How long are you Democrats going to give Kerry a free ride on this?:
S President George W Bush has challenged Democratic rival John Kerry to name the foreign leaders he says privately support him in the election.
“If you’re going to make an accusation in the course of a presidential campaign, you ought to back it up with facts,” Mr Bush said.
Mr Kerry has said he stands by his claim, but was unable to name the leaders without betraying confidences.
“I’m not making anything up at all,” the Massachusetts senator said.
Mr Kerry said last week that he had heard from some foreign leaders who he said were quietly hoping that he would beat Mr Bush on 2 November.
And amid Republican suggestions that he was making it up, Mr Kerry told the Associated Press news agency: “I stand by my statement.
Start naming some names, or STFU, Mr. Kerry.
BTW- according to this latest poll, your word isn’t worth very much:
Says What He Believes:
Bush
Yes———–51%
No————45%
Don’t know— 4%Kerry
Yes———–33%
No————57%
Don’t know–10%
While the leftcan keep trying to convince themselves that Kerry’s lies, flip-flops, and waffling are signs of heightened intelligence, the public isn’t buying it.
Joshua Price
I don’t know why anyone would say something they don’t believe. But I’ve noticed democrats usually have to do this because what they believe is evil.
HH
Mere days after the attack in Spain and Kerry accuses Bush of “changing the subject” from important issues, like, say, health care. There’s some subject-changing going on alright.
By the way the man who questioned Kerry (who once voted Carter by the way) has called for an investigation into Kerry’s contacts with foreign leaders. One need not be reminded of ’96.
Mark L
Names? Names?
Well, for starters, Sen. Kerry had a long face-to-face with the Prime Minister of Erehwon in February. It was from 3:00am to 5:OOam (John Boy finds it hard to sleep on nights before primaries).
Then there was the sit-down dinner he had with the Chancellor of Graustark, just last Sunday — you know, when he went from his staff for a long talk with himself.
And of course we must not forget the chocolate breakfast he had with the President of Freedonia. In January. Yeah. That’s right. A long tete-a-tete, just the Senator and the President. So cosy.
I’m sure we can come up with some more. All it takes is a quick trip to Sen. Kerry’s imaginary friend land.
doncoop
I don’t think that there is any doubt that Bush has alienated many foreigners, and caused big problems for their leaders, who are in danger of getting kicked out of office if they support us. It was unwise of Kerry to mention this, but the GOP is acting like they don’t realize how unpopular Bush is overseas. Are they really this clueless?
Mark L
The President’s primary job is:
1. To protect the American people from enemy attacks, both domestic and foreign.
2. To make life easy for foreign politicians who are taking billions in bribe money from some of the nastiest criminals in the world, especially if those nasty criminals are abetting attacks against the United States and its allies.
If you picked (1), you are a clueless Republican.
If you picked (2) you are a nuanced Democrat.
Trump
don’t think that there is any doubt that Bush has alienated many foreigners, and caused big problems for their leaders, who are in danger of getting kicked out of office if they support us. It was unwise of Kerry to mention this, but the GOP is acting like they don’t realize how unpopular Bush is overseas. Are they really this clueless?
Once again…..THE POINT IS THAT KERRY LIED ABOUT MEETING FOREIGN LEADERS.
Hello!
Also, I find it offensive that Kerry is basically campaigning on a platform of Kerry being better for foreigners. Excuse me, but only Americans vote here. Last time I looked, the french vote didn’t count.
Trump
By the way…as unpopular as Bush is overseas….is there a coalition in Iraq? Are US and French troops operating together in Hati? Is the UN (with US support) working on the Iran situation? Howabout the multilateral solution we’re working on with N. Korea.
Man, that evil Bush’s policies have made it impossible for other nations to work with us…
Mito
I’m sure Bush can sort this out very quickly. He should release a list of those foreign leaders he believes support him. Then the press can go and ask them if they really support Bush or not.
It shouldn’t take him long, he could write the list on the back of a stamp with a crayon.
Ezra
Wow, this is pathetic. Look at you guys…utterly unable to deal with the substance of the charge, reduced to begging for names and wondering if Kerry actually had the lamb or not.
I guess it’s because you really don’t want to face the drop in our international prestige, not to mention the fact that Kerry’s quote illuminates an important, and well-accepted, truth. Our worldwide standing is screwed like it hasn’t been in decades. Worse, it’s screwed at the very moment when we need allies.
Just to bring this a bit farther; Spain leaving Iraq had nothing to do with terror or the Iraqis, it was a rejection of us. You want to fight terror effectively and build the coalition that can provide the necessary troops and money to overthrow dictators and rebuild their countries, you need someone who hasn’t turned the rest of the world against us.
Bush is not that man.
Oh wait, sorry, we weren’t talking about that. Kerry was damn imprecise and somewhat misquoted….I’m suitably furious. Sorry ’bout veering into the substance of the charge there.
Chris
International prestige! Just what Americans are clamoring for! I literally cry at night knowing the French hate us.
“Spain leaving Iraq had nothing to do with terror or the Iraqis, it was a rejection of us.”
So let me get this assertion straight: The Spanish are leaving Iraq because of the U.S. I coulda swore they’re leaving Iraq because they believe being there caused them to get hit with a terrorist attack.
“You want to fight terror effectively and build the coalition that can provide the necessary troops and money to overthrow dictators and rebuild their countries,”
Yes, because Europe has such a great track record of removing dangerous killers and preventing chaos and death. Let’s see, there was Pol Pot—no wait, he was removed by neighboring armies too late to prevent the killing fields. There’s Milosevic—-no, the UN wouldn’t have any of that; the U.S. had to take charge. There was Rwanda—-well, actually the UN refused to do anything to stop that genocide. There’s Congo—no, UN help there. And of course there was Iraqno, the UN and Europe didn’t enforce any of the 17 resolutions against it, instead sleeping as member nations made sweet deals for themselves off the food-for-oil program.
“Our worldwide standing is screwed like it hasn’t been in decades. Worse, it’s screwed at the very moment when we need allies.”
In Iraq, 4 of the 7 G7 nations are there, 11 of the 19 NATO countries contributed troops and 13 of the 25 EU nations have contributed troops. But I thought our worldwide standing was screwed, and we don’t have allies.
Then again, those nations are “fradulent” according to the beloved foreign policy hawk John Kerry.
And unless I’m mistaken, a coalition DID overthrow a dictator and is rebuilding said dictator’s country.
But of course John Kerry would build an even BIGGER coalition because the French would completely change their postion of opposing US foreign policy if only JFK were president. Yeah.
I hope Kerry tries to argue his case this poorly.
Ezra
” The Spanish are leaving Iraq because of the U.S. I coulda swore they’re leaving Iraq because they believe being there caused them to get hit with a terrorist attack.”
Well, we’re all allowed to be wrong. The Spanish aren’t leaving Iraq because of that; they’re leaving Iraq because they never wanted to be there in the first place. And the main reason most were so reluctant to follow us in there is the destruction of American prestige abroad; since they don’t admire us, they have no reason to want to follow us into wars that have nothing to do with them (not only was iraq not a threat to us, they weren’t a threat to Spain). George W. Bush has done everything he could to intensify the diminishment of the American image abroad and it’s having real consequences for our foreign policy. The Spanish never supported the war and never wished to be in there and our diminished capital wasn’t enough to get them on our side. That’s why they’re pulling out.
As for your next point, we’re not exactly that great about removing dictators either. Regardless of who’s killed more bad guys, the point here is that if we want to do it, we’re better off having broad international coalitions that enjoy popular support. If we don’t improve our standing abroad, we’ll have neither. Remember, it was only the paucity of support for the War in Iraq which allowed the Socialist government to pull out, had the Spanish people supported it, the terrorist attack would have simply redoubled their resolve.
“In Iraq, 4 of the 7 G7 nations are there, 11 of the 19 NATO countries contributed troops and 13 of the 25 EU nations have contributed troops. But I thought our worldwide standing was screwed, and we don’t have allies.”
Go compare their contributions to those they made during the first Gulf War. I’ll wait.
You done?
Good. Now stop using that argument, it’s utterly ridiculous. They’re there because we strong-armed so hard and the leaders of the nations want good relations with America. Aside from Britain, their support is minimal and their contribution really in name only and motivated by a desire to avoid our economic retribution.
“And unless I’m mistaken, a coalition DID overthrow a dictator and is rebuilding said dictator’s country.”
You don’t really view foreign affairs this simplistically, do you? A coalition means little unless the support is broad, the contributions meaningful and the backing enthusiastic. We’ve got none of that and it’s to our detriment.
I was for the Iraq War, strongly so. I’m also a foreign policy realist and in this day and age we need real international coalitions to carry out effective operations; we won’t get those until we turn Bush and his inept brand of diplomacy out of the White House. I urge you to go back and look at how his father conducted the war, the shuttle diplomacy, the broad and enthusiastic force, etc. We were in a much stronger position there and had we determined to march on Baghdad, we would have had real partners and international legitimacy aiding us in the effort.
Chris
“The Spanish aren’t leaving Iraq because of that; they’re leaving Iraq because they never wanted to be there in the first place.”
The Spaniards didn’t want to be there. However, they seemed poised to keep Aznar’s party in control, and thus stay in Iraq, until the train bombings occurred. Then they blamed everyone but the terrorists. It’s hard to argue against those who stated that their country’s involvement in Iraq was their reason for voting in the socialists.
“George W. Bush has done everything he could to intensify the diminishment of the American image abroad and it’s having real consequences for our foreign policy.”
Like hell. Bush did everything he could to get the UN behind him to disarm Hussein: first speaking there himself, then having Powell go to present the case. The UN voted unanimously for Hussein to turn over his weapons. But several countries, most notably France, had no intention of EVER making Hussein live up to the resolutions.
“Go compare their contributions to those they made during the first Gulf War.”
I see. So this coalition of countries and what it accomplishes doesn’t count if YOU don’t like it’s makeup (In reality, you don’t like the man leading the coalition). If the United States deems something necessary to it’s security under ANY president, it shouldn’t take action because France is fit to oppose it? Do you think the French sit around and wonder if America approves of what they do?
“and motivated by a desire to avoid our economic retribution.”
If you say so, Ezra. I forgot what evil horseshit the United States is.
“coalition means little unless the support is broad”
lol
It doesn’t? Is this rule written down somewhere? Apparently “broad” support is in the eye of the beholder. The French, Germans, Russians, Chinese and a bunch of Arab dictatorships and theocracies objected. Would it be nice if everyone was on board? Sure, but was it ever possible? Not in this case.
“I urge you to go back and look at how his father conducted the war, the shuttle diplomacy, the broad and enthusiastic force, etc. We were in a much stronger position there and had we determined to march on Baghdad, we would have had real partners and international legitimacy aiding us in the effort.”
It was a bigger coalition then because a few other countries decided to go along. This time Bush tried to get the entire Security Counsil’s vote, but some refused to join. He can’t force them to help. You seem to be really into “legitimate” coalitions and procedure over results. American security should come before the the whims of other nations.
Say down the line France is cowed by a major attack into not supporting the U.S. in the Security Counsil. The U.S. is hit with a biological attack by al qaeda on home soil, and we know where the perps are and what nation supported the attack. Do you support doing nothing because France is too petrified to vote with us?
Mito
You can count on Bush to take other people’s ideas, garble them and then claim he invented the concept. He did it with tax cuts like he was the first person to think of stimulating an economy this way, not Keynes.
The war on terror is another con. People have been fighting terrorists for thousands of years, and have a fair idea of what works. Typically the conflict is in between two sides who act in well worn ways in the conflict. The idea of not negotiating with terrorists, appeasing them as bad, etc is as old as Methusaleh. Literally.
Right wing dictatorships have been doing exactly the same thing for decades, not surprisingly promoted by Poppy Bush back then.
There have always been WMD’s in the sense a terrorist group could kill thousands of people in an attack. Mustard and nerve gas have been around since World War 1, and could have been used any time since then by terrorists. Nuclear devices and material could have been used as radiological weapons at least since the 60’s as well as the chance to steal an atomic bomb.
The PLO hijacked plenty of airplanes and could have used them as projectiles if they wanted to.
The point is that Bush is not on the cutting edge of any new ideas at all in the so called war on terror. Everything he has done and Al Quaeda has done has been done over and over again through the centuries.
All Bush is doing is picking a tired old response that has been done millions of times before (including by Hitler against the partisans and resistence) and claiming it’s some new doctrine.
Historically it works about as well as it’s working now. There are two aspects to defeating terrorism, peace and security. In the first instance you defeat it by negotiating with the terrorists. To do that you have to give up the tired old excuse they are bloodythirsty murderers and fanatics who want nothing. That’s the same excuse the British used against the IRA.
The second way to try and defeat terrorism is with security, to protect yourself against it and root out the terrorists. Again Bush didn’t invent the tiniest part of this, it’s the same tactic Colombia uses, Sri Lanka, India, Israel, Spain, etc.
It doesn’t work very well because there are too many vulnerable points. So the war on terror is promoted as something new when there is not the slightest thing new about it.
The question is whether there will be an attempt to make peace with Al Quaeda or to protect from them. Despite all the bluster the US moved out of Saudi Arabia to appease Al Quaeda and since then there have been no attacks on the US, it may have worked.
ape
Do we not have a very clear statement coming out from the above about what divides the Deomcratic & Republican point of view?
One side thinks international opinion matters, and the other doesn’t. Who cares what the French think? Quite right and a valid point of substance.
But you can’t claim that the French love Bush or that it is illegitimate to mention that they don’t on the part of Kerry if he is under the impression that this will help his cause.
So it’s obvious that the reason this issue has blown up is that the GOP knows Kerry associating himself with foreigners will help them enliven support, whilst the Dems are under the impression that foreign preferences might help them. So both sides like talking about it.
But the idea that Kerry lied? just silly.
CadillaqJaq
I think it’s silly that Kerry lied, but it shows us who he is in one small sense: a small man with simplistic solutions (kissing foreign asses) to big problems.
Boasting that he’d “met” with “foreign Leaders” one day, then backing off that self serving lie and telling a second days later is not my idea of the way one running for president should behave. If it’s true, he should name names; if not, as Colin Powell suggested: he should find something different to talk about.
As far as foreign countries liking us or not, who cares? Apparently the dreaded, hated, USA is still the place most of their population would prefer to live.
Dean
Just curious:
Do you think Ariel Sharon or Yasser Arafat has more support worldwide? Do you think Sharon or Arafat has greater prestige?
Based on this, would you rather support Sharon or Arafat (sorry, the “I’d support neither” option isn’t available).
trump
Ok Ezra, lets put it all on the table:
1) Bush has “lost” American prestiege around the world. WHAT AMERICAN PRESTIEGE? This mythical feeling of love and respect for America you seem to delude yourself about simply didn’t exist. Oh sure, Europe loved Clinton, but that only went so far. This mythology ofour “losing the sympathy we had after 9/11” is a load of horseshit. READ THE INTERNATIONAL EDITORIALS FROM THAT DAY. Even the famous Le Monde “we are all Americans” one basically went on to say we had it coming. Wow, some sympathy. PLUS, if the only time Europe feels for us is when 3,000 Americans die, screw them.
You want to know why they hate us?
Middle East hates us because their dictators whip the oppressed people against US and Israel as distraction against their poor living conditions. France hates us because Chirac tried his best to use the war to turn a French-led EU into a rival power bloc- which failed. Germany hates us because campaigning against Bush was the only way Schroeder could win (and he’ll soon be gone). The rest of the UN hates us because we exposed them for what they are- oh yeah, and we cut off the oil for food corruption money pipeline. That’s enough to ruin any foreign leaders day.
So yeah, foreign leaders don’t like Bush. BIG FREAKING DEAL.
2) Now lets deal with what you so cowardly refuse to deal with: AN OUTRIGHT LIE BY KERRY. It doesn’t matter if Kerry is actually right. He’s LYING THOUGH HIS TEETH. He never met with anyone, though he claimed he did. If this doesn’t raise a red flag for you, I guess you’re already a member of MoveOn.org.
3) Finally, a question….do you think foreign leaders would prefer someone because having them in charge would benefit those foreign leaders? After all, who’s interests do Chirac, et. al have at heart? Certainly not ours. So if they want Kerry, they must think Kerry would benefit them. Well excuse the hell out of me, but I think we need to be voting based on who benefits America more, not who benefits France, Germany and the UN more.
Believe me, if Bush is re-elected, these other nations will work with us, JUST LIKE THEY ARE NOW in Hati, Iran, etc.
This is not a fricking international popularity contest. Grow the hell up Ezra, and stop looking for foreign approval to vindicate you.
Phee
You Republicans realize you’re going to lose the election, don’t you?
Just like last time.
Calling Kerry a liar while ignoring Bush’s massive fabrications.
Get your collective heads out of your asses.
shark
Just like last time?
Republicans won the WHite House last time you idiot lmfao.
“Calling Kerry a liar while ignoring Bush’s massive fabrications”
Proof please?
Willoughby
Wow. Proof please? Are you serious? You have been drinking far to much of the Kool-Aid.
Also, some here have stated that the new Socialist government of Spain is pulling out of Iraq in response to the attacks. Actually, the Socialists had promised to pull out of Iraq before the attacks. This was because around 90% of the Spanish people never supported going into Iraq in the first place. You can accuse the Spanish voters of reacting to the attacks by electing the government most likely to pull out of Iraq. I think that’s wrong and that the vote was a reaction to Aznar’s lies, but you can believe the other. However, you cannot accuse the Socialists of changing their position due to the attacks. If you do, you’re just being intellectually dishonest.
Ezra
So I’ve been thinking a lot about Kerry’s “Foreign Leaders” comment (which actually said “more leaders”) lately. As far as I can see, it was the hook
You know Shark, I was going to reply to you in full, really take you down. But then I realized that there was no point. If you don’t believe that America had more prestige and more political capital pre-Bush, then there’s nothing I can do to convince you. You’re living in a make-believe world of your own, completely ignorant of, say, the First Gulf War coalition, or the 8 years of Clinton. And of course Clinton’s personality had something to do with it. Countries often take on the characteristics of their leader in the minds of foreigners, and Clinton was a highly intelligent, deeply thoughtful guy. And you know the Italians have never cared if people could keep it in their pants…
The Middle East hates us for a number of reasons, not least the one you mentioned but mostly our unceasing support of Israel. But fixing that (their hatred, not our support of Israel) requires far more than a change of leadership, it requires a whole new hearts and minds policy to be instituted. France doesn’t hate us, but they hate the fact that we tried to destroy the UN. Your read of Chirac’s motivations was too smart by half; war in Iraq was unpopular at home so he scored political points by opposing it. Your read of Germany is similarly Amero-centric and almost as flawed. The UN dislikes us (and remember how many countries are in there) because we threw the baby out with the bathwater. When there’s corruption somewhere, the thing to do is fix it, not burn down the building. We used the UN for our own purposes and ignored it when it suited us, you think that was an idealistic maneuver? Please, restrain your naivet
shark
I suspect Ezra, that you didn’t “really take me down” because you couldn’t.
Lets see…where to start. Selected quotes:
“completely ignorant of, say, the First Gulf War coalition,” —-as opposed to the coalition we have now? You mean the coalition that wouldn’t do allow any move into Baghdad? Wow, what a great coalition. So the coalition we have now is fradulent? I see…France’s blessing makes something legitimate. GOT IT.
” Countries often take on the characteristics of their leader in the minds of foreigners, and Clinton was a highly intelligent, deeply thoughtful guy”and the inference is Bush is neither. Wow, all these years of debate between right and left, and trhe left STILL recycles the “[INSERT REPUBLICAN HERE] is stupid line. Excuse me for being underwhelmed by this tactic.
“The Middle East hates us for a number of reasons, not least the one you mentioned but mostly our unceasing support of Israel” —IT’S THE JOOOS FAULT! A JEWISH NEOCON CABAL HAS INFILTRATED THE US GOVT!
“France doesn’t hate us, but they hate the fact that we tried to destroy the UN. Your read of Chirac’s motivations was too smart by half; war in Iraq was unpopular at home so he scored political points by opposing it”—-And all that oil bribery and weapons sales money, not to mention the giant oil contracts for French oil conglomerate had nothing to do with it…..noooooo. And Chirac never EVER expressed a desire to become the balancing pole to us. Never ever never.
“The UN dislikes us (and remember how many countries are in there) because we threw the baby out with the bathwater.” – The UN dislikes us because it is majority comprised of communists, dictators or theocrats. We may have “thown the baby out with the bathwater” but the UN allows the baby to drown in the bathwater while the debating society attempts to come to an ineffectual consensus on the matter of the drowning baby.
“We used the UN for our own purposes and ignored it when it suited us, you think that was an idealistic maneuver? Please, restrain your naivet
Dean
Ezra:
Bill Clinton claimed that the Sudanese pharma plant was manufacturing chemical weapons. No evidence of this ever appeared.
The point is NOT to bash Clinton on this. It is to point out that it is two VERY different things to have an intel failure, and to claim that the absence of WMD is proof that Dubya was lying about it.
Think about it. Much of the world was surprised that Mu’ammar Qaddafi had such an advanced NUCLEAR weapons development program. Does failure to cite this mean that governments were lying?
Black Swan
I guess I’m confused. Do Kerry supporters seriously believe that foreign countries don’t want to work with America because Bush *didn’t ask them nicely* for help? I didn’t realize foreign leaders were so shallow.
Let’s be clear. We thought Article V of NATO meant that NATO countries should have come to our aid to help defeat the group that attacked us on 9/11/01; other countries thought it meant that they could tell us what our policy would be.
We thought that if the United Nations Security Council issued resolutions that mandated that Iraq disarm and show proof, that those resolutions ought to be enforced. Other nations disagreed (as long at it was the US doing the enforcing).
France, Germany, and Russia have their own interests to look out for; they’re not particularly interested in looking out for ours. Indeed, France and Germany want to create the EU (with them at the helm) as a counterweight to the US. You can’t be a counterweight unless you try to stymie US foreign policy, can you?
Being liked by other nations is a nice thing, to be sure. And yet the price of being liked by many nations is to let them have a veto of our foreign policy. I figure that price is a little too high, but YMMV.
Flagwaver
With all due respect to my fellow conservatives, this is a NON-ISSUE, but for one small aspect thereof.
Do I believe that the majority of foreign leaders would prefer Kerry over Bush? Yes, I do.
Do I believe that, in that preference, they prefer Kerry because they believe that he is better for THEIR interests than Bush, not that he is better for OUR interests than Bush? Absolutely.
Do I believe that their preference means sweet fuck all to who SHOULD be out next president? Not unless I convince myself that THEIR best interests are the same as OUR best interests – and I don’t believe that.
Can we conduct foreign policy effectively with a president that the EUnuchs “don’t like?” Well, we sure as fuck managed for eight years with Ronnie. The EUnuchs hated Ronnie – but they played OUR game. Why? Because we used our strength to advance our interests, and they NEEDED our strength. W is doing the same thing, albeit less effectively.
The only ISSUE around Kerry’s asshole statements is the fact that KERRY is making this an issue, by making these public statements, then he is HIDING behind “confidentiality” when questioned. Hey, fuckface, if they were CONFIDENTIAL conversations, then SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT THEM. If they weren’t confidential conversations, then tell us more. Or, is it just POSSIBLE that Kerry, a known prevaricator, is taking an “accepted truth” (that the EUnuchs love him more than Bush) and extrapolating from that, and has NOT, in fact, had such conversations? Nah. Couldn’t happen.
The fact that Kerry believes that EUnuch favoritism is and should be an issue in this campaign speaks volumes.
I don’t expect the fact that the majority of Americans think Chirac “est un ver” to matter ONE LITTLE BIT in the next round of French elections, so why should French public opinion matter in ours?
HH
It’s now snowballing into more lies, flip-flops and distortions from Kerry. Slate gave Kerry the Whopper of the Week award for lying about his vote on Cuba. Today he flip-flopped within a single sentence. Meanwhile Bushisms highlights that Bush wasn’t very good at describing a recession. Yawn.
mpr
“—-as opposed to the coalition we have now? You mean the coalition that wouldn’t do allow any move into Baghdad? Wow, what a great coalition. So the coalition we have now is fradulent? I see…France’s blessing makes something legitimate. GOT IT.”
“Bush I” made the call not to invade Baghdad and he has stated publicly and candidly why he didn’t…check your facts dumbass! Or are you implying he is a liar just like his asshole son?
Next topic!
PROOF about WMD??? The facts are clear. There are no Iraq WMD in American hands. According to Bush II we invaded the country to get them.
Option #1: They were destroyed because of UN Inspections that Bush said weren’t working.
Option #2: They have fallen into the hands of Terrorists a lot more likely to use them than Saddam.
Take your pick! Bush is either a incompetent fool or a liar…either way, he’s one termer, just like he dad.
You want any more proof of even more outrageous lies out of this administration…just ask…YOU KNOW DAMN WELL YOU DON’T WANT TO GO THERE!
-mpr
Mito
“Bill Clinton claimed that the Sudanese pharma plant was manufacturing chemical weapons. No evidence of this ever appeared. ”
The attack was approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They looked at the evidence and approved it. Clinton couldn’t have just made it up.
Laura
Baby, I promise I will make you the happiest woman in the world…
I’m sorry baby that I forgot your birthday…but why are you so mad…look, I took out the trash today…you should be happy that I am such an honorable man!
-GWB
Paul
Boy, this Kerry guy really gets under your skin, doesn’t he?
Randy
Are you saying that Bush has never lied?
Or flip-flopped?
PKJ
The problem with partisans is that they vote along party lines and defend the undefendable to their deaths.
Take a look at what Bush has done and it’s obvious that he has caused havoc and chaos with anything he has had anything to do with.
OK, Saddam is a really bad guy. There are far worse leaders in the world that Bush couldn’t care less about, so the argument that he rid the world of an evil dictator doesn’t hold water. Not to mention that isn’t why he told us we were going there.
Oh, and while saying he supports our military, he cuts back their combat pay which was laughable already.
Bush is a profoundly stupid person with the most screwed up priorities imaginable.
What’s he protecting us from again?
I don’t know much about Kerry and I don’t really care. He doesn’t seem like he’d be much of a leader, but then I’d vote for a hamster before I’d vote for Bush.
If you don’t think things are scary now, then you need to pull your head out.
If Bush gets reelected, things are going to get even scarier.
PKJ
PS. If you want to know about Saddam’s WMD’s, then maybe the Justice Dept should subpeona the American companies that sold them to him.