**OFFICIAL** Kerry/Bush Debate Thread: 2nd Debate to be 'Town-Hall' Style

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Here's how Kerry feels about a "global test." More flip-flopping bs from him.

http://www.nationalreview.com/...kudlow200410011607.asp

Regrettably, President George W. Bush did not seize the moment to remind 55 million television viewers that on January 12, 1991, Sen. Kerry actually voted against S.J.RES.2, the congressional authorization that empowered President Bush 41 to liberate Kuwait after Saddam Hussein?s cruel invasion. This little bit of history sheds much light on Kerry?s past and casts a dark shadow over any of his new promises to successfully execute today?s war in Iraq.

...

If ever there was a military action that passed the ?global test? ? which Kerry argued for in the debate ? the Persian Gulf War was it. It overwhelmingly met Kerry?s dubious standard ? and still he opposed it. This reveals a credibility problem of the first order. Almost defining credulity, Kerry said in a brief statement on the Senate floor, in an accompaniment to his vote against the Persian Gulf War, that ?The president made a mistake to unilaterally increase troops, set a date, and make war so probable.?

...

Looks like Kerry failed his own test.

<ahem>


AUTHORIZING USE OF U.S. ARMED FORCES PURSUANT TO U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION (Senate - January 12, 1991)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I do not believe our Nation is prepared for war. But I am absolutely convinced our Nation does not believe that war is necessary. Nevertheless, this body may vote momentarily to permit it.

When I returned from Vietnam, I wrote then I was willing personally, in the future, to fight and possibly die for my country. But I said then it must be when the Nation as a whole has decided that there is a real threat and that the Nation as a whole has decided that we all must go.

I do not believe this test has been met. There is no consensus in America for war and, therefore, the Congress should not vote to authorize war.

If we go to war in the next few days, it will not be because our immediate vital interests are so threatened and we have no other choice. It is not because of nuclear, chemical, biological weapons when, after all, Saddam Hussein had all those abilities or was working toward them for years--even while we armed him and refused to hold him accountable for using some of them. It will be because we set an artificial deadline. As we know, those who have been in war, there is no artificial wound, no artificial consequence of war.

Most important, we must balance that against the fact that we have an alternative, an alternative that would allow us to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, an accomplishment that we all want to achieve.

I still believe that notwithstanding the outcome of this vote, we can have a peaceful resolution. I think it most likely. If we do, for a long time, people will argue in America about whether this vote made it possible.

Many of us will always remain convinced that a similar result could have come about without such a high-risk high-stakes throw away of our constitutional power.

If not, if we do go to war, for years people will ask why Congress gave in. They will ask why there was such a rush to so much death and destruction when it did not have to happen.

It does not have to happen if we do our job.

So I ask my colleagues if we are really once again so willing to have our young and our innocent bear the price of our impatience.

I personally believe, and I have heard countless of my colleagues say, that they think the President made a mistake to unilaterally increase troops, set a date and make war so probable. I ask my colleagues if we are once again so willing to risk people dying from a mistake.

 

[bozack]

still waiting to hear exactly how Kerry and his cronies are going to bring more nations into Iraq for assistance...that is a promise I eagerly await specifics on....

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

Originally posted by: bozack
still waiting to hear exactly how Kerry and his cronies are going to bring more nations into Iraq for assistance...that is a promise I eagerly await specifics on....

Educate yourself directly from the man himself. Iraq Plans

If that's not enough for you to be content for now, wait till the Town Hall meeting on Friday since I am sure that question will be asked there. I am also waiting to here some more specifics.

 

[DoubleL]

Well if you want to know who looked the best or talked the best I would say Kerry, He had a nice shade of lipstick and Bush had none but if you ask witch presidential candidate won the debate on issues it was Bush 61% to Kerry's 39%

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DoubleL
Well if you want to know who looked the best or talked the best I would say Kerry, He had a nice shade of lipstick and Bush had none but if you ask witch presidential candidate won the debate on issues it was Bush 61% to Kerry's 39%

:roll:

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: DoubleL
Well if you want to know who looked the best or talked the best I would say Kerry, He had a nice shade of lipstick and Bush had none but if you ask witch presidential candidate won the debate on issues it was Bush 61% to Kerry's 39%

Well, if you asked who won on "My daddy's name got me the Presidency", it was Bush 100% to Kerry's 0%.

If you asked who won on acting like an impetulant child, it was Bush 100% to Kerry's 0%.

If you asked who won on cliched one-liners, it was Bush 85% to Kerry's 15%. (Kerry had a couple.)

If you asked who won on not actually answering the question, it was Bush 95% to Kerry's 5%.

If you asked who won on fear-mongering, it was Bush 90% to Kerry's 10%.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: bozack
still waiting to hear exactly how Kerry and his cronies are going to bring more nations into Iraq for assistance...that is a promise I eagerly await specifics on....

I eagerly await January so you can see for yourself. BTW - this question is getting a little old.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: DoubleL
Well if you want to know who looked the best or talked the best I would say Kerry, He had a nice shade of lipstick and Bush had none but if you ask witch presidential candidate won the debate on issues it was Bush 61% to Kerry's 39%

DoubleL gets a double dose of :roll: :roll:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur
<ahem>


[snipped for brevity]

Funny. We had national concensus for the recent invasion of Iraq, as an overwhelming majority supported it. Yet we should have put it to the "global test?" But when it meets the global test, we should put it to a national concensus?

Is that yet another example of the Eggo dance from Kerry?

Hehe, and look, here's more waffling from Kerry on the Persian Gulf War:

"Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war."

--letter from Senator John Kerry to Wallace Carter of Newton Centre, Massachusetts, dated January 22 [1991]

"Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf."

--Senator Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31 [1991]

It only took a short 9 days for Kerry to waffle on that one.

Flip-flop-flip-flop-flip-flop

 

[umbrella39]

TastesLikeChicken
Funny. We had national concensus for the recent invasion of Iraq, as an overwhelming majority supported it.

Say what? Define recent (OIF?) and please link the overwhelming numbers. Thx.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

TastesLikeChicken
Funny. We had national concensus for the recent invasion of Iraq, as an overwhelming majority supported it.

Say what? Define recent (OIF?) and please link the overwhelming numbers. Thx.

The "recent" invasion of Iraq, as opposed to the Persian Gulf War.

And do I really need to post the percentage of people that supported the invasion before it began? It's the only relevant time to consider when determining whether or not the invasion would pass a "national concensus".

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur
<ahem>


[snipped for brevity]

Funny. We had national concensus for the recent invasion of Iraq, as an overwhelming majority supported it. Yet we should have put it to the "global test?" But when it meets the global test, we should put it to a national concensus?

Show us proof of this "national consensus". I seem to recall some pretty inflamed rhetoric being tossed about back then. I also recall protests in every city across the country. I recall the bulk of the rest of world against the invasion.

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: umbrella39

TastesLikeChicken
Funny. We had national concensus for the recent invasion of Iraq, as an overwhelming majority supported it.

Say what? Define recent (OIF?) and please link the overwhelming numbers. Thx.

The "recent" invasion of Iraq, as opposed to the Persian Gulf War.

And do I really need to post the percentage of people that supported the invasion before it began? It's the only relevant time to consider when determining whether or not the invasion would pass a "national concensus".

We were misled by our own administration. The administration said anything to convince the American public that Iraq was a threat. Go to the NYTimes are read the story that they posted today. Open your eyes.

Disclaimer: I never, EVER supported the Iraq war. It was a diversion and had nothing to do with WMD and/or Terrorism. Just want to make that clear.

 

[DoubleL]

Well, if you asked who won on "My daddy's name got me the Presidency", it was Bush 100% to Kerry's 0%.

If you asked who won on acting like an impetulant child, it was Bush 100% to Kerry's 0%.

If you asked who won on cliched one-liners, it was Bush 85% to Kerry's 15%. (Kerry had a couple.)

If you asked who won on not actually answering the question, it was Bush 95% to Kerry's 5%.

If you asked who won on fear-mongering, it was Bush 90% to Kerry's 10%.

Well Darkhawk28 I just went bywhat 22,894 people said not a bunch of bs

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Here's Kerry's revisionist history on the US involvement in war:

The Kerry Doctrine

Someday, when the passions of this election have subsided, historians and analysts of American foreign policy may fasten on a remarkable passage in John Kerry's nomination speech. "As president," Kerry declared, "I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to. That is the standard of our nation." The statement received thunderous applause at the convention and, no doubt, the nodding approval of many Americans of all political leanings who watched on television.

Only American diplomatic historians may have contemplated suicide as they reflected on their failure to have the smallest influence on Americans' understanding of their own nation's history. And perhaps foreign audiences tuning in may have paused in their exultation over a possible Kerry victory in November to reflect with wonder on the incurable self-righteousness and nationalist innocence the Democratic candidate displayed. Who but an American politician, they might ask, could look back across the past 200 years and insist that the United States had never gone to war except when it "had to"?

The United States has sent forces into combat dozens of times over the past century and a half, and only twice, in World War II and in Afghanistan, has it arguably done so because it "had to." It certainly did not "have to" go to war against Spain in 1898 (or Mexico in 1846.) It did not "have to" send the Marines to Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Mexico and Nicaragua in the first three decades of the 20th century, nor fight a lengthy war against insurgents in the Philippines. The necessity of Woodrow Wilson's intervention in World War I remains a hot topic for debate among historians.

And what about the war Kerry himself fought in? Kerry cannot believe the Vietnam War was part of his alleged "time-honored tradition," or he would not have thrown his ribbons away. But America's other Cold War interventions in Asia, Latin America and the Middle East are also problematic. Most opponents of the Vietnam War, like Kerry, believed it was symptomatic of a larger failure of U.S. foreign policy stemming from what Jimmy Carter memorably called Americans' "inordinate fear of communism." The other Cold War interventions were premised on the same "misguided" anti-communism and the concomitant democratic idealism, that pulled Kerry's hero, John F. Kennedy, into Vietnam. The United States, by this reckoning, did not "have to" go to war in Korea in 1950. Nor could a post-Vietnam Kerry have considered Lyndon Johnson's 1965 intervention in the Dominican Republic necessary. Or has Kerry now retroactively accepted the Cold War justification for these interventions that he once rejected?

...

Of course, Kerry made those statements back in July. Now he claims we go to war when we pass a global test...erm...unless that test is passed...then we take a national test, I guess.

And isn't this statement from Kerry just peachy?

http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru102502.asp

In March 1991, our modern Morgenthau said this about his opposition to the first Gulf war: "If the president had told me that there would be only 100 casualties and it would just take a week, I would have voted in favor of using military force." Give him points for candor, anyway.

I don't think candor is a word I'd use to describe Kerry.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur
<ahem>


[snipped for brevity]

Funny. We had national concensus for the recent invasion of Iraq, as an overwhelming majority supported it. Yet we should have put it to the "global test?" But when it meets the global test, we should put it to a national concensus?

Show us proof of this "national consensus". I seem to recall some pretty inflamed rhetoric being tossed about back then. I also recall protests in every city across the country. I recall the bulk of the rest of world against the invasion.

You can't be serious? I really don't believe you are that ignorant of recent political history not to know the overwhelming national support Bush had at the time of the invasion. Playing dumb and asking for links comes off as a rather disingenious ploy.

As far as the rest of the world, wtf does that have to do with a "national concensus"?

 

[conjur]

And just what does that phrase, global test, mean, Chicken?

It means if one can prove to one's own country and the rest of the world that a pre-emptive strike is justified, then, by all means, launch the strike. It does NOT mean seeking approval first. It means being RIGHT. It means having the necessary evidence.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You can't be serious? I really don't believe you are that ignorant of recent political history not to know the overwhelming national support Bush had at the time of the invasion. Playing dumb and asking for links comes off as a rather disingenious ploy.

As far as the rest of the world, wtf does that have to do with a "national concensus"?

Ah, I thought so. You *don't* have proof...just your own distorted opinion. Thanks.

One example:

U.S. Bishops Oppose Pre-Emptive Strike Against Iraq
http://www.catholicherald.com/cns/iraq-us.htm

 

[umbrella39]

Mark me down as another who never once supported our romp in Iraq. So I am not one of the overwhelming majority I guess.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: DoubleL
Well, if you asked who won on "My daddy's name got me the Presidency", it was Bush 100% to Kerry's 0%.

If you asked who won on acting like an impetulant child, it was Bush 100% to Kerry's 0%.

If you asked who won on cliched one-liners, it was Bush 85% to Kerry's 15%. (Kerry had a couple.)

If you asked who won on not actually answering the question, it was Bush 95% to Kerry's 5%.

If you asked who won on fear-mongering, it was Bush 90% to Kerry's 10%.

Well Darkhawk28 I just went bywhat 22,894 people said not a bunch of bs

Link please.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You can't be serious? I really don't believe you are that ignorant of recent political history not to know the overwhelming national support Bush had at the time of the invasion. Playing dumb and asking for links comes off as a rather disingenious ploy.

As far as the rest of the world, wtf does that have to do with a "national concensus"?

Ah, I thought so. You *don't* have proof...just your own distorted opinion. Thanks.

One example:

U.S. Bishops Oppose Pre-Emptive Strike Against Iraq
http://www.catholicherald.com/cns/iraq-us.htm

I figured you'd pull the tired old 'Aha, you really don't have any proof, just your opinion.' crap despite the common knowledge that a large majority of the American public supported the invasion. Just in case you did try to pull that bs, I had a link ready for you:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections...s/iraq_poll030321.html

Some other basic measures of support, while high, are also lower than they were the last time around. Sixty-seven percent of Americans say the United States did enough to seek a diplomatic solution before attacking; it was 77 percent at the start of the Gulf War. And on timing, 62 percent say it was right for the United States to attack now ? compared to 75 percent on Jan. 16, 1991, the night the Gulf War began.[/b]

62%. 62%. Should I repeat that again? 62%.

And citing a poll of US Bishops? Is that how you divine a "national concensus," by polling Bishops? I'm surprised Bishops would have time to even answer as they're often so busy themselves poling altar boys.

Edit: Fixed bolding and percentages.

 

[conjur]

Oh, I was part of the people who favored the invasion last year. However, there was a very vocal portion of our population that was "vociferously" against the war. The intelligence community was against the war and that should have been the big kicker. Too bad most of us ignored them.

 

[wiin]

Educate yourself directly from the man himself. Iraq Plans

Being done by the Bush Administration. So, what's new? I know--give Iran the nuclear fuel it wanted just like the Clinton Administration did with North Korea. Even Madeline Albright said that was a mistake.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur
And just what does that phrase, global test, mean, Chicken?

I have no idea, con. It doesn't seem Kerry has any idea what it means either.

It means if one can prove to one's own country and the rest of the world that a pre-emptive strike is justified, then, by all means, launch the strike. It does NOT mean seeking approval first. It means being RIGHT. It means having the necessary evidence.

So public opinion is not important, in your opinion?

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: bozack
still waiting to hear exactly how Kerry and his cronies are going to bring more nations into Iraq for assistance...that is a promise I eagerly await specifics on....

The current, sitting administration is GW Bush's.

It is they who I demand an answer from with grave urgency--on this score and many others.

I have for more than 3 years. Always with an unstisfactory result.