Reasons why I am not voting for Kerry
-
One thing that gets me is that people say Bush's taxes benefit the rich, when a recent IRS study showed that the top 2% of americans (wealth-wise) pay 98% of the taxes. Since when does that benefit the rich???
Besides that, the fact that Kerry doesn't know where he stands on jack shit, which is a risky stance when you're trying to be the most powerful man in the world. Funny how the manwho on the Intelligence Committee, saw the same info. Bush saw, was on the same page as Bush before Iraq, voted FOR the war originally but when it came election time voted against it, even though he saw all the information for the war.
This pretty much kills Kerry right here as well with his own recorded words
http://johnkerryads.websiteanimal.com/When it comes to our 2nd Amendment Rights, Taxes, Abortion i HAVE to endorse Bush. With the information he has he is making decisions to help America, even if we don't realize it, he probably has more information than we will ever know for 50+ years. (funny also how the Democrats always try to talk about how the "minority" is an important voice yet when the "minority" of Americans wanted to go to war etc. that we should listen to the majority there and not go, i guess we should only listen to the minority when it fits the Democratic agenda?)
Being as im typing a paper, watching a movie, and writing this it might not make sense so i'll try edit it to make more later but Kerry is easily one of the shittiest candidates for president (besides gore, and hillary if she ever runs) ever.
-
amazing what happens when you take stuff out of context. Sure, Kerry said that he thought Saddam had WMD's. Based on what I was told I thought he did too, but, unfortunately, it was found (too late) that the President and his administration were relying on outdated/faulty information. Did the president know this? I don't know. If he did, he should be brought up on charges and impeached. What the member of the house and senate voted for was the authorization of the president to go to war AS A LAST RESORT. The ideology behind it (and the story they were told) is that we would go to the UN Security council and get a grand coalition to back us in our war should it come to that. We went, the rest of the world told us our intelligence was not good enough for them to support us in our war efforts. They suggested weapons inspectors that, guess what? Found no WMD's. Rather than listen to them, we ordered them removed and then decided to attack. I seem to recall Hans Blix saying something like "Give us more time, we have found no reason to attack, it appears that there are no weapons. Iraq and Saddam Hussein are cooperating w/ our requests to inspect weapons facilities." Had the vote to authorize war taken place AFTER we had the inspectors back in there, I feel there wouldn't have even been a majority of senators to vote for it. It wouldn't have passed if we had been given time to assess the situation entirely. How many reports have to come out saying that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. Maybe some intensive intelligence gathering should have taken place BEFORE we went in, like it was supposed to. Maybe we should have armed our men and women w/ appropriate gear/armor/vehicles BEFORE sending them into a hostile environment. Bush allegedly told the leader of the Moral Majority (I forget the guys name, do a google search) that he didn't expect any US casualties even after this individual said to prepare the US citizens for the fact that US servicemen and women would be dying. As for the minority of citizens wanting to go to war, I don't think that was the case, I think, based on what we were told, a vast majority wanted to go to war. Myself included. Afterall, if you can't trust the president, who can you trust? Then again, I should have been tipped off when several months after 9/11 bush stated that we have a department of mis-information to confuse terrorists with as well...it appears that they used that on the whole country.
-
Anyone who says it was wrong to go to Iraq is a hardass and you should know that. WMD were a major reason for going yes, and we found chemicals that could be used to make them, not in large quantities, but they were there none the less(And if you listened to that link i showed you, Kerry believed they had large quantities of anthrax etc. as well). Even if there wasn't any, the moral reason for going and helping the people (who, unlike the press coverage shows, APPRECIATE us being there) is a good enough reason as any, and there is NO denying that he was a malicious leader who was cruel and inhumane to his people, you can't surgarcoat that fact. Why we chose Iraq over North Korea, thats Bush's decision. Either way we are there. It also was well known that when inspectors would show up to check out a plant/factory they were stalled for sometimes possibly up to 5 hours or more before being allowed in, PLENTY of time to move or hide illegal weapons or munitions.
It was also shown that some of the British intelligence was wrong, but we had already entered the war and couldn't just pull out, so you can't blame the President for getting and using wrong info from the British Intelligence now can you? We don't even know half of the story or information that the acting people in our country know so we really cant make educated guesses as to the reasons we went because they know infinitly more on the situation than us. But if it means anything, the troops still support bush 4 to 1 over Kerry. -
Where did I say don't deal with him? We should have not dealed with him when we did, we should have let the weapons inspectors do their jobs before jumping into a war with him. Ummmm.....what terrorists did he sponsor? The 9-11 Commission said there was no link between Saddam and terrorism. Period. As did the Duelfer report, as have countless other reports. Was Saddam a ruthless dictator? Absolutely. Should he be brought up on charges. Yes. Did he kill his own people. Yes. Did he attack America? No. Did he have the capability to attack america? No. Had anyone from his administration EVER killed a US citizen (outside of a time of war)? No. Was Saddam a part of Al Qaeda? No, he and Osama were sworn enemies, Osama accused Saddam of being a Muslim only when it was convenient to be one.
Let me put it this way, the Duelfer report has stated that
- Saddam did not have WMD's
- He hasn't had WMD's since 1992 when the sanctions were first imposed
- He didn't have the capability to make WMD's, at least not on short notice
- Despite what Bush says, he was not 45 minutes from a nuclear (or Nucular as bush would say) launch
- Even though he was taking advantage of the oil for food program, he wasn't using the resources gained from it to acquire WMD's
- Saddam had nothing to do w/ 9/11
- 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq
- Bush fed us a line of BS as an excuse to invade Iraq (according to the report they knew that they had flawed intelligence but presented it as fact)
How many fucking reports need to come out saying the above before the hardcore right will accept it as fact. Bush lied to get us into Iraq. Period. Had he not lied, had he told us the truth that we were going in for a regime change, I would be behind him more.
-
tjamz wrote:
Where did I say don't deal with him? We should have not dealed with him when we did, we should have let the weapons inspectors do their jobs before jumping into a war with him.IMO, we dealt with Saddam at the wrong time. I disagree, however, that we went too soon. The mistake that was made was letting him have so many chances to cover up his treachery. Pretend for a moment that you are a drug dealer with pounds of cocaine sitting in your basement. Why would the cops (UN) call and tell you months in advance that they are coming to raid your stash? We may never find WMD, but that does not mean that they were never there. Saddam had too much time to cover his tracks.
-
So I guess the experts that they called upon in the 9-11 reports, Duelfer report, etc... that said that Saddam had no WMD's, did not have WMD's since 1992, complied w/ the UN in destroying what stockpiles he had, and didn't have a WMD program in waiting were wrong?
-
just settle it once and forall..Vote Bush
-
tjamz wrote:
So I guess the experts that they called upon in the 9-11 reports, Duelfer report, etc... that said that Saddam had no WMD's, did not have WMD's since 1992, complied w/ the UN in destroying what stockpiles he had, and didn't have a WMD program in waiting were wrong?
They may have had WMD, and maybe they didn't. All I am saying is that if the cops called me and said they were going to bust my drug lab with all my crack, I would dispose of the evidence at my friend "Syria's house" until I thought it was safe to start "cooking" again. Now back to cooking WMDs for me. -
What i'm saying is that you can't move a WMD manufacturing lab in even the 5 hours that the inspectors were delayed, we had alleged satellite photos of these places, you can't tell me we couldn't watch them to see if something was being moved and where it was being moved to. They may have had time to move the recipes, maybe...but just because you have the recipe to make a WMD doesn't mean that you are making one. I have the recipe for LSD and Crank but I don't make, do, or sell drugs. I'm not saying the sanctions should not have gotten tougher. I would have even gone so far as to say "If you don't let us in when we ask, we will just blow the place up".
-
I also believe that there are/were WMD being made, or at least being worked on. There is no other reason that Sadom (yes I spelled it that way on purpose) was interfering and not comforming to the inspections.... especially when it came right down to the end where he knew we were gonna kick his ass if he didn't conform. Even he isn't stupid enough to take the beating he did for no reason. They either got the majority of the work out of the country, or it's still hidden in some underground bunkers somewhere is my guess. To think that he didn't have them is silly IMO. The UN inspectors were a joke, I even wonder if they were actually looking for anything, or if Sadom was just paying them off (as other UN programs were shown to be) and they would just drive around and pretend they were inspecting places.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
tjamz wrote:
Where did I say don't deal with him? We should have not dealed with him when we did, we should have let the weapons inspectors do their jobs before jumping into a war with him. Ummmm.....what terrorists did he sponsor? The 9-11 Commission said there was no link between Saddam and terrorism. Period. As did the Duelfer report, as have countless other reports. Was Saddam a ruthless dictator? Absolutely. Should he be brought up on charges. Yes. Did he kill his own people. Yes. Did he attack America? No. Did he have the capability to attack america? No. Had anyone from his administration EVER killed a US citizen (outside of a time of war)? No. Was Saddam a part of Al Qaeda? No, he and Osama were sworn enemies, Osama accused Saddam of being a Muslim only when it was convenient to be one.Let me put it this way, the Duelfer report has stated that
- Saddam did not have WMD's
- He hasn't had WMD's since 1992 when the sanctions were first imposed
- He didn't have the capability to make WMD's, at least not on short notice
- Despite what Bush says, he was not 45 minutes from a nuclear (or Nucular as bush would say) launch
- Even though he was taking advantage of the oil for food program, he wasn't using the resources gained from it to acquire WMD's
- Saddam had nothing to do w/ 9/11
- 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq
- Bush fed us a line of BS as an excuse to invade Iraq (according to the report they knew that they had flawed intelligence but presented it as fact)
How many fucking reports need to come out saying the above before the hardcore right will accept it as fact. Bush lied to get us into Iraq. Period. Had he not lied, had he told us the truth that we were going in for a regime change, I would be behind him more.
I wasn't saying you said that. The whole point of my agrument is the fact that KERRY has agreed on almost all of the things with Bush at one point or another, he just turns around and disagrees later. HE SAID IRAQ WAS A THREAT, JOHN PERFECT KERRY said Iraq was a threat. He's just as bad, plus worse than Bush on almost every aspect of that. Just because Bush does things that the majority doesn't agree with doesn't mean he's wrong! People just can't seem to accept that fact. Oh yeah, 6 and 7 are pretty much the same thing AND...Kerry said Iraq had WMD's which makes your points 1 2 3 and 8 against Kerry as well.
-
Based on intelligence that the Bush administration gave to congress (which we later found out was flawed and there was a very good chance that they knew it was flawed....some of the photos used in the intelligence briefings were from 1992... We have also found the Cheney & Rumsfeld were pushing to get damning info on Iraq that they could to push us to war) yes, John Kerry did vote to "Give President Bush the power, as a last resort, to go to war in Iraq....after all other options had been exhausted. And to build a coalition of Nations to go in with us so we don't have to bear the load alone." I guess it only takes 2 months or so to exhaust all your options. As for the Grand Coalition that we allegedly have: Great Brittain (actually, they did do a fairly good job of at least attempting to help us), Australia...and....ummm....oh yeah, who can forget that fearsome fighting force, known around the world as the innovators of fear and destruction....POLAND!!! Yay! Also, I ask, why did we go in without a plan to win the peace, shit anyone w/ our weaponry can win a fricken war...doesn't mean that peace will follow.
The same arguments keep going round and round here. The Duelfer report said flat-out that saddam didn't have the means to build WMD's and hasn't since 1992...also that the information that Bush gave congress was factually incorrect or outdated about the reasons to go to war. Hmmm...if he lied to congress, don't you think its just a little bit likely he lied to us?
PS. I won't be able to respond to these until friday, I will be out of town working...hmmm....maybe I should go AWOL from my job and campaign for Kerry instead....
-
tjamz wrote:
Based on intelligence that the Bush administration gave to congress (which we later found out was flawed and there was a very good chance that they knew it was flawed....some of the photos used in the intelligence briefings were from 1992... We have also found the Cheney & Rumsfeld were pushing to get damning info on Iraq that they could to push us to war) yes, John Kerry did vote to "Give President Bush the power, as a last resort, to go to war in Iraq....after all other options had been exhausted. And to build a coalition of Nations to go in with us so we don't have to bear the load alone." I guess it only takes 2 months or so to exhaust all your options. As for the Grand Coalition that we allegedly have: Great Brittain (actually, they did do a fairly good job of at least attempting to help us), Australia...and....ummm....oh yeah, who can forget that fearsome fighting force, known around the world as the innovators of fear and destruction....POLAND!!! Yay! Also, I ask, why did we go in without a plan to win the peace, shit anyone w/ our weaponry can win a fricken war...doesn't mean that peace will follow.The same arguments keep going round and round here. The Duelfer report said flat-out that saddam didn't have the means to build WMD's and hasn't since 1992...also that the information that Bush gave congress was factually incorrect or outdated about the reasons to go to war. Hmmm...if he lied to congress, don't you think its just a little bit likely he lied to us?
PS. I won't be able to respond to these until friday, I will be out of town working...hmmm....maybe I should go AWOL from my job and campaign for Kerry instead....
Actually you should reword your comment about Poland, considering that 65% of the special ops forces in the UN designed to combat terrorism are from Poland.
-
tjamz wrote:
PS. I won't be able to respond to these until friday, I will be out of town working...hmmm....maybe I should go AWOL from my job and campaign for Kerry instead....Your fingers need a break from all your rebuttals. sheesh Who's gonna take his Kerry lovin place for the next few days so that those of us who back Bush are gonna have someone to argue with?
-
Don't matter - time and time again, general public may want Kerry if so, just seems to be they have a problem showing up and voting. People who stick to the issues and regard the issues, and in no offense, more upper class, have a higher percentage of presence in voting. Funny how that happens. Bush & Cheney in 04 - no doubt about it, and I'd put money down ESPECIALLY after viewing the polls. Plus Missouri is now a loss, Kerry planned on visiting but now after viewing the polls he refused. Doesn't matter if he takes Florida, it's a downhill battle for Kerry - GOD BLESS THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM!
-
tjamz wrote:
The same arguments keep going round and round here. The Duelfer report said flat-out that saddam didn't have the means to build WMD's and hasn't since 1992Thats not really what the report said. In fact, if you read the very first line of the Key Findings Summary you would see that the report said: (sorry, I gotta use cut-n-paste).
"Saddam so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone," He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted."
Farther into the report it says:
"Saddam's primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with the UN inspections — to gain support for lifting the sanctions — with his intention to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face."
DaveH talking here -> So he plays along with some inspections, and gets some of the sanctions lifted... which was the Oil for Food Program.
"which Saddam immediately saw could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development."
Anyway, you get the general idea. The findings of the report have been manipulated by the left to suit their goals. If you read the report you can see what it really says. It's a very well written report, not sure how much I believe. http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/pdf/duelfer1_a.pdf
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Doesn't matter, Bush is gonna beat Kerry soundly in the popular vote also.
2k3WRXND wrote:
Don't matter - time and time again, general public may want Kerry if so, just seems to be they have a problem showing up and voting. People who stick to the issues and regard the issues, and in no offense, more upper class, have a higher percentage of presence in voting. Funny how that happens. Bush & Cheney in 04 - no doubt about it, and I'd put money down ESPECIALLY after viewing the polls. Plus Missouri is now a loss, Kerry planned on visiting but now after viewing the polls he refused. Doesn't matter if he takes Florida, it's a downhill battle for Kerry - GOD BLESS THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM!DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login