Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New Book: Kerry ‘Unfit for Command’
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 466 of 612 (138680)
09-01-2004 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 457 by joshua221
08-31-2004 7:57 PM


In Between these two quotes is time, and change, the world was a different place when Sr. was in power, first off, 9/11 of course did not happen. I am not saying that 9/11 was a reason for war, please do not misunderstand this, but say 9/11 happened when Sr. was in office, things would have obviously been different.
This assumes that the war in Iraq is in any way related to the "war" on terror. It isn't. Shrub had the plan to invade Iraq ready to go before 911 and was waiting for an opportunity to impliment it. My laptop is down (will have to rebuild tommorrow, yech) so I do not have the bookmark for the site with this information, it is a neocon site and lists cheney and others as members (It also talks about 'whatevers' new world order).
In fact the changes in Iraq from the end of the first war to the start of the second were fairly minor, mostly related to destruction of weapons due to UN inspections program actually working.
And the only change in the US is the change in administration to one that wants to use fear and war to remain in power.
Bush vowed not to use the 911 tragedy for political purposes. Watch the convention and see if you can convince yourself that he isn't doing just that.
shrub writes:
... and remove a grave and gathering danger to America ...
what danger where? Last I saw, Iraq had barely the ability to attack Iran again.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 457 by joshua221, posted 08-31-2004 7:57 PM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 482 by joshua221, posted 09-02-2004 10:34 PM RAZD has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 467 of 612 (138742)
09-01-2004 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 457 by joshua221
08-31-2004 7:57 PM


quote:
In Between these two quotes is time, and change, the world was a different place when Sr. was in power, first off, 9/11 of course did not happen. I am not saying that 9/11 was a reason for war, please do not misunderstand this, but say 9/11 happened when Sr. was in office, things would have obviously been different.
Really? How, do you think?
Are you saying that Sr. would have changed his opinion completely and would have invaded a sovereign nation to get it's oil? Do you think Sr. would have sent almost 1,000 American soldiers to their deaths for the oil? Do you think Sr., the former head of the CIA, would have been so gullible and dumb about the very shaky intelligence?
quote:
In 2003, coalition forces acted with skill and bravery to liberate the Iraqi people and remove a grave and gathering danger to America and the world.
Um, can you please provide the evidence that Iraq was a "grave and gathering danger to America and the World?"
Hussein didn't even control his entire country!
Right before 9/11 Colin Powel and Condi Rice didn't give Iraq a second thought, not considering it a threat at all.
Also, the sanctions and disarmament had greatly diminished Iraq's capability to do anything to anybody, let alone America.
There was no Taliban connection, either.
Besides, I thought that the reason we invaded them is because they had WMD. The administration TOLD US THEY KNEW WHERE THE WMD WERE.
They were lying.
quote:
In 2001, with less than a month’s notice,
Um, there was plenty of notice before 9/11.
Lots and lots.
The administration just chose to ignore it and continue with plans to invent some reason to invade Iraq.
quote:
American and British forces joined with local anti-Taliban troops in an assault on the al Qaeda network and the Taliban regime that gave it safe harbor in Afghanistan.
In both cases, decisive victories were achieved
Decisive victories? What planet do you live on?
Where is Osama bin Laden? Are the warlords in Afghanistan gaining power again? (hint:yes)
Was Iraq a hotbed of extremeist anti-American sentiment before we invaded? (hint:no) How about now? (hint:yes)
quote:
All that without a plan? Really.
Yes, all that without a plan.
No plan beyond :"Let's go bomb 'em and get the oil, install some puppet government that we still control."
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-01-2004 08:21 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 457 by joshua221, posted 08-31-2004 7:57 PM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 468 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2004 9:44 AM nator has not replied
 Message 480 by Trump won, posted 09-02-2004 10:13 PM nator has replied
 Message 483 by joshua221, posted 09-02-2004 10:45 PM nator has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 468 of 612 (138746)
09-01-2004 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 467 by nator
09-01-2004 9:20 AM


"decisive victories" is from a bush quote (not prophex), ie like "mission accomplished"
heh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 467 by nator, posted 09-01-2004 9:20 AM nator has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 469 of 612 (138785)
09-01-2004 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 462 by Hangdawg13
08-31-2004 9:51 PM


You admit that it takes those qualities I listed to do what Bush has done, but you refuse to believe that Bush has those qualities because in your subjective viewpoint "Bush doesn't act like he has those things."
Certainly the qualities you describe could account for McCain's "transformation."
But they're not the only qualities that could account; and as I said, Bush doesn't act like he has the qualities you describe in any other situation.
That's not "subjective", that's factual. Bush doesn't act like a man of honesty and he's never been known for his ability to communicate.
Through the lens of your subjectivity and hatred of this man you see him as a "arrogant, vindictive, tyrant" even though the fruit of his actions show just the opposite.
The "fruit of his actions" don't show the opposite. It's as a result of the majority of his actions that I come to the conclusions about him that I do. He acts like a vindictive, arrogant tyrant.
I have no particular "hatred" for the man, by the way. I'm sure he's probably a good guy to have at a barbeque. But he's not the man I want running my country, and I don't see that it's "hatred" to come to that conclusion.
He doesn't becuase... no matter what happens... everything that is bad is Bush's fault in your mind.
Yeah... you know, since I voted for Bush in 2000, playing the "you hate Bush" card isn't going to be very effective. My opposition to his candidacy and re-election stem not from a personal hatred, but from a reasonable assessment of the effects of his policies on the nation.
People aren't better off than they were 4 years ago, they're worse. Bush's policies can be shown to be the cause of a great deal of that.
Obviously not everything is Bush's fault. But some things are, and that's why I don't want him re-elected.
As I've said several times, what happened 3 decades ago over four months in a twisted war matters not to me.
Right. So, it doesn't matter what lies your side tells, just as long as they're lying about something that happened 30 years ago.
I find your lack of respect for truth disgusting, Hangdawg.
What matters to me is not what happened back then, but how Kerry has handled this situation now.
But you've just made it clear that you don't know how Kerry has handled the situation, because when Kerry makes his responses, you shut them out.
EASY!!! ignore them, remain firm, resolute
You mean, just like Dukakis did in '88? How well did that work for him, Hangdawg?
I'll tell you. Dukakis lost a double-digit lead in the polls in weeks because "ignoring and remaining firm" looked like weakness to voters like you. Kerry can't afford to make the same mistake. Ignoring the charges makes them look like they have merit to people like you.
let your character be shown through firm and effective leadership.
Kerry's been a firm and effective leader in many situations, including Vietnam and his term in the Senate, as we've shown. On the other hand, Bush waited seven minutes to take action on 9/11 so that he could finish a comic book. Is that what you would term "firm and effective leadership"?
Probably you would, which is rather sad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by Hangdawg13, posted 08-31-2004 9:51 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 473 by Hangdawg13, posted 09-02-2004 12:40 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 474 by ThingsChange, posted 09-02-2004 1:10 PM crashfrog has replied

Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 781 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 470 of 612 (139074)
09-02-2004 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 465 by RAZD
08-31-2004 10:01 PM


Re: OR
or it takes a viscious threat to the rest of his career on the order of the smear campaign bush did on him, and the knowledge that being inside can help prevent catastrophe better than being on the outside.
Haha! my roomate (who I like a lot and is really cool except for being for Kerry) ascribes to this same ridiculous conspiracy theory. If this were true, McCain is the best damn spineless actor POW politician I've ever heard of... and Bush too, as he comes across to most people as the most genuine down to earth guy to be president in a long while.
You're theory is nuts and you only ascribe to it because you hate Bush and refuse to admit any good about him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 465 by RAZD, posted 08-31-2004 10:01 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 471 by RAZD, posted 09-02-2004 10:02 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied
 Message 472 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2004 11:31 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 471 of 612 (139118)
09-02-2004 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 470 by Hangdawg13
09-02-2004 4:10 AM


Re: OR
I was pointing out possibilities, you picked one. What I think is really going on is that McCain wants something, badly.
He was prompt with his support of Kerry on ABC, not prompt with his support of Shrub: what does that tell you?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 470 by Hangdawg13, posted 09-02-2004 4:10 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 476 by ThingsChange, posted 09-02-2004 1:24 PM RAZD has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 472 of 612 (139143)
09-02-2004 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 470 by Hangdawg13
09-02-2004 4:10 AM


and Bush too, as he comes across to most people as the most genuine down to earth guy to be president in a long while.
I don't know that that's true.
53 percent of respondents in a recent poll thought that he should not be re-elected for a second term. I'm not sure that's a ringing endorsement of his "down to earth"-ness.
And remember too that while Bush may come off to some people as "down-to-earth", that certainly can't be said for the men he's surrounded himself with; Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and the others. Karl Rove is legendary in political circles for masterminding cynical, dirty campaigns.
You can tell a man by the company that he keeps. If Bush was such a great guy he wouldn't have surrounded himself with these people.
You're theory is nuts and you only ascribe to it because you hate Bush and refuse to admit any good about him.
As you say, it either takes a calculated political threat - which we've seen the Bush Administration carry through on a number of times - or it takes honesty and communicativeness.
If Bush is so honest and communicative, why have we never seen these traits before? He's a terrible communicator - witness the "we can't win the war on terror/I mean we can win the war on terror" flap in the papers these days - even his supporters admit that.
Sorry, but I'm not going to accept McCain's flip-flop as proof of positive character traits that, conviniently, we've never seen before.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 470 by Hangdawg13, posted 09-02-2004 4:10 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 781 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 473 of 612 (139161)
09-02-2004 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 469 by crashfrog
09-01-2004 11:48 AM


I have no particular "hatred" for the man, by the way.
I'm sorry for misrepresenting you then -- most people against him have a venemous hate for him.
I find your lack of respect for truth disgusting, Hangdawg.
I'll repeat again: I've heard good arguments both ways and inconsistencies in both the SBVs and Kerry's stories. Of course you swallow every bit of fact or propoganda that supports Kerry's account which itself has changed. I don't know to what extent who lied about what; I don't think I can ever know for sure, and what happened during 4 months over 3 decades ago doesn't really affect my decision much. If you think that is a lack of respect for truth, in the words of Dick Cheney... oh no I can't say that, haha..
Kerry's been a firm and effective leader in many situations, including Vietnam and his term in the Senate, as we've shown.
You mean your edited photoshopped version of the story to show him the best light possible.
On the other hand, Bush waited seven minutes to take action on 9/11 so that he could finish a comic book. Is that what you would term "firm and effective leadership"?
This is the lamest possible argument... almost lamer than the one about Bush coercing McCain.
Look, you'll believe what you want to believe, and neither one of us will change our minds... and I have class to attend, so I'm going to have to get out of this debate. Thanks for the debate. It was fun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 469 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2004 11:48 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 489 by crashfrog, posted 09-03-2004 1:15 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

ThingsChange
Member (Idle past 5956 days)
Posts: 315
From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony)
Joined: 02-04-2004


Message 474 of 612 (139175)
09-02-2004 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 469 by crashfrog
09-01-2004 11:48 AM


Kerry has not been in leader position
crashfrog writes:
Kerry's been a firm and effective leader in many situations
You've got to be kidding. "Firm" and "effective"? That's spin.
Dick Cheney made a very good point about Kerry: He has NOT been experienced in true leadership position of any magnitude, and that may account for his flip-flopping. He did not run a business nor hold an office in a command position. Bush at least ran a business for awhile. In the Senate, Kerry was not in a position to actually make a decision. He just voted on things (and did not attend as many sessions as he should, nor be effective at convincing others to pass his legislative proposals).
To me, there is more risk of terrorism here and abroad with Kerry in the Whitehouse, because there is more chance that the terrorists can get away with something. I also see Iran, China and North Korea willing to take more risks of weapons development and aggression towards their weak neighbors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 469 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2004 11:48 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 475 by RAZD, posted 09-02-2004 1:24 PM ThingsChange has replied
 Message 490 by crashfrog, posted 09-03-2004 1:19 AM ThingsChange has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 475 of 612 (139180)
09-02-2004 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 474 by ThingsChange
09-02-2004 1:10 PM


Re: Kerry has not been in leader position
Bush at least ran a business for awhile.
... before it went bankrupt: Gooood leadership qualities.
Bush ducked serving according to the requirements in the ANG: Gooood leadership qualities.
Bush lied about DUI conviction: Gooood leadership qualities.
or are you really voting for Cheney?
Perhaps you can answer why the RNC has all been about Kerry? Don't they have a program???
or should we just expect 4 more years of blundering along?
Leadership is NOT about how bad the other guy is.
Bush is not a leader, he is a bully.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 474 by ThingsChange, posted 09-02-2004 1:10 PM ThingsChange has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 478 by ThingsChange, posted 09-02-2004 7:34 PM RAZD has replied

ThingsChange
Member (Idle past 5956 days)
Posts: 315
From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony)
Joined: 02-04-2004


Message 476 of 612 (139181)
09-02-2004 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 471 by RAZD
09-02-2004 10:02 AM


McCain is pandering to both sides
RAZD writes:
McCain wants something, badly
I think McCain is carefully constructing his words for his own ambitions, but I do think he is genuinely expressing his honest opinion that Bush is the better leader AT THIS ELECTION than Kerry.
McCain sees the 2008 election shaping up as Ms. Clinton versus whoever can beat her. He may be thinking that 2008 is his best and last shot at the White House. The Republicans may even step back a bit on anti-abortion stances just to keep a more liberal person out of the White House.
McCain is pandering to both sides. I don't really think he respects Kerry for his anti-Vietnam actions and words, but he knows he needs Democrat voters in 2008, since he may lose some ProLife voters.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by RAZD, posted 09-02-2004 10:02 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 477 by RAZD, posted 09-02-2004 3:38 PM ThingsChange has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 477 of 612 (139223)
09-02-2004 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 476 by ThingsChange
09-02-2004 1:24 PM


Re: McCain is pandering to both sides
Things Change writes:
opinion that Bush is the better leader AT THIS ELECTION than Kerry.
don't really think he respects Kerry for his anti-Vietnam actions and words, but he knows he needs ...
In the ABC interview cited he said that both were suitable leaders, his response was faster and less equivocal of Kerry than it was of Bush.
Peter Jennings also noted in the interview that McCain and Kerry were long time friends, built mainly from working together on veteran issues many years in congress. If he resented the anti-war issue he must have overcome it.
The interview is available at
http://abcnews.go.com/...ight/mccain_interview_040830-8.html
Here are some excerpts, but they don't give you the nuance of the way they were said. There is a video link as well.
ABC writes:
JENNINGS: Do you take some satisfaction from the fact that the Bush administration now needs you?
McCAIN: No, I don't. I think what I have to look at is the future of the country. I am a friend of John Kerry's. I think he'd be a good president. I think this president proved himself with his leadership after Sept. 11th, and his strength, and his ability to lead the country.
JENNINGS: Do you think the president has been the uniter, which he promised to be at the convention four years ago?
McCAIN: No. But I'm not sure how much of it is his fault. And I'm sure that some of it's his fault, okay? But we have this bitterness from the Clinton impeachment, from the Florida election. He didn't have anything to do with the chads. We have a more bitterly partisan Congress and nation than I've ever seen, and it's regrettable. And I believe that the president, after he's reelected, will try to fix that.
JENNINGS: George Bush's political party, as we'll call it, is, among other things, is not well disposed to Senator McCAIN. And it is argued by some that your embrace of President Bush, in this campaign, is really a recalculation of your own political self-interest.
McCAIN: You know, I hope that most of the people who have known me for the last 22 years that I've been in public office wouldn't believe that. Because I think most Americans that know me, and my constituents in Arizona do, that I try to do what's right. And many times that has not been popular, particularly at first. But my goal right now is to be reelected to the Senate. Am I confident of reelection? Yes. Do the people of Arizona expect me to seek their support and campaign for it? Yes.
JENNINGS: Do you think Kerry has made a serious miscalculation by making his Vietnam experience as big a deal as he has?
McCAIN: I believe that it was probably a mistake to emphasize it as much as he did. I believe the reason why he did, so that they could inoculate themselves against the "Dukakis in the tank" routine. And perhaps they overplayed their hand. But it's awful easy for me to sit on the sidelines. In South Carolina, which you referred to, I way overreacted. Way overreacted to the things that were said about me. So I'm sure no expert on how to do it right.
JENNINGS: Is [Kerry] not strong enough to be president?
McCAIN: I think he's strong enough to be president. I just believe that President Bush has already proven his leadership by his conduct of himself and leadership of this country after Sept. 11th.
JENNINGS: Is John Kerry able to handle foreign affairs as well as President Bush?
McCAIN: I would think he would handle it well. But again, I give the same answer about leadership. I think the president has proven leadership.
JENNINGS: We've got X-days left until the election itself. Are you disappointed that so much of the time has been given to this Swift Boat controversy [that attacked Kerry's war record], and not enough to other issues, which you believe profoundly in?
McCAIN: I'm terribly disappointed. Today, probably a young American will die in Iraq tragically. And instead of trying to work together, or apart, trying to resolve how we can win this conflict in Iraq, which is by no means certain, we're going back and refighting a war that we can't erase a single name from the Vietnam War memorial. And I think it's just terrible, and I know a lot of veterans, who are 18-, 19-, 20-year-old kids. They fought honorably. They came home. And they were not well-treated by their fellow citizens. That dramatically exacerbated their problems. Some of them still haven't come all the way home. So we're reopening all of those wounds, and I'm deeply, deeply disturbed about it.
JENNINGS: Do you think there has been some miscalculation in Iraq?
McCAIN: Sure. And I complained about them at the time.
JENNINGS: And what do you think it has been?
McCAIN: I think that we didn't anticipate, as the president just said, the challenges that we face in the quote, post-combat phase. And I implore Secretary Rumsfeld to send more troops. But one of the reasons why we avoid wars, is because mistakes are made in wars. Gen. MacArthur told Harry Truman that the Chinese would not evade invade Korea. We always make mistakes.
JENNINGS: Can you tell me specifically what mistakes you think were made?
McCAIN: Specifically, we allowed the looting. We should have shot the looters immediately, which [would not have] created an environment of lawlessness. We obviously should have understood that we had to have more troops there in the way of linguists and special forces, and civil affairs people. We should have probably made a transition to an Iraqi government sooner rather than later. But the point is, you make mistakes, you recognize the mistakes, and you fix them. That's what we need to do.
JENNINGS: Anything else you want to say?
McCAIN: I believe that my party needs to go back more to the principles of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, my two personal heroes particularly on environmental issues. I believe that climate change is real. I think we need to address it in a more meaningful fashion. I think that we need to probably recognize that there are severe problems out there economically, and otherwise amongst lower income Americans. We've just seen those statistics.
enjoy.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 09-02-2004 02:38 PM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 476 by ThingsChange, posted 09-02-2004 1:24 PM ThingsChange has not replied

ThingsChange
Member (Idle past 5956 days)
Posts: 315
From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony)
Joined: 02-04-2004


Message 478 of 612 (139282)
09-02-2004 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 475 by RAZD
09-02-2004 1:24 PM


Re: Kerry has not been in leader position
You are so spinning!!!!
He HAS demonstrated ability to successfully lead others.
Bush formed a partnership and then managed the Texas Rangers.
Bush was a Governor for 6 yrs.
His oil exploration business hit the skids along with many many others during the low oil cost period when exploration in the USA was practically dead. Even today, oil industry companies are bought and sold frequently. It's a risky business. Note that Bush was still appointed director positions in the takeovers.
And, of course, he was elected President and has 4 yrs experience handling a crisis well. He has more support now than he did when he was originally elected.
The RNC has NOT been mostly about Kerry! You hear what you want to hear, obviously.
Look, I am not a big Bush supporter, because he is more liberal than I would like in some areas, and less liberal in some other areas (like science research). But, I much prefer him over Kerry, for much the same reasons that Zell Miller stated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 475 by RAZD, posted 09-02-2004 1:24 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 479 by RAZD, posted 09-02-2004 9:43 PM ThingsChange has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 479 of 612 (139311)
09-02-2004 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 478 by ThingsChange
09-02-2004 7:34 PM


Bus has not been in leader when in position
Managing a football team is leadership? WOW.
Governor for six dismal years where he takes credit for a bill he vetoed and then was pass to over-ride his veto ... another good example.
It's the official policy of the RNC that Bush is a good leader because he just happened to be president when the sky fell ...
People forget the first attack on the world trade towers, and when Clinton went after OBL the repubs were against it .. it was "wagging the dog" .. it was "trying to distract attention from monica" .. it was bad foreign policy ...
If his being in charge is such good evidence of leadership why
(1) did we invade Iraq after insulting all our allies
(2) aren't the soldiers home yet when - originally - it was supposed to be a short, heavily celebrated victory and departure?
(3) arent' the soldeirs home yet -- on the revised time-table
(4) arent' the soldiers home yet --- on the re-revised time table
(5) are more soldiers being sent over than were there for the war due to another revision of "the plan" (is there one?)
(6) are all the reasons for going into Iraq shown blatantly to be non-existent
(7) what he has done on the economy has unnecessarily put the nation much deeper in debt
(8) has he cut benefits to the soldiers doing his dirty work, while their service is extended and extended
WHAT DOES FAILURE LOOK LIKE?
It is also offical RNC policy that the reason for going to war is the fact that we are there now ... doesn't anybody else see what is wrong with that thinking?
WHAT DOES INCOMPETENCE LOOK LIKE?
He doesn't deserve a single rational vote. And I'm not sure he will get one.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 478 by ThingsChange, posted 09-02-2004 7:34 PM ThingsChange has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 481 by Trump won, posted 09-02-2004 10:25 PM RAZD has replied

Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1270 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 480 of 612 (139328)
09-02-2004 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 467 by nator
09-01-2004 9:20 AM


prophex wrote:
quote:
but say 9/11 happened when Sr. was in office, things would have obviously been different.
You then wrote:
quote:
Really? How, do you think?
Are you saying that Sr. would have changed his opinion completely and would have invaded a sovereign nation to get it's oil? Do you think Sr. would have sent almost 1,000 American soldiers to their deaths for the oil? Do you think Sr., the former head of the CIA, would have been so gullible and dumb about the very shaky intelligence?
He said what you said. You read what he wrote wrong because there may have been a want for him to disagree with the obvious, he has an understanding of the father son relation that the Bush's have just as you do. Your bias is amazing.
This message has been edited by CHRIS PORTEUS jr, 09-02-2004 09:14 PM
This message has been edited by CHRIS PORTEUS jr, 09-02-2004 09:15 PM

-porcelain

This message is a reply to:
 Message 467 by nator, posted 09-01-2004 9:20 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 499 by nator, posted 09-03-2004 11:22 AM Trump won has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024