Although he hasn't said it, I feel I can give the world a big "told you so" on John Kerry's behalf. Or at least on the behalf of those who feel he was RIGHT. Check this out.
Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry on Monday called the invasion of Iraq "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" and said his goal was to withdraw U.S. troops in a first White House term. In Racine, West Virginia, Kerry assailed Bush's record, repeatedly telling a Labor Day rally the "W" in Bush's name stood for "wrong -- wrong choices, wrong judgment, wrong priorities, wrong direction for our country" on everything from jobs to Iraq.
From pre-election 2004.
Now, the world sees that he was right. We have Iraq dangerously close to, if not unavoidably leaning towards a civil war. Our troops may be in there for a long war, against the wishes of the citizens of the government we created. It will be their deaths, and our bankruptcy.
“In this dangerous world, we don’t know what that cargo really contains. And we can’t afford to continue being in the dark. We screen millions of shoes in airports everyday, but less than four percent of the 21,000 enormous shipping containers that arrive in America’s ports every day. Any one of them could have a biological, chemical, or nuclear weapon inside. We need to invest in and employ new technologies to screen the containers, ships, trains, and trucks that come into this country,” said John Kerry. In addition to efforts to make our ports more secure, Kerry unveiled his plan to renew alliances and work with the international community to reduce the threat of WMD’s. Ports across the United States receive cargo from around the world, including the Middle East, Africa and the Pacific Rim, making them vulnerable to WMD’s shipped in containers from areas where terrorists are known to operate. “As President, I will tackle this issue head-on by removing potential bomb making entirely from the world’s most vulnerable sites within four years. We will work with other countries to track down and secure existing nuclear weapons and stop the development of chemical and biological arsenals. And we will start a global effort to remove weapons-usable materials from the more than 100 insecure civilian plants around the world that still use this kind of material. And I will appoint a top-level coordinator whose job is to make sure this gets done,” said Kerry.
I will never hand over America’s security decisions to foreign leaders and international bodies that do not have America’s interests at heart.
Does that sound right given his connections to the Dubai company and his administrations BEGGING to put our nations weakest security area into the hands of a foreign power?
So on behalf of John Kerry and Democrats nationwide... WE TOLD YOU SO.
What a wonderful post. John Kerry was right virtually every time he spoke. But, something almost as important is his tendancy to welcome opinions and to consider opposing views. Unlike Bush, if he were wrong on something, he had the self confidence and humility needed to change his position. So, not only was he right on many important issues, he would be very unlikely to deny reality and continue doing things that are not working.
It's too bad that many people never saw the real John Kerry and thus don't even know what they could have had.
Well, there is LOTS of buyer's remorse out there. AND now the Republicans have to either stand up for ethics or kow-tow to the beast in chief. Not a good choice for them!
But luckliy, Democrats but particularly kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, Conyers, (etc) are already solidly keeping strong ethics, maintianing strong moral choices, and also supporting our troops and the little guy over here who is getting 'screwed' by the rich, corrupt, incompetent and unethical Republicans.
On Behalf of truth!
In a Los Angeles Times article in January 2003, Kerry instructed you: "If you don't believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."
John Kerry > February 23, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."
John Kerry > January 23, 2003
"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."
um...truth? yeh right...You wave those out as if 5 years meant nothing.
How about a little more truth--LIKE ALL THE FACTS MISSING IN THOSE 5 YEARS!
U can run Osama but u can't hide- 'we'll smoke you out...'
Where is Osama? In bush's cellar?
He had not been givent he full information when he gave you those quotes. All of us were lead to believe those were true, by intelligence selectively revealed and manipulated by the Bush administration.
Here are some more current quote, Kerry in the debates:
Later in the same debate, we had this exchange, with Bush saying the same things some of the people here are saying:
You all should check out Bob Geiger's blog now and then; he's got this "where is Osama clock" - the days, hours and minutes, Bush told everyone he would catch him "dead or alive".
(I'm not trying to advertise for another blog Nolie, if you mind, just edit this post...)
I love it how Bush first said he would get Osama, dead or alive, blahblahblah and than later stated: "I don't know where Osama is and I don't care" (or something like that) hahaha... that one gets me going time and time again.
About this kerry deal: yes he didn't receive the same information the White House had. However; 1998?
As i mentioned in the other thread, I can't edit this post. I don't mind having other blogs linked on here.... good information is good information...
1998? I'm not sure what you mean by the number.... Happy to respond though, if you care to explain...
2-23-1998: Kerry talking about the threat called Saddam...
oh ok. My mistake. I wasn't really politically consious at that time(being slightly too young) so I am not sure of the context of that statement. I'll need to check. Wasn't that when there WERE concerns about secrecy from UN security inspectors? Or am I messing up the time frames in my head?
No that's true, but isn't it weird that they were concerned about it in 1998, but all of a sudden wouldn't be a few years later since Saddam didn't tell anyone what he did with his WMD's?
I'm sure I'll awknowlege a point when we actually find WMD's. We're concerned because he didnt give proof he didn't have something?
And yes, situations change a lot in a few years.
I disagree: The situation didn't change. Saddam still didn't tell the world / UN what he did with his weapons. We know he had them, where are they now? That was the question and he was never willing to answer them, he was constantly holding back the UN inspectors (Hans Blix said it himself) and not willing to really work with the rest of the world. In other words: That situation didn't change.
Kerry was being a little bit of a hypocrity imho.
well, your welcome to your humble opinion. I'd be curious where the WMD's are too. I suppose all of it just shows how overblown the threat was.
I agree (darn it!!). Goes to show one needs to be very careful using fear to gain more votes; it might very well backfire on ya.
Well... that's the end of thís discussion; I think I'll just 'troll' in one of your new posts; just to finally have a real debate.
j/k of course
Thanks for the info you post. I learn a lot. It's funny how Bush twist his words from "I will never hand over America’s security decisions to foreign leaders and international bodies that do not have America’s interests at heart." to the approval and the defense for DP World takeover.
Want to know the real hilarious thing?
White House spokesman Scott "lying King" McClellan (or however you spell his name) now said that Bush, in fact, didn't know about the deal until AFTER the deal was secured!
Hahaha, so Bush can still play innocent.
Oh and he also admitted Bush only found out about it ... by watching the news! For real; go to the CNN website!
ROTFL!!
Kerry-President-2008.
Kerry spoke up on MTP about how Bush sent them the fake facts to vote on the IWR. So this is more reason to impeach the President! He had no interest in getting the RIGHT vote on the IWR only the one he wanted. He said it himself, "He wanted to ..."
I voted Kerry but besides my vote, my mother made her choice upon who stands for something and who stands for nothing. The safety of America would still be at risk. To be honest morals come into play. Bush is trying to do what many political leaders have doen in the bible. He wants to establish relationships by marrying into different countries in a sence. I cannot say that Kerry would be a better president. The only we would know is if he were to run for the next election and be voted in. The one thing that I do not want voted out is our principals based on the foundation of God. In whom we trust. I do not want a president who does not trust God. Does Bush totally have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ? I am not sure but he confesses to be a Christian. In that sense even though I did vote for Kerry I at least know that Bush has character and descent morals. Every election that passes by we start to look more and more at the policies but never into the character of the man running the show. Lies exit the mouth but the proof is in there way of life. So show me a man that stands for Christ no matter the opposition. And you may have showed me a man that has my vote.
I voted Kerry but besides my vote, my mother made her choice upon who stands for something and who stands for nothing. The safety of America would still be at risk. To be honest morals come into play. Bush is trying to do what many political leaders have doen in the bible. He wants to establish relationships by marrying into different countries in a sence. I cannot say that Kerry would be a better president. The only we would know is if he were to run for the next election and be voted in. The one thing that I do not want voted out is our principals based on the foundation of God. In whom we trust. I do not want a president who does not trust God. Does Bush totally have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ? I am not sure but he confesses to be a Christian. In that sense even though I did vote for Kerry I at least know that Bush has character and descent morals. Every election that passes by we start to look more and more at the policies but never into the character of the man running the show. Lies exit the mouth but the proof is in there way of life. So show me a man that stands for Christ no matter the opposition. And you may have showed me a man that has my vote.
First off, a person does not have to believe in Christ to be a moral and capable person to run this country. I think it's sad that you have to force your views on everyone in general. There are many many decent, smart, and capable men and women there who are Jewish or agnostic who follow the 10 commandments and have the highest ethical standings. God loves all his children. It says so in the Bible before the Bible became a means of indoctrinating people to only believe in Christ.
People think Bush is a good Christian. I know this for a fact because I've had convesations with many Bush voters who said exactly that. HE is an example of a Christian who is a false Christian to get power and to suck the rest of us dry. There are lots of false Christians out there. Take Frist for instance: would a true Christian disect cats (while NOT IN SCHOOL)? Would a true Christian use his own business to make votes and rules of laws that will make more money for himself or would he use his position and money to help the needy?
You have a lot of so-called Christians playing off people like you. People who have the deepest sincerity and hope for goodness in their heart, like you do, but who they put up a false front with the name "Christian" and you tend to not look at their actions. Furthermore, they played you guys like a fiddle and when they abused your trust, it took you guys a long time to see past their facade.
As far as I'm concerned, after seeing the deceit from these Christians, I'm more inclined to vote for an athiest who actually follows the teachings and tenents of the Bible than vote for someone who wears "Christian" on his sleeve but in his heart acts like the devil.
John Kerry did not wear his religion on his sleeve. He allows all of us to have what the Constitution told us we could have: freedom for our own religion! Furthermore, as an avid blogger during the 04 campaign, I can tell you I learned he was a devout Catholic, who goes to church weekly, carries his bible in his heart and his cross too. He doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve, as the Bible tells us not to do, and he practices the things that Jesus preached: take care of the poor, peace not war, no torture, etc...Jesus was a liberal...a proud liberal.
I'm part of the religious left and proud of it. The religious left encompasses Jews, Christians, spiritualists of any kind, etc...The point is we all carry our belief system in our heart and we don't like how people are starving, being tortured, dying in a war that's a lie.
I'm proud to be a liberal!