Kerry Doesn't Have the "Judgement" Or "Credibility" To Be Prez...According To Kerry

[RINGLEADER]

KERRY SAYS IRAQ WAR MADE U.S. LESS SAFE: "The satisfaction we take in [Saddam's] downfall does not hide this fact: we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."

KERRY IN DECEMBER: "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."

http://www.abcnews.com/sections/politics/NotedNow/Noted_Now.html

[homey]

Kerry being an idiot doesn't change to fact that Bush has to learn foreign policy at the expense of our troops.

[Duck Dog]

Kerry being an idiot doesn't change to fact that Bush has to learn foreign policy at the expense of our troops.

Would you please try and write one sentence that makes sense?

[Cochise]

I finally agree with sKerry. :eek:

[homey]

That Kerry changing his position on Iraq doesn't change Bushes mistakes. It's ignoring the issue. Kinda like the whole military service issue (on both sides). Our world is less safe because of the Iraqi war and it seems the typical neo response is, "Kerry's a flip flopper." SOrry you can't comprehend logic.

[Duck Dog]

That Kerry changing his position on Iraq doesn't change Bushes mistakes. It's ignoring the issue. Kinda like the whole military service issue (on both sides). Our world is less safe because of the Iraqi war and it seems the typical neo response is, "Kerry's a flip flopper." SOrry you can't comprehend logic.


No, the typical response is;

How safe were we before the Iraq war? You know, when the f'n towers came down. What did we do to 'deserve' that in your mind?

Why was the WTC bombed the first time? Why was the USS Cole bombed? Why was Kholbar Towers bombed? Why were the US Embassies in Africa bombed?

All of which occurred before the Iraq War.

Is that enough on target for ya?

[homey]

No, the typical response is;

How safe were we before the Iraq war? You know, when the f'n towers came down. What did we do to 'deserve' that in your mind?

Why was the WTC bombed the first time? Why was the USS Cole bombed? Why was Kholbar Towers bombed? Why were the US Embassies in Africa bombed?

All of which occurred before the Iraq War.

Is that enough on target for ya?

Iraq posed no threat to us. You're lying to yourself if you think they did. I don't get your questions before the "Al of which..." line. Are you wanting me to retort with the daily attacks on our troops since our "mission was accomplished?" I think you're confusing the war on terror and the Iraqi war.

[Duck Dog]

Iraq posed no threat to us. You're lying to yourself if you think they did. I don't get your questions following the "AAl of which..." line. Are you wanting me to retort with the daily attacks on our troops since out "mission was accomplished?" I think you're confusing the war on terror and the Iraqi war.

You said and I quote;
Our world is less safe because of the Iraqi war

Should I only respond to the statements you want me to respond to?

How many times does it need to be said that the "Mission Accomplished" sign was ment for the aircraft carrier and their sailors. They were going home because their mission was accomplished.

Who is confussing the WoT with the War in Iraq? You are.

You said, and I quote;
I don't get your questions following the "AAl of which..." line. Are you wanting me to retort with the daily attacks on our troops since out "mission was accomplished?"

So are you admitting the daily attacks are terror related? Or is it part of the Iraq War?

[Cochise]

homey sounds a lot like Michael Moore droning on.

"there is no terrorist threat... there is no terrorist threat...How many people died because of terrorism last year?... these were just occasional, horrible incidents..."

[RINGLEADER]

Iraq posed no threat to us. You're lying to yourself if you think they did. I don't get your questions before the "Al of which..." line. Are you wanting me to retort with the daily attacks on our troops since our "mission was accomplished?" I think you're confusing the war on terror and the Iraqi war.

Iraq posed no threat? Not according to John Kerry and John Edwards circa March, 2003 (when their complaints - if they had any - would be much more relevant). Instead, senators like Edwards went further than even the White House in declaring Saddam an "imminent" threat to the United States.

As far as confusing the War on Terror with the Iraq War is concerned, John Kerry said last week that they were one in the same. Not my opinion, HIS words.

But if Kerry could actually come up with a plan he might be taken more seriously and his indecisiveness might be easier to overlook. Unfortunately, Kerry's plan is essentially to bash Bush for not implementing more reconstruction in Iraq while claiming that he would open up the bidding process to other countries that didn't shoulder the load with us in getting Saddam out in the first place. The only problems with these arguments are a) Kerry voted AGAINST the reconstruction aid he now criticizes Bush for not spending, and b) the contracts are already being bid on by the countries that Kerry is promising to entice with the funds he voted against.

And don't forget that Kerry has previously said that he intends to transfer the $18.1 billion in reconstruction aid to the United Nations if elected (despite the fact that the law prevents him and in spite of the bang-up job that the UN did administering the Oil-For-Food program).

Kerry's answer to everything seems to be to convene blue-ribbon panels and hold conferences so that any decision that is reached can plausibly be laid at someone else's feet. That's not leadership, but it does help explain why Kerry trails Bush by 25 points on the issues of leadership and security.

[RINGLEADER]

homey sounds a lot like Michael Moore droning on.

"there is no terrorist threat... there is no terrorist threat...How many people died because of terrorism last year?... these were just occasional, horrible incidents..."


But at least we know John Kerry will respond AFTER we're attacked. Dude can't be bothered to stop the terrorists BEFORE they attack us.

[homey]

Iraq posed no threat? Not according to John Kerry and John Edwards circa March, 2003 (when their complaints - if they had any - would be much more relevant). Instead, senators like Edwards went further than even the White House in declaring Saddam an "imminent" threat to the United States.

As far as confusing the War on Terror with the Iraq War is concerned, John Kerry said last week that they were one in the same. Not my opinion, HIS words.

But if Kerry could actually come up with a plan he might be taken more seriously and his indecisiveness might be easier to overlook. Unfortunately, Kerry's plan is essentially to bash Bush for not implementing more reconstruction in Iraq while claiming that he would open up the bidding process to other countries that didn't shoulder the load with us in getting Saddam out in the first place. The only problems with these arguments are a) Kerry voted AGAINST the reconstruction aid he now criticizes Bush for not spending, and b) the contracts are already being bid on by the countries that Kerry is promising to entice with the funds he voted against.

And don't forget that Kerry has previously said that he intends to transfer the $18.1 billion in reconstruction aid to the United Nations if elected (despite the fact that the law prevents him and in spite of the bang-up job that the UN did administering the Oil-For-Food program).

Kerry's answer to everything seems to be to convene blue-ribbon panels and hold conferences so that any decision that is reached can plausibly be laid at someone else's feet. That's not leadership, but it does help explain why Kerry trails Bush by 25 points on the issues of leadership and security.

See, this is what I'm talking about. How is this a testament to Bush's policies? It's just anti-Kerry. What do you have to say?

[homey]

But at least we know John Kerry will respond AFTER we're attacked. Dude can't be bothered to stop the terrorists BEFORE they attack us.

Again, what Iraqi terrorist posed a threat?

[Duck Dog]

Again, what Iraqi terrorist posed a threat?

Sodom.

[KCWolfman]

Kerry being an idiot doesn't change to fact that Bush has to learn foreign policy at the expense of our troops.
That damned Roosevelt did the same stupid thing.

[KCWolfman]

Iraq posed no threat to us. You're lying to yourself if you think they did. I don't get your questions before the "Al of which..." line. Are you wanting me to retort with the daily attacks on our troops since our "mission was accomplished?" I think you're confusing the war on terror and the Iraqi war.
Iraq funded international terrorists. The NIMBY concept to world policy stopped being effective in 1750.

[jettio]

Bush is obviously vulnerable on Iraq for exactly the reasons that Kerry outlined today.

Commentators and the Bush campaign have incessantly offered the theory that Kerry can't challenge Bush on Iraq.

I doubt that theory. If Kerry reasonably speaks about the incompetence and pattern of deceit, it can be very convincing, because it is very obviously true.

Bush looked shaky today and mischaracterized Kerry's statements.

Ten days from the first debate and that debate has been changed to foreign policy.

Bush better had be careful about what he says in the next ten days in mischaracterizations because he will invite the moderator to challenge him on the comments and Kerry will be right there with him, ready to call BS.

Kerry has Truth in his arsenal, effectively deploying that is all he has to do.

I am quite sure that finalizing the debate plans coming down the same day that Kerry surprisingly gave his most effective anti-Bush speech is causing some serious rectum puckering at the White House.

[KCWolfman]

Bush is obviously vulnerable on Iraq for exactly the reasons that Kerry outlined today.

Commentators and the Bush campaign have incessantly offered the theory that Kerry can't challenge Bush on Iraq.

I doubt that theory. If Kerry reasonably speaks about the incompetence and pattern of deceit, it can be very convincing, because it is very obviously true.

Bush looked shaky today and mischaracterized Kerry's statements.

Ten days from the first debate and that debate has been changed to foreign policy.

Bush better had be careful about what he says in the next ten days in mischaracterizations because he will invite the moderator to challenge him on the comments and Kerry will be right there with him, ready to call BS.

Kerry has Truth in his arsenal, effectively deploying that is all he has to do.

I am quite sure that finalizing the debate plans coming down the same day that Kerry surprisingly gave his most effective anti-Bush speech is causing some serious rectum puckering at the White House.

How many of these speeches have I read from jettio over the last few months? One would think that if he were accurate, Kerry would be enjoying a 10 point lead instead of still playing catchup.