Kerry Sticks to Claim of World Support; reporter erred

It seems some were concerned more about getting France and Germany's share of the business. Out with the Andre and Fritz in with Hal as in Haliburton.

J

The Waffle King stays on form:


Source

Like an anonymous endorsement was an endorsement, anyway. It's about like me saying I've got great work references, but I'm not going to tell you who they are from.

Its a no-brainer. the foreign govts have adopted a"anybody but Bush" attitude. You know it and I know it.

The "quoted"statement by the GOP was an error by the pool reporter . any more dwell upon the self evident message will only further hurt Bush. so, i GAF

By the way. kerry is an elected official who requires a different level of approvals for any contacts with foreign dignitaries. Many legislators make foreign junkets on their own with often , no Executive approvals. so fishins statement that its a possible felony is not correct. Senators go to parties at embassies weekly. Do you think they really report back? Ive got a bridge for sale

Yeah, I know it, but the point is Kerry has a big mouth like Dean but is twice as arrogant and condescending.

Fine, let him suffer the same fate.

As for foriegn leaders, they don't elect our presidents so I don't give a rip who they want.

ILZ - Aside from your pretense that everyone in the world is unhappy with the US (some are, some aren't) and that we should base foreign policy on the whims of others, you've done a pretty good job of listing the negatives/reasons against the war. Now, if you add the positives/reasons for into the equation you can start to make a rational determination as to whether the war was a worthwhile endeavor or was not.

As someone who supported the war, I don't just look at all the rosy reasons for it, I look at the pros AND cons, and have concluded that it was and will be justified. That written, I'm fairly confident that if I only allowed myself to consider the cons, I would be very much against the war and the occupation.

Of course, if my doctor wants to amputate my leg and the only information he gives me is that it will be expensive, painful, and of course I lose the leg... well, even being a "typical conservative" (which I am not, by the way) I'm going to say "no thank-you" to the amputation. But, if the doctor tells me that I have a 10% chance of survival if I keep the leg and a 90% chance if I lose it, suddenly the equation becomes more complex.

Brand x-yeh but if your president had international support, youd trumpet that out.
scrat-if you still support the war, then youve not been paying attention to the trail of deceit, or else you GO ALONG WITH IT, In either case, my vote cancels your vote.

I like when Kerry gets a dose of reality to recognize that Bush failed us badly in his side of the bargain and he willfully misled us , you call it flip-flopping, I call it thhe first step to despotism pal. By your logic, lemmings are geniuses.

I don't play trumpet, I play guitar...

On the contrary, I make a habit of closely following the words and actions of the left. :wink:

Exactly, Kerry wants his cake, and wants to eat it too, but he doesn't want to have to clean up the crumbs, or tell us what's in the cake.

(Okay, so that was a lousy metaphor, but it did make me hungry.) :wink:

Bush: Foreign Leaders Want Me to Fix Kerry's Wagon

(2004-03-16) -- In the wake of claims by Democrat presidential candidate John Forbes Kerry that foreign leaders hope he wins the White House, President George Bush today said "unnamed foreign leaders told me they want me to clean Kerry's clock, you know, to fix his wagon."

"They can't go out and say this publicly," Mr. Bush said, "but boy they look at you and say, 'You've got to pummel this wishy-washy appeaser. You've got to spank him with the buckle end of the belt'. Of course, I can't tell you who said that, but them foreigners want me to put a hurt on him."

Mr. Bush, like Mr. Kerry, spends hours every day chatting with foreign leaders to find out what kind of American foreign policy will be most popular with them. And while Mr. Kerry speaks fluent French thanks to childhood summers spent at a family estate in Brittany, Mr. Bush speaks Spanish and Pig Latin, which he calls "the new Esperanto...the global language of diplomacy."

"You wouldn't believe some of the things my foreign buddies have told me about Enator-say Erry-kay," said Mr. Bush. "It's all on the Q.T., of course."

brandx-

are you actually proud of that from a sitting president of the most powerful nation in the world?

All I know is if people actually fall for that kind of a thing and he actually wins this time, then we deserve what we get. May God help us all.

That's just satire, my dear. I posted it for a bit of fun... :wink:

That's just satire, my dear. I posted it for a bit of fun...




Oh, well, I feel like I should feel. I'll get over it.

Sometimes it's hard to tell cuz politics is so goofy anyway.

You downplay the alienation Bush has caused because it is neccessary to make your stance seem plausible.

In fact, everyone in the world is mad at us, as there are no nations outside Britain where a majority supported the war. In fact, we have seen the largest protests in the history of the world over this matter.

If you want to judge by political opinion, then the picture is a little different, but still overwhelmingly against us: few of our traditional allies joined our war; the rest of the thirty or so pro-war nations were mostly obscure, had obvious ulterior motives (ie- Kuwait), or were outrightly bribed by America (ie-Uzbekistan and its 2 billion dollar gift.)

When the only superpower in the world spends two years building the case for war, and yet still - despite its tremendous power, influence, and wealth - it is barely able to scrap together thirty nations, few of which are even traditional allies, that is not a good sign.

The fact is, only a portion of one nation on Earth - America - supports the war. If you narrow down the criteria to only informed Americans, then the numbers are even smaller.

For example, a year ago, when Americans were gung ho for the war, 70% of them thought Saddam Hussien was personally connected to September 11th, and an even greater percentage thought he possessed WMD's. They supported the war based on thier ridiculous and singularly retarded perception of the world. Their opinions on the war in Iraq are as meaningfull as my dogs opinions on cosmic string theory.

Now, a year after the war began, most Americans have awoke from thier fantasy. There are no WMD's. There are no terrorist connections. Iraq did not pose an imminant threat. In accordance with this "new" information, American support for the war has dropped.

You, however, are in your own special catagory: you are aware of these facts, yet somehow, you manage to go on supporting this absurd war.



I think your patriotism (read: blind faith) leads you to grossly over-emphasize the pros and downplay the cons.



Thats silly.

I can make silly analogies too (although mine is probably more accurate). Watch:

Your doctor tells you that there is an infection on your leg and they will have to amputate. Even though all the other doctors in the hospital disagree, you allow the operation to go through. You awake to find that your doctor has accidentally hacked off a piece of your ear and a couple arms. Oops! "Collateral damage", he calls it. Afterwards, you continue to pay huge sums of money on recovery, forcing you into serious debt. Then, a year or so after the operation, your doctor admits that, well, there was no infection to begin with - his reasons for ordering the operation were faulty. Yet, you still support the amputation - welcome to conservatism!

EDIT: I see Scrat has deleted the post I was responding to below. In any case, I will let my response stand:




It doesn't reflect well on you when you don't respond to the substantive parts of my post.



Yes, because you are an irrational, fundamentally biased person.

To the rest of us, these things are important: the fact that Bush has alienated us from the rest of the world is of great importance; as is the fact that 10,000 innocent civilians died; 600 American soldiers died; the "revelation" that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; the "revelation" that there are no terrorist connections; the fact that this ill advised foray has plunged our nation into unprecedented debt; and the argument that the entire war may have, in fact, created more terrorism than it prevented. To rational and objective people these things are very important.



I don't pretend knowledge; I cite facts. The facts of world opinion are outlined in my last post. If these facts are confusing and/or inconvenient to you, it doesn't negate thier truthfullness.



No, not everyone thinks like I do. Most rational people do, though.

Toodles.

ILZ - I deleted that post because I realized there was no point in trying to discuss things with someone who is convinced he already knows what everyone else either does or should think.

Toodles.

I supported my comment about what other people think with facts. It was not my opinion, but rather an incontrovertable fact.

My personal opinion was also supported with facts. Naturally, I believe that my opinion is the correct one and would hope more people adopt it.