posted on October 1, 2004 06:43:15 PM
John Kerry made some strong and sensible statements during the debate last night, but did you notice what the next word usually was? Here are some Kerry quotes:
* "I'll never give a veto to any country over our security. But . . ."
* "I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are. But . . ."
* "We have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we're there. We have to succeed. We can't leave a failed Iraq. But . . ."
* "I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that. And from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority, because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, and I did accept that intelligence. But . . ."
* "I have nothing but respect for the British, Tony Blair, and for what they've been willing to do. But . . ."
* "What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground. And you have to do that by beginning to not back off of the Fallujahs and other places, and send the wrong message to the terrorists. You have to close the borders. You've got to show you're serious in that regard. But . . ."
* "I couldn't agree more that the Iraqis want to be free and that they could be free. But . . ."
* "No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But . . ."
* "I've never wavered in my life. I know exactly what we need to do in Iraq, and my position has been consistent: Saddam Hussein is a threat. He needed to be disarmed. We needed to go to the U.N. The president needed the authority to use force in order to be able to get him to do something, because he never did it without the threat of force. But . . ."
Maybe Kerry misunderstood when someone told him he needed to have the "qualifications" to be president. But it'd inspire a lot more confidence if he had followed any of these remarks with a "therefore" clause instead of a "but" one.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The person who has nothing for which he is willing
to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
And after the 'but' then he usually says just the opposite of what he just finished saying....like he did at the debate last night.
He just can't help flip-flopping.
He also has three divisions of the dem party to try and please....and at any given time he tries to say something that is important to one or the other group....even if it is the opposite of what he said the day before.
As for the success of Kerry's anti-democracy protests and his leadership of the VVAW and association with Fonda's Winter Soldier Investigation, General Vo Nguyen Giap, Vietnam's most decorated military leader, wrote in retrospect that if not for the disunity created by such stateside protesters, Hanoi would have ultimately surrendered.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, which states, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President ... having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." --George Washington
[ edited by Linda_K on Oct 1, 2004 07:53 PM ]
posted on October 2, 2004 06:08:28 AM
Exactly... he would wait for other countries take on a situation before taking action and if it was against the right action for the US to take, I don't think he would then do it and cost us big time.
He is so concerned about what other countries think, he should be concerned about what we here at home think and it is not giving a rat's ass about what france or germany thinks...
Global test... we don't care about other countries... who cares about a global test. Reason Clinton didn't get Bin Laden... but you see how he changed his tune when he kept mentioning President Bush decided to allow other forces attempt capture and then we should of been using US forces...
I am disapointed in President Bush's first debate, however my vote is behind the President. He is a strong leader, not someone that waits for the "globe" to decide what's best for us.
posted on October 2, 2004 09:22:56 AM
I was disappointed in the debate format....to me it favored kerry. I wasn't disappointed in President Bush....he showed what's most important....his UNWAVERING committment to take on these terrorists....and his desire to keep this war off our soil.
kerry is a good speaker...but has great trouble with questions presented to him 'off the cuff'. Had it been more like a true debate then President Bush could have questioned kerry on statements he made. That's where I believe kerry would have shown his true self...he would have hemmed and hawed and given answers that contradict the statement he just made.
And I think the President didn't want to come across as attacking kerry....which, imo, he should have made more comments on all his changing positions. He could have pointed out, by questioning kerry, all his current statements vs his more recent voting history. Shown him for the farce he is.
posted on October 2, 2004 06:46:28 PM
While I'll agree I don't think Kerry has a good plan for anything, I say Bush couldn't debate himself out of an outhouse. A monkey could have done much better. I guess I would have had that disgusted look on my face too,he should have been disgusted with himself,after a performance like that.
posted on October 2, 2004 07:25:19 PM
linduh, please don't dare call anyone else childish after you said, "lol - All my family and friends have switched ketchup brands...and we've spread the word.""
Ha Ha! I bet Theresa is wounded to the quick with your snub of the ketchup company where she owns 4% of the stock.....linda please buy Theresa's ketchup or you'll send her to the poor farm, you jealous sick witch!
posted on October 2, 2004 07:43:23 PM
Hey! Have any of these bone head neonazicons told us what bush's PLAN for Iraq is yet?????
Cause I sure haven't heard a word from bush except ,,,"duh, we gotta "stay the course"(no matter how stupid it is) and we need to work hard, it's hard work.
What an imbecile! It's too bad so many have to DIE because of him.
posted on October 2, 2004 07:51:00 PMIF you were capable of any reading or listening comprehension skills crow, you would understand what Pres Bush has been saying all along about Iraq[/b]. I fact he restated it during the debates.
Hey, hey Ho, ho Kerry - sign the 1-8-0
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The person who has nothing for which he is willing
to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
posted on October 2, 2004 08:12:31 PM
Dear poobear, saying over and over again that we should "stay the course(no matter how stupid it is) and we have "hard work to work hard at...
posted on October 3, 2004 11:43:51 AM
I know what Bush's plan for Iraq was. It was the very same thing that he used to prove how successful he has been in Iraq.
SPEND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
I suggest going back and watching the debate again. Everytime Bush attempted to defend himself, he said, "We've spent X billion on this, we've spent X billion on that." We're gonna spend another X billion for this, and we're going to spend another X billion for that."
Since when did spending money become such "hard work"? Since when did success or progress become measured by how much we spent? Really. I am curious what true fiscal conservatives think about Bush's spending habits. Has his spending improved the scenario in Iraq? I haven't seen it. I would like to know what we are paying for. These are valid questions. What costs all this money that no American has seen? Sure, we have to pay our military, and we have those no bid contracts, but I would like to see some accomplishments for all that money. We could have bought enough body armor for our soldiers or supplied them properly so we wouldn't have all the casualties. So where did all this money go?
