Comments on: John Kerry Flip Flops http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2004/john-kerry-flip-flops/ a site for people in their right mind Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:48:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Robin Helms http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2004/john-kerry-flip-flops/#comment-16723 Robin Helms Sat, 02 Dec 2006 22:19:49 +0000 /?p=179#comment-16723 I find it very hard not laughing at the people who say Fox presents there news in an unbiased way. Bush won the 2000 election because of Fox (bush's counsin was the one who called florida, when the real call should have been that it was too close to call). John Kerry lost the 2004 election because Fox repeatedly called Kerry a "flip flopper" among other negative things, while they praised Bush ("## days until Bush wins re-election"...doesn't sound fair and balanced to me). In 1991, Dick Cheney justified the US not invading Iraq for the many reasons we are seeing as problems today. Hmm. John Kerry voted for the Iraq war because false information was presented, while Cheney supported the war AFTER saying it would not be worth it. I find it very hard not laughing at the people who say Fox presents there news in an unbiased way. Bush won the 2000 election because of Fox (bush’s counsin was the one who called florida, when the real call should have been that it was too close to call). John Kerry lost the 2004 election because Fox repeatedly called Kerry a “flip flopper” among other negative things, while they praised Bush (“## days until Bush wins re-election”…doesn’t sound fair and balanced to me).

In 1991, Dick Cheney justified the US not invading Iraq for the many reasons we are seeing as problems today. Hmm. John Kerry voted for the Iraq war because false information was presented, while Cheney supported the war AFTER saying it would not be worth it.

]]> By: Lefty http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2004/john-kerry-flip-flops/#comment-6761 Lefty Sun, 01 May 2005 00:17:16 +0000 /?p=179#comment-6761 Paul, So it's head you win and tails we lose? What evidence would it take to convince you that no WMDs were there? It is simply an untestable proposition by your logic. As for the Kurds and the chemical weapons Saddam used against them - recall that Rumsfeld visited Saddam, as part of an envoy representing the Reagan administration, a month after Saddam used the weapons on the Kurds. What did Rumsfeld do? He offered, on behalf of Reagan, to help Saddam in any way he could. So 20 years after Saddam used the weapons all of a sudden they are a problem for the Republicans. What sense does that make? The historical facts suggest that the Republicans always turned a blind eye to Saddams use of chemical weapons against the Kurds while it was happening. Paul,
So it’s head you win and tails we lose? What evidence would it take to convince you that no WMDs were there? It is simply an untestable proposition by your logic. As for the Kurds and the chemical weapons Saddam used against them – recall that Rumsfeld visited Saddam, as part of an envoy representing the Reagan administration, a month after Saddam used the weapons on the Kurds. What did Rumsfeld do? He offered, on behalf of Reagan, to help Saddam in any way he could. So 20 years after Saddam used the weapons all of a sudden they are a problem for the Republicans. What sense does that make? The historical facts suggest that the Republicans always turned a blind eye to Saddams use of chemical weapons against the Kurds while it was happening.

]]> By: Paul http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2004/john-kerry-flip-flops/#comment-6754 Paul Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:09:55 +0000 /?p=179#comment-6754 Whether or not it was there when we invaded the country does not necessarily mean that he did not have stocks of BioWeapons when we were building up to an invasion. We have concrete proof that he used chemical weapons on the Kurds before we even contemplated invading, but of course thats covered up hush hush. Wouldn't want any Americans to think that we had real reasons to invade. Why not, it's much more fun (and politically impressive) to just call Bush a liar. Don't get me wrong. I am not too fond of the Iraq invasion (more because of the effect it is having at home) but at least I am rational enough to realize that just because WMD is not there now does not neccessarily mean they were never there. Whether or not it was there when we invaded the country does not necessarily mean that he did not have stocks of BioWeapons when we were building up to an invasion. We have concrete proof that he used chemical weapons on the Kurds before we even contemplated invading, but of course thats covered up hush hush. Wouldn’t want any Americans to think that we had real reasons to invade. Why not, it’s much more fun (and politically impressive) to just call Bush a liar.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not too fond of the Iraq invasion (more because of the effect it is having at home) but at least I am rational enough to realize that just because WMD is not there now does not neccessarily mean they were never there.

]]> By: Lefty http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2004/john-kerry-flip-flops/#comment-6746 Lefty Sat, 30 Apr 2005 18:52:02 +0000 /?p=179#comment-6746 Dave, Bush, Rice, and Cheney themselves said that Iraq required invasion because they posed an immediate nuclear threat. Powell suggested with his little vial that he held up at the UN security council meeting as well as the pictures they showed of the bioterrorism labs that Iraq had an active biological weapons program. Like your professor friend, they saw it even though it wasn't there. Funny what false beliefs can make you see, isn't it? Dave,
Bush, Rice, and Cheney themselves said that Iraq required invasion because they posed an immediate nuclear threat. Powell suggested with his little vial that he held up at the UN security council meeting as well as the pictures they showed of the bioterrorism labs that Iraq had an active biological weapons program. Like your professor friend, they saw it even though it wasn’t there. Funny what false beliefs can make you see, isn’t it?

]]> By: bonniem http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2004/john-kerry-flip-flops/#comment-6707 bonniem Fri, 29 Apr 2005 01:23:34 +0000 /?p=179#comment-6707 Also, I read that Saddam wanted everyone to think he had WMDs whether he did or not! Maybe he should not have been playing games about something so serious. But he was so corrupt and mean, I just can't help but believe he has buried in the sand and/or shipped out to his buddies in Syria, means to cause serious problems to his neighbors. I think it has been acknowledged that he had missiles he was not supposed to have and maybe other weapons. Also, I read that Saddam wanted everyone to think he had WMDs whether he did or not! Maybe he should not have been playing games about something so serious. But he was so corrupt and mean, I just can’t help but believe he has buried in the sand and/or shipped out to his buddies in Syria, means to cause serious problems to his neighbors. I think it has been acknowledged that he had missiles he was not supposed to have and maybe other weapons.

]]> By: Dave http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2004/john-kerry-flip-flops/#comment-6705 Dave Thu, 28 Apr 2005 23:37:52 +0000 /?p=179#comment-6705 Lefty and others, I still haven't heard anyone answer just what you liberals think a "weapon of mass destruction" is...is it just nuclear bombs? Is it chemical and biological weapons too? Does it include planes and missiles that can deliver the bombs, or just the bombs themselves? Does having the capability or the ingredients to make a bomb count, or is it only the finished product? I personally think that having the ingredients, even if they haven't been assembled, still constitutes having weapons. And I personally know someone, a professor here where I attend college classes, who worked for the U. N. inspection teams and has seen the manufacturing facilities for biological weapons waiting to be brought online, so I know they exist!! How much more proof do you need? Do we have to wait until he actually makes a bomb and unleashes it before we do something about it? In this country, just having the ingredients and the equipment to make methamphetamine constitutes a crime. You don't even have to have the actual drug already manufactured and in your possession. So why does that not apply to Hussein and Iraq? I believe that regardless of whether he had a finished weapon or not, he has had plenty of time since the first Gulf War (something like 11 years) to come clean and let U. N. inspectors see everything he DID have. You can only give someone so many chances before you have to call his bluff and make your move. Eleven years is plenty of time for someone who is truly repentent, or at least properly chastised, to stop lying and make himself accountable. He had his chances, and he blew it. Bush did what we should have done years ago. He decided to stop trusting a tyrannical liar and despot, and find out for himself. The fact that the rest of the world didn't have enough balls to join in and help doesn't change the need to do something. Bush did it. Maybe he lied and maybe he didn't. Regardless, he got rid of an evil man who has been responsible for the rape, torture and murder of thousand of innocents people in his quest for absolute power. What if we had not entered into WW II? We got into it becuase of the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, but we saved millions of Jews and others from certain death in the process. Does the fact that we got into the war for less than noble reasons make the outcome any different? No it does not!! And the same holds ture for Iraq. There are people in that country who now have a taste of true freedom for the first time in decades. Unfortunately a great many of them have died in the process, but no revolution is free from bloodshed. What they have gained is far greater than what they have lost, and I daresay that those who died are probably dancing for joy in Heaven at the thought that their children and grandchildren might be able to live in a country where they can feel safe from Saddam's vicousness and have a voice in how to live their own lives. I know I would be. Lefty and others,

I still haven’t heard anyone answer just what you liberals think a “weapon of mass destruction” is…is it just nuclear bombs? Is it chemical and biological weapons too? Does it include planes and missiles that can deliver the bombs, or just the bombs themselves? Does having the capability or the ingredients to make a bomb count, or is it only the finished product?

I personally think that having the ingredients, even if they haven’t been assembled, still constitutes having weapons. And I personally know someone, a professor here where I attend college classes, who worked for the U. N. inspection teams and has seen the manufacturing facilities for biological weapons waiting to be brought online, so I know they exist!! How much more proof do you need? Do we have to wait until he actually makes a bomb and unleashes it before we do something about it?

In this country, just having the ingredients and the equipment to make methamphetamine constitutes a crime. You don’t even have to have the actual drug already manufactured and in your possession. So why does that not apply to Hussein and Iraq?

I believe that regardless of whether he had a finished weapon or not, he has had plenty of time since the first Gulf War (something like 11 years) to come clean and let U. N. inspectors see everything he DID have. You can only give someone so many chances before you have to call his bluff and make your move. Eleven years is plenty of time for someone who is truly repentent, or at least properly chastised, to stop lying and make himself accountable. He had his chances, and he blew it. Bush did what we should have done years ago. He decided to stop trusting a tyrannical liar and despot, and find out for himself.

The fact that the rest of the world didn’t have enough balls to join in and help doesn’t change the need to do something. Bush did it. Maybe he lied and maybe he didn’t. Regardless, he got rid of an evil man who has been responsible for the rape, torture and murder of thousand of innocents people in his quest for absolute power. What if we had not entered into WW II? We got into it becuase of the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, but we saved millions of Jews and others from certain death in the process. Does the fact that we got into the war for less than noble reasons make the outcome any different? No it does not!! And the same holds ture for Iraq. There are people in that country who now have a taste of true freedom for the first time in decades. Unfortunately a great many of them have died in the process, but no revolution is free from bloodshed. What they have gained is far greater than what they have lost, and I daresay that those who died are probably dancing for joy in Heaven at the thought that their children and grandchildren might be able to live in a country where they can feel safe from Saddam’s vicousness and have a voice in how to live their own lives. I know I would be.

]]> By: bonniem http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2004/john-kerry-flip-flops/#comment-6696 bonniem Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:52:52 +0000 /?p=179#comment-6696 Why do you Lefties and Dems still want to hash the last election?. Why can't you put your energies toward the future?. Why don't you just tell us some of the good things about the Dems, if you have some. Why do you Lefties and Dems still want to hash the last election?. Why can’t you put your energies toward the future?. Why don’t you just tell us some of the good things about the Dems, if you have some.

]]> By: bonniem http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2004/john-kerry-flip-flops/#comment-6695 bonniem Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:50:39 +0000 /?p=179#comment-6695 You know what? There is a big difference in being wrong (when given the wrong info) and lying. And I don't think the fact that he MAY have been wrong would influence the election if it were held today. I think it would turn out the same way. You know what? There is a big difference in being wrong (when given the wrong info) and lying. And I don’t think the fact that he MAY have been wrong would influence the election if it were held today. I think it would turn out the same way.

]]> By: Lefty http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2004/john-kerry-flip-flops/#comment-6686 Lefty Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:52:04 +0000 /?p=179#comment-6686 here, i'll make it easy for you to see why more than half of americans (and 80% of Europeans and Canadians) now think Bush lied about the case for Iraq. http://middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweapons.html here, i’ll make it easy for you to see why more than half of americans (and 80% of Europeans and Canadians) now think Bush lied about the case for Iraq.

http://middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweapons.html

]]> By: Lefty http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2004/john-kerry-flip-flops/#comment-6676 Lefty Thu, 28 Apr 2005 02:39:38 +0000 /?p=179#comment-6676 Cotex, do me a favor. Ask me to post a list of Bush flip flops. It will take about ten pages but I have them ready to post. Just ask me. Cotex, do me a favor. Ask me to post a list of Bush flip flops. It will take about ten pages but I have them ready to post. Just ask me.

]]>