WHAT KERRY SAID:
Kerry said in the debate that the United States had the right to take
preemptive action abroad if it "passes the global test, where your
countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're
doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate
reasons."
Kerry also said he would not cede to others the right to take
preemptive action "in any way necessary to protect the United States
of America."
Kerry said in the debate that he would never allow another nation to
have veto power over U.S. military decisions and, nevertheless, that
Bush should have preserved America's diplomatic sway by seeking more
international backing for the Iraq invasion.
HOW BUSH IS DISHONESTLY SPINNING IT:
President Bush said on Saturday Democrat John Kerry's debate remark
that U.S. preemptive military action should be subject to a "global
test" would give other nations a veto over American national security
decisions.
"When our country's in danger the president's job is not to take an
international poll. The president's job is to defend America," Bush
said.
"The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto
from countries like France," Mr. Bush told supporters at a rally in
Allentown, Pa.
(Reuters, Chicago Tribune, Houston Chronicle, CBS News)
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 23:18:51 GMT, rllipham <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 14:23:01 -0500, "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Florida Patriot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> WHAT KERRY SAID:
>>>
>>> Kerry said in the debate that the United States had the right to take
>>> preemptive action abroad if it "passes the global test, where your
>>> countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're
>>> doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate
>>> reasons."
>>>
>>> Kerry also said he would not cede to others the right to take
>>> preemptive action "in any way necessary to protect the United States
>>> of America."
>>>
>>> Kerry said in the debate that he would never allow another nation to
>>> have veto power over U.S. military decisions and, nevertheless, that
>>> Bush should have preserved America's diplomatic sway by seeking more
>>> international backing for the Iraq invasion.
>>
>>"I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the
>>directive of the United Nations." - John Kerry.
>>Kerry said the above to The Crimson in 1970. Now, some might say "well,
>>that was 34 years ago". But he wasn't 16 years old at the time, he was 27
>>and I believe he understood what he was saying. IMO, a statement such as
>>this is a core belief not likely to change by keeping a Senate seat warm for
>>20 years. He lost the election he was running for a the time, so he has
>>apparently learned you can't say that and get elected. So, now he says that
>>if he was presented with a threat and could not get UN support, he would
>>proceed unilaterally. Wow, that's a big departure from Bush's policy.
>>
>>todd
>>
>
>
>During the sixties and early seventies there were alot of things said
>and done during the Viet Nam mess that should be forgotten.
Then why is Kerry touting his 4 months of service in Vietnam as his
qualification for the highest office in the land? Why is it OK for him to
embellish his service then, and not OK for others to take exception to his
stories (some of which have had to be changed because he was caught in a
lie -- oops, a misrepresentation)? Why is his service in Vietnam
noteworthy and evidence of his ability to be president while his actions
following the war in which he a) attacked his fellow soldiers in the media,
accused them of committing atrocities during Senate hearings and b)
travelled to Paris and negotiated with representatives of those with whom
we were fighting not acceptable for commentary? Remember, it was Kerry who
reminded us (ad nauseum) how he was a Vietnam hero earlier in the campaign
-- he made this an issue.
> That was
>then, this is now.
Perhaps Mr. Kerry would be so kind as to expound upon his 20 years in the
senate and his voting record there. That would certainly be legitimate
material for debating his qualifications for office. Unfortunately for Mr.
Kerry, his years of service in the senate and the stands he took there
won't play well to most of America and he knows this, thus he, and his
willing accomplices in the media don't see fit to ask any questions about
how he managed to take the wrong side on every major issue of the day
during his tenure in the senate.
>My political beliefs have changed since then. Kerry
>is 8 years my elder and I remember what those times were like. Many
>things were said and done (like sleeping through the war with dad's
>help) that really should not matter. We need to look at the man now
>and the direction he want to lead the country.
>
Be nice to know that. Unfortunately, he has taken every side of just
about every issue, so there's really no way of knowing *which* way he wants
to lead the country (we could draw some inferences from his voting record
in the senate, however). Even the comment made by the troll above
regarding how Bush is "spinning" Kerry's words show this. Bush isn't
spinning anything -- Kerry took both sides of the debate during the debate
the other night. He said he wouldn't subjugate US perogatives to foreign
powers, then he said he would take unilateral action if it passed the
"world test". i.e., if the world approves, he would take action?
>We can not continue like we are going. The debt is out of control. You
>can let your grandchildren's child pay the bill. We can tell them how
>they are paying for our choices. We went to a surplus to $$$ in the
>hole even after changing "accounting methods to hide some of the
>debt." Can you say ENRON.
The only way to get this under control is to get congress to stop
increasing entitlements in areas that are not strictly called for under the
constitution. Until we can do that, politicians will continue to try to
buy votes using other peoples' money.
>
>Our county elected a sheriff like "W". He had his "good ole boys" in
>place and went after others with lies and deceit. He was forced out of
>office and replaced with a quality person. The entire office was in
>shambles. Outside agencies had low opinions of the department.
>It took the next sheriff a while to correct the mistakes. The
>appointed sheriff was a Republican appointed by a Republician
>governor. Did I mention the the Republician replacement was a
>Democrat for 20 years and changed his party affiliation.
>
Not sure what this has to do with Bush. He may not always be articulate,
but you know where he stands. His actions and his words match (which
drives the other side nuts).
Todd Fatheree wrote:
> "Florida Patriot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>WHAT KERRY SAID:
>>
>>Kerry said in the debate that the United States had the right to take
>>preemptive action abroad if it "passes the global test, where your
>>countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're
>>doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate
>>reasons."
>>
>>Kerry also said he would not cede to others the right to take
>>preemptive action "in any way necessary to protect the United States
>>of America."
>>
>>Kerry said in the debate that he would never allow another nation to
>>have veto power over U.S. military decisions and, nevertheless, that
>>Bush should have preserved America's diplomatic sway by seeking more
>>international backing for the Iraq invasion.
>
>
> "I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the
> directive of the United Nations." - John Kerry.
> Kerry said the above to The Crimson in 1970. Now, some might say "well,
> that was 34 years ago". But he wasn't 16 years old at the time, he was 27
> and I believe he understood what he was saying. IMO, a statement such as
> this is a core belief not likely to change by keeping a Senate seat warm for
> 20 years. He lost the election he was running for a the time, so he has
> apparently learned you can't say that and get elected. So, now he says that
> if he was presented with a threat and could not get UN support, he would
> proceed unilaterally. Wow, that's a big departure from Bush's policy.
>
> todd
>
>
So, you are saying that John Kerry can't change, mature, or foment new
ideas and opinions? You're saying a "leopard doesn't change his spots"?
So how 'bout Shrub's drinking and coking days, and how he "found Christ"
and changed his ways? You are quite the narrow minded ass ya know?
Philksi
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 23:18:51 GMT, rllipham <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Twenty years ago the South was Democrat. How can we trust those
>guys? They are just a bunch of flip-floppers.
Actually, in political terms, not party terms, the South has always
tended to be conservative. Landed gentry and all that. However, when
the post war reconstruction started with republican carpet baggers
(appointed by the party of Lincoln but with the liberal anti-slavery
sentiment and to-the-victor righteousness) flooding the South, taking
over the government, and offending almost every tenet the citizens
held dear, the southerners rebelled the only way they could by taking
the opposing political side on the ballot: the Democratic Party.
As the carpet baggers were eventually driven out it continued to be
politically expedient to register and vote Democratic if you wanted to
get into public office.
That lasted almost 100 years until Lyndon Johnson strongarmed the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 through Congress, a decidedly unconservative
piece of legislation. Even he said at the time that the passage of
that act would turn the "traditionally Democratic" south over to the
republicans for a long time.
Turncoats like Strom Thurmond and others were only able to come out of
the conservative closet as part of that backlash.
We're still paying the price 40 years later.
And you're right: how can you trust those guys?
- -
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
"LRod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 23:18:51 GMT, rllipham <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Twenty years ago the South was Democrat. How can we trust those
> >guys? They are just a bunch of flip-floppers.
>
> Actually, in political terms, not party terms, the South has always
> tended to be conservative. Landed gentry and all that. However, when
> the post war reconstruction started with republican carpet baggers
> (appointed by the party of Lincoln but with the liberal anti-slavery
> sentiment and to-the-victor righteousness) flooding the South, taking
> over the government, and offending almost every tenet the citizens
> held dear, the southerners rebelled the only way they could by taking
> the opposing political side on the ballot: the Democratic Party.
>
> As the carpet baggers were eventually driven out it continued to be
> politically expedient to register and vote Democratic if you wanted to
> get into public office.
>
> That lasted almost 100 years until Lyndon Johnson strongarmed the
> Civil Rights Act of 1964 through Congress, a decidedly unconservative
> piece of legislation. Even he said at the time that the passage of
> that act would turn the "traditionally Democratic" south over to the
> republicans for a long time.
>
> Turncoats like Strom Thurmond and others were only able to come out of
> the conservative closet as part of that backlash.
>
> We're still paying the price 40 years later.
By the way, Clinton's autobiography describes those very times and changes,
which he witnessed as an insider, in very much the same way as you did.
Interesting stuff for someone a bit too young to have observed it in person.
Jeff Harper
"philski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Todd Fatheree wrote:
> > "Florida Patriot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>WHAT KERRY SAID:
> >>
> >>Kerry said in the debate that the United States had the right to take
> >>preemptive action abroad if it "passes the global test, where your
> >>countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're
> >>doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate
> >>reasons."
> >>
> >>Kerry also said he would not cede to others the right to take
> >>preemptive action "in any way necessary to protect the United States
> >>of America."
> >>
> >>Kerry said in the debate that he would never allow another nation to
> >>have veto power over U.S. military decisions and, nevertheless, that
> >>Bush should have preserved America's diplomatic sway by seeking more
> >>international backing for the Iraq invasion.
> >
> >
> > "I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the
> > directive of the United Nations." - John Kerry.
> > Kerry said the above to The Crimson in 1970. Now, some might say "well,
> > that was 34 years ago". But he wasn't 16 years old at the time, he was
27
> > and I believe he understood what he was saying. IMO, a statement such
as
> > this is a core belief not likely to change by keeping a Senate seat warm
for
> > 20 years. He lost the election he was running for a the time, so he has
> > apparently learned you can't say that and get elected. So, now he says
that
> > if he was presented with a threat and could not get UN support, he would
> > proceed unilaterally. Wow, that's a big departure from Bush's policy.
> >
> > todd
> >
> >
> So, you are saying that John Kerry can't change, mature, or foment new
> ideas and opinions? You're saying a "leopard doesn't change his spots"?
> So how 'bout Shrub's drinking and coking days, and how he "found Christ"
> and changed his ways? You are quite the narrow minded ass ya know?
>
> Philksi
Excellent reply.
Because it's important and affects most of us. The thread *was* started
with a "Pol:" to indicate it was off-topic but that seems to have gotten
lost.
"Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Why are we talking about this in the woodworking newsgroup?
>
>
> "rllipham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 14:23:01 -0500, "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"Florida Patriot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
> >>> WHAT KERRY SAID:
> >>>
> >>> Kerry said in the debate that the United States had the right to take
> >>> preemptive action abroad if it "passes the global test, where your
> >>> countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're
> >>> doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate
> >>> reasons."
> >>>
> >>> Kerry also said he would not cede to others the right to take
> >>> preemptive action "in any way necessary to protect the United States
> >>> of America."
> >>>
> >>> Kerry said in the debate that he would never allow another nation to
> >>> have veto power over U.S. military decisions and, nevertheless, that
> >>> Bush should have preserved America's diplomatic sway by seeking more
> >>> international backing for the Iraq invasion.
> >>
> >>"I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the
> >>directive of the United Nations." - John Kerry.
> >>Kerry said the above to The Crimson in 1970. Now, some might say "well,
> >>that was 34 years ago". But he wasn't 16 years old at the time, he was
27
> >>and I believe he understood what he was saying. IMO, a statement such
as
> >>this is a core belief not likely to change by keeping a Senate seat warm
> >>for
> >>20 years. He lost the election he was running for a the time, so he has
> >>apparently learned you can't say that and get elected. So, now he says
> >>that
> >>if he was presented with a threat and could not get UN support, he would
> >>proceed unilaterally. Wow, that's a big departure from Bush's policy.
> >>
> >>todd
> >>
> >
> >
> > During the sixties and early seventies there were alot of things said
> > and done during the Viet Nam mess that should be forgotten. That was
> > then, this is now. My political beliefs have changed since then. Kerry
> > is 8 years my elder and I remember what those times were like. Many
> > things were said and done (like sleeping through the war with dad's
> > help) that really should not matter. We need to look at the man now
> > and the direction he want to lead the country.
> >
> > We can not continue like we are going. The debt is out of control. You
> > can let your grandchildren's child pay the bill. We can tell them how
> > they are paying for our choices. We went to a surplus to $$$ in the
> > hole even after changing "accounting methods to hide some of the
> > debt." Can you say ENRON.
> >
> > Our county elected a sheriff like "W". He had his "good ole boys" in
> > place and went after others with lies and deceit. He was forced out of
> > office and replaced with a quality person. The entire office was in
> > shambles. Outside agencies had low opinions of the department.
> > It took the next sheriff a while to correct the mistakes. The
> > appointed sheriff was a Republican appointed by a Republician
> > governor. Did I mention the the Republician replacement was a
> > Democrat for 20 years and changed his party affiliation.
> >
> > If what one does years ago should haunt that person for life then we
> > are in trouble. Does that mean the conservative South is loaded with
> > liars. Twenty years ago the South was Democrat. How can we trust those
> > guys? They are just a bunch of flip-floppers.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> WHAT KERRY SAID:
>
> Kerry said in the debate that the United States had the right to take
> preemptive action abroad if it "passes the global test, where your
> countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're
> doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate
> reasons."
> Kerry also said he would not cede to others the right to take
> preemptive action "in any way necessary to protect the United States
> of America."
>
> Kerry said in the debate that he would never allow another nation to
> have veto power over U.S. military decisions and, nevertheless, that
> Bush should have preserved America's diplomatic sway by seeking more
> international backing for the Iraq invasion.
Spin not necessary, his statement is contradictory in itself. Do we
need to prove it to the world, or does US interest trump world
opinion? Which is it, Senator?
But the fact of the matter is that Kerry wouldn't have gone into Iraq
even if we got French and German approval. We know that because he
voted against Gulf War #1 when we did have full UN "Approval".
Of course, knowing what he knows now, he STILL would have voted for
authorization to go to war, as he stated a couple of months ago.
This guy's all over the map!
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 14:23:01 -0500, "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Florida Patriot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> WHAT KERRY SAID:
>>
>> Kerry said in the debate that the United States had the right to take
>> preemptive action abroad if it "passes the global test, where your
>> countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're
>> doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate
>> reasons."
>>
>> Kerry also said he would not cede to others the right to take
>> preemptive action "in any way necessary to protect the United States
>> of America."
>>
>> Kerry said in the debate that he would never allow another nation to
>> have veto power over U.S. military decisions and, nevertheless, that
>> Bush should have preserved America's diplomatic sway by seeking more
>> international backing for the Iraq invasion.
>
>"I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the
>directive of the United Nations." - John Kerry.
>Kerry said the above to The Crimson in 1970. Now, some might say "well,
>that was 34 years ago". But he wasn't 16 years old at the time, he was 27
>and I believe he understood what he was saying. IMO, a statement such as
>this is a core belief not likely to change by keeping a Senate seat warm for
>20 years. He lost the election he was running for a the time, so he has
>apparently learned you can't say that and get elected. So, now he says that
>if he was presented with a threat and could not get UN support, he would
>proceed unilaterally. Wow, that's a big departure from Bush's policy.
>
>todd
>
During the sixties and early seventies there were alot of things said
and done during the Viet Nam mess that should be forgotten. That was
then, this is now. My political beliefs have changed since then. Kerry
is 8 years my elder and I remember what those times were like. Many
things were said and done (like sleeping through the war with dad's
help) that really should not matter. We need to look at the man now
and the direction he want to lead the country.
We can not continue like we are going. The debt is out of control. You
can let your grandchildren's child pay the bill. We can tell them how
they are paying for our choices. We went to a surplus to $$$ in the
hole even after changing "accounting methods to hide some of the
debt." Can you say ENRON.
Our county elected a sheriff like "W". He had his "good ole boys" in
place and went after others with lies and deceit. He was forced out of
office and replaced with a quality person. The entire office was in
shambles. Outside agencies had low opinions of the department.
It took the next sheriff a while to correct the mistakes. The
appointed sheriff was a Republican appointed by a Republician
governor. Did I mention the the Republician replacement was a
Democrat for 20 years and changed his party affiliation.
If what one does years ago should haunt that person for life then we
are in trouble. Does that mean the conservative South is loaded with
liars. Twenty years ago the South was Democrat. How can we trust those
guys? They are just a bunch of flip-floppers.
"Florida Patriot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> WHAT KERRY SAID:
>
> Kerry said in the debate that the United States had the right to take
> preemptive action abroad if it "passes the global test, where your
> countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're
> doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate
> reasons."
>
> Kerry also said he would not cede to others the right to take
> preemptive action "in any way necessary to protect the United States
> of America."
>
> Kerry said in the debate that he would never allow another nation to
> have veto power over U.S. military decisions and, nevertheless, that
> Bush should have preserved America's diplomatic sway by seeking more
> international backing for the Iraq invasion.
"I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the
directive of the United Nations." - John Kerry.
Kerry said the above to The Crimson in 1970. Now, some might say "well,
that was 34 years ago". But he wasn't 16 years old at the time, he was 27
and I believe he understood what he was saying. IMO, a statement such as
this is a core belief not likely to change by keeping a Senate seat warm for
20 years. He lost the election he was running for a the time, so he has
apparently learned you can't say that and get elected. So, now he says that
if he was presented with a threat and could not get UN support, he would
proceed unilaterally. Wow, that's a big departure from Bush's policy.
todd
"philski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Todd Fatheree wrote:
> > "I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the
> > directive of the United Nations." - John Kerry.
> > Kerry said the above to The Crimson in 1970. Now, some might say "well,
> > that was 34 years ago". But he wasn't 16 years old at the time, he was
27
> > and I believe he understood what he was saying. IMO, a statement such
as
> > this is a core belief not likely to change by keeping a Senate seat warm
for
> > 20 years. He lost the election he was running for a the time, so he has
> > apparently learned you can't say that and get elected. So, now he says
that
> > if he was presented with a threat and could not get UN support, he would
> > proceed unilaterally. Wow, that's a big departure from Bush's policy.
> >
> > todd
> >
> >
> So, you are saying that John Kerry can't change, mature, or foment new
> ideas and opinions? You're saying a "leopard doesn't change his spots"?
> So how 'bout Shrub's drinking and coking days, and how he "found Christ"
> and changed his ways? You are quite the narrow minded ass ya know?
>
> Philksi
At least there's actual evidence that Bush has changed his prior habits.
There hasn't been any reason to think that Herman Munster has based on his
voting record.. I mean, does this guy have *any* core beliefs? He's had
several positions on the war just in the past several months. Boy, this guy
sure foments lots of new ideas and opinions...often daily. Now you and Jeff
can go back to stroking each other.
todd
"rllipham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> If people would vote with their brain and not their religous fears or
> emotions then we can get the country out of the Bush and into
> prosperity.
>
May God help you if that is what you believe.
"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...>
>
> At least there's actual evidence that Bush has changed his prior habits.
> There hasn't been any reason to think that Herman Munster has based on his
> voting record.. I mean, does this guy have *any* core beliefs? He's had
> several positions on the war just in the past several months. Boy, this guy
> sure foments lots of new ideas and opinions...often daily. Now you and Jeff
> can go back to stroking each other.
>
> todd
There is a condition known (to those of us who have worked in the
field of addiction and substance abuse) as the "dry
drunk"--specifically, it is the persistence, in soberiety, of
behaviors and personality traits typical of the drunken/still using
condition. These are very difficult to change, requiring literally
years of constant work in (especially) 12-step groups or similar kinds
of therapy. It is also the case that times of stress can create a
resurgance of these behaviors and traits.
Effectively counteracting these "dry drunk" conditions requires an
ability to admit that one's behavior and choices are not working,
similar to the admission of powerlessness in the 12-step tradition of
sobriety. Persistence in the belief that one need not change,
especially in the face of contrary evidence, is one indicator of a
full blown episode of "dry drunk" behavior (there are others).
Everything the President has said about the war--that he would not
have done anything differently, that things are really getting
better--fly in the face of all the evidence. We continually engage in
new offensives because "the mission is [NOT] accomplished". Now we
hear that the reason our troops are dying in greater numbers each
month is that we "won" the war too fast!
Furthermore, the evidence so far seems to fly in the face of his
assertion that the world is safer without Saddam in power. Ask our
grunts on the ground in Falluja if that is true. You can't ask those
poor souls who've lost their heads--they certainly weren't any safer,
but...they still had their heads until Saddam was toppled. And
there's no reason to believe, unfortunately, they're the only ones
who'll be beheaded. This new twist on middle east terrorism didn't
catch hold until after Saddam fell. A safer world indeed!
I don't see any credible evidence that Bush is anything other than a
sober drunk, if the sober even applies. What I see is a man way out
of control, trying desperately (emphasize that) to look otherwise.
Dan
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 23:22:28 -0400, "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Because it's important and affects most of us. The thread *was* started
>with a "Pol:" to indicate it was off-topic but that seems to have gotten
>lost.
[Geek]
It should have been prefixed with [Pol] not Pol:
Some newsreaders (most obviously Outlook) have incorrect behaviour
regarding usenet subject lines. Rather than using "Re:" on comments to
a thread, they internationalise this to the local language. Swedish
and Sv: seems to be the most commonly encountered. Because they can
no longer rely on a prefix of Re:, they assume that _any_ prefix
ending with a colon is a follow-up marker and strip and replace it
with their local version, Re: in this case.
To avoid the problem, use [Pol], [Ad], [Ebay], [FA], [Spam] etc.
instead.
As with any problem, either woodworking or political, it's basically
M$oft's fault.
Why are we talking about this in the woodworking newsgroup?
"rllipham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 14:23:01 -0500, "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Florida Patriot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> WHAT KERRY SAID:
>>>
>>> Kerry said in the debate that the United States had the right to take
>>> preemptive action abroad if it "passes the global test, where your
>>> countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're
>>> doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate
>>> reasons."
>>>
>>> Kerry also said he would not cede to others the right to take
>>> preemptive action "in any way necessary to protect the United States
>>> of America."
>>>
>>> Kerry said in the debate that he would never allow another nation to
>>> have veto power over U.S. military decisions and, nevertheless, that
>>> Bush should have preserved America's diplomatic sway by seeking more
>>> international backing for the Iraq invasion.
>>
>>"I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the
>>directive of the United Nations." - John Kerry.
>>Kerry said the above to The Crimson in 1970. Now, some might say "well,
>>that was 34 years ago". But he wasn't 16 years old at the time, he was 27
>>and I believe he understood what he was saying. IMO, a statement such as
>>this is a core belief not likely to change by keeping a Senate seat warm
>>for
>>20 years. He lost the election he was running for a the time, so he has
>>apparently learned you can't say that and get elected. So, now he says
>>that
>>if he was presented with a threat and could not get UN support, he would
>>proceed unilaterally. Wow, that's a big departure from Bush's policy.
>>
>>todd
>>
>
>
> During the sixties and early seventies there were alot of things said
> and done during the Viet Nam mess that should be forgotten. That was
> then, this is now. My political beliefs have changed since then. Kerry
> is 8 years my elder and I remember what those times were like. Many
> things were said and done (like sleeping through the war with dad's
> help) that really should not matter. We need to look at the man now
> and the direction he want to lead the country.
>
> We can not continue like we are going. The debt is out of control. You
> can let your grandchildren's child pay the bill. We can tell them how
> they are paying for our choices. We went to a surplus to $$$ in the
> hole even after changing "accounting methods to hide some of the
> debt." Can you say ENRON.
>
> Our county elected a sheriff like "W". He had his "good ole boys" in
> place and went after others with lies and deceit. He was forced out of
> office and replaced with a quality person. The entire office was in
> shambles. Outside agencies had low opinions of the department.
> It took the next sheriff a while to correct the mistakes. The
> appointed sheriff was a Republican appointed by a Republician
> governor. Did I mention the the Republician replacement was a
> Democrat for 20 years and changed his party affiliation.
>
> If what one does years ago should haunt that person for life then we
> are in trouble. Does that mean the conservative South is loaded with
> liars. Twenty years ago the South was Democrat. How can we trust those
> guys? They are just a bunch of flip-floppers.
>
>
>
On 2 Oct 2004 11:06:04 -0700, [email protected] (Florida
Patriot) wrote:
>WHAT KERRY SAID:
>
>Kerry said in the debate that the United States had the right to take
>preemptive action abroad if it "passes the global test, where your
>countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're
>doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate
>reasons."
>
>Kerry also said he would not cede to others the right to take
>preemptive action "in any way necessary to protect the United States
>of America."
>
>Kerry said in the debate that he would never allow another nation to
>have veto power over U.S. military decisions and, nevertheless, that
>Bush should have preserved America's diplomatic sway by seeking more
>international backing for the Iraq invasion.
>
>
>
>HOW BUSH IS DISHONESTLY SPINNING IT:
>
>President Bush said on Saturday Democrat John Kerry's debate remark
>that U.S. preemptive military action should be subject to a "global
>test" would give other nations a veto over American national security
>decisions.
>
>"When our country's in danger the president's job is not to take an
>international poll. The president's job is to defend America," Bush
>said.
>
>"The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto
>from countries like France," Mr. Bush told supporters at a rally in
>Allentown, Pa.
>
>
>
>(Reuters, Chicago Tribune, Houston Chronicle, CBS News)
His entire political career has been just that. You should read what
Bush's hometown paper has to say about him. Here is the link:
http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm
He only hope that no one mentions his record during the last four
years.
If people would vote with their brain and not their religous fears or
emotions then we can get the country out of the Bush and into
prosperity.