Edwards - If you vote for Bush you have lost your mind!

NO NO NO NO Its NOT BUSHES FAULT........

Lets see, who else can we put the blame on. Oh.. wait a minute.. Isnt that part of his job? I mean, its part of his job to take the blame when something goes wrong on his watch. This is getting stupid. If Clinton knew there were going to be attacks on American soil, he would have done something about it. If Clinton found out there were going to be attacks at the end of his second term, he would have let Bush know about it in the switch. Quit kidding yourselves. Edwards remarks are only being proven by some of the responses here. One question. Can I play the blame game to? Lets start with Halibourton, then well blame Kelloge and Kelloge, then we'll go to the rich pricks in power who wanted this war for money. Next, lets blame Saudi Arabia and thier OPEC oil monopily. If we are going to blame someone besides Bush for the ERROR of his ways, then lets at least blame the slugs who used him to benifit of this war.

[edit on 10/5/04 by Kidfinger]

Playing the blame game doesn't change the fact that Edwards is NOT going to win votes by saying that people are out of their minds if they vote Bush. If anything, it will cause him to LOSE votes.

Any undecided voters or Bush supporters out there decide to vote for Edwards because you don't want to be thought of as being 'out of your mind'? I highly doubt it, but let me know!!

Jemison

If Edwards will turn voters off by saying that those that vote for Bush are mindless, Cheney will voters even moreso by insinuating that if they don't vote for him the terrorists will strike again. At least we've come full circle!

As for the other point, I was a Bush supporter when he came into office. I'm not foolish (or mindless! ) enough to support an awful president that has lead our country to the sad state it is in today. Bush's administration has been so shameful that he caused me, someone brought up in a very Republican household with very Republican family members, to outright change party affiliations. So I'm not some Clinton diehard, or some radical liberal with I

Lets see, who else can we put the blame on. Oh.. wait a minute.. Isnt that part of his job? I mean, its part of his job to take the blame when something goes wrong on his watch.

Ohhhhhhkaaaaayyyy...so you explained the presidents job to take responsibilty, which Bush does. He pulls no punches while Kerry can cahnge his mind within a 2 minute span in debate.

This is getting stupid. If Clinton knew there were going to be attacks on American soil, he would have done something about it. If Clinton found out there were going to be attacks at the end of his second term, he would have let Bush know about it in the switch.

Clinton did know, and there were 3 terror attacks on his watch against US interests. I won't even get into why he dshuold have been readin intelligence dos instaed of getting BJ's in the oval office eating McDonalds. I agree, it happened on his watch, so again no blaming here...

Quit kidding yourselves. Edwards remarks are only being proven by some of the responses here. One question. Can I play the blame game to? Lets start with Halibourton, then well blame Kelloge and Kelloge, then we'll go to the rich pricks in power who wanted this war for money.

THe only ones blaming anything on anyone are those who are slamming Bush. Do you think Haliburton is responsible for the loss of jobs in America?

Next, lets blame Saudi Arabia and thier OPEC oil monopily. If we are going to blame someone besides Bush for the ERROR of his ways, then lets at least blame the slugs who used him to benifit of this war.

Why do we have to blame anyone? Why don't you just make an informed decison and vote in November.

*Mod Edit to close BB code*

[edit on 5-10-2004 by TrickmastertricK]

Originally posted by Jemison
Playing the blame game doesn't change the fact that Edwards is NOT going to win votes by saying that people are out of their minds if they vote Bush. If anything, it will cause him to LOSE votes.
Jemison

But yet Cheney stating another attack would happen if the country voted for Kerry is OK? Cant have it both ways.

You support a president who instead of finishing this mission, instead misled the country into thinking Iraq was an 'immediate threat.'

I just want to make a clarification. Bush never said that Saddam was an immediate threat ... it was EDWARDS who said that Saddam was an 'imminent threat'. Those are words that Bush never used.

Jemison

Yes, he did actually. Edwards wasn't even in the public eye when Bush said this, this was back around the time when Bush gave his speech outlining why Iraq was a threat to the United States. Iraq was not an imminent threat. From all we've found since it took 2 weeks to taking the freaking country over, it wasn't even a threat to our security in the near future.

There was no reason to divert much-needed military forces to Iraq, when we had not yet captured Bin Laden, when Afghanistan was not completely under control, and while N.Korea and Iran loomed as FAR greater threats to our security. Now we are bogged down military in Iraq, over a year after "Mission Accomplished," with no end in sight, and N.Korea and Iran getting more and more brazen by the day.

True! Bush never said 'imminent threat'. Those words were put in his mouth by the media and the pundits. He only called him a 'grave and gathering threat'. Upon this premise, and the intelligence we all had at the time, Kerry authorized the use of force.

In fact, if you check the record, Kerry, in November of 1997, gave a very hawkish speech of his own free will to the Senate. In fact, as long as a Democrat was in the White House, Kerry was willing to go nuke 'em if it meant Saddam would get what was coming to him. Kerry made many such hawkish speeches.

But whenever a Republican was in office, (remember his huge anti war stance during the first Bush admin, when he voted against the war after SADDAM INVADED A SOVEREIGN NATION). And now he's all about being an anti war candidate, again after being pro war during the primaries. He's even taken the Dean-esque lines he himself condemned in the primaries and made it his rallying cry. Just one more example of how he'll say absolutely anyting to get a vote. Bush may not be perfect, far from it, but there hasn't been another attack on our soil since 9/11, the economy is on the move again (grew way above expectations again in last quarter), and taxes are lower. Should Kerry get in office, we WILL see an increase in taxes, small business being forced to stop hiring because Kerry's 'repeal' of tax cuts for the wealthy will put them in a higher tax bracket (if they are sole proprieterships, at least). He claims to have a four point plan for Iraq, which echoes oddly enough, GWB's, only claims it is quicker. Kerry can't TELL you what it is, though, becuase he has a website for that (makes one think the pundits at his website are the only ones that know what it is.) His 'economic stimulus' is to raise taxes and make government take over healthcare. Hmmm, how is he going to pay for THAT? RAISE TAXES! He talks about how bad it is to be spending 200 million in Iraq, yet just a few months ago said we should spend as much as it takes! I'd rather have Bush, where at least I know what to expect. You on the left think he's evil incarnate, which, if he's as dumb as you claim he is, would be impossible. If he's really as dumb as you say, then you give him too much credit. At least I know I have a strong economy, a strong military, and a safer homeland (although admittedly, it's because most of the terrorists are in Iraq).


End Rant.
We now return to your regularly scheduled program.

esdad71,

Ohhhhhhkaaaaayyyy...so you explained the presidents job to take responsibilty, which Bush does. He pulls no punches while Kerry can cahnge his mind within a 2 minute span in debate.

If you are reffering to the debate in which Kerry TROUNCED Bush, I watched the entire debate and not once, NOT ONCE did Kerry change his stance on anything debated.

Clinton did know, and there were 3 terror attacks on his watch against US interests. I won't even get into why he dshuold have been readin intelligence dos instaed of getting BJ's in the oval office eating McDonalds. I agree, it happened on his watch, so again no blaming here...

Only three? Thats a hell of a lot better than once a week! Really, do you think we had 8 years of prosparity due to Clinton not reading Intell? C'mon, Bush doesnt even read a newspaper, much less any reliable intell. Your statements are what makes what Edwards said true.

THe only ones blaming anything on anyone are those who are slamming Bush. Do you think Haliburton is responsible for the loss of jobs in America?

I believe hallibourton is responsible for a lot that people dont realize. Read this thread I started.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why do we have to blame anyone? Why don't you just make an informed decison and vote in November.

If you had read this entire thread, you would have seen that this is exactly what I said in my first reply to this thread. I only replied agian because I get tired of people acting like Bush did nothing wrong when clearly HE HAS DONE EVERYTHING WRONG! Not only that, but ( I just cant resist it ) I want a President whose not afraid of a soft pretzel and a desk.

Actually, as a correction:

Depending on your take on economic issues, of which there are two camps, the prosperity of the Clinton years were not the direct result of Clinton economic policy.

While there is dissagreement among leading economic advisors and analysts, many trend toward the economic strategy of Reagan and Bush the elder for the boom in economic circles enjoyed through the nineties.

Let's not forget, though, while talking all this prosperity during Clinton's reign, that we had the dotcom bubble burst, corporate scandals skyrocketing unemcumbered, and rampant terrorism on both our soil and abroad. Did Clinton prevent terror? IMHO, no, he did not. WTC attack number one, OKC Bombing, the USS Cole, the Embassy attacks. I could go on, but the point is clear: Clinton did not even want to engage terror, he let Bin Laden get away several times, he refused to get with it because of all the furor over the war now being enjoyed by GWB. Clinton only did what was politically expedient, while GWB does what he thinks best, regardless of public opinion. That's called leading. When a people elects you, you are trusted to do what you think best, not bend to every politically charged whim that happens to be wipped up by a leftist media or right wing foxnews machine. Gore was right when he said Americans were like sheep. They follow whatever sounds pleasant in their ear, and ignore the bigger picture. Every time.

The political drum machine is beating, so go step into rythm and vote for that fraud you call a Democrat that railroaded your party.

Livin up to that name huh? I will not vote to re-elect a president who went to war because of 'bad intell' and then deny that he was wrong for doing it. Bush says:"What? They got WMD? Lets get em'."
Later that year...

"Oh, I was lied to? Oh well, lets keep going any way and dont look back.maybe every one will forget about it." In my thickest Texan drawl.

So you would rather, after we invaded and unseated the regime, we pull our troops out and not work to stabalize a country we attacked on 'bad intel' (which Kerry fully agreed with, by the way)?

So, in other words, we should have cut and run like we did in Vietnam, leave the country without even trying to stabalize it, and create an environment where Iraq gets into a protracted civil war, where those WMD's (some of which HAVE been found, btw) would definitely be used in a power grabbing attempt, and then we'd definitely have one more militant islamic state, we'd have the Taliban reborn in Iraq. Good idea.

I vote for staying and at least cleaning up the mess, and I think Kerry would cut and run when he finds out the allies he's claiming to be able to build turn their back because of his pre-election bashing of said allies.

I can see it now, Syria and Turkey, in the absence of American forces, move in to grab power. Iran, not willing to be left out of the picture, send an expedition into Iraq to grab the oil fields before Turkey and Syria get to them. The Kurds, long overdue for independance, try to keep the Turks from overrunning them and moving for independence. The UN condemns the whole thing because they lost their ultra corrupted oil for food program, and the US, under the wise and cunning John Kerry, washes its hands of the whole thing, claiming isolationism as its new philosophy.

Yeah, pull out as soon as we saw that the stockpiles, again, admitted to and verified as true by even the Almighty Kerry, were not discovered, leaving a huge vaccuum. Nice.

We shouldn't have been in Iraq to begin with, so there would be no reason to ask the question you just posed.

It was directed at kidfinger, and a hypothetical based on a conclusion I drew from their reply to my post. Kind of a subthread, I guess.

All of the candidates in the major parties have repeatedly said that they would have done the exact same thing given what we had available then in the form of intelligence.

So, if you don't support ever going in the first place, how can you support a candidate that says he would have done the exact same thing?

everlastingknowitall, thank you for some small bit of intelligence to this thread. Good points.

W_HAMILTON- Can you not answer the question?

I watched the entire debate, and do you remember when they were asked about problmes in Africa and why troops should not be sent to Africa. Now, in the precious tit for tat, Kerry stated that we as a nation were spread to thin bieng in Iraq and not in Afghanistan. He stated that he has a plan to get everyone out and back home. We should not be where we are not needed. Then he promised troops to Africa. Does that not show contradiction in his stand on where our troops are deployed? I would say yes.

[edit on 5-10-2004 by esdad71]

HE DIDN'T SAY HE WOULD DO THE SAME THING.

He said that he would have let UN inspectors do their job, and that if the people on the ground could back up this mythical intelligence which said Iraq had a well-developed WMD program, THEN they would look to go to war.

How is that an unreasonable, flip-floppy position?

What question are you referring to?

Originally posted by everlastingnoitall
It was directed at kidfinger,
So, if you don't support ever going in the first place, how can you support a candidate that says he would have done the exact same thing?

Kerry gave Bush his blessing based on BAD intell. BAD INTELL! If the proper, i.e. truthfull intell, were present, Bush STILL would have wanted a regime change, just as he stated after he took presidency, and Kerry would have wanted to let the UN inspectors do thier job. I dont think you realize this, but you're arguing with someone who was in the first gulf war. I KNOW what kind of a person Saddam Hussain is. I KNOW the attrocities he has commited. And still, with this intimate knowledge, I refuse to say that Bush had reason based on Intell to go to war. There are at least 30 more despots ruling countries that we wont go into and take over. Some of these people are worse than Saddam could ever be (Crazy Kim?) And STILL we will not invade them. Instead, we will use POLLITICAL NEGOTIATIONS to bring about our desired result. The president YOU voted for F'd up. Im sorry for you that in this election year, you still fail to realize this. I have said this many times before, I dont like EITHER candidate, but Im ready to give someone else a chance to rule this country.

everlastinnoitall,

Here is a news article that came out today. BIG SHOCK, NO WMD!

www.insightbb.com.../XML/1107_AP_Online_Regional_-_Middle_East/681e4105-da84-4cd8-87ff-5293a0dc7293.xml&top=TOP

Here is an excerpt:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Contradicting the main argument for a war that has cost more than 1,000 American lives, the top U.S. arms inspector said Wednesday he found no evidence that Iraq produced weapons of mass destruction after 1991. He also concluded that Saddam Hussein's ability to develop such weapons had dimmed - not grown - during a dozen years of sanctions before last year's U.S.-led invasion.



[edit on 10/6/04 by Kidfinger]

I just want to make a clarification. Bush never said that Saddam was an immediate threat ... it was EDWARDS who said that Saddam was an 'imminent threat'. Those are words that Bush never used.

Yes, he did actually. Edwards wasn't even in the public eye when Bush said this

Bush said that Saddam was evil and needed to be removed, once again, it was EDWARDS, after voting FOR giving the President authority to go to war, who justified his vote by stating that Saddam was an imminent threat.

I will try to find a transcript. I can't recall if he said it on the senate floor or if he said it to the media when the session was out, but it WAS Edwards that referred to Saddam as an imminent threat.

Jemison