French want Kerry: Let them

[phadras]

have him... Kerry's noting that several Euro-morons favor his candidacy is political suicide.. Since 1776 Americans have not particularly cared for what Eurowimps think the United States should do..

 

[thesolution]

I'm a Democrat and I think that was a dumb statement from Kerry.

What a moronic thing to say. I think he's trying to say that he will be able to build coalitions Internationally better than President Bush. That's hard to say.

Maybe he should have said that his stance about dealing with International discention is better than President Bush's strategy. President Bush says "my way or the highway." He went to war without any weapons. He claimed that he was going to war b/c of weapons and to protect our country.

Why don't we hear constant progress on Al Keida (don't know how to spell it)? Irac should have been priority 2, with Al Keida being number 1.

What do you say about the lack of weapons? Could you vote for him after that or has the Republican propaganda helped you to forget.

Personally, I'm still questioning Clinton's involvement in Bosnia.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by thesolution
I'm a Democrat and I think that was a dumb statement from Kerry.

What a moronic thing to say. I think he's trying to say that he will be able to build coalitions Internationally better than President Bush. That's hard to say.

Maybe he should have said that his stance about dealing with International discention is better than President Bush's strategy. President Bush says "my way or the highway." He went to war without any weapons. He claimed that he was going to war b/c of weapons and to protect our country.

Why don't we hear constant progress on Al Keida (don't know how to spell it)? Irac should have been priority 2, with Al Keida being number 1.

What do you say about the lack of weapons? Could you vote for him after that or has the Republican propaganda helped you to forget.

Personally, I'm still questioning Clinton's involvement in Bosnia.

Bush went to the U.N. several times to get the U.N. to enforce it's own resolutions. They repeatedly said no. What would john kerry have done differently? Do you think France/Germany/Russia 's decision NOT to support U.N. resolutions had anything to do with their complicity in the Iraqui oil for food corruption? Oh and it's just a lie that we did this unilaterally. There are about 70 countries in the Coalition of the Reasonable.

And sure I'm sure that kerry just meant what you said he meant.

 

[Johnney]

besides, kerry is going to make us look worse crawling back to the un and its cronies making apologies. what do you want to bet if he gets in, there will be something about charging Bush and Co. with some type of war crime? kerry is of low enough character to do something like that jsut to apease the whiners in other countries

 

[winston churchi]

Originally posted by thesolution
I'm a Democrat and I think that was a dumb statement from Kerry.

What a moronic thing to say. I think he's trying to say that he will be able to build coalitions Internationally better than President Bush. That's hard to say.

Maybe he should have said that his stance about dealing with International discention is better than President Bush's strategy. President Bush says "my way or the highway." He went to war without any weapons. He claimed that he was going to war b/c of weapons and to protect our country.

Why don't we hear constant progress on Al Keida (don't know how to spell it)? Irac should have been priority 2, with Al Keida being number 1.

What do you say about the lack of weapons? Could you vote for him after that or has the Republican propaganda helped you to forget.

Personally, I'm still questioning Clinton's involvement in Bosnia.

Kerry has gained 'support' from some pretty questionable countries and it makes me wonder why???

As far as Al Queda (I don't know if thats the correct spelling either) - heaven knows they are worldwide and you have no idea how worldwide they are. Al Q isn't the only network of terrorists also - you could go insane learning the who's and where's of the different networks...and in the end though they are separate for various reasons they do have a common bond - terrorism.

Iraq - you know I am one of those believers that think there are wmd there. I just think that Saddam was a bit smarter than we think...but thats just my theory.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by thesolution
I'm a Democrat and I think that was a dumb statement from Kerry.

What a moronic thing to say. I think he's trying to say that he will be able to build coalitions Internationally better than President Bush. That's hard to say.

Maybe he should have said that his stance about dealing with International discention is better than President Bush's strategy. President Bush says "my way or the highway." He went to war without any weapons. He claimed that he was going to war b/c of weapons and to protect our country.

Why don't we hear constant progress on Al Keida (don't know how to spell it)? Irac should have been priority 2, with Al Keida being number 1.

What do you say about the lack of weapons? Could you vote for him after that or has the Republican propaganda helped you to forget.

Personally, I'm still questioning Clinton's involvement in Bosnia.

Last i checked, Al Quaeda isnt a country. So we're taking out the countries that harbor them. Afghanstan was one. Iraq was another. Iran and Syria are next.

As for your weapons, maybe you should review the Great Presidnet Bubba on where the weapons are. He apparently knew they were in Iraq and proceeded to throw a handfull of missles at an aspirin factory that was reportedly a WMD plant. Also while he did that he attacked some terrorist camps in Iraq as well. Funny how Clinton knew they were there but Bush lied and made them all up when 2001 struck.

So which stance are you taking. That Clinton is a liar and Bush followed suit. Or is that Clinton was telling the truth and Bush just brought a bigger hammer.