Presidential debates

[acludem]

He sure wasn't a bore on Letterman tonight. See my other thread about this:http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12140

 

[theim]

I just want some lib to try and explain this:

Kerry: "Anyone who thinks that America is not safer without Saddam in power doesn't have the judgement to be president"

Kerry: "I would not have ousted Saddam"

 

[acludem]

These two statements are not mutually exclusive. The world is safer without Saddam, but that doesn't mean the U.S. should've gone in and ousted him when Bush had us do it and the way Bush had us do it. You'll recall that the entire goal, according to Dubya, was to rid Iraq of WMD's. He never claimed, in fact he specifically denied, that he was going for regime change. Now he's trying to claim that he went in and purposefully got rid of Saddam. Now that is a direct contradiction.

acludem

 

[Flying Duck]

These two statements are not mutually exclusive. The world is safer without Saddam, but that doesn't mean the U.S. should've gone in and ousted him when Bush had us do it and the way Bush had us do it. You'll recall that the entire goal, according to Dubya, was to rid Iraq of WMD's. He never claimed, in fact he specifically denied, that he was going for regime change. Now he's trying to claim that he went in and purposefully got rid of Saddam. Now that is a direct contradiction.

acludem

This is BLATANT OUTRIGHT LIE. Read the HJR or the text of any of the numerous speeches given by GWB (or even Kerry for that matter) leading up to the war. I know it's hard for you to grasp that there was a compendium of reasons for the war but it's true. Were you in a coma two years ago or is revisionism just a hobby with you?

 

[Bonnie]

These two statements are not mutually exclusive. The world is safer without Saddam, but that doesn't mean the U.S. should've gone in and ousted him when Bush had us do it and the way Bush had us do it. You'll recall that the entire goal, according to Dubya, was to rid Iraq of WMD's. He never claimed, in fact he specifically denied, that he was going for regime change. Now he's trying to claim that he went in and purposefully got rid of Saddam. Now that is a direct contradiction.

acludem

Yeah okay then, how would Kerry have ousted Hussein then? Spit Balls?????????????? Maybe a tea party with Kofi???

 

[acludem]

John Kerry would have exhausted every diplomatic remedy available. Then if war became necessary and Saddam was run out of power, fine.

As for calling me a liar, Bush said repeatedly, over and over and over, that this was not about regime change. He never listed removing Saddam from power as a reason for going to war. His primary reasons were WMD and Saddam's so-called support for terrorists (primarily groups that were operating in Israel, NOT Al Qaeda who hated Saddam). The rationale for war was that Saddam hadn't complied with UN orders to disarm. I guess now we know why - because he had no WMDs.

acludem

 

[dilloduck]

John Kerry would have exhausted every diplomatic remedy available. Then if war became necessary and Saddam was run out of power, fine.

As for calling me a liar, Bush said repeatedly, over and over and over, that this was not about regime change. He never listed removing Saddam from power as a reason for going to war. His primary reasons were WMD and Saddam's so-called support for terrorists (primarily groups that were operating in Israel, NOT Al Qaeda who hated Saddam). The rationale for war was that Saddam hadn't complied with UN orders to disarm. I guess now we know why - because he had no WMDs.

acludem

with all due respect, you have no clue as to what Kerry would have done. Do you want me to go into how much we could have accomplished if the Democrats had supported our efforts instead of torpedoing them for purely polical reasons??

 

[Bonnie]

John Kerry would have exhausted every diplomatic remedy available. Then if war became necessary and Saddam was run out of power, fine.

As for calling me a liar, Bush said repeatedly, over and over and over, that this was not about regime change. He never listed removing Saddam from power as a reason for going to war. His primary reasons were WMD and Saddam's so-called support for terrorists (primarily groups that were operating in Israel, NOT Al Qaeda who hated Saddam). The rationale for war was that Saddam hadn't complied with UN orders to disarm. I guess now we know why - because he had no WMDs.

acludem

And what diplomatic means exactly would that have been, perhaps all the countries that had their hands in the giant till of Oil For food including Kofi's son, would be lining up with us to oust Hussein maybe in another 15 or so years, meanwhile Hussein would keep arming and funding terroroists...........when are you Dems going to get some balls and actually do something about problems other than just sit around and bullshit about academics????????

Ps Kerry said he would have done the exact same thing that Bush did! re war even if he knew there were no WMD found........So which is it?????????????

 

[tim_duncan2000]

I like seeing how liberals think Kerry will easily win the debates. They said the same thing about Gore and look what happened.

 

[jimnyc]

You'll recall that the entire goal, according to Dubya, was to rid Iraq of WMD's.

That was the entire goal? Were you asleep for the past 13 years and miss everything included in the failed resolutions?

I think you need to listen to Bush's speeches once again and this time open your ears. No offense, but it was NEVER solely about WMD.

 

[Bonnie]

I like seeing how liberals think Kerry will easily win the debates. They said the same thing about Gore and look what happened.

Lets us not forget Gore had his little made up stories, and flip flops on things, Bush could have been harder on him.........I think this time Bush's gloves are off and Kerry is raw meat for the taking...........We shall see soon enough.

 

[dilloduck]

Lets us not forget Gore had his little made up stories, and flip flops on things, Bush could have been harder on him.........I think this time Bush's gloves are off and Kerry is raw meat for the taking...........We shall see soon enough.

I think we might have seen the beginnings of Kerrys' approach today. He has finally decided the war is OK but Bush has screwed it all up and is lying to the people. That could change however------------

 

[pennyville73]

Can you imagine how things would be if Gore had been in office the past 3 years? I cringe at the thought of him having been in charge at the time of 9/11.

 

[Annie]

Can you imagine how things would be if Gore had been in office the past 3 years? I cringe at the thought of him having been in charge at the time of 9/11.

You are not the only one who has wondered:

http://www.crushkerry.com/pdf/Prelude92004.pdf

check out the main page on html. Can get updates of online novel...