Kerry's Got A Set Of Stones

[patrick]

i should prolbably be posting in the drunk forum, buit i gotta say one thing about the last say...3 posts

HAHAHHAHHAHAHHAH, you guys hit my views right on the nailhead, cool to know someone agrees w/ me, everyone around here is so "BUSH" or so "KERRY EDWARDS!!" i guess you could say im sorta like Oh hush

[ChuckV986]

This is just amazing.  Its like the last year and a half hasn't happened.  Its like Kerry never opposed the war when the polls went that way. 

He says we need allies, but then complains when we use them to hunt for bin laden.

Says our troops need better body armor, but voted against the bill for that body armor.

Bagging on our allies and then saying he supports them.

Refering to the Cuban Missile Crisis!  Man.

Says he could do better on the ground in Iraq.  Has he ever visited Iraq? 

Ooops.  Sanctions won't work unless other countries are involved now.  According to Kerry. 

Guess who gave North Korea the nuclear weapons.  Jimmy Carter and Clinton!  Now it is Bush's fault according to Kerry.  Wow.  He doesn't want to go into Iraq unilaterally, but supports negotiation between us and N. Korea only.  Not their neighbors, not the people that could be hurt by their nuclear weapons, but just the U.S. and them.  Huh?   Isn't that unilateral action on our part?  He just said that we can have bilateral talks with N. Korea and include China as well.  Wouldn't that be trilateral talks then?

Uh, oh.  He just brough up the fake draft.  The one proposed by two democrats.  Charlie Wrangle and Fritz Hollings.  They don't think enough rich people are dying in our millitary actions so they want to draft them.  Never mind that we have a Volunteer Millitary. 

Now John Kerry is going to get all the nukes in Russia in 4 years, but somehow Bush isn't?  Kerry voted to gut our intelligence about every chace he could get, but now he is going to get all Russia's loose nukes.  Seems he voted against all the actions we did in the cold war too.  Now he is going to get tough?

I wonder if his global test is multiple choice?

"I defended this country as a young man in war..."  He didn't mention betraying his fellow troops by lying to congress about them committing atrocities on a daily basis. 

Say anything no matter how stupid or contradicing it is.  Just hope the public doesn't do their homework.  That seems to be his motto.  I think the people of this country are smarter than that.

Best JK quote of the night:

"Certainty sometimes can get you in trouble."

Yeah, that is something I want to hear from a leader.

Do you really want the guy who published this book to be anywhere near our armed forces?

←

I wasn't decided going into the debate, definitely voting for Kerry now. I knew Bush was dumb, but I didn't remember how dumb. I did double takes at half of what the man said... Sentances strung together that were unrelated and nonsensical. I think his only point the entire debate was "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time.", and I'm sorry but you're going to have to do better than that to impress me...

I didn't hear nuclear disarmament of the US, I did hear non-proliferation... He said he'd cancel the project for bunker-buster tactical nukes, not that'd he'd disarm the US.

Kerry's far from a saint though. Come on guys, give us some decent canidates... I'm going to vote, but I'll feel slightly dirty doing it...

Why not Joe Biden instead of Kerry? That guys got a good head on his shoulders, he's got good ideas, he's got strong convictions, and I think he'd make a much better pres than either Bush or Kerry. McCain anyone? That would be a no-brainer for me over any canidate in the past 10 years.

On the bin laden point, he complained about us not using the full brunt of our armed forces to whipe him off the map when we had him cornered. That's kinda different than wanting some assistance when we're stuck trying to control the chaos that now is Iraq.

He didn't vote against body armor, he voted against an $87 billion expenditure bill that had A LOT of other stuff in it besides body armor. In the congress, all kinds of stuff gets lumped together to create huge mega bills with a bunch of useless crap in them that no one really wants. That's why there's such a strong argument for the line-item veto.

Cuban-missle crisis: His reference was to bring up a quote from the then French PM saying that he didn't even NEED photographic evidence to back us, the word of the president of the US was enough. This was to show how far we've fallen as far as our global friend are concerned. Been to Europe recently? I haven't experienced any animosity towards me personally, but the vast vast majority of Europeans can't understand how anyone could ever vote for a guy like Bush. The only way I could explain it to them was by saying "Look at the alternative. Al Gore?He's hardly a good canidate for the job."

On the ground in Iraq: I think he could do better. Especially over the past few weeks, I've been very dissatisfied with the way things have been going over there...

Guess who gave North Korea the nuclear weapons.  Jimmy Carter and Clinton!  Now it is Bush's fault according to Kerry.  Wow.  He doesn't want to go into Iraq unilaterally, but supports negotiation between us and N. Korea only.  Not their neighbors, not the people that could be hurt by their nuclear weapons, but just the U.S. and them.  Huh?   Isn't that unilateral action on our part?  He just said that we can have bilateral talks with N. Korea and include China as well.  Wouldn't that be trilateral talks then?

Carter and Clinton gave N. Korea nukes? Since when? I've NEVER heard anything to even suggest that... It's not fair to blame it on Bush, but it's spin. What was fair is that there were 43 countries more capable of delivering a WMD to the US than Iraq, but we went for them. We knew N. Korea (an 'Axis of Evil') country had a strong nuclear program, they were waving it in our faces, and we also knew they were devolping missiles that could reach the west coast. So we choose to go for....Iraq?

On the talks: If you look at the facts, China WANTS us to engage in bi-lateral confrenses with N. Korea. It's nice to have them as back-up, and it's in their best interestests for us to be successful, but if they, N.K.'s neighboor, want us to engage in bi-lateral talks with them, don't you think that they might feel it'd be more successful than other forms of negotiation? His inclusionary attitude towards China wasn't about the direct negotations, but rather as another leverage point on N.K.

Uh, oh.  He just brough up the fake draft.  The one proposed by two democrats.  Charlie Wrangle and Fritz Hollings.  They don't think enough rich people are dying in our millitary actions so they want to draft them.  Never mind that we have a Volunteer Millitary. 

I didn't catch that, but I agree all those stupid adds saying GWB=Draft are pointless bunk. Unfortunately, I think many Americans are stupid enough to swallow it.

I wonder if his global test is multiple choice?

Haha, stupid expression I agree. But surely you see his point? It wasn't that we need to act in deference of foreign will. Rather it was that in the past whenever we have taken preemptive action it has been backed by a large multi-national coalition because it was so obviously the right thing to do. In this case, we rushed in without taking the time to establish a coalition, but more importantly, the validity of our actions is questionable. If a color blind man runs a red light and causes a major traffic accident, would he be right in defending himself by saying that he shouldn't have acted in deference to the other traffic because he saw green even though it was actually red?

"I defended this country as a young man in war..."  He didn't mention betraying his fellow troops by lying to congress about them committing atrocities on a daily basis. 

He didn't betray anyone, and he didn't lie. The testimony he gave to congress was an account of what he was told be other veterans, he never made accusations against any other individuals. Those accusations against him in the silly Swift Boat adds are completely baseless and have been entirely de-bunked some 6 months ago. Even prominant Republicans condemned the ads.

Best JK quote of the night:

"Certainty sometimes can get you in trouble."

Yeah, that is something I want to hear from a leader.

I thought he made a good point with that. W still won't admit that we was wrong, he's too stuborn or ignorant. I good leader needs to be able to accept their mistakes and learn from them.

Yeah, that is something I want to hear from a leader.

Do you really want the guy who published this book to be anywhere near our armed forces?

I'm pretty hawkish, and I wouldn't have a problem with it. W was a huge alcoholic and coke fiend as well as a draft-dodger back in the day. I don't hold that against him. People grow and mature. I certainly hope I'm more intelligent, mature, and wise in 30 years than I am now. With any luck, I'll still be alive then

Overall, I guess I just disagree with your assessment, though that's what makes horse races, and that's what makes this country great. To be fair, I did go in undecided but biased against Bush, and I think you went in decided to vote for him. I'm sure that changes the way we both interpret thing significantly.

I hardly love Kerry. But I really don't like Bush...at all, and the debate really gave me a lot more confidence in Kerry than I had going in, and reminded me of what an incompetent ignoramus W is. Historically, I've preffered Republicans, I just don't like W. Give me George senior or Reagan ANY day of the week over either of these two jokers...

Bottom line, these guys aren't the best the country has to offer...at all. The question we have to ask is WHY the parties aren't producing canidates that we want to vote for, but rather canidates that we feel like we have to vote for either out of party allegiance, or because we HATE the other guy so much. We shouldn't have to choose the lesser of two evils, we should choose between two of the best and the brightest that are both obviously completely capable, but differ on the issues.

PS: I must say, the debate turned out to be much more interesting overall than I thought it would. I expected it to really suck.

Edited October 1, 2004 by ChuckV986

[jross]

Look, I'm all for Kerry/ Edwards, but I'll be honest and admit it's only because they're not Bush/Cheney. I'd be happy to see both of them eat stuff and live. I side with the Nader stance that this is the evil of two lessers, but he can suck my nutz -- I'm not voting for him. I'd be happy if they just left us alone for the next four years. And no offense, Charles, but I don't think we really need them to shelter us at all.

[jwmerrill]

←

Joe, did I ever say that you just kill me!! Noice!!

jwm

[patrick]

well put, Chuck

[Chris_R]

I agree with the McCain statement... Based mainly on how he acts as a senator. Put him on the ballot for Prez and let's test his mettle... I hope he passes, seems like an upstanding guy.

IMHO, an outstanding orator does not (necessarily) a good president make. Try not to base your opinions on HOW something was said, but rather WHAT was said.

I leave you with the old addage: Actions speak louder than words.

-Chris

[jester1182]

chuck i couldnt agree more.

ive got big problems with both candidates, however i must say bushs' renowed debating skills didnt really show through in the first debate. love him or hate him kerry put up his own. i bet if the election were today it would be another recount situation.

its always interesting how often people are accused of "being against" this or that because they didnt appove a bill. somehow it is rarely (i never heard it at all during the debate) pointed out that bills do contain many many items and there are so many proposed that the point is basiclly void.

both parties are doing such terrible jobs with their candidates that a reasonable third party would seem like a viable option at this point. darn shame theres none to be found. im moving back to the homeland. tony blair knows the deal.

[gdizzle]

chuck i couldnt agree more.

ive got big problems with both candidates, however i must say bushs' renowed debating skills didnt really show through in the first debate. love him or hate him kerry put up his own. i bet if the election were today it would be another recount situation.

its always interesting how often people are accused of "being against" this or that because they didnt appove a bill. somehow it is rarely (i never heard it at all during the debate) pointed out that bills do contain many many items and there are so many proposed that the point is basiclly void.

both parties are doing such terrible jobs with their candidates that a reasonable third party would seem like a viable option at this point. darn shame theres none to be found. im moving back to the homeland. tony blair knows the deal.

←

BYE!!!!!

Let me know how you like it over there. Isn't Tony Blair a Bush supporter? :blink:

[Kendall]

←

[Kendall]

also...

Distortions and Misstatements At First Presidential Debate

Bush and Kerry both have problems with the facts at their meeting in Coral Gables

10.01.2004

Summary

In the first of three scheduled debates between Bush and Kerry both candidates sometimes departed from the facts.

Bush glossed over significant problems with US reconstruction efforts in Iraq when he claimed that the US is "spending money" and that 100,000 Iraqi security forces have been trained. And Kerry overstated the case when he said Bush allowed Osama bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora by "outsourcing" fighting to Afghans.

Bush misquoted Kerry, distorting his position on withdrawing troops from Iraq. And Kerry said the Iraq war has cost $200 billion, when the cost so far is actually just over $120 billion.

Analysis

Bush gave a rosy picture of progress in Iraq, glossing over significant problems with reconstruction contracts and training of Iraqi security forces.

"Spending Reconstruction Money"

Bush: (Referring to Iraq) There will be elections in January. We're spending reconstruction money. And our alliance is strong.

Bush's "Reconstruction" & "100,000 trained now"

Bush cited as a sign of progress in Iraq that the US is "spending reconstruction money," when in fact the slow pace of spending has become a major problem for US officials.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage testified to a House Appropriations subcommittee Sept. 24 that only $1.2 billion in reconstruction money had actually been spent so far , out of the total of $18 billion that was appropriated last December in "emergency" funds for Iraq and Afghanistan.

"100,000 trained now"

Bush: Let me first tell you that the best way for Iraq to be safe and secure is for Iraqi citizens to be trained to do the job.

And that's what we're doing. We've got 100,000 trained now, 125,000 by the end of this year, 200,000 by the end of next year. That is the best way.

-0-

Bush: There are 100,000 troops trained, police, guard, special units, border patrol. There's going to be 125,000 trained by the end of this year. Yes, we're getting the job done. It's hard work.

Bush also said "100,000 troops" and other Iraqi security personnel have been trained to date. That's the official figure, but the President failed to mention that many trainees have received nothing more than a three-week course in police procedures -- what Armitage referred to as "shake-and-bake" forces.

Only 8,000 of the total are police who have received a full eight-week course of training, Armitage told the House:

Armitage: It's 100,000 total security forces, and I don't want anyone to make the mistake that security force equals soldier -- could be policemen, and it could be the eight-week trained policemen, of which there are a little over 8,000, or it could be what I refer to as the shake-and-bake three-week police force, which are previous policemen who are now given a three-weeks course. So it's a mixed bag , but there are about 100,000 total security forces.

Tora Bora "Outsourcing"

"Outsourcing" Osama's Capture

Kerry: I would not take my eye off of the goal: Osama bin Laden. Unfortunately, he escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The president relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too. That's wrong.

Kerry said U.S. forces allowed Osama bin Laden to escape in 2001 during the battle at Tora Bora in Afghanistan because the administration "outsourced" fighting to Afghan "warlords." Actually, it's never been clear whether bin Laden actually was at Tora Bora.

It is true that military leaders strongly suspected bin Laden was there, and it is also true that the Pentagon relied heavily on Afghan forces to take on much of the fighting at Tora Bora in an effort to reduce US casualties. But Kerry overstates the case by stating flatly that "we had him surrounded."

Out of Iraq in 6 Months?

Bush: I know putting artificial deadlines won't work. My opponent at one time said, "Well, get me elected, I'll have them out of there in six months." You can't do that and expect to win the war on terror.

-0-

Kerry: The time line that I've set out -- and again, I want to correct the president, because he's misled again this evening on what I've said. I didn't say I would bring troops out in six months. I said, if we do the things that I've set out and we are successful, we could begin to draw the troops down in six months.

Bush's False Quote

The President misquoted Kerry's position on how quickly troops might be withdrawn from Iraq. Bush claimed Kerry once said "I'll have them out of there in six months," which is false. Kerry complained, "he's misled us again."

What Kerry actually said was that he believed he could "significantly reduce" US troop levels in Iraq within six months of taking office -- not at all the same thing as having all troops "out of there."

Kerry's remark was on National Public Radio's "Morning Edition" Aug 6, in an interview with Steve Inskeep:

Kerry: I believe that within a year from now, we could significantly reduce American forces in Iraq, and that's my plan. I believe we can.

Q: Within a year from right now?

Kerry: I believe we can. Absolutely we can.

Q: A year from August.

Kerry: I believe we can. Absolutely we can reduce the numbers. You bet.

Kerry "$200 Billion"

Kerry: And so, today, we are 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the cost: $200 billion -- $200 billion that could have been used for health care, for schools, for construction, for prescription drugs for seniors, and it's in Iraq.

Kerry's $200 Billion Exaggeration

Kerry continued to refer to "the cost" of the Iraq war as $200 billion, when it fact the cost to date is just over $120 billion, according to budget officials. Kerry is counting money that has been appropriated to be spent in the fiscal year that started Friday, Oct. 1. Much of the money Kerry counts has not even been requested formally by the Bush administration, and is only an estimate of what will be sought sometime in the coming year, to be spent later. We've pointed this out before in detail.

Al Qaeda

The President said twice that "75 percent" of al Qaeda leaders have been "brought to justice." But as The Associated Press reported Oct. 1, Bush was referring to the deaths or arrests of 75 percent of bin Laden's network at the time of the September 11 attacks -- not those who are running the terrorist organization today. The AP also reported that the CIA said earlier in the year two-thirds of those leaders are gone; at his acceptance speech in September, Bush increased his count to three-fourths based on unreleased intelligence data.

Furthermore, the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies reported May 25 that the occupation of Iraq has helped al Qaeda recruit more members. The institute quoted "conservative" intelligence estimates as saying that al Qaeda has 18,000 potential operatives and is present in more than 60 countries.

Other Factual Stumbles

Bush said that 10 million people had registered to vote in the coming presidential election in Afghanistan, which he called a "phenomenal statistic." But that's a disputed figure. Human Rights Watch issued a report Sept. 29 citing "widespread multiple registration of voters." It said the 10 million figure is probably inflated.

Bush said he has increased spending on curbing nuclear proliferation by "about 35 percent" since he took office. But The Washington Post reported Oct. 1 that Bush proposed a 13 percent cut in his first budget as President -- about $116 million. Much of the increases since then have been added by Congress, the Post reported.

The Post also said Kerry misspoke when he asserted that Bush is spending "hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons" when in fact the budget for research on that weapon is less that $35 million. The Post said the administration has set aside nearly $500 million for future budgets -- but that's contingent on Congress approving production of such a weapon.

The AP noted that Kerry misspoke when he said "we got weapons of mass destruction crossing the (Iraq) border every single day, and they're blowing people up." Kerry meant terrorists were crossing the border, not nuclear weapons.

The AP also caught Kerry's mistake when he referred to looking at KGB records in Treblinka Square in a visit to Russia. Treblinka was a Nazi death camp. Kerry meant Lubyanka Square.

Sources

Federal News Service, "Testimony of Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage," Hearing of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Subcommitee of the House Appropriations Committee, 24 Sept. 2004.

Carolyn Skorneck, "Senate Clears War Spending Bill Over Objections From Byrd and Hollings," Congressional Quarterly Daily Monitor, 3 Nov. 2003.

"The Rule of the Gun: Human Rights Abuses and Political Repression in the Run-up to Afghanistan’s Presidential Election," Human Rights Watch 29 Sept. 2004.

"Strategic Survey 2003/04," International Institute for Strategic Studies, London, 25 May 2004.

Glenn Kessler and Walter Pincus, "Few Factual Errors, But Truth at Times Got Stretched ," The Washington Post , 1 Oct. 2004; A10.

Calvin Woodward, "Iraq And Terrorist Record Stretched Two Ways In Debate ," The Associated Press , 1 Oct. 2004.

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

Please visit http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=271 to view this FactCheck article in full.

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

To unsubscribe from future FactCheck.org emails, please visit http://www.factcheck.org/unsubscribe.aspx?EmailId=22097.

[Che'_Moderator]

FactCheck article IMHO is moot. I do not expect either of them to know all the figures off the top of their head. I do however like Kerry's, who is a "trained solider" comment about training and rapidly deploying more special forces. Does he not know they train for over a year and the washout rate is very high? As for Bush his weak comment of the debate IMHO was overly using "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time". I got the point the first 7 times he used it.

[Bay13]

GO LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPTS ....

We know what he said, but we have looked at his 20 year record in the Senate and we know what he has done, regardless of what he says, or has said the last several months (it's changed a lot) look at what he has done. There is a record, an official record, not something he made up in a book or testamony before congress.

[ChuckV986]

FactCheck article IMHO is moot.  I do not expect either of them to know all the figures off the top of their head.  I do however like Kerry's, who is a "trained solider" comment about training and rapidly deploying more special forces.  Does he not know they train for over a year and the washout rate is very high?  As for Bush his weak comment of the debate IMHO was overly using "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time".  I got the point the first 7 times he used it.

←

I agree. I think he repeated it so many times because Kerry never really stood up to it, but Bush wanted him to. He unquestionably over did it though...

I think Kerry meant over the course of 4 years, though his language is kind decpetive. He also could have meant increasing the funding for special forces 2 fold. Your average American isn't smart enough to know that the President can't just push a button and have more highly elite troops magically appear, so this kind of stuff flies.