john kerry

[turtleguy]

i have been listening to the debates between bush and kerry and john kerry contradicts everything he says. he says bush sent our troops into iraq with insufficient bodyarmor even though he voted against it. he voted for the war in iraq but voted against funding it and said it was the wrong war at the wrong place and the wrong time. how can you support a guy like that?

[Jose]

i have been listening to the debates between bush and kerry and john kerry contradicts everything he says. he says bush sent our troops into iraq with insufficient bodyarmor even though he voted against it. he voted for the war in iraq but voted against funding it and said it was the wrong war at the wrong place and the wrong time.

Well, if we listen to the Bushies, and turn off our own ability to think, we might conclude that these things are true. That's because Bush or his handlers contradict everything Kerry says, and don't go on to tell us the rest of the story.

Yes, Bush did, indeed, send our troops into Iraq without sufficient body armor. But was it Kerry who sent them in this way? Did the commander in chief try to fix this before sending in the troops? Who was in charge of outfitting the military? The military wasn't exactly broke before the invasion. They had the opportunity to use some of their money to upgrade their body armor. But someone rushed them to war before they were properly outfitted.

Did Kerry really vote against funding the war? No. He voted to fund it. It was only after the Republicans in Congress removed from the bill the way to pay for it that Kerry voted against it. He did the right thing--it's nuts to take billions of dollars that we don't have and spend it. Our children and granchildren will be paying for it, with interest, for years to come. That is: we still haven't paid for it! If Congress had exhibited the backbone necessary to fund the war, rather than make future presidents raise taxes to do so, Kerry's first vote would have been repeated.

Did Kerry really vote for the war, but not to pay for it? Well, like just about everyone else, he was led to believe that Iraq really did have WMD's, and might actually have a link to Al Qaeda. Bush was pretty convincing about that, even though he never actually provided any of the evidence. So, Kerry voted to give him the authority to act if it was necessary. That's not exactly the same as Kerry making the decision to start the bombing.

Of course, as noted above, Kerry voted to fund the war, not put it on our national credit card. Bush put it on the credit card and still hasn't paid for it.

Was the war the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time? It sure was. Before the campaign, the administration admitted that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. During the campaign, they flip-flopped, and started saying that there was a link. Huh? I guess they think that if they say things often enough and loud enough, people will believe them--even in the face of their own previous statements that prove otherwise.

What about the WMD's? Again, the evidence is that they didn't exist. Why didn't the Bushies know this before the invasion? The UN did. The rest of the world did. Bush and his advisors chose to ignore the main body of intelligence that didn't agree with their preconceived notion.

What about the real terrorist threat, Al Qaeda itself? Well, it's pretty obvious that we diverted out military from Afghanistan to Iraq.

Well, all of this aside, we're stuck with the Iraq situation. Whoever wins the election will have to deal with it. It's unfortunate that it's gotten as bad as it is, but there we are. We might ask how it got to be so bad, and whether our commander in chief could have made other decisions to prevent it from getting this way... I won't say much about this, other than to note what I heard on the news this morning. The UN had been guarding an explosives stockpile before the US invasion. This stockpile had some 350 tons of high-grade explosives. The UN told us to guard it carefully, when we told them to leave. (Why we told them to leave, I have no idea.) We didn't guard it, just as we didn't guard anything else, and much of it was stolen.

Now, it seems to me that anyone who plans a war, but doesn't take the simple precaution of guarding the enemy's known weapons supplies, isn't a very good commander.

All of the above forces me to conclude that Bush does not deserve another 4 years. Add to this his destructive environmental policies, his backward energy policy, and his give-it-all-to-the-rich fiscal policies, and I'm forced to conclude that it would actually be dangerous for the country if he is re-elected.

Kerry, at least, thinks about what he does. We don't always understand him, because he uses big words. We don't always think he's following the Absolute Law of Right and Wrong because he recognizes the fact that what's right for one person may be wrong for another, and he tries to choose the option that is right for the greatest number. This is what we need.

[turtleguy]

i have been listening to the debates between bush and kerry and john kerry contradicts everything he says. he says bush sent our troops into iraq with insufficient bodyarmor even though he voted against it. he voted for the war in iraq but voted against funding it and said it was the wrong war at the wrong place and the wrong time.

Well, if we listen to the Bushies, and turn off our own ability to think, we might conclude that these things are true. That's because Bush or his handlers contradict everything Kerry says, and don't go on to tell us the rest of the story.

Yes, Bush did, indeed, send our troops into Iraq without sufficient body armor. But was it Kerry who sent them in this way? Did the commander in chief try to fix this before sending in the troops? Who was in charge of outfitting the military? The military wasn't exactly broke before the invasion. They had the opportunity to use some of their money to upgrade their body armor. But someone rushed them to war before they were properly outfitted.

Did Kerry really vote against funding the war? No. He voted to fund it. It was only after the Republicans in Congress removed from the bill the way to pay for it that Kerry voted against it. He did the right thing--it's nuts to take billions of dollars that we don't have and spend it. Our children and granchildren will be paying for it, with interest, for years to come. That is: we still haven't paid for it! If Congress had exhibited the backbone necessary to fund the war, rather than make future presidents raise taxes to do so, Kerry's first vote would have been repeated.

Did Kerry really vote for the war, but not to pay for it? Well, like just about everyone else, he was led to believe that Iraq really did have WMD's, and might actually have a link to Al Qaeda. Bush was pretty convincing about that, even though he never actually provided any of the evidence. So, Kerry voted to give him the authority to act if it was necessary. That's not exactly the same as Kerry making the decision to start the bombing.

Of course, as noted above, Kerry voted to fund the war, not put it on our national credit card. Bush put it on the credit card and still hasn't paid for it.

Was the war the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time? It sure was. Before the campaign, the administration admitted that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. During the campaign, they flip-flopped, and started saying that there was a link. Huh? I guess they think that if they say things often enough and loud enough, people will believe them--even in the face of their own previous statements that prove otherwise.

What about the WMD's? Again, the evidence is that they didn't exist. Why didn't the Bushies know this before the invasion? The UN did. The rest of the world did. Bush and his advisors chose to ignore the main body of intelligence that didn't agree with their preconceived notion.

What about the real terrorist threat, Al Qaeda itself? Well, it's pretty obvious that we diverted out military from Afghanistan to Iraq.

Well, all of this aside, we're stuck with the Iraq situation. Whoever wins the election will have to deal with it. It's unfortunate that it's gotten as bad as it is, but there we are. We might ask how it got to be so bad, and whether our commander in chief could have made other decisions to prevent it from getting this way... I won't say much about this, other than to note what I heard on the news this morning. The UN had been guarding an explosives stockpile before the US invasion. This stockpile had some 350 tons of high-grade explosives. The UN told us to guard it carefully, when we told them to leave. (Why we told them to leave, I have no idea.) We didn't guard it, just as we didn't guard anything else, and much of it was stolen.

Now, it seems to me that anyone who plans a war, but doesn't take the simple precaution of guarding the enemy's known weapons supplies, isn't a very good commander.

All of the above forces me to conclude that Bush does not deserve another 4 years. Add to this his destructive environmental policies, his backward energy policy, and his give-it-all-to-the-rich fiscal policies, and I'm forced to conclude that it would actually be dangerous for the country if he is re-elected.

Kerry, at least, thinks about what he does. We don't always understand him, because he uses big words. We don't always think he's following the Absolute Law of Right and Wrong because he recognizes the fact that what's right for one person may be wrong for another, and he tries to choose the option that is right for the greatest number. This is what we need.

Lol' this is all kerry thinks before he says something: hmmm, i wonder which answer would make me look better?

[Corvus]

Closed, because this topic has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with politics.

Turtleguy, if you wish to discuss policies that have to do with faith, or faith affecting policies, this section of the forum is where such questions should be posted. Our focus is on religion, and there are plenty of other places where this sort of thread will happily be discussed, such as America's Debate.[/url]