Kerry's Speech on Iraq

[Lawrence of Arabia]

yeah, but everyone was laughing at Bush in the UN because he lied to them. everyone and their brother in europe laugh at Bush, and call him a stupid idiotic cowboy.

vote badnarik.

[GePap]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Bush speech at the UN was far superior to Kerry meaningless drivel. Kerry's claim that he can build a better coalition is simply unrealistic. Why in the world would France or Germany send their soldiers to die in Iraq for no reason?

I thought you thought there was a reason to be in Iraq...

Stop flip-flopping!

[MalevolentLight]

Monday, Sept. 20, 2004
Kerry Sets a Record: 14 Flip-Flops in One Speech

Sen. John Kerry set some kind of record today in a speech to his fellow leftists at New York University. The Republican National Committee counted 14 flip-flops on Iraq.



Among the more egregious of the tragicomic whoppers noted:

Story Continues Below




Kerry now claims the "most important task" is to win the "war on terrorism." Yet Kerry, speaking to his pets at the New York Times in March, refused to call the war on terror a war, RNC recalled.
Kerry then: "The final victory in the war on terror depends on a victory in the war of ideas, much more than the war on the battlefield. And the war - not the war, I don’t want to use that terminology."



Kerry now claims Iraq was a "diversion from" the war on terror. On Dec. 15 he said: "Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror."

Kerry now claims Saddam Hussein's evil was not enough to justify war. Here's what he said in a speech July 29, 2002:
"I agree completely with this administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq – Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991."



Kerry now claims Saddam’s "downfall ... has left America less secure." Oopsy: Here's his anti-Dean, anti-Saddam stand in December 2003, according to Newsday:
"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not safer with his capture, don’t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."


Kerry now claims the decision to go into Iraq was a "colossal" failure. Yet on Aug. 9, Kerry said that had he known then what he knew now, he would still have voted for the use-of-force resolution, according to CNN:
"Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it's the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority, as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively."


Kerry now claims Saddam was not a "threat to our security." Here's what he said in January 2003, according to the L.A. Times: "If you don't believe ... Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."


Kerry now claims Saddam's "capability to acquire weapons" was not reason enough for war. Yet according to the Congressional Record of Oct. 9, 2002, he called those who would leave the Iraqi dictator alone "naive to the point of grave danger."
And so on and so forth.

At least no one can say Kerry is two-faced. He has so many more faces than that.

All hail Teh Kerry.

[MalevolentLight]

and call him a stupid idiotic cowboy.

Well that statement right there just proves European intellectual superiority.

[Atahualpa]

actually it proves that bush has lost all credibility on an international level

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by GePap


I thought you thought there was a reason to be in Iraq...

Stop flip-flopping!

Yes I believe there was a reason. But I was talking about France and Germany. From their perspective, they have no reason to send troops.

[Kontiki]

I'm just not getting any of this debate. If you think Iraq was handled even reasonably well, then vote for Bush and just not give a rat's ass what Kerry says or does or thinks. If you think it was handled poorly, then why would you reward the Bush admin for their incompetance?

[MalevolentLight]

I'm just not getting any of this debate. If you think Iraq was handled even reasonably well, then vote for Bush and just not give a rat's ass what Kerry says or does or thinks. If you think it was handled poorly, then why would you reward the Bush admin for their incompetance?

Yep, you did an awesome job not getting into this debate. That last line, priceless. Lets ask everyone to stop attacking kerry and in the same breath attack Bush.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Kontiki
I'm just not getting any of this debate. If you think Iraq was handled even reasonably well, then vote for Bush and just not give a rat's ass what Kerry says or does or thinks. If you think it was handled poorly, then why would you reward the Bush admin for their incompetance?

Because it is important to know whether Kerry's solutions will work or not. If you think Bush screwed up Iraq, you still need to know if Kerry as president can fix it. If he can't, then why vote for him?

[Q Classic]

Fez: You can't PWN somebody who is right, Imran.
Drake: You tell him, Fezzie.
Imran: Exactly, so I can't be PWNED. Thanks Fez!
Imran: Haha, Fez is on your side... you automatically loooose
Drake: I thought he was on your side...

Summary: Fez says you can't PWN somebody who's right. Drake claims that first it refers to him (You tell him, Fezzie!), and then tries to pin Fez onto Imran. Imran claims that it refers to him, and then tries to pin Fez on Drake.

God, I hate flip-floppers. You disgust me.

BTW, I can think of two things that Bush flip-flopped on: Global Warming and NKorea.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by MalevolentLight


Yep, you did an awesome job not getting into this debate. That last line, priceless. Lets ask everyone to stop attacking kerry and in the same breath attack Bush.

Where are you getting that from? If you're not happy with the way someone's performed, why would you validate that performance? And conversely if you're happy with their performance, then why would you care if someone said it wasn't good?

[MalevolentLight]

How about the fact that your first sentence

If you think Iraq was handled even reasonably well, then vote for Bush and just not give a rat's ass what Kerry says or does or thinks.

shows an obviously liberal bias. Key words there being "even reasonably well" and you then go on to say not to gives a rat's ass which basically amounts to "don't attack kerry anymore". Then in your fiinal sentences you say

If you think it was handled poorly, then why would you reward the Bush admin for their incompetance?

which again shows your liberal bias. You are ineffect calling the Bush adminstration incompetent. You then go on to say that you are being fair when it is obvious that you are leaning to the left. Do you work for network news?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by The diplomat


Because it is important to know whether Kerry's solutions will work or not. If you think Bush screwed up Iraq, you still need to know if Kerry as president can fix it. If he can't, then why vote for him?

Maybe because he didn't break it in the first place?

[Q Classic]

@ml

/me gives ML a tinfoil hat

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by MalevolentLight
How about the fact that your first sentence shows an obviously liberal bias. Key words there being "even reasonably well" and you then go on to say not to gives a rat's ass which basically amounts to "don't attack kerry anymore". Then in your fiinal sentences you say which again shows your liberal bias. You are ineffect calling the Bush adminstration incompetent. You then go on to say that you are being fair when it is obvious that you are leaning to the left. Do you work for network news?

If you think the Bush admin screwed up Iraq, then what would you possibly think other than that they were incompetent? If you don't, then you probably wouldn't think them incompetent. So, if you don't think them incompetent, then why wouldn't you just say that instead of attacking Kerry? I don't see where Kerry has played any real role, good or bad, in what's going on in Iraq right now. The argument as it exists looks a hell of alot like "Hey, you f*cked up!" "Yeah, I f*cked up, but I don't like your ideas, so vote for me instead!"

You're last little jab has me curious though. What would you consider an unbiased opinion?