I assume you're talking about Kerry....it wasn't clear. OK.
1. A lie. Lie, lie, lie. The Federal Edu. Budget is up almost 50% since Bush took office. Title 1 Reading program funding has exploded under Bush. You don't have the facts here.
2. Please elaborate on your NAFTA point.
3. Kerry voted for war. Give me a break. He fully believed Saddam had WMD and said so publicly as late as March 2003. He voted to authorize the President to use force. He did not vote for the "Disarm Iraq by Force Only If It's The Last Option You Have Left" act. Whatever.
Kerry is a flopper. You don't have to support Bush, or even like him, but at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that.
I'll get you links... but here's my response...
The NCLB Act was supposed to have an even bigger budget (50% larger?)... that's why it got the support and votes it did... then the Administration underfunded it... FUNDED it less than they said they would. Why do you think Kennedy was so pissed?
Nafta... everyone thinks it needs work... you don't negotiate a trade agreement and then just let it ride despite the results.
Bush is the one that wanted Steel Tariffs... and then after the EU freaked repealed them.
Almost EVERYONE thought Saddam had huge stockpiles (even me) because the Bushies were saying it over and over... they were so sure they were willing to go to war... kinda hard to argue with... I mean I didn't think they would start one unless they had on the ground confirmation by spies or whatever... and they didn't. They had dissidents willing to tell them anything they wanted to hear in order to get us to go into Iraq.
And the authorization that passed wasn't for war... it was for force AFTER of the UN did it's inspections or if Saddam did not comply with the inspectors... we were supposed to be the UN's enforcer on this... but instead we pushed them aside and took over.
Excellent job avoiding the point. First, it's not clear Kerry's statements WERE entirely accurate. Second, what if he participated? Maybe he was just following orders?
I wasn't intentionally avoiding those points, I just wasn't directly addressing them in that post.
good question: were his statements what he believed were the case?
I don't know . . . I haven't read the testimony, nor have I followed it too closely.
Did he participate, and was he following orders if he did?
I don't know, if he did participate then the guilt feelings may account for why he came to feel the war was wrong . . . if he did participate and did not claim his due responsibility then he should be held accountable . . . . as should all of those involved
However, that seems to introduce an unneeded question into the mix, a question whose origin is simply concern for smearing Kerry whenever possible.
as for the post that I posted: I was in fact addressing the issue that I said I was addressing: which was that you said that his testimony, 'while soldiers were still in the field' was, for that reason, a terrible thing.
another point on that: if they were 'still on the field' and actually were committing atrocities there then someone should stand up and speak . . . it would be their patriotic duty to do so
His testimony about the atrocities is simply stating what was agreed upon to be said by a large group of decorated soldiers . . . he was delivering a collective statement that they agreed on . . . It leaves the question of who among them did what . . . but that is silly: either you accept his statement and you acknowledge that it points out atrocities (allthough in only one and half paragraphs are those touched on) or two: you simply disagree with the goal of the statement: putting an end to the war which it felt was wrong and unpatriotic.
Otherwise, if you raise the question of who in the Winter Soldiers did what? then you are accepting that Kerry's speech was in fact legitimate . . . can't have it both ways
So wait...you want a radical and at the same time flip-fliopping anti-war President? Oh, OK.
And what's this? Coulter rewritng history? Examples. Please..I'm listening.
Her version of Joesph McCarthy and I'm sure she has other examples in mind..
We've been through that one before. Sometimes I think you're getting altzheimers but I know you're just playing dumb.
Also he's only flip flopping to you. Maybe what we need is a radical to get some change in the tired way of doing things. And antiwar well that speaks for itself.
All and all he sounds like a pretty good fellow to me.
You've really got to be scrambling like mad to find something bad to say about him if these are your examples.
The problem with you is when you can't find anything to argue about you then try to pick at something small about what I've said ( notice I didn't comment on your typo ). At least that's been your pattern.
So, businesses are claiming that they have cut 2.4 million jobs. People at home are claiming that 450000 more people are employed. Krugman goes on to clearly state that even Alan Greenspan believes the payroll numbers (that 2.4 million jobs were lost). Not that it is relevant to the current discussion, but here is where those numbers contradict....
Say it with me: There are more people employed in the US today than there were in 2001. Two million more. End of story.
The NCLB Act was supposed to have an even bigger budget (50% larger?)... that's why it got the support and votes it did... then the Administration underfunded it... FUNDED it less than they said they would. Why do you think Kennedy was so pissed?
Nafta... everyone thinks it needs work... you don't negotiate a trade agreement and then just let it ride despite the results.
Bush is the one that wanted Steel Tariffs... and then after the EU freaked repealed them.
Almost EVERYONE thought Saddam had huge stockpiles (even me) because the Bushies were saying it over and over... they were so sure they were willing to go to war... kinda hard to argue with... I mean I didn't think they would start one unless they had on the ground confirmation by spies or whatever... and they didn't. They had dissidents willing to tell them anything they wanted to hear in order to get us to go into Iraq.
And the authorization that passed wasn't for war... it was for force AFTER of the UN did it's inspections or if Saddam did not comply with the inspectors... we were supposed to be the UN's enforcer on this... but instead we pushed them aside and took over.
1. Let's get the numbers.
2. NAFTA needs work. OK...that doesn't mean one comes out and blasts it.
3. Steel tarriffs: OK, well I'll give you that one. Bush probably shouldn't have ordered them in the first place.
4. You can't be telling me that Kerry had no intel of his own. He's on the damn commitee! And secondly, let me ask: If bush wasn't sure, why would he risk the future embarassment of not finding them? Kerry voted to authorize the President to use force after seeing some of the very same intel. Now he's flopping. That's all there is to it. Saddam DID NOT comply with inspectors. He didn't comply fully for 11 years and 17 resolutions. What else should Bush have done? Given Saddam tey more time It was clae he wasn;t cooperating and the UN wasn't going to do anything about it.
His testimony about the atrocities is simply stating what was agreed upon to be said by a large group of decorated soldiers . . . he was delivering a collective statement that they agreed on . . . It leaves the question of who among them did what . . . but that is silly: either you accept his statement and you acknowledge that it points out atrocities (allthough in only one and half paragraphs are those touched on) or two: you simply disagree with the goal of the statement: putting an end to the war which it felt was wrong and unpatriotic.
Otherwise, if you raise the question of who in the Winter Soldiers did what? then you are accepting that Kerry's speech was in fact legitimate . . . can't have it both ways
I'm not trying to have it both ways. It's possible this man comitted war crimes. It's also possible the statement was exaggerated. The two can coexist. As far as Kerry wanting to end the war (and that being the motivation for his public testimony), I'd say that it was inappropriate for a serving member of the armed forces to be speaking out like that with such a gola in mind. One could even say his motives were ulterior.
You can't be telling me that Kerry had no intel of his own. He's on the damn commitee! And secondly, let me ask: If bush wasn't sure, why would he risk the future embarassment of not finding them? Kerry voted to authorize the President to use force after seeing some of the very same intel. Now he's flopping. That's all there is to it. Saddam DID NOT comply with inspectors. He didn't comply fully for 11 years and 17 resolutions. What else should Bush have done? Given Saddam tey more time It was clae he wasn;t cooperating and the UN wasn't going to do anything about it.
You see, I think that is the problem, now isn't it? GWB comes to washington makes claims that he is going to do xyz and then goes about doing them. The US gets attacked and he says he is going to take this conflict to the troublemakers, and he actually does it.
"The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts. I've directed the full resources for our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them." - GWB 9/11 speech
"This is a day when all Americans from every walk of life unite in our resolve for justice and peace. America has stood down enemies before, and we will do so this time.
None of us will ever forget this day, yet we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world." - GWB 9/11 speech
"Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Â_Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. Â_But we know their true nature. Â_North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.
Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.
Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. Â_The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. Â_This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. Â_This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.
States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. Â_By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. Â_They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. Â_They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. Â_In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.
We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. Â_We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. Â_(Applause.) And all nations should know: Â_America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security." - GWB SOU speech 2002
All of this is not new. GWB has been very steadfast in the fight against terror an rogue nations since 9/11 Democrats for the most part, could not stop cheering for him. Now as an election approaches, I guess the short term memory loss has kicked in.
Here is what democratic leaders have said:
Rep. Dick Gephardt, (D-Mo.) made the following statements on Meet the Press on Sept. 28th, 2003:
REP. GEPHARDT: (Showing a videotape from October 2, 2002) In our view, Iraq's use and continuing development of weapons of mass destruction, combined with efforts of terrorists to acquire such weapons pose a unique and dangerous threat to our national security.Â_ (End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: "A unique and dangerous threat." We have not found any such weapons. Were you wrong or misled?
REP. GEPHARDT: Tim, I didn't just take the president's word for this. I went out to the CIA three times. I talked to George Tenet personally. I talked to his top people. I talked to people that had been in the Clinton administration in their security effort. And I became convinced, from that, all of that, that he either had weapons of mass destruction or he had components of weapons or he had the ability to quickly make a lot of them and pass them to terrorists. Look, after 9/11, we're in a world, in my view, that we have to protect the American people from further acts of terrorism. That's my highest responsibility, that's the Congress' highest responsibility, and the president's. And I did what I thought was the right thing to do to protect our people from further acts of terrorism. We cannot have that happen in the United States, and I will always do that. --Rep. Dick Gephardt, 9/28/03
Or how about this:
Ted Kennedy - "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed. ...Â_ There is clearly a threat from Iraq, and there is clearly a danger... We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. ...Â_ In public hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March, CIA Director George Tenet described Iraq as a threat but not as a proliferator, saying that Saddam Hussein 'is determined to thwart U.N. sanctions, press ahead with weapons of mass destruction, and resurrect the military force he had before the Gulf War.' That is unacceptable...
"If Saddam's regime and his very survival are threatened, then his view of his interests may be profoundly altered. He may decide he has nothing to lose by using weapons of mass destruction himself or by sharing them with terrorists. ..Â_ Nor can we rule out the possibility that Saddam would assault American forces with chemical or biological weapons. ... Clearly we must halt Saddam Hussein's quest for weapons of mass destruction." -- October 4, 2002
Kennedy also wrote at the time, "Let me say it plainly: I not only concede, but I am convinced that President Bush believes genuinely in the course he urges upon us. --9/227/03
Another:
Sen. John Kerry from a speech he gave at Georgetown University in January, 2003:
... we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.
"So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. ... In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing." - 01/03
Go Back even further:
October 9, 1998
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today, along with Senators McCain, Lieberman, Hutchison and twenty-three other Senators, I am sending a letter to the President to express our concern over Iraq's actions and urging the President, 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. ...
[From the letter attached]
"We are skeptical, however, that Saddam Hussein will take heed of this message even though it is from a unanimous Security Council. Moreover, we are deeply concerned that without the intrusive inspections and monitoring by UNSCOM and the IAEA, Iraq will be able, over time, to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs.
"In light of these developments, we 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 Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski, Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John F. Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.
Her version of Joesph McCarthy and I'm sure she has other examples in mind..
We've been through that one before. Sometimes I think you're getting altzheimers but I know you're just playing dumb.
Also he's only flip flopping to you. Maybe what we need is a radical to get some change in the tired way of doing things. And antiwar well that speaks for itself.
All and all he sounds like a pretty good fellow to me.
You've really got to be scrambling like mad to find something bad to say about him if these are your examples.
The problem with you is when you can't find anything to argue about you then try to pick at something small about what I've said ( notice I didn't comment on your typo ). At least that's been your pattern.
That's desparate.
I find that good also.
1. Can you refute her McCarthy claims?
2. He's certainly not only "flip flopping to me". It's all in his ridiculous record, which cannot be explained. We have to look no further than the Iraq issue. He's all over the map. He has a case of Goreitis.
3. Of course he sounds lke a good fellow to you, because you'll ignore anything in anyone's background as long as you think he can beat the evil GWB. You'd have supported the insane Howard Dean if he was going to be nominee. I'm sure.
4. I can't find examples? Are you kidding? Please tell me you are. Gay marriage=for, then against. Iraq war 1991=against. Iraq war 2003=for, then against. NAFTA=I voted for it, then "it needs to go to protect American jobs." $87B war funding=against, despite voting for the war. WMD=Saddam has them and everyone knows it, then Bush lied to us. Intelligence=cut intel spending in 1995, now criticizes quality of intel. Death Penalty=Against it for international terrorists, now for it.
Whether you're voting for Bush or not, at least admit Kerry's a flopper. Come on, jimmac.
2. He's certainly not only "flip flopping to me". It's all in his ridiculous record, which cannot be explained. We have to look no further than the Iraq issue. He's all over the map. He has a case of Goreitis.
3. Of course he sounds lke a good fellow to you, because you'll ignore anything in anyone's background as long as you think he can beat the evil GWB. You'd have supported the insane Howard Dean if he was going to be nominee. I'm sure.
4. I can't find examples? Are you kidding? Please tell me you are. Gay marriage=for, then against. Iraq war 1991=against. Iraq war 2003=for, then against. NAFTA=I voted for it, then "it needs to go to protect American jobs." $87B war funding=against, despite voting for the war. WMD=Saddam has them and everyone knows it, then Bush lied to us. Intelligence=cut intel spending in 1995, now criticizes quality of intel. Death Penalty=Against it for international terrorists, now for it.
Whether you're voting for Bush or not, at least admit Kerry's a flopper. Come on, jimmac.
You come on. Many sources from the time say the same thing about McCarthy. Geez!
The rest of your stuff is ranting your backwards conservative viewpoint and not really worth replying to.
No, your going to spend the rest of your life in that little conservative box. I'll never change you.
And yes SDW Kerry will beat the evil George Bush. People are getting sick of him.
By the way there is one thing you won't be able to to be in denial about come November.
Originally posted by NaplesX Well I am sorry to poke holes in your theory, but I am not a republican or democrat
So Naples, will you finally tell us what you are, if as you claim, you're neither a Dem or a Rep, or will you just keep avoiding the question? This is the fourth time I've asked.
In a worst case scenario, I'd rather vote for a "flopper", which he isn't(nice try), than a liar.
He isn't? Prove it. Prove he hasn't been all over the place. Give me a break. As for lying, I again ask you to show me evidence...ANY evidence that Bush lied. The lack of WMD does not even begin to prove anything.
You come on. Many sources from the time say the same thing about McCarthy. Geez!
The rest of your stuff is ranting your backwards conservative viewpoint and not really worth replying to.
No, your going to spend the rest of your life in that little conservative box. I'll never change you.
And yes SDW Kerry will beat the evil George Bush. People are getting sick of him.
By the way there is one thing you won't be able to to be in denial about come November.
What sources jimmac? Really...I'd like to know. Coulter provides a very different look at McCarthy, and unless you can refute what she says in her book, I'd suggest not commenting. She backs up what she says about McCarthy....now you do the same.
As far as Bush, I'll again caution you not to underestimate the man. You've done so time and time again, just as most of his opponents have. Kerry might win. It's possible...but to be confident about it would be a very, very large mistake.
He isn't? Prove it. Prove he hasn't been all over the place. Give me a break. As for lying, I again ask you to show me evidence...ANY evidence that Bush lied. The lack of WMD does not even begin to prove anything.
Here you go, again parroting about the WMDs. I have a DVD FULL of Bush's, Powell's, Cheney's, Rice's claims, imminent threats, mushroom clouds over NY/US, blah blah blah, "solid intelligence", "best intelligence in the world", "we know where they are","saddam and Al qaeda" and on and on and on. I guess if I was a Bush FANATIC like everyone can see you are, the lack of WMD wouldn't mean anything to me either.
The great thing about Karl Rove, is that he is so astute that most of the time he has others do the "dirty" work for Bush, so that in a worst case scenario, Bush has enough space to come and either deny it, or deny knowledge of it. The puppet master is very smart.
What sources jimmac? Really...I'd like to know. Coulter provides a very different look at McCarthy, and unless you can refute what she says in her book, I'd suggest not commenting. She backs up what she says about McCarthy....now you do the same.
As far as Bush, I'll again caution you not to underestimate the man. You've done so time and time again, just as most of his opponents have. Kerry might win. It's possible...but to be confident about it would be a very, very large mistake.
Here you go, again parroting about the WMDs. I have a DVD FULL of Bush's, Powell's, Cheney's, Rice's claims, imminent threats, mushroom clouds over NY/US, blah blah blah, "solid intelligence", "best intelligence in the world", "we know where they are","saddam and Al qaeda" and on and on and on. I guess if I was a Bush FANATIC like everyone can see you are, the lack of WMD wouldn't mean anything to me either.
The great thing about Karl Rove, is that he is so astute that most of the time he has others do the "dirty" work for Bush, so that in a worst case scenario, Bush has enough space to come and either deny it, or deny knowledge of it. The puppet master is very smart.
It means something to me. I'd like to know WTF went wrong. I still don't believe Bush lied, for a variety of reasons...one of which is that President Clinton and pretty much the entire US Government believed the same thing for years. I have to point out that if Bush did knowingly lie, then he is, in fact, stupid. Think about it: It would take about three seconds to figure out that if one lied about WMD and then of course didn't find them, there would political hell to pay. I think they really believed they were there and could at least find enough to justify war.
giant and jimmac:
I say again: Either refute what Coulter has said about McCarthy or stop posting on the topic. It's that simple. I'm not Coulter's biggest fan, but here is what she claims:
Coulter states (proves) that nearly every person McCarthy accused was, in fact, guilty. We know this from the benefit of historical perspective. Coulter also claims that McCarthy did *not want* to disclose names on his list, but was essentially forced to. She claims communists were at the highest levels of the US government, particulary in the State Department. Her claims are suprising, but well-supported. You should at least read her book (Treason) before you comment. She may be a skanky man-bitch, but she's got some fantastic points on this topic.
I have to point out that if Bush did knowingly lie, then he is, in fact, stupid. Think about it: It would take about three seconds to figure out that if one lied about WMD and then of course didn't find them, there would political hell to pay.
Welcome aboard!
No, seriously, there's enough blinkered maniacs who swallow any old shit out there; they wouldn't believe he was lying no matter what he said.
The entire era of McCarthy/Nixon/HUAC is still shrouded in a deep veil of mystery. It was during those hearing that the US lost its innocence, not after Kennedy was shot. People actually believed our government was safe from external espionage. We are now jaded enough to realize this isn't the case. Whether the few people McCarthy did go after (evidently his original 250 claim was a gross over estimate) were a part of an espionage ring is a part of history. The methods that were used (most of which he didn't employ until his doing out) were unfair and brought down a significant number of other people who were innocent.
No matter how you put it McCarthy was a political opportunist as was Nixon, and these trials essentially destroyed the legitimate Socialist Party...
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
I assume you're talking about Kerry....it wasn't clear. OK.
1. A lie. Lie, lie, lie. The Federal Edu. Budget is up almost 50% since Bush took office. Title 1 Reading program funding has exploded under Bush. You don't have the facts here.
2. Please elaborate on your NAFTA point.
3. Kerry voted for war. Give me a break. He fully believed Saddam had WMD and said so publicly as late as March 2003. He voted to authorize the President to use force. He did not vote for the "Disarm Iraq by Force Only If It's The Last Option You Have Left" act. Whatever.
Kerry is a flopper. You don't have to support Bush, or even like him, but at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that.
I'll get you links... but here's my response...
The NCLB Act was supposed to have an even bigger budget (50% larger?)... that's why it got the support and votes it did... then the Administration underfunded it... FUNDED it less than they said they would. Why do you think Kennedy was so pissed?
Nafta... everyone thinks it needs work... you don't negotiate a trade agreement and then just let it ride despite the results.
Bush is the one that wanted Steel Tariffs... and then after the EU freaked repealed them.
Almost EVERYONE thought Saddam had huge stockpiles (even me) because the Bushies were saying it over and over... they were so sure they were willing to go to war... kinda hard to argue with... I mean I didn't think they would start one unless they had on the ground confirmation by spies or whatever... and they didn't. They had dissidents willing to tell them anything they wanted to hear in order to get us to go into Iraq.
And the authorization that passed wasn't for war... it was for force AFTER of the UN did it's inspections or if Saddam did not comply with the inspectors... we were supposed to be the UN's enforcer on this... but instead we pushed them aside and took over.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Excellent job avoiding the point. First, it's not clear Kerry's statements WERE entirely accurate. Second, what if he participated? Maybe he was just following orders?
I wasn't intentionally avoiding those points, I just wasn't directly addressing them in that post.
good question: were his statements what he believed were the case?
I don't know . . . I haven't read the testimony, nor have I followed it too closely.
Did he participate, and was he following orders if he did?
I don't know, if he did participate then the guilt feelings may account for why he came to feel the war was wrong . . . if he did participate and did not claim his due responsibility then he should be held accountable . . . . as should all of those involved
However, that seems to introduce an unneeded question into the mix, a question whose origin is simply concern for smearing Kerry whenever possible.
as for the post that I posted: I was in fact addressing the issue that I said I was addressing: which was that you said that his testimony, 'while soldiers were still in the field' was, for that reason, a terrible thing.
another point on that: if they were 'still on the field' and actually were committing atrocities there then someone should stand up and speak . . . it would be their patriotic duty to do so
What is all the fuss about?
His testimony about the atrocities is simply stating what was agreed upon to be said by a large group of decorated soldiers . . . he was delivering a collective statement that they agreed on . . . It leaves the question of who among them did what . . . but that is silly: either you accept his statement and you acknowledge that it points out atrocities (allthough in only one and half paragraphs are those touched on) or two: you simply disagree with the goal of the statement: putting an end to the war which it felt was wrong and unpatriotic.
Otherwise, if you raise the question of who in the Winter Soldiers did what? then you are accepting that Kerry's speech was in fact legitimate . . . can't have it both ways
Originally posted by SDW2001
So wait...you want a radical and at the same time flip-fliopping anti-war President? Oh, OK.
And what's this? Coulter rewritng history? Examples. Please..I'm listening.
Her version of Joesph McCarthy and I'm sure she has other examples in mind..
We've been through that one before. Sometimes I think you're getting altzheimers but I know you're just playing dumb.
Also he's only flip flopping to you. Maybe what we need is a radical to get some change in the tired way of doing things. And antiwar well that speaks for itself.
All and all he sounds like a pretty good fellow to me.
You've really got to be scrambling like mad to find something bad to say about him if these are your examples.
The problem with you is when you can't find anything to argue about you then try to pick at something small about what I've said ( notice I didn't comment on your typo ). At least that's been your pattern.
That's desparate.
I find that good also.
Originally posted by billybobsky
So, businesses are claiming that they have cut 2.4 million jobs. People at home are claiming that 450000 more people are employed. Krugman goes on to clearly state that even Alan Greenspan believes the payroll numbers (that 2.4 million jobs were lost). Not that it is relevant to the current discussion, but here is where those numbers contradict....
Say it with me: There are more people employed in the US today than there were in 2001. Two million more. End of story.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
I'll get you links... but here's my response...
The NCLB Act was supposed to have an even bigger budget (50% larger?)... that's why it got the support and votes it did... then the Administration underfunded it... FUNDED it less than they said they would. Why do you think Kennedy was so pissed?
Nafta... everyone thinks it needs work... you don't negotiate a trade agreement and then just let it ride despite the results.
Bush is the one that wanted Steel Tariffs... and then after the EU freaked repealed them.
Almost EVERYONE thought Saddam had huge stockpiles (even me) because the Bushies were saying it over and over... they were so sure they were willing to go to war... kinda hard to argue with... I mean I didn't think they would start one unless they had on the ground confirmation by spies or whatever... and they didn't. They had dissidents willing to tell them anything they wanted to hear in order to get us to go into Iraq.
And the authorization that passed wasn't for war... it was for force AFTER of the UN did it's inspections or if Saddam did not comply with the inspectors... we were supposed to be the UN's enforcer on this... but instead we pushed them aside and took over.
1. Let's get the numbers.
2. NAFTA needs work. OK...that doesn't mean one comes out and blasts it.
3. Steel tarriffs: OK, well I'll give you that one. Bush probably shouldn't have ordered them in the first place.
4. You can't be telling me that Kerry had no intel of his own. He's on the damn commitee! And secondly, let me ask: If bush wasn't sure, why would he risk the future embarassment of not finding them? Kerry voted to authorize the President to use force after seeing some of the very same intel. Now he's flopping. That's all there is to it. Saddam DID NOT comply with inspectors. He didn't comply fully for 11 years and 17 resolutions. What else should Bush have done? Given Saddam tey more time It was clae he wasn;t cooperating and the UN wasn't going to do anything about it.
Originally posted by pfflam
ok . . . I read teh testimony
What is all the fuss about?
His testimony about the atrocities is simply stating what was agreed upon to be said by a large group of decorated soldiers . . . he was delivering a collective statement that they agreed on . . . It leaves the question of who among them did what . . . but that is silly: either you accept his statement and you acknowledge that it points out atrocities (allthough in only one and half paragraphs are those touched on) or two: you simply disagree with the goal of the statement: putting an end to the war which it felt was wrong and unpatriotic.
Otherwise, if you raise the question of who in the Winter Soldiers did what? then you are accepting that Kerry's speech was in fact legitimate . . . can't have it both ways
I'm not trying to have it both ways. It's possible this man comitted war crimes. It's also possible the statement was exaggerated. The two can coexist. As far as Kerry wanting to end the war (and that being the motivation for his public testimony), I'd say that it was inappropriate for a serving member of the armed forces to be speaking out like that with such a gola in mind. One could even say his motives were ulterior.
Originally posted by SDW2001
You can't be telling me that Kerry had no intel of his own. He's on the damn commitee! And secondly, let me ask: If bush wasn't sure, why would he risk the future embarassment of not finding them? Kerry voted to authorize the President to use force after seeing some of the very same intel. Now he's flopping. That's all there is to it. Saddam DID NOT comply with inspectors. He didn't comply fully for 11 years and 17 resolutions. What else should Bush have done? Given Saddam tey more time It was clae he wasn;t cooperating and the UN wasn't going to do anything about it.
You see, I think that is the problem, now isn't it? GWB comes to washington makes claims that he is going to do xyz and then goes about doing them. The US gets attacked and he says he is going to take this conflict to the troublemakers, and he actually does it.
"The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts. I've directed the full resources for our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them." - GWB 9/11 speech
"This is a day when all Americans from every walk of life unite in our resolve for justice and peace. America has stood down enemies before, and we will do so this time.
None of us will ever forget this day, yet we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world." - GWB 9/11 speech
"Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Â_Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. Â_But we know their true nature. Â_North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.
Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.
Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. Â_The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. Â_This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. Â_This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.
States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. Â_By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. Â_They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. Â_They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. Â_In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.
We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. Â_We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. Â_(Applause.) And all nations should know: Â_America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security." - GWB SOU speech 2002
All of this is not new. GWB has been very steadfast in the fight against terror an rogue nations since 9/11 Democrats for the most part, could not stop cheering for him. Now as an election approaches, I guess the short term memory loss has kicked in.
Here is what democratic leaders have said:
Rep. Dick Gephardt, (D-Mo.) made the following statements on Meet the Press on Sept. 28th, 2003:
REP. GEPHARDT: (Showing a videotape from October 2, 2002) In our view, Iraq's use and continuing development of weapons of mass destruction, combined with efforts of terrorists to acquire such weapons pose a unique and dangerous threat to our national security.Â_ (End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: "A unique and dangerous threat." We have not found any such weapons. Were you wrong or misled?
REP. GEPHARDT: Tim, I didn't just take the president's word for this. I went out to the CIA three times. I talked to George Tenet personally. I talked to his top people. I talked to people that had been in the Clinton administration in their security effort. And I became convinced, from that, all of that, that he either had weapons of mass destruction or he had components of weapons or he had the ability to quickly make a lot of them and pass them to terrorists. Look, after 9/11, we're in a world, in my view, that we have to protect the American people from further acts of terrorism. That's my highest responsibility, that's the Congress' highest responsibility, and the president's. And I did what I thought was the right thing to do to protect our people from further acts of terrorism. We cannot have that happen in the United States, and I will always do that. --Rep. Dick Gephardt, 9/28/03
Or how about this:
Ted Kennedy - "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed. ...Â_ There is clearly a threat from Iraq, and there is clearly a danger... We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. ...Â_ In public hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March, CIA Director George Tenet described Iraq as a threat but not as a proliferator, saying that Saddam Hussein 'is determined to thwart U.N. sanctions, press ahead with weapons of mass destruction, and resurrect the military force he had before the Gulf War.' That is unacceptable...
"If Saddam's regime and his very survival are threatened, then his view of his interests may be profoundly altered. He may decide he has nothing to lose by using weapons of mass destruction himself or by sharing them with terrorists. ..Â_ Nor can we rule out the possibility that Saddam would assault American forces with chemical or biological weapons. ... Clearly we must halt Saddam Hussein's quest for weapons of mass destruction." -- October 4, 2002
Kennedy also wrote at the time, "Let me say it plainly: I not only concede, but I am convinced that President Bush believes genuinely in the course he urges upon us. --9/227/03
Another:
Sen. John Kerry from a speech he gave at Georgetown University in January, 2003:
... we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.
"So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. ... In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing." - 01/03
Go Back even further:
October 9, 1998
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today, along with Senators McCain, Lieberman, Hutchison and twenty-three other Senators, I am sending a letter to the President to express our concern over Iraq's actions and urging the President, 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. ...
[From the letter attached]
"We are skeptical, however, that Saddam Hussein will take heed of this message even though it is from a unanimous Security Council. Moreover, we are deeply concerned that without the intrusive inspections and monitoring by UNSCOM and the IAEA, Iraq will be able, over time, to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs.
"In light of these developments, we 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 Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski, Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John F. Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.
Originally posted by jimmac
Her version of Joesph McCarthy and I'm sure she has other examples in mind..
We've been through that one before. Sometimes I think you're getting altzheimers but I know you're just playing dumb.
Also he's only flip flopping to you. Maybe what we need is a radical to get some change in the tired way of doing things. And antiwar well that speaks for itself.
All and all he sounds like a pretty good fellow to me.
You've really got to be scrambling like mad to find something bad to say about him if these are your examples.
The problem with you is when you can't find anything to argue about you then try to pick at something small about what I've said ( notice I didn't comment on your typo ). At least that's been your pattern.
That's desparate.
I find that good also.
1. Can you refute her McCarthy claims?
2. He's certainly not only "flip flopping to me". It's all in his ridiculous record, which cannot be explained. We have to look no further than the Iraq issue. He's all over the map. He has a case of Goreitis.
3. Of course he sounds lke a good fellow to you, because you'll ignore anything in anyone's background as long as you think he can beat the evil GWB. You'd have supported the insane Howard Dean if he was going to be nominee. I'm sure.
4. I can't find examples? Are you kidding? Please tell me you are. Gay marriage=for, then against. Iraq war 1991=against. Iraq war 2003=for, then against. NAFTA=I voted for it, then "it needs to go to protect American jobs." $87B war funding=against, despite voting for the war. WMD=Saddam has them and everyone knows it, then Bush lied to us. Intelligence=cut intel spending in 1995, now criticizes quality of intel. Death Penalty=Against it for international terrorists, now for it.
Whether you're voting for Bush or not, at least admit Kerry's a flopper. Come on, jimmac.
Originally posted by SDW2001
1. Can you refute her McCarthy claims?
2. He's certainly not only "flip flopping to me". It's all in his ridiculous record, which cannot be explained. We have to look no further than the Iraq issue. He's all over the map. He has a case of Goreitis.
3. Of course he sounds lke a good fellow to you, because you'll ignore anything in anyone's background as long as you think he can beat the evil GWB. You'd have supported the insane Howard Dean if he was going to be nominee. I'm sure.
4. I can't find examples? Are you kidding? Please tell me you are. Gay marriage=for, then against. Iraq war 1991=against. Iraq war 2003=for, then against. NAFTA=I voted for it, then "it needs to go to protect American jobs." $87B war funding=against, despite voting for the war. WMD=Saddam has them and everyone knows it, then Bush lied to us. Intelligence=cut intel spending in 1995, now criticizes quality of intel. Death Penalty=Against it for international terrorists, now for it.
Whether you're voting for Bush or not, at least admit Kerry's a flopper. Come on, jimmac.
You come on. Many sources from the time say the same thing about McCarthy. Geez!
The rest of your stuff is ranting your backwards conservative viewpoint and not really worth replying to.
No, your going to spend the rest of your life in that little conservative box. I'll never change you.
And yes SDW Kerry will beat the evil George Bush. People are getting sick of him.
By the way there is one thing you won't be able to to be in denial about come November.
Originally posted by NaplesX Well I am sorry to poke holes in your theory, but I am not a republican or democrat
So Naples, will you finally tell us what you are, if as you claim, you're neither a Dem or a Rep, or will you just keep avoiding the question? This is the fourth time I've asked.
Originally posted by Gilsch
In a worst case scenario, I'd rather vote for a "flopper", which he isn't(nice try), than a liar.
He isn't? Prove it. Prove he hasn't been all over the place. Give me a break. As for lying, I again ask you to show me evidence...ANY evidence that Bush lied. The lack of WMD does not even begin to prove anything.
Originally posted by jimmac
You come on. Many sources from the time say the same thing about McCarthy. Geez!
The rest of your stuff is ranting your backwards conservative viewpoint and not really worth replying to.
No, your going to spend the rest of your life in that little conservative box. I'll never change you.
And yes SDW Kerry will beat the evil George Bush. People are getting sick of him.
By the way there is one thing you won't be able to to be in denial about come November.
What sources jimmac? Really...I'd like to know. Coulter provides a very different look at McCarthy, and unless you can refute what she says in her book, I'd suggest not commenting. She backs up what she says about McCarthy....now you do the same.
As far as Bush, I'll again caution you not to underestimate the man. You've done so time and time again, just as most of his opponents have. Kerry might win. It's possible...but to be confident about it would be a very, very large mistake.
Originally posted by SDW2001
He isn't? Prove it. Prove he hasn't been all over the place. Give me a break. As for lying, I again ask you to show me evidence...ANY evidence that Bush lied. The lack of WMD does not even begin to prove anything.
Here you go, again parroting about the WMDs. I have a DVD FULL of Bush's, Powell's, Cheney's, Rice's claims, imminent threats, mushroom clouds over NY/US, blah blah blah, "solid intelligence", "best intelligence in the world", "we know where they are","saddam and Al qaeda" and on and on and on. I guess if I was a Bush FANATIC like everyone can see you are, the lack of WMD wouldn't mean anything to me either.
The great thing about Karl Rove, is that he is so astute that most of the time he has others do the "dirty" work for Bush, so that in a worst case scenario, Bush has enough space to come and either deny it, or deny knowledge of it. The puppet master is very smart.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Coulter provides a very different look at McCarthy,
Defending coulter?
You might as well dance around in a dress with a plunger on your head.
Originally posted by SDW2001
What sources jimmac? Really...I'd like to know. Coulter provides a very different look at McCarthy, and unless you can refute what she says in her book, I'd suggest not commenting. She backs up what she says about McCarthy....now you do the same.
As far as Bush, I'll again caution you not to underestimate the man. You've done so time and time again, just as most of his opponents have. Kerry might win. It's possible...but to be confident about it would be a very, very large mistake.
Coulter's a revisionist slime.
I am confident.
Originally posted by Gilsch
Here you go, again parroting about the WMDs. I have a DVD FULL of Bush's, Powell's, Cheney's, Rice's claims, imminent threats, mushroom clouds over NY/US, blah blah blah, "solid intelligence", "best intelligence in the world", "we know where they are","saddam and Al qaeda" and on and on and on. I guess if I was a Bush FANATIC like everyone can see you are, the lack of WMD wouldn't mean anything to me either.
The great thing about Karl Rove, is that he is so astute that most of the time he has others do the "dirty" work for Bush, so that in a worst case scenario, Bush has enough space to come and either deny it, or deny knowledge of it. The puppet master is very smart.
It means something to me. I'd like to know WTF went wrong. I still don't believe Bush lied, for a variety of reasons...one of which is that President Clinton and pretty much the entire US Government believed the same thing for years. I have to point out that if Bush did knowingly lie, then he is, in fact, stupid. Think about it: It would take about three seconds to figure out that if one lied about WMD and then of course didn't find them, there would political hell to pay. I think they really believed they were there and could at least find enough to justify war.
giant and jimmac:
I say again: Either refute what Coulter has said about McCarthy or stop posting on the topic. It's that simple. I'm not Coulter's biggest fan, but here is what she claims:
Coulter states (proves) that nearly every person McCarthy accused was, in fact, guilty. We know this from the benefit of historical perspective. Coulter also claims that McCarthy did *not want* to disclose names on his list, but was essentially forced to. She claims communists were at the highest levels of the US government, particulary in the State Department. Her claims are suprising, but well-supported. You should at least read her book (Treason) before you comment. She may be a skanky man-bitch, but she's got some fantastic points on this topic.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I have to point out that if Bush did knowingly lie, then he is, in fact, stupid. Think about it: It would take about three seconds to figure out that if one lied about WMD and then of course didn't find them, there would political hell to pay.
Welcome aboard!
No, seriously, there's enough blinkered maniacs who swallow any old shit out there; they wouldn't believe he was lying no matter what he said.
No matter how you put it McCarthy was a political opportunist as was Nixon, and these trials essentially destroyed the legitimate Socialist Party...