Vile Requiem Posted September 20, 2004 Report Posted September 20, 2004 http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeche..._2004_0920.html Given today around 11:15 EST, a very -*BAD WORD*-ing critique of Iraq and by proxy the President's competence.
Dr.Worthless Posted September 20, 2004 Report Posted September 20, 2004 Solid speech, I didn't much agree with the message, but a solid speech none the less.
Guest Recombo Posted September 20, 2004 Report Posted September 20, 2004 Weak speech for a candidate who claims to be able to "fight a different and better war in Iraq". John Kerry is good at one thing: telling you about some off-beat remark made by an unknown source, then making you fear it. He's weak on actual resolve of anything -- at all. "By one count, the President offered 23 different rationales for this war." - who's count? CBS? The Canadian press? Ted Kennedy's? "Only Vice President Cheney still insists that the earth is flat." - What relevance does this have? Cheney is an educated man as most politicians are and this comment really is nothing but a personal attack on him. "At home, the American people are less likely to trust this administration if it needs to summon their support to meet real and pressing threats to our security." - WHAT?? Numerous times homeland security has thwarted terrorist plots in America since 9/11. "This President’s failure to tell the truth to us before the war has been exceeded by fundamental errors of judgment during and after the war." - It's like an old gong. Where is the truth behind this? Kerry is obviously trying to win the vote of the grossly misinformed. Another Kerry fear statement. Kerry's whole speech was about the war. Nothing more. He failed to site numerous pieces of legislation that have passed through Pres. Bush where other former presidents have failed. He failed to mention how he will be able to provide lower taxes to middle class while at the same time increasing our diminishing recruit military funding, 'save' social security, and provide more welfare programs to the already grossly abusive immigrant population. Great leader there. You go girl.
Vile Requiem Posted September 20, 2004 Author Report Posted September 20, 2004 This is what is known as doing one's homework: http://www.pol.uiuc.edu/news/largio_thesis.pdf- The 23 Rationales are listed on Page 150 of the thesis (which, coincidently, you don't lie and get a doctorate). "Only Vice President Cheney still insists that the earth is flat." - What relevance does this have? Cheney is an educated man as most politicians are and this comment really is nothing but a personal attack on him. Only President Cheney has maintained that Iraq has WMD. Nobody else. This is called a clever metaphor' date=' and is used by people of intelligence, like John Kerry. It's also called "taking a quote in context, as in the following: His two main rationales – weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction and the Al Qaeda/September 11 connection – have been proved false… by the President’s own weapons inspectors… and by the 9/11 Commission. Just last week' date=' Secretary of State Powell acknowledged the facts. Only Vice President Cheney still insists that the earth is flat.[/quote'] "At home' date=' the American people are less likely to trust this administration if it needs to summon their support to meet real and pressing threats to our security." - WHAT?? Numerous times homeland security has thwarted terrorist plots in America since 9/11.[/quote'] Bush lied to them about Iraq, what now about, oh, let's say Iran? (which actually could be a threat). Try not taking things out of context next time, you might appear less ignorant. Cmon man, Even Dr. Worthless said it was a solid speech even though he didn't like Kerry's plans. Oh, and about the focus of the message...Iraq is the BIGGEST thing Bush has done in his term. Thus why not call attention to the fact that it's a colossal -*BAD WORD*-up?
Guest Recombo Posted September 21, 2004 Report Posted September 21, 2004 Hindsight better than 20/20 where you come from Vile? I suppose Pres. Bush is directly responsible for the tactical operations of US forces in Iraq - obviously this is what you are hinting since 90% of the senate pressed for action after 9/11 couldn't possibly be the reason for going to Iraq in the first place. Saying Pres. Bush lied is par to saying you personally knew and projected the outcome of Iraq on Wednesday, 9/12. Weak.
Vile Requiem Posted September 21, 2004 Author Report Posted September 21, 2004 Congress gave Bush the loaded weapon (which a president needs for his threats to be credible), Bush fired it. Thus, he is responsible as the commander in chief of the armed forces. Kerry can't tell Sgt. John Public to go into Iraq. Coincidently, this is the exact reason why in 99% of cases the gun industry is not liable for some dumb!@#$%^&* killing your son People assume that what the President of the United States says is correct. If it is not, as Harry S. Truman so succintly put it, the buck stops here (the president). Another Analogy. John Public is your Advertising Exec and you're the CEO. The latest ad your company put out failed HORRIBLY. Do you fire the Ad Guy? -*BAD WORD*- yes. But if the company tanks as a result, the CEO is out the door too.
Guest Recombo Posted September 21, 2004 Report Posted September 21, 2004 Ok, there we agree. We will never know what America would be like today had Pres. Bush decided to veto the landslide congressional decision to back war. Loaded weapon or not, you do what 90% of congress says do. Kerry has insisted that he will fight a 'different kind of war in Iraq'. If he were commander in chief, he very much would tell Sgt XYZ to go to war and when. But he wouldn't and couldn't plan the tactical day to day operations. So essentially, Kerry couldn't fight a different kind of war at all. He's simply trying to appeal to the uneducated. Correct. The gun industry is no more responsible for the gravely unfortunate coincident when some dumb!@#$%^&* leaves a loaded gun in a dresser drawer and their child pulls the trigger and kills themselves then when one is on the street killing others. Killers are born within a society of which they are unable to cope. Guns, like knives, bows & arrows, rocks, and whatever else kids can conjur up kill people regardless. If you are referring to the recent ban lift of assault weapons, I think you should be a bit more informed. assault weapons like the AR-15 which is a civilian version of the M-16, was freely available during the assault weapon ban. The difference was that you could only stock it with a 10 round clip. Furthermore, gun dealers were legally permitted to sell 30 round clips that had been manufactured prior to the ban. Clinton passed a gun ban in hopes of deferring street violence. I think it probably worked to a degree, but that's not what I think you are trying to claim here. I think you believe that the gun ban removed all assault weapons.
Vile Requiem Posted September 21, 2004 Author Report Posted September 21, 2004 I have heard it said many times on these forums that people who vote for Bush do so not for him, but for the people surrounding him. The Iraq post-invasion phase was not planned for well at all by Donald Rumsfeld (on a side note...What dippy president DOESNT look over the basic war plan before OKing it?) despite multiple warnings. Bush has also failed to broaden the effort so that 90% of the -*BAD WORD*- going down is happening to us. Why? Money (Haliburton's no-bid contracts). You have to offer people a piece of the pie if they'll do something for you, paticularly since they were telling you not to go in in the first place. Didn't say anything about assault weapons, or Clinton, or whatever. The analogy was that Congress isn't responsible for the poor planning of the Pentagon/Bush/Rumsfeld.Poor planning that ALSO failed to capture Bin Laden when we had the very good chance, instead of leaving it to Afgani tribal warlords.
MonteZuma Posted September 21, 2004 Report Posted September 21, 2004 Nice Vile. Thanks for the thesis link.
Vile Requiem Posted September 21, 2004 Author Report Posted September 21, 2004 Just realized something else: Congress did NOT give Bush a mandate to go to war. They told him to ensure that there was no other way EXCEPT war to disarm Hussein. Which obviously Bush sorta neglected if you read his "Why I have to go to war" he delivered to Congress as they forced him to do before he could send troops.
Dr.Worthless Posted September 21, 2004 Report Posted September 21, 2004 Another Analogy. John Public is your Advertising Exec and you're the CEO. The latest ad your company put out failed HORRIBLY. Do you fire the Ad Guy? -*BAD WORD*- yes. But if the company tanks as a result, the CEO is out the door too.You forgot to add the Analogy that every market study showed that said add would surely be an absolute hit.. Congress gave Bush the loaded weapon (which a president needs for his threats to be credible), Bush fired it. Thus, he is responsible as the commander in chief of the armed forces. Kerry can't tell Sgt. John Public to go into Iraq. I really don't think its in contention anymore that things could have been tons better at the begining of this conflict, all that aside consider this. Given the Intelligence that the president was given (which in hindsight might have been faulty, but at the time was credible intel from Multiple sources), any president in the history of the US would have acted upon it. As president he has a OBLIGATION to act on the intelligence, if he hadn't and something happened he would have been empeached in a second. You can't base judgment on hindsight, its always 20/20. Now that we're IN the fight, whats going to be done to make it better. So far the only thing i've heard from Kerry is a withdrawl of troops, (all of them within 4 years), and a good portion of them brought home in 1 year. Furthermore, I've also heard the Kerry camp talk about not having ENOUGH troops on the ground, and attributing it to one of the reasons we failed. So, He wants more troops on the ground, but wants to bring them home. hhmm? Kerry also wants to bring in a UN coalition. Read, he wants France, Germany, Russian, and Chinese help. To find out why those countries didn't help us to begin with, do some research on the oil-for-food program. Kerry really is a class act. He's liberal, and has an "uptown smarter - than - you" at!@#$%^&*ude going on, but he really is ok. The only thing on his ticket that makes me sick is his -*BAD WORD*- of a wife, she's a disgrace. If that -*BAD WORD*- ever called me a "common man" or told me to "shove it" I'd -*BAD WORD*-ing knock her teeth out and gladly do the jail time.
Dr.Worthless Posted September 21, 2004 Report Posted September 21, 2004 Just realized something else: Congress did NOT give Bush a mandate to go to war. They told him to ensure that there was no other way EXCEPT war to disarm Hussein. Not entirely true, Kerry himself gave a rather lengthy speech on the senate floor focused around Saddam, him "using weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction against his own people" and the US needing to remove him.
Guest Recombo Posted September 21, 2004 Report Posted September 21, 2004 "I have heard it said many times on these forums that people who vote for Bush do so not for him, but for the people surrounding him." Are you implying that those supporting Kerry are directly for him? Why does the Adams family theme song start playing in my head? What '-*BAD WORD*- happening to us' are you talking about? IS this your attempt to blame Pres. Bush directly for terrorism? If Kerry were the president during 9/11, he would have gone to war just the same. They absolutely must trust the power of the military to do the job it does. All you are trying to do is blame one man for the global increase in terrorism. Kerry would not have been able to do anything different and worse off, he is weak when it comes to sticking to a plan. Since we are speaking only of war, I'll side with Pres. Bush to get things done 100 to 1 over Kerry. Kerry has already proven that he doesn't have a spine - he has hired numerous campaign 'engineers' to rig up every bit of nymphomottomania possible. When the debates start, Kerry will lose because he can't stick to a plan. That's a horrible thing. Kerry In? Corruption will be rampant.
Vile Requiem Posted September 21, 2004 Author Report Posted September 21, 2004 Not entirely true' date=' Kerry himself gave a rather lengthy speech on the senate floor focused around Saddam, him "using weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction against his own people" and the US needing to remove him.[/quote'] Senators can talk about whatever -*BAD WORD*- well suits them, the resolution that was passed is something entirely different. President Bush invaded Iraq without a clear plan to win the peace, just to win the war. Because of this, he has created two nightmares: An Afganistan where Al Queda and the Taliban still operate and the drug trade is more lucritive then ever, and Iraq, which has become the focal point of all terrorists out to stop the US, and a spawn of new ones, which are causing the 1000+ deaths of US soldiers, aka the "-*BAD WORD*- going down". There's at least 3 major cities that are "no go zones" that are completely owned by the terrorists. That -*BAD WORD*- that's going down. Ya know, chaos. Kerry would NOT have gone to war with Iraq because he never sought to invade Iraq. Bush did for 23 reasons, 23 excuses, one of which was that Hussein tried to kill his dad. Oh, and Kerry was on the Yale Debate Team. Somehow I doubt he'll lose the debates. Considering as Bush in 4 years has -*BAD WORD*-ed up 2 wars, let the #1 Most Wanted guy in the world off the hook, and created the #1 source of new terrorism... What in that warrents 4 more years?
Dr.Worthless Posted September 21, 2004 Report Posted September 21, 2004 Senators can talk about whatever -*BAD WORD*- well suits them, the resolution that was passed is something entirely different.You missed the point, even Kerry believed the war needed to be done, anyhow... President Bush invaded Iraq without a clear plan to win the peace, just to win the war. Opinion.. Though I agree it could have been done better. n Afganistan where Al Queda and the Taliban still operate and the drug trade is more lucritive then ever, and Iraq, which has become the focal point of all terrorists out to stop the US, and a spawn of new ones, which are causing the 1000+ deaths of US soldiers, aka the "-*BAD WORD*- going down".Its going to take far more than a year to completely move the taliban from anywhere, especially the country they originated in. Yep, Iraq has become the focul point of terrorists, I wonder why they would have such a vested interest in a country that they had "no activity nor !@#$%^&*ociation with" While 1000+ US casualties is a bad thing, thats pretty good for 1+ year over there. Ya know, chaos. You know, its funny... I hear 2 different stories on this situation, one from the media, and one from my 4 friends over in Iraq right now. The media has nothing but terrorists strikes and failed plans to report, where as everytime I talk to my friends (all 4 of which are stateside for good in 2 weeks!!!) the only thing they complain about is the 120+ degree heat, being teleported into the dark ages, and how ingrateful the Iraqi people are. (All 4 are stationed in Baghdad, btw). Point is I dont think it's as bad as the liberal media is trying to paint it. Oh, and Kerry was on the Yale Debate Team. Somehow I doubt he'll lose the debates.Bush kicked the living -*BAD WORD*- out of a far more intelligent Gore 4 years ago in the debates, it should be interesting. Considering as Bush in 4 years has -*BAD WORD*-ed up 2 wars, let the #1 Most Wanted guy in the world off the hook, and created the #1 source of new terrorism... I couldn't change your mind on any point of that so I wont even try, but I couldn't be any further from agreeing with that statement.
Guest Recombo Posted September 21, 2004 Report Posted September 21, 2004 Reading the "Bush lied, and Bush this, Bush that.." rhetoric is like listening to a group of flower-power !@#$%^&*ociates from the 60's. But yeah, the liberals here are unswayable - or apathetic. Either way, I'm sick of listening to their 'give me another hand out' whining while the rest of us pay with our sweat and hard work. Get off your !@#$%^&*es and do something for a change.
white_0men Posted September 21, 2004 Report Posted September 21, 2004 What '-*BAD WORD*- happening to us' are you talking about? IS this your attempt to blame Pres. Bush directly for terrorism? If Kerry were the president during 9/11, he would have gone to war just the same. They absolutely must trust the power of the military to do the job it does. All you are trying to do is blame one man for the global increase in terrorism. Kerry would not have been able to do anything different and worse off, he is weak when it comes to sticking to a plan. ... When the debates start, Kerry will lose because he can't stick to a plan. That's a horrible thing. Kerry In? Corruption will be rampant.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> What makes you believe that any other president (Gore, Kerry, Clinton, Nixon, -*BAD WORD*-, anyone except Bush Sr.) would have gone to war with Iraq after 9/11? I was all for going after Bin Laden and the rest of those responsible for what happened in New York, but how does attacking Iraq solve the problem of terrorism? How exactly does Bush plan on winning the war against terror? How did the removal of Saddam lead to less terrorists in the world or protect the USA, or any other country for that matter, from terrorist attacks? How many terrorists have been Iraqi? Don't confuse this for a lack of caring about what Saddam did to his people, but I'd like you clarify how the "War on Terror" became the war against Iraq. They hate our ideas, they hate our way of life, so let's go bomb the -*BAD WORD*- out of them, that'll teach em a lesson. --- As for the second part...HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Kerry can't stick to a plan therefore corruption will be rampant? Just reading that again makes me laugh some more, thanks for the entertainment.
Dr.Worthless Posted September 21, 2004 Report Posted September 21, 2004 How exactly does Bush plan on winning the war against terror? How did the removal of Saddam lead to less terrorists in the world or protect the USA, or any other country for that matter, from terrorist attacks? How many terrorists have been Iraqi? Don't confuse this for a lack of caring about what Saddam did to his people, but I'd like you clarify how the "War on Terror" became the war against Iraq. It comes down to what extent you believe Saddam had connections with the Terrorists. Everyone should know by this point that he openly paid suicide bombers families. I do believe he had further dealings with them past that point, if we'll ever find out the true extent of involvement I don't know, but to me it just makes sense that he would atleast take an active interest in organizations that he could support under-the-table to attack the US/World community. At the very least it would take some heat off of him. Of course, if you are with the liberals and believe that Saddam had absolutly no links to terrorism, I suppose it really does seem ludacris to have removed Saddam from the game.
Vile Requiem Posted September 21, 2004 Author Report Posted September 21, 2004 Hmm, whereever do the liberals get the idea that the secular Saddam hated the fundementalist Bin Laden? Makes no sense to me, except that seems to be public knowledge 9/11 Comission Summary: Bin Laden made ovatures to Saddam to let Al Queda have bases there, Saddam said no.
Dr.Worthless Posted September 21, 2004 Report Posted September 21, 2004 Hmm, whereever do the liberals get the idea that the secular Saddam hated the fundementalist Bin Laden? Makes no sense to me, except that seems to be public knowledgeWhere vile, provide me any substancial information that shows Saddam had a hatred for Bin Laden and/or Islamic Fundamentalism. He might have kept it out of his country, as I can see where it would diminish his power, but don't for a second believe that a nutjob like him wouldn't slip $$ under the table to an organization that conducts strikes against the same nations that were attempting to keep him under their thumbs. God knows he had plenty of $$ and plenty of hatred for the west to do something like that, infact it would only make SENSE for him to do something like that. Its essentially the very same thing the US did years ago to GET Saddam in power and Arm Bin Laden to fight the Russians.. So yes, where DO the liberals get the idea that Saddam would have no affiliation with islamic fundamentalism. He tortured his own populus, stole money from them all to build himself elaborate palaces, drive expensive cars, etc. He kills 10's of thousands of them, and sent them to m!@#$%^&* graves. His sons raped women and openly tortured citizens. But Support islamic fundamentalists, god no he'd NEVER do that... 9/11 Comission Summary: Bin Laden made ovatures to Saddam to let Al Queda have bases there, Saddam said no. HuH, Saddam didn't want any concrete evidence of him supporting other Whackos!? Man.. Imagine that. That must mean he didn't have anything to do with them at all! -*BAD WORD*-, that happens all the time. Me as the leader of an Islamic Fundamentalist group looking for places to setup training camps.. OOOH I know, I'll contact the leader of a country that supposedly has nothing to do with me!! I love to waste my time!! . Why would bin laden go about the trouble of requesting if he didn't think there was a chance Saddam might say yes!?. If Saddam was so obviously against Islamic Fundamentalist, why would Bin Laden be contacting him in the first place?
Vile Requiem Posted September 21, 2004 Author Report Posted September 21, 2004 It's a very simple sentence: Saddam's secular government was just the kind of Arab government bin Laden's Islamic extremists want to replace. Because as Saudia Arabia shows us, Fundamentalist Islam govt = schools that teach kids to hate America and the West. Why would he help someone who wanted to take him out?
Dr.Worthless Posted September 21, 2004 Report Posted September 21, 2004 It's a very simple sentence: Saddam's secular government was just the kind of Arab government bin Laden's Islamic extremists want to replace. Because as Saudia Arabia shows us, Fundamentalist Islam govt = schools that teach kids to hate America and the West. Why would he help someone who wanted to take him out?So wait, you're trying to sell 2 ideas to me. 1.) Bin Laden wanted to overthrow Saddam's government. 2.) Bin Laden was in contact with Saddam and tried to get him to allow al-qaeda training camps in Iraq, in which he declined. Are you not see'ing the contradiction here? I thought Bin Ladden wanted Saddam gone, why would he be asking him to have training camps in his country? Why would Saddam be in contact with Bin Laden at all, and visa versa? Furthermore, Alot of people make the over generalization that the 9/11 commission said there was no tie between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. In actually, There is "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq collaborated with the al Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States, according to a new staff report released this morning by the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. "No credible Evidence" that Saddam collaborated on any ATTACKS on the United States. Supporting these groups with $$ or anything else wouldn't fit under that. Now in all fairness, the report also includes this. (the basis behind the claims I am !@#$%^&*uming) Although Osama bin Laden briefly explored the idea of forging ties with Iraq in the mid-1990s, the terrorist leader was hostile to Hussein's secular government, and Iraq never responded to requests for help in providing training camps or weapons, the panel found in the first of two reports issued today. Now, This paragraph has a major major major logical flaw in it. Premise 1.) Osama was hostile towards Hussein's secular government. 2.) He contacted Iraq for Weapons and training camps, in which Iraq never responded. Ok, so this is how I understand this going on, if I'm wrong please correct me. "Hey Saddam, I -*BAD WORD*-ing hate your guts and am looking to replace you and put in our own government, how about giving us some guns and letting us setup camps in your country"
Vile Requiem Posted September 21, 2004 Author Report Posted September 21, 2004 Except here's where we tie all this back to the topic parent. One of Bush's 23 Excuses for invading Iraq? That Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Which obviously if he never attacked the US that's impossible. Remember: This is Bush v Kerry, not "Vile and Worthless play FBI/CIA"
Dr.Worthless Posted September 21, 2004 Report Posted September 21, 2004 Except here's where we tie all this back to the topic parent. One of Bush's 23 Excuses for invading Iraq? That Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Which obviously if he never attacked the US that's impossible. Remember: This is Bush v Kerry, not "Vile and Worthless play FBI/CIA" Again Vile, Hindsight is always 20/20. At the time of declaring war with Iraq, Intelligence showed that there was a connection. The 9/11 commission wasn't even setup then.. Yes, you can say that the INTELLIGENCE was flawed, but you cannot blame the President for following Said intelligence that wasn't "proven" to be "wrong" until a year after the fact. Furthermore, Al-Qaeda is not the only terrorist group operating worldwide. Saddam very well could have been affiliated with Other terrorist networks that we don't know about.
Vile Requiem Posted September 21, 2004 Author Report Posted September 21, 2004 Wheeee None of the hijackers was IraqiMost were SaudiThe US universally believes Bin Laden bankrolled the entire thing. Doesn't take a genius.
Recommended Posts