Fly
Veteran
Saddam was dangerous, no question....but he had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Sadly, we let Osama go so that we could hunt down Saddam. Basically, we took our eye off the ball....and dropped it.
The Presidential Debate
- Thread starter phasersonstun2
- Start date
USAir757
Veteran
True, at least according to the 9/11 commission he didn't. But it doesn't change that we collectively agreed that Saddam needed to be dealt with. And I wouldn't consider so much that we've "let Osama go"... even if we had him captive, we would still be fighting this same exact war on terror.
KCFlyer
Veteran
USAir757 said:
You mean Bush or the mullahs?
As far as the debate - admittedly, I did not see much more than 15 minutes worth. But the thing that crossed my mind watching Bush's actions while Kerry was speaking was this:
The man was hearing something he disagreed with. He was hearing something that he didn't want to believe had any shred of truth to it. The man's body language was saying "f*** you". And I had to wonder if they were anything like his mannerisms when they "asked for UN help" in invading Iraq and heard "not yet".
USAir757
Veteran
Nearly the entire nation was giving the proverbial middle finger at the UN when they told us to hold on... it had already been over a decade they had been telling us that. At what point is it ok to eliminate a serious threat to our country? When Kofi Annan gives us the go ahead? Or do we need a 9/11-style attack? Take your pick.
KCFlyer
Veteran
USAir757 said:
Hindsight being 20/20, and this country being no safer from another terrorist attack than we were on 9/10/01, except for the loss of thousands of American lives during and "after" the war, I'd have to say that maybe we should have waited for a "go ahead" from our used-to-be allies. And I'm part of this nation, and I assure you that I had no middle finger up when Bush was imploring them that Saddam posed an immenent threat. I didn't think so then, I don't think so today. In fact, rather than shooting a middle finger at the UN, I threw a rock on the ground and said "like father, like son", which, BTW was my primary reason for voting against Bush in the 2000 election.
Seatacus
Veteran
Fly said:
But Saddam did have something to do with terrorism and that is what this war is all about. Read what Gen. Tommy Franks said about Kerry's comment on Osama......
Fly
Veteran
If we need to attack every country harboring terrorists, why are we still on friendly terms with Saudi Arabia? That's the point!
USAir757
Veteran
Just as KC said, hindsight is 20/20. You can sit here and argue that going into Iraq was the wrong thing to do, but you're benefiting from hindsight. Even Kerry in the debate didn't say that the war wasn't the right thing to do... he said "it was the wrong way"... or something along those lines. 10 years of sanctions absolutely did not work, because if they did, then the president, and the senate (including Kerry) would not have voted to give the authorization for war, right? The point is that we got toyed with by Saddam and his entourage, apparently as it turns out, for no reason. They had no WMD's to hide, they were just playing chess with us trying to call out our bluff. Well, they did. And now Saddam's regime is gone, and the world is better off for it. But don't think for one second that this guy didn't have connections to terrorism... perhaps not Al-Quaida specifically, but for anti-american terrorism with aspirations to wreak serious havoc on our homeland. Saddam may have been the "weakest kid on the block" as you say, but he had lots of money, and lots of will... and he was willing to aid in terrorism against us.
That's a valid question... and my answer is that we need allies in that part of the world. There's no way to wage a war on terror in the middle-east without having ground-based troops. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc... these are countries whose governments officially denounce terrorism and allow US forces to occupy their country while we fight a war. They are doing us a huge favor, by allowing us there, because it would be nearly impossible otherwise.
EyeInTheSky
Veteran
Mr. "Presidunce" looked really, really, bad on Thursday. He better have a good nap this week or it's going to get worse for him. Politicians by nature are scripted in many of their responses, but I have to say, Bush was shooting from the hip that night and it just did not come across as smart and least of all Presidential. I am all for supporting our President our Commander-In-Chief; however, Mr. Bush has set this country so far back and has alienated our nation from the rest of the world that it is going to take a strong, truly exceptional individual to get us back on track. It's my opinion that we cannot afford another four years of Mr. Bush.
EyeInTheSky
Veteran
The Race is On
With voters widely viewing Kerry as the debate’s winner, Bush’s lead in the NEWSWEEK poll has evaporated
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Brian Braiker
Newsweek
Updated: 6:04 p.m. ET Oct. 2, 2004Oct. 2 - With a solid majority of voters concluding that John Kerry outperformed George W. Bush in the first presidential debate on Thursday, the president’s lead in the race for the White House has vanished, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. In the first national telephone poll using a fresh sample, NEWSWEEK found the race now statistically tied among all registered voters, 47 percent of whom say they would vote for Kerry and 45 percent for George W. Bush in a three-way race
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6159637/site/newsweek/
With voters widely viewing Kerry as the debate’s winner, Bush’s lead in the NEWSWEEK poll has evaporated
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Brian Braiker
Newsweek
Updated: 6:04 p.m. ET Oct. 2, 2004Oct. 2 - With a solid majority of voters concluding that John Kerry outperformed George W. Bush in the first presidential debate on Thursday, the president’s lead in the race for the White House has vanished, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. In the first national telephone poll using a fresh sample, NEWSWEEK found the race now statistically tied among all registered voters, 47 percent of whom say they would vote for Kerry and 45 percent for George W. Bush in a three-way race
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6159637/site/newsweek/
KCFlyer
Veteran
USAir757 said:
However, even with hindsight being 20/20, I also said that before the war I thought it was the wrong thing at the wrong time. Both candidates are going to say what they think the voting public wants to hear. Kerry is no different. He said he will bring the troops home. But he can't do that...were stuck in Iraq whether it's Kerry, Bush, Nader, or any other candidate who gets elected. It's vietnam all over again, except that we could have pulled out of vietnam without near the repercussions that we would have if we pulled out of Iraq. So....given that we're there for the long run, the question becomes...which candidate can do more to gain assistance from more than 40 countries, most of whom do not have the resources to provide any help. IMHO, Kerry stands a chance of getting that support from the countries like France, whom I noticed the day after the debates, Bush was bashing on the stump. To bad he feels it's better to bash them than to enlist their help.
KCFlyer
Veteran
USAir757 said:
Saudi Arabia may denouce terrorism, but they are also the country that offered amnesty to terrorists. So given the "with us or against us" logic that Bush is using, I continue to scratch my head wondering why Bush hasn't attacked the Saudis.
sentrido
Veteran
- Jan 8, 2004
- 1,004
- 0
USAir757 said:
hindsight?
Its starting to look like we knew a lot more about what we didnt know than the administration let on at the time. They decided to go to war and then put forward everything they could find to justify it, or just imply things ,and suppressed everything that contraticted them. (I guess you can also blame the "liberal" media for not pointing this out at the time either)The Iraq war never made sense to me.I never got sold on it. Osama condemned saddam, and we never had a smoking gun in the form of WMD's.Our best evidence were some photos of trucks and the word of a guy who hadnt been there since the 80's. I'm all for humanitarian stuff, but not at the cost of 1000+ american lives and doing it while we are already fighting a war. So why are we there? Cause saddam gave money to palistinians? So does everyone there but Isreal.I find it Ironic that bush says saddam should have disarmed, when it looks like he actually had.
Anyway, the debate exposed a weakness in Bush. His lines work great on the loyalty oath circuit, when you can say anything and get away with it and get a cheer, but when you on the stage next to the guy your critisizing, and he gives a decent rebuttl, you look stupid. Bush called Kerry a fliper on Iraq, and Kerry gave a clear explanation of his view and how consitant it has been. Bush couldnt pull out his stump speach junk (did anybody notice how nudered he looked?) cause Kerry would have had the opportunity to spank him with the truth. Thats why it ended up a victory for Kerry(polls), He was just better t explaining his position that night than Bush. Also, for all of his wordyness, Kerry is a much better debater than Gore, and I think took Bush much more seriousely.
