John Kerry for President!

[jrydberg]

Actually, Tim Russert certainly challenged Bush on that on Meet the Press. And I'm certain that there will be a line of left-leaning pundits waiting like sharks to tear apart speeches at the Republican convention. That's the way these things are handled on network TV irrespective of party. There's no bias in that respect.

 

[Laura]

Originally posted by wvrevy
I've also heard more than one "undecided" voter say that they particularly enjoyed his speech, and that it helped them make up their mind.

You know, I think that Kerry's speech was mostly aimed at independent/undecided voters. It wasn't for people who already know whom they'll vote for in November. And I think that was the best thing about it. The undecided voter will decide this election.

 

[faithinkarma]

Really? No way harm us? If you really want to split hairs, they could. Did you not read the reports of some chemical/biological agents being found?

yes, and I kept reading to where they said these chemicals were years past their "use before" date and ineffective.

moving on......

Ok..you claim we are guided by Bush hatred ( despite the fact we have repeatedly asked you not to assume we hate anyone ) May we look at it from another angle? What if we are not the ones blinded...what if you are blinded by devotion?

Bear with me please....

Go back to 9/11 and that classroom in Florida. Now take Bush out of the equation. That is not President Bush sitting there, but THE president, any president. He is told the US is under attack. Not by a fleet from the British armada that might get here in 3 months...but by an unknown force in this day of bombs that can reach us in an hour. he does not excuse himself ot go take charge, or learn more. he sits there, for 7 minutes, and then poses for photos.

I suggest to you that if one looked at this dispassionately, one would judge these actions harshly. And yet, because it was Bush, people contnuue to defend this completely incomprehensible and unacceptable behavior.

So please do not accuse others of deciding based on emotion.

 

[jrydberg]

Just for the record, there are large numbers of people who are not Bush apologists, who do not particularly like a lot of the things he has done as president and who don't necessarily plan on voting for him, but thought his behavior on 9/11 was perfectly appropriate.

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
Go back to 9/11 and that classroom in Florida. Now take Bush out of the equation. That is not President Bush sitting there, but THE president, any president. He is told the US is under attack. Not by a fleet from the British armada that might get here in 3 months...but by an unknown force in this day of bombs that can reach us in an hour. he does not excuse himself ot go take charge, or learn more. he sits there, for 7 minutes, and then poses for photos.

I suggest to you that if one looked at this dispassionately, one would judge these actions harshly. And yet, because it was Bush, people contnuue to defend this completely incomprehensible and unacceptable behavior.

So please do not accuse others of deciding based on emotion.

But this reaction to his actions that day is not dispassionate. We've had this thread before. What, exactly was the "proper" response? "Take Charge" of what? He's not Harrison Ford on Air Force One. Dispassionately, I think his actions that day where whole and completely appropriate, every step of the way. I would have felt we had a lot worse leader had he got histrionic and "took charge". Yes, I'll continue to defend the "unnaceptable" behavior. If you ask me it was rather "grown up" behavior.

 

[faithinkarma]

SUZANNE

Your pms are not working. Please email me.

 

[Galahad]

I've also heard more than one "undecided" voter say that they particularly enjoyed his speech

Didn't know there WAS nore than one undecided voter.

 

[faithinkarma]

I happen to thing he is the commander in chief, and the one to give any orders. That the time could have been better spent learning what was happening or at the very least discussing possibilities and options.

The point is not what is acceptable behavior, but rather how you percieve the behavior according to your political views.

and anyone who denies that the whole face of this argument would have changed had it been Kerry who sat there, is simply....well, I do not have a word I can use.

 

[Galahad]

and anyone who denies that the whole face of this argument would have changed had it been Kerry who sat there, is simply....well, I do not have a word I can use.

But aren't we pretty constantly admonished not to assume we know somebody or what they would or wouldn't do or think under hypothetical circumstances? You have no idea what a supporter of President Bush's reaction to Senator Kerry doing the same thing would have been.

 

[Galahad]

I happen to thing he is the commander in chief, and the one to give any orders.

BTW, I sure don't want a CIC who "gives any orders". The last CIC that tried to do that was Johnson and you see where that lead us.

 

[Cebhfhionn]

Originally posted by faithinkarma

Go back to 9/11 and that classroom in Florida. Now take Bush out of the equation. That is not President Bush sitting there, but THE president, any president. He is told the US is under attack. Not by a fleet from the British armada that might get here in 3 months...but by an unknown force in this day of bombs that can reach us in an hour. he does not excuse himself ot go take charge, or learn more. he sits there, for 7 minutes, and then poses for photos.

[/B]

Ok, I don't make it a secret that I have no use for George Bush. However, I do feel that his actions on Sept. 11th were very appropriate. He was in a room full of children, reading them stories. Was he supposed to jump up and let the children know that something was horribly was wrong? No, I don't think so.

Make a note that for one day of this year, I have said something nice about George W. Bush.... I think that he absolutely, without a doubt acted appropriate that day!

 

[ToriLammy]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
I happen to thing he is the commander in chief, and the one to give any orders. That the time could have been better spent learning what was happening or at the very least discussing possibilities and options.

The point is not what is acceptable behavior, but rather how you percieve the behavior according to your political views.

and anyone who denies that the whole face of this argument would have changed had it been Kerry who sat there, is simply....well, I do not have a word I can use.

WOW, if the CIC gave all the orders the Military would never, ever get anything done in a timely manner. We've been through this before. The President (CIC) delegates authority. The persons he delegates to also delegate to others - it's called the Chain of Command, maybe it's just cause I served in the military and retired from (so I did a "few" years) that I understand how the military works.

For me, it wouldn't have matter who was the President when 9/11 happened and they were in a classroom. What he did was appropriate, had Clinton, Gore or even Kerry did the same thing I would not complain. Again, chalk it up to my actual experience with the military

 

[faithinkarma]

guess we will just have to agree to diasgree. And please don't paint me into saying that Bush makes the decisions...but I do believe he has the final say, and should be involved in the process.

And you are right I should not assume. But who here cannot predict which side of any debate a poster will come down on as soon as they see the posters name? Sure there are the rare surprises, but they are rare. In fact, if you think back, I have pointed it out to several of you when your answers did surprise me. Did not happen often did it?

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
So the BIG question is, who do you think the terrorists want as our next President?

Since this is your 2nd or 3rd go round with this "debate" topic, you should seriously think of searching around Ebay for a WWOD (What Would Osama Do) bracelet.

Short answer, who cares.

Long thought out answer, here's a reality check:

1) After nearly 3 years, 1043 American deaths, over 6000 wounded, and the spending of hundreds of billions of dollars, Osama Bin Laden is still alive and at large.

2) His 2nd in command, Al-Zwahari, the mastermind of 9/11 is also still alive and at large.

3) The Al-Qaeda movement is growing and in a more dangerous direction. It is no longer an organization run from the top, but is now an ideological movement with each area having their own structure.



Given the facts and not the usual right-wing bull****, the answer to the burning question "who do you think the terrorists want as our next President?", is George Bush.

Why would the terrorists take a chance on what John Kerry would do when they have a sure thing in George Bush?

 

[Patch'sD]

I guess Osma and his second in command flew the planes and planned the attacks. You list our wounded and dead? How many of the terrorists have been killed, How many cells have been knocked out of business. How many plans have been thwarted. The war on terror does not hinge on the capture or killing of one man.

By the Way, Why does Kerry, Edwards, and the rest of the Democratic Leadership keep on trying to convince the public on how good Mrs. Heinz speach was.


And if Kerry wants to take the High Road, Why was he out in January 04, Calling Bush the most inept President in History. Take a look at some of his early acceptance speaches. Another Flip Flop for the Flipper

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by Galahad
Why is it important to know what state he is from?

Becaue John O'Neill's Houston law firm has business ties to George Bush.

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
Becaue John O'Neill's Houston law firm has business ties to George Bush.

Gosh. Was it in the movie? Must be another conspiracy.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by wvrevy
But you have to remember, Saffron...if it can't be explained in a 10 second sound bite, all too many people will think that it's "waffling" or "hedging".

Take the $87 million Kerry voted for, then against. He's explained it a dozen times, and it's a clear reasoning for why he voted as he did. But some people can't get over the third grade giggling of the one sentence, that he voted for it before voting against it.

It's a shame that people try to boil down incredibly complex issues into ten second sound bites, but since that seems to be the attention span of some people, I guess they don't have a choice in the matter.

Yanno, I'm getting damned sick and tired of I hearing the "Repugnicans" (thanks for that one) whine about how "Kerry voted against the 87 billion to fund body armor for our troops".

Maybe one of the "Repugnicans" can explain just why, after spending trillions of dollars on defense, our troops were sent into battle without the proper equipment?

And maybe one of the "Repugnicans" can explain the real reason why we needed the extra 87 billion? It was because the Bush administration misjudged how much the war would cost (or just plain lied), misjudged how the was was going to be paid for (or just plain lied) misjudged how many troops were needed (or just plain lied), and misjudged the depth of the insurgency (maybe they weren't lying......could've been plain incompetence)

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
This is so far off base I don't know where to begin.

It's been shown that Iraq was harboring terrorists and paying them. Just not the ones that perpetrated 9-11. A terrorist is still a terrorist IMO.

How long did you really expect that sentiment to last? People are people and they usually go back to their same old same old in short time. And to stay with that thought in mind, seems that a lot of people have moved 9-11 to the memory archives.

What miserable state is the world in? Is global collapse around the corner? Some people seem to forget that the BAD people cause all the problems. No matter what we do/did as a country as far as foreign policy goes, that didn't warrant attacks on us by these fanaticals. And guess what, there will always be bad people but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to eliminate them or does it mean that we should "just try to get along".

If the US is hated so much by the rest of the world, why do they (I think when you say "the rest" you mean ALL) still come here to vacation, work and live. Heck they sneak across the border in the south for hope of a better life. Such a rotten country we are.

Are you for going into the Sudan and help cleaning up that God awful mess since you say your concerned about the human plight? If so, what's the difference between that and helping the Iraqi's to get out from under SH iron fist?

It's been shown that Iran was harboring and sponsoring more terrorists than Iraq was. Anytime that a war is going on, that signifies that something is not right with the world. How is starting war in Iraq going to make "them" pay for nine eleven?

You watch all of the news channels, right? I am not seeing anything that great coming out of Iraq right now. Just suicide bombing, anarchy chaos and more deaths. Iraqi deaths, and our soldiers deaths.

You say we should eliminate "bad people." Wouldn't it be ethical to eliminate the "right" bad people?

We need our allies support. If we do something that so goes against the rest of the worlds ethics, morals, etc. how can we expect to come out on top? Will we end up succumbing to a fate like Russia experienced some day?

I would need to hear more about Sudan. I've got to have a life, I can't stay glued to the news 24/7.

I've never claimed to be an expert in politics. It's a matter of fact it is my weakest subject. The rest of the world, and a lot of our own peopl are screaming similar things that I am saying!Keep your ears open. You can hear it if you try!

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by Galahad
Gosh. Was it in the movie? Must be another conspiracy.

Et tu, Galahad!

John O'Neill's ties to Richard Nixon, William Rhenquist, and this law firms ties to George Bush (and Enron) were covered extensively in the Boston Globe and The Houston Chronicle.

I'd give you a link that will link to "the rest of the story", but I can't get them to work. If anyone's interested, just google

-----John O'Neill disinfopedia----