Will on Kerry

[jeskibuff]

Did the rest of the countries you mentioned go to war with Iraq?

No, they didn't. And we later found out that they had ulterior motives to keep Saddam in power - their own financial gain. So, I guess you prefer keeping a madman dictator in power in an unstable part of the world because these countries opposed the war for their own selfish interests? Is that what you're saying?

Sorry to burst your bubble Pete; we are not any safer then before.

Let's see now.

• The wealth of an oil-rich nation is no longer being channeled into a family who terrorized and murdered millions of people, invaded other countries, used chemical weapons on its own citizenry and rewarded Palestinian families whose children murdered Israelis by blowing themselves up.
• The Taliban no longer run a country that welcomed Islamic terrorists, practically leaving mints on the pillows for them!
• Osama now has to be EXTREMELY careful about being seen.
• Libya has volunteered to reveal that it had nuclear programs that our intelligence hadn't identified.
• We have killed or imprisoned thousands of Al-Qaeda terrorists.
• We have taken the battle to their homefront - when they're successful, they're killing fellow Iraqi and Afghan citizens...so far, no spate of suicide car bombings in NYC, Boston, Los Angeles, etc. Yes, our soldiers are taking some hits, but they're armed.

So, Bruno...WHAT can be done to make you "feel" safer? What's Bush NOT doing that would make you feel safe?

Lybia was never a threat to us.

What??? They've admitted their complicity in the downing of PanAm flight 103 over Scotland, killing HUNDREDS of people, including Americans. Now, they admit that they were pursuing nuclear weapons and you say THEY WERE NOT A THREAT?? When, in your opinion does someone who has demonstrated they're willing to kill innocent people while also developing weapons that can kill MILLIONS of people...just WHEN do you consider them a threat, Bruno? Once they explode a nuke in a city? Does it take an act like 9/11 to get you to respond to a threat? Wouldn't you have preferred that 9/11 NEVER happened? I just don't get your logic, Bruno.

Since Saddam HAD NO WMD, HE WAS NOT A THREAT TO US!

First of all, because we haven't found any yet doesn't mean he didn't have them. Second, from what you just said about Libya, even if we DID find a stockpile, you'd say that he wasn't a threat because he hadn't yet used them on us!

As long as every politician keeps an open boarder to the south, WE WILL NEVER BE SAFE!

Well, we do have a border problem, and not just Mexico. Canada is even better for terrorists to cross over from. But, our great country has too many vulnerabilities. We can't police EVERY inch of thousands of miles of borders. We can't inspect EVERY cargo container arriving at our ports or airfields. We can't ensure that dangerous terrorists can no longer arrive via plane. We just don't have the resources to do all that. So, we do what the best we can do, getting the most bang for the buck, and that is pursuing terrorists where they breed. And GWB is doing JUST THAT. And THAT should make you feel safer!

Remember four years ago when Bush was competing with Senator McCain for the Republican nomination? Who brought up Bush's National Guard service?

Well, McCain didn't have a glaring double-standard, as does Kerry! He didn't first say that "we shouldn't open old wounds" before he decided to open those old wounds, hoping that nobody noticed what he said earlier! McCain is not a hypocrite. Kerry IS, and that's the point!

If you consider lying to the people as being very clean, then what is dirty?

Please explain how Bush lied. That argument doesn't fly. He dealt with the intelligence that was provided to him and prior administrations. If he lied, then Bill and Hillary lied, Kerry, Lieberman and MANY others lied when they cited the intelligence. But it's not convenient for you to remember that...it's just more desireable to blame the person who you want OUT of the Oval Office, isn't it???

[bturk667]

That is a good question. I can honestly say I do not have enough knowledge on people outside of the mainstream loop. I believe any person who has been in politics for more then say, five years, I am suspicious of. After that I think there all pretty much the same.
That being said; I like John McCain.

[bturk667]

O.K., here I go.
About the fact of other nation having ulterior motives. What Bush didn't have any. Did Bush want to get rid of Saddam prior to 9/11.....................................BIG PAUSE>>>>>>>>>>>>YES!
Why did his father leave him in power? What, did the elder think he was going to turn over a new leaf? How come we weren't in eminent and grave danger in those 12 years after Desert storm and prior to this unjust war??

You metion channeling wealth to an oil-rich family. What about the Bush favorite Arab family............The Saudi Royal Family? How many of the 9/11 highjackers were Suadi citizens? Whgere was Bin Laden born? Who has financed more terrorism around the world; the Saudis or Saddam? NEXT ISSUE!!!

Every country in the middle East welcomes terrorism, everyone! Are there or are there not more terrorist flocking inot Iraq now that Saddam is gone?..............YES!!!!! NEXT ISSUE!!!

Osama is still living isn't he? NEXT ISSUE!!!

Lybia, don't make me laugh! next

Al-Qaeda is a red herring. Terrorist can not be somehow catagorized into groups. There goals are all the same. Get rid of the a new group will appear. It is a never ending cycle. If this notion helps you yo sleep better; night night! NEXT ISSUE!!!

Terrorist have no home front. So unless all terrorist orginizations are either in Afghanistan or Iraq, we are not bringing it them. They have cells throughout the entire world including the good old U.S. of A.!!! NEXT ISSUE!!!

Lybia never did any bombing in the U.S. did they? Since we are not Europe, no threat! So they were a threat to Europe! Kadafy, new the Europeans would never attack him. He did however know we would. So why attack us? He may me mad but he is not stupid! NEXT ISSUE!!!

Did we find any WMD? NO. So the only conclusion, to date, is that he did not posses them prior to our attacking him. Any other conclusion has no basis in fact!
Does every country that has WMD pose a threat to us? If it does, then were in some serious trouble. Do you realize how many countries possoe waht we consider a WMD? NEXT ISSUE!!!

Sorry GWB is not protecting the boarder at either end of the country. Our security on or ports are horrible, just like pre 9/11. If you mean by him waging unjust wars; That that should some how make me feel safer. Well, is does not. I hope you feel safer. NEXT ISSUE!!!

Nice spin on the National Guard issue. The point IS, the Republicans made it an issue, but know they don't want Democrats to make it one! Double standard or not! Bush was a coward, (So was Clinton) leap frogged over 500 people by using his political connections to get into the Texas National Gaurd. Now however he has no problem sending troops who are not cowards to their death. I remember Conservatives saying the same thing about Clinton when he sent troops to Bosnia. Funny how they don't bring it up know? NEXT ISSUE!!!

Bush lied by not telling the truth! Here is one example: Did Saddam try to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program as the President stated during the SOTUA in 2003? Answer: NO! Was the president told not to use this information by the C.I.A. because it could not be varified? YES!!! HE LIED!!! I know about all those others that you mentioned. The difference is that none of them went to war against anpother country like BusH did! You ever hear the saying: Two wrongs don't make a right? What would of happened if we would have given the U.N. more time? NO WAR, is that a good thing to you, I mean the no WAR? LAST ISSUE!!!

There is enough blame to go around. Clinton was a piece of ****E!!! Bush is a piece of ****E!!! How's that; I just blamed the last two Presidents, that good enough?
Now the reason I blame him is because HE is the one WHO WENT TO WAR! There is no other President to blame for his actions. Do you know what an adult is suppose to be held for? Acountable for his ACTIONS! That is what I am doing, and I would have done the same if a Democrat would have acted the same way Bush did! PERIOD!!!

have a nice day!

[JSE]

Wow, Bturk you seem to have incorrectly characterized about issue you brought up. You did get a couple right. Osama does still appear to be alive. Before you go to the NEXT ISSUE, you might want to get the facts about the first ones right. Here's a couple the big ones.

"You metion channeling wealth to an oil-rich family. What about the Bush favorite Arab family............The Saudi Royal Family? How many of the 9/11 highjackers were Suadi citizens? Whgere was Bin Laden born? Who has financed more terrorism around the world; the Saudis or Saddam? NEXT ISSUE!!!"

There are probably American citizens supporting terrorism as well. Should we attack ourselves? Point is, every country probably has supporters of terrorism but that does not mean the Saudi government does. They have actually been doing a pretty good job of rounding up terrorist lately in their country. There are a lot of internal issues within Saudi that I won't go into but I can tell you this, the royal family does not want terrorist in their country. The younger population in Saudi tends to be more extreme and that's where the terrorist are coming from, not the government. I think the royal family is just as scared as we are. Of course, you won't see networks reporting on this much.


"Every country in the middle East welcomes terrorism, everyone! Are there or are there not more terrorist flocking inot Iraq now that Saddam is gone?..............YES!!!!! NEXT ISSUE!!!"

Simply not true. See above. Use your head, think about it.

"Osama is still living isn't he? NEXT ISSUE!!!"

Ok, like I said, you got that one. Or did you?

"Lybia, don't make me laugh! next"
"Lybia never did any bombing in the U.S. did they? Since we are not Europe, no threat! So they were a threat to Europe! Kadafy, new the Europeans would never attack him. He did however know we would. So why attack us? He may me mad but he is not stupid! NEXT ISSUE!!!"

Lybia just admitted to having a nuclear program! Would Lybia ever bomb the USA? No, but they would sell the goods to other countries that would. Maybe Iraq? Syria? Come on man, your smarter than that.

"Did we find any WMD? NO. So the only conclusion, to date, is that he did not posses them prior to our attacking him. Any other conclusion has no basis in fact!"

How can you possibly come to that conclusion. HE GASSED HIS OWN PEOPLE!


Does every country that has WMD pose a threat to us? If it does, then were in some serious trouble. Do you realize how many countries possoe waht we consider a WMD? NEXT ISSUE!!!"

Yes, other countries have them but most of these countries don't want to see America and it's people wiped off the face of the earth. Do they?

"Sorry GWB is not protecting the boarder at either end of the country. Our security on or ports are horrible, just like pre 9/11. If you mean by him waging unjust wars; That that should some how make me feel safer. Well, is does not. I hope you feel safer. NEXT ISSUE!!!"

Your right here. He can do better at closing our borders. That does not make me feel safer. However, we are safer now than before 9/11. We still have some work to do though. At least Bush is trying. Most liberals would have stuck their head in the ground after 9/11.


"Nice spin on the National Guard issue. The point IS, the Republicans made it an issue, but know they don't want Democrats to make it one! Double standard or not! Bush was a coward, (So was Clinton) leap frogged over 500 people by using his political connections to get into the Texas National Gaurd. Now however he has no problem sending troops who are not cowards to their death. I remember Conservatives saying the same thing about Clinton when he sent troops to Bosnia. Funny how they don't bring it up know? NEXT ISSUE!!!"

This is such a non-issue I'm not even going to comment.

"Bush lied by not telling the truth! Here is one example: Did Saddam try to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program as the President stated during the SOTUA in 2003? Answer: NO! Was the president told not to use this information by the C.I.A. because it could not be varified? YES!!! HE LIED!!! I know about all those others that you mentioned. The difference is that none of them went to war against anpother country like BusH did! You ever hear the saying: Two wrongs don't make a right? What would of happened if we would have given the U.N. more time? NO WAR, is that a good thing to you, I mean the no WAR? LAST ISSUE!!!"


Again, he did not lie! Did he get bad info? Probably so. Did he make a judgement call? Yes. How is that lying?

Where would we be now if we had given into the UN? Fact is, Iraq needed to be dealt with, period. I know it's hard for a pacifist like yourself to understand that but it's true. We could have ignored Iraq forever. How many people do you think he would have exterminated in the next 10 ro 20 years? How many times do you think he would have threaten other countries? How long do you think it would have taken him to obtain nuclear weapons? Maybe from Lybia! Oh no, that's right, Lybia is not a threat. You know, for every action there is a reaction but there is also a reaction for every nonaction. I am more afraid of reactions after nonaction because your not in control. When you act, the reaction is under your terms. We can plan for that.

Any other issues?

JSE

[bturk667]

I'll stick with everything I said. You believe what you want, and I'll do the same.
One thing though.
I like your statement about how "Most liberals would have stuck there heads in the ground after 9/11." Remember Pearl Harbor? This is one of the dumbest statements I have ever read! If you believe that, then I feel sorry for you. I guess we will never know how wrong you would have been! To bad.

One question for you: Give me YOUR definition of what a lie is.
This way maybe I will better understand why you think Bush didn't lie.

Thanks, have a great day!

[JSE]

I'll stick with everything I said. You believe what you want, and I'll do the same.
One thing though.
I like your statement about how "Most liberals would have stuck there heads in the ground after 9/11." Remember Pearl Harbor? This is one of the dumbest statements I have ever read! If you believe that, then I feel sorry for you. I guess we will never know how wrong you would have been! To bad.

One question for you: Give me YOUR definition of what a lie is.
This way maybe I will better understand why you think Bush didn't lie.

Thanks, have a great day!

Yes, I will believe the facts. You can continue to be lead and molded by the media and the left. I will think for myself and recognize fact over fiction. You are every liberal's wet-dream.

And no, I don't remember Pearl Harbor. Was not born yet. But, I do know about it and what does that event have to do with today's world and today's liberals? If you're saying the democrats went to War. You're right. From what I have learned they were nothing like the Democrats of today. As a matter of fact, we would probably call them republicans now.

Maybe Pete can fill us in on this. I think he is OLD?

"I guess we will never know how wrong you would have been!"

THANK GOD FOR THAT!!!!!

By the way, I like McCain to. The only problem I have with him is that he just does not seem "Presidential". Not really sure how to describe it any other way. He's a great guy and I like alot of his ideas, but I don't think he will ever be Pres. He is definitely one of the most honest and respectable politicians around.

JSE

[jeskibuff]

I like John McCain.

Well, Bruno...we have someting in common! I was hoping for him to win the VA primary in 2000. I even did some volunteer work for his campaign. I was disappointed when he lost and a bit ticked off that Bush won, but Bush redeemed himself in my eyes the moment he selected his cabinet. I think McCain would have made an awesome President and we wouldn't have had anywhere NEAR the close race that put Florida in the spotlight.

About the fact of other nation having ulterior motives. What Bush didn't have any. Did Bush want to get rid of Saddam prior to 9/11

A lot of people wanted to get rid of Saddam before 9/11. He was flouting the resolve of the world by violating his surrender terms. If Bush had personal reasons to get Saddam out, they were dwarfed by the overwhelming reasons that the world had to remove the dictator from power.

Why did his father leave him in power? What, did the elder think he was going to turn over a new leaf?

The U.N. resolutions gave no authority to remove Saddam from Iraq...just to remove him from Kuwait. If you recall the dialogue at the time, there was discussion of marching to Baghdad, but people had hoped that Saddam would be dispatched by his own countrymen, now that he was weakened and humiliated. His grip on the country was underestimated. But in a nutshell, we didn't march to Baghdad primarily because the U.N. resolution didn't authorize the removal of Saddam.

How come we weren't in eminent and grave danger in those 12 years after Desert storm and prior to this unjust war??

Unjust war? If the removal of a barbaric dictator who murdered and tortured millions isn't just, what is? Would you tell the parents of the kids that were released from the childrens' prison that it was a mistake to remove Saddam from power? Would you tell the relatives of the thousands of skeletonized people found in mass graves that Saddam & Sons were unfairly removed from power?

Every country in the middle East welcomes terrorism, everyone! Are there or are there not more terrorist flocking inot Iraq now that Saddam is gone?

Is that a bad thing? Why not fight them on their home turf rather than wait for them to strike American targets? It's kind of like putting bait out to kill termites. If you don't do anything, they go about their business devouring your house, then once you become aware of their presence, the damage is done. It's still a dangerous business going after them, but we've got trained soldiers on the front lines of this war, instead of office workers thinking it's just another workday on the 105th floor of the WTC.

Osama is still living isn't he?

Yup. Living and free. But that is bound to change. Democrats were saying the same thing about Saddam until mid December, 2003. Osama's just better connected and protected. Saddam had MANY enemies willing to rat him out.

Al-Qaeda is a red herring. Terrorist can not be somehow catagorized into groups. There goals are all the same. Get rid of the a new group will appear. It is a never ending cycle.

So, you're saying that we should do nothing? Will you also tell your local police not to bother with murderers and rapists because their goals are all the same? Get rid of one murderer, and another one appears. Why bother arresting them, huh?

Well, that's enough for now for me. JSE has already responded to much of your post, too. I'll look in a little later and see if there are any other points left open.

[bturk667]

You say, "I will think for myself and recognize fact over fiction."
You wouldn't know a fact if it kick you in the balls!
At least I'm someones wet dream! Also, better to a wet dream of a Liberal than a Conservative!!!
How about that definition of a lie?

[JSE]

"You wouldn't know a fact if it kick you in the balls!"

Nah, I am pretty sure I would feel that?

JSE

[bturk667]

Still no definition?

[JSE]

No need for a definition. You can look it up in Webster's. It all comes down to how you interpret his words. You can say they were a lie and that's fine but it's just your opinion. I don't feel he lied. That's my opinion and I feel it is the right one. Did the President put to much weight on CIA intelligence even when the CIA said not to? Maybe, maybe not. But I don't think he lied about it. Making a bad choice or ignoring warnings is not lying.

Just in case you can't find the definition, here is a link.

http://www.m-w.com/

JSE

[bturk667]

Maybe you should look at the definition. If and when you have kids, it will come in handy!
I don't need to interpet his words, he said what he wanted to. Any way, why should they be needed to be interpeted? Sounds like the comments of a person who needs to think Bush really isn't a liar.
A lie is a lie, period! If you want to overlook Bush's, that's fine. I on the other hand will not.