The Presidential Debate

[FredF]

The UN, like france and Germany we are finding out, had a great deal of money to loose as well with the elimination of Sadam. They were raking in mone in the Oil for food debacle as well.

Did you not see or hear the numerous reports of French made missles being found in Iraq. Missles that were made after 1999. They were well reported even though it did help the current image of why we were in iraq.

The 9/11 commission did find evidence of links between iraq and al-queida. They did discount them, but they were there. The big stink here is that they never found direct links between 9/11 and iraq yet that has never been stressed.

The UN santions clearly called for the use of fore to ensure compliance by Sadam Comply with UN Inspections or Else. What do you call that. I call that the use or at the very least the authorization of force if Sadam did not comply. Guess what, he didn't. He kept telling the inspectors what when and where they could inspect. He kicked them out at least twice. That is not complying with the resolutions yet nobody wanted to enforce the "Or Else"

I guess maybe we should have asked for a resolution that said "And this time we really mean it" That would have done it right?

Iraq could not attack America or they would have done so.

Nobody is trying to say they could, they just supported and protected and financed an organization dedicated to that act.

He didn't ignore the 'other countries' either

Everytime he uses the phrase Unilateral Action he is dismissing these other countries. Everytime.

 

[NWA/AMT]

For 12 years Sadam was able to get away with doing whatever he wanted to inspite of the UN resolutions upon resolutions. Why should he believe otherwise?

[post="188266"][/post]​

That's not the question I asked, what I asked was "Do you honestly think that there was any doubt in any Iraqi's minds just how lethal this particular 'owner' was? I'm not talking about the posturing of the Saddam regime but the actual Iraqis, do you think they'd forgotten so quickly?" But since you insist, lets talk about Saddam instead.

He had reason to know that the US would destroy him because the blackened ruins of his last army still remained on the battlefield. Because US aircraft, operating without UN sanction or basis in international law, incidentally, denied access to two-thirds of of his airspace. Because his army had collapsed in 100 hours, even surrendering to unmanned drones. He knew he couldn't 'get away with doing whatever he wanted', as you put it, because every time he tried he was remined of his limitations, first by the Iranians, then by the Coalition.

Second point here, Bush is saying the exact opposite of what you are trying to credit him with in regards to Norht Korea.

I'm not the one who needs to 'get that straight', Fred, Bush is. Because what he's saying and what he's doing are two different things. He says he doesn't want direct talks but reserves the right to do so. He says he wants the other nations involved but demands the right of approval of any negotiated settlement. If he had focused the attention of his administration on North Korea, who actually DOES HAVE WMDs, instead of Iraq, who DIDN'T HAVE WMDs, the situation might be resolved. Although now, with our forces stretched so thin, there is little hope of presenting the North Koreans with a credible military threat anyway.

 

[NWA/AMT]

Isn't hindsight wonderful?

[post="188360"][/post]​

When your president has no foresight it's all you have.

And didn't the Bush administration try to do just that before we went to war in Iraq?

Picking a position and demanding the world follow, then demeaning those who question the direction?

You do remember we went to the UN before gonig to war, right?

You remember that our Secretary of State recently had to apologize for using doctored data during his presentation to the UN?

Is it this administrations fault that other countries didn't "understand fully"?

'Understand fully' or 'believe the hype'? See Colin's apology, and America's tainted credibility, for the difference.

What if in the future we are attacked, and other global nations don't accept our "proof" or our "legitimate reasons" to defend our country? Then, according to Kerry, we're stuck dead in the water and cannot move forward to protect ourselves.

Gibberish! Anyone who watched the debate knows that Kerry said just the opposite and, indeed, specifically said he would reserve the right to unilaterally act if the US were attacked, a right supported by the UN charter, incidentally.

Let's just leave it to the countrymen! And if they don't get it, then we'll just forget it.

Do you think so little of the American people?

 

[NWA/AMT]

The UN, like france and Germany we are finding out, had a great deal of money to loose as well with the elimination of Sadam.

[post="188369"][/post]​

So did Halliburton.

Did you not see or hear the numerous reports of French made missles being found in Iraq.

Yes, and I know that during the Iran/Iraq war the French, with US encouragement, were one of Iraqs main suppliers. Do you have any evidence to support your contention that the French were selling missiles to Iraq in violation of UN sanctions? I'm sure such evidence would have at least made it to Fox News.

The 9/11 commission did find evidence of links between iraq and al-queida.

I've read the 9/11 Commission report and it details only the most peripheral, incidental contact between the two and no concrete evidence of material support.

The UN santions clearly called for the use of fore to ensure compliance by Sadam Comply with UN Inspections or Else.

Yet the UN specifically DID NOT sanction the use of force in their name.

What do you call that

I call it selective hearing. The UN should be ignored when they say things Bush doesn't want to hear but should be used as the ultimate arbiter when their policies agree with his aims.

Guess what, he didn't.

Guess what, the evidence we have found since invading shows he did. The intelligence we chose to ignore before the war said he did, the Inspectors said he did, the UN said he did, and now the US said he did.

Nobody is trying to say they could, they just supported and protected and financed an organization dedicated to that act.

Actually, the Bush administration was saying just that to justify their rush to war.

Everytime he uses the phrase Unilateral Action he is dismissing these other countries. Everytime.

Perhaps he's waiting for the Polish batallion to finish their pitched battle in the rec room of their secured compound.

 

[USAir757]

When your president has no foresight it's all you have.

He has the same amount of foresight as the Senator from Massachussetts. They just react to information differently.

Picking a position and demanding the world follow, then demeaning those who question the direction?

We didn't demand the world follow, we actually said we are doing this regardless of who joins us. We demeaned those who flatly declined to offer help simply for financial interests.

You remember that our Secretary of State recently had to apologize for using doctored data during his presentation to the UN?

Doctored data? No. Incorrect data, perhaps, because we didn't know then that Iraq didn't posess WMDs. "Doctored data" is inaccurate.

'Understand fully' or 'believe the hype'? See Colin's apology, and America's tainted credibility, for the difference.

And America's credibility would be that of somewhere around the UN if they had let Saddam hang around again... over a decade of sanctions and threats... we would have been all talk, a force to jerk around and not worry about. And under Kerry, that is what we will become. If he can make up his mind about it.

Gibberish! Anyone who watched the debate knows that Kerry said just the opposite and, indeed, specifically said he would reserve the right to unilaterally act if the US were attacked, a right supported by the UN charter, incidentally.

I took your quote that you posted.... "But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do in a way that passes the test—that passes the global test—where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

Was there any confusion about WHY we went into Iraq when it happened? Because we thought they posessed WMDs, because we thought they had connections to terrorism, because they had dodged years on years of UN sanctions and resolutions? I think the administration made it clear WHY to the people of this country. But according to Kerry's quote from the debate, a condition of going to war is our ability to "prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." Well we certainly had legitimate reasons, or so we thought. We were being pre-emptive, trying to avoid an attack, instead of letting it come to us. Not everyone on the globe is going to understand that... hell, half the people in this country don't even understand that.

 

[FredF]

Haliburton got its foothold from Clinton long before Bush was elected.

Do you have any evidence to support your contention that the French were selling missiles to Iraq in violation of UN sanctions?

YEP I DO

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/994679/posts


Next Up - Exactly who gave whom the middle finger here??? http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...23000-1796r.htm

And for those of you that keep insisting, wrongly of course, that there were not links between Sadam and terrorism against the US and encore presentation of


http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports...E20041004a.html

the Inspectors said he did, the UN said he did

These very same inspectors???
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...xportaltop.html

 

[NWA/AMT]

Doctored data? No. Incorrect data, perhaps, because we didn't know then that Iraq didn't posess WMDs. "Doctored data" is inaccurate.

[post="188435"][/post]​

When originally presented to the Department of State, the pictures which purported to show the infamous 'chemical trailers' contained no such annotation, when presented to the UN, they did. How do you define 'doctored'?

And America's credibility would be that of somewhere around the UN if they had let Saddam hang around again... over a decade of sanctions and threats... we would have been all talk, a force to jerk around and not worry about.

Since it appears, according to the US official in charge of the inspections, that the threats and sanctions worked, exactly how has the credibility of the UN suffered? Because they did not comply with the unilateral timetable of George W. Bush?

Was there any confusion about WHY we went into Iraq when it happened?

Yes, since the Bush administration used ONLY that intelligence that supported their chosen course of action, it appears there was quite a bit of confusion.

I think the administration made it clear WHY to the people of this country.

Only to claim later that they were misled when they misled us.

But according to Kerry's quote from the debate, a condition of going to war is our ability to "prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

Yet he's also made it clear that he is willing to act unilaterally if needed, as I have pointed out several times.

Well we certainly had legitimate reasons, or so we thought.

Or so we were told.

We were being pre-emptive, trying to avoid an attack, instead of letting it come to us.

Once you start being 'pre-emptive', where do you stop? Do you invade Spain because they voted out the government that supported the Iraq war? Do you invade France because they didn't support it? Once upon a time we held ourselves to a higher standard, it's a shame that the man who promised to 'return the honor to the presidency' didn't understand that.

 

[NWA/AMT]

Haliburton got its foothold from Clinton long before Bush was elected.

[post="188437"][/post]​

You mean the Halliburton that Dick Cheney was CEO of which dealt with Saddam through overseas front companies? What position did Clinton hold in Halliburton?

YEP I DO

NOPE, YOU DON'T. You've got some French missiles, available on the world market from many sources. The Iraqis also had a supply of US made Stinger AAMs, does that mean the US also 'dealt' with Saddam?

Next Up - Exactly who gave whom the middle finger here???

Judging by the tone of the article you linked to, I'd say it was the Bush administration attempting to get the American people to give the French the finger, but much like their assertions about Iraqi WMDs, it has no real evidence based in fact.

And for those of you that keep insisting, wrongly of course, that there were not links between Sadam and terrorism against the US and encore presentation of

The same old unsubstantiated song and circumstantial dance. How about an encore presentation of the 9/11 report? Funny how those 'memos' the good folks at CNS keep quoting were witheld from the 9/11 commission, and any other independent verification.

These very same inspectors???

No, these:

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/ExecChair/ExeChBi.htm

http://www.salon.com/people/feature/2002/0...r/index_np.html

http://www.unmovic.org/

and these, from the CIA:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/...t.ap/index.html

By the way, quoting any article that starts with "Iraqi oil officials have accused..." is really hilarious when you realize that those "Iraqi oil officials' are US appointees who formerly worked for Saddam............as 'Iraqi oil officials'.

 

[atabuy]

Since when is it the governments responsability to confiscate money from me at the point of law to re-distribute it to someone else?

What gives them the right?

You hit it right on the head there, it is all about re-distributing wealth as if it was the government's in the first place.

Why do you have the right to take money out of my children's mouth and give it, GIVE IT to someone who has not earned it?

Socialism does not work and if you think it does, just ask Gorbechev or Lennin, or Stlain how well it worked for them and the people of thier country.

This country is not great because of the Government, but in spite of the Government. I am so tired of hearing everyone whine and complain that the Rich aren't payint their fair share when they are paying dollar for dollar more than their fair share.

Wealth is not taxed in the country, income is and those making the most money usually have worked the hardest for it. People like Bill Gates, Rush Limbaugh and countless others worked their collective butts off so that they could make something of themselvs, and you sit here and cliam that you are entitled to a share of their earnings, thier efforts and hard work.

What a load of garbage. You are not more entitled to it than I am. I support my family. I busted my backside to get where I am and what I have and it is not the responsability of this government or the like of John Kerry to come take it away from me!

I stayed in school and got an education. I had to put myself through college and it took more than 4 years to complete because I had to go at night so I could work and support myself during the day. Nobody gave me what I have, I had to work and earn it and for you to say that is an insult to me and everybody else like me. The government doesn't owe me a chance, I owe it to myself.

The government allows that the field should be leveled. Well it is. Nobody owes me a job or a living. I am responsable for that myself and I tell you, if I can do it then there is no reason in the world that anybody can't. So dont' tell me that you need to take more of my money so that some poor unfortunate person can skate by and wait till someone gives him a job. No way. That person has the same opportunities that I had. If they don't want to make the best of them, then that is their fault. If they like flipping burgers ad mcdonalds more power to them, but that is their choice and there is no way that I should have to pay for it.

Keep your grubby hands out of my paycheck.

[post="188294"][/post]​

Fred,
Obviously, you did not play well with others and spend too much time in your vault counting your money.
You exaggerate your position when you say taxes are taking the food out of your kids mouths.
What taxes do is help put food into childrens mouths who would otherwise starve or become malnourished.
Taxes were here when you were born and will be here when you die. It is part of our system of gov. and is needed.
Sure, you worked hard for your money, but it is not all yours. A percentage is taken from you to keep you safe, protect your rights, and do projects that need doing to keep moving forward.
Everyone votes for their own interests. I would like to see taxes raised for all the people who voted for Bush last time, to equal what he has spent over the budget.

There would be a gnashing of teeth and moaning heard round the world.
Repulicans would be crying for a recount in Floriduh.
I don't want your money at all. The gov. does.
The position you take is I earned mine. Every one else can too. Thank God it is not voluntary. Something makes me think you would not let one cent get out of your grubby little hands.

Fred, it is just a real game of monopoly. It all goes back in the box. 🙂

 

[KCFlyer]

THe interesting thing is, Bush is painting Kerry as a "tax and spend liberal", but fails to note that he himself is a "just spend conservative". Which when you think about is, is an oxymoron.

But, when you think about it, at least that "tax and spend liberal" is arranging for that spending money to come from somewhere. Buth is just pawning it off on my kid, grandkids, and if he's reelected, my great grandkids.

 

[FredF]

Can someone clear this one up?

France is an Ally of which country?

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041007-123838-3146r.htm

 

[KCFlyer]

Can someone clear this one up?

France is an Ally of which country?

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041007-123838-3146r.htm

[post="188815"][/post]​

So, when we were dealing with Saddam, selling him weapons that he used on his own people (which remember, was one of the reasons we needed to oust him), we weren't his allies at the time?

I don't understand...Saddam's been a bad guy for many many years. Yet, he was okay when we had dealings with him, but it's wrong for France to have dealings with him? Ohhhh....those were different times....we wanted him to kill some Iranians for us back then. Oops...he used them on his own people. Did it not occur to us that if he would use what we sold him on his own people then maybe it wasn't a great idea to sell them to him in the first place? How come we waited so long to decide that something must be done about it?

So the lesson to be learned is this...if the USA has finacial dealings with a despot, it's okay....even if those dealings might pose a threat to other countries, but if another country has dealings with a despot, it cannot be tolerated.

 

[FredF]

How far back do you want to go KC?

You are talking about when Regan was in office and I am talking about current events. Everyone keeps going on about how the president gave the finger to our allies(namely Germany and France) and here is evidence that France was in bed with Sadam and being bribed to work against us. You continue to argue that the president did not form a coalition before he went into iraq and here I am showing you a very good reason that a couple of the countries you believe he should have gotten involved stayed out of it.

You complain vigorously whenever someone on this board brings up the failings of Bill Clinton when compared to current events yet here you are going all the way back to Regan.

 

[KCFlyer]

How far back do you want to go KC?

You are talking about when Regan was in office and I am talking about current events. Everyone keeps going on about how the president gave the finger to our allies(namely Germany and France) and here is evidence that France was in bed with Sadam and being bribed to work against us. You continue to argue that the president did not form a coalition before he went into iraq and here I am showing you a very good reason that a couple of the countries you believe he should have gotten involved stayed out of it.

You complain vigorously whenever someone on this board brings up the failings of Bill Clinton when compared to current events yet here you are going all the way back to Regan.

[post="188847"][/post]​

Fred...does time really matter? France is geographically closer to Iraq than the USA is...our selling them chemical and biological weapons...REGARDLESS OF THE YEAR...created a potential threat to European countries, since those weapons could have been used over there. Time does not erase a wrong. Otherwise, in 20 more years when we've all kissed and made up, will that make Frances dealings with in Iraq a "non-issue"?

FWIW, the only "failing" of Clinton's that I defend is that I really don't think that lying about a blowjob constitutes a "high crime and misdemeanor"...although declaring war after ignoring the stipulations of Congress does. But only one was impeached. As a matter of fact, considering the condtion of this country during the Clinton years was very good, despite an almost 8 year long witch hunt to bring him down, speaks volulmes on his ability to lead.

 

[FredF]

Well it is nice to hear that you don't consider lying to a federal grand jury and obstruction of justice a federal offense.

And yes, time really does matter. Funny how when current events are brought up, you have to try to defend them with 20 year old actions.

George Bush never declared war. He initated military action after seeking and obtaining approval from congress.

Funny you should mention leadership here because I have a good one for you since you seem to be an expert on it.

Why did Kerry vote to authorize military action against iraq if, as he says he has had only one posiiton on the war and that it was the wrong war at the wrong time and wrong place. If he was any kind of a leader, he would have stood up on the senate floor when it came time to vote and said "Mr. President I cannot support you in this action because..." and state the same reasons he is trying to pass off now. That is leadership, not voting for something then saying you would still vote for it but that you never meant for it to take place so you vote for funding it before you vote against funding it then say you would still vote for it but it was the wrong war at the wrong time yet you have only had one position on the war at least since you starting running for president and keep getting called on all your various positions.

Is that your idea of leadership?

Oh, btw Clinton didn't so much lead as just stay the heck out of the way. He fought congress every step of the way. In fact, just in case you don't remember, he vetoed 2 balanced budgets before he reluctantly signed the third one.

At least you know where this president stands. Like it or not you know where he stands. That is leadership.