60 minutes apparently uses fake doc

[Guest charlie]

Kerry doesn't have to voice his positions on anything,  those who agree with him know what he stands for and will follow him over the clift should he go there.    People who are upset with Bush are much more likely to vote for Kerry if he doesn't talk at all.  The old "anything's better than Bush" will only go so far and Kerry may well fear pushing people back past it.

It's to me the strangest election.....

I agree.

I would also add imo that those who agree with what Bush "stands for" (doesn't have to deliver) have already followed him over the cliff (Iraq).

Edited September 11, 2004 by charlie

[apothanein kerdos]

What I find so funny is people who are skilled in seeing if something is fake or not, have historical evidence behind them and everything, and can bring forth proof.......aren't even listned to on this board.

"Oh, well, I remember differently."

SOrry, the experts know more.

[senerhu]

Kerry doesn't have to voice his positions on anything,

[Guest charlie]

almost all consevatives would still have supported that move

I supported it at first (sort of); I was puzzled though, the terrorists were suppose to be in Afghanistan... but to voice any dissent amounted to being called unpatriotic or unAmerican.

Now, it's clear that Iraq was and is a big mistake; a lot of conservatives are willing to admit this, others are too stubborn or too enamored with the President to do so.

[Guest yod]

Now, it's clear that Iraq was and is a big mistake;

no way man...this is brilliant "strategery" if you understand the end game of ridding the world of terrorist regimes. You are focused on Afghanistan while the network of terrorism isn't based in any one place. We HAD to take a comprehensive look at the entire hydra.

And that has nothing to do with be "enamored" with Bush...but his courage in making the hard and unpopular decisions based on what is best long-term has caused me to admire him.

I wondered why Reagan didn't take on terrorism more than when he shut Kaddafi up...and that was long before Bush 41 or 43.

[Guest charlie]

Brilliant strategy....if the situation wasn't so sad, with so much loss of life, that would be funny.

The Iraq war was in the "gameplan" long before 9/11. It's shameful that 9/11 was used as an excuse.

I don't think GWB is courageous at all; I think the word "lackey" is more appropriate.

[Steff]

There is a reason they have Bushisms and it isn't a compliment Charlie .

[Guest yod]

Brilliant strategy....if the situation wasn't so sad, with so much loss of life, that would be funny.

as wars go...this one is almost bloodless. No one asked to be attacked on 911

The Iraq war was in the "gameplan" long before 9/11.

Yeah but Clinton was driven by polls instead of doing what was right.

[Guest charlie]

Yod - Do you ever go back and re-read some of your posts a day or two after you've made them and <<cringe>> from embarrassment?

btw - Are we ever gonna see you with an American flag?

[Guest charlie]

as wars go...this one is almost bloodless.

I don't consider 1000 dead American soldiers and somewhere around 16,000 dead Iraqis as "bloodless".

Yeah but Clinton was driven by polls instead of doing what was right.

So you admit that the Iraqi invasion was part of the "gameplan" way back during the Clinton administration. You think it was right; I think it was wrong. BUT doesn't it bother you that the deaths of those on 9/11 was falsely used as a catalyst to propel the United States into a preplanned war with Iraq? Is that kind of lie okay in your world? For you as a *Christian* does the end justify the means?