The new Bush-Kerry debate: Right war, wrong war

Dear Mr. John Kerry, you are preaching to the choir, dawg. Everybody in American and the rest of the world know the story of Bush/Cheney lies. Quit tormenting yourself, the story will continue to change. Al Qaeda in Iraq is the song Bushites will be singing for a while. Al Qaeda in Iran will be the next song. So stay tuned.

Johnny Boy,

You lost the debate 3 yrs ago, you losing it again.

With the knwoledge we had in March, 2003, it was the right war.

Can someone please send Kerry back to his mansion in Switzerland so we don't
have to listen to his monotone ramblings?

Kerry may have lost the 2004 election, but Bush is losing the war...badly. He's losing it so badly that he's resorting to more lies.

Kerry lost in '04, but the not funny joke's on us and the troops.

Ahhhhh,
These poor pitiful democrats...word is coming back that the surge is working,so they'll try anything to lose this war.
I think they forgot their failed political democratic war called,Viet Nam where over FIFTY THOUSAND lost their lives for NOTHING.
And now we're winning,trying to stabilize and bring democracy to a country and they want to lose for political gain.
What a bunch of LOSERS!

Paulo

"With the knowledge we had in March, 2003, it was the right war"

And the knowledge we have now?

Bush/Cheney lies?

Look at what Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said in 2002:

'Saddam certainly has chemical and biological weapons' - Nancy Pelosi,November 17,2002

You can see a video of Pelosi and other leading Democrats saying Saddam has WMD in this video at YOUTUBE.COM:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePb6H-j51xE

Looks like the Democrats are the ones telling 'lies'.

...word is coming back that the surge is working,so they'll try anything to lose this war.
Paulo

Yes, you're right. That's what's being said. Unfortunatly it's being said by the same people that told us about the WMDs, being greeted as liberators, "final throws", etc.
Those poor pitiful republicans...they still believe anything they hear from this administration. They'll try anything to put a good face on this massive gaff.
Also, you'll have to take a stand on way or another about Vietnam. Most republicans blame the democratic party for getting us into the "conflict" (remember, it was never classified as a war by any administration), now you want to blame them for declaring it for what it was. Oh yeah, we saved southeast asia from the spread of communism. At least that was what we were fighting for there. That global scourge of communism. We were fighting them there so we whouldn't have to fight it here. Remember? SOund familiar?
Republicans, what a bunch of short memoried, short sighted, gullible nabobs.

So, anyone hear how the Iraqi Government political solution surge is going?

Check back in September?

Uh, ok.

Looks like the Democrats are the ones telling 'lies'.

Posted by: bones9 | July 25, 2007 4:27 AM

Bones9-

Something important happened between Pelosi's statement and Bush's decision to go to war, do you know what it was? I'll give you a hint...UNMOVIC. Still nothing?

The UN inspectors were allowed back into Iraq between the two events. They were finding no evidence of active weapons programs. They begged for more time to comlete thier investigations. Bush refused to listen, and went to war. UNMOVIC was right, Bush was wrong.

Actually, folks a recent poll (and why am I NOT surprised that it ISN'T covered in the Swamp?) showed more Americans in July than in June said going into Iraq was the right thing to do. In June 26 percent said it was the right thing to do. In July 36 percent said it was the right thing to do. Soon, more than half the folks will ONCE AGAIN say it was the right thing to do.

Kerry is a liar, going way back to his made up stories about Cambodia. And an idiot.

Like most Democrats, he feels he can't admit that he doesn't want America to fight the terrorists.

What the Left doesn't want you to read. The surge is working.

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001497.html

As a serious question to the Left, why are we even debating going into Darfur to stop genocide, when we are happy to leave Iraq, and let genocide go? Yes, I know the argument of we caused Iraq, but on face value, why is it ok to let one group of people kill each other, and try to stop another? Anyone?

Actually, folks a recent poll (and why am I NOT surprised that it ISN'T covered in the Swamp?) showed more Americans in July than in June said going into Iraq was the right thing to do. In June 26 percent said it was the right thing to do. In July 36 percent said it was the right thing to do. Soon, more than half the folks will ONCE AGAIN say it was the right thing to do.

Posted by: John D | July 25, 2007 8:39 AM

Link, please?

A recent poll said that people still backing Bush consist of woefully stupid, sexually inadequate clones.

Kerry is a liar, going way back to his made up stories about Cambodia. And an idiot.

Posted by: Bruce | July 25, 2007 9:41 AM

Bruce:

Exactly what did John Kerry lie about in Cambodia? Proof, please. At least he was not hiding in Alabama working on a political campaign, like a certain President we all know.

And as for the left not wanting to fight the terrorists, we want to fight them - where they are, not where we put them, like in Iraq. Remember Aghanistan? The job we did not finish? Now the Taliban is back fighting for control of the country.

Heckuva job, W.

"At least he was not hiding in Alabama working on a political campaign, like a certain President we all know."

Least we forget, Bush's predecessor was hiding out in Oxford, smoking pot, at the same time.

But Bush's predecessor did not hold himself up as a Viet Nam veteran, like Bush did. Big difference.

Here are some links for your left wing apes to chew on:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/38_say_u_s_will_be_less_safe_following_iraq_troop_withdrawal_17_say_nation_will_be_safer

IN regard to the poll that shows more Americans today than a month ago believe it was not mistake, I am looking for that one.

I'll take Rhodes Scholar Bill Clinton high and receiving felatio over the current C student dry-drunk who currently occupies 1600 Pennsylvania.

I'll take Rhodes Scholar Bill Clinton high and receiving felatio over the C-student dry-drunk who currently occupies 1600 Pennsylvania.

"Big difference."

Not really. Both Bush and Clinton got out of Vietnam. So did a lot of the politically and wealthy connected, both Dem and Repub.

I'll take Rhodes Scholar Bill Clinton high and receiving felatio over the C-student dry-drunk who currently occupies 1600 Pennsylvania.

Posted by: Memories | July 25, 2007 12:00 PM

You mean the guy who gave us NAFTA. Ask all the manufacturing/union jobs that went to Mexico what they think of that? All the Delphi people in Dayton who lost their jobs to Mexican plants?

The guy who gave us FMLA (Family Medial Leave Act). The act that business saw as a great opportunity to get rid of maternity leave, and call it "short term disability", which means a woman will only get 66% of her pay while on maternity leave. Since FMLA, fully maternity leave pay has gone from about 80% of companies to less than 20%.

The guy who gave us the Telecom Act of 1996, which all his rich buddies made millions on, and farmed out tons of IT jobs to India?

A man who bombed another country and killed thousands (Yugoslavia) without UN authorization?

Please Memories, do expand.

So Nostalgia,

I'm guessing you're not a Republican, because all the examples you bring up are of Clinton defying liberal orthodoxy and enacting conservative policies. This is why I laugh heartily when President Clinton is lambasted as a "liberal."

A true centrist and one of the most successful American presidents for precisely that reason.

Only the very dullest of the dull, the dimmest of the dim, most ignorant of the ignorant, most stubborn of the stubborn and, generally, most idiodic of the idiots still believe anything - anything at all - from the cheneybush regime. Sounds like some of the not-so-swiftboat veterans for opposite-of-the-truth have made their way into the pages. Why is it that repugnant-kins only believe things that tend to get people killed?

Most successful? Maybe most liked, but successful? Do you count the recession of '01, which was predicated by the stock market collapse in the spring of '00 (well before Bush was even a candidate) a success? Which was caused itself by the "irrational exuberance" of the late 90?

How bout them North Koreans, who built up their nuclear technology after signing the deal with Clinton stating the opposite?

Blowing up a baby food factory and some rocks after the OBL attacks in Africa in '98.

About the only lasting success of the Clinton era is stopping the genocide in what once was Yugoslavia.

Not to mention, all the "great centrist policies" you described by Clinton, are the exact same sort of thing "The Left" blames on Bush...

Loss of jobs overseas, lower wages, shrinking middle class, et al.

While he did make plenty of mistakes, Clinton was one of the best recent Presidents we've had. Wasn't it one of the largest peacetime expansions our economy has ever had? I know I made a ton of money. I also know that when he left office, entry level positions in my profession paid more then they do now and gas was a dollar a gallon. So what if North Korea got nukes and factories moved to Mexico! They are not a threat to us (we can vaporize that peasant country) and I like cheap products just fine. So what if he cheated on his wife! He is a human! At least got things done (without ignoring the constitution and using the bill of rights as TP) and he didn't turn our country into the laughing stock of the planet.

Decider.... all I can say is wow. You don't care about jobs being shipped to Mexico, buy cheap goods that were made overseas, you made a ton of money on a flawed "new economy" (remember that one, profits didn't matter) and yet you hate this admin?? You are the type who give the left a bad name (and I can respect some of their views)

BTW, one nuke, in the hands of a man who could care less that we "vaporize his peasant country", could still kill a few million americans before we return the favor. Also, gas first spiked under Clinton in the summer of 2000 (remember all the sreaming and how the State of IL abolished its share of the gas tax for that summer). And like I stated, your great economic expansion was collapsing in on itself before Bush was even named candidate at the August 2000 GOP convension. For the record, I could care less Slick Willey got blown in the WH, and was fairly upset at the time/money wasted on the impeachment. Same way I could care less that the goverment knows I checked "Italian Dining" out of my public library the other day or only needs one warrant to tap any phone under my name, not a warrant for each phone number I may have (Patriot Act).

I know you probably didn't give a rip in Econ 101, but I suggest you go back and read the books, should you still have them. Nothing is cheap and easy.

I love it!!! All week we've had Loony Lefters crying about lost jobs and low wages and here The Decider says so what if manucturing jobs go to Mexico!
And then the Decider speaks of the money he made in the 1990s. Well, so did I. What's funny is that the money made in the 1990s is good in the Loony Left's eyes, but the money being made in the 2000s somehow is bad! What I do know is that much of the stock market growth in the late 1990s was based on paper, high-tech companies that were losing money yet their stock value escalated in defiance of the money lost. So, the market crashed in 2000 and ocntinued to crash after 9/11. But since 2002, the stock market has nearly DOUBLED in value and it's based on corporate profits, not corporate losses. Surely, a more sound reason for stock growth.
Cheap gas, the Decider? Yes, gas was cheap but it began to rise in 2000 -- BEFORE BUSH! Gas in 2000 hit 2.20 and higher in many parts of Chicago. That was the beginning of the higher energy prices we pay today. In fact, Bill Richardson, then Energy Secretary, said, "we got caught with our pants down," on the higher gas and energy prices. Worldwide demand, and especially in China and India, have more to do with higher gas prices today. Supply is barely keeping up with demand. And now OPEC and other oil-producing countries enjoy charging $70 or more per barrel of oil. Hence, $3 a gallon gasoline.
Taxes don't help either and now we have the Chicago LIBune advocating regularly the need for MORE and HIGHER gas taxes!

Bubba,

The knowledge we have now is irrelavent to the decision that was made in March, 2003. We know that their are no WMDs. Can we undo the war?

The decision that needs to be made niow is "what's next"? not "what happened?"