Recently Bouche was criticizing Kerry for stating that he wanted to start bringing troops home by next August. He said:
Geez, that didn't seem to matter when he pulled June 30th out of his arse for the handover. Sounds like a flip-flop to me.

Here Kerry is giving insight to an actual exit strategy - using diplomacy to have other nations commit troops so we can bring some of ours home - and Bouche has a problem with that? Why? 'Cause he couldn't think of one himself in a year-and-a-half?

At the same rally, McCain stated that more troops may be needed in Iraq. Wasn't the GOP getting on Kerry's butt after misunderstanding his desire to raise active duty by 40,000? They claimed he wanted to add those to Iraq. Now they say we need more? Sounds like another flip-flop.

But that's GOP; do as I say, not as I do.

Flip Flop til the day you drop, cmon!

What insight?

That he would do it differently? Where does he get the justification for reducing troops in 6 months? What foreign leaders does he have assurances from? Please spell it out. You cannot because Kerry has not why how convienient. Playing on the lack of knowldge from the acg. american pilgrim of how the security council works and why France, germany and Russia cannot send troops or peace keepers.

I say he is pandering to the far left that voted for Dean knowing he is OK with his base because they will vote for a democrat if he was dead.

That's the beauty of it all. I don't have to spell it out. I do enough research on my own before posting something. I'm not doing your work for you. And if you're truly as well read as you claim to be, you wouldn't ask some of the ludicrous questions you do.

He has not spelled it out other than to say he would get other countries to help. Which countries have offered him their services? None. He is playing a game and has been called on it several times.

If you were truly following politics as you pretend to do, you'd know exactly what Kerry's response was to your very criticism. Again, I'm not doing your work for you.

Hint: you won't find it on Drudge or Weekly Standard.

It's vaporware. It isnot of this world . It cannot be produced. Saying the same thing 3 times 3 different ways. You could not produce it if you wanted to because it aint there.

Maybe we could invite these anti Bush supporters here for a town meeting with you local supporters. I would offer all of them a free knife as a welcoming gift.

Video purportedly shows killing of Iraq "CIA agent"


DUBAI, Aug 11 (Reuters) - A Web site used by Islamic militants carried a video on Wednesday purporting to show militants beheading a "CIA agent" in Iraq.

The four-minute long footage showed a Western-looking man sitting on a chair surrounded by armed masked men. One of the men struck the captive's neck repeatedly with a sword, severing his head amid shouts of "Allahu Akbar" (God is greatest).

A sign placed around the man's neck identified him as a "CIA agent." The video could not be immediately authenticated.

I remember Kerry telling a TV interviewer recently that our involvement in Iraq was mis-guided and that he had a plan to involve other countries in keeping the peace in ME and bringing our troops home.

When the interviewer asked him to elaborate--Kerry said that he wasn't going to divulge his plans now and make them public--you'll just have to trust him until after the election.

Elvis,
What's the point of that post? Trying to rationalize Bouche's folly? Did it ever occur to you that none of the beheadings would be happening if we hadn't invaded? Nor the thousands of innocent Iraqi's dead. Nor the nearly 1000 Americans. Nor the untold thousands of permanently disfigured and handicapped veterans. The insugency wouldn't have happened. The car bombings. Hopefully you get my point.

Krusty-
You're getting warm. But you only listened to half of it.

Since you're criticizing Kerry's lack of concrete answers, tell me, what is Bouche's plan? What is his exit strategy? His plan for winning the peace?

"When the interviewer asked him to elaborate--Kerry said that he wasn't going to divulge his plans now and make them public--you'll just have to trust him until after the election."


Why should Kerry divulge his plan just so the current administration could publicly ridicule it, then secretly enact it themselves?

GH,

Your view is always of the glass half full. Did it ever occur to you that it would be happing all over the world if not for the Iraq war?

4Salt, You sum up the liberal bent on everything it's all a conspiracy theroy. :p
Saves a lot of work thinking about something whenyou can blame someone else for everything.

Was it occuring at this pace prior to the invasion?

Why is concentrating it and them a bad thing?

Would you rather arrest them one by one and then give them due process? Hard to argue about your rights while you point an RPG at someone or blow yourself up in a car bomb.

Forcing them out into the light like cockroaches then stomping them. Swift and final justice on terms of their choosing.

Yet another conspiracy theroy.

"Unpaid Professional BUSH Whacker"

Sounds like service you should take on the road to the women of Wallingford. Maybe show them how to shave their hairy legs and arms pits as well. I bet you need the biggest Stihl they make :p

It's not a bad thing if that's what was happening. But it's not. We're fighting Iraqi guerrillas that were created after our invasion. Military leaders have determined that the majority of insurgents are not foreign fighters.

While we're killing everyone in Iraq, al Qaeda is fat and happy in Pakistan and Afghanistan continueing to plot against American cities. The only ones making any real difference in this war on terra is Pakistan who is, yes, arresting those they find. Of course that's being hampered by Bouche's people leaking classified info to the press, but that's another thread.

Again I ask: were the terrorist activities occurring around the globe at this same pace prior to our invasion?

Personal responsibility, try taking some. Oh yeah, GOP's mantra - do as I say, not as I do.

Sources for your points?


"were the terrorist activities occurring around the globe at this same pace prior to our invasion?"

No it has increased but its a pointless observastion as the situation is not static and it is logical to assume things will get worse before they get better. I also do not rememebr anyone promising anything but a long drawn out battle. But the children libs expect quick results kind of like they get when they flip from MTV to the Cartoon network between bong hits. :p

Wrong. It is a very pointed observation because the increase in terrorist incidences could have been prevented or greatly scaled back. Containment. We had that at one time.

How did we have containment? I cannot wait to see this.

------------------------------------------------------------

You mean like when Clinton 'contained' the terrorists so effectively?

It is precisely the liberal Clintonese policy of 'peace at any price', 'don't answer the door that's being pounded on--and maybe the bad guys will just go away', 'peace through appeasement' philosophy that has put us in the difficult position were in now.

We were attacked so many times under Clinton's watch, and because he repeatably did
nothing is why Osama bin Laden said we (USA) were a paper tiger that would not fight.

Clinton's lack of action is what enboldened OBL and the gang to plan and execute the 9/11/01 attacks.

If anyone out there thinks that Islamic fundelmentalists would've been hugging us and wouldn't be praying for and planning your families death today if we had never invaded Iraq--you're delusional.

Bush himself has said that ideally he would rather not have our country fighting terrorists here or abroad. Neadless to say we don't live in a ideal world. However, cutting and running would only make the situatuation worse.

The ME has and will continue to be troubled area--we now have a strong foothold in the area (ME) other than Israel. Hopefully, over time, the idea of reprenstative government, free markets and freedom of speech will flurish thoughout the area.

Gen. Tommy Franks said, "the area (Iraq) has become a magnet for terrorists," and right now we have two choices, "we can either fight them over there, or fight them over here."

When a bully thinks you won't fight back, he'll bully you every chance he gets.

When a bully KNOWS you'll fight back and is more worried about losing his teeth than gaining whatever satifaction bullying you gives him----you're much less likely to be bullied.

It has been said that this is going to be a long battle (fighting Islamic terrorists). To the MTV mentality wants everything yesterday-- NEWSFLASH: It's not gonna' happen.

Whether it's Kerry or Bush in office next February--they'll still want to bully, terrorize and kill all of us in March.

We can either 'appease' and not fight back and continued to be bullied and live in terror, or we can fight back until they're so worried about what will happen to themselves that they won't have the time to plan and execute what they'd like to have happen to us.

Anyone else find it ironic that Franks is full of beans?

Hello?? Where the (Dick Cheney) were you two years ago?

Iraq was under strict sanctions; filled with weapons inspectors, the entire world was watching and breathing down Saddam's neck; we had him where we wanted him.

That's containment in military parlance.

But someone got an itchy trigger finger and impatient.

If they DID have wmd's, which righty seems to believe religiously that they did, then they were 'contained' within the borders of Iraq.

If they didn't have wmd's, which ALL of the evidence seems to indicate, then Bouche lied.

If they did have wmd's and they were surreptitiously removed from Iraq before the us invasion, where'd they go? In a cargo 'container' headed to us shores? Are they 'contained' within the borders of other terrorist friendly nations?

Yeah, let's talk about containment as it relates to WMD's, shall we?

Oh that's right, this question has been asked and dodged at twenty five times on this site alone....

....right before Elvis Copperfield took a powder.

Are you now calling Cliton, Kerry and Edwards righty, along with many others.?? Just curious considering all said that they were there? Or is that just another baseless attempt to slam? Or, could it be that you have become so blind with hate and anger that you really have no idea of reality anymore?

C'mon, H2o. I used to at least find your posts somewhat amusing and even a few were informational and made me think of the possibilities of your point of view and even considered a few. Either the late nights or lack of fishing are getting to you. Lately your posts are getting more and more delusional...

Go have a barley soda and slay some fish...

Yeah my delusions also recall that Dumbya sold the congress a bill of goods, top o the list was wmd's!

Talk about not getting what you paid for.

------------------------------------------------------------

Withdraw from the backside?

Professional Bush Whacker?
------------------------------------------------------------

It sounds like somebody needs to either eat some chocolate or get some @ction.

Sounds like someone has nothing to say today.

Cmon rory, you can do better!

Gh,

I just listened to Slade gorton speak on the question of Iraq and Al Queda. He said there where many ties and evidence of even more between the two. Just no operational ties to 911. So at a place in time you may argue a case that there was containment but none of us know when it stopped. What we do no is that it happened well before we invaded. Secondly the guy you are voting for said containment was not enough. Thridly its a moot point as we invaded. So whats the point going down that dead end.

Okay, Elvis, I accept your concession.

Gh,

And I accept yours equally. One question though. Why the heck where you in the militray and why contract back to them. Of all the wars this country has ever been involved in only one was not by choice.

anyone ever play reversi?


no?


othello?

nevermind....

If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand.

And what does that have to do with the wars in America's history?

The only thing I can come up with when I ask why would an anti military , blame America first,socialist leaning person be in the military is an easy paycheck. What could possibly be the reason if that's not it? To infiltrate the military so you can claim credibility when you tear it down? Maybe that's it....You served your country by golly so you have standing to rip the military a new one and blast your fellow soldiers as baby killers etc etc....

so you would deny ex-military the right to free speech eh gramps?

how positively american of you!

GH,

"And what does that have to do with the wars in America's history?"

If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand.

Brilliant.

Grandpa,

Why do you feel I'm anti-military? And what is "blame America first?"

By the way, the military is a socialist environment. Seems to have worked for over 225 years now.