Well I don't think he won. I thought they both made good points and handled themselves well. It was better than I thought because of all the rules each camp laid out, it was more interactive that what I anticipated. Kerry has obviously a smoother style. People have seen Bush before and know he's not the greatest orator in the world. They fell he won on substance and Kerry won on style. They also said Dukakis won the first debate. Guess we all know how that turned out.
Unbeknownst to Kerry adviser Mike McCurry, a C-SPAN camera quietly followed McCurry as he found Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart on Spin Alley floor and asked him his impression of the debate. Lockhart candidly said to McCurry , “Basically, the overall is that the thing was a draw.”
But the American public is apparently confused about the whole thing.
"Rumsfeld's comments came as a new USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll found that 42 percent of those surveyed thought the former Iraqi leader was involved in the attacks on New York City and Washington. In response to another question, 32 percent said they though Saddam had personally planned them."
"Oh, it wasn't Saddam? It was that guy with the beard and the big walkie-talkie? What happened to him anyway?"
And we're the country that's supposed to be picked by God to lead the world?
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Oct 5, 2004 at 05:11am.]
Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein’s regime to work with some of the world’s most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam’s government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.
One of the Iraqi memos contains an order from Saddam for his intelligence service to support terrorist attacks against Americans in Somalia. The memo was written nine months before U.S. Army Rangers were ambushed in Mogadishu by forces loyal to a warlord with alleged ties to al Qaeda.
Other memos provide a list of terrorist groups with whom Iraq had relationships and considered available for terror operations against the United States. - CNSNews.com
"Rumsfeld's comments came as a new USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll found that 42 percent of those surveyed thought the former Iraqi leader was involved in the attacks on New York City and Washington. In response to another question, 32 percent said they though Saddam had personally planned them."
Back in the day, these people wouldn't have survived.
... SO overwheliming as to cause an abruption of our WOT, to invade that country.
You fill your head with lie after lie, fold. Iraq is the war on terror. Who the hell do you think we are fighting? Who do you think al-Zarqawi is? What the hell do you think Saddam was doing? Bush said from the start there was an axis of evil and that the war was a broad war. There was no diversion that is just a lie your kind attempts to foist upon on the ignorant.
If there is an "Axis of Evil", then why are we NOT fighting the other two countries, right now?
We just might have to and soon. Saddam had tangled with us before and broke his agreements that ended the Gulf War. It was something that should have been done even 9/11 had happened.
By the way, I have not accused you or called you any names personally
lately, not even ONCE. I thought we had agreed NOT to do that, Jethro...?
What name did I call you? I said you filled your head with lies. I also said your kind was foisting lies on the ignorant. So what names did I call you? Are you saying "your kind" is calling you a name? I don't see it that way.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Oct 5, 2004 at 07:37am.]
Funny how no one can provide PROOF, even CLOSE to PROOF, of any relationshup of Saddaam and Al Qaida ties, ties that were SO overwheliming as to cause an abruption of our WOT, to invade that country.
Contacts between Iraqi intelligence agents and Osama bin Laden when he was in Sudan in the mid-1990's were part of a broad effort by Baghdad to work with organizations opposing the Saudi ruling family, according to a newly disclosed document obtained by the Americans in Iraq.
Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials.
The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. The Iraqi delegation was led by Farouk Hijazi, Baghdad's ambassador in Turkey and one of Saddam's most powerful secret policemen, who is thought to have offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq.
An alleged terrorist accused of helping the 11 September conspirators was invited to a party by the Iraqi ambassador to Spain under his al-Qaeda nom de guerre, according to documents seized by Spanish investigators...
...Evidence of Galan's links with Iraqi government officials came to light only recently, as investigators pored through more than 40,000 pages of documents seized in raids at the homes of Galan and seven alleged co-conspirators. The Spanish authorities have supplied copies to lawyers in America, and this week the documents will form part of a dossier to be filed in a federal court in Washington, claiming damages of approximately $100 billion on behalf of more than 2,500 11 September victims.Â
The U.S. had been suspicious for months, partly because of Osama bin Laden's financial ties, but also because of strong connections to Iraq. Sources say the U.S. had intercepted phone calls from the plant to a man in Iraq who runs that country's chemical weapons program.
...A shipment of this rudimentary panic-spreader, produced by what interrogators say is a Qaeda-Saddam joint venture, was recently intercepted in Turkey on its way to terror cells in the West...
"The envoy is a trusted confidant and known by them. According to the above mediation we request official permission to call Khartoum station to facilitate the travel arrangements for the above-mentioned person to Iraq. And that our body carry all the travel and hotel expenses inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden, the Saudi opposition leader, about the future of our relationship with him, and to achieve a direct meeting with him."
Forget it Dan. I said from the start that unless we broke into some secret facility with cameras rolling that showed Saddam was about to launch a nuke with his fingers on the bg red "LAUNCH" Button ala James Bond. That it wouldn't and won't be good enough for some.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Oct 6, 2004 at 07:56am.]
Gee, that sure is "PROOF". I guess it was worth over 800 lives and 8 thousand wounded, and no end in sight..to a War that we cannot win,even by Gdubya's own man in Iraq, Paul Bremer ...???
That is the difference between republicans and democrats. Republicans know we can win and in fact are winning. It will be cut and run with democrats and then we will NEVER get any allies in fighting the war on terror.
Forget it Dan. I said from the start that unless we broke into some secret facility with cameras rolling that showed Saddam was about to launch a nuke with his fingers on the bg red "LAUNCH" Button ala James Bond. That it wouldn't and won't be good enough for some.
If you actually read the story you posted you would see that he says there were not enough troops when he arrived in Iraq. You want it to say before, during and after but he didn't say that.
There were obviously enough troops to oust Saddam. There may or may not have been enough troops after the fall. Furthermore, even if the troops Bremer thought were needed were there it may not have made a difference. But the fact is Bremer said there is enough troops there now. While Kerry has said he wants to increase the size of the military, which should have his base howling in protest, he hasn't said, at least I haven't heard him say, he would send more troops to Iraq.
WASHINGTON Â— House hearings on Tuesday raised the possibility that Saddam Hussein bought votes in the United Nations Security Council in exchange for benefits from the Oil-for-Food program approved by the world body.
House Government Reform subcommittee chairman Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., suggested the Oil-for-Food program actually helped keep the now-deposed Iraqi leader in power because the former dictator gave oil contracts to Security Council members who protected him.
Actually, both are. The war was called a catastrophic success because we moved in so fast that the troops actually had to take a break from advancing to allow for supply lines to catch up to them. In other words, they did way better than anyone expected and moved in too fast.
So yes, we were short at the beginning when it came to protecting from looting due to our troops being even better than expected. No, we are not short now. If we become short, those on the ground will request more troops and more will be sent.
Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry conceded yesterday that he probably will not be able to convince France and Germany to contribute troops to Iraq if he is elected president. Â Â Â Â The Massachusetts senator has made broadening the coalition trying to stabilize Iraq a centerpiece of his campaign, but at a town hall meeting yesterday, he said he knows other countries won't trade their soldiers' lives for those of U.S. troops.
No kidding. They were never going to send people regardless of whom was in office. They were too busy administering the oil for palaces scam and selling weapons.
Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry conceded yesterday that he probably will not be able to convince France and Germany to contribute troops to Iraq if he is elected president.
What? But I thought "Hope is on the way"?
No kidding. They were never going to send people regardless of whom was in office. They were too busy administering the oil for palaces scam and selling weapons.
How about Salmon Pak, Fold? Remember, they were the ones with the jet airliner for terrorist training purposes?
Yeah, that 's Ritter.
...Equipment-moving trucks and refrigerated trucks were observed at the Salman Pak BW (Biological Warfare)Â facility prior to the onset of bombing, suggesting that Iraq was moving equipment or material into or out of the facility. Information obtained after the conflict revealed that Iraq had moved BW agent production equipment from Salman Pak to the Al Hakam suspect BW facility...
...Iraq told UN inspectors that Salman Pak was an anti-terror training camp for Iraqi special forces. However, two defectors from Iraqi intelligence stated that they had worked for several years at the secret Iraqi government camp, which had trained Islamic terrorists in rotations of five or six months since 1995. Training activities including simulated hijackings carried out in an airplane fuselage [said to be a Boeing 707] at the camp. The camp is divided into distinct sections. On one side of the camp young, Iraqis who were members of Fedayeen Saddam are trained in espionage, assassination techniques and sabotage. The Islamic militants trained on the other side of the camp, in an area separated by a small lake, trees and barbed wire. The militants reportedly spent time training, usually in groups of five or six, around the fuselage of the airplane. There were rarely more than 40 or 50 Islamic radicals in the camp at one time.
And by the way, Kerry said in the Debate that getting France or German troops on the ground in Iraq at this point, was wishing . BUT, he DID say that he would try to get others who WOULD send Troops, so WE could atart pulling out within 6 months, and more of them, now and if there is a "Next Time" and IF there is a "Next Time", and thatis what is important to the voters.
Tell me fold, how do you get anyone to send troops to the "wrong war at the wrong place and the wrong time?"
And by the way, Kerry said in the Debate that getting France or German troops on the ground in Iraq at this point, was wishing. BUT, he DID say that he would try to get others who WOULD send Troops, so WE could atart pulling out within 6 months, and more of them, now and if there is a "Next Time" and IF there is a "Next Time", and thatis what is important to the voters.
O.K what countries?
You've constantly complained that the countries that are over there aren't very powerful or have allot of military strength. So what other mythical countries out there with military prowess will Kerry be bringing aboard? China?
Democracy will never take root in the Middle East if the people who live there don't want it themselves. We can't turn bigoted fundamentalists into genuine liberals at gunpoint. We can, however, join forces with the liberals who are already there. But most Democrats have no interest in forging an alliance with democratic Arabs to fight terror and tyrants. They would rather spend all their energy picking fights with Republicans..
Â
If the United States doesn't demand Middle Eastern democracy, nobody will. The European Union can never convince kings and generals who kill their way into power to change their behavior. The United Nations won't even bother to try. Human rights organizations will push for liberty and democracy as they always have. But they don't have any power. They can't do it alone.
They even quote Ghaddafi:
"I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid."
link
[Edited 5 times. Most recently by on Oct 7, 2004 at 03:27pm.]
Well I don't think he won. I thought they both made good points and handled themselves well. It was better than I thought because of all the rules each camp laid out, it was more interactive that what I anticipated. Kerry has obviously a smoother style. People have seen Bush before and know he's not the greatest orator in the world. They fell he won on substance and Kerry won on style. They also said Dukakis won the first debate. Guess we all know how that turned out.
Unbeknownst to Kerry adviser Mike McCurry, a C-SPAN camera quietly followed McCurry as he found Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart on Spin Alley floor and asked him his impression of the debate. Lockhart candidly said to McCurry , “Basically, the overall is that the thing was a draw.”
I love C-Span.
[Edited by on Oct 1, 2004 at 08:46am.]
Wha???????????? In other words... HE LOST.
Just Say HE LOST.
Glad to see Kerry is against and said he wants to cancell Bunker Busters. Now why would you ever need them?
The early polls and the "Pundits" ALLgive it to Kerry...on ALL the networks.
I think they said the same about Gore in 2000.
Hmmmmmmm, join the military with no expectations of going to war when called. Perhaps they should have read the fine print before signing up, eh Fold?
Perhaps they should have read the fine print before signing up, eh Fold?
Fine print? I think it's pretty clear.
It's like signing up for a boxing match and not expecting to get punched.
[Edited by on Oct 2, 2004 at 08:09am.]
heh!
Bill Maher is Kerry's bitch
Bill Maher is Kerry's bitch
He's a has-been.
Rummy says Saddam -- A Qaeda link tenuous
But the American public is apparently confused about the whole thing.
"Rumsfeld's comments came as a new USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll found that 42 percent of those surveyed thought the former Iraqi leader was involved in the attacks on New York City and Washington. In response to another question, 32 percent said they though Saddam had personally planned them."
"Oh, it wasn't Saddam? It was that guy with the beard and the big walkie-talkie? What happened to him anyway?"
And we're the country that's supposed to be picked by God to lead the world?
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Oct 5, 2004 at 05:11am.]
And we're the country that's supposed to be picked by God to lead the world?
Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein’s regime to work with some of the world’s most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam’s government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.
One of the Iraqi memos contains an order from Saddam for his intelligence service to support terrorist attacks against Americans in Somalia. The memo was written nine months before U.S. Army Rangers were ambushed in Mogadishu by forces loyal to a warlord with alleged ties to al Qaeda.
Other memos provide a list of terrorist groups with whom Iraq had relationships and considered available for terror operations against the United States.
- CNSNews.com
"Rumsfeld's comments came as a new USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll found that 42 percent of those surveyed thought the former Iraqi leader was involved in the attacks on New York City and Washington. In response to another question, 32 percent said they though Saddam had personally planned them."
Back in the day, these people wouldn't have survived.
Too stupid to live.
Time to thin the herd.
[Edited by on Oct 5, 2004 at 06:27am.]
... SO overwheliming as to cause an abruption of our WOT, to invade that country.
You fill your head with lie after lie, fold. Iraq is the war on terror. Who the hell do you think we are fighting? Who do you think al-Zarqawi is? What the hell do you think Saddam was doing? Bush said from the start there was an axis of evil and that the war was a broad war. There was no diversion that is just a lie your kind attempts to foist upon on the ignorant.
OH, then Gdubbya is totally trustworthy, to YOU.
Much more than Kerry.
If there is an "Axis of Evil", then why are we NOT fighting the other two countries, right now?
We just might have to and soon. Saddam had tangled with us before and broke his agreements that ended the Gulf War. It was something that should have been done even 9/11 had happened.
By the way, I have not accused you or called you any names
personally
lately, not even ONCE. I thought we had agreed NOT to do that, Jethro...?
What name did I call you? I said you filled your head with lies. I also said your kind was foisting lies on the ignorant. So what names did I call you? Are you saying "your kind" is calling you a name? I don't see it that way.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Oct 5, 2004 at 07:37am.]
your kind=democrats
Funny how no one can provide PROOF, even CLOSE to PROOF, of any relationshup of Saddaam and Al Qaida ties, ties that were SO overwheliming as to cause an abruption of our WOT, to invade that country.
Forget it Dan. I said from the start that unless we broke into some secret facility with cameras rolling that showed Saddam was about to launch a nuke with his fingers on the bg red "LAUNCH" Button ala James Bond. That it wouldn't and won't be good enough for some.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Oct 6, 2004 at 07:56am.]
Yeah, and we should have tried a 19th UN resolution.
Gee, that sure is "PROOF". I guess it was worth over 800 lives and 8 thousand wounded, and no end in sight..to a War that we cannot win,even by Gdubya's own man in Iraq,
Paul Bremer
...???
That is the difference between republicans and democrats. Republicans know we can win and in fact are winning. It will be cut and run with democrats and then we will
NEVER
get any allies in fighting the war on terror.
Forget it Dan. I said from the start that unless we broke into some secret facility with cameras rolling that showed Saddam was about to launch a nuke with his fingers on the bg red "LAUNCH" Button ala James Bond. That it wouldn't and won't be good enough for some.
On the grassy knoll with Colonel Mustard with the candlestick :)
I say it WASstaged, by Gdubbya. The War in IRAQ was not neccessary.
It was necessary and had been for years.
I say it WASstaged, by Gdubbya. The War in IRAQ was not neccessary.
It was staged? Wow.
You guys believed Bremer, once upon a time.
Is he lying now?
Bremer says we have enough troops in Iraq now.
NO, he does NOT.
and of course the dishonest democrats won't admit that Bremer said that ousting Saddam was "the right thing to do."
[Edited by on Oct 6, 2004 at 09:01am.]
Well, which story is the CORRECT one, Jethro?
If you actually read the story you posted you would see that he says there were not enough troops when he arrived in Iraq. You want it to say before, during and after but he didn't say that.
There were obviously enough troops to oust Saddam. There may or may not have been enough troops after the fall. Furthermore, even if the troops Bremer thought were needed were there it may not have made a difference. But the fact is Bremer said there is enough troops there now. While Kerry has said he wants to increase the size of the military, which should have his base howling in protest, he hasn't said, at least I haven't heard him say, he would send more troops to Iraq.
[Edited by on Oct 6, 2004 at 09:56am.]
While Kerry has said he wants to increase the size of the military, which should have his base howling in protest,
Hehehe
I find that funny as hell.
See, they don't actually care what Kerry does, as long as it's not Bush.
WASHINGTON Â— House hearings on Tuesday raised the possibility that Saddam Hussein bought votes in the United Nations Security Council in exchange for benefits from the Oil-for-Food program approved by the world body.
House Government Reform subcommittee chairman Rep. Christopher Shays,
R-Conn., suggested the Oil-for-Food program actually helped keep the now-deposed Iraqi leader in power because the former dictator gave oil contracts to Security Council members who protected him.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134592,00.html
tell me again about that magic bullet that did a u-turn, Luv2
tell me again about that magic bullet that did a u-turn, Luv2
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/wound3.txt
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm
It's magic!
Well, which story is the CORRECT one, Jethro?
Actually, both are. The war was called a catastrophic success because we moved in so fast that the troops actually had to take a break from advancing to allow for supply lines to catch up to them. In other words, they did way better than anyone expected and moved in too fast.
So yes, we were short at the beginning when it came to protecting from looting due to our troops being even better than expected. No, we are not short now. If we become short, those on the ground will request more troops and more will be sent.
Crabby's just full of conspiracy today.
Kerry says Franco-German troops unlikely
Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry conceded yesterday that he probably will not be able to convince France and Germany to contribute troops to Iraq if he is elected president.
    The Massachusetts senator has made broadening the coalition trying to stabilize Iraq a centerpiece of his campaign, but at a town hall meeting yesterday, he said he knows other countries won't trade their soldiers' lives for those of U.S. troops.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041006-011859-5099r.htmÂ
No kidding. They were never going to send people regardless of whom was in office. They were too busy administering the oil for palaces scam and selling weapons.
Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry conceded yesterday that he probably will not be able to convince France and Germany to contribute troops to Iraq if he is elected president.
What? But I thought "Hope is on the way"?
No kidding. They were never going to send people regardless of whom was in office. They were too busy administering the oil for palaces scam and selling weapons.
You said it, Rob.
Gee, that sure is "PROOF".
How about Salmon Pak, Fold? Remember, they were the ones with the jet airliner for terrorist training purposes?
Yeah, that 's Ritter.
[Edited by on Oct 6, 2004 at 05:07pm.]
What? But I thought "Hope is on the way"?
You are misquoting him, he said "dope is on the way".
fold wrote:
Tell me fold, how do you get anyone to send troops to the "wrong war at the wrong place and the wrong time?"
Tell me fold, how do you get anyone to send troops to the "wrong war at the wrong place and the wrong place?"
Hehehe.
What? He can't have it both ways?
"You misunderstood me. When I said that I was talking to a pro war crowd. Today I'm talking to an anti war crowd".
And by the way, Kerry said in the Debate that getting France or German troops on the ground in Iraq at this point, was wishing. BUT, he DID say that he would try to get others who WOULD send Troops, so WE could atart pulling out within 6 months, and more of them, now and if there is a "Next Time" and IF there is a "Next Time", and thatis what is important to the voters.
O.K what countries?
You've constantly complained that the countries that are over there aren't very powerful or have allot of military strength. So what other mythical countries out there with military prowess will Kerry be bringing aboard? China?
Â
Remember last spring when Fold was calling for MORE troops?
'Bill - Fold' "The State Of Our Military" 4/15/04 6:39am
LIKE HERE??
Yup, can't wait for the Fold tirade.
The Liberal case for George Bush.
This is an interesting read I tried to paste some excerpts but the code ends up being posted so I'll just link it and hope some take time to read it.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/100704B.htmlÂ
Â
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Oct 7, 2004 at 12:48pm.]
Excellent article.
They even quote Ghaddafi:
[Edited 5 times. Most recently by on Oct 7, 2004 at 03:27pm.]
The Liberal case for George Bush.
Reminds me of the "Republicans for Clinton" site I used to quote from to mess with Sloops head: http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/repub.htm