Sen. Boxer/Condy Rice

[kmiles]

How do you think the people in power feel being called stupid and dumb?

Well, we're just working with the facts here.

 

[Mermaid02]

Well, we're just working with the facts here.

No- you're giving your OPINION, it's not a fact and obviously most Dems can't tell the difference.

 

[Charade]

Well, we're just working with the facts here.

Typical.

 

[bsnyder]

Bet you may have slept through the presidential debate or you have been so distracted about the droop on the left side of Bush's face and Bush's erratic behavior that you missed Senator Kerry's explanation for his vote. I will be glad to summarize it for you.

First, Senator Kerry voted in favor of the resolution to encourage Saddam to cooperate with the UN inspectors and that result was obtained. In fact you may owe Hans Blix an apology for any attacks on his competence.

Second, Senator Kerry did not authorize military action until diplomacy was exhausted which did not happen. Bush did not negotiate with our allies and the US went into Iraq in violation of international law and the UN charter.

Third, Senator Kerry only authorized military action if we had adequate support from our allies. Instead, we had a joke of a coalition (don't forget Poland) that meant that the US bore 90%+ of the cost and causalties.

Finally, Senator Kerry only authorized military action on the basis that Bush would have a plan to win the peace. That obviously did not happen. We were not greated as liberators but as occupiers. Of course authorizing torture did not help the situation.

I hope that the above recap helps you remember the debates and Senator Kerry's actual position. It was really very cheeky of you to mistate Senator Kerry's position.

kyle, you crack me up! Thanks! I've been away from the political posts for a while. My mother has been ill, and I haven't been on the DIS enough to sustain the type of back and forth that these threads require. I don't like to just post and run in these types of discussions, ya know?

Anyway, thanks for the entertainment. I forgot how much I enjoy your peculiar er, um "logic".

 

[kmiles]

No- you're giving your OPINION, it's not a fact and obviously most Dems can't tell the difference.

Um, it doesn't take a genius (or a Dem, but, alas, I repeat myself) to see that the current president is a few peas short in his proverbial pod.

Where have you been for the last four years?

If you supported him fine. You have supported the deconstruction of human rights, the killing of 1,500+ U.S. military personnel, the injuring of 10,000 more, and the killing of thousands of Iraq civilians.

Live up to your vote!

 

[ThAnswr]

No- you're giving your OPINION, it's not a fact and obviously most Dems can't tell the difference.

Oh my......someone is showing their "cheek". Or at least one of them.

 

[Laura]

No- you're giving your OPINION, it's not a fact and obviously most Dems can't tell the difference.

Obviously you can't tell the difference.

 

[kmiles]

Typical.

No, just true.

 

[peachgirl]

Well, we're just working with the facts here.

Yep...you work with what you have...

Hey, if that excuse is good enough for Rummy, it's good enough for me!

 

[Mermaid02]

Obviously you can't tell the difference.

That's right- if anyone disagrees with the Dems they're WRONG. Oh the horror.

 

[Laura]

Typical.

Yup, working with the facts is typical for liberal Democrats! Thanks for noticing.

 

[peachgirl]

Oh my......someone is showing their "cheek". Or at least one of them.

Where is that cheeky smilie when you need it???

 

[kmiles]

That's right- if anyone disagrees with the Dems they're WRONG. Oh the horror.

Not at all. We're more than willing to let you be wrong as long as you don't take others down with you. Which, is exactly what you're doing.

If you want to fight unjust wars based on lies, suit up little girl. Bet's got your back.

If you want to strip individuals (both U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries) of their rights, start with your own. I've got a black hood and a box with your name on it. Wait, got one for Bet too.

If you want to forgo paying taxes that fund social programs, well, give up your share. That means no Medicare for you when you get older, no Social Security benefits, etc.

Oh, wait, you'll be in Iraq, er, I mean Iran, so you won't need 'em anyway.

 

[Mermaid02]

Not at all. We're more than willing to let you be wrong as long as you don't take others down with you. Which, is exactly what you're doing.

If you want to fight unjust wars based on lies, suit up little girl. Bet's got your back.

If you want to strip individuals (both U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries) start with your own.

If you want to forgo paying taxes that fund social programs, well, give up your share. That means no Medicare for you when you get older, no Social Security benefits, etc.

Oh, wait, you'll be in Iraq, er, I mean Iran, so you won't need 'em anyway.

What a condescending post. Thank you for proving my point.

 

[richiebaseball]

First, Senator Kerry voted in favor of the resolution to encourage Saddam to cooperate with the UN inspectors and that result was obtained. In fact you may owe Hans Blix an apology for any attacks on his competence.

What is this obsession you have with apologizing to Hans Blix? Either you're:

a) Hans Blix.
b) A close friend or relative of Hans Blix, or
c) Clinging to Hans Blix to retain a small thread to reality.

I doubt Hans Blix is concerned about someone impugning his reputation on a Disney internet site. I guess it's lucky for him someone has time for these kinds of details.

Speaking of Hans Blix, here are some excerpts from his reports to the UN Security Council in January, 2003 I believe.

Overview

"Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed the inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.

"It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of catch as catch can. Rather, it is a process of verification for the purpose of building confidence."

On Iraqi cooperation

"Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process. It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access.

"A similar decision is indispensable to provide cooperation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion through the peaceful process of inspection and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course."

On Iraq's 12,000-page report

"Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that will eliminate the questions or reduce their number."

On chemical bombs

"The [Iraqi weapons report] document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi air force between 1983 and 1998, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."

On chemical rockets

"The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousand of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for. The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate."

On biological weapons

"There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist.

"Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC [U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission] supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was indeed destroyed in 1991.

"As I reported to the council on the 19th of December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kilos, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as reported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999.

"In the letter of 24th of January this year to the president of the Security Council, Iraq's foreign minister stated that, I quote, 'All imported quantities of growth media were declared.' This is not evident. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax."

On missiles

"There remain significant questions as to whether Iraq retained Scud-type missiles after the Gulf War. Iraq declared the consumption of a number of Scud missiles as targets in the development of an anti-ballistic missile defense system during the 1980s, yet no technical information has been produced about that program or data on the consumption of the missiles."

On recently discovered documents

"The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the lacing enrichment of uranium, support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. This interpretation is refuted by the Iraqi side, which claims that research staff sometimes may bring papers from their workplaces.

"On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes."

On scientist interviews

"Today, 11 individuals were asked for interviews in Baghdad by us. The replies have been that the individual would only speak at Iraq's Monitoring Directorate or at any rate in the presence of an Iraq official.

"This could be due to a wish on the part of the invited to have evidence that they have not said anything that the authorities did not wish them to say. At our recent talks in Baghdad, the Iraqi side committed itself to encourage persons to accept interviews in private, that is to say alone with us. Despite this, the pattern has not changed.

"However, we hope that with further encouragement from the authorities, knowledgeable individuals will accept private interviews in Baghdad or abroad."

 

[kmiles]

What a condescending post. Thank you for proving my point.

Condescending? How? You voted for him, you support his policies. What's untrue about the post?

Why is it that you're attempting to run away from everything you've supported thus far? You voted for it, you own it.

 

[kmiles]

What is this obsession you have with apologizing to Hans Blix? Either you're:

Long, meaningless post removed

Um, where are the WMDs? Did you find them and just haven't told the press yet?

 

[Mermaid02]

Condescending? How? You voted for him, you support his policies. What's untrue about the post?

Why is it that you're attempting to run away from everything you've supported thus far? You voted for it, you own it.

More than half of the country disagrees with you and voted to give the President another term- but all those people are stupid because they don't agree with YOUR viewpoints.

I'm curious why you called me "little girl" if not to be condescending and demeaning.

 

[richiebaseball]

If you want to fight unjust wars based on lies, suit up little girl. Bet's got your back.

Please provide proof the administration lied about WMD's. The fact that the act was apparently based on faulty intelligence does not constitute a lie. If you still insist it was a lie, please provide proof of the worldwide lie that included other nations believing WMD's were there. Also provide proof that many Democrats, Senator Kerry and the Clinton administration included. also lied.

If you want to strip individuals (both U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries) of their rights, start with your own. I've got a black hood and a box with your name on it. Wait, got one for Bet too.

Please provide an example of a right you have lost.

If you want to forgo paying taxes that fund social programs, well, give up your share. That means no Medicare for you when you get older, no Social Security benefits, etc.

Oh, wait, you'll be in Iraq, er, I mean Iran, so you won't need 'em anyway.

By all means, please give specific examples.

 

[Charade]

Um, where are the WMDs? Did you find them and just haven't told the press yet?

Why was the part you cut out meaningless?