"John Kerry,,,, Take this cob and ... Shove It!"
Posted on 08/06/2004 2:43:08 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
"John Kerry,,,, Take this cob and ... Shove It!"
YOU GO W!!!!!
Kerry will say, "Yes we should have invaded, but first gotten permission from the French."
I think Kerry will do one better! He will say YES and NO
I can't quite put my fingers on it, but to me, this statement is one of a true leader.
W's wrong on this. John Kerry said yes, before he said no.
Put this POSER in the corner...Come on Rove get your arrows sharpened....!
Whats it gonna be boy, yes or no ?
Tick Tock
No answer yet? Surely the Senator must have heard the challenge. It's a simple question for someone competent to be the Commander-and-Chief.
I'm sorry, but Bush is being stupid on this one. What does he think he has to gain by saying that we did the right thing in going into Iraq even if:
(a) no WMD
(b) tenuous, at best, ties to Al Quaeda
(c) Iran is much closer to being a Nuke Power
(d) Iran had much closer ties to Al Queada
(e) Iraq now looks to be an utter mess that wil last for years, that may deteriorate into a civil war
(f) Saddam's Army was a rag-tag bunch that had no loyalty to him, would not fight, was not about to march anywhere
(g) Saddam was a deluded would be poet/novelist, constantly lied to by his scientific establishment.
We didn't know or believe any of the above AT THE TIME and maybe we COULDN'T HAVE KNOWN, given the difficulty of penetrating Iraq's closed society. So Bush can in GOOD CONSCIENCE argue that given what we DID KNOW and what we had GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE the decision to invade was REASONABLE AND DEFENSIBLE.
BUT to argue that even if we did know all of the above, we would still have had good reason to invade (when we did in the way that we did) is really just plain folly. He should stick to the reasonableness of the decision in light of what we did know and had reason to believe, not try to say that the new information would not have caused him to change his mind. Makes him look stubborn and pig-headed rather than wise and prudent.
I know some freepers will probably flame me for this (I mostly have been lurking on this board because there is so much flaming and I have, I have to admit, low tolerance for that). But so be it.
We will deal with Iran in due course - and our positions in Iraq and Afghanistan will help us to do that. We've got Iran surrounded.
Enough WMD were found in Jordan 2 months ago that were ready to kill 80,000 if the plot wasn't foiled. Where do you think they came from? And through which countries?
Down on the farm today:
I'm not too worried.
kerry seems to have the idea that the only country on the board game of Risk is france.....
Try to play the game of RISK (BUT FOR REAL)once, using ONLY france, and play DEFENSIVELY.....
I'm not too worried.
Are you suggesting that Iraq shipped its WMD to Jordan? So you're not conceding the premiss, I guess, of Bush's question.
Bush concedes that we haven't found any WMD. Says we should have STILL gone into Iraq because Saddam "had the capacity to develop them."
Do you buy that as a rationale? Do you think anybody still undecided about the election would buy that as a rationale?
Again, the decision to invade can be defended as reasonable and prudent GIVEN what we THEN KNEW and THEN HAD REASON TO BELIEVE.
I don't think with OUR CURRENT KNOWLEDGE anyone but a pig-headed fool would say, "OKAY, LET"s INVADE IRAQ."
I think Bush makes himself look stubborn, defensive, inflexible, by insisting otherwise. Sorry.
The REAL QUESTION NOW. Is WHAT DO WE DO GOING FORWARD.
Why raise any other question?
Not too worried about what? About Kerry looking presidential? Neither am I.
About Bush snatching defeat from the jaws of victory? I am and think you should be.
Again, the only question that matters about Iraq NOW and the one that Bush should challenge Kerry on is "What do we do now?" The question, "should we have gone if we knew then what we know now?" is open to a thousand different answers. Well, maybe not a thousand. but it can be debated in so many ways. Really only somebody with an axe to grind, would insist that given everything we now know we should still defintelhy have invaded is well, pretty unimaginative, shortsighted or something. I sincerely think it magnifies Bush's weaknesses to focus on that question for even an instant.
"Really only somebody with an axe to grind, would insist that given everything we now know we should still defintelhy have invaded is well, pretty unimaginative, shortsighted or something"
This naive conclusion, based on no data and no rational thought process is well, pretty obtuse, uninformed or something.
Knowing what we know now, I don't think the reasonable answer would be yes. Knowing what we knew then, a case could be made which Bush made of going to war. The only question that is creating so much controversy, is did he honestly believe or did he embellish the threat to get public support for the war?
Concise and definitive answers prepared for JFK yesterday by Darkwolf377:
1. "Yes, I wouldn't have with no hesitation."
2. "No, I might very well definitely invade Iraq, unilaterally but only with the help of France and a coalition would I under no circumstances invade Iraq."
3. "Maybe, but only if I didn't first, and then I absolutely would. You goon."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.