Just The Latest Flip

[FredF]

Ok,

This one actually may take a bit to lay out but it is a real doozy.

On December 15th, 2003, in a speech at the Pacific Council on International Policy in Los Angeles, Howard Dean said that, quote, 'The capture of Saddam Hussein has not made America safer,' unquote. Dean also said, 'The difficulties and tragedies we faced in Iraq show the administration launched the war in the wrong way at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help, and at the extraordinary cost so far of $166 billion.'"

John Kerry, December 16th, the next day, at Drake University in Iowa, Kerry asserted that, quote: 'Those who doubted whether the Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president.'"

Kerry said yesterday that Iraq "was the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time,"


Bush's Answer:After voting for the war but against funding it, after saying he would have voted for the war even knowing everything we know today, my opponent woke up this morning with new campaign advisors and yet another new position. Suddenly he's against it again.


My thought:
Glad to know he has taken a stand.... Today


Also this just in...

Kerry diplomacy in action

"It's the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and if the 40 countries that have helped liberate Iraq constitute a coalition, it's the phoniest thing I ever heard,"

The response from the VP.

"Those allies including Britain, Australia, and most of the former communist bloc in eastern Europe deserve our respect, not our insults." Cheney said, "I got news for Senator Kerry. As General Tommy Franks said, 'Every contribution from every nation is important.' Demeaning our allies is an interesting approach for somebody seeking the office of the presidency. When it comes to diplomacy, it looks like John Kerry should stick to wind surfing.'"

 

[Fly]

I have never seen such jackasses as our politicians. FYI - anyone wanting a lesson in "demeaning our allies" needs look no further than the Bush Administration. We took possibly THE most international support and sympathy in history and turned it around into outright hatred against the United States.

Any person who votes to AGAIN destroy this country with a vote for Bush deserves what he or she gets. Happy begging!

 

[USAir757]

We took possibly THE most international support and sympathy in history and turned it around into outright hatred against the United States.

Ah, hello? The hatered was already there, or else 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

It's so interesting to see Mr. Kerry change what he says and thinks according to the polls. And now that the former Clinton administration is basically taking over his campaign, you can really tell that the D's are fretting a bit. I'm not suggesting that Senator Kerry is a bad person, or that his intentions mean harm to this country, but his ideals stand without actionable plans. If you think that JK can just take office and send out dozens of roses to our former allies, you're sorely mistaken. What President Bush has done is set our collective foot down, and said we're not going to live in fear, we're not going to take any more crap. Now if Kerry comes in, brings down our guard, and tries to schmooze all these people that abandoned us before, we'll look like the laughing stock of the world. And if that happens, I hope you Kerry supporters all sleep tight, because this country WILL be a more dangerous place. It will be no-holds barred on this democracy... and Kerry voted for it.

 

[FredF]

I have never seen such jackasses as our politicians. FYI - anyone wanting a lesson in "demeaning our allies" needs look no further than the Bush Administration. We took possibly THE most international support and sympathy in history and turned it around into outright hatred against the United States.

[post="177035"][/post]​

Perhaps you are referring to the fact that France and Germany had very lucrative contracts with Sadam that they were just waiting for the sanctions to be lifted so that they could reap the wealth of dealing with him.

Or are you perhaps talking about how this country finally has stood it's ground and said that we will not appease others, we will not stand by and let our citizens be murdered, we will not stand by and terrorized.

Look at spain, there was a terrorist action right before the election and the country caved and installed a government sympathetic to the terrorists. Kerry has already said that he would not take any action not approved by the UN. That is putting the safety of our country in the hands of others. Of course he has changed that stance a bit since he said that.

We have not demeaned our so called allies, we just did not appease them. Bush did not bother to kiss the butts of the likes of Germany and France and others when he decided that the safety and security of our nation was his priority and not the priority of France and Germany. He told them what he was planning to do and asked for thier help and assistance. They said no and tried to tell us not to do it, but that did not deter him from acting and that has ticked them off more than anything. He did not bow to thier wishes and demands.

He stood, told the country and the world what he belived was the right course, and the started down that course. You may not agree with the course or even believe that it was correct, but at least he had the courage to back up what he said he would do. He stood his ground and took the path he believed would best serve the interests of this Nation.

 

[KCFlyer]

Perhaps you are referring to the fact that France and Germany had very lucrative contracts with Sadam that they were just waiting for the sanctions to be lifted so that they could reap the wealth of dealing with him.

Or are you perhaps talking about how this country finally has stood it's ground and said that we will not appease others, we will not stand by and let our citizens be murdered, we will not stand by and terrorized.

Look at spain, there was a terrorist action right before the election and the country caved and installed a government sympathetic to the terrorists. Kerry has already said that he would not take any action not approved by the UN. That is putting the safety of our country in the hands of others. Of course he has changed that stance a bit since he said that.

We have not demeaned our so called allies, we just did not appease them. Bush did not bother to kiss the butts of the likes of Germany and France and others when he decided that the safety and security of our nation was his priority and not the priority of France and Germany. He told them what he was planning to do and asked for thier help and assistance. They said no and tried to tell us not to do it, but that did not deter him from acting and that has ticked them off more than anything. He did not bow to thier wishes and demands.

He stood, told the country and the world what he belived was the right course, and the started down that course. You may not agree with the course or even believe that it was correct, but at least he had the courage to back up what he said he would do. He stood his ground and took the path he believed would best serve the interests of this Nation.

[post="177049"][/post]​

And the US has some very lucrative contracts with Saudi Arabia...despite the fact that the 9/11 terrorists were funded in large part with Saudi money, and the Saudi's offered amnesty to any terrorist who turned themselves in. Yet they get a pass on the "yer fer us or agin us". What would the US response be if France or Germany launched a unilateral attack on Saudi Arabia because of "terrorist concerns" on their countries? Would we join in, or would we say that diplomacy must be the first choice?

Speaking of "yer fer us or agin us", Bush adopted his "rube" voice to appeal to the voters of Missouri. They played a clip on the news (okay, a humorous take on the news" and there was Bush dropping his "g" in "ing" "there's too many docs not practicin'. There are OB/GYN's who aren't able to pratice their love on women across this nation".

 

[USAir757]

What would the US response be if France or Germany launched a unilateral attack on Saudi Arabia because of "terrorist concerns" on their countries? Would we join in, or would we say that diplomacy must be the first choice?

I think that is a very good point you're making there, but is quite hypothetical. At this point, I don't think the US should be supporting anything that France or Germany does, especially since they dropped us like bad habbit. But all that aside, if something like that were to happen, we would always chose diplomacy if it's an option.

But I think the point Fred was trying to make, and he did it quite well, is that our president acts in our country's best interest without regard to the proverbial popularity contest that we now call foreign relations. He didn't bow to pressure, and he kept his path for the safety and security of this nation. Senator Kerry is running, and not so secretly, on a ticket that says we will do what the others want us to do. It is a very dangerous formula to throw into the mix of the war on terror right now. Spain is a perfect example of what could happen if Kerry was elected.

He stood, told the country and the world what he belived was the right course, and the started down that course. You may not agree with the course or even believe that it was correct, but at least he had the courage to back up what he said he would do. He stood his ground and took the path he believed would best serve the interests of this Nation.

And that is what the president must do in all situations. Well said.

 

[KCFlyer]

I think that is a very good point you're making there, but is quite hypothetical. At this point, I don't think the US should be supporting anything that France or Germany does, especially since they dropped us like bad habbit. But all that aside, if something like that were to happen, we would always chose diplomacy if it's an option.

[post="177063"][/post]​

Yet we didn't even TRY diplomacy before going to war. Imagine, we might have had French and German soldiers fighting beside us if we just tried. We also did not have any proof that Iraq posed and immenent threat to the United States. We just stood firm, gave the rest of the world our middle finger, and went in to liberate the Iraqi people.

Bottom line...if it's not the US's idea....if the US has an interest in an area and another country decides to launch a unilateral attack on that country, we would be outraged to say the least. I guess it boils down to this...US interest? Diplomacy good. Other countries interest? Diplomacy bad.

Just another hypothetical...what would we have done if France attacked Iraq about the same time we were selling Iraq chemical and biological weapons? Heck...we knew they had them....we sold them to them. But it would be us who had the interest with the evil dictator Saddam.

 

[Fly]

If this so called president (dictator?) were only trying to protect us, I'd be the first to stand behind him but that is NOT the case. Instead of finishing business in Afganistan (or even attacking Saudi Arabia were most of the 9/11 terrorists were from) he chose to attack Iraq as a personal vendetta and MAKE that the war on terror. As far as I'm concerned, Sadaam was at least able to keep those people under control....now look at the mess we have on our hands. All this administration has done is incubate another hotbed of hatred against us. He has done absolutely nothing to make us safer.

Were is the Republican outrage over the fact that the REAL THREAT (Osama....remember him?) to America has been all but forgotten as Bush ran around making up lies to support his personal war agenda? How dare they try to make Kerry look bad when he at least went to war as Bush sat around drinking with his lil' buddies. And what war was Cheney in again?

 

[FredF]

Yet we didn't even TRY diplomacy before going to war. Imagine, we might have had French and German soldiers fighting beside us if we just tried.

[post="177072"][/post]​

The UN had sanctions since 1991. Diplomace for 12 years. Un resolution out the wazoo. Repeated and repeated attempts to get him to comply to UN resolutions and international Law.

How may years and president did you want to just sit by and talk to him while he did nothing to comply with existing UN resolutions and sanctions. How many of his own people did you want to suffer because he was lining his pockets with what should have been humanitarian releif supplies that were actually weapons and other goods for himself and his selected few elite.

How long do you thing diplomacy should be used? Obvously you don't think 11 years is long enough.

 

[Fly]

I think that once we were attacked by SAUDI ARABIAN terrorists housed in AFGANISTAN we should have concentrated on those areas...don't you? Enough of our goody two shoes, let's protect people who don't want to be protected bs. Take care of business, not personal agendas.

 

[USAir757]

Take care of business, not personal agendas

Seriously, you need to let it go. It hurts your credibility. You really don't see anyone else arguing that point anymore because it's not viable.

So I'll reiterate... the CIA, Russian and British intelligence gave us every reason to believe that Saddam held WMD. Saddam was a terrorist... He hated America. That's enough for anyone to go in there, even John Kerry before he flipped.

 

[KCFlyer]

The UN had sanctions since 1991. Diplomace for 12 years. Un resolution out the wazoo. Repeated and repeated attempts to get him to comply to UN resolutions and international Law.

How may years and president did you want to just sit by and talk to him while he did nothing to comply with existing UN resolutions and sanctions. How many of his own people did you want to suffer because he was lining his pockets with what should have been humanitarian releif supplies that were actually weapons and other goods for himself and his selected few elite.

How long do you thing diplomacy should be used? Obvously you don't think 11 years is long enough.

[post="177090"][/post]​

How many of his own people did I want to suffer? I'd say one more of them for every dead American. That is NOT the reason we went to war. It's obvious when you look at the SAME situation in Africa, that hasn't warranted US attention.

Who said years. If you SAT AT A TABLE with the UN, and if an impasse is reached, then decide to declare war (this would have also allowed a bit more time for reports saying Saddam didn't have nukes to surface) with cooperation from the UN.

As far as Saddam not complying with UN resolutions...I thought the resolutions were for him to destroy his WMD's. We haven't found them. Maybe he was complying all along.

 

[USAir757]

Maybe he was complying all along.

If he was, he certainly did his best to keep us wondering about it, despite our best efforts to get him to come clean.

 

[KCFlyer]

If he was, he certainly did his best to keep us wondering about it, despite our best efforts to get him to come clean.

[post="177109"][/post]​

Did it ever dawn on you that one reason who might not have said anything was so that he wouldn't appear "weak" to those who feared him? I ain't sticking up for him, but given that he WAS a ruthless dictator, maybe it was better for him to appear "strong willed" to those in his own country.

 

[KCFlyer]

Seriously, you need to let it go. It hurts your credibility. You really don't see anyone else arguing that point anymore because it's not viable.

[post="177102"][/post]​

Hmmm...You know why I didn't vote for Bush the first time around? Because I didn't agree with the FIRST Gulf war. And since it was left "undone", I had a feeling that Bush II might just want to pick up where Bush I left off. You know....like father, like son? 9/11 only gave Bush II the reason to invade Iraq, however misguided that decision was.