Politics/Elections/World News

bmwracer wrote:Hey, who's the wise guy who voted for Nader?

Oh god. :rolleyes:

Whoa. Politics are ruling the boards now.......

Geezer wrote: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.

And as stated previously most of the Dems (INCLUDING Kerry) agreed with those assessments.

bmwracer wrote:
I had trouble deciphering that word...

I still can't get past the animositously part...

DEFINITELY John McCain, If I were ever to vote for a Republican. He's just about the only Republican I can really respect. Especially because he plays fair and even came out publicly and said that the swift boat ads were wrong and urged President Bush to denounce them, although to this date, he still hasn't come out and clearly denounced them at all, only 527 groups and how they should be stopped. Although it was already pretty clear that it was his money that was funding those very groups in the first place! Oh, the hippocrisy, although it really isn't because he never spoke out against them anyway. So basically, he supported them. Also, McCain has said in his speeches, most notably at the Republican Convention, that he wants to bring the two parties together and that people in both parties are friends, not enemies and wants to keep it that way. Unlike under this President who has divided our nation right down the middle.
I WOULD have voted for Powell, if it was before the year 2000. But lately he's been making himself look increasingly like nothing more than a puppet of the Bush administration, with no views of his own and refuses to disagree with them, even though you know he probably does.

I support Bush, and not Kerry.

Kerry is too much of a flip-flopper and I know I don't want someone like that as my president. Even tough, the war went bad it's just a mistake that anyone would have made in his place.

Bush for president!!!!! :woot: :woot: :woot: :woot: :woot: :woot: :woot:

Bush is the best out of the three, in my opinion.

Gregsan,

I'm not talking about Kerry, or Clinton, or the PM of England, or the PM of Costa Rica, or the Leader of Poland.

You brought up a comment about everyone forgetting that they really did find WMD, and I responded to that.

George Bush and his Vice President, and his Sec. of State, and his Sec. of Defense, announced loudly and clearly that Iraq was awash with WMD... he said he had proof... he said Iraq was a clear danger to the United States... and he launched a preemptive invasion of another country.

He was wrong. (Misspoke? Was mislead? Misinformed?)

He didn't have proof.

How do I know? Because he hasn't been able to find them. And if he could have found them, he would have had FOX news taking pictures of him standing next to them with a fire axe, a la Elliot Ness.

Bush is/was the President.

Bush looked at the evidence.

Bush declared war.

Bush was wrong.

Geezer wrote:You brought up a comment about everyone forgetting that they really did find WMD, and I responded to that.

They found nothing at all? The article is a lie?

ASZSephiroth wrote:
Kerry is too much of a flip-flopper ...

If you notice, each side is trying to negatively stereo-type the other.

The GOP is trying hard to get Kerry labelled as a "flip-flopper".

The Demo's are trying to get Bush labelled as a spoiled son who got special priviledge to avoid serving in Vietnam.


In any event, I'm almost nostalgic for the 1992 election, as Bush and Clinton ran comparitively cleaner campaigns relatively free of mud-slinging.
-PCM

Greg,

If you want to ignore the fact that the President has even given up on ever finding any WMD in Iraq...

If you want to ignore the Sec. of State's statements about how they were wrong in thinking there were stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq...

If you want to ignore David Kaye's reports...

If you want to ignore the reports filed by the Marines, and the Army...

And cling to this thing about finding decayed residue on the inside of an artillary shell... there's nothing much I can say.

pcmodem wrote:

If you notice, each side is trying to negatively stereo-type the other.

The GOP is trying hard to get Kerry labelled as a "flip-flopper".

The Demo's are trying to get Bush labelled as a spoiled son who got special priviledge to avoid serving in Vietnam.


In any event, I'm almost nostalgic for the 1992 election, as Bush and Clinton ran comparitively cleaner campaigns relatively free of mud-slinging.
-PCM

But that's what's makes things interesting. :mrgreen: It would be pretty boring if there weren't all these dirty campaign tactics and attacks. And at least it allows us to see to what extent some people are willing to go to. Especially with all these attack ads and document forgeries and network mistakes. Has anyone heard about those comments made on the foxs news network website about John Kerry? Apparently the higher-ups are really furious about that now and their have been major changes at the network. Of course, everyone already knew fox news was a conservative-biased network, so this is really old news.

pcmodem wrote:

If you notice, each side is trying to negatively stereo-type the other.

The GOP is trying hard to get Kerry labelled as a "flip-flopper".

The Demo's are trying to get Bush labelled as a spoiled son who got special priviledge to avoid serving in Vietnam.

The Dems would also like to argue that BUSH has divided this country in half. When in reality this country has become more and more polarized since the end of Clinton's last term leading up to the 2000 election and the Florida controversy.

Basically, you have people who like Bush and who support him and how he's "defended" our country since 9/11 and those who HATE him, mostly because they want to claim that he "stole" the election. The Dems have made a smear campaign out of Bush's presidency ever since he won election (a la Moveon.org).

Because Iraq isn't going as well as expected it's considered a good source of criticism by the Dems to attack Bush's Presidency, despite the fact that many Democrats (including Kerry) supported the Iraq war in the beginning and agreed it was justified. Hindsight is 20/20.

Geezer wrote:Gregsan,

I'm not talking about Kerry, or Clinton, or the PM of England, or the PM of Costa Rica, or the Leader of Poland.

You brought up a comment about everyone forgetting that they really did find WMD, and I responded to that.

George Bush and his Vice President, and his Sec. of State, and his Sec. of Defense, announced loudly and clearly that Iraq was awash with WMD... he said he had proof... he said Iraq was a clear danger to the United States... and he launched a preemptive invasion of another country.

He was wrong. (Misspoke? Was mislead? Misinformed?)

He didn't have proof.

How do I know? Because he hasn't been able to find them. And if he could have found them, he would have had FOX news taking pictures of him standing next to them with a fire axe, a la Elliot Ness.

Bush is/was the President.

Bush looked at the evidence.

Bush declared war.

Bush was wrong.

Mr. Geezer, respectfully, I must needs would like to say that, didn't Bush defined the "Axis of Evil" as Iran, North Korea . . . and Iraq in 2002 (his state of the union address).

Weren't UN inspectors trying to initially verify that Iraq was getting rid of its weapons of mass destruction before sanctions could be removed from Iraq? Saddam certainly had those weapons of mass destruction -- just ask those Iraqis that he tried it on. I don't see any countries friendly to Iraq disputing the moniker "Chemical Ali," do you?

The smoking gun regarding the invasion of Iraq for me, on a simple level, is this -- once forces started going into Baghdad undeniably, Saddam's Defense Minister (I might be paraprhasing his title, but, does it really matter now?) was denying it . . . I think one or two of the networks showed a split screen: on one side, the minister telling reporters that everything was OK and on the other side of the screen, Allied tanks were entering Baghdad. Incredible!

Maybe Bush misspoke, but he certainly didn't lie -- reports from the intelligence services from major countries, as I previously mentioned, indicated that weapons of mass destruction were there. At the same time, Saddam's time was running out, not with the U.S., but with a directive doled out by the UN itself. I think there is no bigger justification for invading Iraq than Saddam essentially BEGGING to be invaded (he actually begged a first time, by invading Kuwait).

And the fact that he misspoke isn't enough for Kerry, apparently, to suggest that Bush should be tried for war crimes. Kerry -- and no one else in politics, for that matter -- won't suggest that because, you know why? It's because they cannot prove that Bush lied; and THAT's because Bush did NOT lie. He acted on information given to him on Iraq by the appropriate agencies. As U.S. president, he HAD to do something and that meant -- after having addressed the UN about it, which he didn't have to do -- invading Iraq.

And, I think (this is really my personal opinion here) that if the Democrats intend to focus on "there have been no weapons of mass destruction found" less than a month up to the elections, then Kerry will lose because "there have been no weapons of mass destruction found" is old news already.

Finally, you know what? The Allied force DID find one weapon of mass destruction, hiding out like a cockroach -- and that weapon of mass destruction's name is Saddam Hussein.

Geezer, Gregsan, BMWRacer, any of ya'll's else on this thread, big ups to ya'lls, and much respect.

P.S. "weapon of A$% destruction," hahah, tha's sounds funny, but I haven't seen the joke.

Geezer wrote:Greg,

If you want to ignore the fact that the President has even given up on ever finding any WMD in Iraq...

If you want to ignore the Sec. of State's statements about how they were wrong in thinking there were stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq...

If you want to ignore David Kaye's reports...

If you want to ignore the reports filed by the Marines, and the Army...

And cling to this thing about finding decayed residue on the inside of an artillary shell... there's nothing much I can say.

And you want to ignore the fact that despite claiming Bush's fault was to declare war on Iraq, the candidate you support ALSO supported the war (though he claims not to support it NOW). Either way, Bush can't win. It's just an excuse to attack him...

He acted based on intelligence from multiple countries. Accept it.

The Man wrote:

Finally, you know what? The Allied force DID find one weapon of mass destruction, hiding out like a cockroach -- and that weapon of mass destruction's name is Saddam Hussein.

I thought Saddam Hussein was a Weapon Of Ass Destruction. :hehe: :hehe: :hehe:



Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk, :naughty:
PCM

Kerry and other's supported the war, yes, but not the way Bush did it. He didn't even properly think out what was going to happen AFTER the war was over. Of course there was going to be a huge crisis and occupation afterwards, but he didn't even have any plans for the actual reconstruction. And thus, the mess we're in now. Well, of course its a good source of criticism. This was a pointless and unneeded war that basically adds up to more than a 1000 of our people dead because of it, and for nothing really. And that's what makes it sad when you see those death toll numbers. The President has only made our country more vulnerable to terrorist attacks and bred more hate and animosity towards the United States in the Middle East AND around the world than ever before. This is the worst political climate imaginable. And they still claim we're waging a war on terror, well, it seems you've long since lost sight of that, mr. President.

pcmodem wrote:

I thought Saddam Hussein was a Weapon Of Ass Destruction. :hehe: :hehe: :hehe:



Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk, :naughty:
PCM

That's pretty funny. Can he be both?!!

hatakekakashi081 wrote:Kerry and other's supported the war, yes, but not the way Bush did it. He didn't even properly think out what was going to happen AFTER the war was over. Of course there was going to be a huge crisis and occupation afterwards, but he didn't even have any plans for the actual reconstruction. And thus, the mess we're in now. Well, of course its a good source of criticism. This was a pointless and unneeded war that basically adds up to more than a 1000 of our people dead because of it, and for nothing really. And that's what makes it sad when you see those death toll numbers. The President has only made our country more vulnerable to terrorist attacks and bred more hate and animosity towards the United States in the Middle East AND around the world than ever before. This is the worst political climate imaginable. And they still claim we're waging a war on terror, well, it seems you've long since lost sight of that, mr. President.

How can it be a pointless and unneeded war and yet be supported at the same time? That's a contradiction. Maybe you don't agree with the overall strategy of the war and/or how it was planned (and hindsight is 20/20 regarding what did and did not work), but that doesn't make it pointless or unneeded. And IF it was a truly pointless and unneeded war, then WHY did Kerry support it?

You guys can't have it both ways...

gregsan wrote:You guys can't have it both ways...

Yes. :say_yes: