Did Anyone See Kerry's Speech Last Night?

[Displaced Flames fan]

I'm looking for solid opinions. If you are incapable of viewing these issues in an unbiased manner, please do not reply.

My question is this...

Did Kerry lay out any kind of solid platform? Did he talk at all about what he wants to do if he becomes Presdient? Or was it more focussing on the past and what he would have done differently or the old Bush is bad, I'm not Bush so a vote for me is good logic?

So far there has been very little of substance coming from the Kerry campaign. I didn't get to see the speech so hopefully some folks who watched and can actually be objective on the subject can answer the questions above....although I have to say, I'll be shocked if it wasn't more of the same.

[transplant99]

Well I watched the first 30 minutes then had to break away from it.

I thought he was very good actually, and his theme was clear.

"America can do better....we can do better".

he didn't actually "detail" what he would do differently, just that he would do things differently.

He clearly is going to go after George Bush on the deficit that has been run up....and so he should.

I am not sure how he intends to show how the US people were "mislead" into war....when its clear that even he used the same intelligence info to vote in the Senate to go into Iraq that Bush is now getting blasted for.

He sure comes across as a "politician" tho....i guess they all do at this level. This could be an interesting race and may very well come down to the running mates. Edwards is dynamite, and may be that little nudge the Dems need to re-take the White House.

[Cowperson]

The transcript:

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07...ript/index.html (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/29/dems.kerry.transcript/index.html)

I watched much of it, but not all. He acknowledged "we are a nation at war" and called the election the most important "of our lifetime." Not just any election, but the most important in 50 years. Is he right about that? Perhaps he is. He talked of a government that would spend what it could afford, rather than deficit spend as Bush has. He sold the Clinton economic record - the prosperity of the 1990's - and said it will return under Democrats. And he wove his military record into the fabric of his speech from top to bottom because he probably knows if he can defeat Bush on security, then he's probably won. Manufacturing jobs going to China and India is a growing hot button topic in the USA.

I think he also defended his flip-flopping by saying the Bush team are narrow thinkers, that once they're in the glue they can't adjust or even change their minds.


If you believe image is more important than substance, he probably needed better TV makeup because he looked like he was sweating a bit (or a sheen on his face) and seemed to lick his lips a lot. :rolleyes: :P I switched to a few different stations just to see if the sweaty look just happened to be one camera. It wasn't. Does image matter?

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Well Dis, I was actually very impressed with what he had to say. I think it was one of the best polictical speaches I've heard from an American politician. Very well balanced and a real world look at America and what troubles it. I think that he singled out some of the major issues, and pointed to some solid solutions (no serious details). He pointed to strengthening the military, through an addition of 40,000 full time troops, developing better support systems (kind of a flip flop from Kerry, but a flip flop based on the changes in the world which make it reasonable) and creation of more special forces units. Now this is smart because this is the way to win the war on terror as well as maintain the security of the nation. It's also a great job creation ploy and has great technology spin off potential for the high tech industries. He also mentioned that he was going to support health care and social services (again, no definition of plans for the most part), but did say that he would not hold back Americans from crossing the border to get their drugs in Canada (good for Canada too).

The thing that impressed me the most was his admission that the United States has p*sses away all the goodwill they had built up around the world and were now in a situation of needing to build that goodwill up. He said that he would involve the world community in Iraq, and on the war on terror, and be more active in getting "the world" involved and not going it alone. The line that stuckout the best, IMO, was when he was talking about the military and he said (and I paraphrase), "The United States will not go to war because it wants to, it will only go to war because it has to." I think that Kerry displayed a really good grasp on where the United States is in the world, in the world opinion, and where it really needs to improve its image. From that alone I think he would have earned my vote. I'm not a fan of the Democrats in any shape or form, but I think Kerry/Edwards is really in touch with things, while Bush/??? is in a world of their own, and taking the United States in a very dangerous direction.

[Bingo]

I give the Democrats credit though ... they're moving towards the center. I wouldn't call them a conservative party at this point but they are moving center.

Increase military
Tax Cuts
Fiscal responsibility

All very conservative ideas that Kerry walked out last night.

If he means it I'm happy, it will make me care less about who wins that election ... but we've seen this "feint center / move left" act in Canada from Chretian. Time will tell.

Side Note: And this is really unfair ... I can't stand the man's voice. He sounds like he's 70 years old if you close your eyes

[Cowperson]

An analysis if anyone is interested:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5479243/

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Jul 30 2004, 01:57 PM

If you believe image is more important than substance, he probably needed better TV makeup because he looked like he was sweating a bit (or a sheen on his face) and seemed to lick his lips a lot. :rolleyes: :P I switched to a few different stations just to see if the sweaty look just happened to be one camera. It wasn't. Does image matter?

Cowperson
I laughed at that too. I watched it in high definition and he was sweatin' pretty good. I thought he should have had a drink of water to wet the whistle and get rid of that cottonmouth. I thought he still came off really well, and I think he came off VERY presidental. He displayed something that Bush is going to have a tough time competing with, and that was wisdom. Kerry impressed me. He was not the cardboard cut out I expected.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Bingo@Jul 30 2004, 02:05 PM
I give the Democrats credit though ... they're moving towards the center. I wouldn't call them a conservative party at this point but they are moving center.

Increase military
Tax Cuts
Fiscal responsibility

All very conservative ideas that Kerry walked out last night.

If he means it I'm happy, it will make me care less about who wins that election ... but we've seen this "feint center / move left" act in Canada from Chretian. Time will tell.

Side Note: And this is really unfair ... I can't stand the man's voice. He sounds like he's 70 years old if you close your eyes
When you look at the political spectrum in most countries, the Democratic party would be considered centrist to most.

The thing about tax cuts is not a surprise. The difference is who gets the tax cuts and what it is used for. Kerry did talk about expanding the military a little, but spent way more time talking about health care and domestic spending.

Fiscal responsibility is also a cliche. Everyone wants fiscal responsibility. You'll never hear a centrist or leftist say they don't want fiscal responsibity. It's how they acheive fiscal responsibity that differs.

[sbailey924]

I thought the speech was pretty good. My favorite line was when Kerry quoted Lincoln saying "We shouldn't be praying that God is on our side, we should be praying that we are on God's side."

I wasn't expecting any definitive platform to be laid out. Conventions usually build off of the energy and try to attract people to the politicians moreso than the policies. As September and October near, that's when the actual detailed platform will start making its way into the mainstream.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Jul 30 2004, 08:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Jul 30 2004, 08:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bingo@Jul 30 2004, 02:05 PM
I give the Democrats credit though ... they're moving towards the center. I wouldn't call them a conservative party at this point but they are moving center.

Increase military
Tax Cuts
Fiscal responsibility

All very conservative ideas that Kerry walked out last night.

If he means it I'm happy, it will make me care less about who wins that election ... but we've seen this "feint center / move left" act in Canada from Chretian. Time will tell.

Side Note: And this is really unfair ... I can't stand the man's voice. He sounds like he's 70 years old if you close your eyes
When you look at the political spectrum in most countries, the Democratic party would be considered centrist to most.

The thing about tax cuts is not a surprise. The difference is who gets the tax cuts and what it is used for. Kerry did talk about expanding the military a little, but spent way more time talking about health care and domestic spending.

Fiscal responsibility is also a cliche. Everyone wants fiscal responsibility. You'll never hear a centrist or leftist say they don't want fiscal responsibity. It's how they acheive fiscal responsibity that differs. [/b][/quote]
Hey don't get me wrong ... Bush's defecits aren't exactly fiscally responsible and still have me scratching my head.

Fine to cut taxes, but you had better cut some spending to go along with it.

Kerry also worked religion into the mix, a very conservative platform theme in past races - clearly the speech was designed more to scoop the central vote that is undecided and less to do with stroking the voters he already has in the loop.

My thoughts anyway ... a real pitch for the undecided by moving his party to the center in look. Deceitful? Likely ... but no different than most politicians at election time.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Did he lay out most of his platform? No, he didn't
Was it a great speach though? You bet.

Sure he said what the Bush administration did wrong and what he would correct, but how is that any different from anyone wanting to knock off the guy in charge?

I was pretty impressed overall, and this is coming from someone who isn't a huge John Kerry fan. He could have been alot more "anybody but Bush" but he really wasn't at all, nothing more then the usual I am better then the guy running it now stuff.

I was impressed.

[Cowperson]

It will be interesting to see what bump he gets in the polls. Obviously its been all Democrats in the news lately so you would expect him to rise . . . . but the turn of the Republicans is coming.

One analyst on CNN last night said an early poll via ABC, before the speech, had Kerry getting "a five or six point bump" but I've seen no evidence of such a poll on the ABC site.

Meanwhile, Democrats seem a lot happier about John Kerry than they were with Al Gore. A story:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127494,00.html

Cowperson

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Jul 30 2004, 02:12 PM
I thought he still came off really well, and I think he came off VERY presidental. He displayed something that Bush is going to have a tough time competing with, and that was wisdom.
Great point Lanny, I was thinking along the same lines as you. Half-way through it I thought to myself.. "Now here is a guy I would want to lead me.. " I was very impressed overall. He usually comes off as a pretty stale individual, but he showed all sorts of passion and emotion tonight. Again, I was impressed.

[Bertuzzied]

That speech was very impressive. Did anyone else notice the speech was carried live on every major US network except for Fox. I guess Michael Moore was right.

[Cowperson]

The Washington Post media critic with his view of media reaction to the speech:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/natio...ns/kurtzhoward/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/nation/columns/kurtzhoward/)

The New York Times reaction to the speech:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/30/politics...chekPucc9Mb77pw (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/30/politics/campaign/30asses.final.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1091186019-WKP4f7tchekPucc9Mb77pw)

Also:



"A strong speech," said Tom Brokaw. "Working himself literally into a sweat," said Dan Rather. "A good speech . . . a tough speech," said Peter Jennings.

"An extremely tough, hawkish speech," said Jeff Greenfield.

"The best speech I've ever seen John Kerry deliver by a mile," said ABC political director Mark Halperin.

Cowperson

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally posted by Bertuzzied@Jul 30 2004, 03:42 PM
Did anyone else notice the speech was carried live on every major US network except for Fox. I guess Michael Moore was right.
Did Fox carry any of it..? I am willing to bet FoxNews had the speach on. Although they did apparently cut away from Al Sharpton's speach because Chris Matthews and and that other blowhard were getting their panties in a twist... but back to the topic at hand.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally posted by MrMastodonFarm+Jul 30 2004, 03:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MrMastodonFarm @ Jul 30 2004, 03:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bertuzzied@Jul 30 2004, 03:42 PM
Did anyone else notice the speech was carried live on every major US network except for Fox. I guess Michael Moore was right.
Did Fox carry any of it..? I am willing to bet FoxNews had the speach on. Although they did apparently cut away from Al Sharpton's speach because Chris Matthews and and that other blowhard were getting their panties in a twist... but back to the topic at hand. [/b][/quote]
Not one minute. But I'm in Calgary. Maybe in the states they carried it live but I don't think so.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Bertuzzied@Jul 30 2004, 03:42 PM
That speech was very impressive. Did anyone else notice the speech was carried live on every major US network except for Fox. I guess Michael Moore was right.

From the Howard Kurtz Washington Post column I posted above, referring to TUESDAY night.:

Finally, Roger Simon has something to say about the broadcast networks:

"I am not saying that Tuesday night at the Democratic convention was the most electrifying or informative in the history of politics.

"I am saying it was more electrifying and informative than 'Extreme Makeover: Home Edition,' 'Last Comic Standing,' 'Navy NCIS' and 'Trading Spouses: Meet Your New Mommy.'

"But that is what the commercial TV networks brought us instead of covering even one second of the convention.

"The networks are barely covering the convention at all. They are broadcasting just one live hour a night for three nights. Tuesday night, they broadcast nothing live at all.

"I think that is embarrassing. Especially considering the tripe they are broadcasting instead.

"How embarrassing is it? This embarrassing: According to the Boston Herald, the Arab news network, al Jazeera, 'is airing more live prime-time broadcasting' of the Democratic convention 'each night than the major commercial American networks.' Al Jazeera, according to the newspaper, is broadcasting 90 minutes of the convention each night."

Yes, but the Jazeera guys have no access to "Trading Spouses."

Later Kurtz acknowledged the networks unusually showed a full Kerry infomercial LAST NIGHT that they normally wouldn't have.

I don't know if FOX covered the speech. It would be unusual if they didn't.

Cowperson

[CrzyCanuck]

All I watched was the Fireworks at the end....Very pretty!

[La Flames Fan]

Fox News carried the speech. I thought it was a great speech. He pinpointed certain things, healthcare (which I say he's right on, I mean how can you be the most powerful country but not provide health care for those who either can't afford it or a system similar to Canada's). He mentioned doubling special forces, which is a very good idea. I loved his line about God. I thought that was very good. His idea to give tax breaks to the middle class and roll back the tax cuts for those making over $200,000 a year was another point. And it was said in almost the same manner as Bush Sr.

It will be interesting to see the reaction the polls and people have to this speech but it was very very good.

On a side note....Did anyone watch the CNN coverage of the speech??? They had the producer of the convention's mic on and the balloons weren't falling. He was frantically trying to the get the balloons to fall and came out with this line...."Where the **** are the balloons!?"

CNN obviously didn't have a delay on, so watch out for the FCC! Powell and his cronies will come down on CNN hard I bet.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by La Flames Fan@Jul 30 2004, 04:15 PM

On a side note....Did anyone watch the CNN coverage of the speech??? They had the producer of the convention's mic on and the balloons weren't falling. He was frantically trying to the get the balloons to fall and came out with this line...."Where the **** are the balloons!?"

CNN obviously didn't have a delay on, so watch out for the FCC! Powell and his cronies will come down on CNN hard I bet.
A story on the SNAFU

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/GMA/ap20040730_281.html

Cowperson

[Bertuzzied]

I guess Fox news carried it live but not the main Fox network. Considering NBC,CBS, and ABC had it on live..... hmmmm. I guess it's ok. If Fox carried it they would have declared a Bush victory 3 months before the election.

[Cowperson]

Economists rate John Kerry.

John Kerry, the Democratic candidate for president, has promised to create 10 million jobs, cut the federal budget deficit in half and stop U.S. companies from moving jobs overseas.

But many economists think economic and political realities could make Kerry's job extremely tough.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/30/news/econo...kerry/index.htm (http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/30/news/economy/election_kerry/index.htm)

And this interesting point from the article:

Former Reagan economic adviser Bruce Bartlett, in an opinion piece for the latest issue of Fortune magazine, put it more bluntly, citing profligate spending and the fact that all of the recent tax cuts are due, by law, to expire anyway:

"All you really need to know -- and you tax-abhorring, Bush/Cheney pin-wearing conservatives, pay attention -- is that taxes are going up next year, no matter who's elected in November."

Cowperson

[Cube Inmate]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Jul 30 2004, 07:57 AM
If you believe image is more important than substance, he probably needed better TV makeup because he looked like he was sweating a bit (or a sheen on his face) and seemed to lick his lips a lot. :rolleyes: :P I switched to a few different stations just to see if the sweaty look just happened to be one camera. It wasn't. Does image matter?
Some sources I've read believe that the debate between Kennedy and Nixon in '60 was a major factor in the outcome of that election, where Nixon looked clammy and nervous while Kennedy looked calm and cool. The explanation: Nixon refused to be "made-up" for the TV cameras...

Image is something, for sure.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Jul 30 2004, 01:03 PM
I'm looking for solid opinions. If you are incapable of viewing these issues in an unbiased manner, please do not reply.

My question is this...

Did Kerry lay out any kind of solid platform? Did he talk at all about what he wants to do if he becomes Presdient? Or was it more focussing on the past and what he would have done differently or the old Bush is bad, I'm not Bush so a vote for me is good logic?

So far there has been very little of substance coming from the Kerry campaign. I didn't get to see the speech so hopefully some folks who watched and can actually be objective on the subject can answer the questions above....although I have to say, I'll be shocked if it wasn't more of the same.
Lol, despite asking for an 'unbiased manner', i think there's some evidence of bias in the post. I doubt many of us could be completely neutral on this topic, given that we've all been inundated with US political views, through mediums such as Farenheit 911, Fox newsbreaks between Simpsons episodes, etc.

Also interesting to note above that fiscal responsibility (pure buzz wordiness) is a 'conservative' value. Clearly fiscal irresponsibility must be a Democrat thing. This has obviously changed recently, as Bush' handling of US finances is completely haywire. Hundreds of BILLIONS in taxcuts right before hundreds of BILLIONS in war expenditures. I'm sure its not his fault though, Iraq brought the fight to him :blink:

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Cube Inmate+Jul 30 2004, 06:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cube Inmate @ Jul 30 2004, 06:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Jul 30 2004, 07:57 AM
If you believe image is more important than substance, he probably needed better TV makeup because he looked like he was sweating a bit (or a sheen on his face) and seemed to lick his lips a lot.# :rolleyes:# :P I switched to a few different stations just to see if the sweaty look just happened to be one camera. It wasn't. Does image matter?
Some sources I've read believe that the debate between Kennedy and Nixon in '60 was a major factor in the outcome of that election, where Nixon looked clammy and nervous while Kennedy looked calm and cool. The explanation: Nixon refused to be "made-up" for the TV cameras...

Image is something, for sure. [/b][/quote]
From an account (link below) of the Nixon/Kennedy debate:

For many who saw the 1960 debates on television, especially the first match-up in Chicago, the most apparent image remains a sickly-looking, perspiring Nixon juxtaposed with the handsome Kennedy. "I remember Nixon sweating," said Clif Webb, the Washington television news anchor who produced the Radio Smithsonian program. Recounting his childhood memories, Webb pointed to what many experts say was a disastrous error for the Republican nominee in the first debate: his decision not to use make-up. Having just recovered from a brief illness and forever battling his 5 o'clock shadow, Richard Nixon appeared gaunt and slightly haggard. In contrast, the younger Kennedy proved much more telegenic than his counterpart, immediately giving him the edge among viewers.

Kennedy was actually the first to turn down cosmetic help, according to Larry Bird, a Smithsonian curator of political history. "Nixon declined make-up because Kennedy declined," said Bird. And although declining make-up was probably not a strategic move on Kennedy's part, some say Nixon's poor image in that first debate helped push the Democratic nominee over the top in his razor-thin victory.

Yet image wasn't the only thing that carried the day for Kennedy in the first debate. His aggressive style eclipsed Nixon's more conciliatory posture. To many, Kennedy appeared more presidential. And in a strategic move designed to neutralize Nixon's advantage as Vice President, Kennedy addressed his opponent only as "Mr. Nixon," instead of the customary "Vice President Nixon." Bill Clinton used the same device in his 1992 debates with President George Bush, drawing criticism from Senator Bob Dole in their 1996 debates.

http://www.si.edu/i+d/debate.arc.html

Cowperson

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Jul 30 2004, 02:25 PM
. The difference is who gets the tax cuts and what it is used for.
Tax cuts? Who gets them?

Who didn't get them under Bush?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Jul 30 2004, 03:13 PM


Meanwhile, Democrats seem a lot happier about John Kerry than they were with Al Gore. A story:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127494,00.html

Cowperson
Any chance that's because Al Gore is probably clinically insane? Can you imagine a Gore/Dean ticket? Talk about loopy! :P

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by MrMastodonFarm@Jul 30 2004, 03:46 PM
[QUOTE=Bertuzzied,Jul 30 2004, 03:42 PM]
Did Fox carry any of it..? I am willing to bet FoxNews had the speach on. Although they did apparently cut away from Al Sharpton's speach because Chris Matthews and and that other blowhard were getting their panties in a twist... but back to the topic at hand.
What does Chris Matthews have to do with Fox?

In any case, I'll bet my paycheck it was carried on Fox News.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by La Flames Fan@Jul 30 2004, 04:15 PM


CNN obviously didn't have a delay on, so watch out for the FCC! Powell and his cronies will come down on CNN hard I bet.
Please. That's so narrow minded it's pathetic.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Bingo+Jul 30 2004, 02:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bingo @ Jul 30 2004, 02:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Increase military
Tax Cuts
Fiscal responsibility

All very conservative ideas that Kerry walked out last night.
[/b]
Kerry proposed tax cuts for the middle class but rolling back the tax cuts for the wealthiest bracket. And left leaning parties aren't unfamiliar with fiscal responsibility; it was Chretian's Liberals who got Canada's finances back in order and started paying down the debt, and it was the Clinton admin in the US who turned the US economy around.

Only a conservative would consider fiscal responsibility a conservative idea B)

Originally posted by Bertuzzied@Jul 30 2004, 03:42 PM
Did anyone else notice the speech was carried live on every major US network except for Fox. I guess Michael Moore was right.
The main FOX network never carries stuff like this, choosing to keep it's regular programming to try to monopolize all of those viewers with no interest in politics. I guarantee they won't show Bush's speech either.

<!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames Fan@Jul 30 2004, 07:17 PM

Tax cuts? Who gets them?

Who didn't get them under Bush? [/quote]

As I said, middle class gets cuts, wealthiest get their previous cuts rolled back (or not renewed?).

And everyone got a cut under Bush, just in very different proportions: http://www.ctj.org/html/gwbfinal.htm

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Mike F@Jul 30 2004, 07:25 PM
[QUOTE=Bingo,Jul 30 2004, 02:05 PM]

As I said, middle class gets cuts, wealthiest get their previous cuts rolled back (or not renewed?).

And everyone got a cut under Bush, just in very different proportions: http://www.ctj.org/html/gwbfinal.htm
Well, I wasn't posing the question to you...it was directed at FlamesAddiction who seemed to be insinuating something....I'll let him tell me what he meant by "It's who gets them".

In any case, I'm well aware of who got tax cuts....I live here, remember?

[300spartans]

Kerry spoke for something like 55 minutes, the place was reportedly very hot as you could see people sweating, so I don't blame Kerry for it, even if his face looked like it was melting.

As for more details, he did say that people could visit johnkerry.com if they wanted to learn more. I think he struck a nice balance between introducing himself to the American people and giving them an idea for what he will do.

Everyone knows that Kerry will start bringing more details as the race heats up, especially at the presidential debates. I hope he slaughters Bush.

I like the fact that Kerry has a very natural smile, it just beams with honesty and integrity. And all the wrinkles add to the image of an elder statesman who knows what he's doing. Bush on the other hand looks creepy and shallow when he gives you a blank smile... ughh!

300S

P.S. I am NEVER clicking on a FauxNews link :P

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by 300spartans@Jul 30 2004, 07:43 PM
Kerry spoke for something like 55 minutes, the place was reportedly very hot as you could see people sweating, so I don't blame Kerry for it, even if his face looked like it was melting.


Its a hockey rink!!! They're supposed to be able to keep it cool in there with 17,000 people!! ;)

Cowperson

[Displaced Flames fan]

Thanks for the thoughts and impressions guys.

Clearly, this wasn't more of the same useless Bush is bad I'm not Bush tactics that unfortunately a lot of people are completely happy to buy into. That's no way to make a decision as anyone who was happy to Brian Sutter replaced by ANYONE as Flames coach would attest to.

FA speaks of the Democratic party as a centrist party, but it should be noted that among the mainstream democrats (memebers of Congres, governors etc...normal presidential candidate positions) Kerry is about as LEFT as you can find in the Democratic parts. Some of the things mentioned in this thread may not be out of the ordinary for the party, but they are definitely out of the ordinary for John Kerry.

My concerens...

Taxes. Don't care. Don't raise mine. The democrats tend to set the bar on middle class way too low.

Defense...this is stuff I need to know is really how Kerry feels....and not just lip service. Right now, one would be completely justified in believing it was lip service as John Kerry has never voted for a defense budget increase in his complete Senate history. Was 9/11 enough to change that? I have my doubts.

From here on in, I want to hear minimally about Bush. Bush's record is there for all of us to see and judge on our own. For 6 months, and this is truly undeniable, the Democratic Party has offered NOTHING but we are not Bush. If that doesn't change they have ZERO chance of getting my still undecided vote.

It's easy for Kerry to say that he would involve the international community more in Iraq. Bush tried very hard to do the same thing and failed. Why would Kerry have more success? Let me guess....because he's not Bush? Lame answer. One also has to keep in mind some of the reasons the international community refused to back the US aren't exactly squeaky clean either. But you won't find that story on CNN> :rolleyes:

If Kerry wins (assuming I don't vote for him) I will certainly support him until he no longer deserves to be supported. I have a feeling that conservatives, for the most part, will be a lot less divisive then the Democrats have been over the last 4 years. I don't see Bill Frist giving daily speeches about Kerry like Tom Daschle did with Bush. I don't see a Republican controlled congress (if that holds true) blocking all Kerry judicial nominees for no reason whatsoever. This is one reason why I'm not going to be upset at all if Kerry wins. I'm sick of my country being divided and full of hate. I think if Kerry wins there is a good chance that goes away. If Bush wins, the screaming and petty name calling will only continue and make me vomit on a daily basis. For me, that the biggest non-platform selling point for the Kerry ticket.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Jul 30 2004, 07:22 PM
panties in a twist... but back to the topic at hand.
What does Chris Matthews have to do with Fox?

In any case, I'll bet my paycheck it was carried on Fox News. [/quote]
I dunno maybe I am getting the names wrong. I just seen it on the daily show that they cut Al Sharpton's speach because they didn't like him. Nothing to get worked up over or anything.

I am willing to bet they carried John Kerry's speach as well...

[300spartans]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Jul 30 2004, 07:54 PM
It's easy for Kerry to say that he would involve the international community more in Iraq. Bush tried very hard to do the same thing and failed. Why would Kerry have more success? Let me guess....because he's not Bush? Lame answer. One also has to keep in mind some of the reasons the international community refused to back the US aren't exactly squeaky clean either. But you won't find that story on CNN> :rolleyes:
Kerry would never have even made the mistake in the first place of trying to invade Iraq which is what p*ssed of all the allies, inlcuding us. But yes that is done so what does Kerry do now?

How about start listening to them again by having talks at least? Let them know that Kerry is willing to listen instead of brushing them off. Once Kerry is listening, he is more receptive to their ideas. And from there, ideas can be implemented.

or Kerry can come right out and say that the U.S. is soooo sowwy. But nah.

300S

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by 300spartans@Jul 30 2004, 08:24 PM
Kerry would never have even made the mistake in the first place of trying to invade Iraq which is what p*ssed of all the allies, inlcuding us.
If I'm not mistaken, he voted in favour of action in Iraq.

Cowperson

[transplant99]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Jul 30 2004, 03:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Jul 30 2004, 03:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-300spartans@Jul 30 2004, 08:24 PM
Kerry would never have even made the mistake in the first place of trying to invade Iraq which is what p*ssed of all the allies, inlcuding us.
If I'm not mistaken, he voted in favour of action in Iraq.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
Thats absolutely correct and something he will have to explain as i pointed out in my first post in this thread.

He can say it was flawed intelligence that lead him to vote to support military action...but thats the SAME intelligence that Bush used to ask Congress and the Senate in the first place.

It will be a tapdance if he doesnt acknowledge that at the very least.

[300spartans]

But there is evidence that Bush and his admin pushed for intelligence that would point to a link between Saddam and terrorists. Kerry may have voted on faulty intelligence but it was Bush who pushed for this faulty intelligence.

However, I do feel that Kerry does have to explain the reasoning for his vote. Hopefully it's coming up.

300S

[La Flames Fan]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Jul 30 2004, 07:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Jul 30 2004, 07:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-La Flames Fan@Jul 30 2004, 04:15 PM


CNN obviously didn't have a delay on, so watch out for the FCC!# Powell and his cronies will come down on CNN hard I bet.
Please. That's so narrow minded it's pathetic. [/b][/quote]
You're an angry guy DFF....Man. You jump on people hard. It's just talk brother, its not the end of the world. I don't hammer you for your opinion why do you think it just to hammer mine?

And tell me, what was so "pathetic" about my statement. When there is "indecency" on the airwaves isn't the FCC the one who imposes fines? Aren't they the "sheriffs" of the airwaves? The word ###### was on TV. That's an FCC issue.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by La Flames Fan@Jul 30 2004, 09:39 PM
[QUOTE=Displaced Flames fan,Jul 30 2004, 07:24 PM]

You're an angry guy DFF....Man. You jump on people hard. It's just talk brother, its not the end of the world. I don't hammer you for your opinion why do you think it just to hammer mine?

And tell me, what was so "pathetic" about my statement. When there is "indecency" on the airwaves isn't the FCC the one who imposes fines? Aren't they the "sheriffs" of the airwaves? The word ###### was on TV. That's an FCC issue.
It's pathetic because of the context you put it in. The FCC will come down hard because it is led by Colin Powell's son and the incident occurred at the DNC.

I don't recall the FCC ever coming down hard on anyone involved in an NFL broadcast when the mikes accidentally catch some irreverant trash talk. This seems like a similar situation.

You're characterizing people I support unfairly and that p*sses me off. I'm not angry until I read CRAP. Then I get angry, for a second or two.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Jul 30 2004, 01:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Jul 30 2004, 01:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-300spartans@Jul 30 2004, 08:24 PM
Kerry would never have even made the mistake in the first place of trying to invade Iraq which is what p*ssed of all the allies, inlcuding us.
If I'm not mistaken, he voted in favour of action in Iraq.

Cowperson[/b][/quote]
Kerry and Edwards (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237) voted to give Bush authorization to take military action (i.e. he voted for a war), but he could probably make an argument that he didn't vote for this war -- a war with an extremely limited coalition against the wishes of the United Nations.

The Joint Resolution authorizing force passed on Oct 11, 2002 providing "Expresses support for the President's efforts to: (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions" Link (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00114:@@@D&summ2=m&)

Using that support Bush then went to the UN and got Resolution 1441 (http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/unscr1441.htm) passed on Nov 8, 2002, which lead to inspectors being allowed back into the country who were given greater cooperation than at any previous time. However this wasn't enough for the Bush admin. They went back to the UN on Feb 5, 2003 to try to get a second resolution which they failed to get, and never went back to Congress, starting the war on March 20.

So if I were Kerry I'd argue that I'd given Bush the authority so he could go to the international community and build a consensus, which was achieved with 1441. When Bush went to war without international support or an express resolution he should have gone back to Congress for authorization to launch unilateral action. He didn't and Kerry never had a chance to approve or disapprove of this war.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Mike F+Jul 31 2004, 12:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike F @ Jul 31 2004, 12:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Cowperson@Jul 30 2004, 01:33 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-300spartans@Jul 30 2004, 08:24 PM
Kerry would never have even made the mistake in the first place of trying to invade Iraq which is what p*ssed of all the allies, inlcuding us.
If I'm not mistaken, he voted in favour of action in Iraq.

Cowperson
Kerry and Edwards (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237) voted to give Bush authorization to take military action (i.e. he voted for a war), but he could probably make an argument that he didn't vote for this war -- a war with an extremely limited coalition against the wishes of the United Nations.

The Joint Resolution authorizing force passed on Oct 11, 2002 providing "Expresses support for the President's efforts to: (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions" Link (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00114:@@@D&summ2=m&)

Using that support Bush then went to the UN and got Resolution 1441 (http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/unscr1441.htm) passed on Nov 8, 2002, which lead to inspectors being allowed back into the country who were given greater cooperation than at any previous time. However this wasn't enough for the Bush admin. They went back to the UN on Feb 5, 2003 to try to get a second resolution which they failed to get, and never went back to Congress, starting the war on March 20.

So if I were Kerry I'd argue that I'd given Bush the authority so he could go to the international community and build a consensus, which was achieved with 1441. When Bush went to war without international support or an express resolution he should have gone back to Congress for authorization to launch unilateral action. He didn't and Kerry never had a chance to approve or disapprove of this war. [/b][/quote]
The average American voter would just view that as tap dancing. The GOP, in particular, would view that argument as an opportunity and not a calamity. They'd beat him over the head with it like he was a baby seal.

Politically, he's just better off saying "I voted for the war but I used another vote to protest."

Just my opinion. And I'm hoping Kerry wins.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Jul 30 2004, 08:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Jul 30 2004, 08:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-300spartans@Jul 30 2004, 08:24 PM
Kerry would never have even made the mistake in the first place of trying to invade Iraq which is what p*ssed of all the allies, inlcuding us.
If I'm not mistaken, he voted in favour of action in Iraq.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
Yeah, but lets not forget that President Bush presented a bunch of evidence that was filled with inaccuracies (lies). I'm sure there are lots of people on both sides of the fence that would like to re-cast their vote, since the weapons of mass distraction smoke screen turned out to be just that, a big smoke screen.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Jul 31 2004, 01:46 AM

Yeah, but lets not forget that President Bush presented a bunch of evidence that was filled with inaccuracies (lies). I'm sure there are lots of people on both sides of the fence that would like to re-cast their vote, since the weapons of mass distraction smoke screen turned out to be just that, a big smoke screen.
Good God, it amazes me that people are still throwing the word 'lies' around. If the Bush administration was lying they would've made sure that they had those lies backed up. You don't lie and hope you're right. You lie and make damn sure you're right.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Jul 31 2004, 02:21 AM
Good God, it amazes me that people are still throwing the word 'lies' around. If the Bush administration was lying they would've made sure that they had those lies backed up. You don't lie and hope you're right. You lie and make damn sure you're right.
No you don't. Many people nowadays are becoming so idealogically divided that they don't really hold 'their side' accountable for anything. Look how many people don't care they were misled about WMD's in Iraq (ex: "Well, at least we got rid of Saddam..."). The Liberals staying in power as the governing party of Canada as well.

Second, if you lie and get caught, all you need is a scapegoat. CIA, FBI, Clinton, etc, in this case...

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by FlamesAllTheWay@Jul 31 2004, 02:53 AM

No you don't. Many people nowadays are becoming so idealogically divided that they don't really hold 'their side' accountable for anything. Look how many people don't care they were misled about WMD's in Iraq (ex: "Well, at least we got rid of Saddam..."). The Liberals staying in power as the governing party of Canada as well.

Second, if you lie and get caught, all you need is a scapegoat. CIA, FBI, Clinton, etc, in this case...
Come on now....you're reaching. You and I both know that with all the vocal protest both within the US and internationally that the administration KNEW that getting another 4 years in office likely depended on everything they said about Iraq being proven true.

Do you really think they'd go knowing that there was nothing there and say we'll just blame the CIA and believe they'd get re-elected?

I don't.

Bush isn't THAT stupid, and neither are the people who surround him.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Jul 31 2004, 10:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Jul 31 2004, 10:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAllTheWay@Jul 31 2004, 02:53 AM

No you don't. Many people nowadays are becoming so idealogically divided that they don't really hold 'their side' accountable for anything. Look how many people don't care they were misled about WMD's in Iraq (ex: "Well, at least we got rid of Saddam..."). The Liberals staying in power as the governing party of Canada as well.

Second, if you lie and get caught, all you need is a scapegoat. CIA, FBI, Clinton, etc, in this case...
Come on now....you're reaching. You and I both know that with all the vocal protest both within the US and internationally that the administration KNEW that getting another 4 years in office likely depended on everything they said about Iraq being proven true.

Do you really think they'd go knowing that there was nothing there and say we'll just blame the CIA and believe they'd get re-elected?

I don't.

Bush isn't THAT stupid, and neither are the people who surround him. [/b][/quote]
I'm not so sure he's all that smart. His IQ is hardly presidential - in fact it's the lowest in some time. Maybe his EQ makes up for it but at this point I tend to think he's not even calling the shots.

An analysis of Presidential IQ's over the past 50 years:

* 147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
* 132 Harry Truman (D)
* 122 Dwight D. Eisenhower ®
* 174 John F. Kennedy (D)
* 126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
* 155 Richard M. Nixon ®
* 121 Gerald Ford ®
* 175 James E. Carter (D)
* 105 Ronald Reagan ®
* 099 George HW Bush ®
* 182 William J. Clinton (D)
* 091 George W. Bush ®

Gerald Ford, not noted his being bright, trumps both Bushes in the study. Not that it's a prerequisite (other things count like personablity and such) but it seems a tad meager. Maybe he did do all of that, I don't know. It can't be counted out though.

Completely on another topic, Carter, Clinton Kennedy and Nixon are Mensa material.

[Displaced Flames fan]

You can go ahead and post your source anytime you like. There is zero chance that those numbers hold an ounce of water for more than a second. It's an impossibility to state that those are the IQ's of those Presidents and actually have a straight face.

[dangler22]

Whether those I.Q. scores are true or not the fact of the matter is President Bush is borderline ######ed.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Jul 31 2004, 05:15 PM
You can go ahead and post your source anytime you like. There is zero chance that those numbers hold an ounce of water for more than a second. It's an impossibility to state that those are the IQ's of those Presidents and actually have a straight face.

The actual link to obviously contrived results.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b522afc4cd9.htm


Among other amazing things, including the criteria for determining IQ's of past presidents, you'll find this description of the authors:

Dr. Lovenstein lives in a mobile home in Scranton, Pennsylvania with his long time companion Patricia F. Dilliams. When the two are not publishing reports for their Lovenstein Institute, they run an internet business www.collegedegreesforsale.com

Secondly, the first polls post-convention give Kerry a slight boost.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5568072/site/newsweek/

Cowperson

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Jul 31 2004, 01:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Jul 31 2004, 01:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Cowperson@Jul 30 2004, 08:33 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-300spartans@Jul 30 2004, 08:24 PM
Kerry would never have even made the mistake in the first place of trying to invade Iraq which is what p*ssed of all the allies, inlcuding us.
If I'm not mistaken, he voted in favour of action in Iraq.

Cowperson
Yeah, but lets not forget that President Bush presented a bunch of evidence that was filled with inaccuracies (lies). I'm sure there are lots of people on both sides of the fence that would like to re-cast their vote, since the weapons of mass distraction smoke screen turned out to be just that, a big smoke screen. [/b][/quote]
A contribution to this topic from the New York Times today:

A senior leader of Al Qaeda who was captured in Pakistan several months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks was the main source for intelligence, since discredited, that Iraq had provided training in chemical and biological weapons to members of the organization, according to American intelligence officials.

Intelligence officials say the detainee, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a member of Osama bin Laden's inner circle, recanted the claims sometime last year, but not before they had become the basis of statements by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and others about links between Iraq and Al Qaeda that involved poisons, gases and other illicit weapons.

You may have to register to view this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/31/internat...ast/31inte.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/31/international/middleeast/31inte.html)

Cowperson

[jimmy11]

I actually thought the speech was terrible. I think the democratic party needs to be worried about how speakers like Clinton, Obama, and Howard Dean stole the convention and John Kerry sat there saying basically nothing, taking a stand oin nothing and really not laying out his plan for the first 100 days and beyond.

I'm a conservative, but many of my left wing friends though, like me, that Kerrys speech had very little substance and was filled with vague, grandious staments. I wanted to hear his stand on Gay rights, on abortion, on Iraq, but he dosen;t want to talk about that.

The reason for this is that the base of the democratic party is not represented by this nominee, and moreover, if the American people heard Kerrys stance on some things, it's a land slide win for GWB. I hope it is.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by dangler22@Jul 31 2004, 05:23 PM
Whether those I.Q. scores are true or not the fact of the matter is President Bush is borderline ######ed.
Link?

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Aug 1 2004, 07:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Aug 1 2004, 07:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-dangler22@Jul 31 2004, 05:23 PM
Whether those I.Q. scores are true or not the fact of the matter is President Bush is borderline ######ed.
Link? [/b][/quote]
I wasn't trying to run and hide. I was asleep. Besides, Cowperson already posted my link.

Not credible. I admit that. But interesting. I admit that. This is a man who cannot pronounce "nuclear", either because he can't, or consciously because it has some appeal in some parts of American. If it was the latter I'd say he's smarter than I give him credit for but to me he's nothing more than a priveleged frat boy.

And I don't have a link to that either.

What really amazes me is that Dis holds me to higher accounts of facts than he does the President, who has yet to present a shred of credible evidence for going to war in Iraq for WMD's. Amazing that you'd let that fly, but get really peeved about an IQ test that hasn't cost the lives of 900 people.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro@Jul 31 2004, 11:07 PM
Not credible, but interesting. I admit that.
The link to IQ's is hilarious but . . . . I wouldn't call it "interesting" in the sense that it contributes anything since it obviously has a political bias and worse, zero basis in fact.

The Lovenstein Institute denies it ever issued such a study and it appears to be an internet hoax:

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/lovenstein.html

Funny, isn't it, that the guy with the highest IQ, the only President with his IQ actually published and therefore the only one in the article guaranteed to be real, was also the guy who authorized a mission into Iran where he thought Americans could land in the desert of a hostile country, drive brazenly into Tehran in jeeps, pick up their hostages and drive out again. That being Jimmy Carter. <_<

Cowperson

[Displaced Flames fan]

Hey DoreFro....can I call you that? :D If you'll go back to where I posted 'Link?' you'll see that it was directed at Danlger "What other choice do they have?" 22, not you.

I was alseep as well, so I certainly hadn't assumed that you were hiding and wouldn't have anyway because I don't recall you hiding from anything before.

As for your IQ post, I'd take just as much exception with JFK's 175 as I would GWB's 91. I doubt both of them with equal intensity.

What is the cut off for MENSA by the way?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro@Jul 31 2004, 11:07 PM


What really amazes me is that Dis holds me to higher accounts of facts than he does the President, who has yet to present a shred of credible evidence for going to war in Iraq for WMD's. Amazing that you'd let that fly, but get really peeved about an IQ test that hasn't cost the lives of 900 people.
Here we go again.

First of all, based on the intelligence of the day Bush was speaking to what he believed and trusted to be fact.

Secondly, there are shreds of credible evidence. There have been things found, just not on the grand scale that everyone expects.

Finally, I questioned the Bush's administration's justification and I am somewhat satisfied with it. I questioned your information and am now satisfied with your use of it given your admission it means nothing. So you see, I don't hold you to a higher standard at all.

[Cowperson]

I'd like to know if Dorefro KNEW his Bush IQ story was an internet hoax before he posted it here.

Was he trying to mislead us deliberately with information he knew to be false?

Or did someone give him the link without confirming it first, Dorefro only posting the link because someone else said it was legitimate?

What did he know and when did he know it? <_< :lol:

EDIT: Come to think of it, DoreFro didn't post a link. I had to do that. <_<

Cowperson

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Jul 31 2004, 07:04 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Jul 31 2004, 07:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAllTheWay@Jul 31 2004, 02:53 AM

No you don't. Many people nowadays are becoming so idealogically divided that they don't really hold 'their side' accountable for anything. Look how many people don't care they were misled about WMD's in Iraq (ex: "Well, at least we got rid of Saddam..."). The Liberals staying in power as the governing party of Canada as well.

Second, if you lie and get caught, all you need is a scapegoat. CIA, FBI, Clinton, etc, in this case...
Come on now....you're reaching. You and I both know that with all the vocal protest both within the US and internationally that the administration KNEW that getting another 4 years in office likely depended on everything they said about Iraq being proven true.

Do you really think they'd go knowing that there was nothing there and say we'll just blame the CIA and believe they'd get re-elected?

I don't.

Bush isn't THAT stupid, and neither are the people who surround him. [/b][/quote]
I'm not reaching at all. The fact that alot of the evidence for going to war turned out to be false but that Bush and Kerry are still in a dead heat shows at least a good chunk of people don't really care. Or they think it was all the CIA or Clinton, heh.

Also, the Bush admin's "plan" for post-war Iraq seemed to rely heavily upon Iraqi's embracing the Liberating US forces with open arms instead of basically saying "thanks for getting rid of Saddam, now get out". According to this, Iraq should've been well on it's way to becoming a fledgling democracy, which would probably look alot better in the voters eyes, instead of the mess it is right now...

Anyways, off to work with me...

[Flame Of Liberty]

The problem with Iraqis `not wanting` democracy is the alternative they `want.` As a mess they are now or a Taliban-like hellhole religious fanatics are trying to build they are a threat to both freedom loving Iraqis and the Western world. And as such they have to be dealt with even if its not pretty.

In history, Japan is one example where the US had to kick some sense into a country with nonexistent democratic past. Japanese themselves were not necessarily happy about foreign power planting democracy in their country.

Different opinions are all fine and cool until they start to threaten lives and property of other people. One cannot have `an opinion` it is allright to blow up `infidels,` trade women for two sheep and a camel and then lock them up in caves, terrorize other people etc.