Who watched the debate?

[Dexter Rutecki]

I really don't think anyone who supported clinton can cast character stones at bush. As a lawyer the only thing you have is your word, and you know what it means to be put under oath. To lie in deposition shows a clear lack of morals. So if you think a president should be something more than the ordinary man on the street then you really can't defend clinton. But it doesn't really matter at this point. I just thought it funny that someone would assault bush's character when the last president we had was a slimy pile of shit.

Slimy pile of shit=misleading the country into war, unnecessarily costing 1000+ Americans their lives, maiming thousands of others.
Nothing to do with lying over a BJ, though you fervently wish it were otherwise.
Keep spouting the lawyer bullshit.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Well considering Clinton was offered Bin Laden, and could have had Osama for free, but was busy getting a blowjob, and then 9-11 happened, and now Afghanistan and Iraq.......Clintons morals created ALL the deaths.

You keep saying this, it's still completely untrue, and it's been proven to you in the past. Keep saying it though, it's like you have Tourette's or something.

Bush is the one who passed on getting Bin Laden, wouldn't pursue him in Tora Bora, and then diverted resources to Iraq to distract everyone from the completely inept way he's run the war.

[SLCFreshies]

We've captured 75% of Al-Qaedas top officials. They were behind 9-11 just as much as Osama. Osama WILL be caught or killed. We are doing EVERYTHING we can to catch him.
Once again, I'd suggest you read this whole thread. Bush would be elected by a LANDSLIDE if he catches Osama before November......Don't you think they're doing everything they can? C'mon dude, common sense.

Is this the same common sense that said WMD would be a "slam dunk" in Iraq? Is this the same common sense that said that the Iraqis will see us as liberators? Is this the same common sense whose post-war plan was how to pick up all the flowers that the Iraqis would toss at us? Is this the same common sense that said "Mission Accomplished" 900+ American military casualties ago?

No, I don't think they are doing everything they can to get Osama. In fact, it's PAINFULLY OBVIOUS to anyone with any REAL common sense that they are not doing everything to get Osama. How can you honestly say that they're doing everything to get Osama when the bulk of our troops, supplies, resources, and planners are dealing with Iraq? How many times did Bush say the phrase "Osama bin Laden" during the Republican National Convention? How can you honestly think that Osama bin Laden is first and foremost on the mind of Bush and his war on terror when Bush has wanted to go after Iraq almost IMMEDIATELY after 9/11. Why look for ethereal connections between Saddam and 9/11 if Osama is your MAIN guy?

You've been duped! The sorriest part is that you don't even realize it.

[Blurred]

You keep saying this, it's still completely untrue, and it's been proven to you in the past. Keep saying it though, it's like you have Tourette's or something.

Bush is the one who passed on getting Bin Laden, wouldn't pursue him in Tora Bora, and then diverted resources to Iraq to distract everyone from the completely inept way he's run the war.

You usaully only resort to name calling after I prove you wrong in debate. Guess I did that without you being here.
We know the truth, and it's not the fiction you spew.

[Dexter Rutecki]

You proved me wrong by lying repeatedly? Wake up.
I don't think you've ever proven anyone wrong here about anything. You've been repeatedly proven wrong, nearly every time you post something political, and still you go on. With the same old lies, no less.

[Blurred]

Is this the same common sense that said WMD would be a "slam dunk" in Iraq? Is this the same common sense that said that the Iraqis will see us as liberators? Is this the same common sense whose post-war plan was how to pick up all the flowers that the Iraqis would toss at us? Is this the same common sense that said "Mission Accomplished" 900+ American military casualties ago?

No, I don't think they are doing everything they can to get Osama. In fact, it's PAINFULLY OBVIOUS to anyone with any REAL common sense that they are not doing everything to get Osama. How can you honestly say that they're doing everything to get Osama when the bulk of our troops, supplies, resources, and planners are dealing with Iraq? How many times did Bush say the phrase "Osama bin Laden" during the Republican National Convention? How can you honestly think that Osama bin Laden is first and foremost on the mind of Bush and his war on terror when Bush has wanted to go after Iraq almost IMMEDIATELY after 9/11. Why look for ethereal connections between Saddam and 9/11 if Osama is your MAIN guy?

You've been duped! The sorriest part is that you don't even realize it.

Are you even reading what I'm posting??? I told you Osama is in Pakistan, do you suggest we invade there too?

Are you so naive to think if we catch Osama that terrorism will end and Al-Qaeda will die?

Your bead on things is way too narrow, you must read between the lines and look at the big picture. The libs have got you duped my friend.

[Blurred]

You proved me wrong by lying repeatedly? Wake up.
I don't think you've ever proven anyone wrong here about anything. You've been repeatedly proven wrong, nearly every time you post something political, and still you go on. With the same old lies, no less.

Pretty weak Dex, even coming from you. Go run around NYC in your chicken suit now, thats what all the smart people are doing.

[SLCFreshies]

Are you even reading what I'm posting??? I told you Osama is in Pakistan, do you suggest we invade there too?

Are you so naive to think if we catch Osama that terrorism will end and Al-Qaeda will die?

Your bead on things is way too narrow, you must read between the lines and look at the big picture. The libs have got you duped my friend.

So Osama is most likely in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, so we send all our shit into Iraq because Pakistan is too HARD to deal with?

Are you so naive to think that invading and occupying a sovereign Arab country, like we are in Iraq, would not incite MORE terrorism?

You've got a tough job--defending an administration that has made as many mistakes and is as myopic as this one. It must be hard to let go after you've been backing them for so long.

[slippy]

Slippy, I don't follow you on that one. Bush's "morals" are killing people? Do you think he invaded iraq based on a moral decision? I don't get that one, not trying to be an asshole, I just don't get it. I would see invading iraq as a "moral" issue if you hated muslim's for their disbelief in christianity or something like that. I think he invaded due to the info he got relating to WMD's (whether invasion was the right step or not- I don't think is a moral issue) and chose a course of action he thought acceptable to saddam's failure to cooperate.

I don't see you as being an asshole, we're just talking here.

It's morally wrong to kill people. Maybe it's more based on Bush's ignorance, but to put one groups of human lifes above anothers is of course morally wrong. While Clinton blatantly lied, Bush maybe is misguided but is doing more damage. It's my opinion Bush went into the war for the wrong reasons, not because of info on WMD, which I think is morally wrong on his part. I can't prove this as most people can't prove it either way. I can argue my point in circles, but I wouldn't say it's worth it.

[Blurred]

So Osama is most likely in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, so we send all our shit into Iraq because Pakistan is too HARD to deal with?

Are you so naive to think that invading and occupying a sovereign Arab country would not incite MORE terrorism?

You've got a tough job--defending an administration that has made as many mistakes and is as myopic as this one. It must be hard to let go after you've been backing them for so long.

I've answered your two questions rather clearly, that's up for you to read this WHOLE thread.

In rebuttal to your statement, I'm not a knee-jerk supporter of either party, I use my own common sense to come to my own conclusions. If the repubs did truly fuck up, I'd feel differently.

[SLCFreshies]

I've answered your two questions rather clearly, that's up for you to read this WHOLE thread.

In rebuttal to your statement, I'm not a knee-jerk supporter of either party, I use my own common sense to come to my own conclusions. If the repubs did truly fuck up, I'd feel differently.

[/shrug]

Suggesting to read previous posts = distraction from an inability to address issues directly.

I don't think you explained to anyone why you think it's right for the U.S. to concentrate more on Saddam than Osama, which was the main thrust of our argument. All I saw was a your "belief" that Osama was foremost on the minds of this administration over Saddam (a belief that runs contrary to fact) followed by a glib remark based upon your douchebag crystal ball about causing WW3 if we were to go after Osama.

I guess you, like Bush in the debates last night, can talk about real issues and address facts for only so long. After a while, you've gotta fall back to something, and you fall back to the old "read-what-I-wrote" routine. I know--like Bush says, "It's hard work." After all, he sees the hard work on TV!

Ah, well--I'm gonna go anyways. I know you'll love the last word, so enjoy.

[Blurred]

[/shrug]

Suggesting to read previous posts = distraction from an inability to address issues directly.

I don't think you explained to anyone why you think it's right for the U.S. to concentrate more on Saddam than Osama, which was the main thrust of our argument. All I saw was a your "belief" that Osama was foremost on the minds of this administration over Saddam (a belief that runs contrary to fact) followed by a glib remark based upon your douchebag crystal ball about causing WW3 if we were to go after Osama.

I guess you, like Bush in the debates last night, can talk about real issues and address facts for only so long. After a while, you've gotta fall back to something, and you fall back to the old "read-what-I-wrote" routine. I know--like Bush says, "It's hard work." After all, he sees the hard work on TV!

Ah, well--I'm gonna go anyways. I know you'll love the last word, so enjoy.

http://www.tetongravity.com/usergall...1799/8mile.jpg

[kchri]

4) I vote for snow!...I would take 24" of ice right now...would that be 100% density (or somewhere close..?)

[Dexter Rutecki]

Pretty weak Dex, even coming from you. Go run around NYC in your chicken suit now, thats what all the smart people are doing.

I accept this as the closest your ego can come to admitting to being wrong/lying. Thank you.
[Just like the thread in which he baselessly asserted that UN weapons inspectors had been expelled from Iraq by Hussein before the war, as opposed to leaving under GWB's threat of war, which is what actually happened.]

[natty dread]

Bush is a guy that means well

Unfortunately, blurred has a good point here. A large number of americans have the perception that shrub is a "good guy" who "means well" and will vote for him largely because of this. To these people, shrub's inability to speak coherently, his inability to argue using specifics, and his mind-numbing repetition of the same lines over and over are just indicative of his "folksy" manner--that know-it-all meanie John Kerry should just back off because Shrub "means what he says and says what he means." It's like in some high schools, where being articulate and well-spoken makes you uncool.

But does a "guy that means well:"
Roll back numerous environmental laws designed to protect children (like the arsenic and mercury standards, to name just two).
Oppose the formation of the 9/11 commission, only agreeing to it after the families of the 9/11 victims had to plead for months.
Stonewall the commission once it was formed (this assessment is from republican members of the commission)
Not let Condi Rice testify before the commission, until he caves to demands from lawmakers, the press and victims families (flip flop).
Oppose the formation of the Dept. of Homeland Security until it becomes politically untenable, then (flip flop) says it's a good idea.
Cut police and fire department funding nationwide, while using the images of dead firefighters in his political ads. Fire departments are still almost completely untrained for dealing with WMD attacks--the funding isn't there.
Leave 95% of shipping containers at our ports unsearched.
Provide next to no security on our rail lines/NYC subways!
The list goes on and on.

Yeah, the fucker is just a good 'ol boy who means well.

[Blurred]

The Kerry/Edwards 2004 nighttrain has arrived! How exciting! Keep the propaganda machine oiled and lubed! Woo hoo!

[Dr. Gaper]

http://www.yuccaman.com/grit/ms_bush.jpg

http://www.tomlyon.org/images/shekerry.jpg

http://www.yuccaman.com/grit/ms_cheney.jpg

http://www.yuccaman.com/grit/ms_edwards.jpg

[Dr. Gaper]

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/Deba...mages/bish.jpg

[Blurred]

http://www.tomlyon.org/images/shekerry.jpg

Yeah, I FUCKED HER!

[natty dread]

I feel for ya BE, it must be hard to be incapable of intelligently refuting facts: "Oh fuck, I'll just call it all propaganda and be done with it, it hurts my lil brain to think too hard."

[Blurred]

I feel for ya BE, it must be hard to be incapable of intelligently refuting facts: "Oh fuck, I'll just call it all propaganda and be done with it, it hurts my lil brain to think too hard."

Your comments are needed in the Kerry/dumbass thread, thanks handsome.

[mr_gyptian]

I'm back.

Did anyone notice how Kerry began the next sentence after which he proclaimed he would get tough on terrorism or finish the Iraq war with "But..."

His global test? again, why he will lose. Only idealistic liberal humps want France's thumbs up to go to war. If you actually cared about our defense, our leadership's( not only the executive, but legislative) is the only test that matters. period.

A Middle Eastern Summit? great idea. ask Clinton how those work. half measures, half measures.

finally, a little reminiscing:

What exactly did Nazi Germany have to do with Pearl Harbor?

Absofreakinglutely nothing.

If you go and read FDR's "Day of Infamy" speech, there is not one single reference to Nazi Germany or a role for America in the war in Europe. Not one. . . .

Yet, within months, FDR decided to pursue a "Europe First" strategy which involved our putting the core of the United States Army into North Africa and then into Europe, on the other side of the planet from the perpetrators of the Pearl Harbor attack in Japan.

Why did he do this? Partly in response to the belief that Nazi Germany was developing a nuclear weapon.

Can you imagine what would have happened to Tom Dewey if he had tried to rip into FDR in the campaign of 1944 on this issue? He would have been crucified, and rightly so.


I know most of you don't consider our current struggle to be on the same level as WWII. Bush understands it is.

[glademaster]

Any comparrison between WWII and the current war in Iraq is absurd. If I remember correctly, Kerry didn't mention anything about us declaring war on Germany after Pearl Harbor, we declared war on Japan. We never declared war on Germany in WWII, Germany declared war on us after we did to Japan. I cannot see how anyone can possibly think that the war in Iraq has anything to do with terrorism, there was no connection, there were no terrorists in Iraq under Hussien, and he was absolutely no threat whatsoever to the United States of America, never has been, never would have been/will be.

The world is a much, much more dangerous place after the war in Iraq, Iraq has become a breeding ground and safe haven for terrorists that did not exsist 3 years ago. Anyone who says that America and the world are safer without Saddam around has their heads up their asses. Ok, so maybe Kuwait and Israel are a bit safer, who cares. It isn't our job to protect those nations and police the planet. Making some Jews and Kuwait [slightly] safer is no way shape or form worth 1100+ American lives (and counting) and hundreds of billions of dollars. The war in Iraq was wrong for America and the world, and George W. Bush is so horribly wrong for this country and the world that it isn't even funny. The man needs to go, plain and simple.

And _gyptian, Germany was trying to develop Nuclear Weapons, or as you beloved moron-in-chief says "nucular" weapons. Germany and Japan were a threat to humanity and the entire world, Saddam posed little threat to anyone.

[mr_gyptian]

I feel for ya BE, it must be hard to be incapable of intelligently refuting facts: "Oh fuck, I'll just call it all propaganda and be done with it, it hurts my lil brain to think too hard."

speaking of facts. again, Kerry apparently pronounced each and every word correctly. again, facts become hard. this is especially funny considering Kerry's interaction with JFK's and LBJ's(his roommate at Yale was McGeorge Bundy's son) respective cabinets.

John Kerry on Thursday evening:

"No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations.

I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, 'Here, let me show you the photos.' And DeGaulle waved them off and said, 'No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me.'"[end quote]

Three points about this rhetorical sleight-of-hand.

First, Kennedy sent Dean Acheson, not Dean Rusk to see DeGaulle. Acheson was a former Secretary of State, Rusk the then sitting Secretary of State.

Second, that's not what DeGualle said to Acheson. Here's an account of the Acheson-DeGaulle meeting and briefing. One source, almost certainly Acheson, reported DeGualle's comment to have been "A great government such as yours does not act without evidence." And DeGualle, no matter what he said, sat through the briefing in which the evidence was displayed for him.

Finally, and most important, the Cuban Missile Crisis, from start to finish, was all about preemptive action, and had nothing to do with passing "global tests." Kennedy never sought the approval of any ally much less the United nations. The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Adlai Steveson, made a presentation to the U.N. on October 25, 1962, three days after the blockade had been imposed.


The fact is Pre-emption is not as new as everyone thinks. You all let your hatred of W cloud your judgement.

Kerry's Global Test in practice:


Global Test for Pre-emptive Military Action by the U.S.

1. Is the U.S. President a Republican?
2. Could this action possibly stabilize oil production?
3. Are France and Germany supplying the intended target with weapons or advice?
4. Would any small time thugocracy with a seat on the Security Council feel threatened?
5. Are family members of high ranking U.N. bureaucrats benefiting financially from the status quo?
6. Is this action likely to enhance America’s power in the world?
7. Would this action further the goals of free market/free trade advocates?
8. Would this action make the U.N. look weak and inconsistent?
9. Would this action divide the countries of the European Union?
10. Would this action be seen as offensive to a world religion (other than Christianity and Judaism)?

[SLCFreshies]

finally, a little reminiscing:

What exactly did Nazi Germany have to do with Pearl Harbor?

Absofreakinglutely nothing.

If you go and read FDR's "Day of Infamy" speech, there is not one single reference to Nazi Germany or a role for America in the war in Europe. Not one. . . .

Yet, within months, FDR decided to pursue a "Europe First" strategy which involved our putting the core of the United States Army into North Africa and then into Europe, on the other side of the planet from the perpetrators of the Pearl Harbor attack in Japan.

Why did he do this? Partly in response to the belief that Nazi Germany was developing a nuclear weapon.

What you've stated is not entirely true, and there are a number of major differences between America's actions in WW2 and in the War on Terror today.

First, Japan, Germany, and Italy were SWORN allies prior to Pearl Harbor via the Tripartite Pact in 1940. There was active cooperation by these nations to defeat the yet-to-be-formed Allies. Many believe that Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was encouraged by the Germans so as to keep the U.S. out of Europe. So Germany had A LOT to do with Pearl Harbor. On the other hand, the bonds between Iraq and al-Qaeda are non-existent.

Second, the "Europe First" strategy was also initiated prior to Pearl Harbor. It initially started out as an discussion between the U.S. and England on how to combat the German threat. After Pearl Harbor, it was a military strategic decision to continue "Europe First" primarily because Russia joined the Allies. Thus, the attack on Germany could be made on at least 2 fronts with the combined forces of at least 3 countries. Plus, the bulk of Russia's military forces were in Eastern Europe and not in Asia. So we decided to attack in Europe and defensively contain Japan in Asia. The reasoning is clear, and it makes sense.

The reason we had "Europe First" is because we were cooperating and coordinating with others. If we were to have used the world's cooperation to its fullest today, we should have gone hard into Afghanistan. After all, NATO agreed to help us there militarily from the get go, but we initially refused their help.

Going into Iraq was a purely political decision and not a military one. Committing the bulk of our resources to Iraq before finishing the job in Afghanistan and getting Osama bin Laden makes no sense from a military standpoint. Plus, Iraq is NO Germany. Iraq was already contained in its own little box. Germany was clearly not. There was NO reason to shortshrift our activites in Afghanistan, minimize our pursuit of Osama and al-Qaeda, and rush into the Iraq. Remember, the timeline for the Iraq war was completely artificial. We could have brought out a calendar and thrown a dart to choose a time to invade Iraq. We chose to go to war in Iraq when there was NO CLEAR REASON to do so NOW. There was NO REASON we couldn't have finished up our shit in Afghanistan, catch Osama, and THEN deal with Iraq. Imminent threat in Iraq? Only if you stovepipe all your intelligence.

Finally, comparing our current president to FDR, one of the best presidents this nation has ever had? Please...The ability to convince others help us in our struggles is called LEADERSHIP. FDR had it. GWB has NONE. If our current president can't even convince the majority of his OWN citizens that the War on Iraq was worth it, do you really think he is capable of ably leading the world against the War on Terror? Or do you still hold on to the delusional belief that we can still go it alone all the time even in the face of our clusterfuck in Iraq?