Debate 3: Kerry wins, Bush gaffes

Although the BBC said it was a draw this morning, a quick visit to the Washington Monthly site has a breakdown of the polls:

• CNN/USA Today/Gallup: Kerry wins 53%-39%.
• CBS News poll of uncommitted voters: Kerry wins 39%-25%
• ABC News: Kerry wins 42%-41%, even though their audience leaned heavily Republican.
• Democracy Corps: Kerry wins 41%-36%

Seems like Kerry is bound to get a boost off this.

The big story of the debate, at least in left-leaning circles, is the complete reality-denial attempt when Bush tried to convince us he always had his eye on the ball when it came to hunting down Osama [via TPM]:

Kerry accurately quoted Bush as saying he does not think much about Osama bin Laden and is not all that concerned about him. The president protested: "I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations."

But in March 2002, Bush indeed said, "I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run." He described the terrorist leader as "marginalized," and said, "I just don't spend that much time on him."

It can't be too long before a video comes out of this. I just hope it contains the words "flip" and "flop".

Comments

[Jim]

I think my favorite part of the debates - both Presidential and VP's is when the Dems keep bringing up Cheney's gay daughter? What the f--- is this all about? I think they are bummed neither one of them has a gay daughter so they show empathy for her. What's their point? I feel like Kerry is going to burst into the Cheney house, hug their daughter and say, "I love you, I know your daddy doesn't." It's totally bizarre.

[Maryann]

What's even more bizarre is your obsession with the Democrats position on gay people, Jim. As I recall, Kerry mentioned that AS A RESPONSE to a question about GAY MARRIAGE. It wasn't some kind of non sequitor he just threw in there for no reason. Why are you so obsessed with it? Running out of valid reasons to support your ineffectual and incredibly stupid President and looking for some little diversion?

[Jeff]

What I want to know is why neither Bush nor Cheney can avoid lying about what they've said in the past. It's not like we don't remember and even if we didn't, we could look it up in two seconds.

You'll notice when Kerry is quoted by Bush, he counters by saying that Bush is misleading or offers an explanation. When Bush and Cheney are quoted, they claim they never said it, in direct contradiction to the videotape.

Here's my favorite Cheney denial/lie:

CLAIM:
BORGER: "Well, let's get to Mohamed Atta for a minute because you mentioned him, as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, 'pretty well confirmed.'"

CHENEY: “No, I never said that.”
- CNBC, 6/20/04

FACT:
“It's been pretty well confirmed that [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.”
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 12/9/01

It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

Jeff, that's not even the full version, where he lied three times in a row. Here it is:

BORGER: Well, let's get to Mohammad Atta for a minute, because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, "pretty well confirmed."

Vice Pres. CHENEY: No, I never said that.

BORGER: OK.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Never said that.

BORGER: I think that is...

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Absolutely not. What I said was the Czech intelligence service reported after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague on April 9th of 2001, where he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official. We have never been able to confirm that nor have we been able to knock it down.

[Jim]

The question was: "DO you think being gay is a choice?"
Kerry's answer: "Well if I talked to Mary Cheney....blah blah blah" Why not refer to the people you have actually met who are gay?
Fact: Dems are against gay marraige and freedom for Iraq. Two reasons not to vote for them.

[Chrish]

CBS News? Aren't they the same bunch along with Rather that tried to present false documents as
as valid. Even trying to push the contents as more important than the fact that they were forged.

I also note that the sites presented with their "overwhelming" votes for Kerry are all liberal leaning and we all know they are the
epitamy of unbiased reporting.

Speaking of CBS and Rather isn't it interesting
how that whole thing seems to have disappeared off of the radar?

Frankly I think Kerry's reference to Cheny's daughter was uncalled for and unnecessary; a cheap shot.

Kerry still hasn't explained how he intends to pay for all of the things he going to do. Oh sure, there's the "token" taxing of the upper 2%
but, do you honestly believe that that will really pay for it all? I don't think so. It will
be raising of the upper 2%'s taxes with the usual
lawyerese "loop holes". Kerry and Edwards are, after all, trial lawyers. Then it will be the "we're going to have to raise everybody's taxes" scenario; so sorry about that. Big Government, Big Beauacracies, big salaries or should that be raises for the currently entrenched
beauracrats. The continuing saga of the Democrat's tax and spend machine; tax as you go mantra.

[Jim]

We're the richest country in the world. Why stop at government health care? The government should make sure we all have really high paying (equally high paying) jobs. The government should also give us all really nices houses. I mean some people don't have nice houses and if the government rented us all equally nice houses then things would be more fair. Now on the subject of automobiles, I'm tired of some people having much nicer cars than me just because they work harder or are smarter or something...

[Chrish]

Jim, in regards to your question about the constant reference to Cheney's daughter it's about
playing to anyone or anybody just to get the votes. Same concept that Edwards tried to use when he attempted that assinine tiein of Stem cell Research to Christopher Reeves walking again;
** Stupid **. "Desperate times means desperate actions.".

You'll notice that Kerry will be attempting to appeal to people of faith, Christians, by spouting off some "faith based" initiatives of his.

Now isn't that ironic the very party that seems to go out of its way to expunge and erradicate any semblance of religion or faith from everywhere via its ACLU arm, liberal judges, and other Liberal attack dogs will be presenting or putting on a faith based position or initiative?

The fool can't even talk about his own faith without trying to turn it into a political statement or position. Again, a rather transparent and phony attempt at appealing to the religious groups. Flip Flop? Heck, the guy is like a chameleon. Turns whatever shade of color, belief, position, or ideology to suit whatever group he's standing in front of at that moment.

I wasn't that impressed with Bush but, at least he's consistent and isn't afraid or embarrassed to talk about his faith without turning it into a political statement. Bush even included those who do not believe.

[Jim]

You're right Chrish. Kerry is a chameleon. Which is great if you're a salesperson and fine if you're a senator, but not if you're going to be leader of the free world. His whole history has been about appeasement. He was wrong on Gulf War 1, he also appeased the communist Vietnamese. He was one of just a few senators who opposed kicking Saddam out of Kuwait. He was one of 12 who was against funding the troops after we were already in Iraq last year. Give me a break.

[Jeff]

Jim & Chrish, it's incredible how unobjective the two of you can be. Why bother to post things that are so one sided on a site where people will call you out? Once again, neither of you address the fact that President Bush was caught in another blatant lie about his own quote just like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have. To my knowledge at least, Kerry and Edwards have never told anyone that they didn't say it when they said it.

Regarding the gay question, Kerry did answer it. I'll point out the quote since you seemed to miss it: "it's not a choice." Compare that to Bush's answer: "I just don't know."

I don't think it was a wise political move to talk about Mary Cheney... it probably did hurt her parents in a personal way and for that I think Kerry should do what Bush never would... apologize. But should Dick and Lynne be hurt by those comments if they're not ashamed of their daughter being gay? I don't think so... it's not a secret. The VP is on record as disagreeing with the President on this one.

Gee, I wonder why the President is for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. In a 2000 Republican primary debate, Bush responded to a question about same-sex marriage as follows: "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue." Who's the flip flopper Chrish? Bush went from state's rights to killing state's rights. You want to talk about pandering to religious groups and lack of consistency? I can admit it when Kerry does it, why are you so blind when Bush does it on the exact same issue?

Most ridiculous quote of the night: "Fact: Dems are against gay marraige and freedom for Iraq. Two reasons not to vote for them."

Bush is against gay marriage, I suppose that means you think it's a reason not to vote for him. Do you even think when you write? As for being against freedom for Iraq... why don't you substantiate that? You already have zero credibility, so there's nothing to lose. Michigan is a mostly Democrat state. I guess that means they're all against freedom.

[Jim]

Unobjective = anyone who has a different opinion that Jeff.

Kerry, Edwards and Bush are against gay marraige.

Those that are against the Iraq war are against freedom for the Iraqi's. It's just a fact. You can't have it both ways, Jeff. You can't say you were against the war, but your for the freedom of Iraqi's. As with anything, there are positives and negatives in war. The pro-war people have to accept egg on their face about the WMD, but they also should be proud that they were for getting rid of Saddam. You didn't want the Iraqi's to be free Jeff (and Maryann and Miriamg). Please come out and say what you think. Life would be better with Saddam in power (and buying off the UN)

[Jeff]

Disagreeing with me is fine. It's just when you mangle the facts as badly as Bush does that is upsetting. Not once have you said a word about the blatant Bush lies, you just sidestep and talk about something else, like gay marriage. Just admit it, you don't believe politicians owe us the truth when they do something you want.

As for wanting Iraqis to be free, you know there's a really nice BMW parked outside my office right now. I would love to own it. Does the fact that I don't go kill the driver and steal the keys proof positive that I don't want the car? According to your logic, it is.

You can't say that you're against the war but for freedom of Iraqis? What happened during oh say the 20 some years that Saddam was in power? Were we and the rest of the world, with the exception of Iran, against the freedom of Iraqis? Were we also against the freedom of Iraqis when we didn't take out Saddam in Gulf War I or was it because we analyzed the risks and found them too great?

I can even quote Dick Cheney from 1992:

"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

If I recall correctly, only 146 American troops died in Gulf War I, which is pretty low compared to our body count today. Dick Cheney still didn't have the stomach to take out Saddam, knowing that not only would the Iraqi people not be free, but Saddam would take his revenge. So your VP is not only a colossal flip flopper, but a freedom hater as well. Since we're not invading North Korea, are you going to tell me that we don't want the North Koreans to be free?

Listen Jim, I believe that you are a good person and that you passionately want what rights we have here for the peoples of the world. But the attitude that you mirror from President Bush, the one where you're either with us or against us is wrong and not very smart. If you don't need France and Germany, then at the very least you need us, your fellow citizens. The same is true with Bush... to state the obvious, he needs our votes to remain President. Else on November 2nd, out he goes and so too the agenda that you want so badly.

I know that you want Iraq to be free. Did you also want tens of thousands to be killed? Did you want the Presidents and our credibility to drop into the sewer because he lied about WMD? Did you want his credibility to drop even further because he trusted a convicted fraudster that he paid millions to? Did you want the number of wounded Americans to rise to over 700 a month? (Yeah, they don't publish that number.) Did you want to have the largest deficit in the history of the country without even taking into account the cost of the war? Did you want insecurity and insurrection in Iraq that has lasted over a year with no end in sight? Did you want our armed forces to be so overextended that we can't respond to other countries who do happen to have WMD? That's a little more than egg on the face... all of it, resulted in dead people and may result in many more in the future.

I should be voting for Bush with you in November. If he wasn't such a lying son of a bitch, I might be able to trust his judgment without necessarily agreeing with him. Instead, he's shown in every instance to be just like Kenny Boy Lay, telling you the company is doing great, even though people are getting killed every day and we create a deficit that our kids can't pay off.

One last thing, you said, "As with anything, there are positives and negatives in war." That just shows that you really don't grasp how serious the loss of life really is. What do you count among the positives, conquest and plunder? What is this "anything" that you're comparing it to, like cutting taxes?

When the President puts our troops at risk, he owes us the highest standard of truth telling and competence. Instead, we got probably the worst performance in our history... he can't even tell the truth on himself. If you can accept that to justify the ends, go ahead and cast your vote for him and give him the accountability and blank check of a dictator.

[Jim]

Jeff,

Cheney was wrong in '92 and I said it then. We abandoned the Iraqi's then after suggesting they rise up against Saddam. They did it, but they didn't have the resources to take him out and we let Saddam keep his helicopter gunships. We were wrong to not finish the job then. HE killed 100's of thousands of his own people since. HE starved those who opposed him. HE made billions off oil for food. HE continued to shoot at our planes over the no-fly zone, which he agreed to have. We basically let him live if he agreed to certain conditions and he didn't come close to living up to them. It's one thing to flip flop on your views from 12 years ago to present day. It's another thing to flip flop on this subject from one week to the next, let alone in the same sentence. Kerry voted against defending Kuwait when there was a bigger coalition (not in terms of numer of countries, but in terms of providing troups). That was a stupid vote and it was also stupid of him to vote against funding our troops in Iraq. He can nuance that vote all he wants - it was ridiculous. It's also ridiculous to say he voted to give the President authority to go to war, but not actually to follow through on that threat. So he would deal with our enemies with empty threats. That's really scary. Usama thought that's the kind of President he was dealing with. He thought wrong. Though we may not have got him, he also no longer has safe haven in Afghanistan or Pakistan. He may be dead. He may be in Iran too, but he doesn't roam as freely as he used to and neither do his friends.

Conquest and plunder? Well we're sure doing a piss poor job of that. We failed at conquest as the Iraqi's now have their government back (damn!). We're sucking at plunder too. I have yet to receive my free barrell of oil. In fact, our gas prices have gone up 30% since the start of the war. That's a lot higher than inflation.

Do I want thousands of Iraqi's dead and 1100 of ours too? Of course not. In most cases when Americans have gone to war, the goal is to bring LONG TERM peace to that part of the world. We have gone to war to prevent genocides and ethnic cleansings and threats to our friends and threats to ourselves. To the best of my knowledge we have not colonized Kuwait or Japan or Germany or S. Korea, or the Phillipines, or France or Hungary or England or Afghanistan(all countries where we either defeated or helped drive out the enemy). How many thousands of people died in those wars so we could have peace, long lasting peace without the threat of war in their region? All life is precious, but to put things in perspective, we lost more men in many single days during WWII. Conservative estimates show that 2,500 Americans died on D-Day alone. IN ONE DAY we lost twice as many as we have in 18 months in Iraq. That doesn't include the almost 3,000 Canadian and British troops. Was it worth it to make Europe free? Germany never invaded us. Yes, they had a pact with Japan. Saddam had sworn us as an enemy called on his people many times to kill Americans wherever possible.
By the way, the 9/11 commission says that Bush didn't lie, but he was given bad intelligence. But even without WMD it was right to take Saddam out.
Regarding the economy, (and Ken Lay, who gave hundreds of thousands to the Clinton administration), Bush was sacked with an economy that was already in fast decline, 9/11 which had a huge ripple effect on the travel, airline and other industries, corporate scandals which were committed on the Clinton watch, but caught on the Bush watch, the fake economy bust of the dot.coms where people were investing millions in the fantasies that stand alone websites could turn huge profits. Sure blame Bush for all of this. Afterall people are still crying because Gore was unable to steal the Florida electoral votes. In three recounts Bush won. Give it up.

Bush '04

[Jeff]

Jim, you selectively use and twist facts to suit your purpose and ignore others. The 2000 Presidential vote has nothing to do with 2004, but you bring it up every time. You conveniently never answer the charges where Bush and Cheney are caught lying over and over. You fail to justify the choice of invading, even though we had Saddam surrounded with U.N. inspectors busy inside and Hans Blix begging for more time than the two months we gave. You also fail to address the reality that even if the war was morally right, the execution was horribly incompetent.

The failure to find WMD is not egg on our face, it is the consequence of ignoring hard evidence and presenting only one side of the case, not only to the American public, but the rest of the world. None of the overly optimistic pre-war predictions of the administration panned out. No mushroom clouds, no roses for our troops, terrible execution of providing security, no plan to win the peace, no oil paying for everything, and no end in sight. All of these cost unnecessary lives.

How does the administration respond? Denial. We found the WMD... we're going to find the WMD, we're going to find the WMD, no WMD, but it was worth it to oust Sadam. The situation in Iraq is peachy despite report after report from our own intelligence saying that the situation is dire. We made no mistakes and we'd do it all the same again... another lie. Don't hear Bush saying "Bring it on!" anymore, do you? They thought it would be a walk in the park and flew in a convicted fraud and an Iranian spy after Baghdad fell. In all cases, they were terribly wrong and again lives were unncessarily lost.

Kerry's votes... it's not nuancing. Figure out for a moment how Congress works. If a senator supports the end goals but not the means, a very, very common practice is to propose and sponsor one's own version of the bill and vote against the other. Happens every single damn session, negotiation, compromise, propose a different bill, vote, etc. You're a conservative right? Which is more conservative, a bill that funds the troops with money from taxes or money by adding to the deficit? Given that we have a record deficit every single damn month, which do you think is more fiscally responsible?

The vote for authority to go to war... again you're being incredibly simplistic, drawing conclusions out of thin air. Kerry didn't vote for false authority as you assert, he voted for responsible authority. His words on the Senate floor before the vote speak for itself:

"Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm (Hussein) by force, if we ever exhaust ... other options. If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community."

No confusion whatsoever... force is authorized with the expectation that other options are exhausted. With inspectors in and the head inspector begging for more than the two months allowed and the world's most powerful army sitting outside the gates... please tell me, what was the big rush?

As far as my conquest and plunder comment, you misunderstood. You mentioned that war always has positives and negatives. Well, the default is that the negatives are the gravest possible of any possible action in human history. Contrary to what you say, there are many wars fought that had no positives whatsoever, again unless you consider conquest and plunder a positive.

To justify going to war, one must have the strongest reasons possible... which is why Bush chose to tell us about mushroom clouds killing our children. That's why it's inexcusable for him to fudge the intelligence to make up this story and even worse for him not to come clean afterwards.

You're comparison of Saddam to the WWII Axis is ridiculous. Germany's pact with Japan was real, unlike what Bush alleged about Saddam and al-Qaeda. The Axis was actually a threat and the Axis attacked us. Saddam was no threat and he was sitting there helpless surrounded by our army. If we hadn't chose war in WWII, we would have been invaded. Again, not true with Iraq.

Your excuse that Bush was given poor intelligence is a joke. The intelligence is visible for all to see and much of it said that Saddam was no threat and had no nuclear program. But Bush chose to tell us about mushroom clouds. The intelligence said that the Niger uranium purchase was forged, but Bush told us about it in his State of the Union and tried to cover up afterwards. His purpose? Not to justify the war, but to sell it. Now his intelligence tells him that the situation in Iraq could tip into civil war. What does he tell us? Things are peachy. Don't tell me that we haven't caught him in blatant lies, it's happened again and again and not once have you owned up.

I don't really like John Kerry. I am capable of acknowledging his mistakes and flip flops. But you Bushies deny all mistakes and refer to missing weapons of mass destruction as a bit of egg on the face. Kerry said that Bush never met with black caucuses... well he did. Bush said that Kerry voted against Homeland Security. He didn't, he voted for it. It was Bush who was opposed. Bush said he didn't say he wasn't concerned about Osama. He did.

Keep saying Bush didn't lie if you think that will make it true... keep relying on sound bites from campaign ads for truth instead of underlying facts.

[miriamg]

Jim, you're spot on again. I don't want the Iraqi people to be free. I don't give a shit about them. That's why, back in the '80s when your Republican mates were playing footsie with Saddam, selling him weapons and shaking his hand, all the time knowing full well about the human rights abuses in Iraq, I digged as deep as I could to support Amnesty and other groups who were speaking out against Saddam's atrocities. What were YOU doing back then? Unless there you were right there with us, writing letters and selling raffle tickets and handing over cash, you've got an effing nerve. Since it's been politically convenient to hate Saddam, you're jumping up and down about how you want the Iraqi people to be free. But when he was the enemy of our enemy - Iran - you could ignore what Saddam did to his people and go on living blissfully ignorant in middle America.

So, in order for a country to be free, the US just needs to invade. If we don't invade, we don't want them to be free. Why didn't we invade Russia? We could've liberated Albania, too, easy, in a weekend. Why aren't we invading North Korea? Saudi Arabia?

I believe you should pick your fights and spill blood only when there is NO alternative. But that's just cos I hate freedom.

And you're right, Iraq is uncannily like Germany and Japan, and nothing like Vietnam. Saddam's crumbling, bankrupt regime, Germany and Japan in the 1930s - so alike.

I've got a bit of news for you - I wasn't a vehement opponent of the invasion at first. I had a vestige of trust in Blair and Bush, thinking that there may well be an imminent threat, and I hated Saddam and wanted him to be gone. But what tipped me into being anti-invasion - in addition to the points that Jeff makes so well re UN inspections - was when Robin Cook, Blair's foreign secretary , resigned. He had a

[miriamg]

Jim, you're spot on again. I don't want the Iraqi people to be free. I loved Saddam. That's why, back in the '80s when your Republican mates were playing footsie with Saddam, selling him weapons and shaking his hand, all the time knowing full well about the human rights abuses in Iraq, I digged as deep as I could to support Amnesty and other groups who were speaking out against Saddam's atrocities. What were YOU doing back then? Unless there you were right there with us, writing letters and selling raffle tickets and handing over cash, you've got an effing nerve. Since it's been politically convenient to hate Saddam, you're jumping up and down about how you want the Iraqi people to be free. But when he was the enemy of our enemy - Iran - you could ignore what Saddam did to his people and go on living blissfully ignorant in middle America.

So, in order for a country to be free, the US just needs to invade. If we don't invade, we don't want them to be free. Why didn't we invade Russia? We could've liberated Albania, too, easy, in a weekend. Why aren't we invading North Korea? Saudi Arabia?

I believe you should pick your fights and spill blood only when there is NO alternative. But that's just cos I hate freedom.

And you're right, Iraq is uncannily like Germany and Japan, and nothing like Vietnam. Saddam's crumbling, bankrupt regime, Germany and Japan in the 1930s - so alike.

I've got a bit of news for you - I wasn't a vehement opponent of the invasion at first. I had a vestige of trust in Blair and Bush, thinking that there may well be an imminent threat, and I hated Saddam and wanted him to be gone. But what tipped me into being anti-invasion - in addition to the points that Jeff makes so well re UN inspections - was when Robin Cook, Blair's foreign secretary , resigned. He had access to all the i

[miriamg]

Jim, you're spot on again. I don't want the Iraqi people to be free. I loved Saddam. That's why, back in the '80s when your Republican mates were playing footsie with Saddam, selling him weapons and shaking his hand, all the time knowing full well about the human rights abuses in Iraq, I digged as deep as I could to support Amnesty and other groups who were speaking out against Saddam's atrocities. What were YOU doing back then? Unless there you were right there with us, writing letters and selling raffle tickets and handing over cash, you've got an effing nerve. Since it's been politically convenient to hate Saddam, you're jumping up and down about how you want the Iraqi people to be free. But when he was the enemy of our enemy - Iran - you could ignore what Saddam did to his people and go on living blissfully ignorant in middle America.

So, in order for a country to be free, the US just needs to invade. If we don't invade, we don't want them to be free. Why didn't we invade Russia? We could've liberated Albania, too, easy, in a weekend. Why aren't we invading North Korea? Saudi Arabia?

I believe you should pick your fights and spill blood only when there is NO alternative. But that's just cos I hate freedom.

And you're right, Iraq is uncannily like Germany and Japan, and nothing like Vietnam. Saddam's crumbling, bankrupt regime, Germany and Japan in the 1930s - so alike.

I've got a bit of news for you - I wasn't a vehement opponent of the invasion at first. I had a vestige of trust in Blair and Bush, thinking that there may well be an imminent threat, and I hated Saddam and wanted him to be gone. But what tipped me into being anti-invasion - in addition to the points that Jeff makes so well re UN inspections - was when Robin Cook, Blair's foreign secretary , resigned. He had access to all the intelligence and he knew there was no case for going to war. That's when I knew Bush was cherrypicking information to support his position.

Once the invasion went ahead, I hoped against hope that at least it'd be done competently with good planning, as promised. You know what? Bush has failed meet even this basic standard of competency, just as I suspected.

And to add insult to injury, he and Cheney just can't stop lying!

But you go on living in a John Wayne movie if you want. 9/11 was a real kick in the nuts, and going out and taking out a bad guy - even a bad guy who's on the way out anyway and is no threat to us - sure makes you feel better, doesn't it? And that's all that matters.

[miriamg]

apologies for double posting.

[Jim]

A bad guy who was on his way out anyway? Really? I missed that press release where Saddam said he was resigning. And handing over the country to whom? Qusay and Uday? Oh that would be a lot better. Was it right after they had the "election" where Saddam got 100% of the votes?

I applaud you for the work you say you did in the 80's, Miriamg. But if he was so bad then why do you not support his removal now? Because things are tough? My guess is since the U.S. did sell weapons to Saddam in the early 80's you hated it. But when other countries deal with Saddam, like throughout the 90's you don't care. Only when the US is involved do you protest. Everyone else gets a free pass in your eyes.
Vietnam, WWII, I can tell you what it's not. It's not a video game where you press a few buttons, there are rules to follow and it's all over. Bush never ever said it would be easy.

Ya we're in this for the oil, isn't that what you think? If not then why are we there? If we're in it for the oil, why didn't we knock over Saudi Arabia, who has more oil than Iraq? And if all we care about is oil (our own self interest), then why do many Arabs hate us for defending Israel? There's no oil in Israel.

You're blinded by hate for Bush and you can't see straight. Sorry, but if you two can't be civil I might as well speak the truth. Figure it out.

Jeff, I have answered your questions many times, but you don't like the answers, so you don't see them. So really, what was the motiviation for this war, Jeff.

The execution of the war was horribly incompetent? Ok, Mr. Monday morning quarterback. For your information there were many flowers thrown at us. Did everyone? No. But in many parts of the country - and even some parts of Baghdad it did happen? Are you familiar with the Khurds? They are part of the country too. Let's see, numerous local and regional elections have already taken place, the sovereignty has been handed back to the Iraqi's, we're producing way more electricity than before the war, (using a lot more too), women aren't being raped by the President and his sons. NO, it's not all pretty, but it's not all gloom and doom, like you want to believe, either.
Saddam, was surrounded with inspectors? Wow, I'll bet he was shaking in his boots. He never explained what he did with the weapons we know he used to have? Why were he and his scientists so evasive, if they had nothing to hide? Hans Blix had an Iraqi throw himself on his car and say please take me out of here and Blix left him. You know that guy was killed right afterward by Saddam. Hans Blix, genius.

A senators votes are what define him. Yes, he said what he said before the vote. But 99 other senators said things too. The vote. The president doesn't take the vote and say, "Oh, ok, they've authorized me to threaten force, but not actually use it." or "Oh I have the authorization to go to war, but there's a note from senator Kerry saying I'd better have a really really good coalition first." So Bush is to follow every directive from all 100 senators - not to mention all the congressmen/women? Please. Kerry wants every both ways. He's trying to win a popularity contest, while Bush is trying to win our safety.

[Jim]

By the way, I think it's really important that we all know that Dick Cheney's daughter is gay. It must be important, because both Kerry and Edwards went way out of their way bring it up. If a Republican had ever done this the media would toast him. More double standards.

Jim, you have never answered my questions about Bush lying, you simply disappear from the thread or start raving about gay marriage. What Bush and his administration have told us is a matter of public record and anyone can pick out hundreds of statements that are false. You accuse me of being blinded by Bush hatred, but it is you who are blinded by Bush worship since you continually ignore these hard facts sitting right in front of your face. Again, I ask you why you find it acceptable for our President to lie to us.

Supporting Saddam's removal has nothing to do with Bush's lies. Your cries of freedom hating are pathetic and offensive. According to you, half of your fellow Americans hate freedom and hate themselves. When you talk about Cheney's flip flop, you refer to it as a mistake, which is a perfectly rational conclusion. But why not call Bush I and Cheney freedom haters like you do to me? They didn't remove Saddam and they had the perfect opportunity. I guess they must hate Iraqi people too.

Inspectors... it's amazing how you can site Hans Blix for saying that Saddam was evasive and then dis him when it fails to suit your purpose. You keep referring to Blix leaving a poor Iraqi behind to die... didn't Cheney and Bush I leave hundreds of thousands of Iraqis behind to die? Never mind that ultimately, Hans Blix's job was about WMD and that he was right and Bush was wrong. No WMD! Who has more credibility, the guy who's right or the guy who's wrong?

Your characterization of authorization to use force is naive. A police officer is authorized to use force as well... but the authorization obviously doesn't mean go use it. The circumstances matter, otherwise Bush could simply fire nuclear missile on Saddam and be done with it. The authorization simply is not a blank check and you know it.

As for the situation on the ground, I agree that it's not doom and gloom and that good things are happening as well. But how can anyone come to a reasonable conclusion while the President lies to us? He says things are great, but we know that people are dying every day. We know that the National Intelligence Estimate report is extremely gloomy and says that a civil war is possible. The top two Republican senators from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Lugar and Hagel are on the record, Jim. Hagel said, "beyond pitiful and embarrassing; it is now in the zone of dangerous." Lugar said, "exasperating for anybody looking at this from any vantage point."

It may not be doom and gloom in Iraq, Jim, but it's also not as good as the President says. In fact, nothing has ever been as the President says. That's what this all boils down to... I want honesty from my President and so too do a lot of Republicans. I am not a Democrat or a liberal... truth and accountability is something we all want.

Also, with regard to what you said on the economy, Jim, you are SO not an expert on the economy and you spit out the Bush's lines again without asking any questions. Why not ask these 10 Nobel Prize winners on the economy about how well Bush did? Why are they endorsing Kerry?

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/pr_2004_0825.pdf
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/four_years_of_failure.php

The man is completely out of touch. Did you see his answers to questions on social security and outsourcing? Our seniors will get their checks but our kids need a different plan. That's some way of telling us that the money is gone. As for outsourcing, he said he'll send the guy to community college, never mind that so many of the outsourced jobs were in engineering and IT. Real useful to go to community college after I've already earned my Master's degree...

[miriamg]

Jim:
Your comments that I'm only anti-Saddam when the US sells him weapons and that I didn't care about the atrocities of his regime in the '90s are offensive. For the record, my support of groups campaigning for human rights was and still is here in Britain - and in the case of Iraq, the focus was full square on the UK government's relationship with the regime, and that of other Western nations, as well as America. Pressure is put on any country participating with repressive regimes. If you took a real interest in human rights campaigns, you'd know that. If you really cared about human rights abuses, you'd be handing money over, fundraising, campaigning, or at least educating yourself about human rights violations around the world which are going on right now. Do you? Or are Saddam's deeds the only ones that interest you?

I told you why I was against the invasion of Iraq. You're suggesting it's a feasible policy to invade a country because it has a brutal, dictatorship? Hate Saddam! Must invade! Is that the extent of it for you? Sorry, but I believe war is an absolute last resort. Crazy, isn't it? But then, of course, I hate freedom.

[miriamg]

sorry, should be "feasible policy to invade every country that has a brutal dictatorship."

[Jim]

The Demeaning Duo.

War is a last resort. Saddam was never going to change his ways. He was stealing billions and keeping food and meds from shis and khurdish kids. Prior to the war Saddam had paid bribes to France, Russia and China. I'm not making this up, it's a fact. Hmmm....they weren't all on the Security Council were they? But what's the point in writing letters to regimes who committing atrocities (which is admirable) but when someobody really wants to do something to stop it (always listed as one of many reasons for the war) you chastise those countries (US and UK).

Jeff I have answered your questions plenty of times about "Bush lying". As I said, according to the 9/11 commission, he didn't. You just don't like that answer.
Not a liberal or a Democrat, Jeff. C'mon you have stated before many times that you are for big government social programs. Maybe you're not registered as a Democrat. I'm not registered as a Republican, but I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm conservative.

You know if I were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter she would probably tell me that she was born that way. Sure, I know plenty of gay people personally, who are even in the public domain, but I would rather bring up Dick Cheney's daughter. Even though it obviously makes me uncomfortable, my campaign manager said it would be good to bring her up. In fact, I would like to bring her up here and give her a hug, because I love her more than her parents do. Come on up here, Mary.

[delal]

Kerry & Edwards both used the Cheney gay reference to remind right leaning southerners about that fact trying to upset the Republican base. The tactic has backfired - evidence being the negative press this issue has been getting in the US (check out all the recent polls). The remarks have alienated many that were on the fence to now start leaning towards Bush.

Voters in the US will not allow the two most liberal senators alive today to win the presidency (more liberal than 'splash' Kennedy).

Add to that - two habitual 'no shows' that don't have one single moral principal between them which incidently have records etched in stone that scream major 'wafflers'... well...

Ya got a major landslide coming up!

Mark my words boys & girls!

[delal]

The ultimate Kerry ad...

A man that knows how to stand on all sides of every issue!

http://johnkerryads.websiteanimal.com/

[Jeff]

Jim, you have not answered my questions about Bush lying and please don't put it in quotes when you can't back it up with anything. Please site to me where the 9/11 Commission said that Bush has never lied. Sure, there are instances where he received bad intelligence, but there are plenty where he acted like a complete fool. He was warned by the CIA not to use the claim on uranium purchase from Niger, but he did any way, despite it's obvious forgery.

The lies that I refer to are documented on public record, certainly I don't need the 9/11 Commission to tell me what a lie is when it's said straight to my face. Of course, you completely ignore the 9/11 conclusion that there was no collaboration between Saddam and al-Qaeda, despite Bush and Cheney constantly suggesting that there was.

I've already posted a ton of Bush and Cheney false quotes beside the facts. I think it's you who doesn't like the answer. As for me being for big social programs, where the hell is that claim from? I challenge you to find where I said that Jim... should be easy since I've said it so many times. Yet another example of how you twist and make up facts to support your opinion. You're so sure that you're right, you don't need to do any homework.

[Jeff]

Jim, I have always given you the respect of never misquoting you. On a couple of occasions, you have completely re-written what I said and once you even quoted me as saying the exact opposite of the truth. You act just as truth challenged as Bush... why do you choose to sink your own credibility? I am not a supporter of big government social programs and I can't fathom where you got that bullshit from.

[delal]

So when Bush wins this election does this site go away?

Or does Luke rename it - 'expats for hillary'?

I vote for the latter!

Gotta love it!

[Jim]

Please show me the quote where Bush said Saddam was involved in 9/11. twist twist twist.

It's just like Chris Mathews on MSNBC who said the day after the last debate that Bush said, (I am paraphrasing) "Homosexuality is a choice.". Bush didn't say that. He said quite honestly, he didn't know. but twist twist twist. As long as it comes from the left, it's ok. Another free pass from NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, BBC, CBC, etc.

Hopefully America will get over it's apologies and not elect someone who 1) gave to the Vietnames what our soldiers didn't and were tortured for 2) whose face is hanging in the Vietnam war museum IN VIETNAM as a hero to them 3) who voted to give the President authority to go to war, but voted not to fund the troops, 4) who voted against the first Gulf War to liberate Kuwait and actually asked for more time to get a bigger coalition and "sanctions" together, meanwhile Saddam's henchmen were murdering Kuwaiti men and raping Kuwaiti women. KERRY VOTED AGAINST THE FIRST GULF WAR BUT FOR THE SECOND ONE. DO YOU GET THAT?

So Jeff, according to you Bush "lied" (as you say) about Iraq becuase what? Please tell me his motivation.

[Jeff]

Twist twist indeed, Jim. I have shown you dozens of quotes by now, where Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. have stated or very heavily implied that Saddam was operationally involved with al-Qaeda. It's funny how you're getting all lawyerly with me demanding that Bush said Saddam was directly involved in 9/11.

Is that your standard? I didn't forgive (and neither did anyone else) Clinton when he said he had no sexual relations with the intern, even though it was legally correct in his deposition. Why hold Bush to such low standards? The administration continually suggested as much of a connection as they dared to sell the war. It's that simple.

So here are the quotes (AGAIN):

"Saddam Hussein is a threat because he is dealing with al-Qaeda..." Bush, 11/7/02

"Evidence... reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda." Bush, State of the Union, 1/28/03

"What I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network..." Colin Powell to the U.N., 2/5/03

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 - and still goes on... The liberation of Iraq... removed an ally of al-Qaeda." Bush, 5/1/03

"With respect to 9/11... the Czechs alleged that Mohammed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack..." Cheney, 9/14/03 (the reason this quote is a lie is because the CIA and FBI concluded before the war that "the meeting probably did not take place")

"You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." Bush, 9/25/02

So al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 and according to Bush, "Saddam Hussein aids and protects... members of al-Qaeda." Therefore, we have to attack Iraq. That's directly at odds with the 9/11 Commission's conclusion that there was no collaborative relationship.

More importantly, it's directly at odds with intelligence reports, such as the NIE reporting that "Baghdad... appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terorist attacks... fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war." "At the CIA, many analysts believed that Mr. bin Laden saw Mr. Hussein as one of the corrupt secular Arab leaders who should be toppled."

Those are the facts Jim, all public record. If you want to give Bush a pass because he didn't explicitly say that Saddam attacked us, fine. He did say that Saddam and al-Qaeda were in bed together and that was justification to attack Iraq. Yet you blame people for being angry when they find out it's not true and that Bush had plenty of reason to know that it wasn't true.

Of course, the al-Qaeda and Iraq connection is just one strand in a web of lies and misleading statements by Bush. It's much, much worse concerning WMD, Jim. As I have documented time and time again, claims about nuclear capabilities, uranium from Africa, chemical and biological weapons, unmanned aerial vehicles, mobile biological labs, all complete bullshit before the war, often directly contradicted by the available evidence. The uranium from Africa claim was a complete forgery, yet the Bushies proceeded to slam the guy they sent for telling the truth and then proceeded to lie about whether or not the CIA told them.

You ask me what the motivation is, I can only guess. One motivation is obviously that Saddam was a murdering dictator and it would be great to get rid of him. The other motivations... they had the political winds in their favor, they miscalculated and saw easy victory and occupation with an Iraqi democracy serving American interests, a base in the middle east, and less reliance on Saudi oil. Those of course, are the ones they don't tell us. We can only guess because the ones they did tell us about turned out to be total crap.

I fully acknowledge Kerry's record. He did vote the other way in Gulf War I. Of course, you give Cheney and Bush I a free pass for not taking Saddam out when they had the chance and saying, flip flops from 12 years ago don't matter. If you want, perhaps both parties learned lessons from the first time and changed their minds.

But some of your charges are baseless. I paid a visit to the Vietnam War Museum a few months ago... Kerry's face is not on the wall, but if it was, so what? It was a war that was completely unjustified and killed how many innocents. Because of the lack of just cause, we lost and the Vietnamese are still paying a deadly price today. McCain's picture is on that museum wall and he had no problems with Kerry, in fact they worked together to resolve all the issues and re-open diplomatic ties. One candidate was in Vietnam risking his life and one got his Daddy's friends to keep him home, yet somehow you crucify the one that went.

Jim, you asked and I answered. The quotes are there right in front of your face and though I've posted them many, many times now, you have never addressed them head on. They're all misleading and misrepresentative and some are outright lies. I can do this for WMD in much more dramatic fashion. Even worse, the lies continued in the debates... when Bush and Cheney denied their own words! Can you handle the truth?

[Jim]

I can handle the truth. I admit that Bush made a mistake during the last debate when he denied saying "he didn't think about bin laden". Yes, that was a mistake. (you would call this a lie, even though you and I have probably heard the quote more than the President himself. It's kind of like you can't remember your own phone # sometimes but you can remember everyone else'). I doubt he spends time watching clips of himself on tv.
But you still failed to show me the quote where Bush said that Saddam was involved in 9/11. What you want me to believe is that al-qaeda is in 60 countries, but it was never in Iraq. You want me to believe the to varying levels, al qaeda received assistance from people in governments of (or directly from the heads of) Afghanistan, Iran, Yemen, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria and others, but not Iraq. Saddam openly gave cash rewards to familes of suicide bombers in Israel but he gave nothing to al-qaeda, even though the USA was a sworn enemy of both. Even though Uday said in his newspaper and Saddam said on the radio to attack Americans (long long before the war started) that they were no threat. Even though he never explained (even according to Hans Blix) where his stockpiles of WMD went, he was no threat.
Even the 9/11 commission said there was a Saddam - al qaeda connection. Yes I know that Saddam and bin laden are not idealogically identical. But they do have a common enemy - US. Bin laden used to have money and Saddam used to have weapons, but they probably never got together - despite the common enemy. Riight.

[Jeff]

Jim, what are your standards for truth telling?
You want me to give you Bush saying that Saddam was directly involved in 9/11 and are somehow not satisfied with quotes where Bush says Saddam and al-Qaeda were allies. "Aids and protects", "sinister network", "can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Iraq." I remember my President telling me this and it scared the hell out of me. If Saddam and al-Qaeda were allies as Bush so often repeated, exactly what were they allies on if not weapons, terror, and 9/11? According to your logic, Bin Laden didn't attack us either, right? He wasn't aboard those planes, he was merely allied with the hijackers.

I would happily forgive Bush's mistake during the last debate when he denied saying that he didn't think about Bin Laden if he had a history of being straight with us. He doesn't and neither does his administration. Time and time again, Bushies have denied their own quotes and this combined with the massive blitz of mis-statements, misrepresentations, and blatant lies, of course I'm going to come down harder on him. Cheney has met Edwards a couple of times on tape... but again you excuse this harmless error, except of course, he does it all the time. Of course he forgot...

It's very convenient to jack up the facts when he wants to sell something (in this case, re-election as opposed to war). He and Bush also seemed to forget that our intelligence told him that many of the WMD claims were dubious and that our CIA told them not to talk about the uranium purchase from Africa. So are they forgetful or fraudulent? It doesn't matter, neither trait is good for the offices of President, Vice President, etc.

Your phone number example is absolutely ridiculous and so is the contention that he doesn't spend time watching himself on TV. When you misspeak about your phone number, maybe someone can't reach you. If you're the President and you misspeak about WMD and al-Qaeda after possibly thousands of hours of coaching, reviewing, you mislead and lie to the American people. This leads to other conclusions, that it's not misspeaking, it's intentional or that they simply don't care. Cheney did not misspeak, he probably rehearsed that Edwards zinger. All of those WMD and Iraq-al-Qaeda claims, again rehearsed over and over again.

Back to the topic at hand, you're free to believe whatever you want about al-Qaeda and Iraq. If somehow, al-Qaeda's presence in 60 countries means that they're allies, so be it. They were in the U.S. too obviously, but we weren't their allies, right? You name Iran, Yemen, Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. aiding al-Qaeda, did we go attack them? No! Even worse, I'm sure the aid continues today.

Do you even notice the difference between what the President says, what the evidence is, and what you innately believe? It's perfectly okay with me that you believe Saddam helped al-Qaeda, I have no problem with that. But from what you're saying, I can tell that it's your opinion and conjecture. That Saddam and al-Qaeda had us as a common enemy or that Saddam was evasive is simply not proof of an alliance or WMD. Furthermore Jim, you would be going directly against our top experts. Check out this testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee:

Senator Warner: Any evidence with regard to participation by either Saddam Hussein or his principal henchmen in the WMD-sharing with al-Qaeda or any other terrorist organizations?

Dr. Kay: Senator Levin - Senator Warner, there is no evidence that I can think of that I know of.

This of course, is exactly the opposite of what my President told me! From what the President told me, he said it as fact. I have a right to assume that all the evidence he has his hands on supports his conclusion. To find that he had ZERO evidence means that he lied. The two are separate Jim. Just because you still believe (against the available evidence) that Saddam helped al-Qaeda does not mean our President didn't lie. And please, since you have not revealed yourself as an intelligence expert, allow me to feel more comfortable trusting Dr. Kay and our other experts who don't support either your conclusions or the President's lies.

[Jeff]

Jim, you asked me for examples of Bush's lies for the umpteenth time and I've given them to you again and again. Bush said over and over that Saddam and al-Qaeda were allies. Our top intelligence experts say there is no evidence. That is a lie.

Now I want you to deliver the place in the 9/11 report, where it says that Bush didn't lie, as you allege. I have read the document cover to cover and don't remember anything like that.

What I do remember is that Paul Wolfowitz is the one who felt most strongly that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks, though he was not able to offer any proof. He felt that if there was even a 10% chance that Saddam was behind it that we had to attack Iraq. Other than that, the report is about 9/11... I don't recall it saying much more about Iraq. In fact in it, the President seems not to give Wolfowitz's argument "much weight." The Report also cites an intelligence memo saying that Bin Laden resented Saddam's secular regime.

Chrish, I'm still waiting for your views on that "Iraq On The Record" PDF that I cited for you.