Who won the debate?

[FactsOfLife]

You know, I don't think it's even a matter of liberals and conservatives. These "liberals" are not consistently liberal - and can be in complete contradiction. I am personally more liberal than I am conservative - but I'm not one of "those" liberals in the least bit. Intelligent liberalism is very important, and we have something to gain from it - and we have gained from it.

I think there's something much deeper, and I don't have a word to label these people - and I've been trying to characterize them in my mind but I can't quite do it yet. And these people just happen to be associated with liberalism because that's just how it works out - almost accidentally.

Liberal has almost mutated into a synonym for idiot. I think we either need a different word other than "liberal" to label these people, or use it more sparingly - when it is contextually correct... and refer to someone as a liberal when it is very accurate.

the word you're looking for is "Kooks"....

[aaron_mag]

Kerry clearly won. The only think he didn't come right out and say was:

I 'flip-flopped' because I made the mistake of trusting my president and the intelligence reports he cited on weapons of mass destruction. Oh and by the way for those of you who still maintain that there is the 9/11 link with Saddam. From Rummy himself:

http://www.comcast.net/News/DOMESTIC//XML/1107_AP_Online_Regional___Middle_East/769c232b-9b12-406e-a9c6-93348ce1ed96.html

Now who is flip flopping?

And why is it I wasn't allowed to vote in the poll?

By the way...I'm 33 here and not a 'teenager who supports Kerry'. Not that there is anything wrong with being young and interested in politics.

[FactsOfLife]

Kerry clearly won. The only think he didn't come right out and say was:

I 'flip-flopped' because I made the mistake of trusting my president and the intelligence reports he cited on weapons of mass destruction. Oh and by the way for those of you who still maintain that there is the 9/11 link with Saddam. From Rummy himself:

http://www.comcast.net/News/DOMESTIC//XML/1107_AP_Online_Regional___Middle_East/769c232b-9b12-406e-a9c6-93348ce1ed96.html

Now who is flip flopping?

And why is it I wasn't allowed to vote in the poll?

By the way...I'm 33 here and not a 'teenager who supports Kerry'. Not that there is anything wrong with being young and interested in politics.

am, show me ONE person on here who has said and or supported the idea that Saddam had anything to do with 9-11.

No one here, and not even the Bush Admin has said that. What they and we have said repeatedly, and I'll say it again, is that there are clear and direct links between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

And if US Intelligence lied about WMD's, then so did the UK, France, China, Russia, Italy, Germany, and every other world intelligence body.

Oh by the way, if the intelligence was bad, why didn't your boy Kerry notice it? He is on the Senate Intelligence Commitee....

[aaron_mag]

am, show me ONE person on here who has said and or supported the idea that Saddam had anything to do with 9-11.

No one here, and not even the Bush Admin has said that. What they and we have said repeatedly, and I'll say it again, is that there are clear and direct links between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

Since you didn't click on the link I'll bring you the quote:

Asked to describe the connection between the Iraqi leader and the al-Qaida terror network at an appearance Monday at the Council on Foreign Relations, the Pentagon chief first refused to answer, then said: "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."

There you have it . He said it. He later retracted the statment (hours later) saying that it was misinterpreted (I don't know how such a clear thing can be misinterpreted). He waffles so much on this issue purely because it is the old house of cards thing. It keeps collapsing under scrutiny.

Accept it guys...Sadam and al-Qaida did not have 'clear and direct links'.

[shartley]

Accept it guys...Sadam and al-Qaida did not have 'clear and direct links'.

[aaron_mag]

Heh heh...

I'll admit that you got me to crack up with this one!!!

We could go on with the rest of the debate, but, unlike some of the younger AOers, I have no interest in wasting all of our times in a flame war. Been there, done that, ad nauseum, over this issue.

-Later

[FactsOfLife]

NEW YORK - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a speech that he knew of no clear link between the al-Qaida terror network and Saddam Hussein, although he later backed off the statement and said he was misunderstood.

Nice editing AM...

Why do you guys persist in attempting to deny any connection existed between Saddam and Al Qaeda?

Are we supposed to believe that this world wide network of terrorism existed everywhere BUT Iraq??

[matt-o]

I personally would not be suprised to see him attack Kerry on his crap Senatorial record. If that happens, it's over for Kerry.

what if kerry attacked bush on his record of telling the truth?

[matt-o]

Why do you guys persist in attempting to deny any connection existed between Saddam and Al Qaeda?

Are we supposed to believe that this world wide network of terrorism existed everywhere BUT Iraq??

no but iraq was one of the places al-queda wasnt in, now terrorists are everywhere in iraq

well facts if all liberals are kooks then all conseravites are rednecks

[aaron_mag]

Nice editing AM...

Why do you guys persist in attempting to deny any connection existed between Saddam and Al Qaeda?

Are we supposed to believe that this world wide network of terrorism existed everywhere BUT Iraq??

Anyone can read the link to the article here.

http://www.comcast.net/News/DOMESTIC//XML/1107_AP_Online_Regional___Middle_East/769c232b-9b12-406e-a9c6-93348ce1ed96.html

The actual article is a heck of a lot stronger than the 'edited' post I made.

And, furthermore, so it is a world wide network? So what? Does that mean we attack the United Kingdom and depose the prime minister because Al Qaeda is active in their country?

We're talking about about SADDAM and Al Qaeda. Saddam was a dictator, and horrible, etc, etc, etc. No one is arguing that point. But was he a threat to the U.S.? No, he wasn't. He was a dictator who was terrified of being deposed. He knew, better than anyone because of the Gulf War, that the U.S. could take him out at any time. He was terrified of us and had a lot to lose.

The guys to fear from terrorist attack are people like Bin Laden. They have nothing to lose. So we should have concentrated on him in Afghanistan rather than being diverted to Iraq.

Now look what you made me do. You made me get into it again...

[RogueFactoryKid]

I Won a Math Debate. I'll be exiting to the door on my right.

[FactsOfLife]

what if kerry attacked bush on his record of telling the truth?

Then Kerry would simply lose.

Don't bother to attempt to get me riled up with that lame nonsense. Either come up with hard evidence or get another tag line. This nonsense that Bush is a liar is pendantic liberal horsecrap.

[FactsOfLife]

Anyone can read the link to the article here.

http://www.comcast.net/News/DOMESTIC//XML/1107_AP_Online_Regional___Middle_East/769c232b-9b12-406e-a9c6-93348ce1ed96.html

The actual article is a heck of a lot stronger than the 'edited' post I made.

And, furthermore, so it is a world wide network? So what? Does that mean we attack the United Kingdom and depose the prime minister because Al Qaeda is active in their country?

We're talking about about SADDAM and Al Qaeda. Saddam was a dictator, and horrible, etc, etc, etc. No one is arguing that point. But was he a threat to the U.S.? No, he wasn't. He was a dictator who was terrified of being deposed. He knew, better than anyone because of the Gulf War, that the U.S. could take him out at any time. He was terrified of us and had a lot to lose.

The guys to fear from terrorist attack are people like Bin Laden. They have nothing to lose. So we should have concentrated on him in Afghanistan rather than being diverted to Iraq.

Now look what you made me do. You made me get into it again...

The actual article states that Rumsfeld retracts that "statement". YOU LIBERALS refuse to accept that.

Yes it is a world wide network. We had 6 people arrested, convicted and jailed locally for being associated with Al Qaeda here in NY. Your lame assed comment about attacking the UK because there are AlQaeda present shows how far away from reality you've slipped.

We are going to defend ourselves AM, no matter how loud you bleat about pre-emptive strikes.

Where on earth do you get the idea that Saddam was "terrified" of us? He was defiant, and adamant that he should not have to follow your much lauded UN mandates. Terrified? LOL What nonsense. If he was so terrified of us, then you tell me why he threw the weapons inspectors out knowing that it would inevitibly lead to his being in violation of UN resolution and possibly another war?

Yeah sounds like he was real scared.

And why is it that you guys can not seem to grasp the simple concept of a country like Iraq, Syria, or Iran handing over WMD's to highly mobile terrorist groups like Al Qaeda to attack us?????

Sticking your collective heads in the sand will NOT make the problem go away guys.

[aaron_mag]

The actual article states that Rumsfeld retracts that "statement". YOU LIBERALS refuse to accept that.

Dude!!! The Bush Administration is attacking Kerry of being the great 'waffler' and yet you have high up officials of the Bush Administration 'retracting' statements they made. Can you not see the irony of it?

And we are NOT a nation that has a history of premptive strikes. We've always been the 'speak softly and carry a big stick' mentality. Our nation has always hated war and had to be dragged into it kicking and screaming. That is what makes us a great country. War is a costly and unproductive endeavor.

But once we get dragged into it we don't have a problem with waging it. When bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki could anyone protest that they hadn't begged and asked for what was coming to them (with their unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor)? How about N. Korea begging for us to bomb and fight them by invading S. Korea? What about Saddam invading Kuwait? All are incidents of the U.S. reacting (not preempting).

Diplomacy and deterrent strength. Those have always served us against enemies and will continue to serve us against those that have a lot to lose.

[FactsOfLife]

Dude!!! The Bush Administration is attacking Kerry of being the great 'waffler' and yet you have high up officials of the Bush Administration 'retracting' statements they made. Can you not see the irony of it?

And we are NOT a nation that has a history of premptive strikes. We've always been the 'speak softly and carry a big stick' mentality. Our nation has always hated war and had to be dragged into it kicking and screaming. That is what makes us a great country. War is a costly and unproductive endeavor.

But once we get dragged into it we don't have a problem with waging it. When bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki could anyone protest that they hadn't begged and asked for what was coming to them (with their unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor)? How about N. Korea begging for us to bomb and fight them by invading S. Korea? What about Saddam invading Kuwait? All are incidents of the U.S. reacting (not preempting).

Diplomacy and deterrent strength. Those have always served us against enemies and will continue to serve us against those that have a lot to lose.

I see people in the Admin clarifying statements for stupid reporters with agendas, so no, I can't see the irony.

You can't seriously think that terrorsist organisations are going to respect our diplomacy????

Last I checked, we were dragged into this kicking and screaming. 9-11? Hello?