JK Speech

[LionPride]

While we're on the topic of the death penalty, I thought it would be appropriate to point out that Kerry voted AGAINST the death penalty for terrorists that kill Americans. And don't forget that he voted for a nuclear freeze during the Reagon years, and we all know now that building up our nuclear program is what defeated the Soviet Union and communism without a shot being fired. And don't forget that he voted against funding for our troops now, which would have provided them with things like better body armor and better weapons. It's very scary to me to think this man is even in the running for President.

[once a runner]

LP, maybe you can share with us the information as to where JK voted against the death penalty to the 9/11 terrorists. The following website says that he is against the death penalty except for 9/11 terrorists: http://www.issues2000.org/John_Kerry.htm

Another fact about the death penalty: it is not a deterrent to crime (and this is the reason GW supports the death penalty). In 2002 out of the top 20 states in murder rate, only one of those states banned the death penalty. On the other end of the spectrum. Out of the 20 states who ranked lowest in murder rates, 9 banned the death penalty. (there are 12 states who ban the death penalty).
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article ... =169#MRord

It's true the nuclear arsenal helped us deter war with the Soviet Union. Once the wall fell, so did the need for such a large arsenal. He didn't agree to get rid of everything. The war on terror caught everyone off guard. A lot of politicians would have voted differently if they believed there was an imminent threat of war.

Speaking of the war in Iraq, didn't GW just refer to it as a "catastrophic success"? He also said the war couldn't be won, only to recant the next day. I'm sure it's all due to his "poor public speaking".

[LionPride]

Oh, that's right, I forgot. He did vote against the death penalty for terrorists, but he did another famous flip flop in 2002. Sorry, my bad. If you want to point to a pro John Kerry web site on his issues, here's one for you.

http://www.vnsfvetakerry.com/kerry's_voting_record.htm

As for his defense spending voting record, I wasn't referring to all the many, many bills he voted against pre-9/11. I was referring to the 87 billion he voted against AFTER he voted to send our troops to war. That's dangerous.

I was just waiting for someone to bring up the comment from the Today show. Obviously, the Dems are desparate right now, because they are grasping on to anything they can. You and I both know that comment was taken out of context. He was referring to the fact that this is not a conventional war. There will be no peace treaty. It won't be won in 4 years. Here's the quote:

Asked "Can we win?" Bush said, "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the - those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

So, let's just say we can't win the war on terror. What should we do? Leave them alone? Let them rebuild in another part of the world like they did in Afghanistan? I'd say our President's policies have greatly diminished terrorist operating power. To stop now chasing down the terrorist now, like Kerry would do, would be playing right into their hands.

And it's one thing for a comment to come out wrong. It's quite another for a 20 year voting record to come out wrong.

[once a runner]

Of course when JK used the word "sensitive" in a statement, he was blasted for it. He doesn't get the "it just came out wrong" pass that Bush gets.

How do you figure that website you gave me was a "pro-JK" site? I know Kerry is a liberal and I agree with many of his ideas, but there are others on which I disagree. But you must admit, voting in congress can be a complicated issue. There are bills, amended bills, riders to bills, etc. A congressman could agree with the original bill, but vote against the amended bill. Sometimes they vote because they feel the bill did not go far enough. Sometimes they vote to gain political favor so another vote can pass. Sometimes they vote because they don't approve of a rider that was attached to a bill. I do know that JK is in favor of a line-item veto. If only congress would stop lumping bills together, we could get a better idea of what some of their votes meant.

As far as the 87 billion he voted against after the troops went. I don't believe he was putting them in harms way by voting it down. You can be anti-war and still be for the troops. I was originally for the war as well, but when they failed to find WMD I changed my mind. Yes, I know there is supposed credilble sources who said we're in danger. But frankly, I have yet to see the credible evidence and I don't believe it exists. I think it was all one big lie. Yes, I could be wrong, but I still believe the war with Iraq was not necessary. It has not made us safer and put our troops in a very difficult situation.

[LionPride]

I didn't word part of my post correctly. I guess it could happen to anyone, huh? What I meant was that you pointed to a pro-JK web site to point out your post, and I was giving you an anti-JK (but amazingly accurate) site to make my point.

Wasn't JK's sensitive remark in a prepared speech? I trully don't know the answer, so I'm just asking. If so, there is a difference then.

Please answer the question that I have posed many, many times and no one wants to touch. What would you being saying today if Iraq was left alone, and Hussein backed or launched a terrorist attack on our soil? You would be screaming from the highest mountain that this administration didn't do enough. You said yourself there was credible sources of an attack. What would you do in that position, in a post-9/11 world? Would you stand back and wait until thousands more innocent Americans died before you took out the threat? I would hope not.

You're entitiled to your opinions - I just happen to think they're wrong.

[once a runner]

IF that were the case, I would suspect you are right about your assumptions. When an administration makes a mistake they can either accept responsibility (which is doubtful) or create reasons and find someone else to blame as to why they are wrong. This tactic is generally followed by both Rep. and Dem.

However, that is a very large IF. First of all, according the 9/11 commission, there is no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the US. The truth is Bin Laden and Hussein really didn't like each other. There was speculation at one time (but no evidence) that Bin Laden asked Hussein for space to set up cells. Since it never materialized, there is no way to know for sure if that was true.

Now, if we are attacked again and 15 of the 19 terrorists are from Saudi Arabia, who should we attack?? Iran?? I totally agree with eliminating terrorists cells where ever they exist. Al Qaeda attacked, they are the enemy, we should be working to eliminate them.

[Anonymous]

Anybody care at all about the Russian schoolchildren being held hostage on their FIRST DAY BACK IN SCHOOL by Chechen( Muslim radicals with ties to Al-Qaeda) rebels? That's what happens when a country is S-O-F-T with terrorists. Just like happened here for 9-11. It hasn't happened here since, thank GOD (and GW) because we somewhat wised up.

[CRLionDawg]

White Shadow, are you expecting something bad to soon happen in France?