quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
[B]nice list...
but if you DD each issue you will find they are not exactly 100% inaccurracies, they are debatable OPINIONS as in this one....
B]

---

LOL- not 100% inaccurate, just 50%, maybe 25%

quote:

---

Originally posted by keithsan:

LOL- not 100% inaccurate, just 50%, maybe 25%

---

the example i showed is a perfect example to demonstrate that in the end, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be 100% accurate. Bush was much less accurate than Kerry was last night according to my DD.

i am trying to get rid of the spin, not make more....

for instance, this the MEAT and it is TRUE

KERRY:They outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, who only a week earlier had been on the other side fighting against us, neither of whom trusted each other.

we did allow most of those warlords to walk in one door to surrender and out the other door as allies....

SEN. JOHN KERRY: We should not have gone to war knowing the information we know today.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: We should not have gone to war knowing the information we know today.

SAWYER: If it turns out OK ... it was worth it?

KERRY: We have to succeed now that we've done. Look, we have to succeed. There are more terrorists in Iraq today then there were before, and you can't allow it to become an unstable regime that's a haven for terrorism. I've laid out a plan for success. I am not the president today. But each step of the way, I've laid out a plan for success, and each step of the way the president had always been following — always later, never the one who is initiating the things to make it successful. He's gotten us into this mess. It was his decision as to when to go, his decision as to how to go, his decision not to listen to his own advisers.

We tried diplomacy. We did our best. He was hoping to turn a blind eye. And, yes, he would have been stronger had we not dealt with him. He had the capability of making weapons, and he would have made weapons

notice how Bush says it was ludicrious to think Saddam would disarm.
ISN'T THAT WHAT HE DID? DUHUHUHU

We tried diplomacy. We did our best. He was hoping to turn a blind eye. And, yes, he would have been stronger had we not dealt with him. He had the capability of making weapons, and he would have made weapons

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
[b]BUSH: First of all, of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that.

And secondly, to think that another round of resolutions would have caused Saddam Hussein to disarm, disclose, is ludicrous, in my judgment. It just shows a significant difference of opinion.

We tried diplomacy. We did our best. He was hoping to turn a blind eye. And, yes, he would have been stronger had we not dealt with him. He had the capability of making weapons, and he would have made weapons

notice how Bush says it was ludicrious to think Saddam would disarm.
ISN'T THAT WHAT HE DID? DUHUHUHU

this is Bush's total justification for going to war........
you are a lawyer, you know how LEGAL this is....[/B]

---

as a (wanna be) lawyer (no bar yet-greece) the very first sanction was put in place as a cease-fire agreement. in those agreements, if it is broken, their is no cease fire therefore war continues. what bush dad did and clinton did was to bomb once or twice and quit. he chose to go in.

Obviously in the internet age, this seems like a long time ago but the ceasefire did not have a time limit and sanctions were still imposed....

IMHO!!!!! Sadam did not comply with his end of the last resolution. He did not comply because he DID NOT turn over documents and other information pertaining to the whereabouts of the weapons of mass destruction that everyone knows he had. (used before, random shell found now).

that is why the war. for me it is that simple, if he spoke up, tried, explained, answered legitimately. I may have a different answer for you. but the facts are that he did not comply with last resolution which was threatened with the use of force.

(if you want to discuss whether the un had the right to demand this of him, thats another discussion, but in my world you back up what you say or you aint shizzle)

heres a question.

How did he disarm? A. if he did, how?
b. if he did, why didn't he disclose?
c. disarming leaves remains, where are they?

We know his disclosure left many un accounted for weapons by hans blix own admission.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

i read thru the WHOLE response nowhere does Kerry say he would ask the UN's permission.
MORE LIES

so we start a war...

In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President’s Action In Iraq. KERRY: “George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.” (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
NOw we get to the supposed global test...
[b]
LEHRER: New question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.

What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?

KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.

No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

i read thru the WHOLE response nowhere does Kerry say he would ask the UN's permission.
MORE LIES

[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 01, 2004).][/B]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
Saddam was a BAD bookkeeper..

so we start a war...

come on man, this is fun to debate but .......i would trade sides with you if i thought i could make a case (any case)...LOL

---

if he was a bad book keeper, where are the remnants that the inspectors state they should still be able to find. (this is a scary non joking matter). the rest....

quote:

---

Originally posted by keithsan:
here some quotes, ( i need a life)

In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President’s Action In Iraq. KERRY: “George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.” (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03

Kerry Later Claimed He Voted “To Threaten” Use Of Force In Iraq. “I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Announcement Of Presidential Candidacy, Mount Pleasant, SC, 9/2/03)

---

i still see the same thing i always have... more diplomacy.....and it was working. proven by the lack of WMD. Bush gambled and lost...he shoulda walked away from the table when he lost....instead he is still trying to bluff a hand he lost..

if KERRY had stood up in the middle of the invasion and said this war is wrong he would have been a traitor, right????

if there was any kind of evidence worth ANYTHING

Bush would have paraded right into the UN building in NYC ......

NOTHING NADA.....it ain't there, he tried to draw to an open straight...

Again, he violated his own agreement, and was taken to task accordingly.

this isn't something you freaking cook up in your kitchen....

Collin Powell said there were none....that's good enough for me...

several thousands of people are dead, BUT NOT SADDAM......
and the situation is going to get worse across the whole mid-east before it gets better..

besides this war was for oil, just like the gulf war..

the global issue is REAL we have lost a lot of friends over this....
.
KERRY clearly says we have the right to strike pre-emptively....

BUSH is the one who HAS FAILED the global test and he should be "concerned" about this statement...

there are numerous weapons that are unaccounted for.

....they still are, believe what you want or will, i am making no claims.

you are talking as monday morning quarterback. put it this way, its the cole bombing and 9/11 is being planned what do you do.....clinton chose wait....

I choose to wait no longer. I am very happy with our choice to back up the u.n.

we could have landed marines in Yemen, but that wouldn't have fixed the real problem,

the real problem was Afghanistan and Pakistan and still is IMO Saudi Arabia....
Clinton and Gore i hated and never voted for. it is very hard for me to vote against my party. normally i would just NOT vote, but this time i will vote......have to...

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
accordingly?? blowing the crap out of Baghdad was accordingly??

---

yes IMO paragraph 12 (maybe 14) stated serious consequences for non compliance. blowing the crap out of em is serious consequences.

sanctions that france and russia were violating where not serious.
but they were the expected results, sadam had his buddies and new france would veto.

As far as saudi arabia, syria, iran, etc....
they need to be threatened by the un next and if they continue (i.e. iran) threats with serious consequences need to be made.
now these countries know we'll back up the serius consequences even if the u.n backs out.

if Iran really believes this, why are they thumbing their nose at US right now? they aren't shaking in their boots like Bush wants. if we (or the Israeli's) send bunker busters in there RIGHT NOW, (from what i hear of the Iranain nuke program) we will have a bigger mess than Chernobyl on our hands.....they have POWDERED nuclear materials (pictures are avialable) and they announced their intention to gassify it..(which probably means they already did)

this all goes right back to failed policy of TRAINING foreign nuclear scientists in our own(and British) Universities.the Paki's are the ones that have made the technical data availble to the axis of evil, and we trained the Paki's.. DUMB!

check what the Indain Newspeople think of our policy(before you scoff, remember they are the LARGEST democracy in the world, and a NUKE power) http://www.flonnet.com/fl2113/stories/20040702001905400.htm

some choice tidbits....

Allawi, like the other contender for the top post, Ahmad Challabi, had misled the Americans about Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Allawi had said before the invasion, that the Iraqi government could deploy WMDs in 45 minutes. Brahimi had stated that the "dictator" of Iraq, Paul Bremer (the U.S. Pro-Consul), had chosen Allawi. According to reports in the U.S. media, the CIA's preference of Allawi took precedence over the Pentagon's liking for Challabi

RECENT public opinion surveys have reflected the deep-seated Iraqi hostility to the U.S. occupation forces. According to a poll conducted by the Centre for Research, an Iraqi agency that works for U.S. companies, 88 per cent of Iraqis view the Americans as occupiers. As many as 57 per cent want the U.S. military to leave the country immediately.

Attempts by Iraqi officials to recover control of the oil revenues from U.S. hands have been cold-shouldered by the U.N. Since the occupation of Iraq started, the Bush administration has been extremely secretive about the exploitation of Iraqi oil and the handling of oil revenues. "A daylight robbery is going on in Iraq," Muzhir al Dulaymi, a spokesman for the League for the Defence of Iraqi Rights, has been quoted as saying.

He alleged that three million barrels of oil is being taken out of Iraq illegally every day and shipped through the Al-Bakr port in Iraq and the Turkish port of Jihan. Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the U.K. Prince Turki al-Faisal told an Irish newspaper that U.S. officials had predicted a year ago that the war in Iraq would be financed by the oil produced in Iraq. "This indicated that there were those in America who were thinking in terms of acquiring the natural resources of Iraq for America," he said.

this is NOT how you gain political favor throughout the world.

to quote Robert Jordan the novelist, (not the lawyer) "Take what you want, and PAY for it"

it would be funny if.......

the stated dept has been bleeding badly under this doctor....

John Kerry meets with the Queen of England. He asks her, "Your Majesty,
how do you run such an efficient government? Are there any tips you can
give to me?"

"Well," says the Queen, "the most important thing is to surround
yourself with intelligent people."

Kerry frowns. "But how do I know the people around me are really
intelligent?"

The Queen takes a sip of tea. "Oh, that's easy. You just ask them to
answer an intelligent riddle." The Queen pushes a button on her
intercom. "Please send Tony Blair in here, would you?"

Tony Blair walks into the room. "Yes, my Queen?" The Queen smiles.
"Answer me this, please, Tony. Your mother and father have a child. It
is not your brother and it is not your sister. Who is it?"

Without pausing for a moment, Tony Blair answers, "That would be me."

"Yes! Very good," says the Queen.

Kerry goes back home to ask John Edwards, his vice presidential choice
the same question.

"John. Answer this for me. Your mother and your father have a child.
It's not your brother and it's not your sister. Who is it?"

"I'm not sure," says John Edwards. "Let me get back to you on that one."
Edwards goes to his advisors and asks every one, but none can give him
an answer. Finally, he ends up in the men's room and recognizes Colin
Powell's shoes in the next stall. Edwards shouts, "Colin! Can you answer
this for me? Your mother and father have a child and it's not your
brother or your sister. Who is it?" Colin Powell yells back, "That's
easy. It's me!"

Edwards smiles, and says, "Thanks!" Then, Edwards goes back to speak
with Kerry. "Say, I did some research and I have the answer to that
riddle. It's Colin Powell."

Kerry gets up, stomps over to John Edwards, and angrily yells into his
face, "No, you idiot! It's Tony Blair!"

"Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security," Kiesling wrote. He added, "We have not seen such a systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam."

the people who know and live with other world leaders, (instead of talking AT them on the phone) are HORRIFIED at what we have done... if we the people support this action, we stand NO CHANCE of regaining a TRUE position of world leadership....

cuz what we have right now is not leadership

heres the letter.

March 10, 2003

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am joining my colleague John Brady Kiesling in submitting my resignation from the Foreign Service (effective immediately) because I cannot in good conscience support President Bush's war plans against Iraq.

The president has failed:

--To explain clearly why our brave men and women in uniform should be ready to sacrifice their lives in a war on Iraq at this time;

--To lay out the full ramifications of this war, including the extent of innocent civilian casualties;

--To specify the economic costs of the war for ordinary Americans;

--To clarify how the war would help rid the world of terror;

--To take international public opinion against the war into serious consideration.

Throughout the globe the United States is becoming associated with the unjustified use of force. The president's disregard for views in other nations, borne out by his neglect of public diplomacy, is giving birth to an anti-American century.

I joined the Foreign Service because I love our country. Respectfully, Mr. Secretary, I am now bringing this calling to a close, with a heavy heart but for the same reason that I embraced it.

Sincerely,

John H. Brown
Foreign Service Officer

John H. Brown, a Princeton PhD, joined the Foreign Service in 1981 and has served in London, Prague, Krakow, Kiev, Belgrade and, most recently, Moscow.

just a note, i disagree with john brown. and some of his factors i would not use to decide on use of force if i were pres.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kate:
Most of the doctors in the rest of the world, don't have the means to operate properly, and I probably wouldn't survive, either due to unsanitary conditions, or lack of teaching, like the Iraqi people! Like I said before, where do they take these polls? Since the people in the other countries, don't personally see our president on TV every week, or see him in person, or read his testimony, or pray for him daily, I wouldn't trust their judgement either!

---

don't kid yourself Kate, in this country alone, thousands of people die from infections caught in OUR hospitals that have nothing to do with their original problems.