Bush or Kerry??:-)

[WDWHunk]

Originally posted by wdwgirl03
LOL. Me either.

Hopefully you at least got the joke.

 

[wdwgirl03]

Originally posted by WDWHunk
Hopefully you at least got the joke.

Yes, I get the joke.

 

[Princess1590]

I would definitely vote for Bush, Kerry is way too liberal for me. Sry all you Kerry fans, but hey Bush is a great president.

 

[KingKobra]

I'm still undecided, but as of right now i'd vote Bush

 

[MagEpcDisAni Voyager]

I can't vote (unfortunatly). but if I could I'd vote for Kerry. let's look at the facts.

-Bush ignored documents in early 2001 that stated that Osama Bin Laden planned to attack inside the country.
-The economy is terrible.
-The war in Iraq is a miscalculated failure that is getting worse every day. Bush doesn't realize this and will keep doing things the way he is doing it.
-After 9/11 Bush and Rumsfeld were pushing for a 9/11-Iraq link.
-The biggest causes for war (WMD and 9/11/Al-Queda link) has gone unproven. The reports just came out syaing Saddam had no ties to Al Queda and that the past 10 years he hasn't been actively pursuing and WMD's.

Bush will stay inside his little world of what he thinks the world wants. Maybe the freedom he thinks we are brinigng to Iraq is what they look at as an occupation. Bush does not get that..... Plus, its' hard work.

Go Kerry.

 

[disneyangel7488]

The biggest causes for war (WMD and 9/11/Al-Queda link) has gone unproven. The reports just came out syaing Saddam had no ties to Al Queda and that the past 10 years he hasn't been actively pursuing and WMD's.

Even though the reports say that, it is possible that Saddam may still be hiding WMDs, and just moved them so that they wouldn't be found. I personally am against the war, however, it is still a good idea to keep our troops oin Iraq for that reason.

Like others have said, Kerry keeps changing his opinion. Why would you want a president who flip-flops his opinions based upon what is popular?

BTW, waverunnerchick- That is an interesting point of view. I have never looked at it that way before. Maybe it's true?

 

[JoeThaNo1Stunna]

Originally posted by MagEpcDisAni Voyager
I can't vote (unfortunatly). but if I could I'd vote for Kerry. let's look at the facts.

-Bush ignored documents in early 2001 that stated that Osama Bin Laden planned to attack inside the country.
-The economy is terrible.
-The war in Iraq is a miscalculated failure that is getting worse every day. Bush doesn't realize this and will keep doing things the way he is doing it.
-After 9/11 Bush and Rumsfeld were pushing for a 9/11-Iraq link.
-The biggest causes for war (WMD and 9/11/Al-Queda link) has gone unproven. The reports just came out syaing Saddam had no ties to Al Queda and that the past 10 years he hasn't been actively pursuing and WMD's.

Bush will stay inside his little world of what he thinks the world wants. Maybe the freedom he thinks we are brinigng to Iraq is what they look at as an occupation. Bush does not get that..... Plus, its' hard work.

Go Kerry.

-No one knew that it was a very credible threat, the vast majority of planning for 9/11 actually took place during the Clinton administration.
-Things are going well in the vast majority of the provinces, it is war and there will be bad things that's happening. What would Kerry do differently to have a war without deaths? He has a plan...he just won't share what it is.
-Everyone thought there were WMDs including Kerry, Gore, and Clinton:

"Without 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 is miscalculating America's response to his 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

"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 always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), 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."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

All Democrats claiming WMDs were a real threat.

-The economy is terrible? News to me! Bush inherited a recession and had 9/11 and the destruction of the World Trade Center. The US lost over a million jobs in the month following 9/11, yeah that was Bush's fault. Bush in fact turned a recession around faster than any President in American history. Home ownership has grown to the highest level in the history of the United States. The stock market boom of the 90s busted because the tech stocks that weren't worth the paper they were printed on dropped to their real value, yet somehow the dow is still over 10,000. This is the Democrats weakest argument of all, the fact is what Bush has done with this economy is nothing short of AMAZING.

 

[DaisieJ225]

Finally old enough to vote and I'm voting for Kerry, even though I'm not too fond of either of them.

 

[MagEpcDisAni Voyager]

Does any1 think the Iraq situation is getting any better? Or look at it this way. Can it be possible to get betterif Bush keeps running the war the way he does. It doesn't matter how many times he says, "They hate us for our freedom." There's more to it than that, and President Bush just doesn't get it.

 

[kidpluto]

~*~cant vote~*~
but i would say bush

 

[pansQT]

just bcause bush can't speak arguativley that well doesn't mean he's not a good president! bsides! kerry's a joke! sry 2 u kerry voters, but, that's wat i believe! he changes his opinion so quickly! it's like split personalities! as bush said in one of his public speaking things, "Kerry could probably spend over 90 minutes arguing with himself about some things!" and he's right!

 

[MagEpcDisAni Voyager]

You wanna talk about flip flopping. Why don't we look at President Bush:

At the beginning of his presidency he claimed Iraq was not developing a weapons program. It wasnb't unitl 9/11 when he began actively pursuing a the weapons in Iraq.

Or even greater is this. When this war began it was all about the WMD's and the 9/11 link. When this went unproven this war became about overthrowing a dictator and brining freedom and deomcracy to Iraq. What's ironic now is that Iraqis are fighting us for liberating them as they see us as occupiers.

 

[Wick]

Originally posted by MagEpcDisAni Voyager
When this war began it was all about the WMD's and the 9/11 link. When this went unproven this war became about overthrowing a dictator and brining freedom and deomcracy to Iraq. What's ironic now is that Iraqis are fighting us for liberating them as they see us as occupiers.

proving a link between 9.11 and iraq was never brought about by the bush administration. so i dunno what youre talkin about. the real concern is the known link between al qaeda and iraq, which is obviously al zarqawi.

if you saw colin powells presentations on the floor of the UN security council, you'd know that WMD was not the only reason for invading iraq. having an ally of democracy in the middle east besides israel was, is, and always will be a key element in fighting the war on terror. and even at that, WMD in the form of chemical warfare has been found in iraq. need i remind you of the sarin canisters, mustard gas, ricin residue, etc..

and also, the vast majority of iraqis DO see us as liberators. it's the insurgencies who've got the twisted ideology. these are mainly baath party loyalists still fighting for saddam. theyre also al qaeda operatives comin outta the woodwork.

 

[MagEpcDisAni Voyager]

It's not just the Baathists who are fighting back. A lot of these insurgents that are fighting were those who viewed us as liberators, but now want us out because things aren't gettong better.

And yes, The Bush Administration said 9/11/Al-Queda was linked to Sadamm, They tried drilling it into our brains b4 the war.


Recently the report came out that Iraq had no WMD and wasn't developing them in the past ten years.

Furthermore if Sadamm was such a threat isn't North Korea and Iran. Afterall Iran is where many of the terrprists were hiding and they are developing a nuclear bomb. So why aren't we invading them? Aren't they a bigger threat than Sadamm?

 

[JoeThaNo1Stunna]

The Administration never came out and said Saddam was a cause of 9/11, he only linked Al Qaeda and Iraq, which is a valid link. Before 2003, there was little doubt among anyone that Iraq was developing WMDs. It is very easy to play Monday Morning QB and bash someone based on information we didn't have when Bush and Kerry decided to go to war. The hypocrisy is astonishing, it was OK for Kerry to claim Iraq had WMDs and send us to war, but for Bush to do the same is wrong? Huh? What's the basis? (We ain't going nowhere but got suits and cases )

There definetly was a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, but no there was no link between Iraq and 9/11. 9/11 caused us to go to Iraq to prevent a future terrorist attack. Not because Iraq attacked us on 9/11, but because the regime that existed supported a 9/11 like attack. It's easy to see if you take your liberal glasses off and look. Kerry thought the same thing until it became politically advantageous to say something different. This icon reminds me of Kerry arguing with himself.

 

[MagEpcDisAni Voyager]

I'm sorry who sent us to war? Bush or Kerry? Yes, Kerry voted for the war based on the information the President had gathered. But Bush did not do the proper planning and had no escape startegy in Iraq and wasn't prepared for the situation now. His own administration has said that.

And how can you say theres a Iraq, Al-Queda link when Rumsfeld just came out and said there is not a link between them.

People say Kerry flip flops. But Bush is just delusional. He doesn't realize what is going on in Iraq and what he is doing wrong.

 

[JoeThaNo1Stunna]

The administration has only said there is no link between Iraq and 9/11, that is not the same thing as saying there is no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, a link which did exist and still exists. Kerry looked at the same information Bush looked at, said Saddam was a threat with WMDs, said we needed to disarm him, and voted to go to war. Bush had additional intelligence from the Brits and Russians that Saddam was developing WMDs. Had he not gone to war with Iraq, I believe Dems would now be saying that he has not been responsive enough to the threat of terror.

Look, there are bad things going on in Iraq. Hello, a dictator has just been dethroned and the country's infrastructure has to be redone from the ground up. Do you expect it to be a walk in the park? Kerry is trying to have the best of both worlds by voting for the war, declaring himself anti-war, and now bashing anything any everything Bush does. What would Kerry do that's different in this post-war/reconstruction Iraq? He claims that he'd bring in allies, well every chance he gets, he demeans our allies. Calling Allawi a puppet, bashing the entire coalition (Britain, Poland, Austrailia, New Iraq) as being coerced and bribed. This is not the way to go about bringing in friends. Again, saying one thing, doing another.

 

[Jeremy5150]

Originally posted by MagEpcDisAni Voyager
Does any1 think the Iraq situation is getting any better? Or look at it this way. Can it be possible to get betterif Bush keeps running the war the way he does. It doesn't matter how many times he says, "They hate us for our freedom." There's more to it than that, and President Bush just doesn't get it.

It took 7 years after the end of WW2 before things calmed down in Germany and Americans stopped dieing there. Do you think Bush can just change a country over night?

 

[prittyfull_sunset]

Bush bush bush!!!!!!!!!!! NOT KERRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[prittyfull_sunset]

test im testing my siggie!