Posts by dubla

will-

Isn't this is the same guy that lied about the so called WoMD?

who, this guy?

John Kerry, Oct 9, 2002: "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation."

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

John Kerry, Oct 9, 2002: The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and to expand it to include nuclear weapons. We cannot allow him to prevail in that quest.

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

aa

abaddon-

I do not believe that George Bush Junior is stupid enough to be totally unaware of the situation.

so, bush isnt stupid enough to be unaware of this conspiracy, but clinton is? so basically, bush is smarter than clinton?

Whilst you might not trust either body-hider, in law there's a clear apportioning of guilt in such circumstances. Are you indicating you will not vote/waste your vote on an Independant, as neither is worth it?

i really cant figure out if youre missing the point, or intentionally going around it to further your argument. you have made the statement that bush deceived in order to create fear, and all ive done is shown that if that is true, then kerry has done the same. when it comes to my vote however, this point of intentional deception is really moot given the fact that i dont believe either candidate lied about wmds.....i think they both believed they were there, just as clinton did. so you can go round and round about who is worse when it comes to lying about the threat, but if i dont believe that either candidate was "lying", its really not going to make a lot of difference to me, is it?

as far as the independents go, i dont believe we have a viable choice outside of bush and kerry....if we did, i very well might support the libertarian candidate.

And Clinton. for all his faults, was not lining up stategic targets for extra-territorial military excursions in line with a policy to increase American military power. The current reigeme are.

again, youre getting off the issue at hand, specifically: who lied about wmds to create fear. did clinton? or was he duped by the neo-cons? seriously, which do you believe?

aa

abaddon-

Firstly I can see seperation betwixt Kerry and Bush. Even if everything you've said in that respect is true, if you choose to class the originator in the same class as another distributor of the lies and deciet,

well, first off, is bush really the "originator"? its funny....the bush administration get criticized for using much of the same intelligence that was left over from the clinton administration, but when it suits the argument bush is of course the first president to make us believe saddam was a threat to our nation.

Somehow someone who helps a friend hide a body when their friend has a body to hide is held less accountable than someone who plans with their friend beforehand how they will dispose of the body; it's a logical legal distinction

if the dead body was a friend of mine, and later (after the truth of the killing had come out) i had to choose one of those two men to trust, which one would i choose? i dont think i could trust either of them.

in this case though, we arent talking about which one is more at fault (as your example about law implies), we, as voters, are trying to differentiate between the two of them on issues. when it comes to the belief that saddam had wmds and was a grave threat to our nation, there is no distinction....thats one issue. what youre doing is taking that issue one step farther and saying there is a distinction because bush went to war over these beliefs, and kerry only voted to let him. so, basically bush lied to take us to war, and kerry lied and voted in favor of giving bush the authority to go to war. i guess the voters have to decide how much of a difference that really is.

Of course, I do notice it seems you are never going to admit the chain of events and contributory factors I've discussed here would lead a reasonable person to assume that the bad information given out was the result of design

if a "reasonable person" would have to come to that conclusion, then that same "reasonable person" would have to include clinton in this "design". if he didnt start the fear over saddams wmds, he definitely increased it....and he gave us the same information about what the "intelligence" told us was in iraq, namely huge stockpiles of wmds. so, if there is some specific design dating back to the eighties, clinton would have to play a major role in this plan, which kind of shoots holes in the theory that its a neo-con-spiracy, doesnt it?

aa

abaddon-

But if 'he smells' results in 'he smells too', rather than moving away from that which smells...

its one issue (wmds) that doesnt seperate the two candidates, thats all. there are plenty of other issues (that DO seperate them) to base judgements on.

aa

teejay-

i edited the post with links, except for the last quote which is from the fox news special report on the date given. im not sure if fox news archives would have it or not, since is was a quote on television. as far as linking iraq to terrorism is concerned, this is another interesting quote from his speech on october 9, 2002 (link in previous post....bold/italics mine):

"He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel.

I mention these not because they are a cause to go to war in and of themselves, as the President previously suggested, but because they tell a lot about the threat of the weapons of mass destruction and the nature of this man. We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future."

aa

abaddon-

perhaps kerry is part of this neo-conservative agenda you speak of.?. maybe he was trying to exaggerate the threat posed by iraq in order to advance this empire.?. heres some kerry quotes on iraq:

Oct 9, 2002: "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation."

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

Oct 9, 2002: The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and to expand it to include nuclear weapons. We cannot allow him to prevail in that quest.

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

Jan 23, 2003: "without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

http://www2.gwu.edu/~action/2004/issues/kerr012303spfp.html

Dec 15, 2003: "Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that."

in that last quote he even, *gasp*, tied iraq to the war on terror!

aa