We welcome all levels of intelligence, even the bed-wetting, booger-eating left wing sheep! If what we state in here angers you, pleases you, causes you to re-think your painfully naive beliefs, or conjures up a rare episode of independent thought, then
Published on October 1, 2004 By Patriot_Flamethrower In Politics
Welcome to my post-Presidential debate analysis. First of all, let me say that virtually EVERYTHING we knew about these two men BEFORE the debate was confirmed AFTER the debate was over.

John Kerry is a FLIP-FLOPPER. John Kerry is a good debater. John Kerry is a believer in the United Nations determining if and when the United States Of America can defend itself, and that the USA must pass some sort of "global test" before we can "act unilaterally" to defend ourselves.

The PROBLEM with John Kerry is that he talks out of BOTH SIDES of his mouth. As President Bush stated during the debate, the ONLY consistent thing about John Kerry is his INCONSISTENCY.

John Kerry has characterized the 30+ nations who are assisting the United States in Iraq the "coalition of the duped", the "coalition of the coerced", and the "coalition of the bribed".

John Kerry states that the USA "acted unilaterally" when the coalition liberated Iraq.

John Kerry has stated that the Iraqi War was the "wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time".

I am sure that Great Britain, Australia, Poland, Italy, Japan, South Korea, and the other 25 or so nations who are presently in Iraq are very GRATIFIED to know what John Kerry thinks of them and their mission and their sacrifice.

I am sure that Al Qaeda and the Iranian and Syrian-funded "insurgents" who are presently wreaking havoc in Iraq are very GRATIFIED to know that a man who wants to be President Of The United States is providing them with the WILL and the INCENTIVE and the MORAL SUPPORT to keep on murdering innocent Iraqi adults and children, killing U.S. soldiers, blowing up buildings, and kidnapping and beheading civilian contractors.

Somehow, despite all that he has stated about the coalition of 30+ nations, John Kerry states that if he is elected President, he is going to "build bridges" with the nations who HE believes don't like the USA anymore, and that he will somehow be able to put together a "grand coalition" of nations to secure and rebuild Iraq. I can see it now..........the French and Germans and Russians will be FLOCKING to the White House to BEG President Kerry to be a part of the Iraqi coalition. These so-called "allies" of ours will suddenly offer to POUR money and military personnel and equipment into Iraq at the request of President John F. Kerry. Then the other 30+ countries who are presently in Iraq will just have to bite the bullet and forgive John for his condescending attitude towards them.

Then we have John Kerry, "Mr. Coalition" and "Mr. World Global Test", criticizing President Bush for trying to solve the North Korea nuclear weapons situation PEACEFULLY by getting OTHER NATIONS involved (like China, Russia, South Korea, and Japan). Kerry thinks that the USA should negotiate with North Korea ALONE, like the Clinton administration did. Apparently Mr. Kerry forgot what happened when Jimmy Carter and Madeline Albright went over to North Korea and negotiated a "settlement" with Kim Jong Il. The North Koreans accepted our billions of dollars in aid, let us build them a couple of nice nuclear power plants, then basically told the USA to PACK SAND. Mr. Kerry wants to DO THE SAME THING again, and ignore the FACT that it is CHINA and RUSSIA that have much more LEVERAGE with North Korea than we do, and it is a COALITION of nations that will have to resolve this situation.

So, the bottom line is this. No matter WHAT President Bush says or does, John Kerry will take the OPPOSITE POSITION during this election season, whether he believes in what he says or not.

The problem with John Kerry is that he has no CORE BELIEFS and no FOUNDATION to build his CORE VALUES on. John Kerry's positions on virtually ANY topic are based on political expediency and political expediency ALONE.

John Kerry is the TRUE "Manchurian Candidate".




Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Oct 01, 2004
Hey guys I know you may not think this is pertinent, but I'm going to put it out anyway. Here is a link to the *latest SBV ad*!
Link

on Oct 01, 2004
Well-stated, P_F.

I believe your summation is quite accurate. The fact that Kerry can be eloquently vapid does nothing to persuade me that I should reconsider my preference for President. President Bush is solid and resolute, if inarticulate - unlike Kerry, he has core principals and beliefs to be inarticulate about, his actions and clearly sincere Love of Country speaking much louder than his words. In the all-time "political chameleon" smack-down, Kerry walks all over the former champ, WJ Clinton.

My opinion is that Kerry wants to be President just to be President, just like Clinton. There are no other "reasons," save the politically expedient Reason of the Day, which may be diametrically opposed to the Reason of Yesterday. One could argue that Bush wasn't much different in that regard before being elected (I don't happen to agree), but I believe 9/11 genuinely changed the man, as it changed many of us, and that he has met the challenge of terrorism and instability in the world head on. He understands that the work of defeating terrorism must be proactive, bringing with it the risk of being "wrong" in some aspects of the war's prosecution, and that it will go on long after he leaves office, whether after a single term or two. To be passive and try to negotiate our way out of the terrorist threat leaves us wide open to more 9/11-type attacks. For anyone to think that the mere weight of international opinion (having more people "on our side") will dissuade al Qaeda or other terrorist groups from persisting in their efforts to harm or destroy America is wishful thinking of the most dangerous kind.

The Kerry 20/20-hindsight grandstanding leaves me cold, particularly since he supported removing Hussein from the git-go. All this crap about "no plan to win the peace" is convenient sniping with no basis in reality or logic. Kerry would have had no better clue how events would play out, and his silly insistence that he would have "done everything differently" is opportunistic posturing, nothing more.

I'm cautiously optimistic that the electorate will not be snowed by the tanned & polished delivery and will continue to base their assessment of the candidates on their respective acts & omissions and how they relate to our future. The incumbent is at somewhat of a disadvantage in circumstances like these - he is constrained by the realities of conducting the war and the need to keep certain information from the enemy. The challenger can come in with both fists flying, not having to worry about the consequences to anything but his campaign. The incumbent to a large extent must fight with one hand tied behind his back by the needs of his job as President to practice both politics international relations and a hot war, all at the same time. That's not to say the incumbent should get a free pass, just that we should bear in mind the natural rhetorical advantage a challenger has and maintains throughout a campaign and factor that in to who "won" and who "lost."

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Oct 02, 2004
Memo to Daiwa,

Extremely well-stated!

Bush will win in November, and I don't believe it will be that close. Bush will get at LEAST 350 electoral votes (a little birdie told me).
on Oct 02, 2004
C'mon people. This posting is a very DYNAMIC opinion piece by ME, the master of the OBVIOUS. Let's hear some FEEDBACK!!
on Oct 02, 2004
I thought it was good and can't think of anything else to add, except he has a weak stance on border control as well.

- GX
on Oct 02, 2004
I'm sorry Mr. Patriot, I just have this nagging idea that the leader of the free worlk should be able to complete a sentence. I know it's superficial and believe me, I feel very shallow about it, but I just can't help it.

Unfortunately for you, I think that most of the rest of America agrees with me. Link

Bush is on the defensive and moving onto even weaker ground--domestic issues--where he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Finally, just a couple remarks on a couple of your comments:


Then we have John Kerry, "Mr. Coalition" and "Mr. World Global Test", criticizing President Bush for trying to solve the North Korea nuclear weapons situation PEACEFULLY by getting OTHER NATIONS involved (like China, Russia, South Korea, and Japan). Kerry thinks that the USA should negotiate with North Korea ALONE, like the Clinton administration did.



Nice attempt at spin here, but Kerry never, ever said that China, Japan, S. Korea and other nations in the neighborhood should be EXCLUDED from talks with N. Korea! He simply believes that we could make more headway if we also engaged the N. Koreans in negotiations rather than ignoring them. The fact is that right now the US is not talking to N. Korea, but going through China. It looks like the President is just as eager to outsource our diplomatic positions to China as he is our manufacturing jobs. In case you've been brainwashed by the Bush media machine to ignore what you heard, here is the original transcript of the exchange:




LEHRER: I want to make sure -- yes, sir -- but in this one minute, I want to make sure that we understand -- the people watching understand the differences between the two of you on this.

You want to continue the multinational talks, correct?

BUSH: Right.

LEHRER: And you're willing to do it...

KERRY: Both. I want bilateral talks which put all of the issues, from the armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues and the nuclear issues on the table.



I think "Both" is pretty clear here. Kerry wants to have multinational talks with the N. Koreans while at the same time working toward bilateral agreements that will give us a chance to offer N. Korea a carrot with one hand while we ready the stick in the other.

And as for this gem:


John Kerry is a FLIP-FLOPPER. John Kerry is a good debater. John Kerry is a believer in the United Nations determining if and when the United States Of America can defend itself, and that the USA must pass some sort of "global test" before we can "act unilaterally" to defend ourselves.


If you go back to the original transcript rathter than relying on W's post debate propoganda rallies, you'll again see that Kerry was quite clear.



KERRY
The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.

No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations.

KERRY: I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, "Here, let me show you the photos." And DeGaulle waved them off and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me."



I think even W can understand this one. WE SCREWED UP by telling the rest of the world we were after WMD's that we said we knew were there and then admitting that our intelligence was insufficient after the fact. All the while pushing away allies like Germany and France who knew our intelligence was suspect to begin with. It hurts, but they were right. And if you notice, Now our government has absolutely no credibility with foreign leaders and after crying wolf, I'm afraid we don't deserve any. Restoring honor and integrity to the White House in November might just give us a fresh start.




on Oct 02, 2004
Memo to Trellinator.......

Shall I list for you all of the DEMOCRATS who also believed that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, and their statements? It is a LENGTHY list.

Tell me something.............because we have not yet found the stockpiles of WMDs in a desolate country the size of California, does that mean that these weapons DON'T EXIST? Oh, by the way, we have found enough WMDs in Iraq so far to kill about 500,000 people. But, of course, as long as you watch Dan Rather and read the New York Times, you won't hear ANYTHING about it.

I have a suggestion for you.........if you happen to lose your car keys some day, and you can't locate them, should you just give up because you can assume they NEVER EXISTED?

Sorry to back you leftie sheep into a corner with FACTS. It's really not fair of me to do that!


on Oct 02, 2004
Assuming Iraq is roughly the size of California, why haven't the 114,000 US troops (not to mention troops from the host of other States you mentioned) found the WMDs yet? It's been nearly two years!!! (Link to US troop count AS OF EARLY MARCH 2004)

And as long as we're claiming the president stated "facts", let me address the number of newly-registered Afghan voters. The President is quoted as saying:

Ten million citizens have registered to vote. It's a phenomenal statistic.


Yes, it is a very phenomenal statistic considering even the PROJECTED population of Afghan citizens in 2005 from the ages of 20-80+ is only about 7.7 million (Link) and that's giving the president the benefit of the doubt. And that is the entire 20-80+ population, not to mention those that may choose not to register or choose not to vote. It's such a phenomenal statistic, it's almost unbelievable!


As for you, I'd like to see where you got your information, for example where it is stated that Bush will win at least 350 electoral votes, and where it states that we've found enough WMDs to kill about 500,000 people. Put up or shut up, flunkie.
on Oct 03, 2004
But Mr. Flamethrower,

We told the wold that not only did Saddam have them, but that we knew where they were (presumably, that's how we knew that he had them). So, riddle me this. If we knew where the weapons were before war, when US troops weren't even on the ground. How is it that 2 years later, with US troops on the ground and our best inspectors combing the place we haven't turned up a thing worth writing home about? Did we advance so slowly that Saddam had lots of time to hide everything? That's not what the President said the other night. My guess is that when we so successfully destroyed Saddam's war machine back in the early 90's, we deprived him of the vast majority of his WMD and had him thoroughly contained.

Come on, let's be serious here, if we found anything more than a wiff of WMD in Iraq, the President and his propaganda machine would make certain that the whole world knew about it and then some. You don't think that if we found something the world wouldn't laugh at that Bush wouldn't love to throw it in the UN's face? Palease, even you have to admit that the Bushies would love nothing more than to say "I told you so". In fact, their very political lives depend on it.

And perhaps there are enough chemicals in Iraq to kill 500,000 people, but this is hardly impressive or scary to me. There are probably enough chemicals in the cleaning section of your average grocery store to kill a couple thousand. Bush's own hand-picked chemical search dog David Kay only verified what Blix and the UN inspectors knew all along. There may be some chemicals and some expired anthrax laying around the place, but again, hardly impressive or threatening when compared to N. Korea, or Iran, or even India, Pakistan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Syria, and the list goes on and on. Nobody's invading them anytime soon...

Face it, they cooked up some crappy intelligence in the hopes that the reality on the ground would come just close enough to what they said to justify a war that didn't need to be fought. So, it's great that Saddam is in a cage, but the guy who attacked us...the guy who actually killed thousands of Americans unprovoked, is still walking around out there after three years. I think that's unacceptable. I think THAT's the colossal failure. Instead of having over 100,000 troops bogged down in Iraq, looking for your fantasy weapons, they should be in Afghanistan hunting down America's #1 enemy.

And since you seem to be into silly analogies, I have a suggestion for you too flamethrower... If someone attacks you and your family, don't bring them to justice. Leave them right where they are and instead go relentlessly attack and subdue someone you already beat the crap out of a few years ago. That'll make you and your family safer.

ps
Those democrats were told by their President and Secretary of State that the weapons were there. They did exactly what they should do, trust their commander in chief. It's too bad he so blatently violated that trust.
on Oct 03, 2004

Reply #9 By: The Trellinator - 10/3/2004 12:41:13 AM
But Mr. Flamethrower,

We told the wold that not only did Saddam have them, but that we knew where they were (presumably, that's how we knew that he had them). So, riddle me this. If we knew where the weapons were before war, when US troops weren't even on the ground. How is it that 2 years later, with US troops on the ground and our best inspectors combing the place we haven't turned up a thing worth writing home about? Did we advance so slowly that Saddam had lots of time to hide everything? That's not what the President said the other night. My guess is that when we so successfully destroyed Saddam's war machine back in the early 90's, we deprived him of the vast majority of his WMD and had him thoroughly contained.

Come on, let's be serious here, if we found anything more than a wiff of WMD in Iraq, the President and his propaganda machine would make certain that the whole world knew about it and then some. You don't think that if we found something the world wouldn't laugh at that Bush wouldn't love to throw it in the UN's face? Palease, even you have to admit that the Bushies would love nothing more than to say "I told you so". In fact, their very political lives depend on it.

And perhaps there are enough chemicals in Iraq to kill 500,000 people, but this is hardly impressive or scary to me. There are probably enough chemicals in the cleaning section of your average grocery store to kill a couple thousand. Bush's own hand-picked chemical search dog David Kay only verified what Blix and the UN inspectors knew all along. There may be some chemicals and some expired anthrax laying around the place, but again, hardly impressive or threatening when compared to N. Korea, or Iran, or even India, Pakistan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Syria, and the list goes on and on. Nobody's invading them anytime soon...

Face it, they cooked up some crappy intelligence in the hopes that the reality on the ground would come just close enough to what they said to justify a war that didn't need to be fought. So, it's great that Saddam is in a cage, but the guy who attacked us...the guy who actually killed thousands of Americans unprovoked, is still walking around out there after three years. I think that's unacceptable. I think THAT's the colossal failure. Instead of having over 100,000 troops bogged down in Iraq, looking for your fantasy weapons, they should be in Afghanistan hunting down America's #1 enemy.

And since you seem to be into silly analogies, I have a suggestion for you too flamethrower... If someone attacks you and your family, don't bring them to justice. Leave them right where they are and instead go relentlessly attack and subdue someone you already beat the crap out of a few years ago. That'll make you and your family safer.

ps
Those democrats were told by their President and Secretary of State that the weapons were there. They did exactly what they should do, trust their commander in chief. It's too bad he so blatently violated that trust.


The President violated nothing! He was given information by the CIA, NSA and FBI that the WMDs were there! The senate had access to the *same* info and came to the *SAME* conclusions that the President did! Even Kerry said we needed to go after seeing the info!
on Oct 03, 2004
See, that's just it though, I don't think that they DID see ALL of the same information. The intelligence that is released to the congress and to the American People is first vetted by the President and his advisors. The President clearly had access to more information than 100 Senators. For instance, in the state of the union, the Pres. told us, and 100 Senators that Saddam was trying to get nuclear material from Africa. Well, ok, there's some information that was certainly shared with everyone. But what he didn't tell us in his State of the Union address was that folks high up in our own intelligence services were screaming because they knew that the documents that assertion was based on were totally bunk.

The president not only looks at information, but decides what information is worth considering and acting on. In the case mentioned above, he clearly chose to believe the intelligence that fit his decision, regardless of how crappy it was qualitatively. Then he shared it with others.

on Oct 03, 2004
See, that's just it though, I don't think that they DID see ALL of the same information. The intelligence that is released to the congress and to the American People is first vetted by the President and his advisors. The President clearly had access to more information than 100 Senators. For instance, in the state of the union, the Pres. told us, and 100 Senators that Saddam was trying to get nuclear material from Africa. Well, ok, there's some information that was certainly shared with everyone. But what he didn't tell us in his State of the Union address was that folks high up in our own intelligence services were screaming because they knew that the documents that assertion was based on were totally bunk.

The president not only looks at information, but decides what information is worth considering and acting on. In the case mentioned above, he clearly chose to believe the intelligence that fit his decision, regardless of how crappy it was qualitatively. Then he shared it with others.

on Oct 03, 2004

Reply #11 By: The Trellinator - 10/3/2004 11:04:38 AM
See, that's just it though, I don't think that they DID see ALL of the same information. The intelligence that is released to the congress and to the American People is first vetted by the President and his advisors. The President clearly had access to more information than 100 Senators. For instance, in the state of the union, the Pres. told us, and 100 Senators that Saddam was trying to get nuclear material from Africa. Well, ok, there's some information that was certainly shared with everyone. But what he didn't tell us in his State of the Union address was that folks high up in our own intelligence services were screaming because they knew that the documents that assertion was based on were totally bunk.

The president not only looks at information, but decides what information is worth considering and acting on. In the case mentioned above, he clearly chose to believe the intelligence that fit his decision, regardless of how crappy it was qualitatively. Then he shared it with others.


Do *you* know that for a certainty? Of course not.....neither one of us was there. All we have to go on is their say so. And Sen Kerry's say so that he had access to the same info.
on Oct 03, 2004
I hate to break this to you, Mr. Trellinator, but those "forged" documents that you are referring to have since been proven to be GENUINE. If you are interested in FORGED documents, you need to send an e-mail to DAN RATHER.

Also, some more heartbreaking news for you. President Bush relied on BRITISH INTELLIGENCE for the information he shared during the State Of The Union address about Saddam Hussein attempting to buy yellowcake from Nigeria. And to this day, the British stand behind that intelligence and consider it to be completely factual.

I hate having to dazzle you lefties with FACTS all the time. It was fun for awhile, but now it's just BORING.
on Oct 03, 2004
how can you say Kerry is a flip-flopper. He clearly has a set mind at plan. he said it himself: there's a right way to disarm Hussein and a wrong way. the right way is to put international pressures on him; the wrong way is to get more than 1000 Americans and a few thousand Iraqis killed.
2 Pages1 2