John Kerry Is A Douchebag, But I'm Voting For Him Anyway (Website Within)

[GundamGuy]

Giuliani: "He even, at one point, declared himself an antiwar candidate, and now he says he's a pro-war candidate."

The context: Giuliani's statement appears derived from an appearance by Kerry in January in which he was asked on MSNBC's "Hardball" if he was one of the candidates "unhappy with the war has been fought, the way it's been fought . . . are you one of the antiwar candidates?" He answered: "I am. Yes. In the sense that I don't believe the president took to us war as he should have, yes. Absolutely. Do I think this president violated his promises to America? Yes, I do, Chris. Was there a way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable? You bet there was and we should have done it right."


How did Kerry suppose we hold Saddam acountable?

"Yes. In the sense that I don't believe the president took to us war as he should have,"

Threw a war.
You said it your self. He is not against having a war to hold him accounable. He is against this war we have now, because he does not agree with how Bush rushed us into it with out an Exit plan, or a plan to win the peace.

He's not an OMG no War's ever kind of guy, he's an if you going to have a war, do it correctly kind of guy.(Plan for the aftermath, try deplomicy till the last second before the bombs are droped, and get lots of suport from the world.)

[escobar]

...and Bush doesnt flip flop?

In 2000, Bush argued against new military entanglements and nation building. He's done both in Iraq.

He opposed a Homeland Security Department, then embraced it.

He opposed creation of an independent Sept. 11 commission, then supported it. He first refused to speak to its members, then agreed only if Vice President Dick Cheney came with him.

Bush argued for free trade, then imposed three-year tariffs on steel imports in 2002, only to withdraw them after 21 months.

Last month, he said he doubted the war on terror could be won, then reversed himself to say it could and would.

A week after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush said he wanted Osama bin Laden 'dead or alive.' But he told reporters six months later, "I truly am not that concerned about him." He did not mention Bin Laden in his hour-long convention acceptance speech.

"I'm a war president," Bush told NBC's 'Meet the Press' on Feb. 8. But in a July 20 speech in Iowa, he said: "Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president."

Bush keeps revising his Iraq war rationale: The need to seize Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction until none were found; liberating the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator; fighting terrorists in Iraq not at home; spreading democracy throughout the Middle East. Now it's a safer America and a safer world.

"No matter how many times Senator Kerry flip-flops, we were right to make America safer by removing Saddam Hussein from power," - Bush

Bush has changed his positions on new Clean Air Act restrictions, protecting the Social Securitysurplus, tobacco subsidies, the level of assistance to help combat AIDs in Africa, campaign finance overhaul and whether to negotiate with North Korean officials.

[reagan80]

I'm fed up with Bush!
Go kerry! I don't live in the US though

I've noticed that a lot of people overseas hate Bush, but they overwhelmingly like Kerry.

http://fpc.org.uk/fsblob/299.pdf

58% of Europeans polled said that they think strong US leadership in world affairs is UNDESIRABLE, but 79% of Americans polled said that strong EU leadership in world affairs is DESIRABLE. I'm wondering who those 58% polled would reccomend to American voters.......

There was another interesting poll where 71% of Europeans wanted to become a superpower like the US, but when they were asked if they wanted to increase military spending in order to achieve that goal 47% withdrew their support. Turn away from socialism and you can have your superpower with the added bonus of unemployment in the single digits..........

There should be more choice, especially in a democracy.

We have third parties already, but it isn't our system's fault they don't get elected at the national level.

Don't blame democracy. Blame the voters.

If you know any flip-flops that you think are perfect, watertight examples of how changeable Kerry is, go right ahead and post them. You will be proven wrong.

Here's one..........

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/P...ry_040319.html

Kerry was going to vote for the $87 billion, but alas Howard Dean was surging in the polls with his anti-war screeds so Kerry had to change his image to appeal to his base by voting against the funding. Kerry prioritized politics over national security in that vote.

Here are a couple interesting Kerry quotes....

"If You Don't Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn't Vote For Me."

"If you do not think that Saddam Hussein with his weapons program poses a grave threat to the United States, you should not vote for me"

[reagan80]

I think Bush shifts positions more than anyone...and without thinking of the consequences of these said positions..."We must go to war with Iraq. They have WMDs"...."Ok, maybe Iraq doesn't have WMDs, but it's still a threat"

Bush might have shifted the focus for his reasons for going to war, but he has always been consistent about whether or not to keep fighting the war. That is a big difference.

In 2000, Bush argued against new military entanglements and nation building. He's done both in Iraq.

Well, you're right, but you seem to have forgotten why he broke that campaign pledge.........9/11

He opposed creation of an independent Sept. 11 commission, then supported it. He first refused to speak to its members, then agreed only if Vice President Dick Cheney came with him.

They knew the commission was probably going to be turned into a "blame Bush for everything" event. They were right.

A week after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush said he wanted Osama bin Laden 'dead or alive.' But he told reporters six months later, "I truly am not that concerned about him." He did not mention Bin Laden in his hour-long convention acceptance speech.

Bush was not concerned about bin Laden being able to successfully coordinate a terrorist attack on American soil at the time. Afterall, our troops drove most of al Qaeda out of Afghanistan and killed most of its leadership.

Wow, he didn't mention bin Laden. You must think that he is the queen ant that spawns terrorism. "If we just kill bin Laden, we'll stop getting attacked by his terror drones since they'll all die without their leader." The War on Terror doesn't end with the death of bin Laden. Bush knows this, so he is trying to go beyond bin Laden to try and clean out the terror breeding grounds in the greater Middle East. Iraq is the first to go. Maybe Iran or Syria is next.........

Kerry just doesn't get it. It isn't just about bin Laden......

[Ziegfried]

They knew the commission was probably going to be turned into a "blame Bush for everything" event. They were right.

If an independent commission blames Bush for everything... Get the hint?

[reagan80]

If an independent commission blames Bush for everything... Get the hint?

The only thing that wasn't totally partisan was the final report. During the weeks of proceedings before that however, the commission was a Bush-bashing media circus due to such "independent" members as Richard Ben-Veniste and Jamie Gorelick. They were really Clinton hacks.......

[GundamGuy]

Kerry was going to vote for the $87 billion, but alas Howard Dean was surging in the polls with his anti-war screeds so Kerry had to change his image to appeal to his base by voting against the funding.

That's not why he voted against it at all. He voted for the original bill, that was VETOED by BUSH and then refused to vote on the bill that had an spending loophole in it...

[Fighter17]

I hate kerry, he filp fops, go Bush.

[ganandorf]

Kerry just doesn't get it. It isn't just about bin Laden......

I know. it was that evil Saddam that organized 9/11. thank god we have him... :eyeball:

[KnightofNachos]

I'm so sick of the "flip-flop" accusation being used as the sole attack against Kerry. People can change their mind when they learn about new things and such. It's also good to be able to admit mistakes, as this positively delightful political cartoon illiustrates:

[reagan80]

That's not why he voted against it at all. He voted for the original bill, that was VETOED by BUSH and then refused to vote on the bill that had an spending loophole in it...

This cracks me up........

Lookie here.......... http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...gress.iraq.ap/

Why did Bush threaten to veto the original bill? Because Congress was going to make Iraq pay back some of that money we were giving them for their reconstruction. Here's some other reasons the White House gave for why they made the veto threat........

"Including a loan mechanism slows efforts to stabilize the region and to relieve pressure on our troops, raises questions about our commitment to building a democratic and self-governing Iraq, and impairs our ability to encourage other nations to provide badly needed assistance without saddling Iraq with additional debt," the letter said.

Most important of all, you Bush-haters actually wanted him to pass the original bill with the loans so that you could point at him and say, "I knew it! The war was really just for economic reasons! AND OIL!!! Bush didn't give a shit about the Iraqis! He just wanted to increase the debts on the impoverished Iraqi people! I bet he schemed with his buddies at the World Bank and IMF just to exploit them like he does every other Third World country! Bah, death to the shrub!!101011011"

Well, Bush had it his way and gave the Iraqis billions in grants that they don't have to pay back without including any loans in the deal. I know this knowledge won't change any of your minds, but oh well it was fun.............

EDIT:

I know. it was that evil Saddam that organized 9/11. thank god we have him...

IF we went to war with North Korea instead, you would have bitched about many things. You would have said the same thing you just posted about Kim Jung Il. You would have said that North Koreans aren't Islamic. You would have bitched if China entered the war on the North's side. You would have bitched if a draft resulted.

IF we went to war with Iran instead, oh the hell with it.......I doubt you would have supported any war against an Axis of Evil member, so why bother trying to explain. What I do know is that Bush is trying to form an anti-terrorism alliance with the Iraqis and that he has troops in a strategic location to wipe the floor with any other regional troublespot such as Iran or Syria if necessary.

I'm so sick of the "flip-flop" accusation being used as the sole attack against Kerry. People can change their mind when they learn about new things and such. It's also good to be able to admit mistakes, as this positively delightful political cartoon illiustrates:

Bush might have made mistakes in this war, but you want him ousted even though he has a plan that will eventually lead to success. FDR made a lot of mistakes in WW2, but we didn't have the opposition party(GOP) calling for his head back then especially when the Battle of the Bulge occurred.

[Borman]

Yea, Bush acts, but he does it horribly. Vote Kerry

[Kosmo Yagkoto]

Bush might have made mistakes in this war, but you want him ousted even though he has a plan that will eventually lead to success. FDR made a lot of mistakes in WW2, but we didn't have the opposition party(GOP) calling for his head back then especially when the Battle of the Bulge occurred.

Yeah and FDR started Social Security and we know how that turned out. And what you said about everything in your previous post was correct. Everyone would have complained attack any country, so they obviously don't understand the threat of terrorism.

[GundamGuy]

This cracks me up........

Lookie here.......... http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...gress.iraq.ap/

Why did Bush threaten to veto the original bill? Because Congress was going to make Iraq pay back some of that money we were giving them for their reconstruction. Here's some other reasons the White House gave for why they made the veto threat........

"Including a loan mechanism slows efforts to stabilize the region and to relieve pressure on our troops, raises questions about our commitment to building a democratic and self-governing Iraq, and impairs our ability to encourage other nations to provide badly needed assistance without saddling Iraq with additional debt," the letter said.

Most important of all, you Bush-haters actually wanted him to pass the original bill with the loans so that you could point at him and say, "I knew it! The war was really just for economic reasons! AND OIL!!! Bush didn't give a shit about the Iraqis! He just wanted to increase the debts on the impoverished Iraqi people! I bet he schemed with his buddies at the World Bank and IMF just to exploit them like he does every other Third World country! Bah, death to the shrub!!101011011"

Well, Bush had it his way and gave the Iraqis billions in grants that they don't have to pay back without including any loans in the deal. I know this knowledge won't change any of your minds, but oh well it was fun.............

LOL you realy think that the "Bush_Haters" would try to entrap him like at the expense of others that... LMAO

Also it does not matter whats in the bill, what matters is the that bush Vetoed the bill that he has been giveing Kerry a hard time for not suporting.

[Paladin_Hammer]

Hi. Paladin Hammer? Give me one example of his supposed flip-flops. They're all gobshite and spin. If you had actually, you know, gone to the site that this thread is about, and in particular checked out this essay, you would realise that.

If you know any flip-flops that you think are perfect, watertight examples of how changeable Kerry is, go right ahead and post them. You will be proven wrong.

Haha, you actually think Kerry is honest. John Kerry voted for the War in Iraq, then AFTER the war said that he wouldn't have gone, HE VOTED FOR IT! Then, Kerry claims he wouldn't have sent troops overseas without bodyarmor, HE VOTED DOWN THE BILLIONS BUSH WANTED TO SPEND ON OUR TROOPS. Kerry also accuses bush a voter supersion in 2000, yet no evidence has been provided.

Back to Iraq, in an itneveiw last week with CNN, Kerry was asked if he would send troops to Iraq knowing what he knew BEFORE the war, Kerry said yes. Then when asked if he would send troops to Iraq knowing what we know now, Kerry said he wouldn't have done it. THATS WHAT BUSH IS SAYING.

Kerry is the king of smacktards, nuff said.