A simple question for Bush supporters

[Guest Shoes Head]

^^ Great post. However, as the conservatives on this board will tell you, nobody would have ever thought JAPAN would turn into the Jeffersonian Democracy and ally she currently is.

[Guest MikeSC]

Exactly, it's something that has to be recognized especially in the current political framework and foreign policy issues. I'm not saying this is true of all Americans, but many are so blindly patriotic and conditioned to take whatever their country does to be justifiable.

No, they simply do not TRUST John Kerry to do a damned thing. For his faults, they KNOW Bush won't cut and run. Few people have similar beliefs about Kerry.

On the other side of the spectrum, you have those that are so outraged but Bush's foreign policy issues (in addition to the domestic economic, environment and social issues). Bush seemingly turned all the sympathy from other nations after 9/11 and within months and turned reverted it back to more hatred and public outcry due to turning the tragedy and twisting it in favor of his own personal agenda.

Oh please. The moment action is necessary people will bitch. The world will bitch when Russia starts taking action against ITS terrorists.

 

Quite frankly, a world that won't do shit when a genocide is going on is not something I have any respect for.

Lies, misinformation, misinformation breeding more lies, whatever you want to call it, it's undeniable that many of the issues surrounding the reasons to go to war and the rationale behind it were not simply 'made up' for the sake of attacking the president, and people need to stop living in such denial.

That, to be generous, is one of the bigger piles of bullshit out there right now.

The war has done nothing for the people of Iraq except insert a puppet regieme that will not be able to sustain government , simply because countries like Iraq and Afghanistan will never be democratic nations.

Like how Germany and Japan could never become democratic countries?

There is too much conflicting idelogies within these nations that will not allow this to happen. Iraq is basically made up of different groups that were placed during the early French and British colonies, same with Afghanistan, so they'll basically vote upon different tribes amonst themselves. So in hindsight, thousands of innocent Iraqi, Afghani, and American soliders died in vain for the excuses of the Bush administrations rationale for the war.

Man, using your logic, we shouldn't be an open republic at all.

Getting back to the other point of this thread, many (remember, i didn't say "all") voting for Bush are buying into the propoganda for whatever reason, whether it be out of the "my country right or wrong" philosophy or the feel need to vote in a Republican right or wrong. Of course the former can also be attributed to inticing a high level of fear within a nation. Hey, Cheney himself basically said that a vote for Kerry is basically inviting another terrorist attack, so he must be right. The exploitation of fear is a very strong means of coaxing people into buying into your agenda.

So, it's Bush's fault that the Dems year-long exploitation of fear (you know, "Bush made us less safe") was so inept?

 

Then again, Bush was wrong to use 9/11 --- but Kerry using the 9/11 widows (well, a TINY fraction of them) was not even close to an outrage.

 

It's always startling to see how much one side will sell out its ideals.

-=Mik

[cbacon 0]

Exactly, it's something that has to be recognized especially in the current political framework and foreign policy issues. I'm not saying this is true of all Americans, but many are so blindly patriotic and conditioned to take whatever their country does to be justifiable. 

 

No, they simply do not TRUST John Kerry to do a damned thing. For his faults, they KNOW Bush won't cut and run. Few people have similar beliefs about Kerry.

 

So your saying people believe don't believe Kerry would take such irrational endevaours? Kerry wouldn't pursue an illegal war, undermine the UN, mis-represent the truth while thousands of Americans and Iraqi's die? Kerry wouldn't have pandered to Saudi Arabia when it came time to investigate 9/11 and acted in the best interest and safety of the American public? Are these the actions of George Bush that you refer are referring to?

 

Kerry may be a weak opponent, but jeez, if the people of the United States truly share the same beliefs and attitudes of George Bush, then it's just inforcing the war-mongering, imperialistic and backwards stereotype of Americans, and we know that not to be the case (well, of most at least). I'm sure the American public is smarter than that, and that most that support Bush are for the reasons i outlined above.

 

Oh please. The moment action is necessary people will bitch. The world will bitch when Russia starts taking action against ITS terrorists.

 

Quite frankly, a world that won't do shit when a genocide is going on is not something I have any respect for.

 

 

That all depends on how Russia handles their situation. If it was such a necessary action to invade Iraq, why is the war still being protested around the world? Iraq has their new regieme fully in place with plans to hold an election in January. Mission accomplished right? Iraq is in much better shape than it was before right? I think not. Still waiting on the justification for the war.

 

Lies, misinformation, misinformation breeding more lies, whatever you want to call it, it's undeniable that many of the issues surrounding the reasons to go to war and the rationale behind it were not simply 'made up' for the sake of attacking the president, and people need to stop living in such denial.

That, to be generous, is one of the bigger piles of bullshit out there right now.

 

Ok, and the reasoning behind that is? Your saying that all of the issues during the war including the false WMD excuse? Your saying Bush didn't try to make the al-Queda/Sadaam connection as a justifiable reason? That Bush didn't endevaour in an illegal war and that everything will be just dandy in Iraq thanks to America? Work with me here.

 

 

The war has done nothing for the people of Iraq except insert a puppet regieme that will not be able to sustain government , simply because countries like Iraq and Afghanistan will never be democratic nations.

Like how Germany and Japan could never become democratic countries?

 

Modern day Iraq and Afghanistan are far different from Germany and Japan when they became democratic i'm afraid.

 

There is too much conflicting idelogies within these nations that will not allow this to happen. Iraq is basically made up of different groups that were placed during the early French and British colonies, same with Afghanistan, so they'll basically vote upon different tribes amonst themselves. So in hindsight, thousands of innocent Iraqi, Afghani, and American soliders died in vain for the excuses of the Bush administrations rationale for the war.

Man, using your logic, we shouldn't be an open republic at all.

 

We're talking about an entire different way of life in the middle east. The tension between certain groups and religions in Iraq and Afghanistan like the Shiite and Sunni Muslims for example, are not comparable to that of the West. You have to get used to the notion that the West can not force our way of life onto those in said countries. Something the United States hasn't seemed to understand for decades.

 

 

Getting back to the other point of this thread, many (remember, i didn't say "all") voting for Bush are buying into the propoganda for whatever reason, whether it be out of the "my country right or wrong" philosophy or the feel need to vote in a Republican right or wrong. Of course the former can also be attributed to inticing a high level of fear within a nation. Hey, Cheney himself basically said that a vote for Kerry is basically inviting another terrorist attack, so he must be right. The exploitation of fear is a very strong means of coaxing people into buying into your agenda.

So, it's Bush's fault that the Dems year-long exploitation of fear (you know, "Bush made us less safe") was so inept?

 

Then again, Bush was wrong to use 9/11 --- but Kerry using the 9/11 widows (well, a TINY fraction of them) was not even close to an outrage.

 

This is laughable. Of course there wouldn't be as big of an outrage, your saying that bombing country is equal to Kerry using a small group of 9/11 widows to further his election agenda? Maybe in principle only.

[Guest MikeSC]

Exactly, it's something that has to be recognized especially in the current political framework and foreign policy issues. I'm not saying this is true of all Americans, but many are so blindly patriotic and conditioned to take whatever their country does to be justifiable. 

 

No, they simply do not TRUST John Kerry to do a damned thing. For his faults, they KNOW Bush won't cut and run. Few people have similar beliefs about Kerry.

So your saying people believe don't believe Kerry would take such irrational endevaours?

 

Iraq has their new regieme fully in place with plans to hold an election in January. Mission accomplished right? Iraq is in much better shape than it was before right? I think not. Still waiting on the justification for the war.

No, they have no faith in Kerry doing ANYTHING, no matter how important, if the "world" opposes the move.

 

Bush gave numerous reasons for the war. If you chose to ignore them, so be it. Not his problem. And, yes, Iraq is in better shape than it was under Saddam.

Kerry wouldn't pursue an illegal war, undermine the UN, mis-represent the truth while thousands of Americans and Iraqi's die? Kerry wouldn't have pandered to Saudi Arabia when it came time to investigate 9/11 and acted in the best interest and safety of the American public? Are these the actions of George Bush that you refer are referring to?

No, the fear is that if we're bombed by somebody and France says "Don't attack", Kerry won't.

Kerry may be a weak opponent, but jeez, if the people of the United States truly share the same beliefs and attitudes of George Bush, then it's just inforcing the  war-mongering, imperialistic and backwards stereotype of Americans, and we know that not to be the case (well, of most at least). I'm sure the American public is smarter than that, and that most that support Bush are for the reasons i outlined above. 

Hold on to that pipe dream. Really.

Oh please. The moment action is necessary people will bitch. The world will bitch when Russia starts taking action against ITS terrorists.

 

Quite frankly, a world that won't do shit when a genocide is going on is not something I have any respect for.

That all depends on how Russia handles their situation. If it was such a necessary action to invade Iraq, why is the war still being protested around the world?

Because, again, the world does not want anybody to do anything. Notice how the world does not actually DO anything unless the US prods them into action?

Lies, misinformation, misinformation breeding more lies, whatever you want to call it, it's undeniable that many of the issues surrounding the reasons to go to war and the rationale behind it were not simply 'made up' for the sake of attacking the president, and people need to stop living in such denial.

That, to be generous, is one of the bigger piles of bullshit out there right now.

Ok, and the reasoning behind that is? Your saying that all of the issues during the war including the false WMD excuse?

There were many, many reasons given.

The war has done nothing for the people of Iraq except insert a puppet regieme that will not be able to sustain government , simply because countries like Iraq and Afghanistan will never be democratic nations.

Like how Germany and Japan could never become democratic countries?

Modern day Iraq and Afghanistan are far different from Germany and Japan when they became democratic i'm afraid.

Their histories were even LESS inclined to show a possibility of supporting democracy.

There is too much conflicting idelogies within these nations that will not allow this to happen. Iraq is basically made up of different groups that were placed during the early French and British colonies, same with Afghanistan, so they'll basically vote upon different tribes amonst themselves. So in hindsight, thousands of innocent Iraqi, Afghani, and American soliders died in vain for the excuses of the Bush administrations rationale for the war.

Man, using your logic, we shouldn't be an open republic at all.

 

We're talking about an entire different way of life in the middle east. The tension between certain groups and religions in Iraq and Afghanistan like the Shiite and Sunni Muslims for example, are not comparable to that of the West. You have to get used to the notion that the West can not force our way of life onto those in said countries. Something the United States hasn't seemed to understand for decades.

And you ignore that the US is composed of groups with MASSIVE gripes against each other, yet live together with rather impressive peacefulness.

 

It is absurd to believe that, somehow, we're the ONLY ones who can survive with people who "loathe" one another.

Getting back to the other point of this thread, many (remember, i didn't say "all") voting for Bush are buying into the propoganda for whatever reason, whether it be out of the "my country right or wrong" philosophy or the feel need to vote in a Republican right or wrong. Of course the former can also be attributed to inticing a high level of fear within a nation. Hey, Cheney himself basically said that a vote for Kerry is basically inviting another terrorist attack, so he must be right. The exploitation of fear is a very strong means of coaxing people into buying into your agenda.

So, it's Bush's fault that the Dems year-long exploitation of fear (you know, "Bush made us less safe") was so inept?

 

Then again, Bush was wrong to use 9/11 --- but Kerry using the 9/11 widows (well, a TINY fraction of them) was not even close to an outrage.

This is laughable. Of course there wouldn't be as big of an outrage, your saying that bombing country is equal to Kerry using a small group of 9/11 widows to further his election agenda? Maybe in principle only.

Iraqi regime change has been official US policy since the 90's. Saddam had to prove he disarmed. He refused to do so.

Your saying Bush didn't try to make the al-Queda/Sadaam connection as a justifiable reason? That Bush didn't endevaour in an illegal war and that everything will be just dandy in Iraq thanks to America? Work with me here.

Iraq and Al Qaeda DID have connections. Not in regards to 9/11, but connections WERE there.

 

And the war wasn't illegal, no matter what that fucktard Annan thinks.

 

Quite frankly, we should have washed our hands of the corrupt, immoral, inept UN years ago and left. Let that useless body flounder.

-=Mike

[Guest GreatOne]

Kerry wouldn't pursue an illegal war,

 

I didn't know Bush did, REGARDLESS of what Coffee Annan (and the left braindeads) thinks. Of course talking big somehow > actually doing in their world.

 

undermine the UN,

 

UN-dermine, think about it The UN isn't any less of a joke than they were portrayed in Batman

 

Kerry wouldn't have pandered to Saudi Arabia when it came time to investigate 9/11 and acted in the best interest and safety of the American public

 

Pandering to Saudi Arabia, or pandering to the general left, who ALWAYS wants to put somebody on trial whenever such attacks occur? Yeah that's progress. Answer me this, what should have been the emphasis of the 911 commission: to learn from 911 and take preventative actions, or assign blame? Too much of both for my liking--that the left wanted anyway, I can't be sure they wanted more of the latter though. So how the hell is putting Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Powell essentially on trial in the best interests and safety of the public?

 

mis-represent the truth while thousands of Americans and Iraqi's die?

 

I guess insurgents with AQ ties and other AQ cells had NOTHING to do with any deaths. I guess shame on the guy who finally woke a dormant country up to terrorism, which mind you anti-American sentiment from this segment had been brewing for YEARS while we lay sleeping. You're right, let's all pull out and ignore everything and make it go away.

 

So your saying people believe don't believe Kerry would take such irrational endevaours?

 

Right now just straightening out a position and staying with it for like two weeks would be an endevaour for him.

 

if the people of the United States truly share the same beliefs and attitudes of George Bush, then it's just inforcing the  war-mongering, imperialistic and backwards stereotype of Americans,

 

Would this be the same "eulogy" that Scott Keith gave Ronald Reagan? And I'll take the war-mongering stereotype over say the French, weak and parasitic. How about you change ours to Mick Foley's description of Apollo Creed: They're heels because they're the best and they know it?

 

and that most that support Bush are for the reasons i outlined above.

 

So it's just because of this 'gung-ho' patriotism right? Everyone that voted for Bush in 2000 and will do so again saw 911 coming and knew he would lead them to war and instill pride and patriotism. OK.

 

If it was such a necessary action to invade Iraq, why is the war still being protested around the world? Iraq has their new regieme fully in place with plans to hold an election in January. Mission accomplished right? Iraq is in much better shape than it was before right? I think not. Still waiting on the justification for the war.

 

File this under we love the effect but denounce the cause, because the UN has proven themselves SO capable of such situation.

 

Ok, and the reasoning behind that is? Your saying that all of the issues during the war including the false WMD excuse?

 

Which may still turn up in Syria BTW, of course I guess even those WILL be false, right? Nevermind that he had all this stuff that was a no-no.

 

Your saying Bush didn't try to make the al-Queda/Sadaam connection as a justifiable reason?

 

And the Al-Qaeda cells and linked-groups in Iraq right now aren't any more justifiable right now either, right?

 

That Bush didn't endevaour in an illegal war and that everything will be just dandy in Iraq thanks to America?

 

Using that logic, Germany, Japan, Afghanistan and wherever the hell else you wanna go are 'illegal wars' and, this just in, two of those countries are set up pretty well today in large part thanks to EVIL AMERICA.

 

The war has done nothing for the people of Iraq except insert a puppet regieme that will not be able to sustain government , simply because countries like Iraq and Afghanistan will never be democratic nations.

 

And you know this HOW?

 

Modern day Iraq and Afghanistan are far different from Germany and Japan when they became democratic i'm afraid. There is too much conflicting idelogies within these nations that will not allow this to happen. Iraq is basically made up of different groups that were placed during the early French and British colonies, same with Afghanistan, so they'll basically vote upon different tribes amonst themselves. So in hindsight, thousands of innocent Iraqi, Afghani, and American soliders died in vain for the excuses of the Bush administrations rationale for the war.

 

Of course, as Mike pointed out, more ethnic groups, religions, and ideologies live here and it's been relatively peaceful for the last 100+ years

 

The tension between certain groups and religions in Iraq and Afghanistan like the Shiite and Sunni Muslims for example,  are not comparable to that of the West.

 

Again, reasoning?

 

You have to get used to the notion that the West can not force our way of life onto those in said countries. Something the United States hasn't seemed to understand for decades.

 

Of course, Canada, being a descendant of the French, I guess has fallen into the notion of what's the point of even trying if you might lose?

 

Hey here's another fact: Japan was winning a (relatively) good part of the War in the Pacific, I guess we should have pulled out.

 

Hey, Cheney himself basically said that a vote for Kerry is basically inviting another terrorist attack, so he must be right.

 

And that differs from Kerry saying Bush's policies have done the same where?

[Jingus 0]

I didn't know Bush did, REGARDLESS of what Coffee Annan (and the left braindeads) thinks. Of course talking big somehow > actually doing in their world.

Yes, by the books, it was an illegal invasion. One can debate whether the law was right; I personally think Saddam should've been taken out a LONG time ago. But it was done against the wishes of the largest governing body in the world.

 

UN-dermine, think about it The UN isn't any less of a joke than they were portrayed in Batman

 

Heh, good reference.

 

Pandering to Saudi Arabia, or pandering to the general left, who ALWAYS wants to put somebody on trial whenever such attacks occur? Yeah that's progress. Answer me this, what should have been the emphasis of the 911 commission: to learn from 911 and take preventative actions, or assign blame? Too much of both for my liking--that the left wanted anyway, I can't be sure they wanted more of the latter though. So how the hell is putting Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Powell essentially on trial in the best interests and safety of the public?

 

So you're saying the "left" wanted to just assign blame, and not actually do anything to prevent further attacks? That the liberals WANT more terrorist actions? Clearly you can see that's not a logical statement.

 

I guess shame on the guy who finally woke a dormant country up to terrorism,

 

What, you mean Osama Bin Ladin?

 

Would this be the same "eulogy" that Scott Keith gave Ronald Reagan? And I'll take the war-mongering stereotype over say the French, weak and parasitic. How about you change ours to Mick Foley's description of Apollo Creed: They're heels because they're the best and they know it?

 

One problem: heels, by definition, are the BAD GUYS. They're the evil ones who always lose in the end. Personally, I'd rather not have my country be a heel.

 

Which may still turn up in Syria BTW, of course I guess even those WILL be false, right? Nevermind that he had all this stuff that was a no-no.

 

Yeah, they MIGHT turn up in Syria, but it's looking less and less likely every day. I think Bush's single biggest mistake in office was leaning so heavily on the WMDs justification for going to war.

 

And the Al-Qaeda cells and linked-groups in Iraq right now aren't any more justifiable right now either, right?

 

Funny how there are a lot more terrorists in Iraq now than there used to be. Al-Qaeda was never a great friend of Iraq; Saddam was too secular and materialistic for their tastes.

 

Using that logic, Germany, Japan, Afghanistan and wherever the hell else you wanna go are 'illegal wars' and, this just in, two of those countries are set up pretty well today in large part thanks to EVIL AMERICA.

 

No, World War II was not an "illegal war", in great part because Congress actually DECLARED WAR, something which hasn't been done once since then despite all of America's various military activities around the world in the past sixty years.

 

Of course, as Mike pointed out, more ethnic groups, religions, and ideologies live here and it's been relatively peaceful for the last 100+ years

 

Yeah... because we're rich. If you notice, religious wars tend to only start in dirt-poor nations without a great deal of centralized government or social services.

 

Of course, Canada, being a descendant of the French, I guess has fallen into the notion of what's the point of even trying if you might lose?

 

Actually, Canada is part of the British Commonwealth. You're thinking of Quebec. (And it's been trying to secede from the rest of the country for years now.)

 

And that differs from Kerry saying Bush's policies have done the same where?

 

I disliked Cheney implying that voting for Kerry was tantamount to asking for another 9/11 for two reasons. #1: it's simple fear-mongering and our Vice President really should be above using such base propaganda; and #2: it's funny that it would be ANOTHER 9/11, since the first one happened during the term of the guy Kerry is running against.

[Guest GreatOne]

But it was done against the wishes of the largest governing body in the world.

 

You know what, WAAAA. When's the Bush tribunal? Ain't happenin'.

 

One problem: heels, by definition, are the BAD GUYS.  They're the evil ones who always lose in the end.  Personally, I'd rather not have my country be a heel.

 

Except for HHH

 

Decades and decades of being the world's biggest babyface and you see what that got us. Besides let's take a look at the countries who supposedly "hate us to death":

 

*France (and most of Europe): Like the spoiled brat teenager who hates his parents but would be dead if he had to make it on his own (Catchy comparison, Mike )

 

*Russia: Well I think they just had their reminder about four weeks ago. Besides Bush probably figured that since Putin was so opposed to force that he'd wanna take the 'you got me by the balls please let go' approach

 

*Japan: Yep all the Japanese transfer students I've seen walking around here at EWU for the last week really proves THAT.

 

And then you got the ones that, you know, sponsor, harbor, and support terrorism. Now the left wants us to make friends with THEM?

 

Funny how there are a lot more terrorists in Iraq now than there used to be

 

So you're admitting there are terrorists there, yet we should leave them alone and just let them free to murder off innocent Iraqis and join up with Bin Laden down the line. Then you'd be bitching why we didn't cut that off. Bin Laden may not have cared about Saddam, but was loyal to his 'muhadjadeen brothers'.

 

Al-Qaeda was never a great friend of Iraq; Saddam was too secular and materialistic for their tastes.

 

Just answered it, he wasn't a friend of SADDAM, but was very interested in Iraq--perhaps eventually using it as a new base replacing Afghanistan, and being that it'd put them right next door to Israel--which of course they proclaim the reason that we're the infidels.

 

I disliked Cheney implying that voting for Kerry was tantamount to asking for another 9/11 for two reasons.  #1: it's simple fear-mongering and our Vice President really should be above using such base propaganda

 

So that's why Kerry had to play the 'Bush will bring back the draft' card, which has been debunked by Bush, Rumsfeld, and Powell countless times. I really believe the Dems should stop with this 'we're above them' crap cause they suck at it.

 

and #2: it's funny that it would be ANOTHER 9/11, since the first one happened during the term of the guy Kerry is running against.

 

Hell if this were 1944, I don't think FDR would have a chance in hell at winning had he had to put up with THIS shit.

[Jingus 0]

You know what, WAAAA. When's the Bush tribunal? Ain't happenin'.

In theory, if they wanted to hold one, they'd be within their rights. Of course it would never happen, as you said, but that's more a case of the USA's staggeringly powerful military keeping them in check than anything else.

 

Decades and decades of being the world's biggest babyface and you see what that got us.

 

It got us the real-world equivalent of a heel jumping us with a sneak attack.

 

*France (and most of Europe): Like the spoiled brat teenager who hates his parents but would be dead if he had to make it on his own (Catchy comparison, Mike )

 

France: really, who cares? They're just pissed that they haven't had a decent military campaign since Napoleon.

 

*Russia: Well I think they just had their reminder about four weeks ago. Besides Bush probably figured that since Putin was so opposed to force that he'd wanna take the 'you got me by the balls please let go' approach

 

Russia: probably worried to death about the thousands and thousands of miles of common borders they share with terrorist countries. Unlike us, they don't have a whole ocean between them and the bad guys. Besides, they've got more than enough of their own problems to take care of now.

 

*Japan: Yep all the Japanese transfer students I've seen walking around here at EWU for the last week really proves THAT.

 

Some students walking around your college proves... what?

 

And then you got the ones that, you know, sponsor, harbor, and support terrorism. Now the left wants us to make friends with THEM?

 

We don't need to "make friends" with them. We already have. Two words: Saudi Arabia.

 

So you're admitting there are terrorists there, yet we should leave them alone and just let them free to murder off innocent Iraqis and join up with Bin Laden down the line. Then you'd be bitching why we didn't cut that off. Bin Laden may not have cared about Saddam, but was loyal to his 'muhadjadeen brothers'.

 

When did I ever say we should leave them alone? Never, that's when. And yes, there are terrorists there; whole packs of them came into the country after the fall of Saddam.

 

Just answered it, he wasn't a friend of SADDAM, but was very interested in Iraq--perhaps eventually using it as a new base replacing Afghanistan, and being that it'd put them right next door to Israel--which of course they proclaim the reason that we're the infidels.

 

I doubt Osama would've used Iraq for anything, given Saddam's tendency to hunt down and kill EVERYONE in his country who he even slightly disagrees with.

 

So that's why Kerry had to play the 'Bush will bring back the draft' card, which has been debunked by Bush, Rumsfeld, and Powell countless times. I really believe the Dems should stop with this 'we're above them' crap cause they suck at it.

 

Of course, if you'd actually tried to read the article, you would've seen that Kerry NEVER said or even implied that Bush would bring back the draft.

 

Hell if this were 1944, I don't think FDR would have a chance in hell at winning had he had to put up with THIS shit.

 

So... you're saying that no incumbent could possibly win in this situation, and ergo Bush won't be reelected?

 

 

And who is Jane Jefferson?

[Guest GreatOne]

Jane Jefferson, former First Lady ring a bell?

 

No save the 'Thomas Jefferson, Jane Jefferson, Thomas Jane. Who are they trying to fool?' jokes.

 

you're saying that no incumbent could possibly win in this situation, and ergo Bush won't be reelected?

 

Uh nope, I'm saying FDR didn't have to put up with this 'you knew, answer these questions' shit that have been flying from the Dan Rather (hell, might as well) types.

 

Of course, if you'd actually tried to read the article, you would've seen that Kerry NEVER said or even implied that Bush would bring back the draft.

 

You'll notice that I never said that he did either, I said he played the card.

 

I doubt Osama would've used Iraq for anything, given Saddam's tendency to hunt down and kill EVERYONE in his country who he even slightly disagrees with

 

So are you saying Osama was scared of Saddam (hmmm and yet he took a shot at the country that cleaned house with Saddam in '91) and Saddam>Osama?

[Jingus 0]

Jane Jefferson, former First Lady ring a bell?

 

No save the 'Thomas Jefferson, Jane Jefferson, Thomas Jane. Who are they trying to fool?' jokes.

Since the first ladies rarely do anything important, my history teachers rarely told me anything about them.

 

Uh nope, I'm saying FDR didn't have to put up with this 'you knew, answer these questions' shit that have been flying from the Dan Rather (hell, might as well) types.

 

No, FDR didn't have to put up with that. In fact, FDR had reporters LYING FOR HIM about his complete inability to walk. It was a different time.

 

You'll notice that I never said that he did either, I said he played the card.

 

No, he didn't. Somebody else asked him a question about the draft at a press conference, and he answered "I can't say" and then changed the subject. Hardly "playing the card".

 

So are you saying Osama was scared of Saddam (hmmm and yet he took a shot at the country that cleaned house with Saddam in '91) and Saddam>Osama?

 

Scared? I don't know if Osama's "scared" of anything. He's too fanatical. But he's smart enough to know that Saddam would've gutted him like a fish if he tried operating an international terrorist organization out of Iraq without Saddam's express permission (which he was less than likely to give, being a control freak).

[Guest GreatOne]

No, he didn't.  Somebody else asked him a question about the draft at a press conference, and he answered "I can't say" and then changed the subject.  Hardly "playing the card".

 

He has done it before, whether he did it there is up for debate. And you'll still continue to endlessly harp on Cheney regardless of the fact that all he said was 'the wrong vote'.....................

[Guest MikeSC]

I didn't know Bush did, REGARDLESS of what Coffee Annan (and the left braindeads) thinks. Of course talking big somehow > actually doing in their world.

Yes, by the books, it was an illegal invasion. One can debate whether the law was right; I personally think Saddam should've been taken out a LONG time ago. But it was done against the wishes of the largest governing body in the world.

The Oil-For-Food Scandal goes a LONG way in explaining the UN'S unwillingness to take action here. Their opposition was nothing but materialistic.

Which may still turn up in Syria BTW, of course I guess even those WILL be false, right? Nevermind that he had all this stuff that was a no-no.

 

Yeah, they MIGHT turn up in Syria, but it's looking less and less likely every day. I think Bush's single biggest mistake in office was leaning so heavily on the WMDs justification for going to war.

Do you know why they focused on the WMD (that, mind you, the UN said Saddam was in material breach over)? Because Bush was fairly certain that the moral reasons wouldn't generate any support. They had three presentations prepared, according to an interview with Powell several months ago, and went with the one that they thought might actually get int'l support.

And the Al-Qaeda cells and linked-groups in Iraq right now aren't any more justifiable right now either, right?

Funny how there are a lot more terrorists in Iraq now than there used to be. Al-Qaeda was never a great friend of Iraq; Saddam was too secular and materialistic for their tastes.

That's a bit of a red herring. Al Qaeda and Saddam WERE in cahoots --- just not in regards to 9/11. Just because two groups do not get along does not mean they can't be allies --- after all, you don't get a much wider disdain than FDR and Stalin had.

Of course, as Mike pointed out, more ethnic groups, religions, and ideologies live here and it's been relatively peaceful for the last 100+ years

Yeah... because we're rich. If you notice, religious wars tend to only start in dirt-poor nations without a great deal of centralized government or social services.

What Muslim state is poor? Do you know how many of them have RIDICULOUS amounts of money from oil?

 

Just because the dictatorship steals all of the money doesn't change their wealth.

 

And why are ALL of the terrorist leaders, if you study it, WEALTHY? The poor do not start up these rebellions terribly often.

And that differs from Kerry saying Bush's policies have done the same where?

 

I disliked Cheney implying that voting for Kerry was tantamount to asking for another 9/11 for two reasons. #1: it's simple fear-mongering and our Vice President really should be above using such base propaganda; and #2: it's funny that it would be ANOTHER 9/11, since the first one happened during the term of the guy Kerry is running against.

Due to problems left by the previous administrations and very much supported by Kerry. It's like saying the Depression was Hoover's fault because it happened on his watch.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Due to problems left by the previous administrations and very much supported by Kerry. It's like saying the Depression was Hoover's fault because it happened on his watch.

                -=Mike

Wow, I can see your point. Its fucking Clinton's fault Bush ignored all those warnings from the Clinton Administration about Al Quaeda. How dare he snatch that "Threat Eminent" memo away from Bush! That dirty bastard!

[Jingus 0]

The Oil-For-Food Scandal goes a LONG way in explaining the UN'S unwillingness to take action here. Their opposition was nothing but materialistic.

I wasn't arguing whether or not the UN was in the right; just over whether Bush really had the clearence he was supposed to in order to send in the troops.

 

Do you know why they focused on the WMD (that, mind you, the UN said Saddam was in material breach over)? Because Bush was fairly certain that the moral reasons wouldn't generate any support. They had three presentations prepared, according to an interview with Powell several months ago, and went with the one that they thought might actually get int'l support.

 

It was a gamble, and one that came back to bite us in the ass. Saddam Hussein was an evil man who needed to be taken out of power; everyone knew that. But the evidence for actual WMDs at the present time was pretty damn shaky, and I really wish our leaders hadn't picked that as one of our main justifications.

 

That's a bit of a red herring. Al Qaeda and Saddam WERE in cahoots --- just not in regards to 9/11. Just because two groups do not get along does not mean they can't be allies --- after all, you don't get a much wider disdain than FDR and Stalin had.

 

Once again though, the claim was made that Iraq was involved in something they weren't.

 

What Muslim state is poor? Do you know how many of them have RIDICULOUS amounts of money from oil?

 

Just because the dictatorship steals all of the money doesn't change their wealth.

 

And why are ALL of the terrorist leaders, if you study it, WEALTHY? The poor do not start up these rebellions terribly often.

 

Poor Muslim states? Afghanistan, to name a big one.

 

Due to problems left by the previous administrations and very much supported by Kerry. It's like saying the Depression was Hoover's fault because it happened on his watch.

 

It wasn't Bush's FAULT; it was nobody's fault but the terrorists themselves. I'm just saying that claiming that electing Kerry would bring on another similar attack is a logical disconnect.

 

He has done it before, whether he did it there is up for debate. And you'll still continue to endlessly harp on Cheney regardless of the fact that all he said was 'the wrong vote'.....................

 

For the first claim, sources please?

 

For the second, what could "the wrong vote" mean except for not voting for Bush, i.e., voting for Kerry? I doubt that Cheney was thinking of Ralph Nader when he said that.

[Guest GreatOne]

I'll unveil my sources when you do yours, fair enough?

[NoCalMike 0]

That's a bit of a red herring. Al Qaeda and Saddam WERE in cahoots --- just not in regards to 9/11.

 

You are one hell of a magician, I mean you never fail to pull this claim right out of thin air.

[cbacon 0]

Iraq and Al Qaeda DID have connections. Not in regards to 9/11, but connections WERE there.

 

And the war wasn't illegal, no matter what that fucktard Annan thinks.

 

Quite frankly, we should have washed our hands of the corrupt, immoral, inept UN years ago and left. Let that useless body flounder.

 

No, they have no faith in Kerry doing ANYTHING, no matter how important, if the "world" opposes the move.

 

Bush gave numerous reasons for the war. If you chose to ignore them, so be it. Not his problem. And, yes, Iraq is in better shape than it was under Saddam.

 

Is it now? Over 17,000 Iraqi's have died already, around 300 a week, the equivalent of a 9/11 happening every week in the US per capita.

 

Less we forget the woman on Nightline (who is pro-American and teaches English btw) stating that things are so bad since the American invasion she sometimes wishes Saddam were still in power, which is a widespread sentiment.

 

And the reasons for the war? Please, enlighten me. No one's ignoring Bush's reason, they hold extremely dertrimental consequences. So, what are they?

 

The WMD? Well, we all know that story. So they "might" be in Syria? Good to know the US started a war on such ambiguous assumptions.

 

To remove an oppressive dictator? So that was the real reason 150,000 troops were sent to bomb Iraq? Gee, there's no hidden agenda here, otherwise the World's Police would be removing various other dictators around the world. Oh wait, many of those dictators are supported by the US democratically. And as mentioned before, Iraq is certainly not in better shape than it was before.

 

So honestly, some rationale justification here please.

 

 

 

Kerry wouldn't pursue an illegal war, undermine the UN, mis-represent the truth while thousands of Americans and Iraqi's die? Kerry wouldn't have pandered to Saudi Arabia when it came time to investigate 9/11 and acted in the best interest and safety of the American public? Are these the actions of George Bush that you refer are referring to?

No, the fear is that if we're bombed by somebody and France says "Don't attack", Kerry won't.

 

Uh huh, so you don't dispute the aforementioned point. And when the US is attacked by a group of mostly Saudia Arabians, US attacks....Iraq? Gotta love that logic.

 

Kerry may be a weak opponent, but jeez, if the people of the United States truly share the same beliefs and attitudes of George Bush, then it's just inforcing the  war-mongering, imperialistic and backwards stereotype of Americans, and we know that not to be the case (well, of most at least). I'm sure the American public is smarter than that, and that most that support Bush are for the reasons i outlined above. 

Hold on to that pipe dream. Really.

 

C'mon, at least give your fellow countrymen a bit more credit.

 

Quite frankly, a world that won't do shit when a genocide is going on is not something I have any respect for.

 

That all depends on how Russia handles their situation. If it was such a necessary action to invade Iraq, why is the war still being protested around the world?

 

Because, again, the world does not want anybody to do anything. Notice how the world does not actually DO anything unless the US prods them into action?

 

Ah, so the entire world is wrong and America is right? It's that type of arrogance thats casts the US in such a negative light around the world. Not being able to recognize past and current mistakes only makes things worse. For all the good the US does, it seems to never acknowledge it's blunders and worldwide exploitations.

 

If by prod, you mean implement sanctions to countries that don't follow suit, then i'm glad the US is setting such a fine example. Or, as in the case of Australia coaxing the country into a free trade agreement to join their cause (despite 70% of the nation opposing the war) So the large majority in nearly every country that oppose such actions are wrong?

 

 

 

 

Lies, misinformation, misinformation breeding more lies, whatever you want to call it, it's undeniable that many of the issues surrounding the reasons to go to war and the rationale behind it were not simply 'made up' for the sake of attacking the president, and people need to stop living in such denial.

That, to be generous, is one of the bigger piles of bullshit out there right now.

Ok, and the reasoning behind that is? Your saying that all of the issues during the war including the false WMD excuse?

There were many, many reasons given.

 

Ya, and they've all proven to be a farce with nothing redeeming coming out of it.

 

 

There is too much conflicting idelogies within these nations that will not allow this to happen. Iraq is basically made up of different groups that were placed during the early French and British colonies, same with Afghanistan, so they'll basically vote upon different tribes amonst themselves. So in hindsight, thousands of innocent Iraqi, Afghani, and American soliders died in vain for the excuses of the Bush administrations rationale for the war.

Man, using your logic, we shouldn't be an open republic at all.

 

We're talking about an entire different way of life in the middle east.  The tension between certain groups and religions in Iraq and Afghanistan like the Shiite and Sunni Muslims for example,  are not comparable to that of the West. You have to get used to the notion that the West can not force our way of life onto those in said countries. Something the United States hasn't seemed to understand for decades.

 

And you ignore that the US is composed of groups with MASSIVE gripes against each other, yet live together with rather impressive peacefulness.

 

It is absurd to believe that, somehow, we're the ONLY ones who can survive with people who "loathe" one another.

 

These are two entirely different beasts. Often poor, tribalistic divisions with hundreds of martyrs are not nearly as rampant in the US .

For thousands of years Iraq has never, are not and never will be unified. Due to the various factions and tribes all at odds with each other, thus it's impossible to have everyone unified.

 

Iraq lacks various economic, social and cultural conditions that have set the sate for democracy in other nations, and has no previous experience with such a concept. Democracy needs to be built into cultural values, not makeshift parties, elections and puppet regiemes to 'make everything better'. Tolerance is another key issue, a reason why the US is able to sustain it's "democracy". This of course, in reference to religious and cultural ideologies, including racial tolerance and freedom of speech something that will simply not stand in Iraq. In short, Iraq lacks all the precondtions needed for a democracy to flourish.

 

Iraq is not an agreed upon creation by it's people, and if elections were held today the people would vote to stop having democracy, but instead a rabid fundamentalist group.

 

 

Iraq and Al Qaeda DID have connections. Not in regards to 9/11, but connections WERE there.

 

And these connections were? And they relate to the bombing of Iraq in what way?

 

And the war wasn't illegal, no matter what that fucktard Annan thinks.

 

Whether deemed illegal or not, it's painfully obvious the war is immoral and a huge humanitarian crisis with little to no positive outcomes. Sacrificing human rights in the name of security at home have not increased security or insured liberty.

[Guest GreatOne]

The above post and C-Bacon's continuing 'Fuck America unless we need their help again' spiel were Vince McMahon's inspiration for taking three workers out of OVW and calling them 'La Resistance'.

[cbacon 0]

Do you know why they focused on the WMD (that, mind you, the UN said Saddam was in material breach over)? Because Bush was fairly certain that the moral reasons wouldn't generate any support. They had three presentations prepared, according to an interview with Powell several months ago, and went with the one that they thought might actually get int'l support.

Ah, so your admitting here that the Bush Administration mis-led the public to fit it's own war agenda. And that the the moral reasons wouldn't genereate support? Immoral actions usually don't. But thanks for clearing that up.

[cbacon 0]

The above post and C-Bacon's continuing 'Fuck America unless we need their help again' spiel were Vince McMahon's inspiration for taking three workers out of OVW and calling them 'La Resistance'.

The consistent use of wrestling analogies don't exactly help support your arguments. I'm not saying America is good for nothing, but much of their "aid" has been in the form of hidden agenda, and for all the admirable good the country has done it seemingly can't let go of it's imperalistic and hegemonic tendencies.

 

This is not something that has been fabricated by those in poorer countries or those deemed "jealous" of the United States. It's an ongoing threat that has no signs of slowing down.

[Guest GreatOne]

Uh misled would mean they made it up, genius. So nope.

 

Have fun with the La Res act........................

 

Hey who's that Canadian columist that wrote the pro-American column back in the 70s? (This coming off of Nam mind you) Good thing CB isn't in charge or he'd kick his ass out if it happened today........................

[cbacon 0]

Being "mis-led" and "making things up" are not the same thing.

 

And yes, a mid card wrestling tag team are the one's who set the bar for the notion of ciriticizing America, and thus I hang on their every word. Good insight.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Uh misled would mean they made it up, genius. So nope.

 

Have fun with the La Res act........................

OMG U MINDLESS FLAG WAVER

 

 

YOU HULK HOGAN YOU WAT AN EGOMANIAC

 

See, referencing wrestling gimmicks doesn't help you in real debate. It is basically your way of sticking your fingers in your ears and trying to discredit the other person with lame insults instead of actually make a counterpoint.

 

Not to mention that most the people that boo by reflex when they hear the music probably can't even remember why they're supposed to hate France in the first place. If you're going to make a gimmick joke, joke about a GOOD gimmick.

 

Instead saying the other guy is far-left and the kind of person that Vince McMahon (who, of course, is a bastion of integrity when it comes to impartial politics) makes fun of, actually try and address the points instead of running away while shouting about how you're too good to come up with an arguement.

[Jingus 0]

I'll unveil my sources when you do yours, fair enough?

My sources for what? You're claiming that Kerry says that a vote for GW is a vote for the draft, and I want to know when and where he said that, plain and simple.

[Guest Cerebus]

That's a bit of a red herring. Al Qaeda and Saddam WERE in cahoots --- just not in regards to 9/11.

 

You are one hell of a magician, I mean you never fail to pull this claim right out of thin air.

Just going by the SSCI report, which is not the final source, by far, for this sort of thing, there WERE connections between Al-Queda and Saddam Hussien:

 

(U) Conclusion 90. The Central Intelligence Agency's assessment that Saddam Hussein was most likely to use his own intelligence service operatives to conduct attacks was reasonable, and turned out to be accurate.

 

(U) Conclusion 91. The Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) assessment that Iraq had maintained ties to several secular Palestinian terrorist groups and with the Mujahidin e-Khalq was supported by the intelligence. The CIA was also reasonable in judging that Iraq appeared to have been reaching out to more effective terrorist groups, such as Hizballah and Hamas, and might have intended to employ such surrogates in the event of war.

 

(U) Conclusion 92. The Central Intelligence Agency's examination of contacts, training, safehaven and operational cooperation as indicators of a possible Iraq-al-Qaida relationship was a reasonable and objective approach to the question.

 

(U) Conclusion 93. The Central Intelligence Agency reasonably assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida throughout the 1990s, but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship.

 

(BLACKED OUT) Conclusion 94. The Central Intelligence Agency reasonably and objectively assessed in Iraqi Support/or Terrorism that the most problematic area of contact between Iraq and al-Qaida were the reports of training in the use of non-conventional weapons, specifically chemical and biological weapons.  BLACKED OUT

 

(U) Conclusion 95. The Central Intelligence Agency's assessment on safehaven - that al-Qaida or associated operatives were present in Baghdad and in northeastern Iraq in an area under Kurdish control - was reasonable.

 

(U) Conclusion 96. The Central Intelligence Agency's assessment that to date there was no evidence proving Iraqi complicity or assistance in an al-Qaida attack was reasonable and objective. No additional information has emerged to suggest otherwise.

 

(U) Conclusion 97. The Central Intelligence Agency's judgment that Saddam Hussein, if sufficiently desperate, might employ terrorists with a global reach - al-Qaida - to conduct terrorist attacks in the event of war, was reasonable. No information has emerged thus far to suggest that Saddam did try to employ al-Qaida in conducting terrorist attacks.

 

Like I said, this is hardly the end-all-be-all source about Al-Queda and Iraq but it shows that while the two were hardly bound at the hip, they did have some connections at the very least.

[Guest GreatOne]

Being "mis-led" and "making things up" are not the same thing.

 

And yes, a mid card wrestling tag team are the one's who set the bar for the notion of ciriticizing America, and thus I hang on their every word. Good insight.

Misleading would imply that there was no good reason to go there, and there were many of them.

 

OK would it make you feel any better if I used Air America, Bill Maher, and Michael Moore (all political experts mind you ) and subbed them for Vince McMahon then?

 

Vince McMahon (who, of course, is a bastion of integrity when it comes to impartial politics)

 

And so are any of the other above mentioned.........

 

actually try and address the points instead of running away while shouting about how you're too good to come up with an arguement.

 

Hey did you hear that Chirac is trying to cockblock our efforts to get Saddam out of Iraq? In other words, you're a little late, I've been doing just that junior.

[Guest MikeSC]

Due to problems left by the previous administrations and very much supported by Kerry. It's like saying the Depression was Hoover's fault because it happened on his watch.

                -=Mike

Wow, I can see your point. Its fucking Clinton's fault Bush ignored all those warnings from the Clinton Administration about Al Quaeda. How dare he snatch that "Threat Eminent" memo away from Bush! That dirty bastard!

Clinton, to be generous, is full of shit. If terrorism was SO important to him --- heck, you'd think he'd have mentioned it at least once in his final address.

Is it now? Over 17,000 Iraqi's have died already, around 300 a week, the equivalent of a 9/11 happening every week in the US per capita.

Hint: The mass graves held A LOT of bodies.

Less we forget the woman on Nightline (who is pro-American and teaches English btw) stating that things are so bad since the American invasion she sometimes wishes Saddam were still in power, which is a widespread sentiment.

One woman's comment = "widespread sentiment"?

And the reasons for the war? Please, enlighten me. No one's ignoring Bush's reason, they hold extremely dertrimental consequences. So, what are they?

Part WMD. Part Saddam's destabilization of the regime. Part Saddam's pursuit of more WMD. Part concern about him shipping weapons off to terrorism. Part concern about his treatment of fellow Iraqis. His reasons were numerous.

To remove an oppressive dictator? So that was the real reason 150,000 troops were sent to bomb Iraq? Gee, there's no hidden agenda here, otherwise the World's Police would be removing various other dictators around the world.

That is a red herring. If we DID that, you'd bitch about that, too.

 

Official US policy has been regime change in Iraq. This is not a new thing.

Uh huh, so you don't dispute the aforementioned point. And when the US is attacked by a group of mostly Saudia Arabians, US attacks....Iraq? Gotta love that logic.

You must be mistaking me for somebody with any positive feelings for the Saud family.

 

Why don't we attack Arabia? Well, the whole concern of an economic catastrophe for us if we did so is probably one reason.

Ah, so the entire world is wrong and America is right? It's that type of arrogance thats casts the US in such a negative light around the world. Not being able to recognize past and current mistakes only makes things worse. For all the good the US does, it seems to never acknowledge it's blunders and worldwide exploitations.

I'll say it --- yes, the world is WRONG. Flat out. Has been wrong for many years and it won't change anytime soon.

 

Why in the hell should we commit never-ending self-flagellation when the rest of the world is STILL doing little more than total int'l exploitation. Hearing the French criticize us for exploitation and imperialism is laughable.

If by prod, you mean implement sanctions to countries that don't follow suit, then i'm glad the US is setting such a fine example. Or, as in the case of Australia coaxing the country into a free trade agreement to join their cause (despite 70% of the nation opposing the war) So the large majority in nearly every country that oppose such actions are wrong?

The public doesn't want to DO anything, by and large. Doing nothing is ALWAYS the preferred option.

 

Again, the "world" preferred to simply give up land to Hitler rather than fight him.

Ya, and they've all proven to be a farce with nothing redeeming coming out of it.

Fortunately, your assumptions are of precious little concern.

Iraq lacks various economic, social and cultural conditions that have set the sate for democracy in other nations, and has no previous experience with such a concept. Democracy needs to be built into cultural values, not makeshift parties, elections and puppet regiemes to 'make everything better'. Tolerance is another key issue, a reason why the US is able to sustain it's "democracy". This of course, in reference to religious and cultural ideologies, including racial tolerance and freedom of speech something that will simply not stand in Iraq. In short, Iraq lacks all the precondtions needed for a democracy to flourish.

 

Iraq is not an agreed upon creation by it's people, and if elections were held today the people would vote to stop having democracy, but instead a rabid fundamentalist group.

And the difference between Iraq and Germany and Japan circa 1945 is...what?

Whether deemed illegal or not, it's painfully obvious the war is immoral and a huge humanitarian crisis with little to no positive outcomes. Sacrificing human rights in the name of security at home have not increased security or insured liberty.

Doing nothing in the face of evil is worse than utter craven cowardice.

Ah, so your admitting here that the Bush Administration mis-led the public to fit it's own war agenda. And that the the moral reasons wouldn't genereate support? Immoral actions usually don't. But thanks for clearing that up.

Nice try.

 

Bush had NUMEROUS reasons. He focused on the issues that MIGHT get the world to get off their collective asses and do the right thing for the first time in many years.

 

It's sad that simply "He's an evil man" is not enough for some. Then again, the benefits Europe has given the world have been pretty damned minimal for the past century or so.

-=Mike

[Guest GreatOne]

I'll unveil my sources when you do yours, fair enough?

My sources for what? You're claiming that Kerry says that a vote for GW is a vote for the draft, and I want to know when and where he said that, plain and simple.

BTW was Kerry wrong in your opinion to play the 'Bush wants to suppress the black vote' card three weeks ago? Or am I just being unfair here?

 

Or is it just another case of 'He can but HE can't'?

[Jingus 0]

BTW was Kerry wrong in your opinion to play the 'Bush wants to suppress the black vote' card three weeks ago? Or am I just being unfair here?

I didn't know he played that card. What exactly did he say, and can you provide a source for it? (Still waiting on those other sources BTW.)

 

Or is it just another case of 'He can but HE can't'?

 

Nope, in my mind all presidential candidates are created equal. (Little tidbit: I'm not gonna be voting for Kerry.)

[Guest MikeSC]

BTW was Kerry wrong in your opinion to play the 'Bush wants to suppress the black vote' card three weeks ago? Or am I just being unfair here?

I didn't know he played that card. What exactly did he say, and can you provide a source for it? (Still waiting on those other sources BTW.)

WASHINGTON - John Kerry (news - web sites) suggested Saturday night that Republicans may try to keep black voters from casting their ballots to help President Bush (news - web sites) win in November. "We are not going to stand by and allow another million African American votes to go uncounted in this election," the Democratic presidential nominee told the Congressional Black Caucus (news - web sites).

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._on_el_pr/kerry

Keep in mind, the only person in 2000 with a legitimate bitch about everything --- is George Bush. I can go down a long list of problems Bush had in FL.