Bush Is Lying About Kerry

C

coffman

CAGiversary!
In a speech on Monday, President Bush made statements that "ignored elements of Mr. Kerry's record and stated positions in a way that paints an incomplete or distorted portrait of his approach." Here are two examples:

On Monday, Bush said, "Senator Kerry's approach would permit a response only after America is hit." In fact, Kerry has explicitly said that he would use preemptive force when necessary. During the first presidential debate Kerry said, "The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike...No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America."

Bush also said Kerry was "against vital weapon systems during his entire career." According to the non-partisan Factcheck.org, the Bush campaign "bases its claim mainly on Kerry's votes against overall Pentagon money bills in 1990, 1995 and 1996, but these were not votes against specific weapons." Nonetheless, since Kerry has been in Congress he has voted for 16 of the 19 overall Pentagon funding bills. Therefore, "even by the Bush campaign's twisted logic, Kerry should - on balance - be called a supporter of the 'vital' weapons."
 
And Kerry's lying about Bush.
Bush has never proactively mentioned a draft, and Bush did not make it illegal to conduct stem cell research.

Just say 'All politicians lie about themselves and other politicians', and leave it at that; the proof/truth is left as an exercise for the reader.
 
Whether Bush has mentioned a draft or not is really pointless. I mean, who gives a shit what Bush *says*? The draft is going to be dictated by the capacity of our current military vs. their obligations. If I burn your house down to the ground, then tell you, "you don't need to buy a new house," I'm lying to your face, and you know it.

Bush is lying. It's obvious to anyone who looks at the numbers.

seppo
 
[quote name='helava']Whether Bush has mentioned a draft or not is really pointless. I mean, who gives a shit what Bush *says*? The draft is going to be dictated by the capacity of our current military vs. their obligations. If I burn your house down to the ground, then tell you, "you don't need to buy a new house," I'm lying to your face, and you know it.

Bush is lying. It's obvious to anyone who looks at the numbers.

seppo[/quote]

So you're one of those people that thinks Bush is still lying and we'll have a draft huh? People like you really should look at the numbers.

Number of total troops in Iraq is about 190,000
Number of total active troops in the Army about 480,000
troops in the Army NG about 350,000
troops in the Army Reserve about 210,000
active troops in the Marines about 175,000
troops in the Marine Reserve about 40,000

That's just ground troops that I'm not including Navy and Air Force in those particular numbers. I forget the last number for places like Afganistan but I'm fairly sure it deson't exceed 50,000. I think the next biggest deployment is in S. Korea which has a bit under 20,000 I think, and there is already talk of scaling that back. Some of those numbers may be hazy but they are fairly accurate. The end result is short of placing like 400,000 or 500,000 more troops in some place like Iraq you are not going to need a draft. Yes the armed forces will likely be stracthed thinner than usual, but not only would a draft not be called for exactly, but it really wouldn't solve the problem as it work take sometime to call up and train new draftees and by the time the were ready for deployment whoever wins this election would be finishing their term in under a year. Not to mention the fact it has to get pass Congress before the president even has much to do with it, so you should probably research this issue with your congressman canidates even more so than the president. Seeing how the last proposal was from democratic congressmen make sure you don'tjuest assume because they are democrats there won't favor a draft. My whole point is that these far left people need to drop this whole draft scare business. It's not going to happen and people my age need to quit being so easily played by this talk.
 
Right. So the stop-loss programs are really pointless, because we've got plenty of troops to go around, huh? Problem is, we can't just put 190K troops on the ground in Iraq, and leave them there indefinitely. Those troops get rotated out every 6-8 months, rested up, put back into training, and these days, sent back for another tour.

The point being, your numbers don't simply add up - there's a lot of overhead to keep 190K troops on the ground. Given that stop-loss programs have already been put into effect, and there's serious immediate discussion about a special-skills draft (where if you're a doctor, for instance, you may actually get drafted before a full-scale draft starts.

Anyhow, it's not the "far left people" that need to drop it. The President needs to be able to explain, short of saying, "It won't happen," how the numbers actually work, and if we're not stretched thin, why we're retaining people in the military who want to leave.

The real point is, just because Bush says it's so doesn't make it so. He's lied about a whole lot of other things. Given the intensity of an issue like this in an election year, is it *really* beyond your comprehension that he's lying about this, too?

seppo
 
Also, don't forget about Iran. I anticipate that something will need to be done about that country's nuclear ambitions. I doubt we have enough troops to occupy Iran as well.
 
During the first presidential debate Kerry said, "The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike...No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America."
Click to expand...


You conveniently left out the part where he said the preemptive action needed to pass a global test. Sure, Kerry will preempt, as long as France, Germany, and the hacks at the UN say its ok.

fucking liberals, luckily most of the country has sense and Kerry has been consistently losing in the polls.
 
[quote name='CheapyD']I think it would be easier to just let us know when Bush tells the truth about something.[/quote]

These boards would be pretty quiet if we did that.
 
[quote name='JCDenton']
During the first presidential debate Kerry said, "The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike...No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America."
Click to expand...


You conveniently left out the part where he said the preemptive action needed to pass a global test. Sure, Kerry will preempt, as long as France, Germany, and the hacks at the UN say its ok.

shaq-fuing liberals, luckily most of the country has sense and Kerry has been consistently losing in the polls.[/quote]

Kerry has said he will not let the UN or anyone have a say in how we defend ourselves. The "global test" he was talking about is explaining it truthfully to our allies AFTER we did a preventive strike, not before.


This is his quote
"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded -- and nor would I -- the right to preempt in any way necessary, to protect the United States of America," the Democrat told moderator Jim Lehrer during the debate.

"But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way that passes the, the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

link to quote http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/04/kerry.global/

What you are thinking is what Bush is feeding the public, lying about what Kerry has said.
 
You just proved my point.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way that passes the, the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
Click to expand...


He said he won't take action unless he can prove to the world that he did it for legitimate reasons. I don't give a fuck what the rest of the world thinks, especially not certain pansy-ass europeans who are upset that their under-the-table deals with Saddam can't go on anymore. Kerry is a pacifist cut from the same cloth as those cheese eating surrender monkeys so it's no surprise they like him. Of course, they don't like him quite enough, as Kerry's grand plan to withdraw our troops and replace them with French and Germans was quickly shot down by the fact that the French and Germans pretty much laughed at him.

The man is a joke, he has no credibility, and he's consistently down in the polls because America isn't stupid enough to elect a bleeding heart Liberal. You're looking at 4 more years of Bush, and some brand spanking new supreme court judges to go along with him. Wave bye-bye to all your liberal BS like welfare, socialized medicine, affirmative action, gay marriage, government funded abortion, and a tax system that punishes the hardest workers.
 
[quote name='JCDenton']You just proved my point.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way that passes the, the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
Click to expand...


He said he won't take action unless he can prove to the world that he did it for legitimate reasons. I don't give a shaq-fu what the rest of the world thinks, especially not certain pansy-ass europeans who are upset that their under-the-table deals with Saddam can't go on anymore. Kerry is a pacifist cut from the same cloth as those cheese eating surrender monkeys so it's no surprise they like him. Of course, they don't like him quite enough, as Kerry's grand plan to withdraw our troops and replace them with French and Germans was quickly shot down by the fact that the French and Germans pretty much laughed at him.

The man is a joke, he has no credibility, and he's consistently down in the polls because America isn't stupid enough to elect a bleeding heart Liberal. You're looking at 4 more years of Bush, and some brand spanking new supreme court judges to go along with him. Wave bye-bye to all your liberal BS like welfare, socialized medicine, affirmative action, gay marriage, government funded abortion, and a tax system that punishes the hardest workers.[/quote]

So you don't believe the President should have any kind of justification before he attacks another country? It's okay if we attack first and make up excuses later?

As the most powerful nation in the world we have a responsibility to use that power justly. We have to lead by example or we can never expect peace.
 
[quote name='JCDenton']You just proved my point.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way that passes the, the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
Click to expand...


He said he won't take action unless he can prove to the world that he did it for legitimate reasons. I don't give a shaq-fu what the rest of the world thinks, especially not certain pansy-ass europeans who are upset that their under-the-table deals with Saddam can't go on anymore. Kerry is a pacifist cut from the same cloth as those cheese eating surrender monkeys so it's no surprise they like him. Of course, they don't like him quite enough, as Kerry's grand plan to withdraw our troops and replace them with French and Germans was quickly shot down by the fact that the French and Germans pretty much laughed at him.

The man is a joke, he has no credibility, and he's consistently down in the polls because America isn't stupid enough to elect a bleeding heart Liberal. You're looking at 4 more years of Bush, and some brand spanking new supreme court judges to go along with him. Wave bye-bye to all your liberal BS like welfare, socialized medicine, affirmative action, gay marriage, government funded abortion, and a tax system that punishes the hardest workers.[/quote]


You're pretty dense if you think I proved your point. Kerry means that he will not attack another country without a solid reason. Bush is the one with no credibility. He just lies and lies.
 
Hah! Even you can't stand by the extremism of Jiggalo John's comments. He wants justification that the world can accept, which I notice you conveniently left out of your reply, replacing it with any justification. Obviously we shouldn't randomly attack countries (even a Liberal should know that), but I expect our president to act in our best interests regardless of what other countries think.
 
[quote name='JCDenton']Hah! Even you can't stand by the extremism of Jiggalo John's comments. He wants justification that the world can accept, which I notice you conveniently left out of your reply, replacing it with any justification. Obviously we shouldn't randomly attack countries (even a Liberal should know that), but I expect our president to act in our best interests regardless of what other countries think.[/quote]

Damn...you really are dense. He said we need to explain our reasons to other countries that are truthfull. Kerry said he will never let other countries dictate how we protect ourselves.
 
[quote name='JCDenton']Hah! Even you can't stand by the extremism of Jiggalo John's comments. He wants justification that the world can accept, which I notice you conveniently left out of your reply, replacing it with any justification. Obviously we shouldn't randomly attack countries (even a Liberal should know that), but I expect our president to act in our best interests regardless of what other countries think.[/quote]

The Kool-Aid has affected your brain. You are too far gone for rational conversation. Good luck in the real world.
 
The United States has no responsibility to the world. We should do whatever we want, whenever we want without feeling the need to explain our reasons to the world.
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']The United States has no responsibility to the world. We should do whatever we want, whenever we want without feeling the need to explain our reasons to the world.[/quote]

Why can't other countries do the same thing then? Yet every time some country invades another one, or commits genocide, etc, we feel the need to jump in there.

Because all countries do have some repsonsibility to the rest of the world, especially powerful ones like the US
 
So we look at the military numbers, and listen to what Bush is saying, and he's lying, even though he has not made move one to propose or support a draft.

Yet we listen to Kerry, who says first 'I will decide when and where to take action,' then says 'I won't take action unless it passed the global test'; he also appears to be more interested in getting the agreement and support of a consortium of nations than viewing the best interests of this country; but somehow his word is inviolate?

I think we do have a moral responsibility, to some extent, to the world. Not that we should stick our noses in everywhere across the world where things are happening that we might not agree with, at least until it affects us; but when there are things that people are doing that are just *wrong*. Which is why defeating Saddam was the right thing to do.

Ideally, I'd like for all countries to have 'business relationships with all, entangling alliances with none' except when countries unite to defeat the true, and luckily rare, evils, like Hitler.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']The Kool-Aid has affected your brain. You are too far gone for rational conversation. Good luck in the real world.[/quote]

Classic Liberal-in-denial syndrome! Here's another juicy quote from your hero John Kerry, when he was asked if it was worth American lives to go to the Balkans:

It depends what you mean by that, Frank. If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no.

This guy is an absolute scumbag. He thinks it's better to die under the banner of a horribly corrupt organization than it is to die under the US flag. Fortunately, a commie globalist like Kerry doesn't have a chance in hell against our righteous President.
 
[quote name='JCDenton'] Fortunately, a commie globalist like Kerry doesn't have a chance in hell against our righteous President.[/quote]

What the hell are you talking about? Regardless of who wins, it's pretty clear that the race is extremely close. Lacing your posts with invectives diminishes your credibility greatly.
 
I think it's ok. I mean, he's made it pretty clear he's a complete moron, and you can't expect too much from complete morons...

*shrugs*

seppo
 
[quote name='JCDenton'] Fortunately, a commie globalist like Kerry doesn't have a chance in hell against our righteous President.[/quote]

Kerry may be a commie globalist, but I wouldn't call Bush "righteous" by any means.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='JCDenton']Hah! Even you can't stand by the extremism of Jiggalo John's comments. He wants justification that the world can accept, which I notice you conveniently left out of your reply, replacing it with any justification. Obviously we shouldn't randomly attack countries (even a Liberal should know that), but I expect our president to act in our best interests regardless of what other countries think.[/quote]

The Kool-Aid has affected your brain. You are too far gone for rational conversation. Good luck in the real world.[/quote]
I find that very offensive. Kool-Aid would never do that but that cheap knock off powdery stuff yea that shit is like crushed smarties.

To be on topic Bush is a lying, draft dodging, ignorant bigot. Nader would make a better president.
 
[quote name='Azul_KoolAid'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='JCDenton']Hah! Even you can't stand by the extremism of Jiggalo John's comments. He wants justification that the world can accept, which I notice you conveniently left out of your reply, replacing it with any justification. Obviously we shouldn't randomly attack countries (even a Liberal should know that), but I expect our president to act in our best interests regardless of what other countries think.[/quote]

The Kool-Aid has affected your brain. You are too far gone for rational conversation. Good luck in the real world.[/quote]
I find that very offensive. Kool-Aid would never do that but that cheap knock off powdery stuff yea that shit is like crushed smarties.

To be on topic Bush is a lying, draft dodging, ignorant bigot. Nader would make a better president.[/quote]

You know I'd be happy with justification that I could accept and bush can't even give me that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top