In kerrys own words.........

[Chilly]

Saddam Hussein signed a cease-fire with us in 91. He broke that cease-fire. he deserved to go.

78730[/snapback]

 

I agree that he needed to go. The problem though is that we didn't focus on the more immediate problems. I firmly believe that Bush's ties to the Saudi's will prevent anything from being done about them, and thats just sad. The Saudis are much more important to the War on Terror then Iraq was, and they remain a deterimental source of terrorism.

 

The problem is I don't believe Kerry will do anything about them either, but I'd rather give him a shot. I know what I get with Bush.

 

Hey bluefire, welcome to the bigs pal.

 

Hey I did not put any words in kerrys mouth here. There are his own words and the reason I posted them here is because this clearly shows (in his own words) what many others have claimed about him. I happen to think that it is perhaps one of the most dangerous sides of kerry. This type of thinking IMO is noy healthy in a post 9-11 world, and you will not hear this information on the evening news. Basically because the talking heads agree with kerry on these points.

 

By the way, the purpose of this forum is to have opposing viewpoints and to discuss them on some level of civility. Of course people on both sides are passionate.

78741[/snapback]

 

Hey Rich, thanks for the kind words. Last time I tried to start posting here some people just posted the same partisan stevestojan and dismissed what I was saying, rather then reading and actually responding.

 

I know you didn't put any words in Kerry's mouth. However, I'd like you to take a look at when those comments were made. The date is 1994, not 2004. This is a pre-9/11 comment, not a post-9/11 comment. From what I've understood and read about Kerry, his view of preemption and unilateralism changed after 9/11. He realized that there are times when we need to go it alone, and that is what he was referring to in the debates when he talked about not giving anyone veto power when it comes to the US security.

 

It was very interesting reading a couple of the biographical pieces on his political philosophy and how he views the world. While this is definitely biased in Kerry's favor, I'd like to point you to the New York Times article in which they did a big report on Kerry. This is the one where the "nusiance" comment was made. That article does describe how Kerry's views changed due to 9/11, and I think it shows that people are taking his quotes out of the time context that they were made in.

[DC Tom]

I agree that he needed to go.  The problem though is that we didn't focus on the more immediate problems.  I firmly believe that Bush's ties to the Saudi's will prevent anything from being done about them, and thats just sad.  The Saudis are much more important to the War on Terror then Iraq was, and they remain a deterimental source of terrorism.

 

Inaccurate. It's a common misconception and over-generalization about the Saudis, actually...they in part created the rabid Islamic fundamentalist movement out of the Afghan Mujahadeen, yes, but they've been under immense pressure from the very same terrorist forces that most people assume they back. The Saudis are literally fighting for their lives against Islamic extremist terrorists - if the extremists manage a coup, the House of Saud is executed en masse, guaranteed. The problem with the Saudis isn't that they support terrorism so much as they're so internally divided over their fundamentalist Islamic principles and the need to provide for their very survival that they very rarely achieve any sort of effectiveness against terrorism. But just beacuse bin Laden and a majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi-born doesn't make Saudi Arabia culpable...the Saudis actually saught the extradition of bin Laden from the Taliban for quite a few years, and ultimately broke of relations with the Taliban over the issue.

 

And what amazes me in the whole argument is that no one ever complains about Pakistan's role in the whole mess. I would say the Pakistanis and the ISI are far more responsible for spreading Islamic extremism through central Asia than the Saudis. In a very real sense it is far more accurate to speak of the Taliban as a Pakistani-backed organization than a Saudi-backed one. And there again, Musharraf is fighting for his government and his life against the very internal and external extremist Islamic elements that Pakistan created.

 

Neither country has exactly been a saint on the international stage...but the monster they created ultimately turned around and bit them on the ass a good while before 9/11 happened. They may have created the mess, but they're sure not doing a whole lot as a matter of policy to perpetrate it now, not when their very survival depends on it.

[Chilly]

Inaccurate.  It's a common misconception and over-generalization about the Saudis, actually...they in part created the rabid Islamic fundamentalist movement out of the Afghan Mujahadeen, yes, but they've been under immense pressure from the very same terrorist forces that most people assume they back.  The Saudis are literally fighting for their lives against Islamic extremist terrorists - if the extremists manage a coup, the House of Saud is executed en masse, guaranteed.  The problem with the Saudis isn't that they support terrorism so much as they're so internally divided over their fundamentalist Islamic principles and the need to provide for their very survival that they very rarely achieve any sort of effectiveness against terrorism.  But just beacuse bin Laden and a majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi-born doesn't make Saudi Arabia culpable...the Saudis actually saught the extradition of bin Laden from the Taliban for quite a few years, and ultimately broke of relations with the Taliban over the issue. 

 

And what amazes me in the whole argument is that no one ever complains about Pakistan's role in the whole mess.  I would say the Pakistanis and the ISI are far more responsible for spreading Islamic extremism through central Asia than the Saudis.  In a very real sense it is far more accurate to speak of the Taliban as a Pakistani-backed organization than a Saudi-backed one.  And there again, Musharraf is fighting for his government and his life against the very internal and external extremist Islamic elements that Pakistan created.

 

Neither country has exactly been a saint on the international stage...but the monster they created ultimately turned around and bit them on the ass a good while before 9/11 happened.  They may have created the mess, but they're sure not doing a whole lot as a matter of policy to perpetrate it now, not when their very survival depends on it.

80058[/snapback]

 

Saudi Arabia and Bin Laden have had a major falling out, that is for sure a documented fact. But they still have a huge number of ties to heavily financing Terrorism, ties that make them, to me, a lot more of a problem then other countries.

 

The Saudi's chairtible organizations have been consistently and recently meeting with the leaders of Hamas, and the leaders of Hamas have publically thanked them for helping them. The Israeli national assessment is that Saudi Arabia today funds more than 50 percent of the needs of Hamas, and the Saudi percentage in the total foreign aid to Hamas is actually growing. U.S. law enforcement officials agree. (This was published in a New York Times article a year ago).

[KRC]

Yep, blame the media.  Guess I didn't see all those cringing reports from FOX every day for a year and a half.  Guess I didn't see Republican senators Lugar, Hagel, Graham and McCain recently call the Iraq policy a mess and a failure.  They had the gall to not to follow the Adminstration's daily talking points.  I guess they were snowed by the liberal media and the propogandist Kerry.

 

You've caught on to the massive conspiracy of fake bombings, beheadings, body bags, torn limbs, dead children, missing money, civil war, and the largest terrorist recruiting effort in history.

 

"Remain calm! Everything is under control!!!!"

 

If the President admitted mistakes or the reality of the situation he'd win in a cakewalk. 

 

His two biggest gaffes:  Press Conference a few months ago (you'd have to remember, he barely has one a year) he was asked what mistakes he's made and what lessons he's learned.  For a few embarrassing minutes he hemmed and hawed then said couldn't think of any.  Months later and after dozens of hours of debate prep he was asked the question a second time and would only say he hired the wrong people a few times. 

 

Bush has put his supporters in a bind.  They can't even admit to themselves that Iraq is fukked up because their own candidate refuses to acknowledge any mistakes.  This demostrates he either doesn't get it, is totally out of touch or he's got a messiah complex.  It's bad no matter how you slice it.

79911[/snapback]

 

Boomerjamhead wouldn't know anything about what is happening in Iraq.

[RCow]

Boomerjamhead wouldn't know anything about what is happening in Iraq.

80227[/snapback]

 

Lots of people have been to Iraq. Funny thing, they all come back with a remarkably different outlook. Of course it seems he also believes Bush can do no wrong. Perhaps Bush is doing the Lord's work. Did anyone say "Crusade?"

[KRC]

Lots of people have been to Iraq.  Funny thing, they all come back with a remarkably different outlook.  Of course it seems he also believes Bush can do no wrong.  Perhaps Bush is doing the Lord's work.  Did anyone say "Crusade?"

80312[/snapback]

 

Then, what makes one opinion more valid than another?

[RunTheBall]

If it directly involves the US then I'm all for using our power at will.  If it's some civil war in the middle of nowhere let's get the UN involved.

77840[/snapback]

 

The UN is a fuggin joke, just look at how good they're doing in Sudan. All those resolutions sure are doing a good job at keeping people from being slaughtered. Oh wait, some of the countries have economic ties to the Sudan that they don't want disrupted?? How surprising.

 

One of the biggest cover-ups going on right now is in the UN oil for food program. Look closely at who was absolutely raping this system and the look at who most actively opposed the Iraq war. It's disgusting. Why isn't the New York Times screaming about this? Oh ya, Kerry supports working through the UN and this will throw a wrench in their convenient world view of one big happy family working together to solve the world's problems.

 

We played the UN game with Iraq. We allowed kitty countries like France and Germany have some influence on our foreign policy through this body. When it came time to put some muscle behind the resolutions that THEY VOTED FOR, they balked. We didn't.

 

Let's see how good the UN does in Sudan without the threat of AMERICAN troops heading there. I'm sure France and Germany will be really pushing to halt this atrocity. Oh wait, they've got economic ties......hmm....

 

RunTheBall

[RCow]

Then, what makes one opinion more valid than another?

80319[/snapback]

 

You tell me. As I see it to each their own. The truth is usually in between. Personally, I don't look to Washington Times and Mother Jones for news, just a perspective on their agenda. Same goes for all commentary, I want to know the agenda of the person or organization who espouses that opinion. That's why I sound harsh in my condemnation of posts that link to supposed "news" and "journalistic" articles that are no more than political hatch jobs (more politely known as "commentary." (Yes, I'll often rip the GOP/Conservative ones, but I won't comment or support the Democratic/liberal articles - Ivens, Dowd, etc. - the right on the board usually stomps on them effectively).

 

One of the few people I look to for a "fair and balanced" commentary is Friedman and a few others on either side of the aisle who are just as apt to criticize their "side" than lambast the other. Not that I always agree, but they do provide a healthy, productive perspective. Paul Gigot used to one of my favorite Conservative commentators because he often made me cringe not because of propogandist rhetoric but because I thought he may be right; however, now I often feel he's be run out of town by the fanatics. I used to have great respect for George Will, but now he's nothing more than a hack (I used to cringe, now I just say "oh, please, give me a break").

 

There is a big difference between wanting something to be true and being persuaded it is true.

[KRC]

You tell me.  As I see it to each their own.  The truth is usually in between.  Personally, I don't look to Washington Times and Mother Jones for news, just a perspective on their agenda.  Same goes for all commentary, I want to know the agenda of the person or organization who espouses that opinion.  That's why I sound harsh in my condemnation of posts that link to supposed "news" and "journalistic" articles that are no more than political hatch jobs (more politely known as "commentary."  (Yes, I'll often rip the GOP/Conservative ones, but I won't comment or support the Democratic/liberal articles - Ivens, Dowd, etc. - the right on the board usually stomps on them effectively).

 

One of the few people I look to for a "fair and balanced" commentary is Friedman and a few others on either side of the aisle who are just as apt to criticize their "side" than lambast the other.  Not that I always agree, but they do provide a healthy, productive perspective.  Paul Gigot used to one of my favorite Conservative commentators because he often made me cringe not because of propogandist rhetoric but because I thought he may be right; however, now I often feel he's be run out of town by the fanatics.  I used to have great respect for George Will, but now he's nothing more than a hack (I used to cringe, now I just say "oh, please, give me a break").   

 

There is a big difference between wanting something to be true and being persuaded it is true.

80344[/snapback]

 

 

I agree with you opinions of opinion pieces. I usually avoid them and stick with strictly informational sources. I will start with media sources to catch headlines, but then will research via independent sources for more concrete information. A perfect example is the Deulfer Report. Most, if not all media sources have been flat out wrong on the results of the Deulfer Report. They are not going to read the actual report (since it is over 1000 pages). The report says the exact opposite of what the media has been saying.

 

Granted, BJH is a strong supporter of Bush. He makes no bones about that. You seem to discredit him "because he finds no fault in Bush." Can't the same be said about you "because you cannot find fault in Kerry" or "cannot find right with Bush?" It seems to me that you are criticizing him for the same thing that I see from your posts. Not trying to flame, but making an observation.

[RCow]

I agree with you opinions of opinion pieces. I usually avoid them and stick with strictly informational sources. I will start with media sources to catch headlines, but then will research via independent sources for more concrete information. A perfect example is the Deulfer Report. Most, if not all media sources have been flat out wrong on the results of the Deulfer Report. They are not going to read the actual report (since it is over 1000 pages). The report says the exact opposite of what the media has been saying.

 

Granted, BJH is a strong supporter of Bush. He makes no bones about that. You seem to discredit him "because he finds no fault in Bush." Can't the same be said about you "because you cannot find fault in Kerry" or "cannot find right with Bush?" It seems to me that you are criticizing him for the same thing that I see from your posts. Not trying to flame, but making an observation.

80359[/snapback]

 

I fully admit Kerry is not my ideal candidate. Never was and I certainly don't think he's without fault. Much about him drives me crazy but I also think he'll make better decisions and will do more things that I agree with. I also truly believe Bush is a disaster and I don't have any respect or faith in the man. Not because he's a bad guy but he's a bad president. Bush seems to believe he's infalliable and his supporters never, ever admit to a mistake. I've said it before, Bush's greatest blunder is not to admit mistakes or point to lessons learned.

 

This unsettling position is exascerbated by what appears to be a messiah complex, that God wanted him to be president and he is doing the Lord's work. Is he just extremely disingenuous or does he truly believe he's infalliable. That puts his supporters in a tough spot, to admit what he himself won't: Iraq is a mess, mistakes were made and perhaps, just perhaps, there are a few lessons learned. Instead it's unproductive arrogance bordering on a frightening air of infalliability.

[boomerjamhead]

I fully admit Kerry is not my ideal candidate. Never was and I certainly don't think he's without fault.  Much about him drives me crazy but I also think he'll make better decisions and will do more things that I agree with.  I also truly believe Bush is a disaster and I don't have any respect or faith in the man.  Not because he's a bad guy but he's a bad president.  Bush seems to believe he's infalliable and his supporters never, ever admit to a mistake.  I've said it before, Bush's greatest blunder is not to admit mistakes or point to lessons learned.

 

This unsettling position is exascerbated by what appears to be a messiah complex, that God wanted him to be president and he is doing the Lord's work.  Is he just extremely disingenuous or does he truly believe he's infalliable.  That puts his supporters in a tough spot, to admit what he himself won't:  Iraq is a mess, mistakes were made and perhaps, just perhaps, there are a few lessons learned.  Instead it's unproductive arrogance bordering on a frightening air of infalliability.

80518[/snapback]

 

I hate to tell you this RCow, but Bush is not my ideal candidate; Cheney is. My support for GWB is unwavering because he gave me the one issue I voted on in 2000: the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. Do you think I'm going to stop supporting him now? No way in hell brother.

 

You seem fixated on all that is wrong with GWB, and can't give the guy credit for anything. Bill Clinton was pretty hard headed in his own right, and made some critical decisions and then stuck to his guns. I fully credit him for that and maintain that all Commanders in Chief should hold that very same trait.

 

I've talked it out with Chicot about what I saw, and I'm not going to go back over it with you. Iraq is a big country, yet you are fixated on the troubled spots. Why is that?

[RCow]

I hate to tell you this RCow, but Bush is not my ideal candidate; Cheney is.  My support for GWB is unwavering because he gave me the one issue I voted on in 2000: the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.  Do you think I'm going to stop supporting him now?  No way in hell brother.

 

You seem fixated on all that is wrong with GWB, and can't give the guy credit for anything.  Bill Clinton was pretty hard headed in his own right, and made some critical decisions and then stuck to his guns.  I fully credit him for that and maintain that all Commanders in Chief should hold that very same trait.

 

I've talked it out with Chicot about what I saw, and I'm not going to go back over it with you.  Iraq is a big country, yet you are fixated on the troubled spots.  Why is that?

80672[/snapback]

 

Well, if you voted in 2000 for Bush to remove Saddam you got everything you wanted out of this President. Can't argue with you there, he certainly did that, if that means giving him credit for accomplishing that goal, you got it. You've seemly checked off the only prerequist to get George's vote. Anything else I should give him credit for doing? I also give him credit for losing jobs, fostering terrorism instead of destroying it, making it possible to lower standards of clean and water; I give him credit for rolling back the Constitution, I give him credit for not following the world and not leading it either, I give him credit for creating a healthcare monstrosity that Republicans are too embarrassed to claim as their own, a new Education program that's not funded and I give him credit for staying the course and not succumbing to reason.