16 Lies Kerry told during the first debate - The Orange Mane

Exile_In_SJ · 10-01-2004, 07:31 PM

Friday, October 01, 2004
The Raw Deal: John Kerry's Inaccurate Statements During Last Night's Debate

"John Kerry's at least 16 inaccurate statements during last night's debate widened his credibility gap on the most important issues facing our nation. While President Bush spoke clearly and from the heart about the path toward victory in the War on Terror, Kerry relied on false attacks and demonstrated his continued willingness to play politics with the War on Terror."

- Steve Schmidt, Bush-Cheney '04 Spokesman

John Kerry Made At Least 16 Inaccurate Statements During Last Night's Debate

Kerry Inaccurately Claimed Cuts In Homeland Security Funding Caused NYC Subway To Be Closed During The RNC Convention. "In an early exchange about homeland security, Kerry got it wrong when he claimed President Bush's cuts in funding for infrastructure protection was 'why they had to close down the subway in New York when the Republican Convention was there.' The only problem is that no subway service beneath Madison Square Garden was suspended during the convention, even as buses were diverted and gridlock ruled the streets." ("Subway Flub Derails Challenger," The New York Post, 10/1/04)

Kerry Falsely Claimed He Had “Made A Mistake In How” He Talked About His Vote Against The $87 Billion, Despite Previously Saying It Would Be "Irresponsible" To Vote Against Funding For Our Troops. (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 9/14/03)

Kerry Claimed He's "Never, Ever" Used Word "Lying" In Reference To President Bush On Iraq, But In December 2003 Kerry Told A New Hampshire Editorial Board Bush "Lied" About Reasons For Going To War In Iraq And In September 2003 Kerry Said Bush Administration "Lied" And "Misled." (Patrick Healy, "Kerry Camp Lowers N.H. Expectations Behind In Polls, Senator Now Seeks Spot In 'Top Two,'" The Boston Globe, 12/8/03; Sen. John Kerry, Campaign Event, Claremont, NH, 9/20/03)

According To FactCheck.Org, Kerry's "Cost" For The Iraq War Is Off By $80 Billion. ("Distortions And Misstatements At First Presidential Debate," FactCheck.org, 10/1/04, http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=271, Accessed 10/1/04)

According To FactCheck.Org, Kerry "Overstated The Case" On Osama Bin Laden's Alleged Escape At Tora Bora. ("Distortions And Misstatements At First Presidential Debate," FactCheck.org, 10/1/04,
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=271, Accessed 10/1/04)

Kerry Made Assumption The UN Was Willing To Continue Sanctions Against Iraq Despite The Fact They Were Becoming "Increasingly Unpopular With Key Nations." (Glenn Kessler And Walter Pincus, "Few Factual Errors, But Truth Got Stretched At Times," The Washington Post, 10/1/04)

Kerry Misspoke And Said Weapons Of Mass Destruction Were "Crossing The (Iraq) Border Every Single Day." "The AP noted that Kerry misspoke when he said 'we got weapons of mass destruction crossing the (Iraq) border every single day, and they're blowing people up.' Kerry meant terrorists were crossing the border, not nuclear weapons." ("Distortions And Misstatements At First Presidential Debate," FactCheck.org, 10/1/04,

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=271, Accessed 10/1/04)
Kerry Claimed U.S. Soldiers Are "90 Percent Of The Casualties In Iraq," But The Wall Street Journal Puts U.S. Casualties Closer To 50% When You Include Iraqis Helping To Secure Their Own Country. (Editorial, "Our Kerry Iraq Guide," The Wall Street Journal, 9/30/04)

Kerry Falsely Claimed President Bush Diverted Forces From Afghanistan To Iraq; Gen. Tommy Franks Said It's "Absolutely Incorrect" That Resources Were Diverted From Afghanistan. (General Tommy Franks, ABC Radio's "The Sean Hannity Show," 9/21/04)

Kerry Falsely Claimed The Bush Administration Has Not Organized An International Summit To Discuss Iraq. "Reality Check: The administration has, in fact, organized just such a conference, in consultation with Iraqi and other Arab allies. It will be held in Cairo late in November, with the foreign ministers of the G8 countries (i.e. including antiwar countries such as France, Germany and Russia), China, the countries of the Arab League, Turkey and Iran invited to attend. If it goes ahead, it will mark the most significant attempt to forge a political consensus on Iraq since the war." (Tony Karon, "Reality Check: John Kerry," Time.com, http://www.time.com/time/election200...703913,00.html, 10/1/04)

Kerry Falsely Claimed The President Is "Cutting The COPS Program," When The Truth Is President Bush Has Already Met And Exceeded The COPS Program's 100,000 Officer Goal By 18 Percent. (http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=1056)

Kerry Claimed Gen. Shinseki Was Retired For Testimony On Iraq When In Fact Shinseki's Retirement Was Announced In April 2002, Long Before He Testified About Potential Conduct Of Iraq War. (Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough, "Inside The Ring," The Washington Times, 4/19/02)

Kerry Misleadingly Claimed He Can Bring More Allies Into Iraq. "Reality Check: It wasn't the President's credibility that kept most of the international community out of Iraq; it was, and is, the policies pursued by the U.S. in Iraq. But Kerry is broadly committed to the same policies. And if, as he says, other countries will participate because they have a stake in the outcome, the presumably they would do so no matter who was President of the United States." (Tony Karon, "Reality Check: John Kerry," Time.com, http://www.time.com/time/election200...703913,00.html, 10/1/04)

Kerry Claimed To Have His Own Four-Point Plan For Iraq, But It Mirrors The President's Plan. "Kerry's plan… is pretty much a checklist of recent initiatives adopted by the Bush Administration." (Tony Karon, "Reality Check: John Kerry," Time.com, http://www.time.com/time/election200...703913,00.html, 10/1/04)

Kerry Falsely Stated The Agreement With North Korea Broke Down Because The President Didn't Continue The Clinton Administration's Policy. "Reality Check: While the Yongbon facility was under scrutiny and the fuel rods were sealed, North Korea has since admitted to running a secret parallel uranium-enrichment program to create weapons-grade fissile material in the years following the agreement reached with the Clinton administration, in violation of that agreement." (Tony Karon, "Reality Check: John Kerry," Time.com, http://www.time.com/time/election200...703913,00.html, 10/1/04)

Kerry Falsely Claimed The "Reason For Going To War Was Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Not The Removal Of Saddam Hussein," But The 2002 Use Of Force Resolution Kerry Voted For Specifically Recognized Longstanding Regime Change Policy. (Public Law No. 107-243, Signed Into Law 10/16/02)

Exile_In_SJ · 10-01-2004, 07:42 PM

from Instapundit,

WRITING IN THE NEW REPUBLIC, MARTIN PERETZ is down on Kerry:

It's not just that he has exaggerated what has gone wrong in Iraq. His entire speech was premised on the assumption that there were European troops and Muslim troops and United Nations gendarmes who would have gone to war with us against Saddam had Bush only waited another few days, weeks, months in the spring of 2003. That is a lie. And now, he holds out the same false promise. It is true, he admits, that there is a Security Council resolution calling on U.N. members to provide soldiers and trainers and a special brigade to protect the U.N. mission in Iraq. "Three months later," he admits, "not a single country has answered that call." Of course, Bush is to blame. And what should Bush do? He should "convene a summit meeting of the world's major powers" and "insist that they make good on that U.N. resolution."

There is something risible in Kerry's faith in these hopeless transactions brokered by Kofi Annan and in the United Nations itself, which is staging yet another tragic, do-nothing performance on Darfur. He surely knows there is no cavalry of Europeans and Arabs about to ride to Iraq's rescue (especially since he intends to withdraw American troops, hardly a move that will give other nations confidence). He surely knows there are no foreign funders willing to bear the financial burden, either. But, if he admits that, then much of his critique of Bush's Iraq policy collapses, and with it his confidence in the honorable community of nations--the kind of phrase of which liberals are fond. Except that the nations to which it refers are neither honorable nor a community nor, in many cases, even nations. Kerry may want to rely on their goodwill, but I don't.

Exile_In_SJ · 10-01-2004, 07:49 PM

little green footballs

too funny....

Bush vs. But-Head

James Taranto points out that John Kerry is a but man.

John Kerry made some strong and sensible statements during the debate last night, but did you notice what the next word usually was? Here are some Kerry quotes:

• “I’ll never give a veto to any country over our security. But...”

• “I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are. But...”

• “We have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we’re there. We have to succeed. We can’t leave a failed Iraq. But...”

• “I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that. And from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority, because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, and I did accept that intelligence. But...”

• “I have nothing but respect for the British, Tony Blair, and for what they’ve been willing to do. But...”

• “What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground. And you have to do that by beginning to not back off of the Fallujahs and other places, and send the wrong message to the terrorists. You have to close the borders. You’ve got to show you’re serious in that regard. But...”

• “I couldn’t agree more that the Iraqis want to be free and that they could be free. But...”

• “No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But...”

• “I’ve never wavered in my life. I know exactly what we need to do in Iraq, and my position has been consistent: Saddam Hussein is a threat. He needed to be disarmed. We needed to go to the U.N. The president needed the authority to use force in order to be able to get him to do something, because he never did it without the threat of force. But...”

Maybe Kerry misunderstood when someone told him he needed to have the “qualifications” to be president. But it’d inspire a lot more confidence if he had followed any of these remarks with a “therefore” clause instead of a “but” one.

broncos-rock · 10-01-2004, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exile_In_SJ

little green footballs

too funny....

Bush vs. But-Head

James Taranto points out that John Kerry is a but man.

John Kerry made some strong and sensible statements during the debate last night, but did you notice what the next word usually was? Here are some Kerry quotes:

• “I’ll never give a veto to any country over our security. But...”

• “I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are. But...”

• “We have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we’re there. We have to succeed. We can’t leave a failed Iraq. But...”

• “I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that. And from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority, because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, and I did accept that intelligence. But...”

• “I have nothing but respect for the British, Tony Blair, and for what they’ve been willing to do. But...”

• “What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground. And you have to do that by beginning to not back off of the Fallujahs and other places, and send the wrong message to the terrorists. You have to close the borders. You’ve got to show you’re serious in that regard. But...”

• “I couldn’t agree more that the Iraqis want to be free and that they could be free. But...”

• “No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But...”

• “I’ve never wavered in my life. I know exactly what we need to do in Iraq, and my position has been consistent: Saddam Hussein is a threat. He needed to be disarmed. We needed to go to the U.N. The president needed the authority to use force in order to be able to get him to do something, because he never did it without the threat of force. But...”

Maybe Kerry misunderstood when someone told him he needed to have the “qualifications” to be president. But it’d inspire a lot more confidence if he had followed any of these remarks with a “therefore” clause instead of a “but” one.

Exile_In_SJ · 10-01-2004, 08:19 PM

yeah Kerry won on style, Bush won on substance.

errand · 10-02-2004, 08:38 PM

What made me laugh the most about Kerry was his constant talk of allies and alliances.....

[] What are you going to say to them? Come join us in this great diversion from Afghanistan? Come join us in this wrong war at the wrong time being done the wrong way? Come join us in a war that was brought about by lies and faulty intelligence? Come join our quagmire? Come join us in a war where things are getting worse day by day? Come join the other 30 or so nations we coerced and bribed?

[] Kerry left himself open for attack with his "pre-emptive strike upon passing the global test" comment. Only LABF and his simpleton hordes wouldn't know this meant only with the UN's approval. And to this day, nobody can cite one conflict the UN has solved that didn't result in the US being "90% of the manpower, money and casualties"

[] France and Germany have already stated that they will not commit troops to the conflict. So tell us John if your planning to pull our boys out, who out of all these allies you will generate will be taking their place? Oh, and don't claim it'll be the Iraqi's because you've already scoffed at the claims they even want freedom, or have enough people trained to help us now, let alone secure their nation later.

[] And what if using more diplomacy doesn't work John,(like with Iraq) and the UN is unwilling to enforce their own resolutions (like with Iraq), or are just plain being bribed by the very people they are suppose to be inspecting, and or holding accountable (like with Iraq - oil for food anyone?) ....what will you do then, John? John?

[] John also claimed that the 200 billion spent on Iraq could have been better spent on prescription drugs for the elderly, (ever hear of the RX drug entitlement for senior citizens that Bush got passed? Wasn't it like 400 billion?), or on education (Ted Kennedy was allowed to write the education bill....the largest amount spent on education in US history....which BTW one of Ted's side notes in this bill instructed high schools to give US military recruiters the names, phone numbers and addresses of high school kids....perhaps a preclude to the Dem authored draft bill?)

[] Kerry also blasted Bush for "going it alone" against Iraq....but then wants to go it alone when dealing with N. Korea. What the? so let's get this straight, he wants the world to be involved in Iraq, a nation that posed no threat to us according to him (so why do we need so much help, John?) and yet the real threat of N. Korea, who thanks to John's Democrat buddies Albright, Clinton, and Carter have nukes....he wants us to deal with by ourselves. Yeah, right.............

Exile_In_SJ · 10-04-2004, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by errand

[] Kerry also blasted Bush for "going it alone" against Iraq....but then wants to go it alone when dealing with N. Korea. What the? so let's get this straight, he wants the world to be involved in Iraq, a nation that posed no threat to us according to him (so why do we need so much help, John?) and yet the real threat of N. Korea, who thanks to John's Democrat buddies Albright, Clinton, and Carter have nukes....he wants us to deal with by ourselves. Yeah, right.............

That's a strange one. Abandon multilateral talks for bilateral talks. China can influence NK more than us, yet JfnHKerry want's to abandon that road?

Like I said, Kerry won on style, but the substance was ALL on Bush's side.

10-01-2004, 07:31 PM	#1
Exile_In_SJ Ring of Famer Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,169	16 Lies Kerry told during the first debate Friday, October 01, 2004 The Raw Deal: John Kerry's Inaccurate Statements During Last Night's Debate "John Kerry's at least 16 inaccurate statements during last night's debate widened his credibility gap on the most important issues facing our nation. While President Bush spoke clearly and from the heart about the path toward victory in the War on Terror, Kerry relied on false attacks and demonstrated his continued willingness to play politics with the War on Terror." - Steve Schmidt, Bush-Cheney '04 Spokesman John Kerry Made At Least 16 Inaccurate Statements During Last Night's Debate Kerry Inaccurately Claimed Cuts In Homeland Security Funding Caused NYC Subway To Be Closed During The RNC Convention. "In an early exchange about homeland security, Kerry got it wrong when he claimed President Bush's cuts in funding for infrastructure protection was 'why they had to close down the subway in New York when the Republican Convention was there.' The only problem is that no subway service beneath Madison Square Garden was suspended during the convention, even as buses were diverted and gridlock ruled the streets." ("Subway Flub Derails Challenger," The New York Post, 10/1/04) Kerry Falsely Claimed He Had “Made A Mistake In How” He Talked About His Vote Against The $87 Billion, Despite Previously Saying It Would Be "Irresponsible" To Vote Against Funding For Our Troops. (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 9/14/03) Kerry Claimed He's "Never, Ever" Used Word "Lying" In Reference To President Bush On Iraq, But In December 2003 Kerry Told A New Hampshire Editorial Board Bush "Lied" About Reasons For Going To War In Iraq And In September 2003 Kerry Said Bush Administration "Lied" And "Misled." (Patrick Healy, "Kerry Camp Lowers N.H. Expectations Behind In Polls, Senator Now Seeks Spot In 'Top Two,'" The Boston Globe, 12/8/03; Sen. John Kerry, Campaign Event, Claremont, NH, 9/20/03) According To FactCheck.Org, Kerry's "Cost" For The Iraq War Is Off By $80 Billion. ("Distortions And Misstatements At First Presidential Debate," FactCheck.org, 10/1/04, http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=271, Accessed 10/1/04) According To FactCheck.Org, Kerry "Overstated The Case" On Osama Bin Laden's Alleged Escape At Tora Bora. ("Distortions And Misstatements At First Presidential Debate," FactCheck.org, 10/1/04, http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=271, Accessed 10/1/04) Kerry Made Assumption The UN Was Willing To Continue Sanctions Against Iraq Despite The Fact They Were Becoming "Increasingly Unpopular With Key Nations." (Glenn Kessler And Walter Pincus, "Few Factual Errors, But Truth Got Stretched At Times," The Washington Post, 10/1/04) Kerry Misspoke And Said Weapons Of Mass Destruction Were "Crossing The (Iraq) Border Every Single Day." "The AP noted that Kerry misspoke when he said 'we got weapons of mass destruction crossing the (Iraq) border every single day, and they're blowing people up.' Kerry meant terrorists were crossing the border, not nuclear weapons." ("Distortions And Misstatements At First Presidential Debate," FactCheck.org, 10/1/04, http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=271, Accessed 10/1/04) Kerry Claimed U.S. Soldiers Are "90 Percent Of The Casualties In Iraq," But The Wall Street Journal Puts U.S. Casualties Closer To 50% When You Include Iraqis Helping To Secure Their Own Country. (Editorial, "Our Kerry Iraq Guide," The Wall Street Journal, 9/30/04) Kerry Falsely Claimed President Bush Diverted Forces From Afghanistan To Iraq; Gen. Tommy Franks Said It's "Absolutely Incorrect" That Resources Were Diverted From Afghanistan. (General Tommy Franks, ABC Radio's "The Sean Hannity Show," 9/21/04) Kerry Falsely Claimed The Bush Administration Has Not Organized An International Summit To Discuss Iraq. "Reality Check: The administration has, in fact, organized just such a conference, in consultation with Iraqi and other Arab allies. It will be held in Cairo late in November, with the foreign ministers of the G8 countries (i.e. including antiwar countries such as France, Germany and Russia), China, the countries of the Arab League, Turkey and Iran invited to attend. If it goes ahead, it will mark the most significant attempt to forge a political consensus on Iraq since the war." (Tony Karon, "Reality Check: John Kerry," Time.com, http://www.time.com/time/election200...703913,00.html, 10/1/04) Kerry Falsely Claimed The President Is "Cutting The COPS Program," When The Truth Is President Bush Has Already Met And Exceeded The COPS Program's 100,000 Officer Goal By 18 Percent. (http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=1056) Kerry Claimed Gen. Shinseki Was Retired For Testimony On Iraq When In Fact Shinseki's Retirement Was Announced In April 2002, Long Before He Testified About Potential Conduct Of Iraq War. (Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough, "Inside The Ring," The Washington Times, 4/19/02) Kerry Misleadingly Claimed He Can Bring More Allies Into Iraq. "Reality Check: It wasn't the President's credibility that kept most of the international community out of Iraq; it was, and is, the policies pursued by the U.S. in Iraq. But Kerry is broadly committed to the same policies. And if, as he says, other countries will participate because they have a stake in the outcome, the presumably they would do so no matter who was President of the United States." (Tony Karon, "Reality Check: John Kerry," Time.com, http://www.time.com/time/election200...703913,00.html, 10/1/04) Kerry Claimed To Have His Own Four-Point Plan For Iraq, But It Mirrors The President's Plan. "Kerry's plan… is pretty much a checklist of recent initiatives adopted by the Bush Administration." (Tony Karon, "Reality Check: John Kerry," Time.com, http://www.time.com/time/election200...703913,00.html, 10/1/04) Kerry Falsely Stated The Agreement With North Korea Broke Down Because The President Didn't Continue The Clinton Administration's Policy. "Reality Check: While the Yongbon facility was under scrutiny and the fuel rods were sealed, North Korea has since admitted to running a secret parallel uranium-enrichment program to create weapons-grade fissile material in the years following the agreement reached with the Clinton administration, in violation of that agreement." (Tony Karon, "Reality Check: John Kerry," Time.com, http://www.time.com/time/election200...703913,00.html, 10/1/04) Kerry Falsely Claimed The "Reason For Going To War Was Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Not The Removal Of Saddam Hussein," But The 2002 Use Of Force Resolution Kerry Voted For Specifically Recognized Longstanding Regime Change Policy. (Public Law No. 107-243, Signed Into Law 10/16/02) Last edited by Exile_In_SJ; 10-01-2004 at 07:39 PM..

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-01-2004, 07:42 PM	#2
Exile_In_SJ Ring of Famer Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,169	from Instapundit, WRITING IN THE NEW REPUBLIC, MARTIN PERETZ is down on Kerry: It's not just that he has exaggerated what has gone wrong in Iraq. His entire speech was premised on the assumption that there were European troops and Muslim troops and United Nations gendarmes who would have gone to war with us against Saddam had Bush only waited another few days, weeks, months in the spring of 2003. That is a lie. And now, he holds out the same false promise. It is true, he admits, that there is a Security Council resolution calling on U.N. members to provide soldiers and trainers and a special brigade to protect the U.N. mission in Iraq. "Three months later," he admits, "not a single country has answered that call." Of course, Bush is to blame. And what should Bush do? He should "convene a summit meeting of the world's major powers" and "insist that they make good on that U.N. resolution." There is something risible in Kerry's faith in these hopeless transactions brokered by Kofi Annan and in the United Nations itself, which is staging yet another tragic, do-nothing performance on Darfur. He surely knows there is no cavalry of Europeans and Arabs about to ride to Iraq's rescue (especially since he intends to withdraw American troops, hardly a move that will give other nations confidence). He surely knows there are no foreign funders willing to bear the financial burden, either. But, if he admits that, then much of his critique of Bush's Iraq policy collapses, and with it his confidence in the honorable community of nations--the kind of phrase of which liberals are fond. Except that the nations to which it refers are neither honorable nor a community nor, in many cases, even nations. Kerry may want to rely on their goodwill, but I don't.

10-01-2004, 07:49 PM	#3
Exile_In_SJ Ring of Famer Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,169	little green footballs too funny.... Bush vs. But-Head James Taranto points out that John Kerry is a but man. John Kerry made some strong and sensible statements during the debate last night, but did you notice what the next word usually was? Here are some Kerry quotes: • “I’ll never give a veto to any country over our security. But...” • “I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are. But...” • “We have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we’re there. We have to succeed. We can’t leave a failed Iraq. But...” • “I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that. And from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority, because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, and I did accept that intelligence. But...” • “I have nothing but respect for the British, Tony Blair, and for what they’ve been willing to do. But...” • “What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground. And you have to do that by beginning to not back off of the Fallujahs and other places, and send the wrong message to the terrorists. You have to close the borders. You’ve got to show you’re serious in that regard. But...” • “I couldn’t agree more that the Iraqis want to be free and that they could be free. But...” • “No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But...” • “I’ve never wavered in my life. I know exactly what we need to do in Iraq, and my position has been consistent: Saddam Hussein is a threat. He needed to be disarmed. We needed to go to the U.N. The president needed the authority to use force in order to be able to get him to do something, because he never did it without the threat of force. But...” Maybe Kerry misunderstood when someone told him he needed to have the “qualifications” to be president. But it’d inspire a lot more confidence if he had followed any of these remarks with a “therefore” clause instead of a “but” one.

10-01-2004, 08:19 PM	#5
Exile_In_SJ Ring of Famer Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,169	yeah Kerry won on style, Bush won on substance.

10-02-2004, 08:38 PM	#6
errand Ring of Famer Forgot more than you'll ever know Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Western NC mountains Posts: 15,310	What made me laugh the most about Kerry was his constant talk of allies and alliances..... [] What are you going to say to them? Come join us in this great diversion from Afghanistan? Come join us in this wrong war at the wrong time being done the wrong way? Come join us in a war that was brought about by lies and faulty intelligence? Come join our quagmire? Come join us in a war where things are getting worse day by day? Come join the other 30 or so nations we coerced and bribed? [] Kerry left himself open for attack with his "pre-emptive strike upon passing the global test" comment. Only LABF and his simpleton hordes wouldn't know this meant only with the UN's approval. And to this day, nobody can cite one conflict the UN has solved that didn't result in the US being "90% of the manpower, money and casualties" [] France and Germany have already stated that they will not commit troops to the conflict. So tell us John if your planning to pull our boys out, who out of all these allies you will generate will be taking their place? Oh, and don't claim it'll be the Iraqi's because you've already scoffed at the claims they even want freedom, or have enough people trained to help us now, let alone secure their nation later. [] And what if using more diplomacy doesn't work John,(like with Iraq) and the UN is unwilling to enforce their own resolutions (like with Iraq), or are just plain being bribed by the very people they are suppose to be inspecting, and or holding accountable (like with Iraq - oil for food anyone?) ....what will you do then, John? John? [] John also claimed that the 200 billion spent on Iraq could have been better spent on prescription drugs for the elderly, (ever hear of the RX drug entitlement for senior citizens that Bush got passed? Wasn't it like 400 billion?), or on education (Ted Kennedy was allowed to write the education bill....the largest amount spent on education in US history....which BTW one of Ted's side notes in this bill instructed high schools to give US military recruiters the names, phone numbers and addresses of high school kids....perhaps a preclude to the Dem authored draft bill?) [] Kerry also blasted Bush for "going it alone" against Iraq....but then wants to go it alone when dealing with N. Korea. What the? so let's get this straight, he wants the world to be involved in Iraq, a nation that posed no threat to us according to him (so why do we need so much help, John?) and yet the real threat of N. Korea, who thanks to John's Democrat buddies Albright, Clinton, and Carter have nukes....he wants us to deal with by ourselves. Yeah, right.............