Kerry Apologizes

[phorsenuf]

Afganistan(and i apologize if i spelled it wrong) was the country that attacked us. why aren't we there? .

Oh My...that is actually funny. I better call my son (who's a sgt. in the Army) and let him know that he must be in the wrong country because we aren't in Afghanistan. Guess his plane made a wrong turn over Pakistan!

 

[charlie,nj]

.

 

[TheDoctor]

Please explain.
Iraq's ties to terrorism are well documented. I can't help the fact that you are mis-informed.

No it is you who is misinformed and plain WRONG. Iraq had no links to Al Qaeda other than those made up by bush. Lets look at the bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee report on this issue released this September.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090800777.html

A declassified report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq.

Far from aligning himself with al-Qaeda and Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Hussein repeatedly rebuffed al-Qaeda's overtures and tried to capture Zarqawi, the report said. Tariq Aziz, the detained former deputy prime minister, has told the FBI that Hussein "only expressed negative sentiments about [Osama] bin Laden."

The report also said exiles from the Iraqi National Congress (INC) tried to influence U.S. policy by providing, through defectors, false information on Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons capabilities. After skeptical analysts warned that the group had been penetrated by hostile intelligence services, including Iran's, a 2002 White House directive ordered that U.S. funding for the INC be continued......

And Democrats compared the administration's public statements with newly declassified intelligence assessments to build their case that efforts to link Iraq to al-Qaeda were willfully misleading.

In a classified January 2003 report, for instance, the CIA concluded that Hussein "viewed Islamic extremists operating inside Iraq as a threat." But one day after that conclusion was published, Levin noted, Vice President Cheney said the Iraqi government "aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda."

Intelligence reports in June, July and September 2002 all cast doubts on a reported meeting in Prague between Iraqi intelligence agents and Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta. Yet, in a Sept. 8, 2002, appearance on NBC's "Meet The Press," Cheney said the CIA considered the reports on the meeting credible, Levin said.

In February 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that "Iraq is unlikely to have provided bin Laden any useful [chemical and biological weapons] knowledge or assistance." A year later, Bush said: "Iraq has also provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training."

Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), an intelligence committee member, said it was unfair for Democrats to compare the intelligence assessments in the report with the administration's statements. He said such comparisons go beyond the scope of the chapters released.

But Democrats were unequivocal in asserting that the chapters chronicle an indisputable pattern of deception.

"It is such a blatant misleading of the United States, its people, to prepare them, to position them, to, in fact, make them enthusiastic or feel that it's justified to go to war with Iraq," said Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), the committee's vice chairman. "That kind of public manipulation I don't know has any precedent in American history."

Again, you are the one who is wrong here.

 

[TXTink]

So... he was against the apology before he was for it...???

 

[chobie]

You didn't do it correctly. You had part of the famous "left wing response" to anybody that doesn't think the way of the collective. You meesed up on the unbelieveable part though. The great ones on the LT don't use that.

Just look to the liberal thread to see how it's done properly and make sure you study the work of some of the "masters" over there. You have to add the proper "smilies" that convey the message that only you and people like you are the masters of truth and intelligence. Your intent must be to make that offending poster feel stupid and his opinion worthless. Here's how it's done and I'll give you an example below.


Disneyfan67: I think that the current President is a decent man and there's no real proof that he went into Iraq for oil or to enrich Haliburton.


Leftwing poster: I see another rightie is drinking his koolaid!

You just can't make this stuff up!



That's pretty close to how it's done but you really need to feel snarky and mean at the time when you do it. You can mix it up a little and throw in a few more jabs, but don't over due it and lose the affect of the original tag line.

I hope I was able to help and be sure to check out the Liberal thread or any of the political threads. You might have better luck on the LT because most political threads get locked after 10 pages of insults. Good luck and good insulting!

Oh yes, whereas the Conservative thread is all sunshine, happiness and love for their fellow diser --even the liberal ones!

 

[charlie,nj]

I apologize to NO ONE!






.

 

[TheDoctor]

I shouldn't even respond to this nonsense. Please read up on current events before posting.

Good advice. You should be following your own advice. You are the one who does not know what is going on.

 

[DawnCt1]

Didnt you defend RUSH's "I am sorry IF" apology????

I agree that I will never look at Kerry the same again, just trying to clear up why you would feel one is more sincere than the other.

several points;
1. rush's apology was immediate.
2. rush is an entertainer.he does not hold any office.
3. kerry is a senator.
4. kerry was a presidential candidate.
5. kerry insulted the troops for "terrorizing iraqi citizens".
6. kerry called viet nam vets baby killers.
7. too little,too late.
8. the message came through to him loud and clear when he had to cancel his speeches.
9. he was for the joke before he was against it.

 

[JMD]

Good advice. You should be following your own advice. You are the one who does not know what is going on.

 

[Principessa Alba]

several points;
1. rush's apology was immediate.
2. rush is an entertainer.he does not hold any office.
3. kerry is a senator.
4. kerry was a presidential candidate.
5. kerry insulted the troops for "terrorizing iraqi citizens".
6. kerry called viet nam vets baby killers.
7. too little,too late.
8. the message came through to him loud and clear when he had to cancel his speeches.
9. he was for the joke before he was against it.

10. You are just never going to accept any apology from a democrat!!!

 

[Principessa Alba]

See this is why I couldn't go into politics. I'd always be just saying what I was thinking and forgetting to be politically correct and getting myself in hot water.

 

[TheDoctor]

I shouldn't even respond to this nonsense. Please read up on current events before posting.

Since you are so ill-informed. http://www.dailypress.net/stories/articles.asp?articleID=4810

As the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report documents, there was no relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, and the Intelligence Community expressed its serious doubts about the extent of such a relationship before the war.

To make the case for war with Iraq, the Bush administration made statements that were not supported by the Intelligence Community in order to associate Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda in the public mind. The administration repeatedly suggested that the lead 9/11 hijacker met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague shortly before 9/11 and alleged that Iraq had provided al-Qaeda with training in poisons and gases. The President made the connection directly in September 2002 when he said “you can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.”

That drumbeat by the administration was a driving force that convinced the Congress and the American people to go to war. When the war began, seven out of 10 Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

The Intelligence Committee’s report makes clear that the CIA and the Intelligence Community were highly dubious about the administration’s claims of a Saddam-al Qaeda relationship at the time the administration was making them. For example, the CIA stated in June 2002 that “the ties between Saddam and bin Ladin appear much like those between rival intelligence services.” The CIA assessed in January 2003 that Saddam “has viewed Islamic extremists operating inside Iraq as a threat” and stated that “the relationship between Saddam and bin Ladin appears to more closely resemble that of two independent actors trying to exploit each other.”

The administration continues to misrepresent the facts, suggesting that a relationship existed between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

Again, you should take your own advice and keep current on the news. The bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee report has been out for some time now.

 

[Anewman]

several points;
1. rush's apology was immediate.
Depends on your definition of apology and the "sincerity" of said apology.
This is what he said about it TODAY.
"When did I apologize? I didn't apologize. Well, before last Thursday, I didn't apologize. They said I apologized as a means of trying to make me look like I was admitting guilt and so forth when I hadn't."
Funny how you defend it but he does not...

2. rush is an entertainer.he does not hold any office.
3. kerry is a senator.
4. kerry was a presidential candidate.
5. kerry insulted the troops for "terrorizing iraqi citizens".
6. kerry called viet nam vets baby killers.
What does that have to do with an apology in this case??
7. too little,too late.
8. the message came through to him loud and clear when he had to cancel his speeches.
Same excuse as 1.
9. he was for the joke before he was against it.
The exact opposite of RUSH, remember first he appologized and then he didnt.

Of course partisanship has nothing to do with it.

 

[JMD]

Since you are so ill-informed. http://www.dailypress.net/stories/articles.asp?articleID=4810 Again, you should take your own advice and keep current on the news. The bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee report has been out for some time now.

I could post links and sources as well that will back up my statements, but that is not at all what this thread is about. The reasons for invading Iraq, whether right or wrong, have nothing to do with what John Kerry said.

 

[phorsenuf]

Good advice. You should be following your own advice. You are the one who does not know what is going on.

I believe they were referring to the fact that we DO have troops in Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by LiLIrishChick63
Afganistan(and i apologize if i spelled it wrong) was the country that attacked us. why aren't we there? .

 

[JMD]

I believe they were referring to the fact that we DO have troops in Afghanistan.

Thank you. A little reading goes a long way...

 

[TheDoctor]

I could post links and sources as well that will back up my statements, but that is not at all what this thread is about. The reasons for invading Iraq, whether right or wrong, have nothing to do with what John Kerry said.

Bring it on. Here is an open thread where you can present your so called proof. http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?p=14660832#post14660832 I doubt that you want to play here since the best that you can do is present claims that have been disproved by the bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee. Again, bring it on.

 

[disneyfan67]

Oh yes, whereas the Conservative thread is all sunshine, happiness and love for their fellow diser --even the liberal ones!

Just to let you know, I was poking fun of that particular "saying" that a few libs on the political threads like to use. Not all the liberals in general and there's a few of you that are pleasant to deal with. You have to admit that the saying I'm talking about, is done in the way I describe it and I know of 3 posters that use it on a regular basis. You did notice I used no names because it's not right to bring up names of people who aren't on this thread as of yet.

The conservative thread is a lot nicer in many ways compared to the LT and I read both, daily. In fact the conservative thread was quiet for long time with no current posts. The LT is always hopping with something.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Good for him.
Now maybe everyone will play nice.

 

[poohandwendy]

My God, he simply cannot just make an apology without putting a dig in...sheesh...

But, I am glad he made the effort. Our service people deserved an apology, IMHO.