The Man wrote:

... And if you're STILL on the "weapons of mass destruction tip"

On a humorous note, you guys see that Weapons of Ass Destruction joke e-mail that went around?
-PCM

Iraq is not the only thing making me choose Kerry, I think Kerry would be better at handling the National Debt problem which is getting way out of hand, Housing, The economy, and International diplomacy. Bush turned all the good will of the world into fear and hate of the U.S. It's really a shame what Bush has done over the last 4 years. May it never be repeated. I think Kerry really demonstrated his abailities during the first debate and should continue to improve as we eneter the next rounds of debates.
_________________

vibius wrote:

That's precisely my point

huh?

I would vote for Senator McCain among the 3 choices.
_________________

Here's the thing,

I don't think there are any "Red (Neck) States" JDorama members, at least none over age 30. That is where the problem lies as the GOP strength is those States. On top of that, look what happened to Al Gore in 2000 when he actually won the popular vote!

Most of the people here are far-west coasters, or far-east coasters. At least those of us in the Bay Area and California are in agreement that GW should go.

All of us should get out the vote and not just with words, but at the polls.

g.f.

Doramafan113 wrote:

I think Kerry would be better at handling the National Debt problem which is getting way out of hand..

Yeah... back in the Reagan-Bush era, the GOP blamed the Democrat-controlled Congress for the national debt.

The Bush-Cheney ticket has no such excuse today, since the GOP controls Congress and, to a significant degree, the Supreme Court as well.

Today, Bush is campaigning saying, "Kerry will raise taxes and spend your money," characterizing him as a "tax and spender."

Am I the only one that finds that hypocritical? Cutting taxes or raising taxes, either way we're running $300 to $400 billion deficits NOW. Somewhere along the line, the GOP lost it's claim to being the party for those who believed in financial responsibility.

Given that the only time I can recall in the last 28 years that we've ran consecutive balanced budgets was when we had a Democratic White House and a Republican Congress during the Clinton years, it really makes me wonder if that's the right combination.
-PCM

gregsan wrote:

huh?

The mujaheddin in Afghanistan did use terror tactics against the Soviets. So if the method makes the man, then they were terrorists.

gfhandel wrote:

All of us should get out the vote and not just with words, but at the polls.

Right. If you're not registered to vote, you've pretty much got no business spewing....

gfhandel wrote:

Here's the thing, I don't think there are any "Red (Neck) States" JDorama members, at least none over age 30.

I live in Texas and I'm over 30. Does that count?

vibius wrote:

The mujaheddin in Afghanistan did use terror tactics against the Soviets. So if the method makes the man, then they were terrorists.

You're comparing the tactics used by the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan to the hijacking and flying of planes into the world trade center? There's no comparison.

gregsan wrote:

People conveniently "forget" that we have FOUND mustard gas and sarin. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/26/iraq.duelfer/index.html

"Laboratory tests of an artillery shell used in a May roadside bomb in the Baghdad area confirmed the presence of the nerve agent sarin, and a shell found two weeks before then contained the decayed residue of mustard gas."

"decayed residue of mustard gas."

Of course we knew he had some chemical weapons! We sold them to him! He was killing Iranians, and Grandpa Ronnie and Daddy Bush thought that was a fine idea. So they sent guys like Rummy over to the Midde East to broker the deal for chemical and biological weapons.

But finding residue from mustard gas long passed it's use-by date is different from finding the vast stockpiles of biogical and chemical weapons that Bush, Cheney, and Powell guaranteed us was there.

Okay, so you don't believe the Marine General who searched and said there were no WMDs in Iraq.

You don't believe David Kay, Bush's own hunting dog, who came back from an extensive search and said there was nothing there.

How about Powell?

Fe. 5 2003 at the U.N. Powell said:

"The only thing where we got it wrong and where the presentation did not hold up was actual stockpiles," he told reporters at the Atlanta Press Club.
"We have seen nothing to suggest that he had actual stockpiles."
"So that was not right, and as we have gone back and looked through the intelligence, there are indications that we had bad sourcing and we should have caught some of this bad sourcing," Powell said.
"For that, I am not only disappointed but I regret that that information was not correct."

Then on May 16

MSN:
Secretary of State Colin Powell confessed on Meet the Press yesterday (May 16) that he and the CIA had been hoodwinked by sources who provided the United States with inaccurately sourced, incorrect, and "deliberately misleading" information about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Powell used that information in his Feb. 5, 2003, presentation before the United Nations and expressed his regrets in the interview for using it. From the Meet the Press transcript:
When I made that presentation in February 2003, it was based on the best information that the Central Intelligence Agency made available to me. We studied it carefully; we looked at the sourcing in the case of the mobile trucks and trains. There was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out to be not accurate. And so I'm deeply disappointed. But I'm also comfortable that at the time that I made the presentation, it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community. But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it.

bmwracer wrote:

I was wondering when The Man was gonna show up and go into his Wally George flag-waving routine...

Mmm. Busy w/work, like HOW ALL OF US AT WORK SHOULD BE, BBWWHWHHWHAHHAHAHA!!!!

Anyway, what, I gotta be (and I've NEVER heard this before) "Wally George flag-waving routine"-ing if I have Old Glory as part of my signature? And . . . uh, did you miss my Israel, UK, heck, UN citations?

You mentioned "Kerry all the way," eh? BMWRacer voting for a Catholic; never thought I'd see the day.

In one of the "describe the person above you," you designated me as "Republican." Wrong. So was your "Hawaiian" designation, while we're on the topic.

Not being animositouslynessesianvocate, but, just wanted to clarify.

vibius wrote:

I live in Texas and I'm over 30. Does that count?

Well, at least you're neck isn't red based on your previous posts.

Do you own a pickup truck?

g.f.

Geezer wrote:

"Laboratory tests of an artillery shell used in a May roadside bomb in the Baghdad area confirmed the presence of the nerve agent sarin, and a shell found two weeks before then contained the decayed residue of mustard gas." "decayed residue of mustard gas." Of course we knew he had some chemical weapons! We sold them to him! He was killing Iranians, and Grandpa Ronnie and Daddy Bush thought that was a fine idea. So they sent guys like Rummy over to the Midde East to broker the deal for chemical and biological weapons. But finding residue from mustard gas long passed it's use-by date is different from finding the vast stockpiles of biogical and chemical weapons that Bush, Cheney, and Powell guaranteed us was there. Okay, so you don't believe the Marine General who searched and said there were no WMDs in Iraq. You don't believe David Kay, Bush's own hunting dog, who came back from an extensive search and said there was nothing there. How about Powell? Fe. 5 2003 at the U.N. Powell said: "The only thing where we got it wrong and where the presentation did not hold up was actual stockpiles," he told reporters at the Atlanta Press Club. "We have seen nothing to suggest that he had actual stockpiles." "So that was not right, and as we have gone back and looked through the intelligence, there are indications that we had bad sourcing and we should have caught some of this bad sourcing," Powell said. "For that, I am not only disappointed but I regret that that information was not correct." Then on May 16 MSN: Secretary of State Colin Powell confessed on Meet the Press yesterday (May 16) that he and the CIA had been hoodwinked by sources who provided the United States with inaccurately sourced, incorrect, and "deliberately misleading" information about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Powell used that information in his Feb. 5, 2003, presentation before the United Nations and expressed his regrets in the interview for using it. From the Meet the Press transcript: When I made that presentation in February 2003, it was based on the best information that the Central Intelligence Agency made available to me. We studied it carefully; we looked at the sourcing in the case of the mobile trucks and trains. There was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out to be not accurate. And so I'm deeply disappointed. But I'm also comfortable that at the time that I made the presentation, it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community. But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it.

To say that we didn't find stockpiles...isn't to say that we found NOTHING.

The Man wrote:

You mentioned "Kerry all the way," eh? BMWRacer voting for a Catholic; never thought I'd see the day.

For the record, I woulda voted for JFK and RFK if I was old enough at the time...

Quote:

In one of the "describe the person above you," you designated me as "Republican." Wrong. So was your "Hawaiian" designation, while we're on the topic.

It was my perception. Gomen nasai.

gfhandel wrote:

Do you own a pickup truck?

I used to.

But it was an import!

bmwracer wrote:

It was my perception. Gomen nasai.

No, no need to apologize, pal who first welcomed me to the board. Like I said, just wanted to clarify. I thought my coined "animositouslynessesianvocate" would've underscored the lightheartedness.

Yeah, I would've voted for JFK also.

Not to say that it's getting there, folks, but, let's keep this thread "non-flame" so's that it can last 'til, heh, 'lection day.

"Can't we all just get along?" -- Rodney King

The Man wrote:

Not to say that it's getting there, folks, but, let's keep this thread "non-flame" so's that it can last 'til, heh, 'lection day.

sounds good to me.

Gregsan,

The invasion of Iraq was based on the Bush Administration's stated certainty (they not only said they had them, they said they knew they had them, knew how much they had, and knew where those stockpiles were) that there were vast stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, and that they were actively building a nuclear threat... all with the aim of attacking the U.S.

They were wrong.

They were mislead?

They made a misjudgement?

Oopsie?

The Man wrote:

I thought my coined "animositouslynessesianvocate" would've underscored the lightheartedness.

I had trouble deciphering that word... It reminded me of supercallifragilisticexpiallidocious (sp?)...

Quote:

Not to say that it's getting there, folks, but, let's keep this thread "non-flame" so's that it can last 'til, heh, 'lection day.

It's been pretty good so far... Though, the mud'll really start flying as the weeks pass...