It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help! I'm a Republican and I'm leaning to Kerry! Ahh!

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Reason,

So...

Either admit that you are full of it, or you are for real, which means you need to wise up and recognize that you are unhappy with the options.

Please try to focus. The real problem in America, is the US Federal Government. It's a losing system and neither candidate has attempted to get remotely close to even suggesting anything like that.

Perhaps we need cold water all around to shake the dance of the propoganda machine we've got crankin' here on ATS.




posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
You are the one not understanding this.... Bush was not the only president, or administration, believing that Saddam had WMD.... Kerry believed Saddam did have them since Clinton was in office up to 2002-2003.... so how in the world was Bush the only one to "dupe" you when the intelligence, even that which was available when Clinton was in office, was saying Saddam had WMD?.............


Yes, it's apparent you just don't get it.

Clinton didn't rush to war with Iraq. Kerry didn't rush to war with Iraq. I didn't rush to war with Iraq. Bush did. I'm not sure Clinton's stance on the situation, but Kerry and myself both thought that there were probably WMDs, but that didn't mean we needed to go to war RIGHT THEN. We could have waited and let the evidence filter out (which it did, but by then it was too late), and seen if inspectors would have been let back in / seen how they were treated, if they were misled, etc. That's a mighty big jump from thinking that there were WMDs there, to thinking we couldn't have waited even ANOTHER WEEK without it being a threat to our national security. I didn't make that jump, Bush did. Bush, and Bush alone. So don't blame me, or someone else that believed there were WMDs after we took Bush at his word. Believing there were WMDs is not the problem, rushing to war under false pretenses and some downright faulty evidence (which was soon proven) is the problem. If we hadn't rushed to war, we would have seen that some of that evidence was clearly WRONG, and we would have realized that Saddam was not a 'threat of unique urgency' and that it would be better to focus our military elsewhere, maybe trying to find the person that attacked us on 9/11? There's a thought!


And nowhere in that quote you just posted did it say that there was definitive evidence that Iraq was trying to purchase materials from Niger to make nuclear weapons. NOWHERE.

The documents that said Iraq was trying to purchase 500 tons of uranium oxide from Niger to further its nuclear program was a LIE. The documents were FORGERIES. When they were finally shown to the IAEA, they concluded they were clearly forgeries, and said that the lack of authenticity should be "transparently obvious." Even the CIA told the White House that this claim was most likely not true, why do you think there was the cat fight between the two? Which led Rice to say, "had there been even a peep that the agency did not want that sentence in or that George Tenet did not want that sentence in, that the Director of Central Intelligence not want it in, it would have been gone." They were trying to shift the blame to the CIA and make it sound like Bush was misled into putting that comment into his speech.


but that does not negate the one Mr. Bush made in his speech, which was that Iraq was looking for bomb material


Assuming this is true to begin with, which is a lofty assumption, 'bomb' material is not nuclear material. A simple bomb is not considered a WMD. You seem to have a difficult time distinguishing between things which are not even REMOTELY similar.


But do tell me, Clinton freaking downsizing the military has nothing to do with the US armed Forces not having enough soldiers,? or enough equipment, bases, etc, etc?


We are talking about RECRUITMENT. Only Bush and his doctrine of preemption is to blame for the poor recruitment we have experienced over the last year, and the poor recruitment we are bound to experience over the next year. You can downsize all you want, it's easy to build right back up if there is reason enough to join the military. But guess what, there ain't. People don't want to be constantly fighting unjust, optional wars simply because our president think it's necessary -- when it's not. I can't blame them for not wanting to enlist.


it is not the first time we have these problems and it is not the first time that the US Armed Forces have taken in as recruits some "less than desirable people".....


They hadn't reduced recruitment standards since '98, and that was because the economy was doing so well, people didn't have to look to the military as a career choice. Which, conveniently, is part of the reason the military indirectly 'downsized' under Clinton as well, but people fail to point out.



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
Clinton didn't rush to war with Iraq. Kerry didn't rush to war with Iraq. I didn't rush to war with Iraq. Bush did. I'm not sure Clinton's stance on the situation, but Kerry and myself both thought that there were probably WMDs, but that didn't mean we needed to go to war RIGHT THEN. ………………..

Clinton was for it as long as he wasn’t the president to do it….until it proved more politically savvy to switch sides. Kind of like the Kerry stance.



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join