Tweet
Originally posted by Drachasor
And Kerry countered by saying he'd make Health Care cheaper for small buisness, which is a massive expense for them.
And Kerry countered by saying he'd make Health Care cheaper for small buisness, which is a massive expense for them.
So do you support the Bush Campaign when they blatantly lie and distort information, and generally act like the American People should believe any dishonesty they want to say?
The "Global Test" comment was never about giving away US autonomy or ability to act. Rather it was about explaining why action is needed to the rest of the world so they can at least understand where you are coming from. It is being responsible in presenting the reasons for your actions. Bush simply hasn't done this, but then his Campaign spins the "global test" as though it is giving the UN/rest of the world the right to veto American policy.
Do you support that level of a lie and a distortion? I would think even a Bush supporter would be ashamed of this.
Context. Kerry has said that Bush was wrong to go to war without the so-called allies. He effectively said that he would not have gone to war without those same allies. He then says that any US war must pass "the global test." Placed in context, we well know what he meant.
Some of Reagen's policies might have been unpopular in Europe, but that has as much to do with his very conservative domestic stance than anything. Even with his War issues, he was able to handle giving the reasons why well. Just because someone might disagree with you doesn't mean it can't pass a global test. A Global Test is about understanding the reasons/causes, not necessarily agreeing with the action. Bush failed this by pressuring the international community to go to war, not letting the inspectors finish their job, and basically being highly impatient about even needing to deal with other countries that disagreed.
Concede this point: if Reagan was unpopular in Europe for his conservative domestic policies; so is Bush.
I concede that Bush did pressure the Europeans and the UN to actually do something. It seems that the UNs inherent nature is to defer action, so much so that its threats of "dire consequences" are not only ignored, but laughed at.
But Bush's passionate behavior had drawbacks too. At times he did seem angry or annoyed. Sometimes it does seem like being re-elected is a right to him, and not a priviledge (imho).
I'm sure Bush was angry. Now, why do you think he would be angry?
Bush lied left and right! Kerry told some mistruths but nearly all of them were minor aspects of his point. Look at the factcheck data. Bush's lies were often gross mischaracterizations of the truth with no factual basis at all. Is this really the type of person you want to be president?
Factcheck.com? The paragon of lies is your barometer of truth?
While the report didn't conclude this, it seems very clear the sanctions were at least the reason why Saddam didn't start up a new WMD program.
I concede that the sanctions, meaning the inspections, worked. But, did anyone notice that there were no inspectors in Iraq for four years? Four years? FOUR!
Without Bush, the UN was a paper tiger and even you must concede this point.
Also, there is absolutely no evidence that the Oil For Food program corruptions changed the way *anyone* was going to vote on sanctions. All evidence indicates the security council was intending to stay with sanctions indefinitely.....
You have got to be kidding. FOUR YEARS without inspections is evidence enough of lack of resolve by the UN.
The correct course of action, clearly was to see that the loopholes were cleared up. I'd also note that foreign governments were not directly involved in the corruptions, but rather companies that reside in foreign states; a very different thing.
People high in the French government and in the UN were certainly involved. France's vote is more consistent with being bribed that not.
There is no evidence that the Oil for Food corruptions were ever going to allow Saddam to rebuild his WMD programs. Indeed, Saddam's military got weaker under sanctions, despite the corruption in the program.
FOUR YEARS. FOUR YEARS. FOUR YEARS. FOUR YEARS!!!!!!!!!!
There is no evidence he ever financed Al Qaeda as far as I am aware (link to evidence if you have it). The only 'financing' of terrorism Saddam ever did was give money to the families of suicide bombers. Guess what? Saudi Arabia does the same thing.
Oh, and that Al Qaeda camps that were in Iraq? It was in a region that Saddam didn't control because of the no-fly zones.
The entities who received vouchers are on the bribed list discovered by the Iraqi's. Among those entities know to be controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood and others that have ties to OBL.
This is a blatant distortion of the truth. Kerry has never, ever said he would pander. He has said he America should be leading strong, global coalitions. He has said that America, in order to do this, must present reasons others can understand for their actions. Bush 41 and Reagen were able to do this, and they were not always popular among foreign leaders. It isn't pandering to work with others.
I refer you to my reply above. Kerry has also said that he would not have gone to war without the so-called allies. What the F does this mean except that he will gratify the every desire and wish of our so-called allies in order to induce them to go along with us. And if they still say no, as they did to Bush, Kerry has been very clear that he would not have gone to war.
Kerry has a very clear plan on how to do things that you can look up. If you don't agree with it, that is one thing. You should not, however, blatantly distort it. Pander to every group? What about the rich? The middle class needs a boost however, the new job growth has largely been in lower paying jobs with less benefits. In some cases the growth is from a number of part-time and temporary jobs. Hence the divide between rich and poor is gonig to become larger if something isn't done. Bush isn't going to do it. Kerry didn't pander, he presented his perception on what problems there are and what solutions he has. Disagree with him if you want, but distorting those positions is dishonorable.
Didn't I say pander to every constiuent group? Clearly, Kerry is the avowed enemy of success in this country. He pandered to the Democrat constituency constantly, playing the class warfar card. He was pathetic.
Comment