In this new age of terror we need a strong and decisive dictator. That's why I'm pledging my life to King Bush.
The fact that you keep repeating this over and over does not make it true. Based on opinion polls, the American public does not agree with your statement.
Based on opinion polls, Saddam and 9/11 were connected. The reality is completely different. Were you saying something about repeating untrue information over and over? Kerry has an actual plan that is viable long term. GWB does not appear to have such a plan, given that he seems to believe that everything is going just fine. Kerry will be able to engender the worldwide cooperation that Bush spurned and thumbed his nose at. We will only be able to effectively fight terrorists if we have the cooperation of the entire world so four more years of GWB will be four MORE years where more terrorists are created than we take out. Kerry is a better choice to lead the war on terror.
Opinion polls are completely irrelevent when it comes it true/false statesments such as a connection between Saddam and 9/11. And from what I understand, most agreed there was a Saddam/Al Quaida connection, not 9/11. Not sure what polls you've been reading. An opinion poll on whether Kerry has a viable long term solution on the war of terror is relevant information. You're comparing apples to oranges. We don't need a pacifist point of view when it comes to terror. While our great and mighty democratic leader of the mid to late nintys was working great peace accords, which are completely hopeless, would not work and will never work in the territory he was trying to amend, the terror network grew stronger, allowing them to plan attacks against us. Please do not give us another president that will allow this to happen. Im not saying Bush is a great man, but we do not need another pansy in office.
Like our situation when we traded Francis, I fear the known more than I fear the unknown. I do know from the CIA and anti-terror specialists I've consulted that we are not safer (but that's just their opinion). Bush saying that we're safer does not make it so.
hahaha, seriously, if the republican candidate is halfway decent I do consider voting for him. Hell back in 2000, if McCain had been the republican candidate I would've voted for him over Gore. But now, there's really no question who's getting my vote, Kerry.
Wtf, what the heck do u mean "And from what I understand, most agreed there was a Saddam/Al Quaida connection, not 9/11"? If Al Queda were the ones behind 9/11 wouldn't that mean the people who believed that Saddam was connected with Al Queda (which now has been proven absolutely false) believed that he had something to do with 9/11? Hell, wasn't that one of the arguments why Bush wanted to invade Iraq?
uhh no. If he had connections with Al Queda (which I believe he did) does not make him guilty by association regarding 9/11. Do you really think they would have included Saddam in the 9/11 plans when maybe a very small handful even knew the plans? If so, you're very mislead.
Here's what the evidence says about Saddam and Al Qaeda. They contacted one another. There was contact. There was never cooperation or a working relationship. Saddam never helped Al-Qaeda.
I was making an ironic comment to texx, read the statement I quoted and you will understand. Kerry is not a "pansy" and will fight a MUCH more effective war on terror. 9/11 changed everything in America, not just everything for the GOP. I am fully ready to give Kerry a chance to show that he can do a better job than Bush (which shouldn't be difficult at all) and if he doesn't, hopefully I will get to vote for McCain for prez in '08.
I have never voted for a Democrat for President. I plan to vote for Kerry this time. Mark my words, GWB will go down in history as one of the worst presidents ever and the worst president of my lifetime.
