Vote For Bush or Die!

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by WillyJ
Kerry has higher priorities then making the country safe for gynocologists to spread their looove. . .

Examples, please. In the area of national security, if you will.

 

[WillyJ]

Why should I bother to provide you with any research? If it's not on Kerry's website you won't look at it anyway..

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by WillyJ
Why should I bother to provide you with any research? If it's not on Kerry's website you won't look at it anyway..

another dodge, how surprising. What? you mean Kerry's own web site doesn't list any of his plans? How odd for a man running for President to keep his plans so close to the vest until the last week of the campaign.

 

[dmadman43]

To get back on topic, let's look at the complete quote, shall we?

Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.

Of course, many reports chose to leave out the last part of the quote. I gotta tell ya, based on the inconsistent stuff I'm hearing from Kerry, I gotta believe he would treat it as a criminal act. I mean, in his convention speech he so much as said he's wait until we were attacked before responding.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by LoraJ
There is a difference between saying we are less safe and saying that we will actually be attacked if Kerry gets elected.

Oh no, I see you're new around here.

Let me whisper a little something in your ear.................subtlety is lost on DMan. And I mean that in a nice way.

 

[CRB#33]

You know, I had not decided yet who I was going to vote for.

This most definitely crosses the line. What an awful thing to say.

We're just as likely to get "hit" with George Bush in office as any.

But people will buy it and it's just wrong.

 

[CRB#33]

Um.... Dmadman, how on earth does that last sentence change anything?

Although I would like to hear exactly Kerry's policy changes would be that would make us safer.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by dmadman43
To get back on topic, let's look at the complete quote, shall we?

Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.

Of course, many reports chose to leave out the last part of the quote. I gotta tell ya, based on the inconsistent stuff I'm hearing from Kerry, I gotta believe he would treat it as a criminal act. I mean, in his convention speech he so much as said he's wait until we were attacked before responding.

Okay...........show me and the good folks here the exact quote in Kerry's convention speech where he said that and not just your twisted interpretation of what you think he said.

Take your time. It's still early in the morning.

Btw, part of the "war on terror" IS criminal investigation. Someone has to break up the terror cells, stem the money flow, and stem the arms flow. That requires internal investigations, stake outs, infiltration, etc. Or do you think you're Rambo who's going to invade every country on God's green earth searching for money launderers?

Let's carry it one step further..........those criminal investigations are going to require international cooperation and George Bush has burned those bridges. That's why we're less safe.

George Bush and his group of neo-con chickenhawks squandered a golden opportunity after 9/11. Instead of building on the good will and cooperation generated by the events of 9/11, Bush and crew used 9/11 as an opportunity to pursue their dream of invading Iraq. And they're still dancing on those 9/11 graves to get re-elected.

So now you have a war in Iraq that's about to explode, a military stretched too thin, and a country going bankrupt (ours). And for what? The best you can hope for in Iraq is a few more months of skirmishes before Iraq explodes in a civil war. In jump the Iranians and the Syrians. That may just take Jordan and Kuwait with it. Great strategic thinkers we've got in this White House. Where'd they learn their craft, Mad Magazine?

Yeah, give Bush 4 more years to finish the job and finish us off in the process.

 

[Mamu]

Looks like we don't have much choice. Damned if you don't, damned if you do.

Can you image if something happens to Bush and Cheney had to take over.

We would all be working for Haliburton in some foreign country, that doesn't want us there for $5.00 an hour and no health insurance.

 

[peachgirl]

Of course, many reports chose to leave out the last part of the quote.

Of course they did and that was exactly what Cheney wanted. It was the first part of his message that he wanted to get out.

Add me to the list of those who would like an explanation of how the second part of his sentence changes the first part. The second part only adds another ridiculous charge.

He's claiming two things will happen if Kerry is elected...we'll get attacked in a devastating manner and then we will react with a pre- 9/11 mindset.


One part of the statement in no way effects the other. The "out of context" excuse doesn't wash.

 

[LoraJ]

Originally posted by JoeThaNo1Stunna
What will Kerry do that will make America safer?

Dick Cheney's my homeboy! CHuuuuuuuuuuuch.

Too much info to copy and paste. If you go to Kerry's website and view the fact sheets they will tell you and also compare Kerry's plans to Bush's.

 

[CRB#33]

Originally posted by CRB#33
Although I would like to hear exactly Kerry's policy changes would be that would make us safer.

Pardon me while I repeat myself.

 

[browneyes]

Vote For Bush or Die!

May I rest in peace then.

 

[CRB#33]

Originally posted by LoraJ
Too much info to copy and paste. If you go to Kerry's website and view the fact sheets they will tell you and also compare Kerry's plans to Bush's.

Aww... come on, give it to us in a nutshell!

Seriously, how many voters are going to go to a website and check out the answer to this?

There has got to be a "nutshell" answer!

Or at least give me a link.

 

[LoraJ]

Originally posted by CRB#33
Aww... come on, give it to us in a nutshell!

Seriously, how many voters are going to go to a website and check out the answer to this?

There has got to be a "nutshell" answer!

Or at least give me a link.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/


The nutshll is on the main page. Many more details and fact sheets in the column to the right.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by Mamu

Can you image if something happens to Bush and Cheney had to take over.

We would all be working for Haliburton in some foreign country, that doesn't want us there for $5.00 an hour and no health insurance.

If Kerry is elected, would you have such concerns about ketchup? Heinz btw, has many, many facilities over seas.

 

[we3luvdisney]

"Somebody told me the other day that the Secret Service has orders that if George Bush is shot, they're to shoot Quayle," he said. "There isn't any press here, is there?" -- John Kerry

WorldNetDaily

 

[we3luvdisney]

Quote: "What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States" (Boston Globe, April 3, 2003).

Charge: Then-GOP Chairman Marc Racicot said Kerry "crossed a grave line when he dared to suggest the replacement of America's commander in chief at a time when America is at war." Racicot said Kerry's remark was "designed to further Sen. Kerry's political ambitions at a time when the lives of America's sons and daughters are at stake." John Podhoretz of the New York Post accused Kerry of drawing an "implicit parallel … between Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush."

Context: Kerry was not advocating the violent overthrow of the U.S. government. However, he made the remark less than a month after saying, "If America is at war, I won't speak a word without measuring how it'll sound to the guys doing the fighting when they're listening to their radios in the desert."

Defense: Kerry issued four responses to his critics: 1) "It is possible that the word 'regime change' is too harsh. Perhaps it is." 2) It was just a "quip." 3) "That's what a presidential race is about. It's about changing the administration." 4) "I'm not going to let the likes of Tom DeLay question my patriotism, which I fought for and bled for in order to have the right to speak out."



Article

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by CRB#33
Um.... Dmadman, how on earth does that last sentence change anything?

Although I would like to hear exactly Kerry's policy changes would be that would make us safer.

I'll take a stab at this. I think the biggest problem the Bush administration has is that there are too many ideologues in too many places. Because of this, there's a rigidness that continues on with a policy regardless of what's really happening because ideology dictates.

Perfect example, Iraq. The Bush adminstration policy and conduct of the war is a failure that's going to explode in civil war in Iraq. The question that's often asked is why the Bush administration didn't plan for the insurgency. The answer is very simple. The thinking of the ideologues in and around Bush believed that all they had to do was topple Saddam and Iraq would embrace the US because we're bringing democracy. Democracy would then spread to other Arab nations. It's the Viet Nam war "domino theory" all prettied up and shinied up for the 21st century.

The ideologues failed to take into consideration Arab nationalism, Muslim religious belief, or Arab pride. Example: Abu Grahib proved, in too many Arab minds, the worst of what they believed about Westerners and Americans in particular. Instead of outlawing any talk or commission of torture, or as they like to say "harsh interrogation", this administration pointed and publicly declared that the Geneva Convention didn't apply, okayed these methods and played right into the hands of the Islamic radicals by tapping into the fears of the Arab street.

There's a reason why most Shiites in Iraq follow Ayatollah Al-Sistani instead of the Allawi interim government. The Ayatollah Al-Sistani, and the late Ayatollah Al-Hakim, stayed in and around Iraq. They weren't sipping sherry in London for 30 years and then returned to Iraq as "heroes" and leaders. Btw, one does not have to agree with the beliefs of both ayatollahs to understand the place they have in the hearts and minds of Iraqi Shiiltes.

This war on terror is going to require thinking on our feet and not rigid adherence to a neo-con ideology. The cues to the war on terror should be taken from FDR, who when one policy failed, he tried something else until he found something that worked. Because of that you ask most people who came through the depression and they'll give you the impression FDR sat on the righthand of God.

Now what does all of this have to do with John Kerry. I don't know what changes may come with John Kerry, but I do believe he's less controlled by ideology and he will surround himself with people who are the same.

Nothing will change if George Bush is re-elected. For some, that's a good thing. But if you have the slightest bit of unease that things are not quite right with this country, if you vote for George Bush, you'll get more of the same.

With John Kerry, there's a glimmer of hope change will occur.

 

[we3luvdisney]

"Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts said during last night's Democratic presidential debate that the threat of terrorism has been exaggerated. "I think there has been an exaggeration," Mr. Kerry said when asked whether President Bush has overstated the threat of terrorism. "They are misleading all Americans in a profound way." -- Washington Times on Jan 30, 2004


Article