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.
Most well-aged, multiple-digested garbage is grey.
You must work for the Pakistani government.
7 posted on 08/20/2004 2:10:29 PM EDT by lugsoul (Until at last I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside.)
And I guess you just chose to overlook the fact that the comment was directed at your vehement defense of the Islamists in the Pakistani government. That's okay. Overlooking facts is one of your strong suits.
And you are overlooking the fact that you denied calling me a Pakistani operative. Liar. Obsessive. Pathetic really.
I guess you could have a point if you assume (a) that it was anything more than a snide remark and (b) everyone who works of the Pakistani government is a "Pakistani operative." Kind of like your assumption that everyone who is an "Iraqi national" is a "high-ranking Fedayeen officer."
Your ongoing whining about my response to your repeated untrue post is really silly, when all you would have to do to end it is stop posting something you know to be untrue as "fact." If you had any concern about whether what you posted is true or not, you would.
If you could only read....
But you can't so you'll keep posting your silly little mantra.
And you will see that this morning, on another thread, I changed that little tidbit from Fedayeen to Iraqi national and possibly intelligence officer. Well, you'd see it if you could read it but since you've shown you don't have comprehension skills...
I don't she will stay with him because his value as a "trophy husband" will be 0. He is nothing more than another Von Bulow.
So, now after being called on your lie on multiple occasions, you have changed it. I was correct. You were wrong. All the name calling you can muster won't change that simple fact.
All the name calling won't change the fact that if you think I was going to take your word for it (a documented liar) when you didn't provide any links, you're nuts.
LOL. The facts you were misrepresenting were right there in the source you were citing. If you need someone to link you to your own source, then you are beyond help.
Which source/link was that? So many links, so little time...
It really is a shame that you don't have time to be concerned about whether what you are posting repeatedly has any basis in fact.
And it's really a shame that you can't point to a link that supposedly doesn't say what my synopsis says it said.
The 9-11 Report. Which you cite repeatedly. You know what it says about Shakir. You just purposefully ignored it and tried to misrepresent the facts.
Kerry Screws The Pooch!
Which part of #389 don't you understand?
So, you are now claiming again that you need a link to your own source? What a joke.
"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."
Sounds like John (the F stands for Fonda) sKerry dropped all of his mental cue cards while trying to talk! (I wonder if there was an audible crash that came from John's head?! 8^D
Man, if he can't handle questions comig from Diane Sawer then he's toast!
Oh, you mean that tiny little footnote that you never previously linked but another freeper on this thread did?
Yes. That's really criminal not to read every footnote. LOL
And the distinction is he was an Iraqi operative vs. Fedayeen. And Jordanian intel still thinks he's Iraqi intel. My. My. My. Well there goes my credibility.
Exactly. Kerry makes Clinton look like a straight shooter.
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.