[ebuddy]

That's just it guys; Bush relies too heavily on the fact that we get his plan. Ya know, sometimes it helps to hear it again. My main problem is the fact that this debate should have and could have ended any credibility for Kerry. This particular debate was centered on Bush's advantages in policy with Kerry's inconsistency. You can say Kerry appeared inconsistent, but he has now landed on a positition. It is a shakey position for which many of my fellow conservatives know from prior campaign banter, but the fact remains...All news outlets, media, and polling data confirm that Kerry "won" the debate. This does not mean he has better ideals, he simply presented his more effectively.

Look, more people watched that debate than any other debate in history. This election is urgent for many reasons and there are many hungry for answers. They watched their president get lambasted by a man who solidified a sandy foundation 10 days prior based on talking points made by James Carvelle. Our President was indicted continuously. He was on the stand and was made defensive. Kerry fought Kerry's fight. Bush dodged some good blows, but took a couple in the face. Noteably; Kerry's commentary on Bush's father. Noteably, Kerry's position on what ought to be done in Iraq and in questioning Bush's desire to "own" it and it's oil fields. There's a good reason why we spent the lion-share defending those oil fields. It's the one primary resource that will fund Iraq's rebuilding and give them a shot at prosperity. The enemy is constantly on the prowl for how to destroy these. Did Bush address this? Nope. Kerry outlined a timetable and defended his "6 months" supposition. Bush said; "it's tough." "it's a hard fight". Well, is there an end in sight? We know it depends on the Iraqi. We know it depends on International cooperation. We know it depends on Foreign governments forgiving debt. We know it depends on summits that have been held for long time. We know the details behind our sanctioning Iran. Bush merely said; "we're having talks" "we're having summits". And WE ARE, but where? What summits? You can read about them, but is Bush aware of them? Why did he not expose Kerry and take shots at Kerry's face when Kerry exposed his chin? He couldn't. Plain and simple. It's as if Bush's camp wanted him to appear vulnerable and victimized. Let me go on record as saying I hate this tactic. We've had sanctions on Iran for decades Mr. Senator. We're having summits Mr. Senator. It's apparent to me that you are as actively involved in foreign policy as you've been in 20 years in the Senate. Jim, absolutely no bill and no influential legislation has occurred as a result of my opponents 20 years in the Senate. He wants to lead this country. He says he can do a better job Jim, but the fact of the matter is he has no sound foreign policy. Jim, he wanted to dismantle our nuclear weapons program during the Cold War. This would've devasted our country and our policy. Ya know what I'm saying? Bush was not in command of this issues, plain and simple. He used the same tired one-liners. The fact that Kerry's supporters are asking what Bush's plan is, is proof to me that Bush did not outline one. He has one. I can go into great detail about it, but delivered in a defensive manner with the Bush pleading as if to say; "Is there not one sensible person in this room who understands how to deal with regimes that only appreciate force and aggression?" They don't understand. He needs to assume the role as TEACHER, not criminal defense attorney. I've said all I can say. Bush had better be practicing in front of a podium with McCain throwing criminal indictments at him and Bush had better learn to assume the role as EDUCATOR and not imbecile. Kerry can also be exposed for flopping on domestic policy. Bush has the same opportunities again, WHAT WILL HE DO? He needs to assume the role of DA and hammer on Kerry's lack of substantive service in the senate. Kerry needs to now take the stand and defend his positions. The ONLY one that can indict him is Bush. Bush is going to have to get tough and offensive.

[LoganCharles]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
That's just it guys...

It's early still but easily post of the day.

Just to re-state: Bush blew it by basically not nailing Kerry as a "follower". Yes that is Kerry in a nutshell. He desperately needs the approval of his associates and even worse the world. He's the type of guy, kinda like Clinton, who always needs to be seen with the popular crowd. Even if that means changing his beliefs or more dangerously, his policy. In my view it's a serious sign of weakness. Theoretical example: Let's not piss off Iceland because Bjork is from there and even though the average American doesn't like Bjork, Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston do. Americans love Brad Pitt. The last thing we want to do is to piss off Brad Pitt because you know he's a big movie star and we have a chance to do a photo-op with him.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Jansar:
I don't have the time and patience to look up quotes, and honestly I don't care. However, if you saw and listened to the debate, you would understand.

1.) If you don't care, then what, pray tell, are you doing here?

2.) Nobody else here who saw and listened to the debate appears to have the slightest idea what you are talking about, and that INCLUDES staunch Bush supporters.

Put them together, and you, Jansar, don't really come off looking too good.

Now provide those self-evident quotes that elude us all.

[gadster]

US politics works like religion or football; it's faith/fan-based. Morals went out in the 90s.

[LoganCharles]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
1.) If you don't care, then what, pray tell, are you doing here?

You know I still haven't quite figured that out about yourself.

I have yet, and I mean ever read a serious comment out of one of your posts. It would be one thing if you were funny or something like a John B. Smith.

I'm expecting you to say the same about me because that's about as good as you get.

[MindFad]

Originally posted by gadster:
US politics works like religion or football; it's faith/fan-based. Morals went out in the 90s.

You got that right. It's just like football. Don't expect much intensive or intelligent commentary or discussion on many issues.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
That's just it guys; Bush relies too heavily on the fact that we get his plan. Ya know, sometimes it helps to hear it again.

Interesting commentary, but I think it overlooks a salient point: the reason Bush was on the defensive is because, to many people, whatever plan he has doesn't appear to be working very well. If it is working well, then he should have been able to demonstrate why. That he failed to do so only reinforces the sense that it isn't, and that he isn't in command of the situation. Sadly, I'm not sure this is merely a failure of rhetoric.

I've been wondering why his campaign commercials haven't featured examples of progress in Iraq and Afghanistan - I'm always interested in seeing evidence of same. He cited some in the debate, but again they came off as defensive rather than positive. He did not, IMHO, inspire confidence.

[ebuddy]

I agree ZigZag. I watched the Bush faithfuls make all his points for him the next day. That's not good enough. The swing voter is not paying close attention to "sideline" news. Good news is not newsworthy. What's newsworthy is "QUAGMIRE!" Bush needs to sell his position. He needs to site examples of schools (BY NAME), Hospitals, areas of improved power grids. Kerry mentioned several noteable military personnel that support him. Why then didn't Bush say; "Good point Mr. Senator, but the rest support me, including blablabla", but he did not. Again, it's as if he had a billion points to make and was overwhelmed. Clearly, he was tired, annoyed, frustrated, and desperate. This is not how I want the swing voter to see Bush. This is not how I want the interested International Community to see our Commander in Chief. I've seen a better debater in George Bush and he needs to muster that old spirit and quickly! He needs to point out the mistakes of his father and separate himself as "today's President". He could've brought up the International scrutiny we endured for leaving Iraq immediately following the Kuwait action. He needs to remind us that the Iraqi's are not fighting as vehemently as they should precisely because of Bush Sr.'s "premature bail-out" policy the last time. They are not confident we're there for the long-haul to help them out. Oh well, I agree with many that this hasn't seemed to have an adverse effect on Bush. What bothers me to no end is it did world's of good for Kerry jinning up support and additional finance for his campaign as opposed to having been made a fool of. In short, the opposition fumbled and Bush did not jump on the ball. Kerry was able to secure the offense and continues moving downfield.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I agree ZigZag. I watched the Bush faithfuls make all his points for him the next day. That's not good enough. The swing voter is not paying close attention to "sideline" news. Good news is not newsworthy. What's newsworthy is "QUAGMIRE!" Bush needs to sell his position. He needs to site examples of schools (BY NAME), Hospitals, areas of improved power grids. Kerry mentioned several noteable military personnel that support him. Why then didn't Bush say; "Good point Mr. Senator, but the rest support me, including blablabla", but he did not. Again, it's as if he had a billion points to make and was overwhelmed. Clearly, he was tired, annoyed, frustrated, and desperate. This is not how I want the swing voter to see Bush. This is not how I want the interested International Community to see our Commander in Chief. I've seen a better debater in George Bush and he needs to muster that old spirit and quickly! He needs to point out the mistakes of his father and separate himself as "today's President". He could've brought up the International scrutiny we endured for leaving Iraq immediately following the Kuwait action. He needs to remind us that the Iraqi's are not fighting as vehemently as they should precisely because of Bush Sr.'s "premature bail-out" policy the last time. They are not confident we're there for the long-haul to help them out. Oh well, I agree with many that this hasn't seemed to have an adverse effect on Bush. What bothers me to no end is it did world's of good for Kerry jinning up support and additional finance for his campaign as opposed to having been made a fool of. In short, the opposition fumbled and Bush did not jump on the ball. Kerry was able to secure the offense and continues moving downfield.

What you are telling me reminds me of the debate in Germany -- Stoiber, the conservative opponent seemed arrogant and insecure in the debate with Schr�der. When he was among his crowds, he was a lot more aggressive and more secure.

Bush seemed to be like this, too.

[Jansar]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Nobody else here who saw and listened to the debate appears to have the slightest idea what you are talking about, and that INCLUDES staunch Bush supporters.

My PM box doesn't think so. The people here making the biggest deal about my comments are people that don't want to agree with me.

Otherwise, I do look good, and the reason people dislike my position so much is because I'm right. It's typically the non-Americans who hate the US anyway who don't like what I have to say, so I'm fine with that. I'm not here to look up quotes, because I don't give a damn...I am not on my computer much every day...I read the papers primarily for news (Wall Street Journal - non-biased paper) and I have real work to do.

[itai195]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The liberal arguments are attempts to undermine troop moral.

Yes, they certainly can't be motivated out of a genuine concern for our country. Sorry, but this morale argument is just a despicable attempt to disengage from any debate regarding policy by calling Democrats wimps and terrorist sympathizers... I guess Republican rhetorical strategies haven't changed much in 30 years.

Jansar: When you make allegations that seem to have no basis, you have to prove them. That's the point of having a forum discussion, otherwise it's just trolling.

[Jansar]

Originally posted by Xeo:
There is this nifty thing called the "Find" feature when you have web pages open. You can search for words or phrases. Really amazing!

You took the time to point out a LOT of specific wrongdoings of Kerry's in that speech. You fail to provide quotes where that happens. Tsk tsk. You don't even have to search the web. Search the transcript. It's right there! We're talking about 90 min of text and all you have to do is skip around looking for key words until your points are met. You can post over and over how you are right and we are wrong but you can't take 2 min to back yourself up.

And if you think I'm a Kerry-fanboy, you are sadly mistaken. However, you are clearly the ultimate-anti-Kerry because you believe he's "almost always wrong" and you point out mistakes without showing when he actually made those mistakes. That's perfect.

Your half-witted sarcasm is really juvenile. I'm using the half and hour I have today on my computer, to do what? To tell someone who should be at least halfway intelligent (I mean, you're a mod here right?) how to understand a simple post? I call this a waste of time, honestly. I said, "I don't care to look at a damn transcript." However, all I'm saying is despite what people say on here, they know what is wrong and what is right. Let the other conservatives like me to take the time to explain to some of the boneheads on this board exactly what I posted. I mean, there's nothing on there that's a lie or impossible to prove.

If you're supposed to be an important person on these boards, how about you show a little class. Let the others make fools of themselves.

[Jansar]

Originally posted by itai195:
Jansar: When you make allegations that seem to have no basis, you have to prove them. That's the point of having a forum discussion, otherwise it's just trolling.

Just so you know, most of what I'm saying come from observations. I'm not talking transcript, I'm just talking about simple observations. Things people will see and say, "Oh yeah, he's so right about that."

[icruise]

a) he AGREED with Bush (head nods)

When? About what? So what?

b) he tried to dodge just about every question (he DOS NOT have a plan)

Which questions would that be? (name even one) On the other hand, I recall that Bush totally dodged the question about whether he thought a Kerry win would increase the chances of a terrorist attack.

c) every one of his points was embarrassingly refuted

Such as?

d) he clearly showed that he doesn't know how to run a country

Meaningless generalization. But if you can give evidence that backs this up, feel free.

e) he took jabs at our troops (totally un-American)

Name one instance where he did this. I do recall him saying quite emphatically that we should never confuse the warriors with the war, which contradicts your point.

f) keeps talking about his "military service"

So?

g) he clearly lied most of the time

Ok, name one. Or are you a human lie detector?

h) he resorted to PERSONAL ATTACKS (did you ever hear Bush say anything mean about Kerry? didn't think so)

Once again, name one. I thought he was as gracious as a he could be, considering he has to make his case that the current leadership isn't doing its job can be. Or is any criticism of Bush a "PERSONAL ATTACK"?

If you make claims, you have to be able to back them up, or else you are just blowing smoke.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
I have yet, and I mean ever read a serious comment out of one of your posts. It would be one thing if you were funny or something like a John B. Smith.

1.) You either haven't been here very long, or you haven't actually been reading.

2.) I can't please every one of God's lower creatures. Your sense of humor is your own personal problem.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Jansar:
Your half-witted sarcasm is really juvenile.

I'd be careful throwing about the age/maturity remarks at least until you've learned how to make a point.

-s*

[Xeo]

Originally posted by Jansar:
Your half-witted sarcasm is really juvenile. I'm using the half and hour I have today on my computer, to do what? To tell someone who should be at least halfway intelligent (I mean, you're a mod here right?) how to understand a simple post? I call this a waste of time, honestly.

I'm not asking you to help me "understand a simple post." I'm asking you to give examples to back up your "simple post." I could post lies all day long too but people would disregard them just as everyone here as disregarded what you said.

I said, "I don't care to look at a damn transcript." However, all I'm saying is despite what people say on here, they know what is wrong and what is right. Let the other conservatives like me to take the time to explain to some of the boneheads on this board exactly what I posted. I mean, there's nothing on there that's a lie or impossible to prove.

You could easily provide ONE example for every one of your points if you didn't make all that crap up. I don't want you to explain it. I want you to simply post a quote from the transcript showing that what you said isn't completely fabricated.

If you're supposed to be an important person on these boards, how about you show a little class. Let the others make fools of themselves.

I'm not an "important person on these boards." I simply hold some responsibility for keeping OS X and Software free of debris. That has nothing to do with this topic. What exactly should I do to "show class"? Should I just say "Oh Jansar, you are so cool! It doesn't matter if you made all that up!" I have made no comments toward you except for those directly on topic. It'd be nice if you could do the same instead of claiming that since I'm a mod I should just sit back and do nothing.

Just so you know, most of what I'm saying come from observations. I'm not talking transcript, I'm just talking about simple observations. Things people will see and say, "Oh yeah, he's so right about that."

Everything that you said was directed towards the speech. You posted observations about what happened, of course, but NO ONE read that and said "oh yeah, he's so right about that. As a result, you should post the quotes of Kerry that prove you aren't making it up.

Jansar, right now, I just think you're a liar.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Jansar:
Your half-witted sarcasm is really juvenile. I'm using the half and hour I have today on my computer, to do what? To tell someone who should be at least halfway intelligent (I mean, you're a mod here right?) how to understand a simple post? I call this a waste of time, honestly. I said, "I don't care to look at a damn transcript." However, all I'm saying is despite what people say on here, they know what is wrong and what is right. Let the other conservatives like me to take the time to explain to some of the boneheads on this board exactly what I posted. I mean, there's nothing on there that's a lie or impossible to prove.

If you're supposed to be an important person on these boards, how about you show a little class. Let the others make fools of themselves.

Jansar, here's an assist courtesy of Railhead.

The libs are either too LAZY to read the thread where this is posted TWICE, or they are just being jerks.

Either way SHAME ON THEM!

Read it and weep you, LIBS!


aberdeenwriter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RAILhead
Elite Member

Posts: 749
Location: USA
Registered: Mar 2001
Status: Offline
Posted on : 10-02-2004 02:34 PM __
------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Icruise:
You've said that a number of times. Please give examples.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since you don't want to read the posts in this thread, I'll repost what I said on page 10:

KERRY VS. KERRY
Kerry�s Top Ten Iraq Flip Flops From First Debate

VIEW THE �KERRY VS. KERRY� DEBATE VIDEO HERE:
http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/100104v1.wmv


ONE: Claimed �I�ll Never Give A Veto To Any Country Over Our Security.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� Preemption Must Pass �Global Test� First._ �No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you�re doing what you�re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� Kerry Would Wait On French And Russians To Defend America._ SEN. JOHN KERRY: �I would have done what was necessary to know that you had exhausted the available remedies with the French and the Russians.� (MSNBC�s �Hardball,� 10/20/03)


TWO: Claimed �Reason For Going To War Was Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Not The Removal Of Saddam Hussein.� _ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� Kerry Said �Greatest Threat� Was Saddam�s �Miscalculation,� Not �Actual� WMDs._ KERRY: �I would disagree with John McCain that it�s the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it�s what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that � that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It�s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat.�_ (CBS� �Face The Nation,� 9/15/02)


THREE: Claimed �This President Has Made, I Regret To Say, A Colossal Error Of Judgment. And Judgment Is What We Look For In The President Of The United States Of America.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� Kerry Questioned Judgment Of Those Claiming Saddam�s Capture Didn�t Help U.S. Security._ �Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture don�t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president.�_ (CNN�s �Capital Gang,� 12/20/03; Anne Q. Hoy, �Dean Faces More Criticism,� [New York] Newsday, 12/17/03)


FOUR: Complained �We Are 90 Percent Of The Casualties And 90 Percent Of The Cost: $200 Billion � $200 Billion That Could Have Been Used For Health Care, For Schools, For Construction, For Prescription Drugs For Seniors, And It�s In Iraq.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� Kerry Pledged To Fund Reconstruction With �Whatever Number� Of Dollars It Took._ NBC�S TIM RUSSERT: �Do you believe that we should reduce funding that we are now providing for the operation in Iraq?�_ SEN. JOHN KERRY: �No. I think we should increase it.�_ RUSSERT: �Increase funding?�_ KERRY: �Yes.�_ RUSSERT: �By how much?�_ KERRY: �By whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win. It is critical that the United States of America be successful in Iraq, Tim.�_ (NBC�s �Meet The Press,� 8/31/03)


FIVE: Claimed �You Don�t Send Troops To War Without The Body Armor That They Need.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� Kerry Said It Would Be Reckless And �Irresponsible� To Vote Against Funding For Troops._ LOS ANGELES TIMES� DOYLE McMANUS: �If that amendment does not pass, will you then vote against the $87 billion?�_ KERRY: �I don�t think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That�s irresponsible. What is responsible is for the administration to do this properly now. And I am laying out the way in which the administration could unite the American people, could bring other countries to the table, and I think could give the American people a sense that they�re on the right track. There�s a way to do this properly. But I don�t think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We�re not going to cut and run and not do the job.�_ (CBS� �Face The Nation,� 9/14/03)

� Kerry Voted Against Senate Passage Of Iraq/Afghanistan Reconstruction Package That Included �Money For Body Armor For Soldiers.�_ (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted Nay; �Highlights Of Iraq, Afghanistan Measures,� The Associated Press, 10/17/03)

� ��I Actually Did Vote For The $87 Billion Before I Voted Against It,� [Kerry] Said.�(Glen Johnson, �Kerry Blasts Bush On Protecting Troops,� The Boston Globe, 3/17/04)


SIX: Said Americans In Iraq Not Dying For �Mistake.�_ PBS� JIM LEHRER: �Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?�_ KERRY: �No, and they don�t have to, providing we have the leadership that we put � that I�m offering.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� Earlier In Debate, Kerry Called Iraq War �Mistake.�_ �We can�t leave a failed Iraq. But that doesn�t mean it wasn�t a mistake of judgment to go there and take the focus off of Osama bin Laden. It was.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� �But The President Made A Mistake In Invading Iraq.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)


SEVEN: Said Knowing What He Knows Now, �Would Not� Have Authorized Use Of Force._ �What I think troubles a lot of people in our country is that the president has just sort of described one kind of mistake. But what he has said is that, even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, even knowing there was no imminent threat, even knowing there was no connection with al Qaeda, he would still have done everything the same way. Those are his words._ Now, I would not.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� Said Knowing What He Knows Now, �Would Have Voted For The Authority.�_ SEN. JOHN KERRY: �Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it�s the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively. I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has.�_(CNN�s �Inside Politics,� 8/9/04)


EIGHT: Claimed �The President Says That I�m Denigrating These Troops. I Have Nothing But Respect For The British, Tony Blair, And For What They�ve Been Willing To Do.� _ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� Kerry Dismissed Coalition Partners As �Window Dressing� And Claimed They�re Not Sharing Burden Of War And Reconstruction._ CNN�S BILL HEMMER: �The White House would say that dozens of countries are helping now in the effort on the ground in Iraq and they are engaged with the U.N., as well, how would more international involvement prevent the violence we�re seeing today?�_ SEN. JOHN KERRY: �Well, the fact is that those countries are really window dressing to the greatest degree. And they weren�t there in the beginning when we went in, and they�re not carrying the cost of this war.�_ (CNN�s �American Morning,� 3/2/04)


NINE: Claimed �I�ve Had One Position, One Consistent Position, That Saddam Hussein Was A Threat.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� Kerry Said, �We Now Know That Iraq Had No Weapons Of Mass Destruction, And Posed No Imminent Threat To Our Security.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At New York University, New York, NY, 9/20/04)


TEN: Claimed �My Position Has Been Consistent: Saddam Hussein Is A Threat. He Needed To Be Disarmed.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� �Saying There Are Weapons Of Mass Destruction In Iraq Doesn�t Make It So.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks To Democrat National Convention, Boston, MA, 7/29/04)

� �I Have Always Said We May Yet Even Find Weapons Of Mass Destruction.�_ (Fox News� �Fox News Sunday,� 12/14/03)

Maury

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by itai195:
You are from another planet, aberdeenwriter. I do believe you could probably see the silver lining on a mushroom cloud. Where did Kerry flip flop during the debate?

Anyway, I do have stronger feelings about the debate than the ones I put in that post, but I was trying to be respectful and demonstrate my appreciation for ebuddy's post.

Thanks!

ebuddy can and will speak for himself, but to do anything with the hope of earning the respect of so called, American Apologists is kinda, well...UN - American.

There are some people who are called, in marketing terms, early adopters.

They were the first ones on the block to buy the $1,000 digital watch (back when it came out) or the Beta VCR. (pardon that I don't know anything more FASHIONABLE)

The early adopters' fashion rage du jour is that of the political attitudes now popular in Europe which frown on America's use of power.

The Adopters try on these political views and they are complimented by EUROPEANS or others who might not be faulted for wearing this political fashion because they are young and dumb.

Hey, there's nothing wrong with being young and dumb because if you live long enough life will smack you around a little here and there and one day, like magic, you'll become wiser.

But the American Apologists SHOULD NOT BE left to spread the European influence here in the US, without someone pointing out the significant difference in the EUROPEAN and the AMERICAN perspectives.

So, all you first or early adopters who are parrotting the European political views because it looks good to your continental chums, just understand, you ain't European and we Americans don't think your politics are fashionable at all.

The funny thing is that those views will eventually pass from fashion and you'll discard it with nary a care to whatever damage you've caused by helping to influence good Americans with your poor excuse for valid political commentary.

ptui!

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I agree ZigZag. I watched the Bush faithfuls make all his points for him the next day. That's not good enough. The swing voter is not paying close attention to "sideline" news. Good news is not newsworthy. What's newsworthy is "QUAGMIRE!"

...This is not how I want the swing voter to see Bush. This is not how I want the interested International Community to see our Commander in Chief.

Just a point, it isn't a quagmire but the insurgent alQaeda and radical Muslim terrorists and criminals hope we come to believe it is.

Also, when you say, "International Community" I hope you aren't thinking EUROPE. They have a skewed perspective of reality IMO.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Jansar, here's an assist courtesy of Railhead.

The libs are either too LAZY to read the thread where this is posted TWICE, or they are just being jerks.

Either way SHAME ON THEM!

Read it and weep you, LIBS!

Ok, so lets say your post shows that Kerry is a flip-flopper. What the hell does that have to do with Jansar's accusations?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Xeo:
Ok, so lets say your post shows that Kerry is a flip-flopper. What the hell does that have to do with Jansar's accusations?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jansar:
Kerry DID NOT do better on the debates! What the **** is everyone talking about?

a) he AGREED with Bush (head nods)
[obviously I can't provide a link, but I SAW IT I REALLY REALLY SAW IT!!!]

d) he clearly showed that he doesn't know how to run a country
[Flip Flops prove it to me. I don't know what little YOU expect in a POTUS!]

e) he took jabs at our troops (totally un-American)
[The part about the troops dying for a "mistake" part REALLY is galling!]

f) keeps talking about his "military service" [I'll assume you didn't miss THAT part!]

h) he resorted to PERSONAL ATTACKS (did you ever hear Bush say anything mean about Kerry? didn't think so)

THREE: Claimed �This President Has Made, I Regret To Say, A Colossal Error Of Judgment. And Judgment Is What We Look For In The President Of The United States Of America.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

SIX: Said Americans In Iraq Not Dying For �Mistake.�_ PBS� JIM LEHRER: �Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?�_ KERRY: �No, and they don�t have to, providing we have the leadership that we put � that I�m offering.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� Earlier In Debate, Kerry Called Iraq War �Mistake.�_ �We can�t leave a failed Iraq. But that doesn�t mean it wasn�t a mistake of judgment to go there and take the focus off of Osama bin Laden. It was.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� �But The President Made A Mistake In Invading Iraq.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jansar:
...

e) he took jabs at our troops (totally un-American)
[The part about the troops dying for a "mistake" part REALLY is galling!]

I don't know why this is supposed to be taking jabs at `our' troops? If Kerry thinks that soldiers die for a mistake and there is no proper strategy, why is that `un-American'. This just reminds me of the German Dolchsto�legende (dagger legend) way of thinking -- if you disagree you are with the enemy. Total nonsense.

...

h) he resorted to PERSONAL ATTACKS (did you ever hear Bush say anything mean about Kerry? didn't think so)

(samples snipped for brevity)

Well, this wasn't a personal attack, this was as you say in software development `expected behavior'. They argue about topics. A personal attack is something that is not connected to politics (like family, sex life, appearance).

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
I don't know why this is supposed to be taking jabs at `our' troops? If Kerry thinks that soldiers die for a mistake and there is no proper strategy, why is that `un-American'. This just reminds me of the German Dolchsto�legende (dagger legend) way of thinking -- if you disagree you are with the enemy. Total BS.

Well, this wasn't a personal attack, this was as you say in software development `expected behavior'. They argue about topics. A personal attack is something that is not connected to politics (like family, sex life, appearance).

How would you like to be the "last soldier to die for a mistake?" Knowing your POTUS felt that way would make you feel like doing what you could to avoid doing your duty and try like hell in any way you could to just get your ass home in one piece.

He cheapens the sacrifices they made by calling it a mistake. (Then he flip-flops!)

The Nazi Party was abhorrent and I don't approve of what they did or were trying to do. But I gotta tell ya, I like the sound of that Dagger Legend thing! That was the SS, right?

Well, pardon my sensitive comrade, Jansar who felt the slings and arrows directed at his President as entering his OWN body!

In MY book, Jansar's passionate patriotism may be a bit over the top, but very understandable and excusable!

[icruise]

Your way of thinking makes it impossible to criticize what the government is doing. Do you think that no one should ever say that the US has made a mistake?

I also think that you are confusing "the war was a mistake" with "the war is meaningless and soldiers are dying for no reason." Even if Kerry believes that we shouldn't have gone to war when we did, that doesn't mean that helping the Iraqi people now that we have done it is meaningless. Far from it.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
How would you like to be the "last soldier to die for a mistake?" Knowing your POTUS felt that way would make you feel like doing what you could to avoid doing your duty and try like hell in any way you could to just get your ass home in one piece.

He cheapens the sacrifices they made by calling it a mistake. (Then he flip-flops!)

The Nazi Party was abhorrent and I don't approve of what they did or were trying to do. But I gotta tell ya, I like the sound of that Dagger Legend thing! That was the SS, right?

Well, pardon my sensitive comrade, Jansar who felt the slings and arrows directed at his President as entering his OWN body!

In MY book, Jansar's passionate patriotism may be a bit over the top, but very understandable and excusable!

No, the dagger legend was common among all levels of conservatives, basically stating that the social democrats and all other `liberal' elements `stabbed' the troops in the back by not giving them support (or endorsing their cause). It was used by the Nazis, but it was not their invention as such.

About your first part, of your response, all the people who had been to war told me one thing: they wanted to get out of their in one piece, so this doesn't depend on any opinion, political beliefs or patriotism, it's just the will to survive.

You confuse soldiers with war: if you think America fights a war for the wrong cause, then you waste other persons' lives as a commander in chief. This is throwing away lives, this is what cheapens the sacrifice of those over 1000 dead Americans in Iraq and countless others who have been injured.

[aberdeenwriter]

nally posted by Icruise:
Your way of thinking makes it impossible to criticize what the government is doing. Do you think that no one should ever say that the US has made a mistake?

I also think that you are confusing "the war was a mistake" with "the war is meaningless and soldiers are dying for no reason." Even if Kerry believes that we shouldn't have gone to war when we did, that doesn't mean that helping the Iraqi people now that we have done it is meaningless. Far from it. [/QUOTE]

THAT is exactly the salient point here.

Cody Dawg started a TERRIFIC thread which may help you understand the significance of the attitude you express.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=230503

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:

About your first part, of your response, all the people who had been to war told me one thing: they wanted to get out of their in one piece, so this doesn't depend on any opinion, political beliefs or patriotism, it's just the will to survive.

You confuse soldiers with war: if you think America fights a war for the wrong cause, then you waste other persons' lives as a commander in chief. This is throwing away lives, this is what cheapens the sacrifice of those over 1000 dead Americans in Iraq and countless others who have been injured.

There's a difference between wanting to survive and deserting a "sinking ship."

I feel Iraq is FAR from a sinking ship or a quagmire, but the efforts being waged by the enemies of freedom depend on the American people rationalizing a withdrawal from the cause of Iraq so THEY can impose a cancer there in Iraq after we leave with our tail between our legs.

We'll regret abandoning that fight in short order and may even have to oppose it soon...maybe opposing it HERE on OUR shores will convince you.

Kerry wants to cut and run or what? I can't keep up with his position flip-flops!

[aberdeenwriter]

r+

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
There are some people who are called, in marketing terms, early adopters.

They were the first ones on the block to buy the $1,000 digital watch (back when it came out) or the Beta VCR. (pardon that I don't know anything more FASHIONABLE)

The early adopters' fashion rage du jour is that of the political attitudes now popular in Europe which frown on America's use of power.

It's interesting that you should equate liberal thinkers with early adopters. Imagine where the world would be without VCRs, personal computers, PDAs, cellular phones, digial cameras or automobiles? Early adopters are often the medium through which new products are tested, refined and introduced to the majority of consumers. Yes, the vast majority of these products fail, such as the Newton, but their failure often serves to influence the next wave, such as the Palm Pilot.

If you want to equate the extreme Left with early adopters, you will then have to exquate the extreme Right with luddites.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by gadster:
US politics works like religion or football; it's faith/fan-based. Morals went out in the 90s.

Funny... yet so true.

It really is faith/fan based.

In reality: the vast majority of people vote down party lines. Look at most states. Look whose registered republican/democrat... that ratio is what the election will show.

Swing states are where it's 49:51, 51:49, or 50:50.

That's really all there is to it.

Ask the average voter: who did you vote for, and what is their plan for healthcare... and 9/10 last election time couldn't answer the question. Best replies on TV were "he's republican", or "he's a democrat".... at least those were honest.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Funny... yet so true.

It really is faith/fan based.

In reality: the vast majority of people vote down party lines. Look at most states. Look whose registered republican/democrat... that ratio is what the election will show.

Swing states are where it's 49:51, 51:49, or 50:50.

That's really all there is to it.

Ask the average voter: who did you vote for, and what is their plan for healthcare... and 9/10 last election time couldn't answer the question. Best replies on TV were "he's republican", or "he's a democrat".... at least those were honest.

Just for the record, in the recent Canadian federal election I voted for the conservative candidate over the liberal one because he had a better platform.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Just for the record, in the recent Canadian federal election I voted for the conservative candidate over the liberal one because he had a better platform.

YOU AREN'T EVEN AN AMERICAN CITIZEN?!

What's your opinion of "Poutine?"

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
It's interesting that you should equate liberal thinkers with early adopters. Imagine where the world would be without VCRs, personal computers, PDAs, cellular phones, digial cameras or automobiles? Early adopters are often the medium through which new products are tested, refined and introduced to the majority of consumers. Yes, the vast majority of these products fail, such as the Newton, but their failure often serves to influence the next wave, such as the Palm Pilot.

The problem is that the EUROPEAN POV is anti American ONLY due to the American military protection we provided!

[mr. natural]

From the NY Times Letters, Oct 2nd

To the Editor:

I would like to express my gratitude to John Kerry. I am a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and I know from experience that being misled by your commander in chief is more devastating than the truth could ever be.

Senator Kerry promised to tell his soldiers the truth and to tell the American people the truth. This is a very important factor in leadership.

I knew the truth. Many of my comrades know the truth. We are doing the "hard work" that the president spoke of.

There is strength in truth. The American soldier deserves it.

As long as the president refuses to acknowledge the truth, there will be a lack of respect between us. Mr. President, I want the truth, not just talking points.

Richard Schumacher
Austin, Tex., Oct. 1, 2004

Another bit of anecdotal evidence though it may be, but when the various anecdotes all say the same thing, I'd say it makes for compelling evidence.

The fact remains that denying the truth is worse for troop morale than acknowledging it plainly and truthfully.

So, the least we can do here is to not use a plainly disputable "troop morale" line as a means to disparage those who question the way the war in Iraq is being handled.

In any event, I for one won't let such a hackneyed and, frankly, shameless use of the troops go by lightly.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the NY Times Letters, Oct 2nd

To the Editor:

I would like to express my gratitude to John Kerry. I am a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and I know from experience that being misled by your commander in chief is more devastating than the truth could ever be.

Senator Kerry promised to tell his soldiers the truth and to tell the American people the truth. This is a very important factor in leadership.

I knew the truth. Many of my comrades know the truth. We are doing the "hard work" that the president spoke of.

There is strength in truth. The American soldier deserves it.

As long as the president refuses to acknowledge the truth, there will be a lack of respect between us. Mr. President, I want the truth, not just talking points.

Richard Schumacher
Austin, Tex., Oct. 1, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another bit of anecdotal evidence though it may be, but when the various anecdotes all say the same thing, I'd say it makes for compelling evidence.

The fact remains that denying the truth is worse for troop morale than acknowledging it plainly and truthfully.

So, the least we can do here is to not use a plainly disputable "troop morale" line as a means to disparage those who question the way the war in Iraq is being handled.

In any event, I for one won't let such a hackneyed and, frankly, shameless use of the troops go by lightly.

Dear Mr. Schumacher,

The American people and peace and freedom loving people throughout the world appreciate your service as well as the service and sacrifices of your comrades in arms in support of American ideals of freedom and democracy in Iraq.

Unfortunately, in the interests of the cause in which you have volunteered your service, the President of the United States is unable to share with you the details of the strategy behind his decisions which led to your deployment to to Iraq.

However, please know that in providing you the confidential details which compelled the President to call upon your service in Iraq would, in essence, provide the enemies of freedom, which you fought to oppose in Iraq, the information which would grant them greater advantages in the fight all of us are so invested.

We thank you for your service and hope you understand in times of war certain information can not be shared publicly.

Sincerely,

aberdeenwriter
************************************************** ********************mr natural,

I can provide links representing opposing views. Your post is an attempt to say that all or a majority of iraqi military vets feel similarly.

This is, obviously NOT the case.

[Sandbaggins]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Jansar, here's an assist courtesy of Railhead.

The libs are either too LAZY to read the thread where this is posted TWICE, or they are just being jerks.

Either way SHAME ON THEM!

Read it and weep you, LIBS!


aberdeenwriter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RAILhead
Elite Member

Posts: 749
Location: USA
Registered: Mar 2001
Status: Offline
Posted on : 10-02-2004 02:34 PM __
------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Icruise:
You've said that a number of times. Please give examples.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since you don't want to read the posts in this thread, I'll repost what I said on page 10:

KERRY VS. KERRY
Kerry�s Top Ten Iraq Flip Flops From First Debate

VIEW THE �KERRY VS. KERRY� DEBATE VIDEO HERE:
http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/100104v1.wmv


ONE: Claimed �I�ll Never Give A Veto To Any Country Over Our Security.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� Preemption Must Pass �Global Test� First._ �No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you�re doing what you�re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� Kerry Would Wait On French And Russians To Defend America._ SEN. JOHN KERRY: �I would have done what was necessary to know that you had exhausted the available remedies with the French and the Russians.� (MSNBC�s �Hardball,� 10/20/03)


TWO: Claimed �Reason For Going To War Was Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Not The Removal Of Saddam Hussein.� _ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� Kerry Said �Greatest Threat� Was Saddam�s �Miscalculation,� Not �Actual� WMDs._ KERRY: �I would disagree with John McCain that it�s the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it�s what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that � that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It�s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat.�_ (CBS� �Face The Nation,� 9/15/02)


THREE: Claimed �This President Has Made, I Regret To Say, A Colossal Error Of Judgment. And Judgment Is What We Look For In The President Of The United States Of America.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� Kerry Questioned Judgment Of Those Claiming Saddam�s Capture Didn�t Help U.S. Security._ �Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture don�t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president.�_ (CNN�s �Capital Gang,� 12/20/03; Anne Q. Hoy, �Dean Faces More Criticism,� [New York] Newsday, 12/17/03)


FOUR: Complained �We Are 90 Percent Of The Casualties And 90 Percent Of The Cost: $200 Billion � $200 Billion That Could Have Been Used For Health Care, For Schools, For Construction, For Prescription Drugs For Seniors, And It�s In Iraq.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� Kerry Pledged To Fund Reconstruction With �Whatever Number� Of Dollars It Took._ NBC�S TIM RUSSERT: �Do you believe that we should reduce funding that we are now providing for the operation in Iraq?�_ SEN. JOHN KERRY: �No. I think we should increase it.�_ RUSSERT: �Increase funding?�_ KERRY: �Yes.�_ RUSSERT: �By how much?�_ KERRY: �By whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win. It is critical that the United States of America be successful in Iraq, Tim.�_ (NBC�s �Meet The Press,� 8/31/03)


FIVE: Claimed �You Don�t Send Troops To War Without The Body Armor That They Need.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� Kerry Said It Would Be Reckless And �Irresponsible� To Vote Against Funding For Troops._ LOS ANGELES TIMES� DOYLE McMANUS: �If that amendment does not pass, will you then vote against the $87 billion?�_ KERRY: �I don�t think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That�s irresponsible. What is responsible is for the administration to do this properly now. And I am laying out the way in which the administration could unite the American people, could bring other countries to the table, and I think could give the American people a sense that they�re on the right track. There�s a way to do this properly. But I don�t think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We�re not going to cut and run and not do the job.�_ (CBS� �Face The Nation,� 9/14/03)

� Kerry Voted Against Senate Passage Of Iraq/Afghanistan Reconstruction Package That Included �Money For Body Armor For Soldiers.�_ (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted Nay; �Highlights Of Iraq, Afghanistan Measures,� The Associated Press, 10/17/03)

� ��I Actually Did Vote For The $87 Billion Before I Voted Against It,� [Kerry] Said.�(Glen Johnson, �Kerry Blasts Bush On Protecting Troops,� The Boston Globe, 3/17/04)


SIX: Said Americans In Iraq Not Dying For �Mistake.�_ PBS� JIM LEHRER: �Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?�_ KERRY: �No, and they don�t have to, providing we have the leadership that we put � that I�m offering.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� Earlier In Debate, Kerry Called Iraq War �Mistake.�_ �We can�t leave a failed Iraq. But that doesn�t mean it wasn�t a mistake of judgment to go there and take the focus off of Osama bin Laden. It was.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� �But The President Made A Mistake In Invading Iraq.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)


SEVEN: Said Knowing What He Knows Now, �Would Not� Have Authorized Use Of Force._ �What I think troubles a lot of people in our country is that the president has just sort of described one kind of mistake. But what he has said is that, even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, even knowing there was no imminent threat, even knowing there was no connection with al Qaeda, he would still have done everything the same way. Those are his words._ Now, I would not.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� Said Knowing What He Knows Now, �Would Have Voted For The Authority.�_ SEN. JOHN KERRY: �Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it�s the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively. I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has.�_(CNN�s �Inside Politics,� 8/9/04)


EIGHT: Claimed �The President Says That I�m Denigrating These Troops. I Have Nothing But Respect For The British, Tony Blair, And For What They�ve Been Willing To Do.� _ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� Kerry Dismissed Coalition Partners As �Window Dressing� And Claimed They�re Not Sharing Burden Of War And Reconstruction._ CNN�S BILL HEMMER: �The White House would say that dozens of countries are helping now in the effort on the ground in Iraq and they are engaged with the U.N., as well, how would more international involvement prevent the violence we�re seeing today?�_ SEN. JOHN KERRY: �Well, the fact is that those countries are really window dressing to the greatest degree. And they weren�t there in the beginning when we went in, and they�re not carrying the cost of this war.�_ (CNN�s �American Morning,� 3/2/04)


NINE: Claimed �I�ve Had One Position, One Consistent Position, That Saddam Hussein Was A Threat.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� Kerry Said, �We Now Know That Iraq Had No Weapons Of Mass Destruction, And Posed No Imminent Threat To Our Security.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At New York University, New York, NY, 9/20/04)


TEN: Claimed �My Position Has Been Consistent: Saddam Hussein Is A Threat. He Needed To Be Disarmed.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� �Saying There Are Weapons Of Mass Destruction In Iraq Doesn�t Make It So.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks To Democrat National Convention, Boston, MA, 7/29/04)

� �I Have Always Said We May Yet Even Find Weapons Of Mass Destruction.�_ (Fox News� �Fox News Sunday,� 12/14/03)

Maury

ouch.

[ebuddy]

Excellent points my brethren. To iCruise; you're fighting the good fight. To Aberdeen, you sir are to be commended for your perseverence and splendor in battle. To Railhead and Sandbaggins, and all those that take up mouse and keyboard to forge onward and upward, on to the next debate where our Commander in Chief takes command. In honor of our liberal friends who should know they have found friendly and fomidible banter here on MacNN. Bush is no doubt being groomed for the next round and rightly so. Meanwhile, I look forward to Cheney/Edwards.

just a point, it isn't a quagmire but the insurgent alQaeda and radical Muslim terrorists and criminals hope we come to believe it is.

Oh I completely agree. We needed our President to reiterate this by sighting examples of successes and progress. You and I both know that progress exists Aberdeen for probably the same reason I know we're attaining great success; friends in the military. Bush only says "we're making progress, but it's hard work."

Also, when you say, "International Community" I hope you aren't thinking EUROPE. They have a skewed perspective of reality IMO.

Their leadership and their blind followers may be apt to indoctrination and propoganda as has been the case historically, but do not cast them all off as blind faithfuls. There are a great many that look to America to improve conditions all over the world. There are a great many who see the good we do abroad and know that we are on to something great. The ones with the problem with us are the "elite" not the "commoner". The elite snivel and bicker in and amongst themselves so frequently their parliaments are all, but entirely paralyzed, so who then is to care what they think of my administration? Certainly not me. The commoner is the one I'm hoping to speak to. It is on their backs great civilizations are built. We still speak to that individual. We always have. We always will. I need our President too as well.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
There's a difference between wanting to survive and deserting a "sinking ship."

I feel Iraq is FAR from a sinking ship or a quagmire, but the efforts being waged by the enemies of freedom depend on the American people rationalizing a withdrawal from the cause of Iraq so THEY can impose a cancer there in Iraq after we leave with our tail between our legs.

We'll regret abandoning that fight in short order and may even have to oppose it soon...maybe opposing it HERE on OUR shores will convince you.

Kerry wants to cut and run or what? I can't keep up with his position flip-flops!

Are you implying Kerry's behavior encourages desertions?

Kerry said that he'll stay in Iraq and finish what was starte there, I mean he has no other choice. At least in the debate, he didn't flip-flop at all, he said, if he is elected, the troops will stay in Iraq until the `mission really accomplished'.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
The problem is that the EUROPEAN POV is anti American ONLY due to the American military protection we provided!

What are you talking about?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Are you implying Kerry's behavior encourages desertions?

Kerry said that he'll stay in Iraq and finish what was starte there, I mean he has no other choice. At least in the debate, he didn't flip-flop at all, he said, if he is elected, the troops will stay in Iraq until the `mission really accomplished'.

Kerry's is a mixed message being sent to our troops and their enemy.

SIX: Said Americans In Iraq Not Dying For �Mistake.�_ PBS� JIM LEHRER: �Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?�_ KERRY: �No, and they don�t have to, providing we have the leadership that we put � that I�m offering.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� Earlier In Debate, Kerry Called Iraq War �Mistake.�_ �We can�t leave a failed Iraq. But that doesn�t mean it wasn�t a mistake of judgment to go there and take the focus off of Osama bin Laden. It was.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

� �But The President Made A Mistake In Invading Iraq.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)


SEVEN: Said Knowing What He Knows Now, �Would Not� Have Authorized Use Of Force._ �What I think troubles a lot of people in our country is that the president has just sort of described one kind of mistake. But what he has said is that, even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, even knowing there was no imminent threat, even knowing there was no connection with al Qaeda, he would still have done everything the same way. Those are his words._ Now, I would not.�_ (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

Hardly the firm indication of support from my CiC I'd want if I were risking my life every day for 6 - 12 months!

With his penchant for flip flopping, my doubts would treble!

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
What are you talking about?

From the end of WWII until after the fall of the Soviet Union, American military might stationed in Europe kept them safe and made it possible for Europeans to believe that military power was no longer important.

Thus, it allowed them the luxury of not only spending VERY little on their own defense, but it spawned this faulty belief (examples of which can be seen on these very pages) that diplomacy can solve EVERY world problem and that military power is old fashioned and dangerous.

We saw the European approach to world politics fail in Kosovo.

It kinda reminds me of the spoiled little rich bitch who drives around in the convertible her Daddy bought her and rags on him for being so capitalistic.

I'm encouraged to see the US pulling many of our troops from European bases. When they have to assume full responsibility and foot the total bill for their own defense, maybe we'll see a greater appreciation for what we're doing in Iraq.

[Cody Dawg]

I'm encouraged to see the US pulling many of our troops from European bases. When they have to assume full responsibility and foot the total bill for their own defense, maybe we'll see a greater appreciation for what we're doing in Iraq.

I agree.

Personally, I hold a belief that until Iraq starts to see capitalism as a good thing, meaning that they both want to buy and sell goods and have a purpose to exist as a free and sovereign nation, we will never see the end of war horseplay (car bombings, landmines, etc.,) and I just don't know how we're accomplishing that. Right now that country is full of ignorant people who have nothing to live for.

It's disconcerting to remember how the Iraqis loved ripping down the statue of Saddam Hussein and now they love to bomb Americans who are trying to help. They have anarchy over there.

This is what I don't like: The thought of a relative or friend dying for ungrateful bastards.

[Cody Dawg]

From San Fran Chronicle -- eBuddy, you're right on target with this thread.

Washington -- ON FRIDAY morning, Democrats all over the United States emerged from their homes with a new spring in their steps. After the presidential debate the night before, many of them had a new experience: It was possible to be for John Kerry and not just against President Bush.

It is hard to overestimate how important Kerry's strong debate performance was for his campaign. For weeks, rank-and-file Democrats had spent much energy whining and mourning. They wondered why Kerry was failing, why Republicans seemed to run better campaigns. If Kerry had bombed, the campaign was over.

Not only did Kerry avoid disaster. He finally managed to look like a leader. He spoke in short sentences, ridding his speech of a past pluperfect subjunctive tense that was all his own. He took the fight to Bush hard. But Kerry's more-in-sorrow-than-anger tone kept him from looking obnoxious or arrogant. When Bush was gracious to Kerry about his family, Kerry was gracious back. To score equally with Bush during a likability moment was a big deal.

And after being subjected to who knows how many hundreds of attacks about flip-flopping, Kerry finally managed to make the counterargument against Bush that fits the public's perceptions of the president.

"It's one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong," Kerry said. "It's another thing to be certain and be right, or to be certain and be moving in the right direction, or be certain about a principle and then learn new facts and put them to use in order to change and get your policy right." Bush's core claim that he sticks to his guns is the flip side of one of his core weaknesses: that once he decides something, he never, ever, rethinks or challenges himself, no matter what the evidence says.

But the debate did something more than make Democrats feel better. It demonstrated just how vulnerable Bush is. There were many moments when a fluent and calm Kerry looked more like a president than the president.

Bush is a gifted and disciplined stump speaker who can stir and amuse his carefully screened crowds and produce sharp, clean sound bites that are a producer's dream. But the Bush of Thursday night looked nothing like the Bush of the campaign trail. Ill at ease and often halting, he turned in one of the worst public performances of his presidency.

At times, he looked like he was ransacking his mind for stray facts. He kept leaning on his stump rhetoric even when it seemed inappropriate. A couple of times, he seemed to be hoping that time would run out because he had run out of things to say.

And the debate revealed the hollow core of the president's one-note campaign: The argument Bush really cared about pushing -- over and over and over -- was that Kerry sent "mixed messages" and that, as the president told Kerry, "you keep changing your positions on this war." Bush appeared obsessed with reminding people that Kerry had called the Iraq conflict "the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time," a phrase he repeated at least seven times.

Bush clearly hopes that the flip-flop argument and his increasingly unreal claims that all is well in Iraq will be enough to allow him to hang on through election day. He's assuming that no one will ask hard questions about the narrative he's weaving.

But Kerry did, and the narrative began unraveling. That was the other striking and disturbing aspect of the debate: Bush fares very badly when he is forcefully challenged. It makes you worry about his strength in circumstances he does not completely control. Since Sept. 11, the president has received a remarkably free ride. He rarely faces the press. He speaks only to partisan crowds; critics risk arrest if they show up. There is little evidence that Bush is challenged by his staff or his Cabinet. He is most comfortable when he sticks to talking points.

But suddenly, when Bush was confronted for 90 minutes by an opponent willing to go straight at him, he fumbled, he hesitated and he scowled. The Bush Scowl is destined take its place with the Gore Sigh and the Dean Scream.

The Bush forces will no doubt try to find some way to spin this debate into a Bush victory. I could be wrong but, honestly, I think that may be beyond the talents of even Karl Rove. That's why Democrats, finally, are smiling.

[Cody Dawg]

With all of that said, this presidency is not JUST about the war. It is about many other things. It is about partial-birth abortion (disgusting). It is about taxes (why should we pay higher taxes? I love it when the Hollywood elite - some of them close to being billionaires - stump for Democratic nominees because they can afford to pay higher taxes, can't they?) It is about so many things other than a war.

DON'T FORGET TO SEE THIS.

It's important. This is about much more than a debate.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Kerry's is a mixed message being sent to our troops and their enemy.

[snipped for brevity, read excerpts in initial post]

Hardly the firm indication of support from my CiC I'd want if I were risking my life every day for 6 - 12 months!

With his penchant for flip flopping, my doubts would treble!

Well, if you mean that `start thinking on your own' is amplifying doubts, do you suggest to stop thinking? You are right that it is easier for soldiers to fight if they know they fight for a good cause and that their CiC has decided to go to war for a good reason. While you may argue, there are good reasons to be in Iraq (such as removing Hussein from power), those were not the reasons used to justify the war in the first place. So if my CiC sends me to a foreign country to risk my butt, sure I'd be kind of angry if I find out that the initial justifications turn out not to be true.

But then, it's not a problem of Kerry, flip-flopping, it's a problem of Bush going to war without a strategy that goes beyond the initial combat (aka win the war vs. win the peace). That would unsettle me as a soldier, because I would ask myself `what am I doing here?' So Bush would make me treble, not Kerry.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
From the end of WWII until after the fall of the Soviet Union, American military might stationed in Europe kept them safe and made it possible for Europeans to believe that military power was no longer important.

Thus, it allowed them the luxury of not only spending VERY little on their own defense, but it spawned this faulty belief (examples of which can be seen on these very pages) that diplomacy can solve EVERY world problem and that military power is old fashioned and dangerous.

We saw the European approach to world politics fail in Kosovo.

It kinda reminds me of the spoiled little rich bitch who drives around in the convertible her Daddy bought her and rags on him for being so capitalistic.

I'm encouraged to see the US pulling many of our troops from European bases. When they have to assume full responsibility and foot the total bill for their own defense, maybe we'll see a greater appreciation for what we're doing in Iraq.

Well, from the European perspective, it's the US acting up like a spoilt child. During the Cold War, when the US said `jump', Europe would ask `how high?' Now that Europe emancipates itself (and increasingly takes its own responsibilities, take a look at who is currently in Afghanistan besides the US), the Americans -- not used to `resistance' from their allies -- feel that Europe doesn't appreciate what America has done in the past.

I doubt that pulling out troops will change the minds of the majority of Europeans (take a look at Spain, it cost Aznar his position to side with the US, because an overwhelming majority of Spanish was against the war in Iraq). The difference in opinion would still remain, it's not a question of capability.

[Cody Dawg]

You people who think that Kerry is the answer to less military action?

LOOK HERE AGAIN

Increase size of Army

Recruit more service members; start Community Defense Svc.

HOW DO YOU THINK KERRY IS GOING TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE ARMY?

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
With all of that said, this presidency is not JUST about the war. It is about many other things. It is about partial-birth abortion (disgusting). It is about taxes (why should we pay higher taxes? I love it when the Hollywood elite - some of them close to being billionaires - stump for Democratic nominees because they can afford to pay higher taxes, can't they?) It is about so many things other than a war.

DON'T FORGET TO SEE THIS.

It's important. This is about much more than a debate.

What about the budget deficit? One day, just the interests will mean increased taxes. But then you'll have to tax our children.

[Cody Dawg]

by OreoCookie
What about the budget deficit? One day, just the interests will mean increased taxes. But then you'll have to tax our children.

Yeah?

Well, guess what: If we don't protect our country - and spend money NOW doing it - there won't BE any children to worry about being taxed.