Tonight\'s Presidential Debate (Reactions)

Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
For ****ing God sakes , Iraq was not a threat to America. Get over it. There was no WMD, live up to it. If there was, we would of found them by now. George W. Bush pissed on the UN and in sense pissed on all the nations. Not saying John Kerry is the answer to everything, but some of you guy\'s live in a fantasy spin-world where Saddam was this big bad wolf, but in the real world he was a dicator , nothing different from others like N.Korea\'s . Get over it .

I agree. I still don\'t know why he started this war anyways. Some say it was for oil others say different.  So many people have lost there lives over nothing. There have been no WMD found and troops continue to die. I mean it has been proven time and time again that these people do no want us over there.

This is what I don\'t get about america. We are spending all this money rebuilding Irag when there are poor people living on the streets of america. I mean use that money to help build up poor people in your own damn country. Then go out and help others.

Eik is like the cheese that blend and can make the pot melt...

LMAO!

Thank God people like you don\'t run this country Eik... the policy of appeasement is the wrong one.

hmmm, I\'m not sure where you got the impression that Kerry would give into the demands of others when it comes to our safety.  In fact, read this...(you can find it in the beginning of the presidential debate)

"I\'ll never give a veto to any country over our security. But I also know how to lead those alliances."
- John Kerry

seems pretty clear to me.  Obviously Bush is not a smooth talker and I agree he wears his emotions on his face.  Please let someone else try, it\'s certainly worth the chance.

I agree with the war in Iraq as part of the overall war on terror. I don\'t have the time to waste debating peacenicks.

Iraq is a part of the war on terror, everyone is saying it was done the wrong way.  International talks are not what they could have been and what they NEED to be in order to make an effective global stance against the war on terror.  

Now don\'t get me wrong, thank you to all the support we do have but it\'s simply not enough.  Great Britain has something like 8300, Poland has 4000, then the numbers begin to get very dismal.

Kerry has flip flopped countless times on his position on war in Iraq alone. Sorry, but if you can\'t see it you are blind.

Kerry voted for the use of force against Iraq if warranted(immediate threat) and was adamant for giving diplomacy the chance it needed and deserved.  It\'s very obvious now that we rushed in without a viable plan and without the support we needed.  Other countries didn\'t share our concern because it wasn\'t justified and we didn\'t, and still don\'t, have a plan.

Please bare in mind that voting for the use of force and actually going to war are in fact two different things.  Kerry had our saftey in mind when voting for the use of force but decidely had different ideas on why to use it.

He had some pair to bring up the body armor subject when he voted against it. You can whine all you want about "the ***ing bill was different in its final form" all you want - the fact remains he voted against it.

Well, from what I can tell there is no room for middle ground when it comes to voting for a bill.  The bill did in fact change and Kerry didn\'t like where it was going.  For the record only 1/3 of 1% of that 87 billion was going to go towards body armor.  >>>Link<<<

EDIT:  Come to think of it this bill was passed AFTER we initiated war.  Bush sent those troops over there without proper armor.   I suppose we can just throw that in the pile with this "well thought out" war.

Originally posted by GigaShadow
Bush said Hussein attacked us on 9/11?  I didn\'t watch that version of the debate.  Bush has never said there was link between Iraq and 9/11 - ask anyone who regularly posts in this forum and they will agree that Bush has never made that claim.  That topic has been debated numerous times in here.

He did imply it though.

The fact that he implied it was more than enough for the uneducated to run with the idea that Iraq was a threat to our security. Over 50% of Americans still think that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. (Interesting note: 65% of all Fox News viewers think that same thing)

The fact that you keep trying to tell us that invading Iraq was an accomplishment in the global war on terror is ridiculous.

Originally posted by Black Samurai
He did imply it though.

The fact that he implied it was more than enough for the uneducated to run with the idea that Iraq was a threat to our security. Over 50% of Americans still think that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. (Interesting note: 65% of all Fox News viewers think that same thing)

The fact that you keep trying to tell us that invading Iraq was an accomplishment in the global war on terror is ridiculous.

You are one of those who believe no matter what Bush does he is wrong.  You have no validity in any debate due to this.  I freely admit he has made some mistakes, but Iraq was not one of them.  Give me any other solid candidate from either party and I would vote for them.  If Kerry wins the next debate I would even consider voting for him, but I won\'t due to the fact his campaign is associated with groups like moveon.org and people like George Soros who absolutely disgust me.  

Passing more UN resolutions would have been a mistake.  You and others who believe diplomacy would have been the answer must have not been paying attention to the the past 10 years and 17 resolutions.  Saddam was not contained - as is evident  in the wide spread corruption concerning the oil for food program.  If he could milk 10 billion out of that supposedly humanitarian program, you have to wonder what else he was up to.

You are one of those who believe no matter what Bush does he is wrong.

Please stop trying to throw us in with a group or slapping a lable on our heads.  It\'s just getting annoying.

Originally posted by GigaShadow
Passing more UN resolutions would have been a mistake.  You and others who believe diplomacy would have been the answer must have not been paying attention to the the past 10 years and 17 resolutions.

The answer, not by all means.  Given more of a chance considering there was no immenent threat, most definitely.

Saddam was not contained - as is evident  in the wide spread corruption concerning the oil for food program.

He wasn\'t the one who attacked us prompting an unprepared and poorly planned war.

Giga, tell me why it was the right war in the right place at the right time. For all the time he spent harping on it, Bush forgot to do that... ever.

If I were a freedom-desiring Iraqi, I might support Bush\'s actions.

I\'m not that.

Ginko, that was another informative link.

Kerry was referring to a measure he co- sponsored that would have provided the $87 billion while also temporarily reversing Bush\'s tax cuts for those making $400,000 a year or more. That measure was rejected  57-42.

Right there you can see that Kerry not only wanted to protect soldiers but he actually wanted to do it with help from rich people\'s money.

And, it\'s pointed out in that article that even before senators got to vote on those bills, our soldiers were getting shot at in Iraq without enough good armor to go around.

Thanks Bush.

-Dan

Why don\'t you enlighten us to why its wrong?  

17 failed UN Resolutions.

Saddam not cooperating with weapons inspectors.

How many times did he fire on ours and allied planes in the no fly zone?  

The only thing I might agree on is the wrong time, but the right time long since passed us by and he to go sooner rather than later.

We should have finished the job back in 1991, but we couldn\'t because the UN resolution authorinzing Desert Storm did not call for removing him from power - I guess the certain UN officials and the French had too much lose if Saddam wasn\'t in power.  If we would have removed him back in 91 you wouldn\'t see what you are seeing today in regards to terrorists and insurgents.  

Also in case you didn\'t know the US since Clinton was in office had a policy to remove Saddam from power - Bush just made good on it.

Originally posted by Eiksirf


Right there you can see that Kerry not only wanted to protect soldiers but he actually wanted to do it with help from rich people\'s money.

And, it\'s pointed out in that article that even before senators got to vote on those bills, our soldiers were getting shot at in Iraq without enough good armor to go around.

Thanks Bush.

-Dan

This is where you are absolutely wrong.  I got a tax cut and I am not rich.  Kerry voting against the bill was partisan nothing more nothing less.  He has consistantly voted for cutting the DoD budget year after year - so don\'t whine about "our soldiers didn\'t have good enough armor".  Kerry is weak on defense and would have you believe he wanted to provide our troops with that equipment.  

If Kerry really wanted to help the poor why didnt\' he pay the higher income tax that was a choice on the MA state income tax form????  Why hasn\'t his wife Tereeeza made her tax returns public?  Kerry fails to put his money where his mouth is.

Originally posted by Ginko

 

He wasn\'t the one who attacked us prompting an unprepared and poorly planned war.

At least make a factual statement like poorly planned post war.  I don\'t think the actual war itself could have gone any better.

Kerry is weak on defense and would have you believe he wanted to provide our troops with that equipment.

Then why is it he was for the bill before it changed?

Does the Bush campaign send out special sunglasses so that you can see things their way?  Are they stylish, do they work with all kinds of attire?

Originally posted by GigaShadow
At least make a factual statement like poorly planned post war.  I don\'t think the actual war itself could have gone any better.

you\'re right in a sense, war time was swift and impressive...but post-war is part of the collective "war on terror" so in that sense then it is still a poorly planned effort.

Originally posted by GigaShadow
Why don\'t you enlighten us to why its wrong?  
17 failed UN Resolutions.
Saddam not cooperating with weapons inspectors.

So let\'s remove his regime with full-scale war because we don\'t know what he is doing. It sucks that Hussein wasn\'t being a happy-go-lucky, easy-to-get-along-with, evil dictator. It\'s probably best then that we send our men to die for that. It wasn\'t called for. It\'s nice that we\'re helping the Iraqi people, though. And maybe one day my gas prices will drop, if insurgents ever stop attacking the pipelines, anyway.

And thank God now that he\'s out of power, Saddam will no longer be able to attack me with... attack America with his... Well, that\'s not important anyway.

What\'s important is that we snubbed our allies, snubbed the U.N., rushed off to war, and did it for several premises which were either bullshit then or bullshit now. At least if he said we had monetary interests, we wouldn\'t have to flop and flip and switch and send mixed messages and be inconsistent about why our teenagers are getting shot at and blown up.

The only thing I might agree on is the wrong time, but the right time long since passed us by and he to go sooner rather than later.

There was never a right time. Bush, Sr. knew it. He destroyed their might and got out so he wouldn\'t have this mess on his hands.

We should have finished the job back in 1991, but we couldn\'t because the UN resolution authorinzing Desert Storm did not call for removing him from power - I guess the certain UN officials and the French had too much lose if Saddam wasn\'t in power.  If we would have removed him back in 91 you wouldn\'t see what you are seeing today in regards to terrorists and insurgents.

No, we would have seen it in 1991. Bush, Sr. said "I took the teeth out of that tiger." He won that war and got everyone out when the mission was accomplished.

Also in case you didn\'t know the US since Clinton was in office had a policy to remove Saddam from power - Bush just made good on it.

Great. I\'ll make sure not to write-in for Clinton.

This is where you are absolutely wrong. I got a tax cut and I am not rich.

I don\'t remember accusing you of having your taxes go up, but I stand corrected.

"It\'s true that Kerry voted against the entire Pentagon appropriations bills in 1990 and 1995, and also voted against the Pentagon authorization bill (which provides authority to spend but not the actual money) in 1996. But in his nearly 20 years in the Senate Kerry has voted for  Pentagon budgets far more often than he\'s opposed them, and hasn\'t voted against one for the past eight years." http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=147

If Kerry really wanted to help the poor why didnt\' he pay the higher income tax that was a choice on the MA state income tax form?

Good point. I\'m hoping he\'s being honest about taxing rich folks. Not robbing them of what\'s theirs, but at least being fair to help the rest of us. If he\'s not, I suppose that\'d be par for the course.

-Dan

I approve this post.

Originally posted by Eiksirf
So let\'s remove his regime with full-scale war because we don\'t know what he is doing. It sucks that Hussein wasn\'t being a happy-go-lucky, easy-to-get-along-with, evil dictator. It\'s probably best then that we send our men to die for that. It wasn\'t called for. It\'s nice that we\'re helping the Iraqi people, though. And maybe one day my gas prices will drop, if insurgents ever stop attacking the pipelines, anyway.

Sorry but the world is better off without Saddam.  Spin it however you want.  You are wrong.  I was almost expecting you to rant on about Haliburton after your gas price comment. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Eiksirf

What\'s important is that we snubbed our allies, snubbed the U.N., rushed off to war, and did it for several premises which were either bullshit then or bullshit now.

Snubbed allies?  Like France - who over the past 20 years has snubbed us around every corner?  You keep bringing up the UN like it holds some moral high ground... sorry, but the UN\'s green card in this country is approaching its end.  The UN is not what it was and it is following the exact same path as the League of Nations.  Corruption in the UN is rampant and was especially so concerning Iraq.  

Originally posted by Eiksirf


 At least if he said we had monetary interests, we wouldn\'t have to flop and flip and switch and send mixed messages and be inconsistent about why our teenagers are getting shot at and blown up.

Ahhh here it is... are you Michael Moore?  If not you sound as looney as him - "Bush is sending our children to die" :rolleyes:  Mixed messages?    

Originally posted by Eiksirf


There was never a right time. Bush, Sr. knew it. He destroyed their might and got out so he wouldn\'t have this mess on his hands.

Pure speculation.

Originally posted by Eiksirf


No, we would have seen it in 1991. Bush, Sr. said "I took the teeth out of that tiger." He won that war and got everyone out when the mission was accomplished.

The mission was to liberate Kuwait - not take out Saddam.  Knowing what we know now, that he would have played games for 10 years by snubing UN Resolutions along with the rise of Islamic fundamentalists, Bush Sr. knows he made a mistake by leaving him in power.  

Originally posted by Eiksirf


"It\'s true that Kerry voted against the entire Pentagon appropriations bills in 1990 and 1995, and also voted against the Pentagon authorization bill (which provides authority to spend but not the actual money) in 1996. But in his nearly 20 years in the Senate Kerry has voted for  Pentagon budgets far more often than he\'s opposed them, and hasn\'t voted against one for the past eight years." http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=147

Factcheck.org - this is nice little website with a nifty name that almost fools you into thinking it is non partisan.

Seth Goldman
Researcher, Annenberg Political Fact Check

Seth Goldman earned his B.A. in political communication at George Washington University. He joined the Annenberg Public Policy Center in June, 2004 with previous experience as journalist, press relations assistant, and media researcher. He has worked at the Committee for a Democratic Majority and at Sen. Edward M. Kennedy\'s campaign committee. At GWU he founded and edited Sticks & Stones,   an independent, student-run progressive newsmagazine.

http://www.factcheck.org/MiscReports.aspx?docID=70

Not that I doubt the records posted on the site, but if you look at Kerry\'s final quote you see an admission of mixed messages:

But Kerry was less defensive and more candid in a  June, 2003 interview with Boston Globe reporter Brian Mooney. The reporter quoted Kerry as conceding that some of his positions 20 years earlier were "ill-advised, and I think some of them are stupid in the context of the world we find ourselves in right now and the things that I\'ve learned since then. . . . I mean, you learn as you go in life."

Ill advised... he has been making ill advised decisions since he came back from Vietnam.

He was speaking of some of his opinions from 20 years ago. He was now looking at them in the context of today\'s world. Did you even read what you quoted? It by no means even suggests that he has been making ill advised decisions for the past 35 years, but thanks for playing.

How is the world safer now? Iraq isn\'t even safer now.

We\'ve been told we were at war to liberate Iraq, get rid of Saddam, remove weapons of mass destruction. Whatever way the wind blows, so changes the reasoning behind why we went there. It shows me that we had no good reason to do it, and now we\'re just trying to justify it.

I really don\'t know how we\'re better off having gone to war or why it was our only option.

And now it\'s too late for that to even matter.

Now the issue is what are we going to do there and how can we get out. At least Kerry expresses some ideas.

It\'s a mess and I want a better leader to be in charge. Bush has done a terrible job leading. He\'s pissed on the world, rushed into combat, failed to complete at least one major, MAJOR objective (wmds? what are those?) and now our troops are in a terrible situation that under a better leader we could have avoided. After all that I\'m going to trust Bush to do the right thing in resolving the conflict?

And foreign policy is his strong suit.

With all those mistakes, I honestly don\'t get the point of keeping Bush in power. It doesn\'t make sense to me.

And yes, I am Michael Moore. :rolleyes:

-Michael Moore

[Living-In-Clip]

Why do we bother debating this? Everyone knows that if Bush killed a hundred school children, Giga would find a way to validate his pre-emptive attack.