Why Kerry doesn't deserve your vote

[raphy]

Thank you for that too. I know most here still consider me a Nazi, but I feel like I am a little better off as a person than I was 30 minutes ago.

*HUGS*

-Colly

Sweetheart, I don't think people consider you a nazi. They better not *growl*

 

[minsue]

Thank you for that too. I know most here still consider me a Nazi, but I feel like I am a little better off as a person than I was 30 minutes ago.

*HUGS*

-Colly

Sweetie, that's just not true.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Once again I ask this question since it wasn't answered the first time I asked. What were Clinton (and Kerry) talking about in 1998 when they said that Iraq had WMD's and that Saddam needed to be removed? Everyone accuses the curent administration of "fabricating" WMD evidence. The WMD story was there a full three years before GWB took office. When the story came to light that possibly some of the evidence had been little more than stretched truth on the part of intelligence agencies, Clinton was one of the first ones to speak out. He said he believed 100% that the WMD's were there up until that story broke last year. He said that he saw no reason why the current president would think any different based on the information being given by CIA, SIS, Mossad and others.

To say that Bush made up this evidence is misleading at best. It was there three years before he came into office. If anyone can offer any evidence to refute that, I'd love to hear it. I'm no fan of Bush, but to place the blame squarely on him for something that was in place three years before he was is simply wrong. One might say it shows a level of bias so deep as to make the truth irrelevant for the sake of serving the bias.

I don't think that anyone disputes that there was evidence of WMD. The evidence was there, and we weren't the only ones to believe it. The question is, was the evidence strong enough to warrant an invasion and a war. Most of the world thought not, and it looks now like the UN inspections were working as they were supposed to.

---dr.M.

 

[Dirt Man]

Thank you Ken. More than you can know, at least someone hearing what I am trying to say, rather than listening, not hearing and firing another salvo at me means so much.

You chose to protest. I think you did so out of the honest conviction that the government policy was wrong. Standing here virtually alone in this forum so many times, feling like the fox with the hounds nipping at my heels, I think perhaps I can understand how you must have felt in some small way.

I made a blanket statment, that I hated protestors. When I made it, I meant it. It is however, wrong, to tar everyone with the same brush. Individual reasons for actions are as varried as the individuals who make them. Standing on your principles is something I should and do respect, no matter that those principles are far from my own.

I will never see protest as patriotic. But I will trash my preconception that every protestor is a hateful, spiteful and vile enemy of my country's servicemen. I don't think that of you and you protested.

Thank you for that too. I know most here still consider me a Nazi, but I feel like I am a little better off as a person than I was 30 minutes ago.

*HUGS*

-Colly

I will fight to the last breath your right to shout at the top of your lungs against everything that I would shout for at the top of mine. Everyone's judgements are predjudiced by their own experiances in life. I don't consider you a Nazi, nor would I for what you have said and stand up for. That I disagree with you on many points is due to my own experiances, and they are considerable. I have sent you an e-mail that may help you understand some of them.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[raphy]

I will fight to the last breath your right to shout at the top of your lungs against everything that I would shout for at the top of mine.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

I think that's something we can all agree on.

 

[minsue]

I think that's something we can all agree on.

Lord, I hope so.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Clinton was a bloody handed bastard. A lotta people were massacred during his tenure. East Timor, for one example.

A helluvalotta people were being massacred in East Timor since the US endorsed Indonesia invasion in '76. Was Clinton the Head of State then?

 

[minsue]

A hell of a lot of people are being massacred in Sudan right now. And yet, nobody in this country cares. Nobody cared about the slaughter in Sierra Leone, either. Apparently diamonds aren't as important as oil.

 

[raphy]

A hell of a lot of people are being massacred in Sudan right now. And yet, nobody in this country cares. Nobody cared about the slaughter in Sierra Leone, either. Apparently diamonds aren't as important as oil.

Diamonds might be a girl's best friend, but oil is a politician's, apparently

 

[KarenAM]

I made a blanket statment, that I hated protestors. When I made it, I meant it. It is however, wrong, to tar everyone with the same brush. Individual reasons for actions are as varried as the individuals who make them. Standing on your principles is something I should and do respect, no matter that those principles are far from my own.

I will never see protest as patriotic. But I will trash my preconception that every protestor is a hateful, spiteful and vile enemy of my country's servicemen. I don't think that of you and you protested.

Thank you for that too. I know most here still consider me a Nazi, but I feel like I am a little better off as a person than I was 30 minutes ago.

*HUGS*

-Colly

Colly, you're as far from being a Nazi as it is possible to be, as far as I'm concerned. You have guts and you have brains and you aren't afraid to stand by your beliefs, and you've also got an amazingly strong moral code. Whether I agree with you or not on something, I always read your posts carefully, because there is always something interesting and valuable in them.

I'm a better person for it, too.

Thanks,

Karen

 

[shereads]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Wildcard Ky

Once again I ask this question since it wasn't answered the first time I asked. What were Clinton (and Kerry) talking about in 1998 when they said that Iraq had WMD's and that Saddam needed to be removed? Everyone accuses the curent administration of "fabricating" WMD evidence. The WMD story was there a full three years before GWB took office. When the story came to light that possibly some of the evidence had been little more than stretched truth on the part of intelligence agencies, Clinton was one of the first ones to speak out. He said he believed 100% that the WMD's were there up until that story broke last year. He said that he saw no reason why the current president would think any different based on the information being given by CIA, SIS, Mossad and others.

To say that Bush made up this evidence is misleading at best. It was there three years before he came into office. If anyone can offer any evidence to refute that, I'd love to hear it. I'm no fan of Bush, but to place the blame squarely on him for something that was in place three years before he was is simply wrong. One might say it shows a level of bias so deep as to make the truth irrelevant for the sake of serving the bias.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ambassador Joseph Wilson, whom Bush senior once called "an American hero" has said that the evidence for WMD was not only exhaggerated, but that Bush himself didn't entirely believe what he presented to Congress. There is a trail of evidence running through at least three books by Bush White House insiders, all of whom have been attacked as less than credible including Ambassador Wilson.

Richard Clark recounts that he was frequently told that his reports to the president were "not what we're looking for" because they failed to implicate Saddam Hussein in 9/ll. You can believe that or not, but Colin Powell's office has not contradicted Clark's assertion that Powell was deeply distrustful of the information he was told to present to the United Nations and that at one point, as his UN presentation grew closer and he kept sending back to the CIA to provide him with something more credible, he tossed down the dossier they sent him and said, "This is bullshit!"

Paul O'Neill's book, as incriminating as it was, has never been factually refuted by the White House; they went to court to stop him from publishing the backup documents on the internet, but I've never read one word of denial that any of what O'Neill wrote was untrue. Clark and Wilson have both had their characters trashed by the White House but no one has come forward to dispute any of the key assertions.

Bill Clinton never stood before Congress or the American people and stated that he had certain and irrefutable proof that Saddam Hussein had sarin gas, biological weapons and in all likelihood had revived his nuclear weapons program; Bill Clinton's White House refused to hire Ahmad Chalabi because they were told by the CIA that any information they'd get from him would be tainted by his agenda; Bill Clinton understood that Saddam Hussein was a contained threat as long as he was under scrutiny; he evidently didn't believe that a contained threat warranted a unilateral invasion.

Your man either lied to us or was duped by Chalabi, in which case it's odd that Chalabi has been rewarded and continues to be paid as an informant (with lots and lots of those tax dollars that Republicans are so protective of.)

What's your take on Mr. Chalabi's statement to a British journalist, regarding the misinformation about WMD: "What was said before does't matter. We have accomplished our goal. The Americans are in Baghdad."

 

[Wildcard Ky]

I don't think that anyone disputes that there was evidence of WMD. The evidence was there, and we weren't the only ones to believe it. The question is, was the evidence strong enough to warrant an invasion and a war. Most of the world thought not, and it looks now like the UN inspections were working as they were supposed to.

---dr.M.

I don't think that anyone disputes that there was evidence of WMD. The evidence was there, and we weren't the only ones to believe it.
Thank you Dr.m. So far you are the only person that I know of in thread that has acknowledged that the evidence and belief of WMD's predated GWB. It just bothers me that some try to paint a picture of one person scheming up this whole WMD fiasco. That's simply not how it happened.


The question is, was the evidence strong enough to warrant an invasion and a war. Most of the world thought not, and it looks now like the UN inspections were working as they were supposed to.

I agree that the inspections appear to have been working as they were supposed to. However, one has to remember that Saddam kicked out the inspectors. That was one of the precursors to the invasion. I forget the exact number, but Iraq violated 100+ UN resolutions from 92-03. That wouldn't appear to be the actions of someone with nothing to hide. Was the evidence sufficient to justify an invasion/war? I honestly don't know. Evidence is a subjective thing at best. Different people interpret the same evidence in different ways. Juries consist of 12 people. All can see the exact same evidence, half say guilty, the other half say not guilty. It's a matter of personal interpretation. I will say this much; In my opinion, Bush had a personal grudge against Saddam. Remember that Saddam personally launched an assasination plot/attempt on Bush's father after Desert Storm. If someone tried to kill my father, I would look for a reason to go after them. It's human nature. If you try to kill my father, I will do everything in my power to get you. I do believe that factored into the final decision.

 

[shereads]

No Democrat said we need the truth when Bill was in office.]

Please, for once and all: The truth about what?

Was there a single stone unturned by the Starr Report that we should be aware of? I may not have wanted to know about a real estate scandal from a dozen years before the Clintons came to power, and I may not have needed to know if he was unfaithful to his wife, but by God I helped pay to find out, didnt I? $40 million and six years that tied the hands of the White House and occupied Congress nearly full-time during the second term. What might we find if we went after this president with such vigor?

How much closer might our government have come to stopping bin Laden in time if not for the obsessive focus on Hilary's past and her husband's adultery?

For the life of me, I can't understand why Harken Energy and Iran Contra and the continued payments to Ahmad Chalabi for his assistance with helping to bring about freaking armageddon are equated with the activities of Bill Clinton's penis. 700 people that we're supposed to be honoring with our silence are DEAD and not because of Bill's dick. If there were a link, wouldn't Starr have told us?

 

[raphy]

In my opinion, Bush had a personal grudge against Saddam. Remember that Saddam personally launched an assasination plot/attempt on Bush's father after Desert Storm. If someone tried to kill my father, I would look for a reason to go after them. It's human nature. If you try to kill my father, I will do everything in my power to get you. I do believe that factored into the final decision.

... And maybe a man who uses his country's soldier's lives to settle a grudge shouldn't be running this country.

And that's something you don't see from me very often - An actual personal opinion of an individual politican.

 

[shereads]

Gore never actually said, "I invented the Internet."

As a congressman and senator in the 1980s, Gore fought for the funding which would turn Apranet, an emergency military computer network, into the Internet. In a 1999 interview with Wolf Blitzer, Gore said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." That's slightly bombastic, in typical politician fashion, but essentially accurate.

The phrase "invented the Internet" first appeared in a Republican Party press release and was parroted endlessly by that damned liberal media, always out to get Bush.

The "liberal media" never bothered to examine the essential validity of Gore's claim.

Thank you, Ken. You or someone else posted the facts about this once before. But the legend continues.

 

[minsue]

... And maybe a man who uses his country's soldier's lives to settle a grudge shouldn't be running this country.

And that's something you don't see from me very often - An actual personal opinion of an individual politican.

Aw, come on Raphy...All the cool kids are doing it.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

... And maybe a man who uses his country's soldier's lives to settle a grudge shouldn't be running this country.

I agree. Like I said though, the grudge is only my opinion. I don't think it was the only reason, but I do believe that it factored into the final decision.

 

[raphy]

Thank you, Ken. You or someone else posted the facts about this once before. But the legend continues.

And it will ever be perpetuated.

Most bona-fide computer geeks will know the true story. Everyone else goes by what the media tells 'em. Most bona-fide computer geeks know because they were around at the same time as ARPAnet, or they've talked to people who were.

http://www.dei.isep.ipp.pt/docs/arpa.html

If you're at all remotely interested in where this behemoth we call the internet came from...

 

[KenJames]

I will never see protest as patriotic. But I will trash my preconception that every protestor is a hateful, spiteful and vile enemy of my country's servicemen. I don't think that of you and you protested.

Thank you for that too. I know most here still consider me a Nazi, but I feel like I am a little better off as a person than I was 30 minutes ago.

*HUGS*

Hugs back at you.

A lot of people here have already told you they don't consider you a Nazi, just a person with strong convictions, the courage to stand up for them and the flexibility to see other sides.

 

[shereads]

Firstly, nothing you say in a political thread will ever upset me Raphy. I have known you too long and too well to ever assume something you said was aimed at me in a hurtful manner. I also know you well enough to know that our views on politics are not exactly birds of a feather.

On this subject I am more narrow minded than on many others. I don't apologize for it, but I did ackowledge it in my post. Nothing anyone says is likely to change my opinion on it. The influences on me that brought about this view, while far in the past, were imparted to me by people who still hold enormous respect in my eyes. A level of love & respect no poster here has, nor is likley to ever have, barring me marrying someone here.

This is the opening of Mr. Kerry's Statements to the U.S. Senate:

Statement of Mr. John Kerry

...I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of 1,000 which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony....


WINTER SOLDIER INVESTIGATION

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

We call this investigation the "Winter Soldier Investigation." The term "Winter Soldier" is a play on words of Thomas Paine in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriot and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.

We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country; we could be quiet; we could hold our silence; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, not reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out.

There is more to it. In fairness he does question the leadership near the end. I think he takes one paragraph in doing so. If you are really digging for the historical perspective on his actions & activites it would behoove you to read the rest. I have the strange feeling that on liberal sites you will get his statement after his opening and on conservative sites you will get little more than the opening.

The answer to your question is A. Raphy. It is the way in which he protested. If his opening statements weren't fuel for the "small" portion of protestors who hated and spit & wrote hate mail etc. then they very well could have been.

-Colly

Do you wonder how many men a few years younger than Kerry were spared the ordeal of Vietnam - and are alive now - because some people cared enough to publically confront their own demons? The truth does fuel hatred sometimes. Nobody likes ugly truths, and some people respond poorly. But there were atrocities, and somebody had to speak out to stop it, and eventually the truth helped end the war. And saved lives.

I guess a lot of young returning veterans will learn a hard lesson about telling the uglier truths about their war experiences from what Kerry is going through. They'll learn to keep quiet about what they saw, to prove their patriotism.

What's sad is that we require more proof of their patriotism after they get back home. It's so ironic that we keep saying they're fighting for our freedom, but we will vilify them if they speak freely about their experiences.

 

[KenJames]

Thank you, Ken. You or someone else posted the facts about this once before. But the legend continues.

I think this is the first time I've posted on Gore and the Internet, but I'm not sure. The "liberal media's" distortion of what Gore claimed has been a sore point with me for a long time.

"Time," which really should know better, was parroting this Republican urban myth a couple of weeks ago.

 

[thebullet]

ABB: ANYBODY BUT BUSH!!

I am astonished that after three and a half years of the Bush Administration there is any American who can continue to support GWB's Presidency.

There are still people who think a blow job is a worse offense than lying to get our country into a war.

There are still people who accept every prevarication that the administration offers. When a lie is found out, those people simply accept the alternative lie that the administration comes up with.

America's image in the world is in tatters. This administration cares nothing for world opinion and that is going to cause us immeasurable difficulty for decades to come. Sadly, like this administration, many Americans also hold the rest of the world in contempt. Because of this, they don't understand the nature of the disaster that Bush and his buddys have perpetrated.

If you don't care about world affairs, do you care about the environment? The Bush Administration has declared war upon our environment. The EPA was a product of the Nixon administration. The Bush administration has emasculated it. Bush will gladly destroy our air and water, cut our old growth forests for a campaign contribution.

I am amazed to read on this forum those who are going to write-in other candidates or vote for Ralph Nader. WAKE UP! A few dozen votes put this abortion of an administration into office. Every vote counts. I hold the Green Part responsible for the destruction of the environment they claim to support.

Kerry may be a boring candidate. He may have his faults. But he THE ONLY candidate with a chance of ending America's nightmare.

 

[KenJames]

And it will ever be perpetuated.

Most bona-fide computer geeks will know the true story. Everyone else goes by what the media tells 'em. Most bona-fide computer geeks know because they were around at the same time as ARPAnet, or they've talked to people who were.

http://www.dei.isep.ipp.pt/docs/arpa.html

If you're at all remotely interested in where this behemoth we call the internet came from...

Yep!

Thanks for the link.

 

[minsue]

I think this is the first time I've posted on Gore and the Internet, but I'm not sure. The "liberal media's" distortion of what Gore claimed has been a sore point with me for a long time.

"Time," which really should know better, was parroting this Republican urban myth a couple of weeks ago.

I've posted a few times the list of supposed lies that the GOP attributed to Gore that were lies in themselves. You've got to hand it to them. Somehow, lies that a person is a liar are amazingly effective no matter how many times they're debunked. Never ceases to amaze me.

 

[shereads]

Clinton was a bloody handed bastard. A lotta people were massacred during his tenure. East Timor, for one example. Haiti for another. He expanded Gitmo after running on the premise that holding the Haitians there was illegal and wrong. The only thing he went to the mat for was GATT and NAFTA.

All these corporate jamokes eat shit from tin plates. Not one of them deserves your vote.

cantdog

There was a little incident in Bosnia that he and his weakened military helped bring to an end.

"Nation building," a waste of America's military resources, it was called by people now in office. Mr. Rumsfeld, specifically, who said that we didn't negotiate long enough with Milosevich and that we were too careful about who and what we bombed in Bosnia. "Too much caution and not enough shock & awe" is the quote that was reported back then in Newsweek. Sound familiar?

I could post a laundry list of the things Bill Clinton did go to bat for, which are many, and not all having to do with how good our lives were for 8 years. He'd have been able to do a lot more, including perhaps dropping a bomb on Osama bin Laden, if not for the fact that everything he did in the second term was painted as a ruse to distract us from Monicagate. He went into Bosnia despite those accusations, and achieved something people said couldn't be done. He did it by building a concensus among our allies, not by challenging Milosovich to "bring it on."

He fought for things I care about like women's rights and unemployment benefits and assistance for working mothers and the environment, and he helped build concensus among our allies for helping end the genocide in Bosnia. He could have just bullied his way in there and told Milosovich to 'bring it on," but he was too smart and too much of a statesman for that. The world respected him, if not everyone here. And like Jimmy Carter, he's a compassionate ex-president, too. He raises funds for causes like fighting the Aids/HIV epidemic in Africa. He gave a speech recently in Saudi Arabia about women's rights.

Cantdog, nobody has to deserve my vote, like it's some kind of prize that I award. The ones who care about the things I care about are doing me a favor to even try to achieve some good.