Is John Kerry Fit to be President?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually, those were cyclosarin gas warheads the Polish troops found. So far no indication as to their age, but quite a few warheads have been turning up recently.

Another story that's received little media attention is the one involving weapons parts with Iraqi labels showing up in scrapyards in Europe and the Far East.

The weapons were either there, and Saddam moved them into the desert or into Syria or, as another theory suggests, his commanders led him to believe that the Iraqi army possessed more chemical weapons than they actually did.

Let's suppose that in 1990 I took some shots at my neighbor's house. The cops come after me, I get busted, and one of the conditions of my probation is that I get rid of my guns. I tell the cops to stuff it. Over the next thirteen years I tell my neighbors that I have more guns. When the cops cruise by the house, I take shots at them. By 2003, everyone--from neighbors to mayors to prosecutors--tells the police that I've been acquiring more guns illegally.

So, the cops decide to raid the house.

Justified?
 
John Kerry, if left to his own devices, is qualified to turn this country into it's own worst nightmare.
Listen to your own common sense.
Bush ain't perfect, God knows, but Kerry's a scoundrel and nobody else has a chance.
 
Let's suppose that in 1990 I took some shots at my neighbor's house. The cops come after me, I get busted, and one of the conditions of my probation is that I get rid of my guns. I tell the cops to stuff it. Over the next thirteen years I tell my neighbors that I have more guns. When the cops cruise by the house, I take shots at them. By 2003, everyone--from neighbors to mayors to prosecutors--tells the police that I've been acquiring more guns illegally.

So, the cops decide to raid the house.

Justified?
Actually, if you took shots at your neighbors house, in most places that's a felony, and your guns would have been taken away. Taking shots at the cops would have gotten you arrested on the spot.

"Justified?"

You bet your ass!
 
Thanks for agreeing with my analogy, Al. Now imagine that certain groups want to "nail" the cops for going after me after I've committed those offenses. Let's say that they claim the cops were lying about the guns, or that the mayor was lying, or somebody else was lying.

In essence, that's what we have with GW right now. For thirteen years the global community said Saddam was a threat, that he had WMD's, was working on more, and was willing to use them again. France said it, the UN said it, President Clinton said it, Al Gore said it, the CIA said it, John Kerry said it, Germany said it...everybody said it. Now, it's boiled down to a stupid bumper-sticker slogan: Bush lied.

What's even worse about the critics of GW is that they're ignoring every other reason he presented as reason to go into Iraq. He said it would be a tough battle, and it is. He said the fight on terror would take place all over the world, and it has and will be. He said that Hussein was one of the most murderous thugs in recent history, and we're now witnessing the extent of his regime's brutality.

In 1933, the population of Germany was about 67 million people. Iraq's population is about 25 million. Hussein murdered over one million of his own countrymen in the last 15 or so years. Hitler killed many more than one million.

So, does Hussein get a pass for being somewhat less of a thug than Hitler? That's what I hear from my liberal, anti-war neighbors (and I'm not including you in that category, by the way, since I don't even know your positions on the issue).

There were so many reasons to go after Hussein--strategic, defensive, humanitarian, economic--that the "Bush Lied" crowd look like fools.
 
Hey Atomos_Wizard
here is your hero, Mr. Honesty and Integrity, Mr. More Moral than George Bush:

"Now, let's imagine the future. What if he [Saddam] fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, I guarantee you, he will use the arsenal†- Bill Clinton, Meet the Press, February 17, 1998 ."
 
I'm just guessing here, but it could have been for the same reason that you would object to the BATFE inspecting your home for illegal NFA weapons. Just an idea.

Well, if I had a record of possessing and attempting to aquire new illegal NFA weapons, had killed a few thousand of my neighbors with my illegal NFA weapons, had invaded the next subdivision so I could have a bigger swimming pool, had ties with organized crime figures, and contrinued in these activities after being arrested and paroled, and had agreed that I would allow the inspections as part of my parole, then yes, I would expect BATFE to show up to search for illegal NFA weapons in my house.
 
He had daddy get him into a convenient Air Guard unit flying planes that could SPECIFICALLY not be used for any reasonable purpose in Vietnam (the Delta series were bomber interceptors - NVA's didn't have many strategic bombers).

The B-52 was designed to deliver nuclear weapons to the Soviet Union, yet it dropped tons of dumb bombs on the Ho Chi Minh trail.

The F-4 Phantom was a high-speed interceptor, yet it was used as a bomber and to provide air support to the ground troops.

So just because the F-104 was designed to be a bomber interceptor, doesn't mean that it's couldn't have been used in Vietnam in a different capacity

The fact that you refer to President Bush's father as his "daddy" only highlights your bias.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top