Steve Gardner was there with Kerry

[freeandfun1]

"HIS version of voting for and then against the war."

HE VOTED FOR THE WAR AND THEN AGAINST THE MANNER IN WHICH IT WAS TO BE FUNDED. STOP SPREADING THIS OVER-SIMPLIFIED STUFF ABOUT CONGRESS LOOKING AT THE SENATORS AND SAYING, INVADE? KERRY: YES! INVADE? KERRY: NO!

I'm not a Kerry fan and I'm lucid enough to know that its borderline propoganda!

My mistake. The FUNDING!

As for the intelligence, Kerry, like the President saw the same information. Nothing more, nothing less. If Kerry doubted it, he should have said something. He didn't cuz he wanted to be on whichever side panned out being the popular side in the long run. Why can't you see that? If he is such an honorable man, why then didn't he say anything?

As for the "cartoons", they were sketches of SUSPECTED mobile labs.

Why is it that you won't take the word of honorable men like Tommy Franks, but you will take the word of the flip-flopping John Kerry?

BTW: What is the point in voting for war if you are going to vote AGAINST the funding needed to prosecute the war? If he didn't agree, he should have voted NO on the authorization of war and then voted YES on the funding. That way he could have said, "I am against the war, but I support the troops". Instead, his actions said, "I am voting for war, but I am not supporting the troops." Get a clue would ya?

 

[nakedemperor]

As for the intelligence, Kerry, like the President saw the same information. Nothing more, nothing less. If Kerry doubted it, he should have said something. He didn't cuz he wanted to be on whichever side panned out being the popular side in the long run. Why can't you see that? If he is such an honorable man, why then didn't he say anything?

Obviously, you're not listening. What I said earlier and will say again: EVERYONE saw that data, the data which was RE-analyzed by Rumsfeld's OSP AFTER it had determined that there were no WMD's in Iraq. After this data was data-mined by the adminisitration the NEW PARTISAN "information" was released. Who could blame anyone for wanting to go to war when the president told us we might see a nuclear explosion on U.S. soil? He didn't "not say anything", he didn't "keep his mouth shut". The twisted, misinterpreted, and falsified information told ALL of us that we had to go to war.


As for the "cartoons", they were sketches of SUSPECTED mobile labs.

Hahahahaha. Yep. Its VERY easy to say I "suspect" that building of being a weapons facility, because it doesn't require any proof! (they had NO evidence for these mobile labs). In Iraq: Uncovered, one of my fave moments was when Powell shows a dated satellite image of one of the mobile labs. Cut to a U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to until they were withdrawn: "I was at that site on that day. THE VEHICLE IS A FIRETRUCK."

BTW: What is the point in voting for war if you are going to vote AGAINST the funding needed to prosecute the war? If he didn't agree, he should have voted NO on the authorization of war and then voted YES on the funding. That way he could have said, "I am against the war, but I support the troops". Instead, his actions said, "I am voting for war, but I am not supporting the troops." Get a clue would ya?[/QUOTE]


I'll re-invoke the disgusting manner in which the administration misled the public in 2002: democrats voted against the homeland security bill because it left 170,000 workers with NO benefits and NO security. But the administration told the people with a straight face that they did it because they did not value our safety. When you agree with the war, as Kerry did, and then disagree ON PRINCIPLE with a HORRIBLY fiscally irresponsible way of PAYING for it, it DOESN'T. make you a flip-flopper.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

So basically Naked is saying that Bush went to war on questionable government information.

Just like we say Senator Kerry is claiming to be a war hero on questionable government information.

At least Bush had all sorts of people backing up his claims including the Brits, the CIA, Congress, Clinton, etc., etc.

Kerry, however, only has about a dozen paid(?) vets backing his claims while a couple hundred vets from the same time and place are condemning him as untruthful.

If your life depended on it, who would you choose as the most truthful?

 

[Avatar4321]

"HIS version of voting for and then against the war."

HE VOTED FOR THE WAR AND THEN AGAINST THE MANNER IN WHICH IT WAS TO BE FUNDED. STOP SPREADING THIS OVER-SIMPLIFIED STUFF ABOUT CONGRESS LOOKING AT THE SENATORS AND SAYING, INVADE? KERRY: YES! INVADE? KERRY: NO!

I'm not a Kerry fan and I'm lucid enough to know that its borderline propoganda!

Your right it is an oversimplification. The truth of the matter is he wanted to raise taxes. No one else voted to so he refused to fund the troops. His vote here is simply evidence that he find raising taxes on people more important than keeping our troops funded. Talk about warped priorities.

 

[Avatar4321]

So basically Naked is saying that Bush went to war on questionable government information.

Just like we say Senator Kerry is claiming to be a war hero on questionable government information.

At least Bush had all sorts of people backing up his claims including the Brits, the CIA, Congress, Clinton, etc., etc.

Kerry, however, only has about a dozen paid(?) vets backing his claims while a couple hundred vets from the same time and place are condemning him as untruthful.

If your life depended on it, who would you choose as the most truthful?

You are also forgetting the fact that Kerry has said he would still support the war despite the questionable government information...atleast he has this week.

 

[Beamer]

I made a terrible error.

I signed onto a conservative chat room. I thought it was an objective chat but your all Right Wing wackos.

I'm gone

 

[freeandfun1]

I made a terrible error.

I signed onto a conservative chat room. I thought it was an objective chat but your all Right Wing wackos.

I'm gone

:chains: later :fifty:

One post. How do you know anything about us? Now go find a message board where you can all agree and therefore, you can feel "included".

Sad excuse for a human being you are.

 

[Annie]

I made a terrible error.

I signed onto a conservative chat room. I thought it was an objective chat but your all Right Wing wackos.

I'm gone

 

[Avatar4321]

I made a terrible error.

I signed onto a conservative chat room. I thought it was an objective chat but your all Right Wing wackos.

I'm gone

Why not stick around. point out where we are wrong and why. it would be more constructive to the conversation.

 

[musicman]

I made a terrible error.

I signed onto a conservative chat room. I thought it was an objective chat but your all Right Wing wackos.

I'm gone

Don't let the door hit you where the Good Lord split you.

 

[Flying Duck]

I made a terrible error.

I signed onto a conservative chat room. I thought it was an objective chat but your all Right Wing wackos.

I'm gone

I recommend DU(www.democraticundergournd.com) for this poster. God forbid one might want to actually put one's belief's to the test of a good debate.

 

[Annie]

I recommend DU(www.democraticundergournd.com) for this poster. God forbid one might want to actually put one's belief's to the test of a good debate.

They just delete posts they don't agree with. What a stifling place!