the Vietnam War upon returning from combat, Burkett said, "I defy anybody to count the number of times he used the words peace. He was never for peace."

Kerry mentioned the word "peace" nine times in his 1971 testimony before the senate Foreign Relations Committee. At one point, criticizing then-President Richard Nixon's "Vietnamization" of the war for ruining the chance of peace, Kerry said: "On the question of getting out with some semblance for peace, as a man who has fought there, I am trying to say that this policy has no chance for peace. You don't have a chance for peace when you arm the people of another country and tell them they can fight a war."

Burkett claimed that Kerry "call[ed] Vietnam veterans murderers and rapists"

Burkett claimed that Kerry's presidential campaign has sought to play up his image as a war hero, while hiding "the era where he was calling Vietnam veterans murderers and rapists." As Media Matters for America has extensively documented, Kerry did not accuse veterans of the crimes he spoke of in his testimony; he related the stories of other Vietnam veterans who came home and testified to their personal experiences in what was known as the Winter Soldier Investigation. In addition, as MMFA has noted, Kerry's testimony was an indictment of the leaders at the time and did not blame the soldiers who reported having committed atrocities in Vietnam.


This guy is your proof? His book is the 'Turner Dairies' for the swift kicks.
He's been discredited, and so have they.

You continually reinforce my point that you are myopic and will only seek information, however twisted, to support your denegration of someone you haven't really taken any time to find out what they are about.
You ARE the ventriloquists dummy for Karl Rove ...
See Here:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/p...interview.html

Keep em coming Spork, as you say,
"The truth will set you free"
or in your case Karl Roves arm out of your southern region.

 

Woah! Go and study the history of US involvement in the middle east, then state an opinion.

The numbers of those who distrust the US versus the the ones that do, would stagger you.
Pretty easy to see why... the US has been messing around in the Middle East for decades, installing Shah's, cozying up to dictators, arming them, doing business with those very same brutal maniacs, making them rich which equals powerful, all while we turned a blind eye to the inhumane barbarism we mostly created.
We are looked as 'enablers' of very evil men, thus we are also viewed as evil too. Being supportave of Israel doesn't help either... you see, the Jews are hated out of hand because they are Jews. Its a religious thing.
Our excuse of 'the enemy of our enemy is our friend' works against us as they feel, 'The friend of our enemy is our enemy too'.
We are guilty of a lot of meddleing over there and it hasn't gone unnoticed by their general population.

 

It was, however, Lane’s book which inspired the “Winter Solder investigation”. The major organizers of the so-called “investigation” staged in Detroit in 1971 included Jane Fonda, **** Gregory, Phil Ochs, Graham Nash, David Crosby, Tom Hayden, Daniel Berrigan actor Donald Sutherland and activist lawyer and writer Mark Lane - the same guy who’d already been revealed as a fake. Also deeply involved in the organization of the event was the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) which included John Kerry who was on the VVAW Executive committee.

To reveal the depth of dishonesty present, Al Hubbard, one of the founders of the VVAW and its Executive Secretary, claimed to be an Air Force pilot, wounded in Viet Nam. In fact, Hubbard was never an officer, never wounded and never in Viet Nam. VVAW members Elton Mazione, John Laboon, Eddie Swetz and Kenneth Van Lesser all claimed to have been a part of the Phoenix program in Viet Nam where they routinely killed children and removed body parts as a part of their duty. They were shown to have never been in the Phoenix program nor had they ever been in Viet Nam. And the list of more frauds later found within the organization is mind-boggling.
So this is the organization with which Kerry was associated when he used the “horrible stories” generated by Mark Lane and the VVAW’s “Winter Soldier investigation” as the basis of his Congressional “testimony” later that year, saying at one point:

Not content with this outright lie, he stated further on in his “testimony”:

This too is a complete and utter lie. For instance, to pretend that torturing or killing prisoners was an “accepted policy in many units in South Vietnam” is to DISHONOR those who served in Vietnam because it requires one to then believe that gross human rights violations were encouraged by the chain-of-command and therefore committed “routinely”,as a matter of policy, by our soldiers.
As Guenter Lewey pointed out in his book “America in Vietnam”,

We’ve also since learned that John Kerry’s “impassioned” and “impromptu” testimony wasn’t even written by him and certainly, as he claimed, NOT ‘impromptu’.

So what about the famous “Winter Soldier investigation” which was the basis for Kerry’s testimony?

loudist,

Since you seem to want to ignore facts and insert fiction then how about you PROVE to us Kerry’s testimony in 1971 was based on facts and was indeed factual? Are you up to the task rather then calling anybody who proves you wrong names?

I think not, you will a have a hard time proving anything about Kerry because it is impossible to prove something that is not real and not based in facts, good luck nonetheless in your search of an extremist liberal website that purports to having any facts to back up your boy and his Disney story to Congress in 1971 as he tried his best to stab his fellow solders in the back in order to gain power in an elected office…