Paul Johnson: Quite simply, Kerry must be stopped

Ticomaya wrote:

Well, the first thing that comes to mind is the fact that Saddam was intending to kill thousands of his own innocents.

I'm sure that is very important to the people who die and their loved ones.

0 Replies

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0208/S00158.htm

http://www.chronicillnet.org/PGWS/tuite/chembio.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/boles1010.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm

0 Replies

Hate to be a doubting Thomas, but I don't put a lot of stock in the New YorK Times normally, and particularly when it's quoting "anonymous US `senior military officers'.'' If there actually was a report by the US Senate's Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, do you have a link to the source? Or just anonymous sources, and classified documents?

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

God you guys are pathetically desperate in these final days. Get ready for a Kerry presidency, and get ready for some changes in the White House and in the world (thank god!).

I will keep this prediction for reference after Nov 2. So far the odds are against it.

Dookiestix wrote:

My god, you have got to be kidding. Proven diplomats? Proven diplomatic failures is more like it. The coalition of the leaving is currently taking place, and the world hates us more than ever, and it's not because of the America people.

For such smart, shrewd, and best that we've had, they've sure done a fine job of completely screwing things up for this country.

To be clear: Bush's administration is the worst I have ever seen; worse the Reagan, worse than Carter, worse than Nixon. A delusional approach to defending this moron is probably not in your best interest come November 2nd.

Read the contemporaneous materials concerning the Korean War. The same things were said about us by the same European critics then. Despite this, the verdict of history is clear: we were right to oppose the North Korean aggression. (One could argue with MacArthur's decision to advance to the Yalu River though).

Do you really wish to hold Jimmy Carter's Administration up as a reference point? It is justifiably recognized as one of the worst in the last century.

Reagan broke the will and self-confidence of the Soviet Empire, ending the Cold War with a victory (instead of the compromise advocated by his critics), and established the foundation for an economic expansion that continued for over 15 years. He hardly belongs in the same league as Carter.

I'm surprised you left Clinton out of your rogue's gallery. He wasted eight wonderful years of economic boom and an unchallenged U.S. dominance while ignoring both the growing Islamist challenge and the attempts of jealous "allies" to limit our freedom of action through a series of unwise treaties (Kyoto, Law of the Sea, ICC).

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Cycloptichorn:

I remember your succinct post on why we are all so terribly concerned regarding the oil in the Middle East, and why we are currently in Iraq. The image of Saddam shaking Rummy's hand only confirms our policy of securing the oil at all costs, even if it means looking the other way while Saddam killed his own people using weapons that we sold him.

This reality isn't even a blip on a neoconservative's radar screen.

Actually he used weapons sold to him by the Russians and the French. They were - by a huge margin - his principal arms suppliers throughout his reign. They were also the principal nations arguing for an end to the sanctions during the Clinton presidency, and the principal beneficiaries of the graft and payoffs in the "oil for food" program that we agreed to as a necessary expedient for keeping the sanctions going. It turns out to have been an oil for weapons and graft program.

0 Replies

Quote:

I will keep this prediction for reference after Nov 2. So far the odds are against it.

How can you determine the odds when MILLIONS of cell phone users cannot be polled? Please explain...

http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-nybres214013687oct21,0,6406517.column

And of COURSE I mentioned Carter, because his administration was horrendous. He's been a much better world diplomat outside of the office of the presidency, and has done amazing and wonderful work for democracy throughout the world.

Gee, if Clinton "wasted" eight years of economic growth, then why were
Republicans mostly concerned with his denial of getting a BJ while in the White House? That argument is a complete falicy, as Clinton did more regarding terrorism than either the Republicans did during his term, as well as more than what Bush did during his first 8 months in office.

0 Replies

In the end, it's all oil for blood. So much blood (and so much more) will be spilt for this precious commodity. And with growing economies like China, we have alot more to worry about in the near future.

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Clinton did more regarding terrorism than either the Republicans did during his term, as well as more than what Bush did during his first 8 months in office.

What did Clinton do regarding terrorism?

You're saying Clinton did more in 8 years than Bush 43 did in 8 months? I agree. But you know what he did? He emboldened the terrorists by sending them a clear message that attacks on the US would be met by a weak and ineffectual law enforcement response. He sent our military to Somalia, and when we suffered casualties, including the bodies of dead Maries dragged through the streets, he pulled out. He sent the clear message to the world that the US did not have the political stomach to take any casualties on the battlefield.

Other than that, Clinton didn't do much regarding terrorism.

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Gee, if Clinton "wasted" eight years of economic growth, then why were
Republicans mostly concerned with his denial of getting a BJ while in the White House? That argument is a complete falicy, as Clinton did more regarding terrorism than either the Republicans did during his term, as well as more than what Bush did during his first 8 months in office.

Clinton had the good fortune to preside over a boom that began in the mid '80s and continued through the tech bubble of th '90s. He inherited an economy on the way up and left one on the way down.

What pray tell did Clinton do about terrorism other than launching a few hundred Tomahawk missiles at tents in the sand and aspirin factories? What were the results he achieved?
1993 - first attempt to take out the WTC.
1995 - US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania blown up.
1997 - Khobar Towers (barracks) bombing in Saudia Arabia.
1999 - USS Cole bombing.
Of course he did issue instructions crippling the coordination between the CIA and the FBI in searching out terrorists. Nothing at all to brag about here.

That some Republicans disapproved of the blow jobs Clinton got in the White House from a government employee accountable to him, and his subsequent repeated lies about it, even in a sworn deposition, is no aspersion on them. It was Clinton himself who inflicted this sorry mess on the Congress and the American public.

0 Replies

What did the Republicans OR Democrats do about terrorism?

http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/pearly/htmls/bill-terrorism.html

0 Replies

Now show me a list of what Bush did regarding terrorism during his first 8 months in office.

Wait, I'll do that for ya:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, I'm sure there was some alternative other than the gassing of thousands of people, aren't you? It's not like we were in the dark about it, yet because they were fighting our enemies (Communism) they get a free pass on atrocities, and hell, we'll even let American companies sell them the chemicals to do it? We'll go shake hands with the murder?
Cycloptichorn

I think you have your facts a bit confused. Iraq was at the time fighting Iran and Islamist fundamentalism, not Communism. Iran was at the time behaving very dangerously and threatening to close the straits at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, cutting off the oil supply to Japan, Europe, and the U.S. (in order of consumption). Our policy then was to prevent either side in this conflict from achieving a decisive victory. It was the correct policy and we carried it off reasonably well. Since then substantial internal resistance to the theocratic rule in Iran has emerged, limiting the bad behavior of that government. Meanwhile Saddam raised the ante by invading Kuwait. We adjusted our strategy accordingly. Nothing wrong with that. Did you have a better idea in mind?

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Now show me a list of what Bush did regarding terrorism during his first 8 months in office.

Not enough: he merely continued Clinton's policies until 9/11. After that he acted both forcefully and decisively to combat both terrorism and Islamist fundamentalism.

Unfortunately he had to do much of that in the face of active opposition from Kerry and other hand wringers of like ilk, who always seem to have great retrospective strategies in mind, but never an idea for the present or future.

0 Replies

George, you are much better at this part than I am. Thanks!

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

George, you are much better at this part than I am. Thanks!

Not really, but thanks for the kind expression.

I spent a good deal of time patrolling the straits of Hormuz when all this was going on.

0 Replies

Our current Vice President, Dick Cheney, who is perhaps the most influential figure in the current administration, was the elder Bush's Secretary of Defense. It was Cheney's Defense Department that promised to defend Kuwait in its border dispute with Iraq, before Hussein invaded. Meanwhile the State Department was telling Hussein the dispute was a local matter that could be settled by force if diplomacy failed. These mixed messages from the first Bush administration led directly to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

Kuwait shunned diplomatic negotiations with Hussein because Cheney's Defense Department had promised to defend Kuwait in its dispute with Iraq.

Iraq, on the other hand, felt it had a green light from the U.S. State Department to attack Kuwait when it refused to negotiate.
These facts make it fairly clear that the first Bush administration, including Dick Cheney, caused the first Iraq war, either through incompetence, willful deceit, or both. Worse still, the first Bush administration tried to paint Hussein's invasion as the first step in a campaign to conquer the entire region and a large part of the world's oil supply. But they knew this wasn't true. They knew their administration was complicit in what had happened, but they did not tell this to the American people. Instead, they lied about the true causes of the crisis and their own involvement in it.

All this becomes just another link in the evergrowing chain of lies and deception designed for America to have her unfettered access to oil, and at the cost of thousands of lives as well as America's credibility in the world.

0 Replies

It's a long way to Fantasyland, but Dookie has made the trip.

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Now show me a list of what Bush did regarding terrorism during his first 8 months in office.

Wait, I'll do that for ya:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html

To compare 8 months of a presidency to 8 years of a presidency is disingenuous.

Clinton and the US might have been liked more then, then we are now, but Clinton didn't do anything on the world scene that was of any benefit to the US. You mention China as an emerging economic threat but that was also Clintons fault. North Korea is now a nuclear threat because Clinton gave him the money to fund their underground research. He also gave NK the nuclear technology to create more material to turn into nukes.

0 Replies

Re: Edwards ???

Frank Apisa wrote:

jdr56789 wrote:
If (God forbid) Kerry should be elected, and then if (God forbid) something should happen to him, either illness or injury, are you Democrats prepared to have Edwards as President. He was planning on losing his Senate seat after one term and going back to lawyering.

Think about it and be honest with yourselves. Edwards as Commander in Chief?

Think about the moron, George Bush, as Commander in Chief!!!

That is much, much, much more scary.

I know these political things are very emotional for some, but do you actually hear what you're saying (or see what you're writing)? Edwards was a do-nothing in the Senate... I could go on and on, but I won't. I've been married long enough to know it's useless to argue with emotion.

0 Replies

And Dan Quayle was...?

0 Replies

Paul Johnson: Quite simply, Kerry must be stopped

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know