Are you a liar Mr. Kerry?

Remove all ads!

Not only can Kerry not make a statement regarding anything that isn't a contradiction to something he stated less than 2 years (hell, usually 2 weeks!) ago, but now he won't even stand up for himself and prove he is not lying:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040315/D81B26A00.html

I know Libs, Bush lied about the war, Bush lied about the WMD's, and Bush lied about spending. Only problem is that nobody can prove it, or things changed radically after he made the statement. Every so called lie about the war or WMD are statements that were either thought to be factual (usually as stated by Clinton within the previous 4 years), and I don't think that he realized that the Clintonites had set us up for a nice deep recession and also set us up the largest foreign attack on the continental US in history when he stated that he would not increase spending.

Let's see, incredibly deep recession, foreign attack, and the economy is doing just fine. We just had the largest quarter of economic growth in recent history, and the job market is starting to grow quite nicely. No wonder Libs hate him, how on earth are the going to convince the people of this nation that their every breath is dependent upon, and granted by the grace of the government.

God I am bored today!

 

Except Clinton did not illegally invade a country that had made no hostile actions toward us. Clinton's Military is the one that kicked Iraqs butt. The FBI failed to act on important information on several occasions before 9/11. Bush oppossed the creation of Homeland Securtiy. Bush lied when he said that no one knew anyoune would try anything like that. He was briefed on it several months before. Maybe if he wasn't taking the 2nd longest vacation in presidental history (during his first year no less) he might have noticed any of the many signs of what was going on. Maybe if he would have read his daddys book he would have understood that maybe there would be thousands of people who would oppose us in Iraq and want to fight us and hurt us as much as possible, instead of thinking everyone would just kiss our backside. The Recession had nothing to do with Clinton (presidents rarely deserve any credit for the economy, any president) since it had to do with idiots who actually believed the Internet would change the way business was done and companys that lied about thier accounting. And guess what, the dow is about to drop below under 10,000 again and wow, 21,000 jobs created last month. So Bush is still about 2.4 million in the hole and will be the 2nd president to lose jobs during his term. Ohh.. and world opinion, which was great during Clinton has totally turned against us, we have alienated almost all of our allies. Allies that licked our butt in favor for Bush are now realizing thier mistakes. Spain is just the start, wait till elections happen again in England. Go Bush, there are still 3 people outside of the US that still doesnt hate us. Who needs any other country, who needs facts, who needs goodwill. We are the greatest and if anyone doubts it well, to hell with them.

EDIT: About Kerry, the Bush team are setting him up so that no matter what he says, he is screwed. If he names names, then they will say he is being controlled, manipulated, or has the intrests of said country as his main agenda and not the interests of the american people (despite Bush being hated by even more people than hated Clinton, which is an achievement). If he refuses to answer, He is lying. So what is a person to do if his opposition can make sure that he is screwed no matter what he says. Notwithstanding, Kerry got himself in this mess by saying it in the first place.

 

I promised myself that I wasn't going waste my time with debates here, but I can't resist pointing out such a flawed piece of logic (beyond the fact that the Dow is a very poor indicator of US economic strength).

Lets see, the Socialists winning in Spain is a reaction to Bush's policies-WRONG!

The Populist Party was set for a victory; all the polling up until the terrorist attacks in Spain had them ahead. Then the terrorists pull off a successful attack and a bunch of people change their position based upon fear.

That is the difference between Euro's and American's (at least I hope it still is a difference ). In Europe, if the bully punches you in the nose you give him your lunch money, in America, if the bully punches you in the nose you kick him in the nuts, and then beat the **** out of him. Then if he ever acts like he wants to fight again we don't wait for the first punch, you knock him down before he gets his fists up.

Euro's are convinced that the way to stop escalating threats is though appeasement. Of course, that is just like paying someone who is blackmailing you...very shortsighted. It is just a social thing, in my opinion bred from the recent (historically speaking) wars that swept across the continent.

Of course Euro's believe that it is because they are intellectually superior.

 

This is the typical conservative dream: The exisiting failures must be someone else's fault. It's no longer the "buck stops here," but let's "pass the buck." Let's not take responsiblilty for the fact that no new jobs have been created in the last three years, instead, let's blame the guys who had this job before us.

Sounds good in a dream, but then reality sets in and the dream is gone - Shrub is the Prez and it's been the worst years since Herbert Hoover! Quick, someone get out those clips of Saddam! Where did we leave that fake turkey we served at Thanksgiving anyway? Someone call Halliburton and order another one! Get the cameras rolling, cause we're going after Bin Laden now that golf season is over. These next nine months are going to be the best the country has seen since...since...Bill Clinton was prez!

Welcome back, Darkwolf. I'm glad you're back, really, cause it's going to be fun again. But on that passing the buck thing, nice try anyway.

 

Nice seeing you back Darkwolf. Any ways speaking of preemptive strike, it grants the United States power to attack any country that can potentially become a threat to national security. Which can also extend to the US invading East Timor, because they can potentially become a threat in the future and any other country in the world. Personally, I think its just some thing thought up so Bush can kick anyone he has a beef with.

 

Totally unfounded Euro-bashin'.
But we have experienced what tough bad boys you Americans are. *cough cough* 'somalia' *cough cough*

About Europe using appeasement instead of bombing other nations.
We are actually fighting terrorism, while the US is doing everything in its power to fan the flames of the conflict of cultures, see Iraq. Hardly a sign of US intellecutal 'superiority'.

 

Chandos,

Really, it is all Bush's fault?

Lets see, when did the plans for 9/11 get made, hmmm, they started while Clinton was still in office. I will grant you that Clinton's army was the one that won the war (though Reagan's military could have done it faster and with less loss of life), but it was also Clinton's intelligence agencies that couldn't discover the plot before it was carried out.

Additionally, please go back and look to see what years it was when Worldcom, Enron, Tyco etc were cooking their books. (for those who don't have the time it was 1998 though 2001)

Now given the facts of what Bush had to work with, the fact that the economy didn't tank completely is nothing short of amazing. I don't think you realize just how close we were to repeating the Great Depression. Only the sound economic policy of Republican controlled Legislative and Executive branches prevented it.

So what would Kerry have done? We don't know, we don't even know what he plans to do if he wins, because he is too busy pointing out things that Bush did wrong to tell us his plans. The only plan he has is to raise taxes, yeah, that will help the economy greatly.

Oh, and I almost forgot, Kerry never saw a bill to cut the military AND/OR the US intelligence services that he didn't vote for (ever, feel free to check the Congressional Record). In 1994 he wanted to cut intelligence spending by $6 BILLION dollars over the following 4 years. Even his fellow Democrats thought that was extreme and IIRC forced him to back down (I don't believe that it ever came to a vote on the floor). And this is the man who will protect us from terrorism buy using Police and Intelligence resources rather than the militar?

Ooops, I did forget his other plan, he is going to increase the funding for the first responders (police an fire departments). As my grandma was fond of saying, an ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure, but then my Grandma never needed the endorsement and votes of the Law Enforcement and Firefighters Unions.

 

I'm not sure what you mean here. As I recall, 18 Americans died, but over 1,000 members of the Somali militia also died - I'd say that's pretty damn tough.

I don't see how any president could have prevented bin Laden from meeting with his lieutenants in Afghanistan from talking about destroying the WTC. And, no matter what, Bush was president for the nine months preceeding the attack - which is when all of the detailed plans were made...

It was Clinton's and Bush's - but mostly Bush's as the most detailed planning presumably occurred in the nine months immediately preceeding the attack.

What does that have to do with anything? Do you actually think if Dole had won the election that Worldcom, Enron, etc., wouldn't have been cooking the books?

[ March 16, 2004, 18:27: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

I know its off topic, but what I wanted to say is this: The US withdrew its forces from Somalia after some of their *soldiers* were killed. You gave the number 18. US determination shaken by the cruelty of what happened. I dont blame you! It wasnt pretty.

Now, after having 201 dead *civilians* and about 1000 injured, Spain wants to get out of this doomed affair. But someone has had the nerve to call Spain (Euros as a whole) wimps, somehow forgetting about how the US reacted back then.

I just wanted to give my perspective on this 'we are tough, you Euros are wuss', Aldeth, and did not wish to imply that the US doesnt know how to kill.

 

Dendri,

Sorry, I disagree with you. First off I am not Euro-bashing, my statement is based on factual events, a recent example being the terrorist attacks in Spain. Do you think it is a coincidence that the attacks in Spain occured right before the elections? The terrorists wanted the Socialist party elected, and they got what they wanted. And now a lot of Europe is applauding the result. I think that fits my analogy to a "T".

As far as fighting terrorism, Clinton "fought" terrorism in a manner more similar to the way the Europeans do, and all it brought was an escalation of the attacks on us. In actuality, the European method of fighting terrorism in the 90's was to get the hell out of the way and let the US take the brunt of it, not that I blame Euros for doing that, we let Eruos take the brunt of terrorism without stepping in to help for a long time before that. Of course some nations did a little more than stay out of the way (i.e. French and Russian secret oil sales with Iraq). We tried appeasement, we tried tossing a few hundred tomahawks into the desert, and so we are trying regime change. Will it work? I hope so, but it is still to early to tell. I can say this though; running out on the Iraqi people now is not going to help the situation.

 

No, Darkwolf, I dont think the timing of that slaughter was a coincidence. No one does.
And I wont comment on your denial of Eurobashing. Look at your upper post. Tells it all. But hey, thats okay as long as it is justified. Which it wasnt!

Again, its off the topic - and has been discussed a lot.
This happended to Spain because it supported the US and its plans for Iraq.
But Iraq has had noting to do with terrorism (now of course its teeming with it), so I dont see how you *fight* terrorism to any effect. On the contrary, you create new hate and 201 people paid the price.
Since what you have done is not working, Spain will back out. Right decision, I say.

You will probably say, 'Iraq was supporting terrorism', I will say 'no, there is no prove for it'. This game has been played a lot. Please, lets leave it at that.

 

Spanish people have voted against a government, which led them against their will in a war, which was not their war. This isn't fear, it is punishing someone for taking the wrong decision.

As far as how succesfull the european way of facing terrorists is, I will just remind you that all the major european terrorist groups (Brigade Rossi, Baader-Mainhoff, November 17 etc) were destroyed sooner or late.

 

Darkwolf, about Clinton appeasing terrorists and following the "European Method", you are blatantly wrong. Clinton had the most intensive anti-terrorist system since post 9/11 Bush. Are you forgetting the all the damn bombings? Anyways, I think the approach that has least violence is the best approach. Hear that Bushies?

 

"Except Clinton did not illegally invade a country that had made no hostile actions toward us."

Really?

How bout Hati? Sudan? Afganistan?

and the big kicker Kosovo/Bosnia/Serbia (which by the way was NOT approved by the UN and was a clear violation of international law)

 

Ah yes, many who support Bush today and abhorr Clinton seems to forget that Clinton was certainly not someone who "appeased" his foes. He was almost as reckless as Bush is but the man for some reason managed to more or less get away with it on the international scene without pissing off too many people. Kinda strange actually. I however remember that I thought the Kosovo thing was very dubious and that NATO shouldnt act completely on its own.

 

Even when Clinton did not have "Official" support, most countries supported or at least did not openly oppose him because he actually LISTENED to what they had to say. Bush literally uses countries. If they oppose us or offer nothing for us, he treats them with derision but if they jump through our hoops they are our best friends. The coalition of the willing is the biggest joke I have ever seen. Lots of little countries, most with nothing to offer support or military-wise but willing to be vocal in exchange for bases being placed in thier countries or other material support. One country of the willing was an island nation of 20,000 with no military at all. If you want to see a real coalition, check out his dad's coalition and remember his words about why we didn't remove Saddam then. I'm glad the new spanish minister had the balls to say that if we weren't out by June 30th and if we didn't give the UN more control he would pull out (Not what most US news has reported, you constantly hear that he is pulling out troops at the end of June, not that he may or the conditions). If only we had more politicians who would truly stand up to Bush here. Its a shame that his newest video talks about Kerry voting against soldiers getting body armor, but the bill was passed and guess freaking what.... There are still soldiers over there without it. Now that is crass.