Fox f\'s up

[Bobs_Hardware]

Woah woah woah!!

Could we all just stop saying flip flop?!

[SirMystiq]

Originally posted by Ginko
A personal grudge against the term?! lol...I don\'t take any of this stuff personally as it\'s not worth it.  I wouldn\'t consider myself a liberal but I\'m certainly not a conservative, never been one for labels...I\'m just me and I\'m looking at this presedential race as it happens.  I have no loyalty to either party and I\'ll change my mind on them at the drop of a hat.

I acknowledge that Kerry has changed his stance on Iraq but it\'s been beaten to death.  The debates as of late have cleared up the confusion for myself and I like what I hear.  The rest of his so called flip flops, those I\'m aware of, have been exaggerated and other than that can be directly compared to Bush\'s own.

Was I the only one to hear Kerry\'s explanation for what Bush calls a "flip flop"?

Did he not say that he agreed that Hussein needed to be dealt with but there was a wrong and a right way about it?

Did he not say that Bush chose the wrong way?

Did he not explain the reason why he voted against the bill that would give our troops "body armor"?




I\'m sorry but those things aren\'t flip flops any more. It\'s sad how you can quote Kerry on some issues but not on others.


Biggest flip flop of all


Iraq has weapons of mass destruction...Maybe he doesn\'t...He doesn\'t.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041007/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_weapons&cid=540&ncid=716


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20041007/ts_washpost/a12115_2004oct6&cid=1802&ncid=1480


A flip flop that has cost our soldiers lives. And the "oops I was pretty damn sure he had some" excuse doesn\'t cut it.

It is obvious that quite a few of you don\'t grasp the real meaning behind the phrase.  Kerry\'s voting record in the Senate speaks for itself.

As far as no WMD\'s.  The report still states that Saddam was a threat.  Bush\'s conservative base could care less if there were an WMD\'s or not.  The world is better off without Saddam in power.

You can\'t blame Bush for believing there were WMD\'s when intelligence agencies in London, Moscow and Cairo, as well as the US, all agreed Saddam had them and was stockpiling them.  Why don\'t those who believe Bush is wrong for going into Iraq focus on the real problem leading up the invasion of Iraq - the UN and its corrupt oil for food program?

Originally posted by GigaShadow
It is obvious that quite a few of you don\'t grasp the real meaning behind the phrase.  

Looks like YOU don\'t grasp the real meaning of the word...I don\'t care for any spin the GOP has put behind it.

Main Entry: flip-flop
Pronunciation: \'flip-"fläp
Function: noun
1 : the sound or motion of something flapping loosely
2 a : a backward handspring b : a sudden reversal (as of direction or point of view)
3 : a usually electronic device or a circuit (as in a computer) capable of assuming either of two stable states
4 : a rubber sandal loosely fastened to the foot by a thong
- flip-flop intransitive verb

Originally posted by Ginko
Looks like YOU don\'t grasp the real meaning of the word...I don\'t care for any spin the GOP has put behind it.

Main Entry: flip-flop
Pronunciation: \'flip-"fläp
Function: noun
2  : a sudden reversal (as of direction or point of view)

You just proved my point.  There is no spin if we are going by the definition you listed.  Kerry\'s sudden and numerous reversals (as in point of view).

Actually I just proved that bush does the same thing by that very definition.

Speaking of Saddam and WMD\'s:

Without WMD\'s, why exactly was Saddam such a major threat that we had to act right away and scope him out? Yes a leader serves many purposes including the retention of stable morale, but what was it that made him so dangerous? Were there plane squadrons at his disposal that allowed him to attack us on our home soil? Could he send short range weapons to attack us or whoever?

I dont know all the details but any head figure in the upper echelon of Saddam\'s "army" could have organized an attack on our soil so why Saddam and why with such urgency?  

I mean have we selflessly gone in solely to protect the innocent people of that land? Have we lost all these lives for that? I doubt it.

This is what isnt making sense to me.

I could be wrong but from what I\'ve read the intelligence suggested that Saddam had stock piles of weapons and was planning to use them.  When was he planning to use them?  I don\'t know of any intelligence report that clarifies it and declares an immediate threat.

What bothers me about it is that ALL the intelligence was dead wrong and leads me to believe there were other motives involved to have such a quick and unorganized effort.  I just don\'t understand how there could be that big of a **** up.

[clips]

Originally posted by GigaShadow


As far as no WMD\'s.  The report still states that Saddam was a threat.  Bush\'s conservative base could care less if there were an WMD\'s or not.  The world is better off without Saddam in power.

is the world better off without n.korea? iran? syria? i\'m not gonna touch this one as it will result in me sounding like a broken record..i\'ll just say this..the world was better off with saddam in power..why?...there would be no american lives lost..and we had a close watch on him, regardless of what you think of the sanctions..he wasn\'t capable of doin anything...

now it\'s complete chaos..and whether the u.s. wants to admit it or not there simply isn\'t enough troops to secure all of iraq..period...

Originally posted by clips
is the world better off without n.korea? iran? syria? i\'m not gonna touch this one as it will result in me sounding like a broken record..i\'ll just say this..the world was better off with saddam in power..why?...there would be no american lives lost..and we had a close watch on him, regardless of what you think of the sanctions..he wasn\'t capable of doin anything...

now it\'s complete chaos..and whether the u.s. wants to admit it or not there simply isn\'t enough troops to secure all of iraq..period...

All of you are forgetting one major point.  Iraq under Saddam was the only country listed in "the Axis of Evil" to actually use chemical and biological weapons on its neighbors and own people.  How can you justify that he was not a threat?

If you were President following 9/11 and knowing Saddam had used WMD\'s before and all intelligence reports were saying he did possess WMD\'s you would have known if another attack using WMD\'s would have happened you definitely would have been impeached.  Blame the messenger - not the President.  Anyone with any leadership skills would have done exactly the same thing including Kerry.  It is easy for him to say it was a mistake and he would have done things differently in hindsight.  The fact remains Saddam would have rearmed and been a problem down the road regardless of him not possessing any significant WMD\'s leading up the war.

[clips]

i agree with everything you stated to a point...i like everybody else in america wanted somebody to pay after 911...and yes if i was presented with the intelligence that the prez had...i\'m still not sure if at that time i would have said "okay let\'s go take care of saddam"...for two reasons


1...he wasn\'t the one directly responsible for 911 and even if he did had wmd\'s this war could\'ve been implemented at a later date..i would\'ve focused more on afganastan (spel)

2...colin powell didn\'t agree with the intelligence from the jumpoff...he told bush and rumsfield that he wouldn\'t go to the u.n. with what was presented to him...it seemed he was the only one that had common sense on the situation...i felt he was pressured into going to the u.n....bush & co. nwanted the iraq war so bad it was disgusting...we\'ve all seen how aggressive and arrogant bush was up to the point of war...

this war was a mistake...just like how kerry stated it was a mistake how he went about talkin about the 83 billion dollar vote ( which i felt he did an excellent job debating bush that night) i know it would be a major blow for the bush admin.. to admit that this thing was a mistake and a failure...

when i mean failure i mean in achieving our objectives..no wmd\'s..major blow...and even after we\'ve defeated them i would\'ve thought at least "okay there\'s gonna be small uprisings here and there, but we\'ll shut that down and send our troops home"...that is not happening.. our troops are gonna be over there for at least the next 5 years..what do think the body count will be by then?...if the iraqi army and police is not fully realized? it\'s a very ugly picture....

[GmanJoe]

Giga....these peace niks are the same type of people who  thought Winston Churchill was being paranoid about Hitler. Churchill demanded action well before Hitler invaded any country.

Hussien would have eventually acquired more deadly weapons.

*sandal wearing tree huggers suddenly stops singing Kumbaya just to reply to me*

[clips]

Originally posted by GmanJoe


Hussien would have eventually acquired more deadly weapons.


ah shaddap!  nobody knows what saddam would\'ve done..but we do know for a FACT that saddam was held in check with our sanctions..and i\'m sure most americans would have preferred that situation over the chaos in iraq currently...

Originally posted by clips



ah shaddap!  nobody knows what saddam would\'ve done..but we do know for a FACT that saddam was held in check with our sanctions..and i\'m sure most americans would have preferred that situation over the chaos in iraq currently...

I suggest you reread the report regarding the sanctions and his desire to reacquire WMD\'s.

[GmanJoe]

hmph! Smelly tree hugging hippie! *kick tamborine out of clips grubby paws*