Liberals: Wanting it both ways, like always

[rtwngAvngr]

On one hand: When 9/11 happened, George Bush negligently paid no attention to national security, and deserves to be impeached.

On the other hand: When george Bush pursues a proactive coourse against terrorism, he's engaging in harming America's future in many ways for a war invented in crawford, tx, solely for the purpose of furthering the interests of the oil business, and should be impeached.

My question for any deranged lib: is the threat of world terrorism real or is it a political invention?

 

[DKSuddeth]

are you asking deranged lib kerry? deranged lib kennedy? or will a sane lib do for you today?

 

[Aquarian]

Black + White = gray.

A proactive course is not the problem. The proactive course he has chosen is where the arguments arise. I don't recall very many if any protesting the action in afghanistan. compare that situation to iraq and you'll have insight into why some folks think iraq was not handled properly.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
are you asking deranged lib kerry? deranged lib kennedy? or will a sane lib do for you today?

Well if you're sane, you can surely see the lack of core belief in the two presented liberal arguments.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Well if you're sane, you can surely see the lack of core belief in the two presented liberal arguments.

as much as I hate to admit that you're right about that....well, you're right about that.

damn that hurts :

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Aquarian
Black + White = gray.

A proactive course is not the problem. The proactive course he has chosen is where the arguments arise. I don't recall very many if any protesting the action in afghanistan. compare that situation to iraq and you'll have insight into why some folks think iraq was not handled properly.

You mean that trash about how Saddam and Alquaeda couldn't work together because saddam was secular and Alquaeda was not? That's funny stuff.

You usage of the past tense is telling. Iraq was handled properly and is being handled properly, and will be best handled going forward by the Bush administration. You know Bush, the one who wanted to fund the troops?

:clap1:

 

[Aquarian]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
You know Bush, the one who wanted to fund the troops?

no, i mean bush, the one who was in such a hurry to get into iraq that he sent thousands of soldiers over without proper body armor rather than wait a few months for the extra gear to be manufactured. Just for example.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/1000971.asp?cp1=1
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/26/body.armor.ap/

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
as much as I hate to admit that you're right about that....well, you're right about that.

damn that hurts :

Holy crap. Someone pinch me.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Aquarian
no, i mean bush, the one who was in such a hurry to get into iraq that he sent thousands of soldiers over without proper body armor rather than wait a few months for the extra gear to be manufactured. Just for example.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/1000971.asp?cp1=1
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/26/body.armor.ap/

They did fine. But why DID kerry vote not to fund them additionally? You still cannot justify that treachery. I guess sometimes you just need to pander to the anti-american left to energize your core.

 

[Aquarian]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
They did fine. But why DID kerry vote not to fund them additionally? You still cannot justify that treachery. I guess sometimes you just need to pander to the anti-american left to energize your core.

right or wrong, kerry voted against the 87 billion dollar package as a whole. There's no basis to state that he voted against the 300 million request for military funding that was part of that package specifically.

I am sure, that while I am left of center, you are not including me in 'the anti-american left'...

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Aquarian
right or wrong, kerry voted against the 87 billion dollar package as a whole.

That'd be 'wrong'. That's the answer to your apparent dillemma. What, did the most liberal senator suddenly get concerned about pork? Give me a break.

I am sure, that while I am left of center, you are not including me in 'the anti-american left'...

What if I am?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Aquarian
right or wrong, kerry voted against the 87 billion dollar package as a whole. There's no basis to state that he voted against the 300 million request for military funding that was part of that package specifically.

John Kerry, Dec 12, 2003:

"I will make sure that no American soldier ever goes without the equipment they need to do their job.”

The him and only 11 other democrats voted against funding that would have given the soldiers extra funding for body armor, combat pay and health benefits for reservists.

 

[Aquarian]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
What if I am?

Then you would obviously not have a clue as to what kind of person I am, or you have an ill informed opinion as to what it means to be American.


Jim- so, even if he had objections to 99% of the funding requests (300,000,000 is .3% of 87,000,000,000) he should have voted for it? I'm not arguing whether he was right or wrong on the vote, I shouldn't even be talking about Kerry in a thread about bush, but I can't stand aside when someone makes the statement that kerry voted specifically against providing armor to the troops. Context is important. I think you've seen me say the same thing in cases where people misrepresent bush.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Aquarian
Then you would obviously not have a clue as to what kind of person I am, or you have an ill informed opinion as to what it means to be American.

Bwahahaha. Look at you, all puffed up. woooo, scary.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Aquarian
Jim- so, even if he had objections to 99% of the funding requests (300,000,000 is .3% of 87,000,000,000) he should have voted for it? I'm not arguing whether he was right or wrong on the vote, I shouldn't even be talking about Kerry in a thread about bush, but I can't stand aside when someone makes the statement that kerry voted specifically against providing armor to the troops. Context is important. I think you've seen me say the same thing in cases where people misrepresent bush.

Then what was it eactly in the vote that he didn't like, if it wasn't the money for soldiers, that 87 other senators voted for?

 

[Aquarian]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Then what was it eactly in the vote that he didn't like, if it wasn't the money for soldiers, that 87 other senators voted for?

Maybe it was this:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Monday he would not support President Bush's $87 billion request for Iraq and Afghanistan without a dramatic shift in White House policies.

''I'm not going to vote for an open-ended ticket,'' Kerry told The Associated Press. He said Bush should get more foreign troops into Iraq and use oil revenues to help pay for reconstruction before Americans are forced to foot the bill.
http://www.thebatt.com/news/2003/09...Decries.Bush.Call.For.87.Billion-460607.shtml

or possibly scum sucking political manuevering, you know how I feel about politicians in general... either is more likely than thinking that he really and truly wanted to see soldiers without armor specifically. that's all i'm trying to say.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Aquarian
or possibly scum sucking political manuevering, you know how I feel about politicians in general... either is more likely than thinking that he really and truly wanted to see soldiers without armor specifically. that's all i'm trying to say.

Ok, I can agree with that.

Had Bush relied heavily on oil revenue instead for reconstruction he would have been accused of abusing their resources (as if he hasn't been accused of that already by about a million liberals, and not one has ever provided any proof).

 

[Aquarian]

Had Bush relied heavily on oil revenue instead for reconstruction he would have been accused of abusing their resources

true. It's a delicate dance this international politics, and there are no little feet painted on the floor...

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Aquarian
true. It's a delicate dance this international politics, and there are no little feet painted on the floor...

Same back at ya!

 

[tim_duncan2000]

You mean that trash about how Saddam and Alquaeda couldn't work together because saddam was secular and Alquaeda was not? That's funny stuff.

I don't believe that for a second either. If that's the case, then why do a lot of the Sunnis support him and what about the money sent to families of suicide bombers? There are other instances of Islamic groups not caring about how Saddam was secular.

John Kerry, Dec 12, 2003:

"I will make sure that no American soldier ever goes without the equipment they need to do their job.”

The him and only 11 other democrats voted against funding that would have given the soldiers extra funding for body armor, combat pay and health benefits for reservists.

I agree. It seems odd that he would vote against it after making that comment.

Then what was it eactly in the vote that he didn't like, if it wasn't the money for soldiers, that 87 other senators voted for?

I wonder about that too. Also, I doubt the same people who are defending his vote and/or keep talking about how we need to understand the context would be saying the same thing about a Republican voting against a bill like that. We would hear nothing about the context then.