Terrorists Said Planning Summer Attack - Page 4

CarneVaca · #46 05-26-2004, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

Exactly. But I live in MA and Mutt Romney is trying to turn this into a hot spot for neocons, so I'll be out of town on election day so that I can submit an absentee ballot. I don't trust the vote tallying at all in MA these days. I'm going to fill it out, take it to a notary public, have it copied, then I'm going to send it in via signature receipt.

I can't imagine Massachusetts not giving at least 60 percent of the vote to Kerry. Romney is a mere grain of sand slipping through the hand of the history of the great Bay State. He's insignificant.

CarneVaca · #47 05-26-2004, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

That's why I supported Braun, until her campaign went belly-up. Then I went with Kucinich. I started off as a Kerry fan, then fell in love with those two, but now I'm back with Kerry.

Well, we've already established nobody's perfect.

strandinthewind · #48 05-26-2004, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

I think that Kerry's "staying the course" BS is just that: bull****. Once he's in office, he'll pull us outta there so fast that our heads will spin.

And Kerry would never have invaded Iraq as president. That's just crap. (No offense

)

I disagree - we cannot pull out now. That would create another Afgan and another breeding ground for Al-Q and other organizations to be free in. Like it or not, we are there for a long time.

Again, Kerry sure did not put up much of a fight - in fact he put up no fight - to stop W

So, it is not a huge step to get to he would have done it himself, esp. when for years he had been saying SH had WMD, was a threat to the world, and should be removed from office. I mean what does anyone have that suggests he would not have invaded Iraq? I am all ears.

CarneVaca · #49 05-26-2004, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But, people villify W and let Kerry get off for free.

Dude, you're going to have to decide what camp you're in... You're confusing the crap out of me.

dissention · #50 05-26-2004, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But, Johnny - what was the alternative. We could have killed every living soul in Afgan. or we could have never invaded Afgan. (which many liberals still suggest

). So, do you honestly think anyone could have handled it any better. I mean W and crewe are FAR more hawkish than any D. So, I think they did a good job. Yes, they should have caught OBL (shut up Dissention

) - but they did not. Instead, they destroyed or captured most of the upper eschelon of Al-Q. That is a good thing. I mean it is not like we are fighting one country here. Al-Q is everywhere and in every country. So, again, what is a better plan than what W did? And, more importantly, what would Kerry do that is better? I submit nothing. They are essentially the same. But, people villify W and let Kerry get off for free.

"There once was a man from Afghan
Whose skin was quite dark and tan
He lead an attack
The intel was lax
And now our country's Bushwhacked"

strandinthewind · #51 05-26-2004, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

The invasion of Iraq didn't simply "backfire" on Bush... US citizens and politicians alike, supported the invasion because they were lead to believe that it was necessary, when it was not.

If people had known then what they know now, I doubt a majority of people would feel that our troops should be in Iraq.

Kerry may have supported it then, but... like the rest of us... he made the mistake of trusting what the President of the United States told us to be true.

Kerry did not trust Bush to go to the corrupt UN and wait for their blessing. Does anyone here really believe that. I mean does anyone here think a 30 year vet. of Wash. politics did not know exactly what he was voting for? If, so, then I gotta bridge in Brooklyn for sale

CarneVaca · #52 05-26-2004, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I mean what does anyone have that suggests he would not have invaded Iraq? I am all ears.

Jason, Jason, Jason.

What's so hard to understand? The idea of invading Iraq simply would not have come up had Kerry been in the White House at the time. Unless you think Kerry would have appointed Wolfowitz, Perle, Condi, Cheney, etc., to the posts they hold in the Dubya duncefest of an administration.

dissention · #53 05-26-2004, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

I can't imagine Massachusetts not giving at least 60 percent of the vote to Kerry. Romney is a mere grain of sand slipping through the hand of the history of the great Bay State. He's insignificant.

We shall see. The latest is that if Kerry's elected, Romeny will step down, let that sow Healey become governor, and then have her appoint him to the Senate.

dissention · #54 05-26-2004, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I disagree - we cannot pull out now. That would create another Afgan and another breeding ground for Al-Q and other organizations to be free in. Like it or not, we are there for a long time.

Again, Kerry sure did not put up much of a fight - in fact he put up no fight - to stop W

So, it is not a huge step to get to he would have done it himself, esp. when for years he had been saying SH had WMD, was a threat to the world, and should be removed from office. I mean what does anyone have that suggests he would not have invaded Iraq? I am all ears.

Ummmmm...he was opposed to the Gulf War?

Johnny Stew · #55 05-26-2004, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But, Johnny - what was the alternative. We could have killed every living soul in Afgan. or we could have never invaded Afgan. (which many liberals still suggest

). So, do you honestly think anyone could have handled it any better. I mean W and crewe are FAR more hawkish than any D. So, I think they did a good job. Yes, they should have caught OBL (shut up Dissention

) - but they did not. Instead, they destroyed or captured most of the upper eschelon of Al-Q. That is a good thing. I mean it is not like we are fighting one country here. Al-Q is everywhere and in every country. So, again, what is a better plan than what W did? And, more importantly, what would Kerry do that is better? I submit nothing. They are essentially the same. But, people villify W and let Kerry get off for free.

I'm not exactly sure what Kerry has done that is deserving of vilification. Is it because he supported his President? Hell, if he hadn't, he'd have been written off as another traitor like anyone else who opposed the war was.

And again, I can't say what Kerry would do... the man isn't even in the White House (yet). Hopefully though, he wouldn't have overlooked evidence, and/or invented other evidence, to support an unnecessary war against his family's arch-enemy.

I have to say that I was not against the War On Terrorism in theory. I think 9/11 made it all too obvious that this a very real threat, and something needs to be done.
However, in execution I believe they have totally bungled things and have only made matters worse.

CarneVaca · #56 05-26-2004, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Kerry did not trust Bush to go to the corrupt UN and wait for their blessing. Does anyone here really believe that. I mean does anyone here think a 30 year vet. of Wash. politics did not know exactly what he was voting for? If, so, then I gotta bridge in Brooklyn for sale

That I agree with. Kerry is disingenuous. He voted for the war out of political expediency. He was short-sighted. SOme of these lunkheads might have actually believed it would be a cakewalk. But when it turned into the disaster that had been predicted by the real experts, Kerry started to retreat. This is the story of his sorry-ass campaign. He's going to lose this election because he's been too stupid on this issue.

strandinthewind · #57 05-26-2004, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Jason, Jason, Jason.

What's so hard to understand? The idea of invading Iraq simply would not have come up had Kerry been in the White House at the time. Unless you think Kerry would have appointed Wolfowitz, Perle, Condi, Cheney, etc., to the posts they hold in the Dubya duncefest of an administration.

Then why was Kerry so intent on it. Again, way before 9/11 - Kerry was all about SH is bad, he had WMD, he needs to be removed. I think that if Kerry had been in office instead of W, his past statements and his actions in almost rabidly supporting W's removal of SH suggest he would have done the same. I mean I understand W's cabinet pushed for the war. But, Clinton wanted to oust him as well, but did not because it would have been political suicide. 9/11 changed that. So, the U.S.' official policy was ousting SH. 9/11 made that goal achievable. So, I cannot think Kerry would not have done the same even if Condi, Rummy, and crewe were not there.

Also, I am no huge fan of Kerry. I just hate W's attempt to create a theocracy. I really am not hugely bothered by the invasion of Iraq. I just do not like the was W went about it. He lied about the exigency of the threat - and for that he should be impeached. The problem is no politician is going to try and impeach him because pretty much everyone from Hillary C to Billy C to Kerry to Diane F. all have harped on the threat of SH at one point or the other over the last five to seven years. So, yes W lied, but I think these politicians know their words will haunt them if they try to impeach W for lying. But, that is my opinion - others will disagree.

strandinthewind · #58 05-26-2004, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

Ummmmm...he was opposed to the Gulf War?

Irrelevant IMO.

Again, he vehemently cried for the ousting of SH. Then, he gave W and crewe carte blanch military power to do it based essentially on the same intelligence he had seen for years. Sorry, just because he did not lead the fight, Kerry is no different than W on this issue IMO

strandinthewind · #59 05-26-2004, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

I'm not exactly sure what Kerry has done that is deserving of vilification. Is it because he supported his President? Hell, if he hadn't, he'd have been written off as another traitor like anyone else who opposed the war was.

Yet, he is supposed to have the sand when he is office to go againt the voting masses when they are incorrect? This is why I am no huge fan of Kerry's. But and again, I will vote for him to avoid the Pentacostal state we are headed toward if W wins.

dissention · #60 05-26-2004, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Irrelevant IMO.

Again, he vehemently cried for the ousting of SH. Then, he gave W and crewe carte blanch military power to do it based essentially on the same intelligence he had seen for years. Sorry, just because he did not lead the fight, Kerry is no different than W on this issue IMO

No, it's not irrelevant.

Methinks you're exaggerating his vehemence. I've lived in MA all my life (minus short stints in France and Florida

) and I've never heard him talk about Iraq and Saddam so vigorously. Yes, he's said Saddam should be removed, but those things are far from vehemently arguing about his ouster.