[Y3a]

I hear that John Kerry stated Monday at a speaking engagement that if HE were President that the violence wouldn't have happened.


Peace Under a President Kerry?
Massachusetts Senator John Kerry is blaming President Bush for the conflict in the Middle East, saying, "If I was president this wouldn't have happened." Kerry tells the Detroit News that the president should have targeted terrorist groups like Hezbollah instead of invading Iraq, saying, "The president has been so absent on diplomacy when it comes to issues affecting the Middle East."
Kerry added, "This is about American security and Bush has failed. He has made it so much worse because of his lack of reality in going into Iraq."



What would the world be like if THAT NUTCASE had been elected?

[Kerrigan]

"me violence would not have happened" if he won? did he throw a tantrum or something?

[Dakar]

An easy unprovable point to make.

Edit: Its statements like this that did him no favors during his campaign.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Dakar

An easy unprovable point to make.

Indeed. Lame statement.

[mac128k-1984]

I don't know about you but it seems when ever he speaks it always seems to point back at his failure to win the election. Why not speak on the future and how best to lead the country, he keeps making statments like this and he'll not win the democratic primary

[Kerrigan]

From a conservative's standpoint, I would even prefer Ted Kennedy over Kerry. At least the former projects an image of strength and certainty. Kerry is lame.

[Doofy]

Hey, if I was Prez, you'd all be having free Cornish cream teas every hour, on the hour.
You'll have to change your constitution first though. Get to it.

[Landos Mustache]

True or not I think everyone would have better off if he won.

[BRussell]

Kerry is GOD!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

True or not I think everyone would have better off if he won.

Disagree. Bin Laden's MO means that he's going to test out any new president (I'm sure there'll be another major attack or attempt in 2009). Protocol requires that something is done about such an attack - just sitting around doing nothing would lead to more attacks.

If Kerry was in, events would have unfolded in pretty much the same way. But with nicer hair.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Disagree. Bin Laden's MO means that he's going to test out any new president (I'm sure there'll be another major attack or attempt in 2009). Protocol requires that something is done about such an attack - just sitting around doing nothing would lead to more attacks.

If Kerry was in, events would have unfolded in pretty much the same way. But with nicer hair.

Ok so what is worse. A terrorist attack every 10 years or the death of thousands of solders and a trillion dollars later which just delays the inevitable?

[BRussell]

Yeah, unfortunately there's not much that would change if Kerry had been elected in 2004. We're just trying to survive Bush's first term. If Gore had been president rather than Bush in 2001-2004, however, we never would have gotten into Iraq. It would have been nice to throw the slacker out on his ass, though, even if Kerry is a pompous tosser.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

Ok so what is worse. A terrorist attack every 8 years or the death of thousands of solders and a trillion dollars later which just delays the inevitable?

Right, but without action the terrorist attacks would come thick and fast. Last thing you want to be telling Old Binny is that you're weak and unable/unwilling to retaliate.

Soldiers dying? Unfortunately, that's what soldiers are there for. Sad but true.

Trillions of dollars? We've been through this before - the vast majority of that money finds its way back into the US economy and thus boosts it.

[vmarks]

I should point out that Howard Dean said this same nonsense not long ago.

Speaking at “Democracyfest,” a conference for “progressive activists” at San Diego State University, Howard Dean said that if only Bush hadn’t managed to steal the election, there would be no strife in the Middle East—because the Kerry administration would have had the world-renowned moral authority of Bill Clinton.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/p...-1m16dean.html

“If you think what’s going on in the Middle East today would be going on if the Democrats were in control, it wouldn’t, because we would have worked day after day after day to make sure we didn’t get where we are today. We would have had the moral authority that Bill Clinton had when he brought together the Northern Irish and the IRA, when he brought together the Israelis and the Palestinians.”

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Soldiers dying? Unfortunately, that's what soldiers are there for. Sad but true.

Trillions of dollars? We've been through this before - the vast majority of that money finds its way back into the US economy and thus boosts it.

Soldiers are just around to die? What about the countless civilian deaths? I know, they aren't American so it doesn't matter much.

And I never said "TrillionS" I said a trillion.

[itai195]

Making promises about peace in the ME is really not the best idea for a politician...

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Dakar

An easy unprovable point to make.

True, but he's just following The Democratic Party Playbook, Rule#1

[itai195]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

True, but he's just following The Democratic Party Playbook, Rule#1

More like The Politician's Playbook, Rule #1

[subego]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

True, but he's just following The Democratic Party Playbook, Rule#1

More chicks?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Disagree. Bin Laden's MO means that he's going to test out any new president (I'm sure there'll be another major attack or attempt in 2009). Protocol requires that something is done about such an attack - just sitting around doing nothing would lead to more attacks.

If Kerry was in, events would have unfolded in pretty much the same way. But with nicer hair.

It sounds like he was specifically saying he wouldn't have ****ed around in Iraq. Given how that fight is irrelevant to Osama, it seems to me that he might well have been more prepared for that particular fight. (Bear in mind that I think Kerry is a dolt and voted for Bush over him. I'm just sayin'.)

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

Ok so what is worse. A terrorist attack every 10 years or the death of thousands of solders and a trillion dollars later which just delays the inevitable?

And how many Taliban and other terrorists were killed in the process?? How many attacks foiled? Perhaps even one in YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

The muslim extremists and for that matter most of the world is at the bottom of the food chain, and they don't understand that THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS CORRUPTION is mostly to blame for it. The rest is cultural stupidity.

[RAILhead]

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by itai195

More like The Politician's Playbook, Rule #1

NO ONLY TEH EVIL DEMOCRATS DO THAT

[Rumor]

It's pure speculation. Things might have been better or worse. No one will ever know for sure.

The Iraq issue was to divert attention from the American people when our administration/intelligence could not find Bin Laden. The whole thing has spiraled out of control and we are now left with the mess that it is currently.

Was it necessary to invade Iraq? No. Did it do any good? On a humanitarian level, yes. Saddam being deposed was a good thing. Did it create more spite and hate among the ME for the US? Seems like it.

Is this possibly the beginning of WW3? Seems like it's getting closer. I'm not say we are the cause, but our actions certainly didn't help.

[hyteckit]

President Bush - The Uniterereror.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by itai195

More like The Politician's Playbook, Rule #1

Nah, in the Politician's Playbook, it's rule #7.

[Kevin]

Kerry was another Clinton. Had no real stance but what he thought could get him higher ratings in the polls.

And if he has good ratings, REALLY wont don't anything to mess em up.

The rating to these presidents are more important than actually getting anything accomplished.

That is why when Kerry was running he flip flopped with public opinion without really telling anyone what he was for.

That is what lost the Dems the election.

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Kerry was another Clinton. Had no real stance but what he thought could get him higher ratings in the polls.

I disagree, while I'm no Clinton fan, the man had charisma and he was able to emote and get in touch with people. Remember back when the Mississippi flooded and the dikes were breached. He flew over and everyone fawned over how he's a compassionate president. Bush did it with Katrina and had the opposite effect. Why (partisan politics aside) because I don't think Bush has been able (or willing) to show a softer compassionate side.

As for Kerry, I agree is uncanny ability to support both sides of an argument doomed his bid. The American people want someone who stick to his guns, Kerry flip flopped on every issue.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984

I disagree, while I'm no Clinton fan, the man had charisma and he was able to emote and get in touch with people. Remember back when the Mississippi flooded and the dikes were breached. He flew over and everyone fawned over how he's a compassionate president. Bush did it with Katrina and had the opposite effect. Why (partisan politics aside) because I don't think Bush has been able (or willing) to show a softer compassionate side.

How does that in ANY WAY negate what I said? I said Clinton only cared about his polls, what the people thought.

And Bush got the reaction because of the political zealots and at the time the left was in a scurry to blame him instead of the Louisiana gov, which btw is made mostly of Dems.

This doesn't show how Clinton actually accomplished anything.

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by Kevin

How does that in ANY WAY negate what I said? I said Clinton only cared about his polls, what the people thought.

Because he is viewed as a caring compassion president. I have not heard (especially since he's been out of office) that he care more about polls then people. What I do hear is people talking about that life under his administration was a heck of lot better then under Bush's

I'm not trying to get into a clinton vs. bush argument, but I'm making the point that was able to convey the idea that he didn't flip flop and he was very compassionate when the situation called for it.

And Bush got the reaction because of the political zealots and at the time the left was in a scurry to blame him instead of the Louisiana gov, which btw is made mostly of Dems.

This doesn't show how Clinton actually accomplished anything.

Clinton was able to make political hay and increase his poll numbers Bush has not, so that is an accomplishment. As for his presidency, I paid a heck of lot less in gas when he was the president. We had a budget surplus. We were making more money. Like the man or not, life was certainly better for the US under Clinton.

Now before you start painting me as some sort of Liberal fanatic. I did not vote for him, I believe his lack of morals in his private life would carry forward into his presidenacy, unlike people saying it was his private life and it won't effect his "job"

[Kevin]

I don't think you are getting what I am saying. He only cared about how people viewed him. Not about accomplishing anything.

He didn't make wavs either way. Rode the fence. At a time when we needed to make a little wavs.

People think the 90s was just fine and dandy. They weren't.

[Chuckit]

No, I was there. The '90s were awesome.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Y3a

I hear that John Kerry stated Monday at a speaking engagement that if HE were President that the violence wouldn't have happened.


Peace Under a President Kerry?
Massachusetts Senator John Kerry is blaming President Bush for the conflict in the Middle East, saying, "If I was president this wouldn't have happened." Kerry tells the Detroit News that the president should have targeted terrorist groups like Hezbollah instead of invading Iraq, saying, "The president has been so absent on diplomacy when it comes to issues affecting the Middle East."
Kerry added, "This is about American security and Bush has failed. He has made it so much worse because of his lack of reality in going into Iraq."



What would the world be like if THAT NUTCASE had been elected?

Without him being a "nutcase", I also believe he's wrong. I think he is too opportunistic, like so many politicians, either from the so-called Right or the so-called Left.

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984

Because he is viewed as a caring compassion president. I have not heard (especially since he's been out of office) that he care more about polls then people. What I do hear is people talking about that life under his administration was a heck of lot better then under Bush's

I'm not trying to get into a clinton vs. bush argument, but I'm making the point that was able to convey the idea that he didn't flip flop and he was very compassionate when the situation called for it.



Clinton was able to make political hay and increase his poll numbers Bush has not, so that is an accomplishment. As for his presidency, I paid a heck of lot less in gas when he was the president. We had a budget surplus. We were making more money. Like the man or not, life was certainly better for the US under Clinton.

Now before you start painting me as some sort of Liberal fanatic. I did not vote for him, I believe his lack of morals in his private life would carry forward into his presidenacy, unlike people saying it was his private life and it won't effect his "job"

When you have the press loving you it's easy to get good poll numbers. After all the press is whitewashing the lefties anyway. Bush doesn't have the press as cheerleaders and spinmeisters helping him, but just the opposite.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

No, I was there. The '90s were awesome.

Yeah all those terrorists attacks. GREAT. Bosnia. GREAT, WACO, Ruby Ridge, OK Bombing... the list goes on.

[Spliffdaddy]

The 90's sucked compared to the 80's.

[Kevin]

I agree spliff

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984

As for his presidency, I paid a heck of lot less in gas when he was the president.

So apparently Clinton was directly responsible for keeping the Venezuelan workers from striking, keeping oil outputs on slowly dying fields up, and keeping OPEC from raising prices.

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984

We had a budget surplus.

Budget surplus that eventually led to 9/11. He canned our intelligence department hardcore to make that surplus.

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984

We were making more money. Like the man or not, life was certainly better for the US under Clinton.

Making more money in the 90's... Well duh, that's like saying we made more money in the 20's. The economy was doing so well because people had alot of money in stocks due to the dot com boom. This money had no backing as almost all stocks were overvalued at the time, very similarly to the 1920's. The crashing of the economy started in '99 when people realized that these companies couldn't really turn a profit on their current setup, BEFORE Clinton was out of office. He really can't take credit for how well our economy did during that period. The people to thank there would be Gates and Co.

Now, to say that Bush has been doing a rip roaring good job as president would be a lie, but he's no better (or worse) than Clinton. He's doing his job as best he can in a dramatically changing world and trying to pull the country out of a depression (I'll give you $100 if that wasn't one of the planned benefits of the war in Iraq, no matter how badly it backfired). Why do you have to knock on him so hard? At least he's trying.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

The 90's sucked compared to the 80's.

The '90s did not have hair bands. Instant win.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Disagree. Bin Laden's MO means that he's going to test out any new president (I'm sure there'll be another major attack or attempt in 2009). Protocol requires that something is done about such an attack - just sitting around doing nothing would lead to more attacks.

I'm sure Bush would love us all to think that.

[hyteckit]

Speaking of Bin Laden, what a fine job the Bush Administration have been doing in capturing him. Almost as good as a job the Bush Admin has done with the Iraq war.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

The '90s did not have hair bands. Instant win.

...for the 80's.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Y3a

The muslim extremists and for that matter most of the world is at the bottom of the food chain, and they don't understand that THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS CORRUPTION is mostly to blame for it. The rest is cultural stupidity.

The vast majority of islamic terrorists are a side-effect of the alliance of the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan/Afghanistan, and their coldwar-games to defeat communism and to keep out communists and their ideologies out of the strategically important ressource-rich middle-east.

Many people put ther head in the sand and pretend not to know what was going on between the US and islamic extremists.

After the coldwar ended, the alliance between the US and radical Islamism ended, too, but the extremists didn't just say: Oh, well communism is defeated, let's call it a day and go home, they have bought into the US-Saudi-propaganda that war is in itself a form of life and home, and so they refocused and identified the US and the arabic regimes as the new enemies and continued...

Their US-Saudi-developed ideology is a war-ideology, they have fallen in love with war, they need war to justify their existence and to have a purpose, and they grow in times of war, it's like oxygen for fire.

By the way the US is not the first western might to have used radical islamists for their goals, Germany did it before, too.

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

The '90s did not have hair bands. Instant win.

But the did Have The Spice Girls and NSync.

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob

So apparently Clinton was directly responsible for keeping the Venezuelan workers from striking, keeping oil outputs on slowly dying fields up, and keeping OPEC from raising prices.

That sounds plausible
It does seem too much of a coincidence that a man from oil country that has ties to big oil firms gets elected and boom our gas prices goes through the roof.

Budget surplus that eventually led to 9/11. He canned our intelligence department hardcore to make that surplus.

I disagree and while Clinton certainly has to share some blame in the intelligense breakdown his budgeting was much more responcibile for the long term health of the US.

Making more money in the 90's... Well duh, that's like saying we made more money in the 20's.
The economy was doing so well because people had alot of money in stocks due to the dot com boom. This money had no backing as almost all stocks were overvalued at the time, very similarly to the 1920's. The crashing of the economy started in '99 when people realized that these companies couldn't really turn a profit on their current setup, BEFORE Clinton was out of office. He really can't take credit for how well our economy did during that period. The people to thank there would be Gates and Co.

Your point?

No matter how you slice it, I had more money in my pocket when Clinton was pres. dot com boom, oil strikes doesn't matter and to most Americans they make that very same connection. My life was better (economically) back then.

I'm no fan of clinton but history is already painting him as a great leader. As for Bush, we're embroiled in issues now that will effect us economically and militarily beyond his term and those issues are going to cost us money and blood.

[Troll]

The trouble in Southern Lebanon is directly related to Bush's invasion of Iraq.

What amazed me about Bush's G8 Press Op performance is that he seems to recognise that. Toppling Saddam and turning Iraq into a Shiite-dominated country has strengthened Shiites in Iran, Syria and Southern Lebanon, ergo Hezbollah. Stopping this, requires dealing with the Shiite resurgence in the region, i.e. dealing with Syria and Iran and Iraq. All of the major powers including Israel realise this and if we want to have a sensible debate, we should too.

Bush opened a Pandora's box when he invaded. By not sending more soldiers to Iraq to create secure the country, he's allowed the problem to fester. I'm not sure Kerry could have put the lid back on the box, but Bush hasn't tried very hard.

[Y3a]

It's not like the clueless house and senate haven't mess up our chances as well. Those usless bags of dog poo are far more to blame than Bush, or any president.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob

Budget surplus that eventually led to 9/11. He canned our intelligence department hardcore to make that surplus.

Thank Newt and his contract with America as well.

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by Troll

The trouble in Southern Lebanon is directly related to Bush's invasion of Iraq.

You mean like bringing MORE terrorists into the middle east and out of our backyards?

Or do you mean the Hezbollah wanna kidnap Jews to teach us a harsh lesson,
and are getting their stuff bombed

or exactly what?

[Landos Mustache]

With Kerry: