He sure wasn't a bore on Letterman tonight. See my other thread about this:http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12140
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
acludem said: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
acludem said: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
acludem said: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
acludem said: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
acludem said:You'll recall that the entire goal, according to Dubya, was to rid Iraq of WMD's.
tim_duncan2000 said:I like seeing how liberals think Kerry will easily win the debates. They said the same thing about Gore and look what happened.
Bonnie said: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.
pennyville73 said: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.