[RayChuang88]

There was one major gaffe that only former NYC Mayor Rudi Guiliani picked up on when he talked with FNC's Chris Wallace right after the debate ended: Senator Kerry at the beginning of the debate said that Saddam Hussein was not a threat--and ended the debate saying that Hussein was a threat.

Believe me, Hussein was a threat, because his terrorist connections mean that the technology to make poison gases and biological agents the Iraqi military got could have been passed to various Islamic terrorist groups. Given how that Japanese religious cult made Sarin nerve gas from a homemade still, the better-funded al-Qaeda terrorists could have set up small chemical plants to make poison gases on a fairly large scale.

[Pikamax]

When the night is over and everyone actually looks at what Kerry said and he said a boatload of idiocy, You will see a change. But the MSM will be full bore for Kerry. That must be fought.

[grey_whiskers]

Senator Kerry at the beginning of the debate said that Saddam Hussein was not a threat--and ended the debate saying that Hussein was a threat.

"I actually said he wasn't a threat before I agreed he was."
But by then, he wasn't because we'd captured him.

Remember the line? "President Bush sends his greetings."

[for-q-clinton]

There was one major gaffe that only former NYC Mayor Rudi Guiliani picked up on when he talked with FNC's Chris Wallace right after the debate ended: Senator Kerry at the beginning of the debate said that Saddam Hussein was not a threat--and ended the debate saying that Hussein was a threat.

Where is this? I searched the transcript on fox and couldn't find it and I rewatched parts of the debate? I would love to have the actual lines so I can cut them out of the video and splice them back to back. with a stop watch showing how long it was before he flip-flopped.

[mass55th]

There are many reasons why Saddam was a threat: his invasion of a neighboring country, his repeated ignoring of U.N. resolutions, his continual firing on our reconnaissance jets, his use of gas on his own people, the mass graves, violation of human rights, capability of biological and nuclear programs, supporting/financing terrorist activities, harboring known terrorist groups, are just some of them.

Kerry states that if left alone, Saddam could have been controlled by sanctions and inspections. We know that is false because that's exactly what had been done for 14 years and he wasn't getting weaker as Kerry claims, he was getting stronger. In fact, if Mr. Kerry wants an example of how Saddam was getting stronger, all one has to do is look at the U.N. Oil for Food Program, and how Saddam was able to manipulate the program, the U.N. and the rest of the world, and also managed to put 10.1 billion dollars in his own pocket. Now, is that the action of a weakened leader? Of course not. And as we've seen, the U.N. was a willing accomplice in this criminal activity.

It wasn't until we liberated Iraq and the rise of free newspapers there, that the story of the Oil for Food scandal finally saw the light of day. Had we sat back and allowed things to be status quo as John Kerry suggests, Saddam would still be bilking the system, and his nuclear and biological weapons programs would probably have been reconstituted. Tonight Kerry said that if President Bush is reelected, we could expect more of the same in Iraq. But if John Kerry had his way, Saddam would still be in power, he'd still be playing cat and mouse games with weapons inspectors, he still be nurturing terrorists, thousands more Iraqis would be ordered murdered, and Saddam would be laughing at the world all the way to the bank.

[victim soul]

Wasn't Sadam giving the families of Palestinian suicide bombers money?

Is that aiding and abetting terrorists?

Is one person a weapon of mass destruction if they have evil in their hearts and a bomb strapped to their body in a crowded area of innocent people?

[Selkie]

I love Rudy