[Troll]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
We simply know they exist, he's the one hiding them.

Deja vu ...

[ebuddy]

Deja Vu? I don't recall Bush bringing along military peers at rallies. I don't recall Bush questioning Kerry's military service. I don't recall Bush using any military experience as a trampoline to get him elected?

I recall Bush running ads that showed some 9/11 footage of destroyed buildings to remind of us of what we had to overcome domestically and enduring attacks from those who claim he's using the deaths of victims to escalate his chances for another term. No one attacked Kerry for using the deaths of thousands of soldiers in Vietnam to escalate his chances.

I do like this statement made earlier by someone;
Kerry was in Vietnam, Bush wasn't. That's fact.

No matter the circumstances, it is also fact that Kerry received medals of honor whereas Bush did not, instead he lost his license to take off the ground.

If you want to argue against Kerry, choose a topic Bush can win, because Bush's track record is definitely weaker. So why don't you Bush people accept that and elect Bush, because you like him better for different reasons (like war on terror, tax cuts or whatever). It's ok, nobody's perfect, so both have their weak spots.

But in case of their military records, Bush looses. This is not all a candidate's reputation is built of.

While much of the above is true, I don't know that you could say Bush's track record is definitely weaker. It may appear that way, but Bush's track record in my opinion was set from the past 4 years. Personally, I'd like to give him 4 more. What has Kerry done lately?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Fellow Vet Blasts Kerry:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ary/index.html

More links:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1121809/posts

Do you know who this guy O'Neill is? Nixon used him to attack Kerry over 30 years ago.

Link.

In 1971, O'Neill squared off against Kerry on the Dick Cavett Show in a 90-minute, televised forum in which the two Vietnam War veterans sparred over the U.S. role in Southeast Asia.

President Nixon and top aide Charles Colson had taken a keen interest in O'Neill as part of their effort to discredit Kerry and the anti-war movement, according to memos and tapes in the National Archives. A clean-cut Naval Academy graduate, O'Neill was viewed by Nixon's team as an effective messenger against Kerry, who was causing the administration headaches as the leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

and

In a series of memos, Nixon aide Colson, who later went to prison for his role in the Watergate scandal, referred to the administration's efforts to promote O'Neill and to challenge Kerry to debate him.

On June 15, 1971, Colson noted that Kerry first turned down a debate offer with O'Neill and that he was "beginning to take a tremendous beating in the press."

"Let's destroy this young demagogue before he becomes another Ralph Nader," Colson wrote about Kerry.

Colson wrote that he arranged an Oval Office meeting between Nixon and O'Neill on June 16, to boost the morale of O'Neill, who had become disillusioned because of the hostile reception he received during other television appearances.

O'Neill, who had flown up from his hometown of San Antonio, spent about 40 minutes chatting with Nixon and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger about the war and its opponents.

Nixon said he understood that O'Neill was "the guy to take brickbats when you go on some of these TV shows." He encouraged the young veteran to continue his fight.

"Give it to 'em. Give it to 'em. You can do it," said Nixon, according to a tape of the meeting.

So in 1971 the Nixon administration was afraid Kerry would become the new Ralph Nader. Weird.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
120 pages of stuff.
Why don't we think that's his FULL records?

Because after those were released the Kerry campaign themselves told the Boston Globe that not all of his records had been made public yet.


It's not hard to release records, I just want to see what he's hiding.


Edit: maybe he's got a Vietnamese love child over there? Actually, that could be a good thing. Would make him look more approachable.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Because after those were released the Kerry campaign themselves told the Boston Globe that not all of his records had been made public yet.


It's not hard to release records, I just want to see what he's hiding.

Interesting, someone brings up Nixon. Nixon Tapes? Where are they? Oh, right.

[Troll]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
[Rant snipped]

That one went over your head I think!

"We simply know they exist, he's the one hiding them."

Think about where we've heard that before. Here's a hint:

[theolein]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Because after those were released the Kerry campaign themselves told the Boston Globe that not all of his records had been made public yet.


It's not hard to release records, I just want to see what he's hiding.


Edit: maybe he's got a Vietnamese love child over there? Actually, that could be a good thing. Would make him look more approachable.

Your comment about the Vietnamese love child is an interesting one. You may have heard about the allegations that John McCain fathered a black child during the 2000 republican primaries in South Carolina IIRC. Apparently, the author of those allegations was none other than Karl Rove, Bush's chief of staff. Why woud you choose to use the same libelous methods?

I have to agree with OreoCookie. If you like Bush, go ahead and vote for him. Making attacks on John Kerry's military record is inopportune at best and could very well backfire on the Bush campaign at worst, especially since, at the very least Jonh kerry's record of having been Vietnam and being in combat there is proven. It will not sway anyone, I think. I can't imagine many people finding such attacks to be decent, especially in light of American soldiers losing their lives in the current insurgency in Iraq.

[ghost_flash]

I trust that man before any of you.

[zachs]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
So, yes, let's see the medical records and the rest that are being hidden.

Yeah...when is Bush gonna release those records?

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by zachs:
Yeah...when is Bush gonna release those records?

No problem with that for me.. Kerry first. Bush is President.

[zachs]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Bush is President.

What's your point?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Troll:
That one went over your head I think!

"We simply know they exist, he's the one hiding them."

Think about where we've heard that before. Here's a hint:

Has anyone proved such weapons don't exist? Not that I know of.

Just because we haven't found anything YET, doesn't mean they never existed.

You are jumping the gun. Counting the chickens before they hatch.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Has anyone proved such weapons don't exist? Not that I know of.

Just because we haven't found anything YET, doesn't mean they never existed.

You are jumping the gun. Counting the chickens before they hatch.

That's pretty much the general feeling of what the Bush adminstration did in going to war.

[zachs]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Has anyone proved such weapons don't exist? Not that I know of.

Just because we haven't found anything YET, doesn't mean they never existed.

You are jumping the gun. Counting the chickens before they hatch.

How is one supposed to prove a negative?

I guess if, in 100 years, we still haven't found any weapons, there's a possibility that they are there. But it's highly unlikely.

[Zimphire]

See, Iraq had weapons. They were tagged. They were told not only to get rid of them, but show proof.

We don't know they did the first, because they never did the last.

See, it was up to Iraq to show the proof. Not Bush, not the US.

They did not. After 12 years of them not doing this. they got reprimanded.

Again, in the end Saddam is still to blame. Admit it or not, like it or not.

[zachs]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
See, Iraq had weapons. They were tagged. They were told not only to get rid of them, but show proof.

We don't know they did the first, because they never did the last.

See, it was up to Iraq to show the proof. Not Bush, not the US.

They did not. After 12 years of them not doing this. they got reprimanded.

Again, in the end Saddam is still to blame. Admit it or not, like it or not.

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kamel.html

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zachs:
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kamel.html

#1 that isn't proof. That is heresy Not the most unbiased site either.
#2 They were to show proof to the UN. Not some general.. then later the general claims they did destroy them!

This is just an ex-Iraqi general taking up for the government he was apart of.

Again, Iraq still didn't follow a long with the demands.

[zachs]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
#1 that isn't proof. That is heresy Not the most unbiased site either.
#2 They were to show proof to the UN. Not some general.. then later the general claims they did destroy them!

This is just an ex-Iraqi general taking up for the government he was apart of.

Again, Iraq still didn't follow a long with the demands.

http://www.dailyiowan.com/news/2003/...e-383789.shtml

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zachs:
http://www.dailyiowan.com/news/2003/...e-383789.shtml

Funny, all these people came out after all this claiming Iraq complied.. but UN claimed they wasn't before this.

Interesting.

I call that a spin.

Iraq didn't comply. Even before Bush attacked the UN said Iraq wasn't complying.

What was the people looking for right before the US attacked?

[zachs]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Funny, all these people came out after all this claiming Iraq complied.. but UN claimed they wasn't before this.

Interesting.

I call that a spin.

After all what? The U.S. invasion? If that is what you mean, then I'd recommend checking the date in the article.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zachs:
After all what? The U.S. invasion? If that is what you mean, then I'd recommend checking the date in the article.

Again, why was the UN searching for stuff up until the invasion if they didn't think anything was there?

[zachs]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Again, why was the UN searching for stuff up until the invasion if they didn't think anything was there?

To make sure that Iraq was destroying the weapons (i.e., complying). They were; see the above article.

[netgear]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Funny, all these people came out after all this claiming Iraq complied.. but UN claimed they wasn't before this.

Interesting.

I call that a spin.

Iraq didn't comply. Even before Bush attacked the UN said Iraq wasn't complying.

What was the people looking for right before the US attacked?

Some other reason to bash the United States about.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zachs:
To make sure that Iraq was destroying the weapons (i.e., complying). They were; see the above article.

No, they were there looking for weapons Iraq was hiding.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by netgear:
Some other reason to bash the United States about.

Yeah... and the haters take it in as if it were handed down by God himself.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Has anyone proved such weapons don't exist? Not that I know of.

Just because we haven't found anything YET, doesn't mean they never existed.

You are jumping the gun. Counting the chickens before they hatch.

Interesting analogy. I guess that would make you the realter who poisons the farmer's water well, destorys his crops, then lets your dogs into his hen house to kill all the chickens before they can even lay the very eggs you want to count... then you run in and foreclose on his property.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Interesting analogy. I guess that would make you the realter who poisons the farmer's water well, destorys his crops, then lets your dogs into his hen house to kill all the chickens before they can even lay the very eggs you want to count... then you run in and foreclose on his property.

only if the farmer were a serial killer.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
only if the farmer were a serial killer.

It's not your job to judge people. Now you know why a lot of people hate America.

[thunderous_funker]

[clt2]

[netgear]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
It's not your job to judge people. Now you know why a lot of people hate America.

Well if they hate us then we might as well do what we please.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by netgear:
Well if they hate us then we might as well do what we please.

That's a nice healthy cycle you're propagating there.

[netgear]

If I'm always nice to my neighbor and he's always an ass in return then I might as well stop being nice since being nice isn't accomplishing anything.

If they hate us then let's hate them back! That'll show them.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by netgear:
If I'm always nice to my neighbor and he's always an ass in return then I might as well stop being nice since being nice isn't accomplishing anything.

If they hate us then let's hate them back! That'll show them.

And in doing so, you get the entire neighborhood to hate you.

[netgear]

Only if the entire neighborhood is the same as my neighbor.

Some neighbors secretly will hate their neighbor but are too impotent to do anything about it. I am the cure for that impotence. Just as America is the cure for an impotent UN.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by netgear:
Only if the entire neighborhood is the same as my neighbor.

Some neighbors secretly will hate their neighbor but are too impotent to do anything about it. I am the cure for that impotence. Just as America is the cure for an impotent UN.

And people call liberals arrogant.

[netgear]

We should always act when it's in our best self-interest and should refrain when it's not. Look at the thanks we got for saving the world 50 years ago. Everyone hates us. So, f' them all.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by netgear:
We should always act when it's in our best self-interest and should refrain when it's not. Look at the thanks we got for saving the world 50 years ago. Everyone hates us. So, f' them all.

It's that mentality that kills me.

[netgear]

No it's the mentality that someone else is responsible for our well being that kills people.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by netgear:
No it's the mentality that someone else is responsible for our well being that kills people.

You mean like America being responsible for the "well being" of Iraqis?

[Dakar]

Originally posted by netgear:
No it's the mentality that someone else is responsible for our well being that kills people.

Uh, who here thinks someone else is responsible for the US's wellbeing?

[netgear]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
You mean like America being responsible for the "well being" of Iraqis?

Would you trust China to do it instead? Maybe we should just send Saddam back, huh?

[theolein]

Originally posted by netgear:
Would you trust China to do it instead? Maybe we should just send Saddam back, huh?

China is doing quite nicely in UN peacekeeping operations.

[netgear]

No, that's not what I meant.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, they were there looking for weapons Iraq was hiding.

No, they were there to verify Iraq's contention that it had destroyed everything. And they were busy doing precisely that having proved the voracity of Iraq's claims regarding Anthrax, until the US got triggerhappy.

Iraq never had WMD that posed a danger to the region or the world. That much has already been proven conclusively. It's also nearly certain that Iraq had no WMD whatsoever. Every Iraqi who might have known has said so, every inspector that has been there looking for them has said so. The case isn't closed, but the fat lady is practising her scales!

[netgear]

Originally posted by Troll:
No, they were there to verify Iraq's contention that it had destroyed everything. And they were busy doing precisely that having proved the voracity of Iraq's claims regarding Anthrax, until the US got triggerhappy.

Iraq never had WMD that posed a danger to the region or the world. That much has already been proven conclusively. It's also nearly certain that Iraq had no WMD whatsoever. Every Iraqi who might have known has said so, every inspector that has been there looking for them has said so. The case isn't closed, but the fat lady is practising her scales!

Why did Saddam kick them out in 1998 if he had nothing to hide?

[Troll]

Originally posted by netgear:
Why did Saddam kick them out in 1998 if he had nothing to hide?

Because the US was using the cover of the Inspectors to spy on Iraq!!! Remember the black box of Baghdad?

This was reported in all of the major newspapers at the time and the Americans eventually admitted to it. Blix referred to it as damaging the crediblity of inspectors. Another link for you - http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Troll:
[B]No, they were there to verify Iraq's contention that it had destroyed everything. And they were busy doing precisely that having proved the voracity of Iraq's claims regarding Anthrax, until the US got triggerhappy.

[/b
No,. they were still looking for WMD.

Iraq never had WMD that posed a danger to the region or the world. That much has already been proven conclusively. It's also nearly certain that Iraq had no WMD whatsoever.

No, it's not certain Iraq didn't have WMD whatsoever. You are jumping the gun.

Every Iraqi who might have known has said so, every inspector that has been there looking for them has said so. The case isn't closed, but the fat lady is practising her scales!

Again, I believe you are jumping the gun. I am not saying either way because later, I don't want to have to pull my foot out of my mouth and backpedal.

[Hash]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
#1 that isn't proof. That is heresy Not the most unbiased site either.
#2 They were to show proof to the UN. Not some general.. then later the general claims they did destroy them!

This is just an ex-Iraqi general taking up for the government he was apart of.

Again, Iraq still didn't follow a long with the demands.

Ever heard of presumption of innocence? YOU must prove that they had weapons, which is your claim, or unless proved that they had weapons, which is NOT proved, Iraq is presumed to be innocent (ie without weapons).


Basics of law and civilization, 101

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Hash:
Ever heard of presumption of innocence? YOU must prove that they had weapons, which is your claim, or unless proved that they had weapons, which is NOT proved, Iraq is presumed to be innocent (ie without weapons).
Basics of law and civilization, 101

But that isn't the case here. It wasn't up to us to prove Iraq had or did not have them.

That was on Iraq. They failed to do so in the way they were told to. THAT is what got them into this mess.

People keep on forgetting, on purpose or not is, the proof was on Iraq. Not the US, not GWB, not the UN, not anyone but Saddam and Iraq.

They failed, Saddam thought his European buddies would get him out of trouble at the last minute, and they failed to do so.

We called his bluff.