Comments on ARE REBUPLICIANS REALLY THAT DENSE?

Go to Why can't I sue the whole country? - Add a comment - Go to ARE REBUPLICIANS REALLY THAT DENSE?

I agree to disagree on your points about Bush but its an optimistic

outlook and If Kerry wins I hope you are right.

posted by calmcantey75 on October 29, 2004 at 1:48 PM | link to this | reply

jackie

I honestly and completely believe that if Bush stays in power America will be gone in just a few short years. He has basically done all he could to make our country fall. He has made it clear that he is not really concerned with fixing the real issues, btu would rather spend everything on his obsession with Iraq.

I believe that Kerry will do everything possible to get us out of Iraq ASAP and ready to deal with the real problems we have. I do not believe he will back down on the war on terror, but will instead be much smarter about it all. It won't be a person agenda to take down some country, but instead will be thought out, planned out and be directed at real threats to us. Also he will most likely not spread us so thin that we are weakened and wide open. I don't think he is going to get us back on track fully, but he will most likely get us headed in the right direction. All Kerry has to do is look at the many, many mistakes Bush has made and just not do them or do just the opposite. If Kerry has even half the intelligence he claims to have he can use Bush as an example of how not to go about things and he will do just fine. Most of his ideas will most likely not work or not happen, but at least he can correct many of Bush's mistakes and make it so that someone competent can come in after him and possible fix things.

posted by kooka_lives on October 29, 2004 at 1:29 PM | link to this | reply

Okay

but the way you deal with a rabid animal is shoot it in the head, you dont negotiate. I doubt Kerry sees the war on terror this way. If you examine Senator Kerrys Senate voting record since 1983, you will be appalled to see how utterly liberal he has been when it comes to defense. He has always been on the wrong side of history during the Cold War. Now the presidential hopeful has stated that he wishes to return to a time when terrorists were only a nuisence. A NUISENCE? When exactly was that? Since when is the taking of human life in cold blood only a nuisence? This is very dangerous attitude. He has said only soldiers dying under the banner of the UN is honorable but under the U.S. flag a waste. This man has always held America and especially the military in contempt because thats who he is and always was as a young man. He will bow at the alter of the U.N. and the enemy will only be emboldened. We dont need this kind of man in the White House right now. Especially since Kerry has yet to articulate a detailed plan as to how he intends to wage the war on terror. Like I said before, two wrongs dont make a right. But I know you want Bush out and respect your convictions about him. I just hope you are right in your philosophy of voting here.

posted by calmcantey75 on October 29, 2004 at 12:48 PM | link to this | reply

Good post

Kooka... I agree that America is becoming less and less America every day. I'd say we are at the end of our rope now - where else ( with Bush ) can we go? We're not just split into two ....but dangerously close to discinagrating into nothing at all.

posted by jamryn on October 29, 2004 at 8:13 AM | link to this | reply

FASTBALL

I still think you are really trying to push it there. That alone proves nothing more than a country Bush had made it clear he wished to be aggressive towards helped out a the wounded forma country we were being aggressive towards. There is a big logic in that if you are worried about someone coming after you of course you are going to aid your enemy's enemy. That alone does not say there was any alliance between the two groups. And that alone does not justify an invasion. Due to Bush's behavior, Sadam could have attacked us and justified it the same way Bush if justifying out attack on Iraq. Bush had made it very clear that he wanted to be aggressive towards Iraq. In some ways Bush has done nothing more than turn America into the terrorist. I think that is where most of the people's problem with the war with Iraq have come from. We are the USA and we are suppose to be better than them, which means we should have planned out of attacks better and gone in, liberate the country and gotten out. All evidence points to this having been possible if Bush would not have rushed everything. Bush was ready to invade for some time, but had for some reason not worried about makeing any plans.

posted by kooka_lives on October 29, 2004 at 7:45 AM | link to this | reply

Jackie

So why have we not found any yet? If they just hid them all, then once more that is Bush's fault since he made the big fuse with the UN that gave Iraq lots and lots of warnings that he was going to do something.

I have admitted that Iraq needed to be dealt with, but Bush did it so poorly and so rushed that it is obvious to me that he had other motives.

posted by kooka_lives on October 29, 2004 at 7:38 AM | link to this | reply

DEMS

I started to write a reply to you, but found it has started to get very long so I am going to throw it up as a post.

posted by kooka_lives on October 29, 2004 at 7:20 AM | link to this | reply

Bin Laden bedazzled Saddam with jewel

$60 million Pearl of Allah
'evidence of al-Qaida link'

Osama bin Laden tried to purchase the world's largest pearl, the Pearl of Allah, as a gift to Saddam Hussein "to unite the Arab cultures," and Hussein was prepared to accept, according to the pearl's owner.

Victor Barbish, who owns sixty-six percent of the pearl on behalf of his daughter, told WorldNetDaily he received an offer in 1999 from individuals who said they were "from bin Laden's group" to purchase the pearl for $60 million to give to Hussein as an overture of unity between al-Qaida and the Iraqi government. Continued

posted by DEMSareEVIL on October 28, 2004 at 10:10 PM | link to this | reply

on the issue of Bush lying here are some facts you might find interesting

Dems validate Bush on Saddam's WMDs

Posted: January 22, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Did Saddam Hussein and his interest in weapons of mass destruction pose a threat to the United States? Just ask the Democrats.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a Democrat, appearing on "Face the Nation" in September 2002, said, "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies."

In February 2003, during an address at Drake University, Dean said,

I agree with President Bush – he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. [Hussein] is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents and refused to comply with his obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb.
Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy, and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country. So I want to be clear: Saddam Hussein must disarm. This is not a debate – it is a given.

Dean, on "Meet the Press" in March 2003, said he believed that Iraq "is automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of these weapons." Yet, in his now familiar flip-flop style, candidate Dean later declared, "I never said Saddam was a danger to the United States."

Gen. Wesley Clark, before he became an anti-war Democratic presidential candidate, testified on Sept. 26, 2002, before the House Armed Services Committee:

There's no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self-defense ... Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict if necessary ...
When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval ... There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat ... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons ... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.
... I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as pre-emptive ... This is a problem that's longstanding. It's been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this ... There's no question that ... there have been such contacts (between Iraq and al-Qaida). It's normal. It's natural.
These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate. That's inevitable in this region, and I think it's clear that, regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections, that Saddam Hussein is a threat.

Former President Bill Clinton, more recently, visited Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso in October 2003. The prime minister said, "When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime."

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W. Va., ranking minority member of the Intelligence Committee, said on Oct. 10, 2002, "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

So, forget President Bush, Vice President Cheney and the pro-war "neo-cons." Just listen to the Democrats. On the issue of the "unilateral" invasion of Iraq, they make a pretty strong case.

In light of this I dont think it is accurate to believe Bush was lying unless all of these others were lying as well

posted by calmcantey75 on October 28, 2004 at 8:07 PM | link to this | reply

Kooka your proving my point, Iraq was willing to aid our enemies. The fear was that Saddam would have colluded with men such as Zarqawi.Given Saddams past nuclear and biological capabilities, this was a frightening prospect. If you don't believe Saddam wasn't aware that one of the most wanted and notorius Al-Qaeda operatives was conducting operations within Iraq, I don't know what to tell you.

FASTBALL>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

posted by FASTBALL on October 28, 2004 at 7:45 PM | link to this | reply

The sad fact is...

that Kooka has little if any concept of reality. The connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq are very real and well documented, even by liberal organizations like the Washington Post and New York Times.

Unfortunately, liberals blind themselves to the real facts and suck up the lies from the DNC and Michael Moore. But fortunately, those lies have been debunked. Case in point is the latest smear job about missing weapons concocted just this week that was rehashed from April of last year. Liberals will do and say anything to get back into power.

I've read literally hundreds of reports that connect most of the Al Qaeda terrorists' that have been arrested to Iraq and also Iran.

One of the Iraqi memos contains an order from Saddam for his intelligence service to support terrorist attacks against Americans in Somalia. The memo was written nine months before U.S. Army Rangers were ambushed in Mogadishu by forces loyal to a warlord with alleged ties to al Qaeda.

Other memos provide a list of terrorist groups with whom Iraq had relationships and considered available for terror operations against the United States.

Among the organizations mentioned are those affiliated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman al-Zawahiri, two of the world's most wanted terrorists. Zarqawi is believed responsible for the kidnapping and beheading of several American civilians in Iraq and claimed responsibility for a series of deadly bombings in Iraq Sept. 30. Al-Zawahiri is the top lieutenant of al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, helped plan the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist strikes on the U.S., and is believed to be the voice on an audio tape broadcast by Al-Jazeera television Oct. 1, calling for attacks on U.S. and British interests everywhere.

DAE

posted by DEMSareEVIL on October 28, 2004 at 7:38 PM | link to this | reply

fastball

First off I see nothing wrong with wounded people getting help from other countries. We already knew that Iraq hated us and so of course they would be more than willing to aid those who we had injured. That really proves nothing at all.

The Al-Qaeda connection has so far been proven to not be there. If there were camps then there is a good chance that the Iraq government knew nothing about them. All signs point to there being little if any relationship between Iraq and the Al-Qaeda. I have yet to see proof that say otherwise. Well except for Bush's BS to try and defend himself.

posted by kooka_lives on October 28, 2004 at 7:30 PM | link to this | reply

moderate

That has got to be one of the most poorly thought out defenses I have ever heard. suicide bombing is a standard terrorist device. Also, after it worked so well on 9/11 it just makes sense for every other terrorist to go and copy it. No one ever claimed that most terrorist are original thinkers.

posted by kooka_lives on October 28, 2004 at 7:19 PM | link to this | reply

jackie

The democrats stood behind Bush until he showed the world he was lying about Iraq. They would have stood behind him as long as he was really working on the war on terrorist. When ti became clear that the whole iRaq thing was a personal war for him and that it had nothing at all to do with defending the country or what was best for the country, that is when many backed away seeing this as practically insanity.

Also, the Republicans are not doing anything at all to help. They are being petty and trying to find every reason to discredit the Democrats. They are nit picking anything Kerry does, half of which is meaningless.

I was defending Bush when he was saying the UN needed to look in Iraq's WMD. I even figured that we would find them sooner or later, even though I thought is a big mistake to divid our forces as he did. We have found none. Also I have looked at the way Bush reacted to it all I have seen that he is not doing what is in the best interest of our country.

And still, Iraq is not who attacked us and so is not who we should be goign after.

posted by kooka_lives on October 28, 2004 at 7:17 PM | link to this | reply

Your way off Kooka. How do you explain the training camps frequented by Al- Qaeda operatives such as Zarqawi; or the fact that he was wounded in Afghanistan and recieved medical treatment in Iraq.

FASTBALL>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

posted by FASTBALL on October 28, 2004 at 7:07 PM | link to this | reply

9/11 Terrorist

If 9/11 terrorist are not the same terrorist found in Iraq, why then are they using the same killing tactics (suicide bombing) as 9/11 terrorist used on the trade center? This would show a connection between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorist. Would it not?

posted by moderate on October 28, 2004 at 6:56 PM | link to this | reply

Remember in the 30's the republican congress

hated FDR and was at his throat but then pearl harbor happened and then politics stopped at waters edge and they rallied behind him and his decisions because we were faced with grave danger and it was not the time for division even though they still hated him. The point is the republicans at that time made the patriotic decision to put aside political differences show a uninted front and resolve in the face of a powerful enemy for the sake of victory. Now, why cant the democrats do the same now.

posted by calmcantey75 on October 28, 2004 at 6:52 PM | link to this | reply

kooka you are exactly right and I have written about that

for the last year or more. He handled 9/11 and showed he could lead but his "attention deficit disorder" kicked in when he had to go to Iraq for all the wrong reasons and now will not admit he made a mistake.

posted by scoop on October 28, 2004 at 6:09 PM | link to this | reply

jakcie

And that alone is really Bushes fault. He had people backing him up after 9/11 and then he blew it big time and turned so many against him with the whole Iraq thing.

posted by kooka_lives on October 28, 2004 at 5:56 PM | link to this | reply

Well anyway, I'm worried about this election and our country because we are so DIVIDED and a house divided against itself cannot stand.

posted by calmcantey75 on October 28, 2004 at 5:52 PM | link to this | reply

I have to agree...

I would vote for 'Big Bird' if I knew it would get Bush out of office...

posted by lisachef on October 28, 2004 at 5:01 PM | link to this | reply

jackie

What would me not voting gain? Unless of course this is the beginning of the Republicans plan to get those who are voting for Kerry because they want to get rid of Bush to not vote so Bush might win and screw the
country over all the more.

By voting for Kerry I am voting against Bush. It is much more important to me that Bush is removed from power as soon as possible and the best way I can help that to happen is by voting for Kerry.

posted by kooka_lives on October 28, 2004 at 4:58 PM | link to this | reply

two wrongs dont make a right

you say you think Kerry is an idiot and has no integrity. We agree on that. But you said you are going to vote for this idiot because you are more afraid of Bush and his policies and the direction he is taking the country. Just dont vote.

posted by calmcantey75 on October 28, 2004 at 4:36 PM | link to this | reply

Kooka nice job, I know many people don't like Kerry but knowing what

Bush has done to us in the last four years, I fear to know what he can do in four more.

posted by scoop on October 28, 2004 at 4:27 PM | link to this | reply