John Kerry's WDW comment

[CLynnJones]

With all due respect, dmadman43 -I can't imagine any intelligent person voting for Bush. His record for the past 4 years speaks for itself. Has he done a good job for us? I think the answer is "NO".
I believe that John Kerry has the intelligence and the diplomatic skills that Bush sorely lacks. I think he can get our country back on the right track--headed in a better, brighter direction. I hope he gets the chance to do just that. He will have a big job ahead of him needless to say.

 

[TheBellhop]

So because of YOUR opinion, that makes all people that vote for Bush unintelligent?

 

[CLynnJones]

Originally posted by dmadman43
Apparently Kerry believes that, too:

"Today marks a tragic milestone in the war in Iraq. More than 1,000 of America's sons and daughters have now given their lives on behalf of their country, on behalf of freedom in the war on terror. I think that the first thing that every American wants to say today is how deeply we each feel the loss."

-John Kerry on DNCNN's Wolf Blitzer



Please produce the quote where Bush, or anyone in the administration said Iraq was involved in 9/11. As for Saddam's relationship with Al-Queda, you can refuse to believe it all you want. The evidence is against you, however.



I'll give you this. You have the talking points down. I suppose you too believe Prime Minister Alawi is a puppet?

[/b]

I see it differently. Any candidate for President that is running on his supposed ability to build a "true coalition" and being a master in international relations that comes right out and calls the Prime Minister of a country we are responsible for helping to rebuild a puppet and claims that that Prime Minister is wrong about what is going on in his own country when that candidate hasn't even set foot in that country is is too stupid or too dangerous to be in the WH. But, you vote your heart. Gotta admire you for that. (I'm not sure about the brains, though)

[/b]

Here comes the boogey-man!! Boo!!!!





Sincerely, I admire you honest for finally admiting you are not voting FOR Kerry, but against Bush. Because I can't imagine any intelligent person voting FOR Kerry. [/B]

BellHop, I was responding to this post.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by dmadman43
I suppose you too believe Prime Minister Alawi is a puppet?

Alawi is also a liar. Remember when Alawi said "14 of 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces are completely safe. No problems there"?

How do you and the rest of the Bush spin-meisters explain this story:

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20040929073109990009

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2004/09/28/international/29ATTACK-GRAPH.html

Originally posted by dmadman43
Any candidate for President that is running on his supposed ability to build a "true coalition" and being a master in international relations that comes right out and calls the Prime Minister of a country we are responsible for helping to rebuild a puppet and claims that that Prime Minister is wrong about what is going on in his own country when that candidate hasn't even set foot in that country is is too stupid or too dangerous to be in the WH.

Either Alawi (and the Bush administration) isn't aware of what's going on in Iraq, or he (and the Bush administration) is lying.


So which is it: Are they incompetently out of touch and unaware or are they the biggest bunch of lying *******s on God's green earth?

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by CLynnJones
I can't imagine any intelligent person voting for Bush. His record for the past 4 years speaks for itself. Has he done a good job for us? I think the answer is "NO".

Someone (maybe you) stated this earlier. His record DOES speak for itself (although, imo, when people come on here and simply state "his record speaks for himself", they are really just parroting the rest of the Democrats without a firm understanding of the Administration's policies)--which is why I am, in fact, voting for Bush.

I believe that John Kerry has the intelligence and the diplomatic skills that Bush sorely lacks. I think he can get our country back on the right track--headed in a better, brighter direction. I hope he gets the chance to do just that. He will have a big job ahead of him needless to say.

By diplomacy, do you mean stating whatever needs to be said to get approval? If so, I'll grant you that he is good at that (gee, even thnswr just admitted it!) --with a segment of the population at least. Considering both France and Germany just spoke out saying they still would not support America's foreign policy with Kerry in office, I'm not sure you're correct about the outcome, however. Bush does what he believes to be the Right thing, and doesn't sway from that--thereby always pleasing a certain group of the population, while always displeasing another. Kerry changes his opinion to agree with what he believes each group of people believe to be the right thing. . .thereby always displeasing everyone at some time.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by CLynnJones
With all due respect, dmadman43 -I can't imagine any intelligent person voting for Bush. His record for the past 4 years speaks for itself. Has he done a good job for us? I think the answer is "NO".
I believe that John Kerry has the intelligence and the diplomatic skills that Bush sorely lacks. I think he can get our country back on the right track--headed in a better, brighter direction. I hope he gets the chance to do just that. He will have a big job ahead of him needless to say.

Calling a Prime Minister of another country a puppet shows great diplomatic skills?

France and Germany have aleady gone on record as saying they won't commit to Iraq no matter who is President. By definition we have a larger coalition than we had for the Korean War. So, when Kerry says he will get other nations involved, I'm not sure how he proposes to do that, and what evidence we have in his resume that shows he's a qualified diplomat. (other than working with the NV in the 1972 Paris peace talks) I would love to see the evidence proving that Kerry has diplomatic skills. Anyone? Anyone?

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
Alawi is also a liar. Remember when Alawi said "14 of 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces are completely safe. No problems there"?

How do you and the rest of the Bush spin-meisters explain this story:

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20040929073109990009

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2004/09/28/international/29ATTACK-GRAPH.html




Either Alawi (and the Bush administration) isn't aware of what's going on in Iraq, or he (and the Bush administration) is lying.

I couldn't get into the aol link you provided so I can't comment on that.

The NYT link proves the point I've made earlier.


So which is it: Are they incompetently out of touch and unaware or are they the biggest bunch of lying *******s on God's green earth?

I take it that's a "yes" from you? Agree with Kerry in calling Prime Ministers of another nation puppets?

Until you and I sit foot in Iraq and spend any time there, I'll take the word of someone that lives there over filtered news reports any day of the week.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
Alawi is also a liar. Remember when Alawi said "14 of 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces are completely safe. No problems there"?

How do you and the rest of the Bush spin-meisters explain this story:

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20040929073109990009

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2004/09/28/international/29ATTACK-GRAPH.html




Either Alawi (and the Bush administration) isn't aware of what's going on in Iraq, or he (and the Bush administration) is lying.


So which is it: Are they incompetently out of touch and unaware or are they the biggest bunch of lying *******s on God's green earth?

What? No refuting of Kerry's statement on DNCNN?

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
I know what Bush is and I don't want him back. I'll take my chances with Kerry.

Understood. And I'll take my chances with Bush. Not only do I not know what Kerry is, my fear is that Kerry doesn't know what Kerry is.

Just one man's opinion.

Richard

 

[danacara]

This post is a joke, right?

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by dmadman43
I couldn't get into the aol link you provided so I can't comment on that.

So sorry.

Try this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/29/international/middleeast/29attacks.html?hp

Originally posted by dmadman43
The NYT link proves the point I've made earlier.

No offense intended, but what point was that?

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by danacara
This post is a joke, right?

You wonder sometimes.

 

[Rokkitsci]

I note that the basic position of the LWers - who are looking for a 'reason' to hate Bush - is that if a terrorist was not directly involved with 9-11, then we have to wait until they attack us before we can take action against them. Furthermore, they seem to be saying that even with evidence, we cannot take action until some court has ruled on the matter, and the other side has had a chance to make a spirited defense. And THEN they want us to try to "understand" why the terrorists hate us so much and see if we can just change our ways a little bit so that the terrorists will love us enough to leave us alone.

All of this is poppy-**** and is exactly the wrong stance to take at this time. President Bush declared WAR on "global terrorism" = meaning that ANY nation who sponsored, harbored, or supported terrorists were in a state of war with the USA. Any nation that used its military assets to obstruct our intentions were also at war with us.

In a war, you don't go to court and get a writ or a search warrant - if a nation is actively involved with terrorism, or if a nation tries to prevent us from pursuing what WE think is the proper course of war, then that nation is in danger of being attacked. OR if a nation that is strategically located to threaten our troops, then we have every right to attack them unless their cooperation is assured.

Before the jackals jump at that last remark - yes I really MEAN it. If it came down to our survival - as determined by the best minds that we can muster - I would be willing to attack any nation on earth that had demonstrated military hostility to us and was in a position to threaten our forces.

This is not rocket science - it is fundamental - you eliminate a threat before the threat is able to inflict the damage. This is a no-brainer.

Now - I expect the reaction of the LW will be = "what about NKorea? What about Iran? What about Syria? etc etc etc. "

These are all great questions, but it seems strange to hear them come from the anti-war LW democrats.

Are they suggesting that they would have SUPPORTED our attack on Iraq IF ONLY we had simultaneously attacked five or six OTHER countries at the same time?

OR -

are they saying that if you cannot attack the ALL, then don't attack ANY ??

OR =

are they saying that we attacked the WRONG nation??

OR -

are they saying that until we find OBL then our troops are just going to have to do the best they can and HOPE that Iraq stays 'pacified.'

OR -

are they saying that they KNEW all along that Saddam was a misunderstood ***** cat who had no evil intentions at all and this 'weapons inspection' stuff was just a big waste of time.

NOW - "what about Iran - N Korea - Syria - etc."

These are great questions, and with Iraq out of the way, the answer to what to do about them becomes a lot easier to plan. Try planning a mission to get IRAN out of the terrorist picture WITHOUT tending to Iraq FIRST. If you can come up with a military OR a diplomatic solution to the IRAN problem while IGNORING a militant and hostile IRAQ = someone at the pentagon needs you desperately.

So - WHO was behind 9-11?? Global Terrorism is the answer. We are far beyond trying to find and prosecute the individuals who were the primary characters - most of them are dead anyway.

What we ARE after is the CONCEPT of global terrorism. We intend to WAGE WAR against it. We intend to DEFEAT it. We intend to marginalize it to the extent that it no longer represents a significant danger to our way of life.

We REFUSE to live in a world that is dominated by the fear of a few maniacal terrorists. Where ever we think they are - we intend to go kill them. We are not interested in reading them their Miranda rights.

We REFUSE to change our way of life so they won't be "mad" at us anymore. We would rather see THEM dead than to change our standard of living and our morality.

And - more importantly here at home - we REFUSE to allow a bunch of partisan power-hungry radicals to MAKE us change. We will defeat THEM too.

This crowd of Bush-haters have been wrong about every issue that has arisen in the past 60 years. They have never been on the side of freedom and democracy. They are always willing to try appeasement one more time. They are willing to sacrifice the nation's honor and fortune if only they can be in political control.

They would rather be in control of a decadent and subserveint third-world america than to see the GOP in control of a prosperous and strong America.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
So sorry.

Try this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/29/international/middleeast/29attacks.html?hp



No offense intended, but what point was that?

That the attacks are still somwwhat isolated to Bagdhad and Faluja (I note with interest they did not break down the areas within Bagdhad)

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by Peter Pirate
A recent poll found that 40% of Americans still believe there actually was a connection between Saddam and the 9/11 bombings. Unbelievable.

Agreed. But, some Americans still believe Elvis is alive and we never landed on the moon. So, go figure.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by mortimer45
I see, so the fact that Bush is in the WH and privy to infinitely more information than the rest of the population somehow entitles him to a pass when he flip flops on the intel he gets? Gee, I might have thought Bush actually being in the white house might have been cause for him to be held to a higher standard. But apparently you are so determined to be right you are willing to back the president no matter what logic tells you.

The intel was appaarently not all that good for WMDs and yet he chose to believe that Sadaam had WMDs. Believe it so firmly he was willing to let Americans die for that belief. And now that they say things are not going well in Iraq, Bush says he chooses not to believe their "guesses". Sounds to me like fantasy land is a perfectly appropriate description for someone who believes what suits his purpose and ignores reality.

Hell, we even had Jordan and Egypt tell us Saddam had WMD, along with Britian, Germany, France, and the UN. Lets's not forget the Clinton, Gore, Albright, Kerry, Edwards, Billary (I could go on) also believed Saddam had WMD, so to lay this totally at the feet of Bush and the CIA is intellectually dishonest at best. Tell me, if you had all your advisors, as well as your allies, telling you basically the same information, what would you do? Ignore it?

Read Gen. Tommy Franks book (you know who he is, right?). In there he recounts how King Abdulla of Jordan in Jan 2003 said: "General, from reliable intelligence sources, I believe the Iraqis are hiding chemical and biological weapons." I guess the King lied, too.

Then we have Pres. Mubarak of Eqypt: "Gen. Franks, you must be very, very careful. We have spoken with Saddam Hussein. He is a madman. He has WMD — biologicals, actually — and he will use them on your troops."

So, Mubarak is lying, too?

Anyone missing who the real liar in all of this was?

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by grumpy55
What a convenient twisting of the facts. Cannoy you not understand the basic premise that the president needed the authorization to be able to properly negotiate and that is why many voted to give it to him. That, and because they actually believed Bush when he said he had no immediate plans to use the authorization to go to war.

Why is it that when this has been explained over and over again in very clear terms, people insist on repeating the same lie over and over again?

Actually, as far as using military force goes, the President didn't need jack from Congress. That's why the President is also called the CiC. It wasn't a declared war, so Congress really didn't need to be involved. He simply called their bluff.

 

[TheBellhop]

Whoa...how the hell did it go from Kerry's Walt Disney World comment on Fantasyland, to a debate? I honestly don't think OP thought it would end up like this..

 

[Morganpics]

In a campaign speech Wednesday, Kerry noted he had arrived from Orlando, Florida, home of Disney World and its Fantasyland attraction, but "the difference between George W. Bush and me is I drove by, he lives in it."

Yesterday, he implied that visiting Iraqi Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, was living in the same "fantasyland."

As huge WDW fans, we were greatly offended. Not only is fantasyland "The happiest place on earth," it is a place that inspires optimism that the world can actually be a better place.

We think John Kerry would be a better candidate if he were forced to take about 100 laps through It's a Small World (if it were open). Then he might think twice before offending WDW fans and visiting world leaders.


I agree.