Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Kerry: 'I Can Fight More Effective War on Terror'
By Patricia Wilson

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - Democrat John Kerry said on Tuesday he could fight a more effective war on terror than President Bush and vowed to help keep America safe by extending the Sept. 11 commission's work for 18 months.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...paign_kerry_dc

His speech Thursday should be very interesting.

Bush is fighting terrorism?

(Not since he got distracted with Iraq).

Way to go, extend a commission that has already cost the taxpayers tons of money, and that has already issued their findings.

The commision hasn't finished yet. They are supposed to look at how Bush handled the info he got from the CIA after the elections

Originally Posted by Squirms Way to go, extend a commission that has already cost the taxpayers tons of money, and that has already issued their findings.

Way to go. Blindly dismiss a sugestion on the merits that it didnt come out of the mouth of your choosen candidate.

The reason that Kerry would like the commission to stay active is so they can oversee the implementation of their recomendations (particularly intelligence reforms), and to pressure congress into acting swiftly.

Originally Posted by ZarathosNY The commision hasn't finished yet. They are supposed to look at how Bush handled the info he got from the CIA after the elections

Why IS that, I wonder? Why can't they criticize the President leading up to an election? The voters have a right to know this sort of thing.

Imagine the stink that will rise if it comes out that Bush was completely BSing the public ... and we find out AFTER he is re-elected. We need to have an accurate picture of what Bush did in office in order to effectively evaluate who we want for President...

I don't see any point in keeping together a commission that DID and HAS issued its final report.

He gave this same speech yesterday in Norfolk. He claims "If I were preeeesseeeeeeddddeeeennnnttttt" (You know how this would sound.) that he would have started enacting the commissions reforms last week.

Hmmmm, so he would have forced Congress back in session over its long scheduled August vacation. He would have forgone attending his party's national convention and started encating reforms without consult with the FBI, NSA, DIA, CIA, Pentagon, Coast Guard, Customs, Secret Service or any other government agency? How does he know which of the recommendations have been shot down, in the process of being implemented or have been implemented but not publicly so as to disarm our enemies?

Great John, just swell. We'd all be safe if YOU were Ppppprrrrreeeeesssssiiiiidddddeeeenntttttttt by the time NFL training camps broke. So damn disingenuous.

Get back in your sperm suit.

Originally Posted by Squirms Way to go, extend a commission that has already cost the taxpayers tons of money, and that has already issued their findings.

I'd rather money spent on this, than the travesty that was Whitewater. You probably didn't complain about that though. I don't believe we needed millions of taxpayers dollars to find out that the president had a bj.

Why don't you come back after you've had a chance to discover the real meaning of "obstruction of justice" and do a little bit of history and see what happened to Richard Nixon when he lied under oath mmmmmmkay?

Originally Posted by PittsburghAfterDark Why don't you come back after you've had a chance to discover the real meaning of "obstruction of justice" and do a little bit of history and see what happened to Richard Nixon when he lied under oath mmmmmmkay?

I could not care less if anyone, even a president, lied about getting a bj. Bill Clinton is a sleazebag, but he was a good president. Lying about WMD's however, that upsets me.

-Edit unless it was an adulterous relationship I was in. Then I might want to know if my girlfriend had given or gotten oral sex from another man. But then again, I might not. But that is neither here nor there.

Does anyone else feel the the war on terrorism might be counterproductive? I mean if we piss enough people off, terrorist organizations from other countries might start committing acts of terrorism against us. IMO terrorism will never be eliminated, so I don't know how much good it is doing us trying to fight it.

Kerry in the "sperm suit" isn't as bad as the picture of Bush picking his nose at a baseball game (or cheerleading when he was in college--->what a wimp).

Originally Posted by redline Does anyone else feel the the war on terrorism might be counterproductive? I mean if we piss enough people off, terrorist organizations from other countries might start committing acts of terrorism against us. IMO terrorism will never be eliminated, so I don't know how much good it is doing us trying to fight it.

I agree. The war on terrorism cannot be effectively waged as any sort of conventional war. The best way to eliminate terrorism is to try to eliminate any reason for people to become terrorists.

Why don't you come back after you've had a chance to discover the real meaning of "obstruction of justice" and do a little bit of history and see what happened to Richard Nixon when he lied under oath mmmmmmkay?

Obligitory Futurama Quote:

"I remember MY body - Pale, flabby....riddled with phlebitis - a good republican body!"
- R. Nixon's head

Originally Posted by coffman Kerry in the "sperm suit" isn't as bad as the picture of Bush picking his nose at a baseball game (or cheerleading when he was in college--->what a wimp).

Or Bush dressing up in a flight suit.

You apologists still have no idea what the Clinton impeachment was all about do you? I mean it wasn't about a blow job, hummer or a cum stain on a blue dress. It was the fact that a sitting President took an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution then, under oath, lied. That's also called perjury.

Spin it about covering himself, not admitting an affair or whatever it is you need to do to make that Clinton brand Kool Aid taste good. However don't make any mistake that he survived what even the threat of, impeachment, caused Richard Nixon to resign. Clinton's legacy is now cut in stone and in 25 years it will be pretty firm. He took his eyes off the ball of terrorism because of a blow job and the Republican lead Senate was foolish for not conducting an agressive trial to remove him from office.

Originally Posted by PittsburghAfterDark Why don't you come back after you've had a chance to discover the real meaning of "obstruction of justice" and do a little bit of history and see what happened to Richard Nixon when he lied under oath mmmmmmkay?

Obstruction of Justice ---- pretty much sums up W's presidency.

Pittsburgh... EVERY goddamn presidential candidate pulls this sort of shit. It's an election year, of course he's supposed to be flinging promises left and right. Bush is doing the same thing. Remember his campaign speech--I mean, State of the Union address? How many baseless promises were in there? How many things did he promise while campaigning in 2000 that he never came close to seeing through during his term as President? Where's my affordable healthcare? Every President since I've been alive (if not longer) has been eschewing that particular load of crap.

Perhaps you should start taking a more critical look at your own party. Shit stinks no matter what political adgenda you wrap it in. There are certain things you should come to expect from the political process in an election year, and baseless promises are definitely in that list. Get down off your propagandist horse for a bit, will ya.

Originally Posted by ZarathosNY Obstuctiion of Justice ---- pretty much sums up W's presidency.

Yeah, why haven't they pursued who leaked the CIA operative to the press? Why? Because he works for Cheney's staff, that's why.

Lying under oath about a b.j. doesn't piss me off as much as lying about going to war with Iraq which cost us 900 of our brothers and sister's lives.

A REAL concern is the genocide that's happening in Sudan right now that bush doesn't give a crap about because Sudan doesn't have oil.