"I have no doubt, I've never had any doubt -- and I've said this publicly -- about our ability to be successful in Afghanistan. We are and we will be. The larger issue, John, is what happens afterwards. How do we now turn attention ultimately to Saddam Hussein? How do we deal with the larger Muslim world? What is our foreign policy going to be to drain the swamp of terrorism on a global basis?"
John Kerry, Nov. 16, 2001 in an interview with John McLaughlin ....
barely two months after 9.11, Big Bad John was already pushing to go after Saddam.
And then, two years later when Bush did it ... it was a "grand diversion" and a case of bush "taking his eye off the ball?"
Bush said he wouldn't use our troops for nation-building. Now we're using our troops for nation-building.
Judge for yourself.
I say all Americans reserve the right to re-shape their world view after 9.11. In fact, I'd consider it a requirement if you want to be commander-in-chief.
So, Senator, how did 9.11 change you?
"It didn't change me at all."
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:36 am Posts: 3556 Location: Twin Ports
slightofjeff wrote:
StyrofoamChicken wrote:
Bush said he wouldn't use our troops for nation-building. Now we're using our troops for nation-building.
Judge for yourself.
I say all Americans reserve the right to re-shape their world view after 9.11. In fact, I'd consider it a requirement if you want to be commander-in-chief.
So, Senator, how did 9.11 change you? "It didn't change me at all."
it was just another Tuesday, eh?
I would say he has a right to his world view as well.
Seriously now, this stuff is rather pointless. There are examples of both candidates changing their minds and strategies depending both on the situation and political climate.
Nearly all politicians do this and it really should not be seen as a weakness for Bush or Kerry. What would be nice, however, would be explanations on why they changed their minds. Unforutnately, we don't often get those.
_________________ Rising and falling at force ten
We twist the world
And ride the wind
Bush said he wouldn't use our troops for nation-building. Now we're using our troops for nation-building.
Judge for yourself.
I say all Americans reserve the right to re-shape their world view after 9.11. In fact, I'd consider it a requirement if you want to be commander-in-chief.
So, Senator, how did 9.11 change you? "It didn't change me at all."
it was just another Tuesday, eh?
I would say he has a right to his world view as well.
Seriously now, this stuff is rather pointless. There are examples of both candidates changing their minds and strategies depending both on the situation and political climate.
Nearly all politicians do this and it really should not be seen as a weakness for Bush or Kerry. What would be nice, however, would be explanations on why they changed their minds. Unforutnately, we don't often get those.
If Kerry weren't so over-the-top in his vitriol about how this war was a "grand diversion" and the "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" I might just overlook his past position.
But you listen to him now, it's hard to forget that, apparently, he was an even bigger fan of going to Iraq than Bush was at first ...
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:36 am Posts: 3556 Location: Twin Ports
If that is a factor for you, then that is fine.
I still don't see it as a major deal. I'm more interested in what must happen now or next.
Kerry is hardly the first to change his mind on the subject of war. Rumsfeld himself while working for the Nixon Administration originally supported overwhelming force as a strategy for Vietnam. A few years later, he radically changed his view of the military to embrace a smaller force strategy.
Did he "flip-flop"? Is that a sign of weakness? I don't think so. I think that he changed his mind based upon what he had read and learned. Sure, some of it may have been motivated by politics and posturing, but the majority was based upon learning and new ideas. Do I agree with him? No. Do I think he is weak because he changed his mind? Nope.
In light of what is known now in Iraq, and OF COURSE because of political posturing, he condemns the way the war was waged. This is something I agree with. I disagreed with Kerry's stance prior to the war, but now that he has changed that stance, I agree with him.
In this case, it was far better for him to change his position at least with voters such as myself. For others, it won't be.
And that is why we have more than one candidate.
_________________ Rising and falling at force ten
We twist the world
And ride the wind
I still don't see it as a major deal. I'm more interested in what must happen now or next.
Kerry is hardly the first to change his mind on the subject of war. Rumsfeld himself while working for the Nixon Administration originally supported overwhelming force as a strategy for Vietnam. A few years later, he radically changed his view of the military to embrace a smaller force strategy.
Did he "flip-flop"? Is that a sign of weakness? I don't think so. I think that he changed his mind based upon what he had read and learned. Sure, some of it may have been motivated by politics and posturing, but the majority was based upon learning and new ideas. Do I agree with him? No. Do I think he is weak because he changed his mind? Nope.
In light of what is known now in Iraq, and OF COURSE because of political posturing, he condemns the way the war was waged. This is something I agree with. I disagreed with Kerry's stance prior to the war, but now that he has changed that stance, I agree with him.
In this case, it was far better for him to change his position at least with voters such as myself. For others, it won't be.
And that is why we have more than one candidate.
i just never could vote for a guy like that. although the main reason I'm against Kerry is that I disagree with him on almost every single issue ...
But, personality-wise, he strikes me as a giant fraud. a fake. a poser.
"I met with the entire UN security council before we went to Iraq." Well, no you didn't, John.
"Can I get me a huntin' lisence, here?" What? You don't talk that way, John.
"I distinctly remember Game 6 of the 1986 World Series. I was literally 30 yards away from Bill Buckner when he blew that ground ball." No you weren't John. You were 5 hours away at a fundraising banquet.
little things, to be sure. but he strikes me as a fraud.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:36 am Posts: 3556 Location: Twin Ports
...and that is fine jeff. You should vote based on your own convictions and beliefs. If he is not your man then he is not your man, and by not voting for him you stay true to yourself.
That is a good thing!
I do so as well.
_________________ Rising and falling at force ten
We twist the world
And ride the wind
...and that is fine jeff. You should vote based on your own convictions and beliefs. If he is not your man then he is not your man, and by not voting for him you stay true to yourself.
That is a good thing!
I do so as well.
maybe if I agreed with him on the issues I might just suck it up and vote for an obvious fake anyway
but I don't have to make that distinction in this case ...
"I have no doubt, I've never had any doubt -- and I've said this publicly -- about our ability to be successful in Afghanistan. We are and we will be. The larger issue, John, is what happens afterwards. How do we now turn attention ultimately to Saddam Hussein? How do we deal with the larger Muslim world? What is our foreign policy going to be to drain the swamp of terrorism on a global basis?"
John Kerry, Nov. 16, 2001 in an interview with John McLaughlin ....
barely two months after 9.11, Big Bad John was already pushing to go after Saddam.
And then, two years later when Bush did it ... it was a "grand diversion" and a case of bush "taking his eye off the ball?"
draw your own conclusions.
Hmmm. Now, not to dispute your conclusions here, but where in that answer does John Kerry say, "let's drop everthing so we can invade and occupy Iraq"? No, it seems like Kerry is asking some pretty broad questions. And, whenever I look at Bush, I'm reminded that every question has a wrong answer.
_________________ I'm feelin' like a preacher wavin' a gun around....
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:46 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Medford, Oregon Gender: Male
slightofjeff wrote:
"I have no doubt, I've never had any doubt -- and I've said this publicly -- about our ability to be successful in Afghanistan. We are and we will be. The larger issue, John, is what happens afterwards. How do we now turn attention ultimately to Saddam Hussein? How do we deal with the larger Muslim world? What is our foreign policy going to be to drain the swamp of terrorism on a global basis?"
John Kerry, Nov. 16, 2001 in an interview with John McLaughlin ....
barely two months after 9.11, Big Bad John was already pushing to go after Saddam.
And then, two years later when Bush did it ... it was a "grand diversion" and a case of bush "taking his eye off the ball?"
draw your own conclusions.
I have. He said afterwards, not during, not before. Afterwards. Finish the job in Afghanistan, then concentrate on Iraq.
_________________ Deep below the dunes I roved Past the rows, past the rows Beside the acacias freshly in bloom I sent men to their doom
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 1918 Location: Ephrata
Hey I'm just glad somebody is waking up after that knee jerk year we had afte 9/11 where everything was a threat and all reason left our government. Bush is still there.
_________________ no need for those it's all over your clothes it's all over your face it's all over your nose
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
