Bush for 2004! (yeah, right)

[cardude2004]

I didn't say anything about the troops moving from place to place because I don't know but Kerry has a planned date for pulling troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and they need to be there longer to settle the country. Kerry can't win.

 

[Solid Fro]

Kerry is singing a different tune now. First, he would do everything Bush has done. Then it was do everything different from Bush. Last week it was 12 months, now it's 6 months. A year ago he said he agreed with the war, now he opposes it.

Can a Democrat clear this up or should I keep laughing?

 

[milefile]

Can a Democrat clear this up

No.

or should I keep laughing?

Yes.

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

Kerry was in agreement with the idea of action towards Iraq, as was initialy proposed shortly after 9/11. This plan called for int'l and UN agreement and cooperation, and an attempt at diplomacy before attacking. Kerry changed to opposition when the war actually started, and it became obvious that the war was proceeding without int'l support, withough proper dpilomacy and inspections, and without a real plan for winning it.

Nextly, Kerry does not plan to pull troops out of Iraq until the war is won and Iraq is at peace. This is what he has been saying throughout his campaign, and what he said at the DNC. The difference is, Kerry actually has a plan for the war, unlike Bush, who simply is blundering his way through the war by throwing money and resources at it.

Kerry has no plan to reinstate the draft, short of extreme circumstances. You better believe Bush has no compunction about doing the same.

Kerry has no plans to cut off the intelligence services. You claim Clinton cut off the intelligence services during his administration and allowed the terrorist action against the US. However, the intelligence services did their job, and gathered many details on the 9/11 plot, which were reported to the administration, including directly to bush. Why the administration did not act on this intel is still unknown.

 

[Solid Fro]

the war was proceeding without int'l support

Without international support?

Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/news/20030327-10.html

withough proper dpilomacy and inspections, and without a real plan for winning it.

After 10 years of inspections and 17 United Nation resolutions, you want more diplomacy?

Nextly, Kerry does not plan to pull troops out of Iraq until the war is won and Iraq is at peace.

Kerry: Pull Troops From Iraq in 4 Years
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040906_533.html

This is what he has been saying throughout his campaign, and what he said at the DNC.

Yeah, at the DNC, he said he wanted to add 40,000 more troops. So, which one is it? Pull troops or add troops?

 

[milefile]

Kerry has no plan to reinstate the draft, short of extreme circumstances. You better believe Bush has no compunction about doing the same.

You'll say just about anything, won't you? Please back this up with something besides your personal hatred of Bush.

Kerry has no plans to cut off the intelligence services.]/quote]
Except when he voted to do so immediately after the first radical militant Islamic attack on the WTC.

You claim Clinton cut off the intelligence services during his administration and allowed the terrorist action against the US. However, the intelligence services did their job, and gathered many details on the 9/11 plot, which were reported to the administration, including directly to bush. Why the administration did not act on this intel is still unknown.

So Bush knew about the radical militant Islamic attack on the US on September the Eleventh in advance and did nothing?

 

[Tacet_Blue]

After the lifting of the Assault weapons ban, I think Kerry has just sealed his fate with this attack on Bush.

The US Democrat presidential candidate has attacked President Bush for failing to push for the renewal of a 10-year ban on private use of assault weapons.

"George Bush chose to make the job of terrorists easier and make the job of America's police officers harder, and that's just plain wrong."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan described Mr Kerry's words as "another false attack", while earlier the National Rifle Association (NRA) called Mr Kerry "the most anti-gun presidential nominee in United States history".

Well I think it is all over for Kerry now, that was not he wisest thing he has said...the NRA, quite a big organization, now you have upset them, you may have a few problems

 

[Duke]

It won't change the fact that I'm voting for the Democrat. Not because I like him, but because I can't stand Bush supporters - mainly yourself, in fact.

You aren't as bad as the damn Bush supporters, but crap.

You're joking, right?! Considering that the best thing Kerry supporters can find to say is "Hey, at least he's not Bush!", how can you possibly type this with a straight face?

 

[RacyBacy]

You're joking, right?! Considering that the best thing Kerry supporters can find to say is "Hey, at least he's not Bush!", how can you possibly type this with a straight face?

How can any person vote for George Bush with a straight face? That is the question!

I think a lot of Kerry supporters just want a change from Bush. It's as simple as that. And also the fact that they can't stand Bush supporters, as M5Power says. There are a few on this site who are fanatical to say the least.

 

[Duke]

And Kerry supporters - which is to say, Bush haters - aren't just as fanatical? Talk about 'selective blindness'. At least Bush isn't a hypocrite.

 

[RacyBacy]

I don't see many Kerry fanatics on this site to be honest, in fact I can't think of a single user who comes across in that manner. All seems a little one sided IMO.

I never once said there wasn't any fanatical Kerry supporters - I was referring to the general political feeling of this site, so you can take back your selective blindness comment. If anything it's perceptive, not blind.

 

[Danoff]

How do you measure the economy, then? The stock market is not a legitimate source, as the values of the stocks can easily be controlled by the corporations, 99% of whom are bush supporters. If our economy isn't falling, why is it that every nation that doesn't depend on the US economy has rising currency values and rising economies, and every country that's tied into the US economy, for business and trade (Canada, Japan, for example) is plumetting?

I just started a thread about this called the strength of currency. Let's take this discussion there.

 

[milefile]

I never once said there wasn't any fanatical Kerry supporters - I was referring to the general political feeling of this site, so you can take back your selective blindness comment. If anything it's perceptive, not blind.

I've observed this and thought about it some. In my opinion it boils down to the fact that liberal ideology can't stand up to the scrutiny of factual analysis. Liberals inevitably become irate and accuse GTP of being some right wing outpost when, in fact, there are merely several members here who don't let BS slide by and demand people be able to back up and articulately argue their views.

I think there are more liberal leaning individuals on this site than conservatives. One problem is that many of them are not true liberals in an honest sense. They are popular media slurping Bush haters. This warrants no respect and I quite enjoy watching them get dressed down time and again. This is only the latest wave. It won't be the last.

 

[Danoff]

How can any person vote for George Bush with a straight face? That is the question!

How can anyone not vote for George W. Bush with a straight face? I think that's the real question.

With the fact that Kerry has promised to abandon the new Iraqi government by getting troops out "as quickly as possible" - how can you possibly think a vote for Kerry is a good thing?

How can people think that democracy in Iraq is not a good weapon against terrorism?

How could you think that Kerry would give us a strong economy when his whole plan is to go against all advice from economists and raise taxes on the country's employers?

That being said, who else is an alternative to Bush? Nader? Perhaps the libertarians? They don't have a prayer.

 

[Duke]

I've observed this and thought about it some. In my opinion it boils down to the fact that liberal ideology can't stand up to the scrutiny of factual analysis. Liberals inevitably become irate and accuse GTP of being some right wing outpost when, in fact, there are merely several members here who don't let BS slide by and demand people be able to back up and articulately argue their views.

I think there are more liberal leaning individuals on this site than conservatives. One problem is that many of them are not true liberals in an honest sense. They are popular media slurping Bush haters. This warrants no respect and I quite enjoy watching them get dressed down time and again. This is only the latest wave. It won't be the last.

👍 👍 👍 Too bad the :applause: smiley bit the dust.

I'd like to go on record as stating that, despite popular assumptions to the contrary, I am NOT a Bush supporter, and won't be voting for him. But I would vote for Bush in a heartbeat rather than vote for Kerry, because in general his principles are closer to mine. Fortunately alternatives exist and I can vote FOR my principles (even though I know my candidate won't win) rather than voting for someone just because he's NOT someone else.

Personally, in this post-Cold War era, I would love to see the US stop cleaning up the world's messes, since it's been made abundantly clear that we are simultaneously expected to clean them up yet we are resented for doing so. Nonetheless, given the current situation, simply pulling out is the worst thing we could do, and we must see the job proerly through to completion. It's painfully obvious that our money is welcome but our ideals are not. News at ten: the two are inseperable. Deal with it.

Following that I'd like to see the US adopt 'magic mirror' trade practices: imported products from a given country will be legislated and taxed precisely the way that American exports to that country are treated. I'm all for free trade, but I won't take both bad ends of the deal.

 

[cardude2004]

Kerry was in agreement with the idea of action towards Iraq, as was initialy proposed shortly after 9/11. This plan called for int'l and UN agreement and cooperation, and an attempt at diplomacy before attacking. Kerry changed to opposition when the war actually started, and it became obvious that the war was proceeding without int'l support, withough proper dpilomacy and inspections, and without a real plan for winning it.

Nextly, Kerry does not plan to pull troops out of Iraq until the war is won and Iraq is at peace. This is what he has been saying throughout his campaign, and what he said at the DNC. The difference is, Kerry actually has a plan for the war, unlike Bush, who simply is blundering his way through the war by throwing money and resources at it.

Kerry has no plan to reinstate the draft, short of extreme circumstances. You better believe Bush has no compunction about doing the same.

Kerry has no plans to cut off the intelligence services. You claim Clinton cut off the intelligence services during his administration and allowed the terrorist action against the US. However, the intelligence services did their job, and gathered many details on the 9/11 plot, which were reported to the administration, including directly to bush. Why the administration did not act on this intel is still unknown.

Bush didn't know about the attacks because the intelligence was not there when he came into office. He has since put money into intelligence. Kerry voted to lower intelligence funding by 6 billion dollars. The info gathered after the attacks was because Bush put money into intelligence so they had the ability to investigate. Kerry said himself he wanted to draft people. The war in Iraq is over. We are just rebuilding it. We have to stop these crazy people from blowing stuff up before we can settle this nation. If they keep blowing up stuff it won't help to rebuild because it will be blown up. Bush will rebuild Iraq.

 

[High-Test]

I don't see many Kerry fanatics on this site to be honest, in fact I can't think of a single user who comes across in that manner. All seems a little one sided IMO.

seems to me like there's plenty of bush bashing threads and people like (blank) and (blank) not to start an argument or anything, but You are right, in a way, Most of the people on GTP who are pro Kerry Don't live in The United States.

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

The war in Iraq is over. We are just rebuilding it.

Then why do American soldiers keep dying?


A democratic Iraq is no defense against terrorism. Iraq never had anything to do with Anti-US terrorism.

 

[Danoff]

A democratic Iraq is no defense against terrorism. Iraq never had anything to do with Anti-US terrorism.

The second statement does not imply the first.

 

[ledhed]

it's been made abundantly clear that we are simultaneously expected to clean them up yet we are resented for doing so.

Truer words are very seldom spoken.

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

The second statement does not imply the first.

How is that? We are in their country. Any attacks against us are defense, not terrorism. If the UN got together and invaded the US, arrested the government, and took control of the US, would it be terrorism to start attacking UN soldiers?

 

[Solid Fro]

It is not the Iraqis fighting back. Terrorists from other countries like Iran and Syria are coming into Iraq and causing trouble.

The UN could never stand up to the US militarily.

 

[ledhed]

Although there are some foriegn fighters , for the most part the fighting is being done by Iraqi's , either from the Sader militia or the former Baathists or any number of Iraqi groups looking to make a name for themselves by " opposing the foriegn aggressor" ..that would be the US and allies. We are an occupying power , patriots of any country being occupied will oppose being occupied that is a fact that can not be denied. The other fact that can not be denied is that terrorist inside Iraq either Iraqi or others are taking advantage of the situation to further thier own adgenda(s) by attacking US and coalition forces and Iraqi forces along with civilians using car bombs , bombs,assasination,kidnapping and any and all means available to them and they must be hunted down and exterminated like the vermin that they are. A democratic and free Iraq is the best way to deal with both the " patriots " and the terrorist .

 

[Danoff]

A democratic and free Iraq is the best way to deal with both the " patriots " and the terrorist .

The word the media uses these days is "insurgents". The militants fighting for the old Iraqi government are not terrorists.

The people who use terror to try to disrupt the activities of the new government, regardless of their motives, are terrorists.

People who use car bombs to scare people away from applying to be Iraqi police are terrorists, using terror to achieve their goals. It doesn't matter what their motives are, that's the proper use of the term.

 

[cardude2004]

]Then why do American soldiers keep dying?
A democratic Iraq is no defense against terrorism. Iraq never had anything to do with Anti-US terrorism.

They keep dying because of rebelling people. Not everybody is going to like and be used to their new way of life immediately. After WWII and other wars there were people who rebelled and killed people as well. It would probably be worse if people weren't patrolling the place.

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

They keep dying because of rebelling people. Not everybody is going to like and be used to their new way of life immediately. After WWII and other wars there were people who rebelled and killed people as well. It would probably be worse if people weren't patrolling the place.

Actually, that's not entirely true. The "Wolverene" groups so often spoken of in comparison hardly existed. They were planned before the end of the war, but all they ever did was commit a few small, isolated, murders.

 

[Bahbo]

Yup. Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. It's y- your a, your a, you've been given sovereignty and your, viewed as a sovereig-entity.......And therefore the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one betweens, s-..sovereigntys.

I don't know what to say.

They keep dying because of rebelling people.

But for what? What are the american soldiers losing their life for? If the iraqi lifestyle was so bad before they were invaded, why are so many of them trying to keep america from "saving" their country?

 

[SLAYER1]

Just remember folks, the majority of what you see on TV and in the media is negative and only shows all the "bad things" happening in Iraq. However, what you don't see are all the successes and triumphs that are taking place in Iraq. The Iraqi people are becoming more and more free everyday, and soon they will be able to choose their own leader to run the Gov't.
I've had long talks with 2 of my good friends from High School who are currently on their second tour of duty as Marines in Iraq. These Marines have spent months in Iraq and were 2 of the first 1000 troops in Iraq. They have been involved in heavy fighting, and they have killed the enemy. They have also seen the many of the millions of happy Iraqis that now have so much more freedom than they have ever had in their lives. Everytime I ask them if this war was right and just, they tell my how much happier and better-off the Iraqis are.

So who will you trust?
-Michael Moore, who has never even been to Iraq?
-Or solders who have seen first hand the positive effects of our actions?

So who will you trust?
-The thousands of terrorists that don't want us there?
-Or the millions of Iraqis that do?

So who will you trust?
-John Kerry, who plans on retaliating to a terrorist attack?
-Or George W. Bush, who is trying to PREVENT a terrorist attack?

 

[Solid Fro]

That's why you need to watch Fox News. Fair and Balanced, the stuff CNN would never show. American troops handing out school supplies, Iraqi police officers patrolling their own streets, Iraqi children playing soccer, total strangers giving Coalition troops intelligence on where the terrorists are and their weapon stockpiles, etc. CNN reports on the truth, but never the whole truth.

Hmmm, I wonder why CNN wouldn't show this...

 

[wellyrn]

That's why you need to watch Fox News. Fair and Balanced, the stuff CNN would never show. American troops handing out school supplies, Iraqi police officers patrolling their own streets, Iraqi children playing soccer, total strangers giving Coalition troops intelligence on where the terrorists are and their weapon stockpiles, etc. CNN reports on the truth, but never the whole truth.

Hmmm, I wonder why CNN wouldn't show this...

LMFAO.

Anyway,

John Kerry, who plans on retaliating to a terrorist attack?
Or George W. Bush, who is trying to PREVENT a terrorist attack?

Right now if someone declared war on the US you are ****ed. You don't even have enough force to finish the wars you have going on. If you ever secure Iraq and Afghanistan, congrats, you only have 75% of the terrorist supporting states to go.