I would like to thank John Kerry for helping Bush win reelection.

Matt,

In the stock trading world we have something called "the dead cat bounce" (which today was one) its where the market goes down a few days in a row and it gets a bounce just because its oversold. Kerry/Edwards didn't even get a dead cat bounce after the announcement of Edwards as VP. I too would like to thank Kerry for his tireless work at getting Bush re-elected!

Now I know why Kerry picked Edwards. He can flip/flop with the best of them. Kerry must admire that.

previously banned

Scar,

Actually, my sources tell me that Kerry is fast souring on Edwards...the flip/flops are for Kerry, not for anyone else!

OK, I am a first time visitor. But I like this blog.

We at FreeRepublic are overwhelmingly in support of our president, and want him re-elected. Having said that, I know I hope that the Bush Campaign is 'rolling the camera' of all the vitriol and outright hate that the Whoppi Goldbergs of the world are heaping on President Bush and our country. I really don't think the media will show all the new lows being reached on an almost daily basis.

We could also use quotes of each and every dem pol. Because with the exception of maybe Howard Dean and Dennis 'the Menace' Kucinich, all of them at some point in time have spoken in favor of what President Bush actually did. These people either have amnesia or very selective memories, and the American people need to see how the left always heads for the tall grass when they think they can leverage a political advantage.

Welcome CT!

I know what you mean. I think this degradation of the dem rhetoric is of no humor at all. There is no way to debate ideas anymore.

Maybe it's because we have won on the idea front, and they can't stand that...

just a theory.

I think it's more just an example of how any politician will lie when the times change or public opinion shifts. If Iraq was a mistake, as many Democrats reason, then the Democrats who voted for the war (Kerry, Edwards) were just as wrong as the White House who was obliged to Kcarry out the military details.

If both sides were wrong, i guess we vote based on who you think can better handle this mess.

Night Line called 42 senators to ask them if they would have voted for the war had they known what they know now.
39 answered in the affirmative, including Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle and Joe Biden. I don't know the identity of the negative respondents, but I found that news nugget quite interesting.
Out of intellectual honesty, I believe that kudos should be given to Democrats (I presume that most of the surveyed senators were Democrats) who have stood up for their votes.

The war was needless.

However, the intelligence that was shared with the Senate was apparently the same intelligence that the report out today (by the Republican controlled Senate) says was wrong.

While there are many of us who were skeptical of it before the war, it is odd to hear Republicans bashing Kerry or Edwards for having believed what they were presented with back then.

OH BOY ELI's back.... How wonderful, we can watch him stick to and try and explain away his faulty propaganda. First off Eli, The war was VERY necessary. The fact is we have found WMDs in Iraq. Maybe not the HUGE stockpiles that you guys wanted, but it doesn't take a lot of sarin to kill a couple thousand people. Turns out that Iraq/Saddam and Al-Qaida had links and the more the information comes out of Iraq, the more we find out that the relationship is growing tighter and tighter. So, given those facts, You still propose a sit and do-nothing approach. Did you learn NOTHING from 9-11. When it comes to dealing with terrorists and terrorist supporting governments a sit and do nothing approach only gets american citizens killed. The arguments you are proposing are the SAME exact arguments I heard from liberals after the Embassy bombings, and after the Cole bombing. Us Neo-Cons, kept saying put boots on the ground and take him out. We got told no, no, no, you can't do that. We don't have the right to do it, their actions haven't been significant enough for us to take him out, and so on. Turns out if we were listened to 3000 americans would still be alive today. Simply put, you didn't want Bush to go into Iraq because then Iraq could have handed off a chem weapon to the terrorists, they could have then turned around and attacked us with it, and you guys could blame Bush for that. Wonderful little catch 22 game you have going there. Too bad Bush did what was RIGHT and defended this nation and prevented the above scenario from happening. It's always good to know that liberals such as yourself are willing to sacrifice american citizens lives for political gain, what wonderful little platform to have.

Here's the point:
Critics say "Bush lied."
The report, signed off unanimously (though some Democrats have griped), was clear that no pressure was brought to bear on analysts.
If Bush critics want to say "everyone was wrong, and the war was needless," I respect that view.
What I don't respect is the position that:
"Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, and many others were wrong, and Bush lied."
By the way, several prominent Democrats stated in telephone interviews that this report would NOT have caused them to change their minds, including Tom Daschle, Joseph Biden, Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton.

PD,
Actually I disagree. The point is that the Intelligence WAS accurate. Saddam did have WMDs. Saddam DID have links to al-qaida and other terrorist organizations. Given those things Bush did what was right. You can NOT allow a terrorist supporting gov like Saddam's Iraq, to hand that stuff off. Given our options, we had two choices: 1) Do nothing (becuase Sanctions weren't working and we all know that). or 2) remove him and that government. Those were our options. And as we saw on 9-11, we know where option 1 leads to. That's why I can NOT and will not respect the opinion that the war was unneccessary. Because it shows a sign of stupidity (unwillingness to LEARN). Essentially, the Dems are trying that propagandist line of Bush lied, simply because they want to politicize FP for political gain. That, more than anything else, is what is going to get people killed. Remember the saying: "War is an Ugly thing, but not the Ugliest..." Or perhaps Patrick Henry: "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?"

Litning:

Didn't the left say we needed to connect the dots when it came to 9-11? Thats exactly what Bush did with Iraq. All the world thought Iraq had WMD's, Iraq was the only country openly praising the 9-11 hijackers, Russia gave us intelligence that Iraq was attempting to attack us here or abroad, Sadaam had a long record of supporting any terrorist group that came along, etc... There are the dots. Could you imagine the skeptisim the left would have had if we would have gone in to Afganistan in the summer of 2001 because some middle eastern men were training at flight schools?

This is why the left must me marginalized until this war on terror is over!

I think GWB will win too. And in around ten years, everyone will see that he was correct, just like they did w/ Regan.

But let's not get cocky. This is the most Presidential election of our lifetimes. We need work as hard as we can to see President Bush reelected. Let's not take anything for granted!

CJ,
Thats why people are starting to get fustrated and ticked off at the Dems, all they do is carp and complain yet they offer no solutions. In response to what you you asked about 9-11, that's exactly the problem. They scream "Why didn't you connect the Dots on 9-11?" Then they go over to the Iraq issue, and say: "We don't agree and are mad that you connected the dots." Never mind the fact that the CIA, had started predicting the next big war would be one against terrorist entities and asymetrical warfare back in '98. Yet, it takes time to build HUMINT assets and resources. This is something we have been lacking for 30+ years. It was so eerie, watching the attacks, because the previous year Oct. 2000 I went back to my college's homecoming, and was debating with a Party Line Democrat, who was trying to push people to vote for Gore. And he asked me who I was going to vote for: "And I said I would never vote for anyone from the Clinton Whitehouse because of what they did to the military and their weak F.P." His response was: "The cold war is over and we have no need for a large military." I proceeded to correct him and tell him that the Collapse of the USSR, has unleashed a host of snakes in the form of terrorist Organizations and supporting countries, that we have to now go deal with." And I specifically referred to the multiple Terrorist attacks under clinton, and how we had done nothing, and that we needed to go in and clear them out. His response was No, we can't do that. And then look what happened. Now when it comes to Saddam, it's the same argument all over again.

Eli,

But how about the subject of the thread - you know, how you Donk's will make a statement at one period of time which seems to work for ya (ie, Edwards being all aggressive "lets go get 'em" a few months after 9/11), and then later making the exact opposite statements because this, then, seems better for ya?

This is the sort of "leadership" Kerry/Edwards brings to the table - a weather-vane.

Litning,
What I meant to say (and I should have clarified) is that I disagree with but respect the view that war is only optional after an attack by the nation with which we are at war, though I disagree wholeheartedly and would never vote for a candidate with that narrow a view.
I also respect but disagree with individuals who oppose war under any circumstances.
I respect these views because they are genuine and not politically motivated, though I disagree with them completely. They are intellectually honest, as long as holders of these views apply to both parties.
Like I said before, what I don't respect is "Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Gore, Daschle and everyone else was misled, except Bush, who lied so that Halliburton could get richer or to get revenge for his daddy."
My view on Iraq is simple:
President George H.W. Bush should have taken out Hussein; he didn't.
President Clinton should have taken out Hussein; he didn't.
President Bush, especially after 9/11, could not afford to have him in power. He should have taken him out, and he did.
By the way, if this intel report is so devastating for supporters of our actions in Iraq, why are many prominent Democrats sticking by their pre-war votes?
As I said before, I give them credit for it. I would like to hear them detail their reasons for their steadfast support of the war, as we haven't seen the whole report due to classification.