|
|
#41
05-30-2006, 12:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Kerry Still Holds the Record
I never understood why someone would tout the fact that they racked up 3 purple hearts in 3 months and booked it out of there. I would probably be ashamed of that and try as best I can to cover it up entirely.
************************************************** **** Don't forget he set a US Military record for the shortest stay in a combat zone by a swift boat commander at 90 days. And in that 90 days he managed to tick-off 80 % of his fellow officers to the point where they campaign against him. JFK and PT109 he is not. But that is not saying much since JFK manage to get his boat sunk by getting run over by a Japanese cruiser. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] 
|
|
#42
05-30-2006, 11:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Too little, too late for John Kerry
That's one reason I wrote "conservative." It's not so much that today's self-proclaimed conservatives (or the neocons) aren't true conservatives, it's that they have no coherent ideology that unifies their agenda and their rhetoric. The agenda is to advance elite propertied interests, expand the power of the state and marginalize popular influence over the government. Their rhetoric runs the gamut of popular myths and ideas while trying to corrall the unpopular interests (e.g., the Christian right, radical free marketeers) that dominate the GOP electoral base.
|
|
#43
05-30-2006, 02:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Too little, too late for John Kerry
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The biggest problem with the execution of the war was the delays that were allowed for inspections and sanctions that never worked and had no hope of working. [/ QUOTE ] How was that the biggest problem? How was that a problem at all? We had successfully isolated Saddam using these sanctions for over 10 years. He had no power outside his own country. No WMD's and a weak army we toppled in less than a week. The Bush Administration's plan flew in the face of over a decade of diplomacy that was successful, if you look at what the diplomacy set out to do: isolate Saddam and keep Iraq from acquiring WMD's. [/ QUOTE ] In that time how many people did SH kill? In that time how many WMDs were shipped to Syria? How many were passed to terrorists? How much time did it give foreign insurgents to organize and fill the vacuum once SH was taken down?
|
|
#44
05-30-2006, 03:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Too little, too late for John Kerry
[ QUOTE ]
In that time how many people did SH kill? [/ QUOTE ] The lowest estimates state that the US military has killed 35,000 Iraqi civilians since the start of the war. We have managed to fill the void. [ QUOTE ] In that time how many WMDs were shipped to Syria? How many were passed to terrorists? [/ QUOTE ] Roughly zero. [ QUOTE ] How much time did it give foreign insurgents to organize and fill the vacuum once SH was taken down? [/ QUOTE ] So our [censored] postwar planning justifies invasion?
|
|
#45
05-30-2006, 08:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Too little, too late for John Kerry
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] In that time how many people did SH kill? [/ QUOTE ] The lowest estimates state that the US military has killed 35,000 Iraqi civilians since the start of the war. We have managed to fill the void. not even the same order of magnitude to what SH did during inspections and sanctions [ QUOTE ] In that time how many WMDs were shipped to Syria? How many were passed to terrorists? [/ QUOTE ] Roughly zero. in your opinion. not in the opinion of many analysts, and captured Iraqi Air Force officers [ QUOTE ] How much time did it give foreign insurgents to organize and fill the vacuum once SH was taken down? [/ QUOTE ] So our [censored] postwar planning justifies invasion? [/ QUOTE ] If you explain in English how it responds to delays being a political/military error I'll respond. There were plenty of justifications for invasion, but that has nothing to do with what I said.
|
|
#46
05-30-2006, 08:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Too little, too late for John Kerry
And if you want to engage in a battle of quotes:
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001. "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002. "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002. "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002. "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002, "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002. "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ... Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003. If you want to claim the americanprogress words are synonyms for "imminent", the Dems have plenty of quotes on their side.
|
|
#47
05-31-2006, 12:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Too little, too late for John Kerry
[ QUOTE ]
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002. [/ QUOTE ] Of course, you took this one quote out of his rather lengthy speech on the Senate floor. Here are some more salient exerpts from the same speech: In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out. If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs. In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.
|
|
#48
05-31-2006, 12:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Too little, too late for John Kerry
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002. [/ QUOTE ] Of course, you took this one quote out of his rather lengthly speech on the Senate floor. Here are some more salient exerpts from the same speech: In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out. If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs. In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack. [/ QUOTE ] I just cut and paste, like the post from american progress, I didnt go back to the source..this debate has been done to death here, in the media and in Congress, its pointless to waste any more time on it. BTW where in that Kerry speech did he say "And of course I will vote against funding any invasion"?
|
|
#49
05-31-2006, 03:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Too little, too late for John Kerry
[ QUOTE ]
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Of course, you took this one quote out of his rather lengthly speech on the Senate floor. Here are some more salient exerpts from the same speech: In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out. If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs. In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I just cut and paste, like the post from american progress, I didnt go back to the source..this debate has been done to death here, in the media and in Congress, its pointless to waste any more time on it. BTW where in that Kerry speech did he say "And of course I will vote against funding any invasion"? [/ QUOTE ] This debate should go on as long as people like you buy into the BS that Bush has tried to sell us to go to this war. The current polls say that around 30 percent of the country still support this war and I always think... what?!? 3 out of 10 people still believe this stuff? If you don't think Bush was DEAD set on going to war with Iraq read this... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/intern...497&ei=5070 Quotes from that article... "But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons , said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times." And.. "The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein." NOTE: These documents come from Jan. 31, 2003, BEFORE the invasion and were verified by two senior British officials as stated in the article. I don't see how anyone can still support this war and still be honest with themselves and the evidence.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
