Batboy works for CNN.
Posted on 10/08/2004 9:47:53 PM PDT by wagglebee
Thanks for those quotes. That's the debate (well rerun) that I watched.
Batboy works for CNN.
Did the President point out that contradiction?
Sigh of relief? I was screaming, "Kick that liberal's ass!!! YA!!!"
A few minutes later he said the president took his eye off the ball and went after Saddam even though he wasn't a threat to us.
I'm watching it the second time right now. You are absolutely correct!
Mort had a DemTalkingPoint suppository before the debate. He fell in line for the Dems. last night!
He's a Weekly Standard guy. I expect little from that crew except Larry Miller and Stephen Hayes.
How anyone could have watched that debate and not sensd a clear Bush win is shocking to me. Bush dominated physically and intellectually.
Rush was right that the MSM would sping Kerry won no matter what.
With 3 weeks to go and national survival at stake, I'm in no mood to be fair-but General Shalikashvili and many other senior officers were absolutely correct about what would be required to occupy and pacify Iraq.
That Rummy disagreed with them is not so bad, and that he insisted on his right to make the call was entirely his prerogative.
But when you engage in shouting matches in your office, and publically humiliate flag-rank officers, and insist that anyone who disagrees with you is a coward or subscribes to "old thinking" - then, you had damned well better be proven right in every little detail of what you say, or the people who work for you will never, never trust you again.
I'm in the minority, but I say we'll have a new SecDef in Term II.
Iran sponsors terrorism and has missiles capable of hitting Israel and southern Europe. Iran will have nuclear weapons in two to three years time.
In the event that U.N. sanctions don't stop this threat, what will you do as president?
KERRY: I don't think you can just rely on U.N. sanctions, Randee. But you're absolutely correct, it is a threat, it's a huge threat.
I'm done with FoxNews.
Period.
There is no objective analysis.
General Shalikashvili, who is allegedly endorsing Kerry, was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Klintoon.
It's General Eric K. Shinseki who was Army Chief of Staff under Klinton & Bush that Kerry lies about Rummy (Bush) firing and/or retiring early. It's also Shinseki who said we'd need several hundred thousand troops in post war Iraq.
An aside, for what it's worth Rummy was 100% correct in ignoring Shinseki. He was a Willard suck-up, was promoted solely due to affirmative action, and has the fastest promotion time-line from Major General (2 stars) to General (4 stars) in the history of the modern US Army - all under Klintoon. And if anything, Rummy (Bush) SHOULD have fired him on Jan 22nd, 2001!
And thanks to Shinseki, we have the REMF's now wearing the Ranger's Black Beret to make them 'feel good', the boondoggle (IMO) called the Stryker, co-ed basic training and lower standards, and frigging touchy-feely sensitivity training!
~~Shinseki rant off~~
here is what I was referencing:
CNN did a fact check afterwards:
"CNN Fact Check: Kerry implies that Shinseki was forced to retire as a result of his comments about troop levels in Iraq, which is inaccurate. Shinseki served a full four-year term as Army chief of staff, and did not retire early. Since World War II, no Army chief of staff has served longer than four years.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld decided in April 2002 on who he would tap to succeed Shinseki, according to a Pentagon official, long before Shinseki's troop level comments in 2003. So by the time Shinseki made his comments on troop levels, it was already known that he would not remain in his post beyond his full four-year term. The Bush administration may not have been fond of Shinseki, who was appointed to his post by President Clinton, but it is inaccurate to say that he was forced to retire because of his comments on troop levels in Iraq."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/08/factcheck/
At which point Wolf Blitzer said that this point has been pointed out to Kerry several times and someone in his camp should tell him to stop presenting it the other way.
Mort does not agree with Kerry on the Iraq war, and he thinks he would be a very weak CIC. But Mort just lost his wife last month to Parkinson's disease, and I think that he was focusing on the Stem Cell Research. One of Mort's biggest complaint about President Bush is this issue. In fact it is really the only thing I can think of that Mort is passionate about.
I do not agree with Mort on this issue, but I think it is too close to his heart right now that it is overshadowing the other issues tonight. I would expect the same reaction next week during the domestic policy debate if Stem Cell Research comes up.
I'm glad I read all 75 replies before I posted (a lesson to you newbies) as you made the point about Mort and stem cells that I was going to bring up.
I actually didn't read the whole thread this time, and after I hit the post button, I thought to myself "Oh, Oh I hope no one else thought of this".
LOL....lucky you!
A few minutes later he said the president took his eye off the ball and went after Saddam even though he wasn't a threat to us.
There can be an argument for both positions. And frankly, it is one I support.
Saddam can be a threat to different people, not just us, as in point number one and two. He could be a threat to his citizens, those countries close to him, but to us directly, he wasn't. And frankly, there are others who in my opinion are larger threats.
I think we have discussed this in the past, but the latest report just sums up my views prior to invading Iraq. When we told Blix he was looking in all the wrong places for WMD's and we "knew" where they were at, Blix called the US on it. He said, ok, tell me where they are and I will dispatch my inspectors there. We started fumbling. We came up with a lame response that we couldn't do that for security reasons. It was at that point I had my doubts on our intel and began to believe that despite the reasons we were told for invading, invasion was going to happen under any circunstance. This was the key to me that the WMD claim was lame at best. This was unfinished business from 91, and W was using 9/11 as justification because we were in the mood to get even.
You have to listen closely to Kerry's statements on this. Now, I'm not supporting the man, but I will admit that I will have a tough time when I vote for Bush, because I believe that vote will be seen as rewarding him for something that should have been better communicated and better thought out on how to win the war rather than the invasion battle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.