Posted on 09/29/2004 8:00:45 AM PDT by finnman69
GMA
John Kerry was apparently on Good Morning America and The Note snippets this baffling exchange:
DIANE SAWYER: Was the war in Iraq worth it?
JOHN KERRY: We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today.
DS: So it was not worth it.
JK: We should not — it depends on the outcome ultimately — and that depends on the leadership. And we need better leadership to get the job done successfully, but I would not have gone to war knowing that there was no imminent threat — there were no weapons of mass destruction — there was no connection of Al Qaeda — to Saddam Hussein! The president misled the American people — plain and simple. Bottom line.
DS: So if it turns out okay, it was worth it?
JK: No.
DS: But right now it wasn't?p>
JK: It was a mistake to do what he did, but we have to succeed now that we've done what he's — I mean look — we have to succeed. But was it worth — as you asked the question — $200 billion and taking the focus off of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? That's the question. The test of the presidency was whether or not you should have gone to war to get rid of him. I think, had the inspectors continued, had we done other things — there were plenty of ways to keep the pressure on Saddam Hussein.
DS: But no way to get rid of him.
JK: Oh, sure there were. Oh, yes there were. Absolutely.
DS: So you're saying that today, even if Saddam Hussein were in power today it would be a better thing — you would prefer that . . .
JK: No, I would not prefer that. And Diane — don't twist here. Notice how Kerry loses his cool and accuses the questioner of twisting; Is this guy thin-skinned or what?
In tomorrow's debate, Kerry will benefit from lowered expectations because his image among voters is something of a caricature right now. But he still has to do better than he did on GMA. You can bet President Bush has a list of zingers that he will deploy if Kerry gives him an opening.
Appropriate Zell quote: "From John Kerry they get a yes, no, Bowl-a-Mush!!!"
Buh-Bye, SenaDuh!!
His wife's inane outbursts aren't helping either. Kerry's inability to control pesky Terayza might be having more of a negative effect than previously noted. After all if Kerry can't keep his wife in check how's he going to manage the government behemoth, and world events? Then there's all those pesky policy-making decisions.
The debates will showcase a self-assured, straight- shooting president who loves America, up against a long-windedm, syntax-challenged Kerry, trying to mimic a museum-piece Roman orator, Cicero, whom Kerry studied as a debating student, and tries to emulate in his campaign speeches.
Kerry is a bully. He's arrogant and won't hesitate to attack, transfer blame to his opponent or the questioner if he doesn't have an answer to the question...which he won't.
Kerry is an empty suit, no doubt about it. The hollow ones though are those who push his candidacy.
Today, he apparently told Diane Sawyer that the reason that he said, "I actually voted for the 87b, before I voted against it" was because it was late in the evening, he was tired, and didn't articulate as well as he should have. The only problem with his statement to Sawyer was that it was a bald-faced lie. He was not tired, it was not late in the evening when he talked about his 87b vote. It was at a luncheon.
Quite obviously, Diane Sawyer and ABC are OK with being lied to by Kerry!!!!
Rush said Sawyer held up a pic of Kerry windsurfing and one where GW is hauling brush he's just cut at the ranch. Sawyer suggested that these pics are hurting Kerry's image. Kerry got snippy and said he cut brush, too, but doesn't happen to have any pics handy. Also said what he did with his time off was his own business and he windsurfs with regular guys, carpenters, electricians. Mr. Arrogance personified. As Rush said, there weren't any pics of Kerry falling down on skis, either.
John Kerry thinks agent Orange works for the CIA and talks to his shoe.
If I had known last Friday that Saturday's winning Powerball numbers would be 11-25-40-41-48 with the Powerball number 3, I would have played those numbers and won millions and millions of dollars.
If I had known.... etc.
This guy Kerry is scary stupid.
What I did not ping you to is that there is no doubt, even in the 9/11 Commission's mind, that he is an Iraqi national. The Commission did not have more information than this, but thought that Stephen Haynes fleshed out his identity quite well.
(NOTICE: The 9/11 Commission Report released July 22 contradicts the speculation about Shakir's identity. Buried in Footnote 49 of Ch. 6:
Commission Report: Mihdhar was met at the Kuala Lumpur airport by Ahmad Hikmat Shakir, an Iraqi national. Reports that he was a lieutenant colonel in the Iraqi Fedayeen have turned out to be incorrect. They were based on a confusion of Shakir's identity with that of an Iraqi Fedayeen colonel with a similar name, who was later (in September 2001) in Iraq at the same time Shakir was in police custody in Qatar.)
Kerry's continuing lies that there are no Iraq/Al Qaeda connections just shows us all how infrequently he attended Senate Intelligence Committee meetings.
There was a thread some time back where he admitted he had not even read an intelligence report; I think it was before his vote FOR the war.
So angry. Hundreds of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda and the best you can come up with is that rather than being a Fedayeen Shakir is "only" an Iraqi national (of some note according to other investigative reporters) who attended a 9/11 planning meeting.
Why, yes, Hawkeye.
Allow me to demonstrate.
The "other things" means "plenty of ways".
The "plenty of ways" means "other things".
Did that clear it up for you?
FnKerry's original discharge status?"
I've heard something about this before - that his "honorable" discharge was dated in the 90's? (years after he was out)
One of Clinton's many pardons?
Is there anything traceable on this?
Ahhhhhh!!!! Now I see!!! Well, in that case, maybe I'll have to vote FOR Kerry before I vote AGAINST him! :-)
Lot's of rumors, indirect evidence, but nothing to nail him with. I'm betting on my Swift Vets to come through on this before long! I hope so. This is why he will not sign form 180 and release ALL his military records. And the MSM isn't pressing him on why he will not sign the release form.
I am NOT claiming that the entirety of you cut-and-paste job is false. I have contested individual parts of it because I, unlike you, actually have some interest in the truth. In this instance, I contested one of your statements - which is false. The fact that I haven't contested other statements, or that others may be true, does not make this one any less false. And it doesn't make you any less mendacious because you have posted true statements along with your falsehoods.
Second, as we've discussed before - if you think his nationality is significant evidence that the Iraqi government was involved in 9-11 planning, perhaps you need to reconsider your attitude towards Saudi Arabia. And maybe Egypt, as well.
Third - No, I am not angry, but I will call a lie a lie, and a liar a liar. You have a complete lack of honesty t your primary tactic with me is to ascribe some statement to me that I did not make and then run around whooping like an idiot.
Fourth, your post begs the question - if you are up to your neck in your hundreds of links, why are you so compelled to continue making statements about those links that you KNOW have been discredited? What does that say about the quality of the rest of them?
I've watched you operate around here for a while.
You ask a question. It gets answered. THen you ask another question and pretend the first question never got answered.
It goes on and on and you never stop. You are like a little pit bull. Are you James Carville? He operates like this.
And yes, I do believe the fact that at least one Iraqi national was at a pre-planning meeting for 9/11 is significant. That you don't seem to think it is important speaks volumes.
And you have no idea about my attitude with regard to Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
Just as you have no idea about a lot of things. Now run along and post to someone else who cares. You continuous stalking from thread to thread is unattractive.
I'm sorry Peach, I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Where is the portion of the 9/11 report that states that even an Iraqi national was, indeed, at a 9/11 planning meeting? I simply have not see that text.
I think that the links between Iraq and al-qaeda are multitudinous. (***OBVIOUS NOTE: I did not say anything about 9/11 in the previous sentence***)
I simply have not seen any credible evidence that Iraq knew about or participated in ANY way with the actual 9/11 attacks. If there is such evidence, that would be one hell of an October surprise (if it wasn't easily brushed aside because it was not vetted).
Having said that... I still don't think anyone in the administration has justified our action in Iraq as a direct retaliation for 9/11... in fact, they have made clear that they are not aware of any such link.
How significant is it to you that Pakistanis sat in on 9/11 planning meetings? How significant is it to you that they paid for the attack? You defend Pakistan every chance you get.
I'll tell you what I DO know about your attitude about Saudi Arabia and Egypt. You don't spend a portion of your day every day trying to justify military action against them, as you do with Iraq. And their nationals did a lot more than attend a meeting.
Hey, here's one for you. An AMERICAN sat in on a planning meeting for a dirty bomb attack. Does that mean the USA is in league with Al Qaeda?
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.