isomer Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 just a cut from Vice President Dick Chaney Source It was an awsome speech... Kerry needs a vacation after this one :D In one of Senator Kerry's recent observations about foreign policy, he informed his listeners that his ideas have gained strong support, at least among unnamed foreigners he's been spending time with. (Laughter.) Senator Kerry said that he has met with foreign leaders, and I quote, " who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that." End quote. A few days ago in Pennsylvania, a voter asked Senator Kerry directly who these foreign leaders are. Senator Kerry said, "That's none of your business." (Laughter.) But it is our business when a candidate for President claims the political endorsement of foreign leaders. At the very least, we have a right to know what he is saying to foreign leaders that makes them so supportive of his candidacy. American voters are the ones charged with determining the outcome of this election - not unnamed foreign leaders. (Applause.) Senator Kerry's voting record on national security raises some important questions all by itself. Let's begin with the matter of how Iraq and Saddam Hussein should have been dealt with. Senator Kerry was in the minority of senators who voted against the Persian Gulf War in 1991. At the time, he expressed the view that our international coalition consisted of " shadow battlefield allies who barely carry a burden." Last year, as we prepared to liberate Iraq, he recalled the Persian Gulf coalition a little differently. He said it was a "strong coalition," and a model to be followed. Six years after the Gulf War, in 1997, Saddam Hussein was still defying the terms of the cease-fire. And as President Bill Clinton considered military action against Iraq, he found a true believer in John Kerry. The Senator from Massachusetts said, quote, "Should the resolve of our allies wane, the United States must not lose its resolve to take action." He further warned that if Saddam Hussein were not held to account for violation of U.N. resolutions, some future conflict would have " greater consequence." In 1998, Senator Kerry indicated his support for regime change, with ground troops if necessary. And, of course, when Congress voted in October of 2002, Senator Kerry voted to authorize military action if Saddam refused to comply with U.N. demands. A neutral observer, looking at these elements of Senator Kerry's record, would assume that Senator Kerry supported military action against Saddam Hussein. The Senator himself now tells us otherwise. In January he was asked on TV if he was, quote, "one of the anti-war candidates." He replied, "I am." He now says he was voting only to, quote, "threaten the use of force," not actually to use force. Even if we set aside these inconsistencies and changing rationales, at least this much is clear: Had the decision belonged to Senator Kerry, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, today, in Iraq. In fact, Saddam Hussein would almost certainly still be in control of Kuwait. (Laughter.) Senator Kerry speaks often about the need for international cooperation, and has vowed to usher in a "golden age of American diplomacy." He is fond of mentioning that some countries did not support America's actions in Iraq. Yet of the many nations that have joined our coalition - allies and friends of the United States - Senator Kerry speaks with open contempt. Great Britain, Australia, Italy, Spain, Poland, and more than 20 other nations have contributed and sacrificed for the freedom of the Iraqi people. Senator Kerry calls these countries, quote, "window dressing." They are, in his words, "a coalition of the coerced and the bribed." Many questions come to mind, but the first is this: How would Senator Kerry describe Great Britain - coerced, or bribed? Or Italy - which recently lost 19 citizens, killed by terrorists in Najaf - was Italy's contribution just window dressing? If such dismissive terms are the vernacular of the golden age of diplomacy Senator Kerry promises, we are left to wonder which nations would care to join any future coalition. He speaks as if only those who openly oppose America's objectives have a chance of earning his respect. Senator Kerry's characterization of our good allies is ungrateful to nations that have withstood danger, hardship, and insult for standing with America in the cause of freedom. Senator Kerry has also had a few things to say about support for our troops now on the ground in Iraq. Among other criticisms, he has asserted that those troops are not receiving the materiel support they need. Just this morning, he again gave the example of body armor, which he said our administration failed to supply. May I remind the Senator that last November, at the President's request, Congress passed an $87 billion supplemental appropriation. This legislation was essential to our ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan - providing funding for body armor and other vital equipment; hazard pay; health benefits; ammunition; fuel, and spare parts for our military. The legislation passed overwhelmingly, with a vote in the Senate of 87 to 12. Senator Kerry voted no. I note that yesterday, attempting to clarify the matter, Senator Kerry said, quote,"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." (Laughter.) It's a true fact. (Laughter.) On national security, the Senator has shown at least one measure of consistency. Over the years, he has repeatedly voted against weapons systems for the military. He voted against the Apache helicopter, against the Tomahawk cruise missile, against even the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. He has also been a reliable vote against military pay increases - opposing them no fewer than 12 times. Many of these very weapons systems have been used by our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are proving to be valuable assets in the war on terror. In his defense, of course, Senator Kerry has questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all. Recently he said, and I quote, "I don't want to use that terminology." In his view, opposing terrorism is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering, law enforcement operation. As we have seen, however, that approach was tried before, and proved entirely inadequate to protecting the American people from the terrorists who are quite certain they are at war with us - and are comfortable using that terminology. I leave it for Senator Kerry to explain, or explain away his votes and his statements about the war on terror, our cause in Iraq, the allies who serve with us, and the needs of our military. Whatever the explanation, whatever nuances he might fault us for neglecting, it is not an impressive record for someone who aspires to become Commander-in-Chief in this time of testing for our country. In his years in Washington, Senator Kerry has been one vote of a hundred in the United States Senate - and fortunately on matters of national security, he was very often in the minority. But the presidency is an entirely different proposition. The President always casts the deciding vote. And the Senator from Massachusetts has given us ample doubts about his judgment and the attitude he brings to bear on vital issues of national security. The American people will have a clear choice in the election of 2004, at least as clear as any since the election of 1984. In more than three years as President, George W. Bush has built a national security record of his own. America has come to know the President after one of the worst days in our history. He saw America through tragedy. He has kept the nation's enemies in desperate flight, and under his leadership, our country has once again led the armies of liberation, freeing 50 million souls from tyranny, and making our nation and the world more secure. (Applause.) All Americans, regardless of political party, can be proud of what our nation has achieved in this historic time, when so many depended on us, and all the world was watching. And I have been very proud to work with a President who - like other Presidents we have known - has shown, in his own conduct, the optimism, and strength, and decency of the great nation he serves. Thank you very much. (Applause.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valkyre Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valkyre Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 I forgot how incredibly stupid that icon is. :| looks nothing like that icon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuka_t Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 ^^^????? are you posting in the right thread? wtf r u talking aout? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBeeeenster Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 Do you think lying about the invasion of a country and making a vote in the Senate are equivalent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotix Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 Well ummm Cheney on NBC's Meet The Press, 8/27/00:MR. RUSSERT: Do you regret not taking Saddam out nine years ago? MR. CHENEY: I don't, Tim. It was--and it's been talked about since then. But the fact of the matter is, the only way you could have done that would be to go to Baghdad and occupy Iraq. If we'd done that, the U.S. would have been all alone. We would not have had the support of the coalition, especially of the Arab nations that fought alongside us in Kuwait. None of them ever set foot inside Iraq. Conversations I had with leaders in the region afterwards--they all supported the decision that was made not to go to Baghdad. They were concerned that we not get into a position where we shifted instead of being the leader of an international coalition to roll back Iraqi aggression to one in which we were an imperialist power, willy-nilly moving into capitals in that part of the world taking down governments. I only wish Cheney was being sincere here, because I held a similar position. http://blog.johnkerry.com/dbunker/archives/001399.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liebe Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 everyone on the right continues their one and only argument that Kerry is indecisive. so hes actually thinking about issues, as opposed to carrying out a pre-planned agenda. the war in iraq isnt in response to 9/11 and it isnt about the freedom of the iraqi people. the administration was planning to go back to iraq as soon as bush took office. in addition every war we have fought that has been about "freedom" had another agenda, its always been a way to justify war with the compassionate american people. this is NO different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 are the idiots who nitpick though this crap the only ones who DONT KNOW that the senate is about compromising... :whistle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Veteran Posted March 18, 2004 Veteran Share Posted March 18, 2004 everyone on the right continues their one and only argument that Kerry is indecisive. so hes actually thinking about issues, as opposed to carrying out a pre-planned agenda. the war in iraq isnt in response to 9/11 and it isnt about the freedom of the iraqi people. the administration was planning to go back to iraq as soon as bush took office. in addition every war we have fought that has been about "freedom" had another agenda, its always been a way to justify war with the compassionate american people. this is NO different. Not his indecisiveness like you are saying, but his uncanny ability to do or say one thing and then a year later claim that he has the exact oppposite view point. The admin was not planning on going back as soon as GW took office, even Clinton had a contingency plan on Iraq - it is smart policy and I am sure we have plans for a half dozen other nations as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PseudoRandomDragon Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 It isn't owned unless it is on video and it isn't 0wn3d unless you are talking about computers. Wht u @11 $cRpt Kidd3Z n0W? U tik uR A|| 1337? Gimm3 @ brE@k! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isomer Posted March 18, 2004 Author Share Posted March 18, 2004 are the idiots who nitpick though this crap the only ones who DONT KNOW that the senate is about compromising... :whistle: :drool: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." -- John F Kerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isomer Posted March 18, 2004 Author Share Posted March 18, 2004 Do you think lying about the invasion of a country and making a vote in the Senate are equivalent? "Do you think lying about the invasion of a country..." This line is getting old... maybe you need a break too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
threetonesun Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 On national security, the Senator has shown at least one measure of consistency. Over the years, he has repeatedly voted against weapons systems for the military. He voted against the Apache helicopter, against the Tomahawk cruise missile, against even the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. He has also been a reliable vote against military pay increases - opposing them no fewer than 12 times. That's all I need to hear for him to get my vote. I believe the $87 billion quote was taken completely out of context, anyone would want to support our troops in a foriegn country, but no one needs to spend that much money on them when they don't belong there in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aemon Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 I'll be the last one to boost Kerry but in fairness (something I really believe in) here is the full story on the $87 billion dollar vote. "I actually did vote for his $87 billion, before I voted against it," he told a group of veterans at a noontime appearance at Marshall University. He went on to explain that he preliminarily backed the request, so long as it was financed not by deficit spending but with a tax surcharge on the wealthy that Bush opposed. source: By John F. Harris Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, March 17, 2004; Page A09 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isomer Posted March 18, 2004 Author Share Posted March 18, 2004 That's all I need to hear for him to get my vote. I believe the $87 billion quote was taken completely out of context, anyone would want to support our troops in a foriegn country, but no one needs to spend that much money on them when they don't belong there in the first place. "I believe the $87 billion quote was taken completely out of context, anyone would want to support our troops in a foriegn country, but no one needs to spend that much money on them when they don't belong there in the first place." oh good thats all i needed to hear. way to go chum :whistle: "quote was taken completely out of context" RrrrIGHT! HE DID vote against it... now he is saying that he also voted for it...flip flop... he wants it both ways... cant happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
threetonesun Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 "I believe the $87 billion quote was taken completely out of context, anyone would want to support our troops in a foriegn country, but no one needs to spend that much money on them when they don't belong there in the first place."oh good thats all i needed to hear. way to go chum :whistle: "quote was taken completely out of context" RrrrIGHT! HE DID vote against it... now he is saying that he also voted for it...flip flop... he wants it both ways... cant happen Did you notice what ixsis posted? Do you have any idea how mainstream media uses pull quotes? Can someone not vote for a bill on theory but not support it in practice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isomer Posted March 18, 2004 Author Share Posted March 18, 2004 Did you notice what ixsis posted? Do you have any idea how mainstream media uses pull quotes? Can someone not vote for a bill on theory but not support it in practice? I was watching the "mainstream" media none of them focuse on Kerrys flip flops.... "Can someone not vote for a bill on theory but not support it in practice?" NO. It was an attempt to have it both ways... sorry Kerry its not gona work. You cant be a senator say you voted against something and then go to your voters and say "well I really did support it" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isomer Posted March 18, 2004 Author Share Posted March 18, 2004 So... no one will defend Kerry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
threetonesun Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 I was watching the "mainstream" media none of them focuse on Kerrys flip flops...."Can someone not vote for a bill on theory but not support it in practice?" NO. It was an attempt to have it both ways... sorry Kerry its not gona work. You cant be a senator say you voted against something and then go to your voters and say "well I really did support it" Why not? It was a matter of funding for the project. Say I support my town building a new school, but only if the funds are appropriated from first developing new commercial districts and taxing the business and not the town's citizens. If a vote comes up to build a new school that will also raise tax rates for the citizens, why would I vote yes for it? Does that make sense to you? I still support the school, but I could still vote no for having it built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Veteran Posted March 18, 2004 Veteran Share Posted March 18, 2004 Why not? It was a matter of funding for the project. Say I support my town building a new school, but only if the funds are appropriated from first developing new commercial districts and taxing the business and not the town's citizens. If a vote comes up to build a new school that will also raise tax rates for the citizens, why would I vote yes for it? Does that make sense to you? I still support the school, but I could still vote no for having it built. But if you voted on a mandate to build, thus commiting your governement to its construction, then voted against funding that project (that you supported) that would be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isomer Posted March 18, 2004 Author Share Posted March 18, 2004 Why not? It was a matter of funding for the project. Say I support my town building a new school, but only if the funds are appropriated from first developing new commercial districts and taxing the business and not the town's citizens. If a vote comes up to build a new school that will also raise tax rates for the citizens, why would I vote yes for it? Does that make sense to you? I still support the school, but I could still vote no for having it built. i cant believe it, its like we are discussing the meaning of the word "is" Face the guy got cought in a blunder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
threetonesun Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 But if you voted on a mandate to build, thus commiting your governement to its construction, then voted against funding that project (that you supported) that would be wrong. Depends, again, where the funding comes from. Plus, you have to realize that very often it's more important to vote for your party to get an initial bill passed then to try and go over the details. Face the guy got cought in a blunder. Either way, it's a non issue for me, if the Republicans want to make a big deal out if it that's fine, I believe I could pull up some quotes about WoMD in Iraq, but what's the point. I don't think anyone here is exactly on the fence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destian Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 But if you voted on a mandate to build, thus commiting your governement to its construction, then voted against funding that project (that you supported) that would be wrong. Against better judgement I am going to risk continuing this analogy. :p However, if another "branch" of you government assured you that the new school was needed because hundreds of children currently had no where to go (new school emergency!), but you later found out that said branch was lying in order to get the new school built despite the fact that in reality, there was actually a rather large surplus of room within the other schools and that in fact not one single child has "no where to go" to school, and therefor there was no clear need for the school to be built in the first place, then it would not really be wrong to vote down a funding plan that you did not agree with or to write an incredibly long run-on sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuka_t Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 So... no one will defend Kerry? people dont stay up around the clock supporting their favourite presidential candidate. people have jobs and some are in different timezones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isomer Posted March 19, 2004 Author Share Posted March 19, 2004 people dont stay up around the clock supporting their favourite presidential candidate. people have jobs and some are in different timezones. true... you would have thought Kerrys people (ie campaign) would have made some kind of effort by now :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts