by roybatty 61 Replies latest jw friends
If he had been, there is a good chance he would have ordered the Invasion because Kerry believed that there were WMD in Iraq.
And who was it that mislead Kerry, and everyone else, into believing that? You believed it, didn't you, when your president said they were there?
Touche, Maybes
xander-
Kerry......never gave orders to the US military to conquer and occupy a foreign country unprovoked.
can you explain to me why kerry voting for the above is somehow more forgivable in your eyes than giving the order? he did everything in his power to make sure we invaded iraq....his power was simply limited to voting yes or no. if he truly believed it was the wrong thing to do, wouldnt he have voted no? doesnt the fact that he repeated all of the presidents views on iraqs wmds, not to mention also tying iraq to terrorism (my above quote), show that he in fact completely supported going to war, indeed believed it was the right thing to do? how is this different from the presidents belief that it was the right thing to do?.......just because he gave the actual order that kerry (and everyone else that voted yes) directly supported and in essence TOLD him to give? im very interested in hearing your logic on this.
aa
maybe-
And who was it that mislead Kerry, and everyone else, into believing that? You believed it, didn't you, when your president said they were there?
if you want to play that game, then for starters clinton "mislead" us all about saddams wmds. if youd like some quotes to prove this, let me know. if its really a matter of "misleading", then clinton in fact mislead g.w.bush before he was ever president!
aa
can you explain to me why kerry voting for the above is somehow more forgivable in your eyes than giving the order? he did everything in his power to make sure we invaded iraq....his power was simply limited to voting yes or no. if he truly believed it was the wrong thing to do, wouldnt he have voted no?
He only voted yes on that because he believed the information he had been lied to about.
Would Kerry, if president, have fabricated evidence to lie to Congress about the thread Iraq poses in order to get them to authorize an invasion? Would he, as president, then proceed to lie to his allies to try to get them on board? Would he lie to the American public about connections between Iraq and Al-Queeda that don't exist, or the presence and readiness of WMDs that don't exist?
No way to know *for sure*. All we can say FOR SURE is that Bush DID do all those things, so I will not vote for him. Maybe Kerry will when he gets in the White House, too, I don't know. If he does, then I won't vote for him again. But, at least by his character, it seems unlikely he would at all.
In any case, it's a moot point. Bush DID do those things, so I will vote for wheover may be able to defeat him.
But, at least by his character, it seems unlikely he would at all.
errrr he has already lied before Congress about his exp. in Vietnam, he labeled his fellow soilders butchers and murders....Wow, some Character.......
...and, as if you didn't need another reason to vote for Kerry - go see "Fahrenheit 9/11"
Has anyone seen this site?
I think they both suck and we're screwed but that URL seriously cracked me up.
I just wanted to point out that there's been zero comment about what I posted concerning Bush's flip-flops. Aren't any of you Bush supporters going to stand up and tell me why it's ok that Bush can flip-flop like this, but Kerry is the spawn of satan if he changes his mind?
Princess - I have seen that site, and, sadly, agree with the contents.
I don't like Kerry. If I met him in person, and had the opportunity, I don't think we'd be friends. A lot about him disagrees with my beliefs, and he's a politician first and foremost, which NO good will come of.
Still, he's the only person who even MIGHT beat Bush, and since that is the only thing that matters at the moment....
(The site does make an interesting point, though. Our troops are involved in a 'war on terror', right? Well, where ARE most our troops, exactly? Occupying a non-threatening country unprovoked, or hunting down the person - who is still on the loose - directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans on American soil? See, if it were me, in a 'war on terror', I'd direct my army at....oh, I dunno, TERRORISTS or something instead of near defenseless third world countries.)
