John KerryFollow

No. You're about four months too early for this silliness.

ya these words sound so much like Kerry is a blowhard and Bush is the messiah.

BUSH FICTION: Mission Accomplished

FACT: Mission Not Accomplished

John Kerry: "I don’t think there’s anyone in this room today or 6,000 miles away who doesn’t wish that those words had been true. But we’ve seen the news. We’ve seen the pictures. And we know we are living through days of great danger.

...This anniversary is not a time to shout. It is not a time for blame. It is a time for a new direction in Iraq and for America to work together so that once again this nation leads in a way that brings the world to us and with us in our efforts.

...The hard truth is that we know that more lives will be lost until the mission is truly accomplished, and our duty is to make sure that parents, families, and friends who lost loved ones will know that they did not die in vain."

- John Kerry, April 30, 2004, Westminster College - Fulton, Missouri

I, for one, would like to know what the hell is wrong with listening to rap OR googling yourself? I happen to listen to rap (along with just about every other kind of music there is out there) and I have googled myself just to see what would come up. Does this make me a loser?

And since when is it wrong to have an opinion? Can you really blame people for being upset that our family members are dying in a foreign country? Can you blame them for being upset that these 'weapons of mass destruction' we went to Iraq to find were never found? And you may argue that "they had the capabilities to make them" but so do many countries and just because they signed some treaty doesn't mean that if someone pisses them off they won't use them.

It is clear that you don't like John Kerry (and I certainly don't aggree with everything he says), but it is really unfair to attack and call someone a 'loser' because of a matter of opinion or for listening to rap and having a little fun with google.

since you seem to be the new admin who has not really had a chance to see what has come before you I again post something I had posted earlier.

Here's a list of Bush flip-flops:

FLIP: Bush opposes campaign finance reform.
FLOP: Bush signs campaign finance reform.

FLIP: Bush opposes and stalls a 9/11 commission.
FLOP: Bush supports it.

FLIP: Bush is against deficits
FLOP: Bush's policies create the highest deficits ever.

FLIP: Bush is against nation building.
FLOP: Bush engages in it.


FLIP: Bush opposes an Iraq WMD investigation.
FLOP: Bush grudgingly supports it.

FLIP: Bush is for free trade.
FLOP: Bush supports tariffs on steel.

FLIP: Bush is against a Homeland Security Department
FLOP: Bush takes credit for it.

FLIP: Bush is for states' right to decide on gay marriage.
FLOP: Bush then proposes amending the Constitution so they can't.

FLIP: Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
FLOP: Bush then pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.

FLIP: Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military.
FLOP: Bush cuts Veterans benefits.

FLIP: Bush says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency).
FLOP: Bush dramatically shortchanges law enforcement.

FLIP: Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden."
FLOP: Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care."

FLIP: Bush says he'll take care of the environment.
FLOP: Bush then guts laws that protect the environment.

FLIP: Bush talks about helping education.
FLOP: Bush increases mandates while cutting funding.

FLIP: Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq.
FLOP: Bush then changes his mind and announced he would not call for a vote.

FLIP: Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors.
FLOP: Bush later blames his advance team.

And that's just one president from Texas...

Sadly I wish this was updated, funny to see bush embrace John Kerry's proposal for dealing with Iraq. Even the right leaning Washington Post recognizes it for what it is.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9757-2004Apr13.html

Bush is a tool and you make yourself more and more of one by continuing to worship him despite all evidence.

Okay Luthe. I got to "Looser" and I had to stop. Analyze yourself first.

1. Plays MMORPGS all day

2. Posts on Allakhazam

3. Criticises those that are more successful than him.

I am in no way supporting Kerry, but it sounds like we all have some issues to address. eg. is it correct to suddenly burst into capital letters amidst a sentence or is coffee spelled with one "e" or two?
In other words, Im not voting for you.

Vote Krogsbrew in 2004

my bad got the post and the times flip flopped =P

YES SIR!!!


You are wrong we have found 3 in all! But you wouldent know your only canadien.

Sheesh. Hasn't that "Mission Acomplished" garbage gotten old yet? Deliberately misinterpreting a statement for political gain just seems a bit low don't you think?

As to the "flip flops"? You can make a list like that for every politician in existence. The one about Clinton was a list of all the people he knew that died mysteriously while he was in office. It's all garbage folks. Only the young, who haven't seen the same sort of rhetoric occur every single time an election is up, fall for that type of play (ok. that and the older people who apparently can't see a simple pattern).


Look. The WMD angle is old as well. Kerry voted to go to war. He was given the same intelligence information that Bush had. He (and a majority of both houses) arrived at the same conclusion that Bush did. To go to war. If there was not enough evidence of WMD to justify going to war, then you are faced with one of two conclusions:

1. The intelligence presented to Congress was strong enough that they believed there were WMD as well.

2. WMD was really only one (hyped) reason we went to war.


If you read the act of war signed by our Congress, it's overwhelmingly obvious that number 2 is the more likely candidate. While it's a nice soundbite to say we went to war to rid Iraq of WMD, that was really only one of many reasons we went to war. Um... And Kerry agreed with Bush on that issue...

We went to war. Sadly its hard to see how many of my friend and countrymen who are in Iraq still think this is about 9/11 if I was in the 800th MP and thought that these were the people who had attacked us in NY would I have done the same, very hard to say I like to think of myself as more informed then that. But if I wasnt and bought into the whole this is part of the "War on Terror" bs that we are being fed then perhaps I could have. I mean to have pictures of the people who actually flew planes into the World Train Center and Pentagon in diapers while I was smiling would surely help demoralize Al-Queda.

To sell Iraq as part of the "war on terror" well now you come to the crux of why I disagree with the current administration.

I honestly and truly dont believe that without Bush pushing it we would have gone to war with Iraq over unjustified reasons.

Kerry/Clinton/Gore would not have pushed this war IMHO and we would be left dealing with Afgahnastan and trying to catch Bin Laden. A much better use of our resources IMHO catching the people who perputrated 9/11 rather then a country who we think might be a threat in the future allthough we are sure they had no part in 9/11.

Cut the Israelis loose and attack people who have done us wrong for real. Not people who maybe would have could have should have done us wrong sometime in the future.

My dad who was a Vietnam Vet, was for the war when he hear Colin Powell speak to the UN. I heard the same speech and and the ones before and after it by the UN weapons inspectors and said ********* its a fools errand. I as my father now agrees was right. We have sacraficed the lives of many on a fools errand, sadly we must finish this quest. To leave now would be worse then having Bush for four more years. It is time to clean up our mistakes and present ourselves again as a country ready to do good towards others and have vengance agaisnt those who have earned it. The Iraqis didnt earn it but now that we have presented them with our sword we must make sure to make our blow a final one that rises compasion towards us in the region.

Forgive me if I am posting in a Gbajiesque style with more paragraphs then substance. But I do feel strongly about this and hope we can revover from the mistakes of the current administration.

Doesn't matter if you mug a criminal. It's still a mugging.

Only if you see the "war on terror" in a very simplistic way. If you think it's just about finding individual terrorists who've already attacked us, then certainly, we should purely focus on Al-queda and Bin Laden and ignore everything else. I see the administration making efforts to prevent the next act of terror, not just avenging the ones we've already suffered.

There are three major components to world terrorism.

1. The actual terrorists. These guys are pretty replacable. Killing one just opens up a slot for someone else (and occasionally creates a martyr in the process).

2. The backers. These are the guys like Bin Laden who financially support terrorists organizations. Hitting them has a lot more effect since without money and organization, terrorists are no more threatening then a bunch of bandits hiding in a cave 4 thousand miles away.

3. Nations that harbor terrorists or their backers. This is a pretty critical one, and focus of the major policy change made by the Bush administration. If terrorists, or their backers (their money as well!) can be safely hidden in a soverein nation, it makes it nearly impossible to do anything about them.


Was Iraq a major culprit in terms of nations harboring terrorist groups? Not really. However, they did have business with various terrorist organizations, and there were a few members of Al-queda that were hiding out from us in Iraq. They met the technical definition (not much more then any other nation, but that's not the point). More importantly, Iraq was not particularly liked by most of the other Arab nations, which meant that we'd get the least amount of protest from other Arab nations over Iraq. Also, we currently had cause to go to war with Iraq already. They never met the terms of the cease fire. We could have gone into Iraq with or without WMD, and with or without any other reason then the violation of the cease fire agreements.

In other words. Iraq served as the perfect example. How long will it take people to realize that the war in Iraq is not just about Iraq? It's not just about what Saddam was doing, or what he might have done. Sure. We wanted to take out Saddam, but in doing so, we outlined a policy and a warning to the rest of the nations in the area that we were serious about dealing with number 3 above. This has already born fruit. We've gotten huge concessions and promises from Syria, Jordan, and Lybia. While it may be just lip service, these are three nations that previously practically flaunted the fact that they'd let terrrorist groups operate from inside our borders and there was nothing we could do about it (probably with a "nyah, nyah" at the end of that too!).


Deal with the reality of what was done, not the rhetoric.





You don't know that. You assume it after the fact, because you personally don't like or understand the war, and you want to believe that your favorite politicians wouldn't have made the same choice Bush did. But no one can say with any certainty what decisions those people would have made if they'd been in office rather then Bush. That's just a null argument all the way around. It's always easy to say that the guy who wasn't in the position to make a decision would have done it "better". Heck. You'd be hard pressed to find any major political decision made by a leader that couldn't have been done better. It's an irrelevant statement. They weren't in office at the time. They didn't have to make a decision. You certainly cannot say with any certainty what they would have done if they had.


How about we deal with what Kerry would do right now and in the future. What does he plan to do in Iraq that is different or "better" then what the current administration is already doing? Ultimately, your decision in November should be based on that, not what you think someone would have done differently.

Yeah, actually read it.

Then let me know when any of the conditions specified in it were evevr met:

HJ 114 RDS
(1) reliance by the United States on further
diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) 15
will not adequately protect the national security of 16
the United States against the continuing threat 17
posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforce- 18
ment of all relevant United Nations Security Council 19
resolutions regarding Iraq; and 20

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is 21
consistent with the United States and other coun- 22
tries continuing to take the necessary actions 23
against international terrorist and terrorist organi- 24
zations, including those nations, organizations, or 25
9
persons who planned, authorized, committed or 1
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sep- 2
tember 11, 2001. 3


Oh yeah, never.