Kerry: 'I Can Fight More Effective War on Terror'

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
 
[quote name='Squirms']Way to go, extend a commission that has already cost the taxpayers tons of money, and that has already issued their findings.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='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[/quote]

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.
capt.jey13d07271628.campaign_kerry_jey13d.jpg
 
[quote name='Squirms']Way to go, extend a commission that has already cost the taxpayers tons of money, and that has already issued their findings.[/quote]

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?
 
[quote name='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?[/quote]

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).
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

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?
Click to expand...

Obligitory Futurama Quote:

"I remember MY body - Pale, flabby....riddled with phlebitis - a good republican body!"
- R. Nixon's head
 
[quote name='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).[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='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?[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='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?[/quote]

Obstuctiion of Justice ---- pretty much sums up W's presidency.[/quote]

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.
 
Find me one instance of George W. Bush taking an oath to "Tell the truth, whole truth so help me God." and then lying. That's it... just one.

Since you can't take your half baked flame bait and "shove it".

i'm sticking with the Heinz-Kerry version in honor of the DNC festivities in Boston this week.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Find me one instance of George W. Bush taking an oath to "Tell the truth, whole truth so help me God." and then lying. That's it... just one.

Since you can't take your half baked flame bait and "shove it".

i'm sticking with the Heinz-Kerry version in honor of the DNC festivities in Boston this week.[/quote]

That's because he won't. Take the 9/11 commission for example. Instead of testifying like Clinton did, he would only answer questions not under oath, behind closed doors, with no notes allowed, only two commission members present, and with Cheney by his side.

So that's our fearless leader, huh?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']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.[/quote]

I think you made a mistake. You accidently put Clinton's name instead of putting our current president. Clinton will be remembered as on of the best presidents of our time. Your are so deep in the republican forrest to even see the trees. At least u give me a daily laugh with your right wing postings of garbage, though u say there is no agenda you are just reporting the news. Bush is a tyrant, he uses his idiocy as a decoy for his actions. Everyone loves the lovable moron, ala Lennie from Mice and Men, there will only be debates about which Bush is worse in 25 years.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Find me one instance of George W. Bush taking an oath to "Tell the truth, whole truth so help me God." and then lying. That's it... just one.

Since you can't take your half baked flame bait and "shove it".

i'm sticking with the Heinz-Kerry version in honor of the DNC festivities in Boston this week.[/quote]

How about when he was sworn in as president?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']So E-Z-B are you contrasting the genocide in Sudan with the one Clinton did so much about in Rwanda? Careful pot... the kettle is black.[/quote]

The issue is that Bush was so gung-ho to go after genocide that happened in Iraq 10 or 20 years ago (so he says), that he would rather take a massive dump on the Sudan than lift a finger to help those people getting butchered.

At least Clinton went into the balkans to stop the genocide there under Milosevich. There was no incentive to go in there, like with the oil in Iraq.
 
Wait a minute.... is he an idiot or a tyrant. Or is he an idiot tyrant backed by someone else? I mean there wasn't one Halliburton or Cheney rant in your post.

I'll give you a break though. I'll give you a chance to list 3 things that makes Clinton one of the best Presidents of our time. That's it.... three. If he's so great that's a no brainer. It's not like I'm looking for 10, just three.
 
What about Rwanda? Why did Clinton do nothing about Rwanda? How many millions died while Clinton did nothing? Can you answer that question? Why did Clinton not lift a finger to stop the millions of deaths in Rwanda on his watch? If you're so concerned, I mean compassionately and legitimately concerned about the issue as opposed to blowing political smoke for the sake of message board debate, why can't you begin to accurately address my question?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Wait a minute.... is he an idiot or a tyrant. Or is he an idiot tyrant backed by someone else? I mean there wasn't one Halliburton or Cheney rant in your post.

I'll give you a break though. I'll give you a chance to list 3 things that makes Clinton one of the best Presidents of our time. That's it.... three. If he's so great that's a no brainer. It's not like I'm looking for 10, just three.[/quote]

a balanced budget, a ban on assault weapons, and the Oslo Peace accords
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']What about Rwanda? Why did Clinton do nothing about Rwanda? How many millions died while Clinton did nothing? Can you answer that question? Why did Clinton not lift a finger to stop the millions of deaths in Rwanda on his watch? If you're so concerned, I mean compassionately and legitimately concerned about the issue as opposed to blowing political smoke for the sake of message board debate, why can't you begin to accurately address my question?[/quote]

Yes, Clinton SHOULD have done something, and the Internation Community should have done something too. But they didn't.

But since you're blinded to your party, you will never think anything different then what our Great Leader tells you to think.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Wait a minute.... is he an idiot or a tyrant. Or is he an idiot tyrant backed by someone else? I mean there wasn't one Halliburton or Cheney rant in your post.

I'll give you a break though. I'll give you a chance to list 3 things that makes Clinton one of the best Presidents of our time. That's it.... three. If he's so great that's a no brainer. It's not like I'm looking for 10, just three.[/quote]

1st off clinton was excellent with dealing with foreign allies. He worked well in the middle east and in Europe both eastern and western

2nd Restricting the sale of hand guns

3rd He helped both the WTO and NAFTA come together.

Thats just off the top of my head, I await your right wing response to rebuff or diffuse these claims
 
1. The balanced budget isn't the act of a President. The President can't spend a dime. The President can't raise one dime of revenue. All in flow and out flow of government funds is conrolled by Congress. Therefore the balanced budget was the result of the actions of Congress, a Republican Congress at that. Since you don't know how government spending is controlled and revenues are raised I suggest you familiarize yourself with Article I of the U.S. Constitution.

2. The ban on assault weapons. Not permanent. In fact that law is up for renewal because it was only a 10 year law. This law outlawed many weapons of foreign manufacture but allowed their domestic counterpart stay legal. AK-47's and Uzi's were outlawed the AR-15 could remain legal. This law was terribly flawed and again... not permanent and will not be renewed in September.

3. The Oslo Accords may have been monumental as the Camp David Accords were for Carter. However Yasser Arafat completely destroyed any adoption of them therefore they're nothing more than an interesting historical "what if".

Ikon's 3

1st off clinton was excellent with dealing with foreign allies. He worked well in the middle east and in Europe both eastern and western.

I wouldn't call diplomacy an accomplishment. I wouldn't even call Bush 41's ability to put together a coalition for Desert Strom a Presidential accomplishment. It's what the outcome of those alliances did that was historical. I'll give you half a point on this but nothing specific was given, just a general "we all got along" type of thing.

2nd Restricting the sale of hand guns.

Which was already addressed and is actually a detrimental thing as it abridges the second ammendment. These gun laws are going to be sunsetted this fall FYI.

3rd He helped both the WTO and NAFTA come together.

I'll give you this. Even though both treaties were long negotiated they were enacted under Clinton. A very non-leftist claim to fame but I agree entirely.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']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.[/quote]

Um, it was the Republicans that were focused on the blow job, not the other way around.

And wasn't it Bush that that took a month long vacation in August (the month before 9/11)? In fact as of August 2001, he spent "42 percent of his presidency "at vacation spots or en route."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A57120-2001Aug10&notFound=true
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']1. The balanced budget isn't the act of a President. The President can't spend a dime. The President can't raise one dime of revenue. All in flow and out flow of government funds is conrolled by Congress. Therefore the balanced budget was the result of the actions of Congress, a Republican Congress at that. Since you don't know how government spending is controlled and revenues are raised I suggest you familiarize yourself with Articl I of the U.S. Constitution.

2. The ban on assault weapons. Not permanent. In fact that law is up for renewal because it was only a 10 year law. This law outlawed many weapons of foreign manufacture but allowed their domestic counterpart stay legal. AK-47's and Uzi's were outlawed the AR-15 could remain legal. This law was terribly flawed and again... not permanent and will not be renewed in September.

3. The Oslo Accords may have been monumental as the Camp David Accords were for Carter. However Yasser Arafat completely destroyed any adoption of them therefore they're nothing more than an interesting historical "what if".[/quote]

The president submits the budget to congress. Much like how bush is submitting a record deficit budget of $400+ billion to congress.

The ban on assault could be extended, but bush will never allow it since he's controlled partly by the NRA

The peace accords were monumental at the time, but since you have hindsight, you can easily say they didn't work. When was the last time I saw bush working for peace in the middle east?
 
CheapyD, with all due respect every President and every Congress since dirt, or in Washington's case swamp, had gotten the hell out of Dodge for the entire month of August since Pierre L'Efant laid down the blueprints for the capital. This wasn't something new.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Find me one instance of George W. Bush taking an oath to "Tell the truth, whole truth so help me God." and then lying. That's it... just one.
.[/quote]

So according to you, a president is not obligated to tell the truth to Americans unless he takes an oath previously? He's free to lie his ass off unless he swears first?

I prefer my president to be honest at all times, but I guess you need that rationale if you vote Republican.
 
The above linked article says:
"News coverage has pointedly stressed that W.'s month-long stay at his ranch in Crawford is the longest presidential vacation in 32 years."
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']1. The balanced budget isn't the act of a President. The President can't spend a dime. The President can't raise one dime of revenue. All in flow and out flow of government funds is conrolled by Congress. Therefore the balanced budget was the result of the actions of Congress, a Republican Congress at that. Since you don't know how government spending is controlled and revenues are raised I suggest you familiarize yourself with Article I of the U.S. Constitution.

2. The ban on assault weapons. Not permanent. In fact that law is up for renewal because it was only a 10 year law. This law outlawed many weapons of foreign manufacture but allowed their domestic counterpart stay legal. AK-47's and Uzi's were outlawed the AR-15 could remain legal. This law was terribly flawed and again... not permanent and will not be renewed in September.

3. The Oslo Accords may have been monumental as the Camp David Accords were for Carter. However Yasser Arafat completely destroyed any adoption of them therefore they're nothing more than an interesting historical "what if".

Ikon's 3

1st off clinton was excellent with dealing with foreign allies. He worked well in the middle east and in Europe both eastern and western.

I wouldn't call diplomacy an accomplishment. I wouldn't even call Bush 41's ability to put together a coalition for Desert Strom a Presidential accomplishment. It's what the outcome of those alliances did that was historical. I'll give you half a point on this but nothing specific was given, just a general "we all got along" type of thing.

2nd Restricting the sale of hand guns.

Which was already addressed and is actually a detrimental thing as it abridges the second ammendment. These gun laws are going to be sunsetted this fall FYI.

3rd He helped both the WTO and NAFTA come together.

I'll give you this. Even though both treaties were long negotiated they were enacted under Clinton. A very non-leftist claim to fame but I agree entirely.[/quote]

You say that the President can't do anything. Well the President's POWER is to VETO bills! President Bush has NOT vetoed one bill since in office. Could it be that he is NOT doing his job!!! He's not doing anything except starting a war with Iraq.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']CheapyD, with all due respect every President and every Congress since dirt, or in Washington's case swamp, had gotten the hell out of Dodge for the entire month of August since Pierre L'Efant laid down the blueprints for the capital. This wasn't something new.[/quote]

this is historically accurate, however prior to (i believe) the 1920's washington would pretty much shut down in the summer due to the heat. theres no need for this in current days with air conditioning and such, so the "tradition" is somewhat obselete. im not bashing bush for taking a vacation, i mean everyone should take one, but man did he pick a bad time to do so
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']CheapyD, with all due respect every President and every Congress since dirt, or in Washington's case swamp, had gotten the hell out of Dodge for the entire month of August since Pierre L'Efant laid down the blueprints for the capital. This wasn't something new.[/quote]

So we wouldn't want to make an exception even if you got a memo titled "Osama bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." I mean Dubya needs his R & R - working more than 58% of the time will kill a man. (oh yeah - that's sarcasm)
 
The President doesn't submit the budget to Congress. The President submits what he would like the budget to be to Congress. At which point they negotiate tooth and nail. Or... when the Democrats were in charge and Reagan was President declared the President's budget ideas "DOA!". The negotiations with a Republican congress and vastly increased tax revenues of a hot economy and some semblance of Congressional fiscal responsibility lead to a balanced budget. Clinton by himself did not balance the budget. It is Constitutionally impossible for any President to do so.

Oh good, I'll have to put the NRA down as yet another "evil" group that has the President under its control. You do realize that over 2 million people are members and they are, behind the AARP, the largest "special interest" in the country? Compare that to the >100,000 that populate the NOW and then contrast how both are portrayed and given seats of power.

So in regards to the Oslo Accords we should give Clinton props for being well inentioned as opposed to actually accomplishing things?
 
I'd be inclined to debate PittsburghAfterDark, but see, here's the problem: he's not debatable. Why? To debate with someone, they have to actually be thinking, and expressing opinions. He's not. He's simply reciting the RNC's propaganda and generic spin points. Since he's not concerned with the veracity of his actual claims, you can't debate him.

He is sorta funny, though.

But seriously, come on. Anyone at this point who sincerely supports Bush/Cheney is simply insane.

seppo
 
You could publish a memo with that title every day of the year. Frankly, it's on the same level as getting a memo titled "Sun determined to rise in East." Code orange!
 
[quote name='acolyte']You could publish a memo with that title every day of the year. Frankly, it's on the same level as getting a memo that says "Sun determined to rise in East."[/quote][/quote]

You do remember that this memo was correct, right?
 
Yes, the memo was correct. It could also have been published every day since the first WTC bombing. We ignored that a war had been declared on us because we had no idea how to combat it. Clinton treated it as a legal issue, which I'm not even criticizing, it was just the wrong tactic. No western power that dealt with terrorism was faced with an enemy like Al Qaeda.

The IRA, Red Brigades, Baader Meinhoff and the Basque seperatists all were the template of how the FBI viewed terrorism. Someone operating inside your borders weren't supposed to fly planes into buildings. We had to learn an extremely painful lesson at home but that lesson had been given us in Kenya, Somolia, in Yemen with the USS Cole and in Suaid Arabia with the Khobar Towers bombings.

There's enough blame to go around on 9/11 for it to be laid entirely at the feet of Bush which the 9/11 commision didn't. I'm not even going to lay it at the feet of Clinton because he failed to take bin Laden from the Sudan. Quite frankly I think Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri would have pulled off the attacks even if Clinton would have had bin Laden in custody. No single president can be held accountable for the rise of Islmic fascism.

The roots were laid with our support of the Shah after WW II, arguably. That would pin blame going back generations from Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush. We can realistically say our problems in the middle east have to do with how the region has been forced to develop since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the actions of the British Empire. It's too long and convoluted to pin on even the 2nd half of the 20th century.
 
You do remember the text of that memo, right? The year "1998" crops up quite a bit. The last two paragraphs are the meat of the importance. Still, saying "consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks" is far from saying "hijackings cum suicide bombings are imminent," and the FBI indicates that they had ongoing investigations. I'm no fan of long Presidential vacations, but I don't see what the memo should have spurred the President himself to do.

Edit: To be fair, the full text of the memo isn't available for "security reasons," so it's entirely possible (or likely if you're inclined to believe so) that the released version is missing the big information. Also, with hindsight, the embassy call and the "suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks" fit the profile.
 
[quote name='helava']I'd be inclined to debate PittsburghAfterDark, but see, here's the problem: he's not debatable. Why? To debate with someone, they have to actually be thinking, and expressing opinions. He's not. He's simply reciting the RNC's propaganda and generic spin points. Since he's not concerned with the veracity of his actual claims, you can't debate him.

He is sorta funny, though.

But seriously, come on. Anyone at this point who sincerely supports Bush/Cheney is simply insane.

seppo[/quote]

Yeah, I guess you're right. Even just by looking at his avatar, it becomes clear that he's just going to spew RNC propoganda b.s. #-o

He would sooner drop dead than ever admit that his party is wrong on anything. Tom DeLay would be proud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top