Kerry voters, why are you voting for him

[LoraJ]

Originally posted by jmmom80
your coworkers didn't pay attention to what was being said, so they didn't understand what was being said, and now they think the admin misled them?

what's wrong with this picture?

And they weren't alone. Don't you remember those polls?

 

[AllyandJack]

In the defense of people who thought Saddam was behind 9/11, there was an article written on September 13, 2001 in the Wall Street Journal by Laurie Mylroie. This article detailed the connection and the reasons why Saddam HAD to have been behind 9/11. I found this article while reviewing documents for a large litigation case I am working on. So, the "brainwashing" didn't just come from the Bush Administration.

Now, I never thought that Saddam HAD to be behind 9/11. I honestly wouldn't know. But, there were and are terrorists in Iraq. Whether they are the same ones behind 9/11 or not is of no concern to me. I want them taken care of before they have a chance to do anything. Is Iraq being handled properly? Probably not. Could John Kerry do a better job? I certainly hope so, if he gets elected, but nobody can make that judgment right now. A year and a half from now we could all be sitting here with 2000 soldiers dead wondering why we ever elected John Kerry. Guess that's a risk we take in our democracy, but it's better than the alternatives.

 

[jmmom80]

Originally posted by LoraJ
And they weren't alone. Don't you remember those polls?

yes, i do remember the polls, and i remember thinking that there were lots of people out there not paying attention to what was being said. i don't see how that is the prez's fault.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
That's a pretty serious charge. The administration has never said that SH was behind 9/11.

Where do you get this information from?

We've been through this so many times, it's almost ridiculous.

There's a reason why so many in this country believed Saddam Hussein was linked with Al-Qaeda and therefore must've been involved in 9/11. It's because of statements like this from this administration:

1) The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive. George W. Bush, President
Remarks By President Bush, The Oval Office
9/25/2002

2) So, yes, there are contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history with terrorism in general. And there are some al Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad...There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented. Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
NewsHour with Jim Lehrer
9/26/2002


3) Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq, reciprocal nonaggression discussions. We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction capabilities Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Comments To Reporters
9/27/2002

4) we need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in Michigan Welcome
10/14/2002


And the list goes on and on.

If the intention of this administration was to not create a link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda (and therefore 9/11), why was Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda mentioned so many times in the same sentence?

Six months after the war started, a sizable majority of the American people believed there were links.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.htm

This administration knew the link in the mind of the American public was wrong, but never corrected the record until the middle of September 2003 when stories started to break regarding the link.

Why can't you Bush supporters admit this administration did their damndest trying to link Saddam Hussein and 9/11 without really coming out and saying so. Why are you Bush supporters so afraid to admit the obvious? Why, when someone brings ups the subject of the administration inferred link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 do you Bush supporters blame the American public for hearing what they wanted to hear? The American public heard exactly what this administration wanted them to hear and therefore connected the dots to benefit the administration's case for war? Why can't you (generic) admit that? Why do you Republicans continually blame the "ignorant" public?

Going into this war, the Bush administration knew that the American public believed there was a link and the Bush administration also knew no such link existed. They never corrected the mistaken impression because it was not in their interest to do so.

Yes, the Bush administration misled this country into war. A lie of ommission is still a lie. And something built on a lie will never succeed.

So, why are you Bush supporters so afraid to admit that? One could at least respect someone who comes right out and says "yes, he misled us, but I still support the war".

It's going to be interesting to see which one of you has the guts to do just that instead of blaming the public for getting it wrong.

 

[AllyandJack]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
We've been through this so many times, it's almost ridiculous.

There's a reason why so many in this country believed Saddam Hussein was linked with Al-Qaeda and therefore must've been involved in 9/11. It's because of statements like this from this administration:

1) The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive. George W. Bush, President
Remarks By President Bush, The Oval Office
9/25/2002

2) So, yes, there are contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history with terrorism in general. And there are some al Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad...There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented. Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
NewsHour with Jim Lehrer
9/26/2002


3) Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq, reciprocal nonaggression discussions. We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction capabilities Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Comments To Reporters
9/27/2002

4) we need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in Michigan Welcome
10/14/2002


And the list goes on and on.

If the intention of this administration was to not create a link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda (and therefore 9/11), why was Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda mentioned so many times in the same sentence?

Six months after the war started, a sizable majority of the American people believed there were links.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.htm

This administration knew the link in the mind of the American public was wrong, but never corrected the record until the middle of September 2003 when stories started to break regarding the link.

Why can't you Bush supporters admit this administration did their damndest trying to link Saddam Hussein and 9/11 without really coming out and saying so. Why are you Bush supporters so afraid to admit the obvious? Why, when someone brings ups the subject of the administration inferred link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 do you Bush supporters blame the American public for hearing what they wanted to hear? The American public heard exactly what this administration wanted them to hear and therefore connected the dots to benefit the administration's case for war? Why can't you (generic) admit that? Why do you Republicans continually blame the "ignorant" public?

Going into this war, the Bush administration knew that the American public believed there was a link and the Bush administration also knew no such link existed. They never corrected the mistaken impression because it was not in their interest to do so.

Yes, the Bush administration misled this country into war. A lie of ommission is still a lie. And something built on a lie will never succeed.

So, why are you Bush supporters so afraid to admit that? One could at least respect someone who comes right out and says "yes, he misled us, but I still support the war".

It's going to be interesting to see which one of you has the guts to do just that instead of blaming the public for getting it wrong.

Just becuase Bush linked Al Quaeda to Saddam and Iraq doesn't mean he was linking them specificall to 9/11. Al Quaeda IS in Iraq. That is obvious. Sure, maybe Saddam wasn't involved in planning 9/11. So what? Iraq and Saddam were harboring terrorists - Al Quaeda and otherwise. There is no reason to "blame" the public. People make assumptions based on their own perceptions. Maybe the majority of people didn't realize how big the Al Quaeda network is when that poll was taken. Maybe they assumed that every member of Al Quaeda was involved in 9/11 and, therefore, any of them in Iraq were part of it. I never "heard" from the administration that Saddam was behind 9/11 or somehow linked to it. I read it in the press. My PERSONAL opinion is that Saddam KNEW about the planning of 9/11, but was not personally involved in it. That has nothing to do with why I support the war in Iraq. I support it because I want terrorists of any kind rooted out.

I don't necessarily agree with the handling of the war (nor do I agree with a few other of Bush's policies), but I believe we had a reason to be there. I wouldn't call the public ignorant and I wouldn't blame them for mishearing or misinterpreting anything. I think people absorb information, process it and come to different conclusions. I came to my own conclusion, you came to yours and some people decided that Saddam was behind 9/11. Just because people come to different conclusions doesn't mean someone lied and only the smart people figured it out.

 

[crazyforgoofy]

Originally posted by AllyandJack
Just becuase Bush linked Al Quaeda to Saddam and Iraq doesn't mean he was linking them specificall to 9/11. Al Quaeda IS in Iraq. That is obvious. Sure, maybe Saddam wasn't involved in planning 9/11. So what? Iraq and Saddam were harboring terrorists - Al Quaeda and otherwise. There is no reason to "blame" the public. People make assumptions based on their own perceptions. Maybe the majority of people didn't realize how big the Al Quaeda network is when that poll was taken. Maybe they assumed that every member of Al Quaeda was involved in 9/11 and, therefore, any of them in Iraq were part of it. I never "heard" from the administration that Saddam was behind 9/11 or somehow linked to it. I read it in the press. My PERSONAL opinion is that Saddam KNEW about the planning of 9/11, but was not personally involved in it. That has nothing to do with why I support the war in Iraq. I support it because I want terrorists of any kind rooted out.

I don't necessarily agree with the handling of the war (nor do I agree with a few other of Bush's policies), but I believe we had a reason to be there. I wouldn't call the public ignorant and I wouldn't blame them for mishearing or misinterpreting anything. I think people absorb information, process it and come to different conclusions. I came to my own conclusion, you came to yours and some people decided that Saddam was behind 9/11. Just because people come to different conclusions doesn't mean someone lied and only the smart people figured it out.

Well my conclusions are simple.

1. Bush and Co. used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq

2. Saddam had neither WMDs nor terrorist training camps. Yes he was a tyrant and a dictator. No, I don't believe it was our business to get involved especially when we needed to be focused on the REAL terrorist threat.

3. Iraq is now a powderkeg and a selling point to the Muslim world for the terrorists message.

4. That's one of the many reasons I'm voting for John Kerry.

 

[AllyandJack]

Originally posted by crazyforgoofy
Well my conclusions are simple.

1. Bush and Co. used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq

2. Saddam had neither WMDs nor terrorist training camps. Yes he was a tyrant and a dictator. No, I don't believe it was our business to get involved especially when we needed to be focused on the REAL terrorist threat.

3. Iraq is now a powderkeg and a selling point to the Muslim world for the terrorists message.

4. That's one of the many reasons I'm voting for John Kerry.

See....it's all about taking information from different sources and forming opinions. I believe that, even without WMD or actual training camps, there were terrorists there that needed to be stopped. I also believe that the Muslim world already made up its mind and whether or not we went into Iraq, they'd still want to kill us.

As for John Kerry....I really hope you're right about him if he gets elected. After watching him do nothing for 20 years here in MA, I have my doubts, but I really hope his supporters are right about him. If he becomes President, I'll support him. I don't really look at it as supporting HIM, I look at it as supporting my President and my Country and that's what I'll do. I won't love it, but I'll do it and I hope he comes through for us and keeps us safe.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
We've been through this so many times, it's almost ridiculous.


* snip *

Yes, the Bush administration misled this country into war. A lie of omission is still a lie. And something built on a lie will never succeed.

So, why are you Bush supporters so afraid to admit that? One could at least respect someone who comes right out and says "yes, he misled us, but I still support the war".

It's going to be interesting to see which one of you has the guts to do just that instead of blaming the public for getting it wrong.

Yes we have. I personally NEVER thought that SH had a hand in 9-11. And especially from anything the administration said (or didn't say) Period. So did a lot of other people.

I didn't personally feel mislead into war with Iraq. There were many other people that were paying attention who felt the same way. I knew and understood that facts and agreed with it. Now that some of the facts presented before the war seem to be wrong (at this time) still doesn't change my mind.

Shoot, even your man Kerry admitted that knowing what he knows now, he'd STILL would have gone into Iraq.

You are free to draw your own conclusions as to why the administration took so long to dispel the idea that that many people thought SH took part (in whatever way because that was never exposed) in 9-11.

I don't know why they did. You'd have to ask them because only they know.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by AllyandJack
Just becuase Bush linked Al Quaeda to Saddam and Iraq doesn't mean he was linking them specificall to 9/11.

Oh, c'mon. Be serious. Do your really think this administration was completely innocent in the way it talked about Al-Qaeda, 9/11, and Saddam Hussein? Do you really think this administration had no hidden agenda?

The public made the link because the administration laid out their case for war in such a way so that the public connected the dots in their minds.

Btw, regardless of what the public did, this administration knew the public believed Saddam Hussein was somehow involved in 9/11. The administration knew that belief was wrong, but said nothing because it suited their case for war It wasn't until we were 6 months into the war, that this administration finally clarified that Saddam Hussein was not involved in 9/11.

A lie of omission is still a lie.

Originally posted by AllyandJack
I don't necessarily agree with the handling of the war (nor do I agree with a few other of Bush's policies), but I believe we had a reason to be there. I wouldn't call the public ignorant and I wouldn't blame them for mishearing or misinterpreting anything. I think people absorb information, process it and come to different conclusions. I came to my own conclusion, you came to yours and some people decided that Saddam was behind 9/11. Just because people come to different conclusions doesn't mean someone lied and only the smart people figured it out.

Different people can look at the same set of facts and come to very different conclusions. That's how life works.

However, we're not talking about that. We're talking about an administration that let a majority of the American public believe something that wasn't true because it strengthened the administration's case for war.

If I know you believe something that is not true, but that suits my purposes that you believe it, and I fail to inform you of the truth, that is a lie of omission on my part.

A lie of omission, however good the intentions or the potential result, is still a lie. And something that is built on a lie will not produce any good.

 

[AllyandJack]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
A lie of omission is still a lie.

Not everyone made the Saddam-9/11 Connection. So, to me, it wasn't a lie. I never made the connection, so I don't feel lied to. Some people feel lied to. That's their opinion of what was said and how they took it. I fully understand how someone who DID make the connection would feel lied to, but not everyone made the connection.

For what it's worth, I never think any politician is completely innocent in what it says. I always assume there is something being twisted or something being left out in order to suit some agenda. That goes for democrats and republicans alike.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by crazyforgoofy
Well my conclusions are simple.

1. Bush and Co. used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq

2. Saddam had neither WMDs nor terrorist training camps. Yes he was a tyrant and a dictator. No, I don't believe it was our business to get involved especially when we needed to be focused on the REAL terrorist threat.

3. Iraq is now a powderkeg and a selling point to the Muslim world for the terrorists message.

4. That's one of the many reasons I'm voting for John Kerry.

This sounds more like an "against Bush" reason. Which is fine. But I don't see any FOR KERRY reasons here.

 

[crazyforgoofy]

Originally posted by AllyandJack
Not everyone made the Saddam-9/11 Connection. So, to me, it wasn't a lie. I never made the connection, so I don't feel lied to. Some people feel lied to. That's their opinion of what was said and how they took it. I fully understand how someone who DID make the connection would feel lied to, but not everyone made the connection.

For what it's worth, I never think any politician is completely innocent in what it says. I always assume there is something being twisted or something being left out in order to suit some agenda. That goes for democrats and republicans alike.

Ok so if I don't believe Dick Cheney it doesn't mean he's a liar but if I BELIEVE he's a liar you can still disagree, right?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5215019/

ORLANDO, Fla. - Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that Saddam Hussein had “long-established ties” with al-Qaida, an assertion that has been repeatedly challenged by some policy experts and lawmakers.

The vice president offered no details backing up his claim of a link between Saddam and al-Qaida.

“He was a patron of terrorism,” Cheney said of Hussein during a speech before The James Madison Institute, a conservative think-tank based in Florida. “He had long established ties with al-Qaida.”

In making the case for war in Iraq, Bush administration officials frequently cited what they said were Saddam’s decade-long contacts with al-Qaida operatives. They stopped short of claiming that Iraq was directly involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, but critics say Bush officials left that impression with the American public.

Cheney listed what he described as the accomplishments of the Bush administration in the war on terror, including fledgling democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq; and the decision by Libya’s leader, Moammar Gadhafi, to abandon his nuclear ambitions.

Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., countered that the Bush administration had “a sorry record in the war on terror.” Graham, former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, spoke Sunday in a conference call arranged by John Kerry’s presidential campaign in anticipation of Cheney’s speech.

The State Department said last week it was wrong in stating that terrorism declined worldwide last year in a report that the Bush administration initially cited as evidence it was succeeding against terrorism, Graham noted. Both the number of incidents and the toll in victims increased sharply, the department acknowledged.

 

[dmadman43]

Face it, he's a puppet. I want a president who can make his own decisions. Someone who reads the paper and knows what is going on in the world.

Well, I don't think that would be Kerry. I mean, what firm decision has he made, and stuck to, during his campaign?

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by AllyandJack
Not everyone made the Saddam-9/11 Connection. So, to me, it wasn't a lie. I never made the connection, so I don't feel lied to. Some people feel lied to. That's their opinion of what was said and how they took it. I fully understand how someone who DID make the connection would feel lied to, but not everyone made the connection.

The point here is not that the public had the misconception of Saddam Hussein's involvement in 9/11. People come to their conclusions whether they examine the facts or they're led down the primrose path. How a majority of the public came to their wrong conclusion about Saddam Hussein and 9/11 is something we can endlessly debate. And God knows we have and probably will continue for a good many years.

The point here, and where there is no debate, is that the administration knew that the public's belief was wrong, knew that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, and did not correct the misconception because it strengthed their case for war.

That's where the lie of omission was committed and that is still a lie.

Or, this administration didn't know about the public's misconception about Saddam Hussein's involvement in 9/11, in which case they shouldn't be re-elected and should resign immediately because they're so out of touch.

Either the administration knew the public had the facts wrong or they didn't know.

Any takers for going down that road?

 

[AllyandJack]

I still don't see anywhere that says Saddam was involved in 9/11. We have found terrorists in Iraq. It's obvious they were there. It's obvious they still are. Why there is a distinction between why TYPE of terrorist or what GROUP they belong to is being made is beyond me. A terrorist is a terrorist and we have to go find them wherever they are regardless of whether they've already killed some of us or whether they were already involved in killing some of us.

I guess this is why it doesn't bother me...either way, I'd feel the same. To some, this was a material fact that changed their mind on the war. I can admit that the administration should have come out sooner to dispel these beliefs. I don't know why they didn't. Maybe it wasn't a top priority at the moment. Maybe it was intentional. Until I know for sure, I won't label them liars. But, that doesn't mean you can't.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by dmadman43
This sounds more like an "against Bush" reason. Which is fine. But I don't see any FOR KERRY reasons here.

He's baaaaack!

 

[auntpolly]

I thought of one of my biggest reasons and I forgot it last post -- Kerry agrees with me about needing to revise that good old Patriot Act.

 

[AllyandJack]

Originally posted by auntpolly
I thought of one of my biggest reasons and I forgot it last post -- Kerry agrees with me about needing to revise that good old Patriot Act.

NOW he does, but he didn't always:

Kerry Voted For Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357-66 in the House. (H.R. 3162, CQ Vote #313: Passed 98-1: R 49-0; D 48-1; I 1-0, 10/25/01, Kerry Voted Yea)

Kerry Used To Defend His Vote. “Most of [The Patriot Act] has to do with improving the transfer of information between CIA and FBI, and it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on September 11th.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Town Hall Meeting, Manchester, NH, 8/6/03)

Wonder how he'll feel next year...or the year after that.....


ETA: Kerry's most recent stance is that he will not REVISE the Patriot Act, he will REPLACE it.

Now, Kerry Attacks Patriot Act. “We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time. I’ve been a District Attorney and I know that what law enforcement needs are real tools not restrictions on American’s basic rights.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Iowa State University, Iowa City, IA, 12/1/03)

 

[shortbun]

I am happy that John Kerry watches, asseses and changes
his mind depending on the facts. He's obviously not going to
be a rigid DICtator like Bush was. Give me a flexible good listener and I'll show you a born leader. Rigidity is not a family value.

 

[AllyandJack]

Originally posted by shortbun
I am happy that John Kerry watches, asseses and changes
his mind depending on the facts. He's obviously not going to
be a rigid DICtator like Bush was. Give me a flexible good listener and I'll show you a born leader. Rigidity is not a family value.

So, I guess we're not longer in the "wake of what happened on September 11" which is what Kerry used to defend his voting for the Patriot Act? I hope he's right.