was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time," doesn't have the judgment or the credibility to be President.
Just ask John Kerry;

John Kerry, December 16, at Drake University in Iowa: "those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."

John Kerry, yesterday: [Iraq was] "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." Translation: We would be better off if we had not acted to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

The man is a walking contradiction.

RLTW

RLTW, Good one.....................

   Its amazing how one man can have so many convictions on one issue and still be taken seriously any anyone.  Thanks for pointing that one out!!!!!

Not really.  Bush is the flip flipper.

Kerry didn't say the war was wrong in the Drake quote. It was about Saddam.

Remember, Bush instigated the war not to get rid of Saddam Hussein, but because he claims Iraq has WMds. Bush flip flopped on the cause of war. from being about Iraq is a clear and present threat to the US homeland because they haave WMD, to the new spin by the Bush hencmen that it was to save the Iraqi people from Saddam.


The fact the Bush minions will spin anything to try and make Kerry say things he didn't say, is a sign teh Bush campaign is desperate and sees a change in the wind.

You mean like Bush's convictions?

Number 1 conviction...ooops  DUI.  ( we don't know about his other arrest records because he won't let his records out)


But I know what you really meant.

Bush Flip Flops:

First he is the peace president, then he is the war presidetn,

First he is against nation building, now he is for it.

First he is against the 9/11 acommission, now he is for it.

First he is against steel tarrifs now he is for them

the list is endless and the Bush henchmen never talk about Bush flip flops.

America has proven it dosen't care about a flip-flopper, or a waffler (what's president Clinton's favorite color?  Plad!).  Kerry has gone on the record saying he would have made the same decision to go in if he knew then what we know now.

What we SHOULD be talking about is his voting record in the senate.  Track record is more important than posturing & talking.  But Kerry dosen't want to focus on that since his record sucks.  Read the Congressional review to see for yourself.

Wow unlike you among the GOP loons to be so obtuse.  One can feel that we are better off with Saddam in captivity and Iraq not under his sway AND think in retrospect that the cost was too high and the whole affair a debacle.

I hate Jim Jong Il.  Think it would be a good thing if he was gone.  But I do not think it is worth the possible cost to do it.  Nor do I believe we can do it from a legal stand point.

The fact is that other states can hold any views they want and do anything they want.  It USED to be that they had to attack us or commit an act of war on our forces or interests to be attacked.  We had to wait for the act to happen.

You need to go back to your logic courses- we expect more of you.  You are the lone rational voice of reaction/toryism on the board.  Or you used to be.

... The world is a better place w/o Sadam and we are safer because he is not around.   That does NOT mean that Iraq was the most important issue to us or that we went in before we had things set up for a better result.  

We make lots of decisions in life that require trading off between desirable alternatives and staying within a budget.  Mr Bush did something that was not as useful as other things he could have done and he spent too much of America's money and good will.  How to you feel about people who solve the wrong problem and than want a pat on the back for missing what was important?  Lets face it, there was no good reason to deal with Iraq alone and in the timeframe chosen:  surely you don't want to argue that the US was in immediate danger from Iraq?  You are too rational to believe that anymore.

Does this help clairify your thinking?   Harry

And do you really think Bush did not knowingly deceive the public/congress to garner support for ``Operation Iraqi Freedom'' ?

The world could be safer without Saddam Hussein, and it still could have been a strategic mistake to invade Iraq.  A marginal benefit to invading Iraq is that we did remove Saddam.  The minimal safety of removing Saddam is outweighed by the danger we've created now.  If only we had just assassinated him.

/Zin

"You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror."

and a year later said,

"we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11."

or

"I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

and later in the week what was it he said?

you're basing your argument on the premise that it's undeniable that the Iraq war was wrong. I and about half the country disagree. But the point of my somewhat tongue-in-cheek post is that Kerry has demonstrated that he does not have a clear plan for Iraq and the GWOT, or even a clear explanation for his varied positions. Bush has his faults for sure, but Kerry is either un-serious, or un-certain, about the threat of Islamic Terrorism, and not an acceptable choice to lead the country.

RLTW

Don't you ?

Well, at any rate you do a fine job.

Really, all your comments about how Democratic politicians play to their audience, ``flip-flop'', or whatever are such a revelation.  Are you suggesting your boy GWB (Republican politicians in general) does not do the same ?  

I don't see anything that suggests you acknowledge this ?

And please, that Democrats are against speech that doesn't agree with them is a joke when compared to YOUR crowd (I don't recall Dems calling anyone TRAITORS ?).

We are all hypocrites to some degree -  I claim YOU and YOUR crowd are to the far right of the gauge.

... the idea that there are better things we could have done with our time, effort, and lives. There is a big difference between doing the wrong thing and not doing the best thing.   If there were no WMDs, Mr Bush did not accomplish much to improve America.  He may have actually made the situation worse.

Here are some things I think would have been better to do.

--  go after El Kida (I still can't spell it)
--  invest more in transportation secuirty,
--  invest in the CIA,
--  invest in education,
--  fund social security,
--  reduce taxes

You probably have your own list of better things to do.

Harry

I even threatened confiscation of his keyboard, but alas, he still won't do what he's told.

Anyway, he should check out the AHTBS's Shrub flip-flop post under the "Kerryisms" thread.  Weebles wobble, but they won't fall down.

I used to have a weeble wobble when I was a kid.  On Saturday after watching Kung Fu cinema I would use it to practice with my home-made nunchukus (sp) [didn't last too long, but it never did actually fall down].

Anyways, unlike GWB, I outgrew my pretend warrior days.

I had the children's toy in mind.  Do you remember Weebles, the little egg-shaped figures that you put on a table, floor, etc., and could push/spin/twist them and they wouldn't tip over?  "Weebles wobble, but they won't fall down" was part of the TV ads for the toys.

I do know what you're talking about; the big inflatable things that you could punch and kick, but wouldn't fall over.  I had one of those, too.  In your case, I'm not surprised it couldn't survive a martial arts workout.

On the "Acceptable" list, Bush would have figured lower than Kerry four years ago and he has slipped further behind now.  But since he had the job, one might have to say he was "acceptable"- although he has left about every american piolicy looking very dog's breakfast-y.

Using terms like "not qualified" and "unacceptable" are not that useful when you are defending a man who has already completely messed up. How much worse can anyone do than Bush has already.  

Can we save those terms for times when it really applies?  Like Nader might be "not qualified" for the job as he has never worked in a political framwork at all.  But a guy who has been an "acceptable" Senator for many years can't be that out of the running.

And- you might want to get your perspective on right.  Islamic Terrorism is a threat to us, but nothing compared to the economy, China, poverty, , the world water crisis, etc.  While I surely do not want to die or have my family and friends threatened, drunk drivers kill many multiples of terrorist deaths every year, and we are still not too serious about ending that.  Or gun mishaps.

As an American president, any one in the job will take it seriously, and thanks to the past four years, anyone can do as good a job as we have done so far post 9/11.

You have to keep an eye on how low the bar has been set.  I am confident a pair of my dirty scivvies would do as fine a job of being presidential as M. Bush.  And smell better to the french! (the last is a joke, as you know I love the french)

Yes, I remember the commercial.  

But Weeble Wobbles are bottom heavy whereas Others are top heavy due to an over-inflated self image.  On the other hand, with their head up their ass I guess that does make them bottom heavy.  Hmmm, your right !!!  Thanks.

Just because Kerry got caught in a flip-flop, pandering to his audience, doesn't mean Bush doesn't do the same thing.  I fully acknowledge this.  Where is the hypocrisy, llcar?

Prior to your recent post[s] I never had the impression that you acknowledged Bush and colleagues were ``just as'' hypocritical.  

I believe the far right are to the far right of the hypocrite gauge - I see no end to the extremes they are more than willing to go.  But, this is only my opinion.

I appreciate other's opinions - but when stated as if they are the TRUTH, I find it quite obnoxious.