09/30 Debate: Commentary

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » October 1, 2004, 4:24 pm

Hard to not laugh when Bush is speaking!

Thess · Post by **Thess** » October 1, 2004, 4:25 pm

Winnow wrote:
Thess wrote:I found it funny that Kerry was able to stick to the rules better then Bush (when most of them were from the Bush campaign), and also - the way Bush tried to get a rebuttal - the first few times he basically called out in the middle of Kerry speaking.
Bush was about to pull the, "I'm the President bitch!"

I noticed one time Bush was eager to get a reply in and then had one of his freeze frame hesitation moments after he finally got to speak.

Were the camera angles the same for every network? I'm not sur why Bush is being criticized for smirks. I saw Kerry look like the wicked witch of the west a few times. It looked like he was about to break out a cackle.

Fox won the camera angles pool - however c-span just kept it split screen the entire time.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » October 1, 2004, 4:44 pm

If the republicans really wanna stick it to Kerry, they can take a page out of the Dem playbook. Remember when the Kerry campaign was playing up Dubya like he was some sort of brilliant public speaker, just to save face in case Kerry fucked up? Well, the Bushies should declare Kerry the absolute victor of this debate, and really play up Bush being a useless nincompoop, so that all Bush has to do is match Kerry in one of the other debates, and it'll look like a huge victory.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » October 1, 2004, 4:48 pm

http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=4775

GOP has kerry vs. kerry debate

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » October 1, 2004, 5:08 pm

whatever brady bogan

ummm umm the president can't keep sending mixed umm messages umm i KNOW osama bin laden attacked the US umm I KNEW THAT umm mixed changing stances you can't change stances on the war in iraq umm you have to keep a stance in your hearts heart in your core mixed messages umm I KNEW THAT

Xzion- · Post by **Xzion-** » October 1, 2004, 5:09 pm

Winnow wrote:
Thess wrote:I found it funny that Kerry was able to stick to the rules better then Bush (when most of them were from the Bush campaign), and also - the way Bush tried to get a rebuttal - the first few times he basically called out in the middle of Kerry speaking.
Bush was about to pull the, "I'm the President bitch!"

I noticed one time Bush was eager to get a reply in and then had one of his freeze frame hesitation moments after he finally got to speak.

Were the camera angles the same for every network? I'm not sur why Bush is being criticized for smirks. I saw Kerry look like the wicked witch of the west a few times. It looked like he was about to break out a cackle.

did you hear bush speak?
I busted out laughing at least four times (which is rare as i dont laugh out loud that often)
I saw him having to hold back is laughter a few times, and he did a pretty good job

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » October 1, 2004, 5:16 pm

Rekaar. wrote:http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=4775

GOP has kerry vs. kerry debate

Can't believe you idiots still bitch about the ridiculous flip-flopping crap.

Xzion- · Post by **Xzion-** » October 1, 2004, 5:19 pm

Kelshara wrote:
Rekaar. wrote:http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=4775

GOP has kerry vs. kerry debate
Can't believe you idiots still bitch about the ridiculous flip-flopping crap.

IF the Kerry campeghn starts making adds about all of Bush's various flip flops, he will gain at least 4-5 more points

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 1, 2004, 5:24 pm

Xzion- wrote:
Kelshara wrote:
Rekaar. wrote:http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=4775

GOP has kerry vs. kerry debate
Can't believe you idiots still bitch about the ridiculous flip-flopping crap.
IF the Kerry campeghn starts making adds about all of Bush's various flip flops, he will gain at least 4-5 more points

You don't think if it were that simple the Kerry campaign wouldn't have done that already and wrapped this election up? I hear they were going to do that but then they didn't.

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » October 1, 2004, 6:15 pm

Effectiveness of U.N. Sanctions against Iraq according to Bush. Go go Flip Flopper

FLIP
2/24/01 - [Powell for Bush]: "...the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..."
5/15/01 - [Powell for Bush]: "The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him [Saddam] from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained...So containment, using this arms control sanctions regime, I think has been reasonably successful."
7/29/01 - [Rice for Bush]: "But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt"
IN SHORT:
U.N. sanctions against Saddam HAVE been successful in containing him and preventing him from building any significant capability towards weapons of mass destruction.

FLOP
10/8/02 - [Bush]: 'After 11 years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more...Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions, or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different"
IN SHORT:
U.N. sanctions against Saddam have NOT been successful in containing him and preventing him from building any significant capability towards weapons of mass destruction.

FLIP AGAIN
10/10/03 - [Link]: "David Kay, the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, presented a different view in his congressional testimony last week. For example, he said: "Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW [chemical weapons] munitions was reduced -- if not entirely destroyed -- during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of U.N. sanctions and U.N. inspections."... "
IN SHORT:
U.N. sanctions against Saddam HAVE been successful in containing him and preventing him from building any significant capability towards weapons of mass destruction.

Want more? a total of 134 Flip Flops Bush has made as Pres. I guess he wavers and has no clue what hes doing. So in his own words, he isnt fit to be the Leader of this country.

http://flipflops.compassiongate.com/

noel · Post by **noel** » October 1, 2004, 6:16 pm

Xzion- wrote:IF the Kerry campeghn starts making adds about all of Bush's various flip flops, he will gain at least 4-5 more points

Do you realize how fucking stupid your arguments look when you can't even spell a word that's already been posted at LEAST 30 times in this thread?

Even if I agree with some of the points you're making, you make yourself look like a fucking idiot. Learn to spell, proofread or type; I don't care which.

Drinsic Darkwood · Post by **Drinsic Darkwood** » October 1, 2004, 6:41 pm

What in God's name is a campeghn?

Oh, and -

noel wrote:Even if I agree with some of the points your making,

You were asking for it~

noel · Post by **noel** » October 1, 2004, 6:55 pm

Drinsic Darkwood wrote:You were asking for it~

And I appreciate you pointing it out. No bullshit. I actually do care what my text looks like and how it reflects on me.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » October 1, 2004, 7:04 pm

In that case, stop starting your sentences with conjunctions....

noel · Post by **noel** » October 1, 2004, 7:08 pm

/cry

It was supposed to be 'conversational'.

PM me if I'm wrong, but I thought there were cases when it's acceptable to start a sentence with the word 'and'.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » October 1, 2004, 7:20 pm

noel wrote:/cry

It was supposed to be 'conversational'.

PM me if I'm wrong, but I thought there were cases when it's acceptable to start a sentence with the word 'and'.

A conjunction is a word that joins two clauses, phrases or words together. If you strictly adhere to this definition, then it is incorrect to begin or end a sentence with a conjunction. Our language does evolve and this is becoming an increasing common usage. I would argue that our language should be mastered first before one attempts to alter it to suit your needs because people will often find that they are "reinventing the wheel"; this is an entirely new argument, in any event, and is best left for another thread.

Public lecturing and ritual humilitation is more appropriate than private messaging on this message boards.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 1, 2004, 7:26 pm

Krimson Klaw wrote:In that case, stop starting your sentences with conjunctions....

Bah! Didn't you see the movie Finding Forrester? Starting out sentences with "but" is ok as long as you don't do it too often!

But I wouldn't do it on a regular basis. And you can quote me on that!

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » October 1, 2004, 7:27 pm

archeiron wrote: I would argue that our language should be mastered first before one attempts to alter it to suit your needs because people will often find that they are "reinventing the wheel"; this is an entirely new argument, in any event, and is best left for another thread.

Case in point...Ebonics.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » October 1, 2004, 7:34 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
archeiron wrote: I would argue that our language should be mastered first before one attempts to alter it to suit your needs because people will often find that they are "reinventing the wheel"; this is an entirely new argument, in any event, and is best left for another thread.

Case in point...Ebonics.

It appears that I lit a fire near a dry tinder. I apologize in advance for any irreversable damage, or derailing, that I may have done to this thead.

Hoarmurath · Post by **Hoarmurath** » October 1, 2004, 7:48 pm

Drinsic Darkwood wrote:What in God's name is a campeghn?

It's Celtic! Campeghners can be identified by the following campeghn slogan: "Speak softly but carry a big shillelagh."

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » October 1, 2004, 9:39 pm

I started reading the thread and then decided to just post my observations without further influence...

I LISTENED to the debates because we were busy raiding last night. (Our first attempt on Xegony and we wiped pretty bad... )

The TV is in another room. Once in awhile I would catch a few seconds of the video but it was rare.

By listening alone there is no doubt that Kerry is easily the better debater. Kerry kicked serious Bush ass last night. I'm very disappointed that Bush missed numerous opportunities to skewer Kerry. I'm also disappointed that Bush couldn't control his emotions well enough to provide an effective argument to many of Kerry's comments.

I think Bush blew a huge opportunity to put this election away. I commend John Kerry for doing an excellent job in the debates. While I still feel Kerry is the worse choice of the two men he did increase his stature in my eyes.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » October 1, 2004, 10:44 pm

1. The debates were not debates, they were scripted press conferences.

2. The only fair way of doing TV coverage is a full time split screen and god forbidd any of the lame ass waving flag graphics like Fox had on full time and NBC kept popping up,

Thess · Post by **Thess** » October 1, 2004, 11:03 pm

Kylere wrote:1. The debates were not debates, they were scripted press conferences.

2. The only fair way of doing TV coverage is a full time split screen and god forbidd any of the lame ass waving flag graphics like Fox had on full time and NBC kept popping up,

C-span had it on split screen the entire time. I'd assume it'll be the same for the next two debates.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » October 1, 2004, 11:26 pm

Thess wrote:
Kylere wrote:1. The debates were not debates, they were scripted press conferences.

2. The only fair way of doing TV coverage is a full time split screen and god forbidd any of the lame ass waving flag graphics like Fox had on full time and NBC kept popping up,
C-span had it on split screen the entire time. I'd assume it'll be the same for the next two debates.

Aye I noted that from an earlier post, and I will be flipping there next time. We all know that different media outlets slant differently and I prefer my dog and pony shows unbiased

But I appreciate the heads up.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 2, 2004, 2:44 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Case in point...Ebonics.

god damn niggers am i rite midnyte?!

Thess · Post by **Thess** » October 2, 2004, 2:49 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Case in point...Ebonics.

I'm sorry but George W. Bush's language is much closer to ebonics then Kerry's.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » October 2, 2004, 5:10 am

Kylere wrote:
Thess wrote:
Kylere wrote:1. The debates were not debates, they were scripted press conferences.

2. The only fair way of doing TV coverage is a full time split screen and god forbidd any of the lame ass waving flag graphics like Fox had on full time and NBC kept popping up,
C-span had it on split screen the entire time. I'd assume it'll be the same for the next two debates.
Aye I noted that from an earlier post, and I will be flipping there next time. We all know that different media outlets slant differently and I prefer my dog and pony shows unbiased But I appreciate the heads up.

np - and I agree, I don't like biased channels, or any that try to portray either party as the 'worse' person or candidate. cspan truely is a great channel and network, while it can be 'boring' at times, I truely (at the cost of being portrayed as a loser) find it fascinating.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » October 2, 2004, 5:42 am

Bush did alright in my opinion, I expected him to do much worse. I was watching it with some friends and when Bush used the word "vociferously" we all joked about how great it would be if kerry asked bush to spell it.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » October 2, 2004, 6:31 am

You people and your associating poor speaking/slurred words with stupidity.

Go tell Stephen Hawking he is stupid and get ridiculed.

Give that lame reasoning a rest will you?

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » October 2, 2004, 9:00 am

Aruman wrote:You people and your associating poor speaking/slurred words with stupidity.

Go tell Stephen Hawking he is stupid and get ridiculed.

Give that lame reasoning a rest will you?

Stephen Hawking has a motor neurone disease, unless George Bush suffers from a similar ailment your comparison of their speaking abilities is about as appropriate as comparing their knowledge of theoretical physics.

Lame reasoning indeed.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » October 2, 2004, 9:03 am

Sure when y'all give the lame flip-flopping reasoning a rest.

miir · Post by **miir** » October 2, 2004, 10:52 am

Aruman wrote:You people and your associating poor speaking/slurred words with stupidity.

Go tell Stephen Hawking he is stupid and get ridiculed.

Give that lame reasoning a rest will you?

Is this sort of logic typical of Bush supporters?

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » October 2, 2004, 11:26 am

My analysis of the debate is mixed. I feel Kerry won the debate slightly, but Bush won the message or the bite that will actually persuade more voters. If you’ve watched the main bite the networks have been playing its been Kerry defending himself about the 87billion dollar snafu, and Bush its how can you have a commander in chief that sends grand diversion and wrong war, wrong time mixed messages to the troops and allies and expect to win the war, which is what both sides claim they want. Just like in the 2000 debates when it looked like Gore won the first one after a few days Bush gained votes, because the simple message.

In previewing different polls it looks like Kerry won the debate in the eyes of most American people about a 50-30% advantage. Also looking at the polls of undecided voters you will find Bush actually gained more votes, but a statistical tie. I think it was 12% Bush gain and 10% Kerry gain of undecided at the time of the debate.

What Kerry is facing is he has to completely embarrass Bush in one of the upcoming debates even to fellow Republicans if he wants a chance of winning. Bush according to almost every poll has eclipsed the 50% mark or is extremely close at 49%, which means any votes gained is extra. If he wins 10% of the total undecided votes at the moment he still wins. Kerry has to take away Bush voters, so he has to have a home run or he is going to loose or he’s going to have to be on the offensive the rest of the campaign in key states like Ohio and Florida(win both) or win one while still holding Penn., Iowa and Wis., which Bush has a solid lead in Wis and slight lead in Iowa.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » October 2, 2004, 11:43 am

Forthe wrote:
Aruman wrote:You people and your associating poor speaking/slurred words with stupidity.

Go tell Stephen Hawking he is stupid and get ridiculed.

Give that lame reasoning a rest will you?
Stephen Hawking has a motor neurone disease, unless George Bush suffers from a similar ailment your comparison of their speaking abilities is about as appropriate as comparing their knowledge of theoretical physics.

Lame reasoning indeed.

People are just looking for ways to ridicule someone.

As I have said before, I'm not for either Kerry or Bush, my comment isn't motivated by my political affiliations. I am not affiliated with either party.

I am simply saying it's silly to relate someone's speaking ability to their intelligence level. I'm sure there are plenty of very intelligent people who don't handle public speaking very well, or just don't speak well period.

I would have hoped you understand the point of what I was trying say by my use of an extreme example.

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » October 2, 2004, 12:14 pm

Winnow wrote:
Krimson Klaw wrote:In that case, stop starting your sentences with conjunctions....
Bah! Didn't you see the movie Finding Forrester? Starting out sentences with "but" is ok as long as you don't do it too often!

But I wouldn't do it on a regular basis. And you can quote me on that!

What is with this editing all your posts shit?

You god-damned flip-flopper!

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » October 2, 2004, 12:21 pm

Kelshara wrote:Sure when y'all give the lame flip-flopping reasoning a rest.

Kerry flip-flops and so has President Bush. /shrug.

The difference is, Kerry is flip-flopping on an issue that can cost people their lives due to indecisiveness.

President Bush made decisions related to handling Iraq and is sticking by his decisions. If President Bush was changing his decisions about how to handle Iraq as much as Kerry has been, there would be many more casualties/deaths in Iraq than there have been.

Being indecisive in a leadership role causes confusion and lowers morale. It doesn't matter who is in the leadership position for this to occur.

Xzion- · Post by **Xzion-** » October 2, 2004, 12:27 pm

Aruman wrote:
Kelshara wrote:Sure when y'all give the lame flip-flopping reasoning a rest.
Kerry flip-flops and so has President Bush. /shrug.

The difference is, Kerry is flip-flopping on an issue that can cost people their lives due to indecisiveness.

President Bush made decisions related to handling Iraq and is sticking by his decisions. If President Bush was changing his decisions about how to handle Iraq as much as Kerry has been, there would be many more casualties/deaths in Iraq than there have been.

Being indecisive in a leadership role causes confusion and lowers morale. It doesn't matter who is in the leadership position for this to occur.

Heh, Bush made a decision on Iraq, a wrong one, that not even McCain or Gore would have made, that will ultimately...cost more American lives then it could have saved.
So your logic would be like saying
"Hitler stuck by his choice to kill off the jewish population, so they wouldnt be able to reak havoc, Himmler would have been indecisive and realized persecuting Jews is wrong, putting anti-semitic lives at risk"

There is no logical way to defend Bush on many, many issues, or at least i have yet to hear

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » October 2, 2004, 12:29 pm

Metanis wrote:I LISTENED to the debates because we were busy raiding last night. (Our first attempt on Xegony and we wiped pretty bad... )

Worst. Rotation. Ever.

If you don't wipe on Xegony a few times you have too much l33t b3t4 infoz!

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 2, 2004, 1:27 pm

good news is Xeegony becomes a fun raid once you get it.

(hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahhahaahahahahhah)

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 2, 2004, 1:32 pm

Aruman wrote:As I have said before, I'm not for either Kerry or Bush, my comment isn't motivated by my political affiliations.

Who do you plan to vote for?

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » October 2, 2004, 1:35 pm

Kerry flip-flops and so has President Bush. /shrug.

The difference is, Kerry is flip-flopping on an issue that can cost people their lives due to indecisiveness.

President Bush made decisions related to handling Iraq and is sticking by his decisions. If President Bush was changing his decisions about how to handle Iraq as much as Kerry has been, there would be many more casualties/deaths in Iraq than there have been.

Being indecisive in a leadership role causes confusion and lowers morale. It doesn't matter who is in the leadership position for this to occur.

I guess you didnt look like 7 posts up to where it shows Bush has flip floped on Iraq MANY times.

Glad you could be blind to the truth. And his flip flops have caused 8k+ lives and counting.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » October 2, 2004, 1:46 pm

Sueven wrote:
Aruman wrote:As I have said before, I'm not for either Kerry or Bush, my comment isn't motivated by my political affiliations.
Who do you plan to vote for?

Remains to be seen.

I don't have either as a favorite right now.

Kerry needs to expand more on what he is going to do, instead of just saying I'll do things differently, in order to catch my interest.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » October 2, 2004, 1:47 pm

Xzion- wrote:
Aruman wrote:
Kelshara wrote:Sure when y'all give the lame flip-flopping reasoning a rest.
Kerry flip-flops and so has President Bush. /shrug.

The difference is, Kerry is flip-flopping on an issue that can cost people their lives due to indecisiveness.

President Bush made decisions related to handling Iraq and is sticking by his decisions. If President Bush was changing his decisions about how to handle Iraq as much as Kerry has been, there would be many more casualties/deaths in Iraq than there have been.

Being indecisive in a leadership role causes confusion and lowers morale. It doesn't matter who is in the leadership position for this to occur.
Heh, Bush made a decision on Iraq, a wrong one, that not even McCain or Gore would have made, that will ultimately...cost more American lives then it could have saved.
So your logic would be like saying
"Hitler stuck by his choice to kill off the jewish population, so they wouldnt be able to reak havoc, Himmler would have been indecisive and realized persecuting Jews is wrong, putting anti-semitic lives at risk"

There is no logical way to defend Bush on many, many issues, or at least i have yet to hear

Your posts are just trash talking Xzion... go away please.

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » October 2, 2004, 1:52 pm

And another thing

The people in the military see this. This is why there is a retention rate loss of 60%. It would be more, but the Bush leadership has decided to make a back door draft. Meaning people in the military, who have served a wide range of years, are now being told although they have served 10+years, and their times are up to move on, they HAVE to stay in the military till further notice.

So people who have signed up to fight for their contry. Put in their time, diffrent conflicts, are now being told tough shit, we need people, and your fucked so your now ours. This goes for the Active military.

This will be the FIRST republican Pres who will not have the vote from members of the military. The national guard in florida alone, had 7,000 people up for re enlistment. 5,576 people decided to tell the guard to fuck off and did get out.

From my unit alone, we have 220 people. 60 are now out, and the infantry unit who were active ready now are under powered and not able to be activated due to low numbers. We had 220-250 members for the 7 years I was in, now we have 1/3rd of that.

There was also a Poll for Florida national Guardsmen on who they would vote for. 58% voted for Kerry if I remember right, there were a total of 12,000 members asked. Almost 7k people add in their kids, wifes/husbands, parents, friends who they can influance. A lot of them are first time voters aka the kids. This will add up, and steam roll down a hill and be the biggest blow to Bush. 7k people can turn in to at LEAST 20 very easy if they are married, add in another 5k for children. And the guard has more than 12k people in it. But if 58% of people outof 12k in a poll wanted kerry, just think of the TOTAL amount of guardsment who wont vote for bush.

Bush I know for a fact will lose Floirda. And many other states who have had guards men deplyed.

Also the fact that Bush cut benifits to the Guardsmen, and the Reserves. A lot arnt too happy.

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » October 2, 2004, 1:55 pm

Aruman

Why cant you answer or respond to my questions? Are my points/links from what bush has said not good enough and not true?

I would like to help you understand the misleading of the Bush Admin. I too was for the war in Iraq and was very vocal about it. But now I see the mis leading, the threats, and the mismangment of Pres Bush.

miir · Post by **miir** » October 2, 2004, 1:59 pm

I am simply saying it's silly to relate someone's speaking ability to their intelligence level. I'm sure there are plenty of very intelligent people who don't handle public speaking very well, or just don't speak well period.

I would have hoped you understand the point of what I was trying say by my use of an extreme example.

Our former Prime Minister, Jean Chretien was not a native english speaker and suffered a stroke that left him with a very distinct speech impediment.

He was still able to express himself rather well in english despite those two handicaps... He is able to express himself in english better than Bush.

Being able to speak publicly and express ones ideas is crucial for a politician. Bush clearly lacks those skills and comes across as somewhat simple minded.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » October 2, 2004, 2:00 pm

Raistin wrote:
Kerry flip-flops and so has President Bush. /shrug.

The difference is, Kerry is flip-flopping on an issue that can cost people their lives due to indecisiveness.

President Bush made decisions related to handling Iraq and is sticking by his decisions. If President Bush was changing his decisions about how to handle Iraq as much as Kerry has been, there would be many more casualties/deaths in Iraq than there have been.

Being indecisive in a leadership role causes confusion and lowers morale. It doesn't matter who is in the leadership position for this to occur.

I guess you didnt look like 7 posts up to where it shows Bush has flip floped on Iraq MANY times.

Glad you could be blind to the truth. And his flip flops have caused 8k+ lives and counting.

Eh?

You honestly believe that making the decision to commit to the war regardless of world opinion was a trivial or flip-flopping? Please explain that to me.

Whether the decision is right or wrong in the eyes of others, it is clearly the decision of someone who is decisive and in charge. This wasn't the decision of someone who thinks other countries should have a say in issues of national security of the United States.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » October 2, 2004, 2:03 pm

Raistin wrote:Aruman

Why cant you answer or respond to my questions? Are my points/links from what bush has said not good enough and not true?

I would like to help you understand the misleading of the Bush Admin. I too was for the war in Iraq and was very vocal about it. But now I see the mis leading, the threats, and the mismangment of Pres Bush.

I replied, I'm just not playing the F5 game. I come here occassionally, I don't camp this Forum.

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » October 2, 2004, 2:06 pm

FLIP
2/24/01 - [Powell for Bush]: "...the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..."
5/15/01 - [Powell for Bush]: "The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him [Saddam] from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained...So containment, using this arms control sanctions regime, I think has been reasonably successful."
7/29/01 - [Rice for Bush]: "But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt"
IN SHORT:
U.N. sanctions against Saddam HAVE been successful in containing him and preventing him from building any significant capability towards weapons of mass destruction.

FLOP
10/8/02 - [Bush]: 'After 11 years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more...Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions, or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different"
IN SHORT:
U.N. sanctions against Saddam have NOT been successful in containing him and preventing him from building any significant capability towards weapons of mass destruction.

FLIP AGAIN
10/10/03 - [Link]: "David Kay, the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, presented a different view in his congressional testimony last week. For example, he said: "Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW [chemical weapons] munitions was reduced -- if not entirely destroyed -- during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of U.N. sanctions and U.N. inspections."... "
IN SHORT:
U.N. sanctions against Saddam HAVE been successful in containing him and preventing him from building any significant capability towards weapons of mass destruction.

miir · Post by **miir** » October 2, 2004, 2:08 pm

I replied, I'm just not playing the F5 game. I come here occassionally, I don't camp this Forum.

Um, no you didn't, and you've made seven posts since his post on Bush's flip/flops.