NFB: Kerry's speech -- thoughts?

[Dave M]

I am going to start arguing that no one is arguing here

That's because everyone has supported Bush. There's nothing to argue about. If you guys remember a while back I posted a poll about political party affiliation and about 85% responded they were republican. At the risk of being the one lone dissenter that's going to get piled on, I'll speak out:

I don't want to resort to personal attacks, but you guys have had at it with Kerry so:

Bush is an idiot. If he had a brain cell in his head it'd be awful lonely.

Bush didn't decide to go to war with Iraq because that's where the intelligence led him, he had already made the decision to go to war with Iraq on 9/12. Did you notice that before the war we were supposedly going to attack to keep WMD out of Hussein's hands, then after we got there and couldn't find them it suddenly became a campaign to free the people of Iraq from their oppressor?

News flash: we are not the world's police force. We have no right to tell other countries how they ought to run their government or how leaders should be put into office. If they are a direct threat to us, we have a rigth to defend ourselves, as do they. I am one of the most patriotic people around, but we have no reason to be in Iraq (given the stated intelligence). If there was evidence that Iraq was preparing an attack against us, then of course we defend ourselves. I have seen no such intelligence. The USA throws it's weight around far too much. Who are we to tell Iran and North Korea, or anyone else for that matter, not build nuclear wepons?

Do I want those countries to have them? Of course not, but we have no right to restrict their development when we were the first country to develop them, the ONLY country to use them, and the one with the most. Saddam's stockpile of chemical weapons and nerve agents pales in comparison to our own.

What if one day Canada decided that the country to its south was making it nervous by having those large stockpiles. What if they don't like Bush as a president or feel he was illegally given the presidency after the 2000 election. Do they have a right to come in here and set up a Canad-friendly goverment of their choice, and to destroy our weapons and our ability to defend ourselves? No one would answer in the affirmative yet the US does this all around the world; destroying goverments we don't agree with and dismantling armies in the name of democracy.

How secure could our borders be if the 150,000 troops currently in Iraq and Afganistan were redepolyed at home at the ports, airports, and borders.

You blame Kerry for being a politician but people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Let me say.......

I am not the biggest Kerry fan in the world. I don't think you can ever have an ideal politician, because for any politician to be elected he has to make too many promises to too many people to be able to keep them all. Running for president takes money, and to get that money you have to pander to people to give it to you and your core views and ideals get diluted.

As I said, I don't agree with the war in Iraq, I don't think the threat was imminent enough to warrant an invasion but if there was intelligence that the president was privy to that we are not then of course my view could change. I pride myself in having an open mind and taking in all sides of an argument before making decisions. I dispise people who are blindly for or against something for no other reason than it's color, shape, or political affiliation, and unfortunately I see a lot of that going on here.

Let the flaming begin!

[TraceZ]

I dispise people who are blindly for or against something for no other reason than it's color, shape, or political affiliation, and unfortunately I see a lot of that going on here.

Let the flaming begin!

no flaming, but I disagree. The thread has included alot of factually derrived conclusions. I think a lot of carefull thought has gone into the opinions people have posted. I dont see any examples of prople just blindly believing what is popular.

Also, Bush had intelligence about Sadam's WMD capability and links to terror groups before 9/11. Clinton even knew about that. That could be why he was willing to attack so quickly. It could be that once he realized what the terrorists were capable of he was not willing to take any chances any more. I cant say I blame him. I might have done the same thing in his position. You have to at least give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Dave M]

no flaming, but I disagree. The thread has included alot of factually derrived conclusions. I think a lot of carefull thought has gone into the opinions people have posted. I dont see any examples of prople just blindly believing what is popular.

Also, Bush had intelligence about Sadam's WMD capability and links to terror groups before 9/11. Clinton even knew about that. That could be why he was willing to attack so quickly. It could be that once he realized what the terrorists were capable of he was not willing to take any chances any more. I cant say I blame him. I might have done the same thing in his position. You have to at least give him the benefit of the doubt.

A lot of times people state the facts that support their chosen position, and ignore other relavent facts that contradict it. I'm not saying that's what is going on here, but just because an opinion is well research does not make it correct. After all, it is an opinion.

Like I said in my earlier post, if there was intelligence that hasn't come out yet that indicated Saddam's support of active groups targeting the US, or that Iraq itself was planning an attack, then we have every right to defend ourselves. You can't attack for past deeds like targeting Bush Sr. or expelling the weapons inspectors in the 90s or disregarding the no-fly zones (not that we have any right to tell a country where it can fly in its own country 10 years after a war is over) because those deeds were punished at the time they were committed. Maybe not very harshly, but punished non-the-less.

[DJ Taso]

I still say Ken for president!

[hotwhip9]

I am going along with daveM on this one, sort of. Just helping to support his side. Wasn't there a press conference before 9/11 and rumsfeld said Iraq has no wmd?? In january that year? But it is funny how 9/11 happened and it was directed as the war on terrorism and then changed to help free iraqi people. I feel it is a good thing saddam is no longer in power, but is that any of our business? We have so many problems here on the homefront, why can't we take care of our own before spending billions of dollars, putting us even further in debt to help someone elses country, which has turned out to have the majority of the world hate the US. I just feel we should help our own before we help other people as much as we do. I'm not saying don't help other countries. If they need help give them help, but as to what degree? The amount of people that are homeless and welfare seems to be pretty large. I'm no expert on what the numbers are but I'm sure if we spent a little bit on the US, out of the billions we've spent over there our country would be better off than it is right now.

If it truly is a war on "terrorism" why aren't we in Iran? Isn't that where most of the terrorists are?

If we are trying to help the Iraqi economy why don't we hire Iraqi's to do more of the work, such as truck driving and physical labor? Most of the employees for those companies are not from Iraq. I understand the threat of intel and what not on US bases over there, that problem occured in a couple of camps.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

How come the dem. convention wasn't on regular tv? It was on pbs the last night it was aired, but other than that it needed, you had to have cable to watch it. You would think, atleast in my opinion that something of such importance (presidential candidate) would be accessible to the american public.

Because the networks didn't feel it would get ratings. (They thought it was boring.) The Republican convention will be just as boring.

One thing that I think will favor the current military members is that Kerry actually saw combat. He know's how it is on the line. A silver star and 3 purple hearts says a lot. I'm not saying Bush did not serve his country, because he did, just not in the combat realm. With so many soldiers overseas, some serving more than one tour, there is something wrong with that picture, soldiers deploying so long on more than one occasion, that needs to be changed.

Clinton did not serve in the military and he sent troops overseas. I'm not so sure the purple hearts of Kerry's are deserved. Besides, he doesn't have them any more because he threw them over the white house wall. Or was it his ribbons, Or was it someone else's ribbons. It's all so confusing because he has said he did all of that.

Also, I think that the release of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911 will make a large impact on the voting decision. I know many soldiers who went and saw this movie, have listened to Kerry's speach, and are not the happiest people with Bush.

Unfortunately this is true. There are so many people that will watch this movie and believe the events to have actually happened when they didn't. One example would be when Bush says something and then says now watch me make this drive. Those two statements were made months apart however with Moore's editing, he makes it look like they were said back to back which makes Bush look callous about the Iraq situation. Moore has an agenda with this movie and there are far to many people who don't care about politics so they don't pay any attention to what goes on and will vote based on a film full of distortions and out right lies. Yes I can call them lies because I feel that Moore knows they are untrue at the time he made the movie.

I don't want to resort to personal attacks, but you guys have had at it with Kerry so:

I have not done this. I have stated provable facts. I also show sources to back them up.

Bush is an idiot. If he had a brain cell in his head it'd be awful lonely.

At least Bush didn't loose the secret codes to the nuclear football like Clinton did.

Bush didn't decide to go to war with Iraq because that's where the intelligence led him, he had already made the decision to go to war with Iraq on 9/12.

No offense but you do not know what Bush was thinking on 9/12. According to the national security director, the decision to go into Iraq didn't happen till about 4 months after 9/11

...and the one with the most.

Saddam's stockpile of chemical weapons and nerve agents pales in comparison to our own.

Not true. We have 0 chemical or biological weapons. The United States under a treaty with Russia which I can't remember the date destroyed all chemical and biological weapons. We allowed Russian officials into the United States to verify this. This is verifiable as true.

Let the flaming begin!

This thread will probably be locked if the flaming begins.

Like I said in my earlier post, if there was intelligence that hasn't come out yet that indicated Saddam's support of active groups targeting the US, or that Iraq itself was planning an attack, then we have every right to defend ourselves.

There is plenty of intelligence that proves Saddam's link with Al-Queada. You can't simply ignore it because it doesn't support your opinions. It's still there. The 9/11 report even talks briefly about it.

You can't attack for past deeds like targeting Bush Sr.

You know, that is something democrat said just to try and make Bush bad. Just like when Howard Dean said he thought it was interesting that Bush might have known about 9/11 before hand. That is such BS.

.... or expelling the weapons inspectors in the 90s

Why did Saddam expel them? What was he trying to hide? Why when the weapons inspectors arrived did trucks start going out the back gate? Why when the weapons inspectors start going after the trucks did Saddams men shoot at them? Come on.

.... or disregarding the no-fly zones (not that we have any right to tell a country where it can fly in its own country 10 years after a war is over)

This was not our idea. This was the United Nations that decided the no fly zone. The UN asked the US to enforce it.

Wasn't there a press conference before 9/11 and rumsfeld said Iraq has no wmd?? In january that year?

No

If it truly is a war on "terrorism" why aren't we in Iran? Isn't that where most of the terrorists are?

They may be next. However they may fall on its own. There is a lot of decent against the Iatola (I have no idea how to spell that). The younger generation is tired of the dictatorship.

If we are trying to help the Iraqi economy why don't we hire Iraqi's to do more of the work, such as truck driving and physical labor? Most of the employees for those companies are not from Iraq.

Damn good question! Why can't someone teach them how to drive a truck. Why can't we just teach them how to do it and let them do it. I don't understand that either.

[Joe 1320]

Why can't someone teach them (Iraqi nationals) how to drive a truck. Why can't we just teach them how to do it and let them do it. I don't understand that either.

Because we are giving all the work contracts to people of other nations. While we are rebuilding the economy and infrastructure of Iraq, you can bet that those doing the rebuilding are getting the lion's share of the dollars earned, not the Iraqi people. This was all part of the political posturing prior to the invasion as certain countries were complaining about the distribution of work contracts in the rebuilding plan. In the end, the country of Iraq will simply have slightly better infrastructure and opportunities while the Iraqi people start over from scratch.... that is if they can ever quit killing each other or quit trying to kill everyone else.

[Kevin - Blown 95 TA]

that is if they can ever quit killing each other or quit trying to kill everyone else.

How True. Maybe we should have just dropped massive amounts of Prozac and Viagra into the hostile sectors along with with the propaganda leaflets, then all we would have to deal with is a bunch of friggin drug addicts.

[fastTa]

I'm not partial to either side at this point. One thing i just don't quite understand is:

How come the dem. convention wasn't on regular tv? It was on pbs the last night it was aired, but other than that it needed, you had to have cable to watch it. You would think, atleast in my opinion that something of such importance (presidential candidate) would be accessible to the american public.

It was on regular TV. We sat down by the lake on our dock and watched it on regular TV. It was on all of the major networks.

[Nightrage]

How True. Maybe we should have just dropped massive amounts of Prozac and Viagra into the hostile sectors along with with the propaganda leaflets, then all we would have to deal with is a bunch of friggin drug addicts.

Nah, use Ecstacy. Then all we'll have to deal with are drug addicts with holes in their brains

[AmericanZ28]

I dispise people who are blindly for or against something for no other reason than it's color, shape, or political affiliation, and unfortunately I see a lot of that going on here.

I second this! I challenge anyone to go HERE and still have the "Facts" to back up their statements in favor of the Bush administration. I dont see how people can overlook the fact that information can be just as easily skewed in a news article, or survey supporting Bush, as it was in Fahrenheit 911. If you click on the link above, there are some very good, and un-biased articles that will make you think twice about the current administration.
The way I see it, Bush should have never been in office to begin with. Why should we put so much effort and trust into a candidate who SNAKED his way into the presidency? The fact that he had to steal the election to get into office doesnt sit right with me, and should be the concern of everyone. (see how) I think I gave him a fair chance as our president, and as our commander in chief, but Im now more than willing to take a chance with someone else other than Bush. Furthermore, I dont see how anyone can compare Kerry's military with that of Bush's. Bush's military record is an embarrassement compared to Kerry's. Kerry might not have had that impressive of a military record, but it sure does look good compared to Bush's. The Military Carreer of BUSH

[fastTa]

We can turn this in to a link-fest of supposed facts bellitling the character of politicians that we don't neccesarily care for, however the unfledged and noncerebral premise by which this is based doesn't belong in this joint and it doesn't prove to be of any real value.

Everyone makes mistakes making not one human being on earth exempt from being perfect. Bush is only human and Kerry is only human, so to wager a debate on the morality of their character doesn't help o solve the crime.

The botom line is that this country was founded on the word of God (believe or not nowadays). Everything thing that our forefathers have done within the realm of things historically proven beneficial to our country and it's people, were done so by their faith and loyalty to God.

George W. Bush is man of God and his doiing his damndest to run his country the way he would see God run it. Is everone going to like him because of this? Apparently not when some of our own so called Americans wanted the word God removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, some of our own so called Americans wanted to keep a monument of the Ten Commandments from being displayed in an Alabama judicial building, some of our own so called Americans wanted to remove "In God We Trust" from all American currency, and worst of all some of our own so called Americans wanted to allow gay marriages.

Kerry sees no problem with the complete irradication of public religion altogether, and he has no problem with allowing the lawfully declared unity of two SINFUL homosexuls. That is all you have to know about Kerry to know that Christianity is the last of his concerns.

God bless George W. Bush for doing moral best and God help us all if we allow Kerry to take over.

[Kevin - Blown 95 TA]

The way I see it, Bush should have never been in office to begin with. Why should we put so much effort and trust into a candidate who SNAKED his way into the presidency? The fact that he had to steal the election to get into office doesnt sit right with me, and should be the concern of everyone

We had massive voter fraud perpetrated by the Dems here in Wisconsin. Everything from party workers buying cigarettes for the homeless & bussing them to the polling places to students placing 3 or more absentee ballots - they thought it was a joke. Gore's behavior after the election of running off to sulk & become a hermit and grow a beard makes me wonder about his suitability to handle a crisis. We had the permission and support of Congress and the United Nations to go to war, so I'm not to sure what everybody is talking about when they say it was Bush's decision alone. He's pretty much going to take advice from his top advisors and cabinet members when it comes to important decesions like attacking another country. President Clinton mentioned Iraq's WMD many times in his speeches, and he knew full well that steps needed to be taken to stop Iraq before they acquired a bomb. We had quite a few terrorist attacks against our people in foreign shores that were never answered for during that administration - so it was a matter of time before it all came to a head.

And anybody that still thinks that Michael Moore's movie was a factual documentary hasn't been paying too much attention. And I think you have to ask yourself why AlQueda doesn't want Bush re-elected. They would much rathe have Kerry in the Whitehouse. Why? Well, they were able to change the political landscape in Spain when they bombed those 7 trains, so they just might try that here. Get a liberal government elected who won't have the stones to go after them.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

[QUOTE=AmericanZ28]
The way I see it, Bush should have never been in office to begin with. Why should we put so much effort and trust into a candidate who SNAKED his way into the presidency?
[QUOTE]

Don't forget that Gore lost by less than 400 votes in Arizona. Why hasn't anyone said anything about voter fraud in Arizona? Why is everyone picking on Florida? It's be because Florida was the last state to get the returns in. Gore would have won the election if he had taken Arizona. He would also have won if he had taken his home state of Tennessee. After the way that Gore has acted after the elections, I am so glad he did not get elected. He is so immature. The hate speeches he has made. All to try and get Bush out. Every previous administration has followed the unwritten policy not to say anything bad about the current administration after leaving office but not the Clinton Administration. Now Jimmy Carter has jumped on that band wagon. They are acting very disgraceful. It's sad to see.

BTW I supported Clinton in all his military actions. I actually felt like he should have done more. I am the type of person that supports the president of the United States no matter what his political affiliation is when it comes to war. It's too bad the same can't be said for the current group of democrats. How sad. I remember when Clinton came on TV after he ordered the launching of 340 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Iraq in 1998. Tom Daschile, Ted Kennedy and several more standing at his side. I remember his speech about how Iraq had WMDs and he ordered the strike because he could not let them continue developing them. Not I see Kennedy making speeches about how Bush lied about the WMDs and that Iraq never had them. My question is why were you shaking your head yes in agreement with Clinton in 1998 now you say that Bush is lying about WMDs. I heard Kennedy making speeches about how we had to stop Saddam from making WMDs. Now he is acting as if he never said it. Well I know better because I was there and I remember seeing and hearing it. Kennedy is trying to make me thing I didn't and I know the truth. The entire Clinton administration with the exception of Bill Clinton oddly enough is trying to make me believe that they didn't say what they said. I know they are lying to me and it's all to get Bush out of office. I don't want someone who I know for a fact will lie to me in office. I have seen no evidence that the Bush Administration lied to me. I see evidence that they may have made mistakes. There is a big difference. A lie is when someone says something that is known to be untrue at the time it was said. Everything Bush said at the start of this war was known to be true. Everything the Clinton Administration except Clinton has to be a lie because several years earlier they said the opposite and they have to know it because they said it.

From Phil Collins "In The Air Tonight"

Cause I was there and I saw what you did,
saw it with my own two eyes,
so you can wipe off that grin,
I know where you've been,
It's all been a pack of lies.
I can feel it coming in the air tonight.

BTW there was also voter fraud in Florida on the Democratic side. There were thousands of cases of dead people voting for Gore in 2000. I think it all evens out in the long run. Never the less, every recount in Florida including the one by the media said Bush won. Get over it.

[N20LT4Bird]

We can turn this in to a link-fest of supposed facts bellitling the character of politicians that we don't neccesarily care for, however the unfledged and noncerebral premise by which this is based doesn't belong in this joint and it doesn't prove to be of any real value.

Everyone makes mistakes making not one human being on earth exempt from being perfect. Bush is only human and Kerry is only human, so to wager a debate on the morality of their character doesn't help o solve the crime.

The botom line is that this country was founded on the word of God (believe or not nowadays). Everything thing that our forefathers have done within the realm of things historically proven beneficial to our country and it's people, were done so by their faith and loyalty to God.

George W. Bush is man of God and his doiing his damndest to run his country the way he would see God run it. Is everone going to like him because of this? Apparently not when some of our own so called Americans wanted the word God removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, some of our own so called Americans wanted to keep a monument of the Ten Commandments from being displayed in an Alabama judicial building, some of our own so called Americans wanted to remove "In God We Trust" from all American currency, and worst of all some of our own so called Americans wanted to allow gay marriages.

Kerry sees no problem with the complete irradication of public religion altogether, and he has no problem with allowing the lawfully declared unity of two SINFUL homosexuls. That is all you have to know about Kerry to know that Christianity is the last of his concerns.

God bless George W. Bush for doing moral best and God help us all if we allow Kerry to take over.

I couldnt have said it any better. Elect Kerry and we will see this country take a turn for the worse in the morality department. Abortion, gay marriages, secularism......these are the things Kerry stands for. Not too mention , kerry seems no where near as strong and committed to the war on terror. I think Bush has done a phenominal job in this area. We havent had even a known attempt of an attack since 9/11. Thats awesome. Its amazing that some are willing to trade these things for hopes of a better economy....sad really. My prediction is that he probably will win.