BaHahahahahaha!!!! I showed that by not playing.

Refer to my reply to cosmokramer.

Which was right I chimed in on your shallow BS tactics.

That is quite possibly true. OK, maybe even PROBABLY true. Kerrys point though is that if we had tried harder, we probably would not be there now. Saddam would still be in power and we would still be controlling him via sanctions and inspections.

I agree. In other words, we would let the opinons of other countries determine what is in our best national interest.

Curt

Why do they refuse to make these obvious connections? Because it renders their candidate and their cause (and therefore them) outmoded and useless, just as accepting the Saddam-terrorism connection and the fact that UBL wants Kerry to win does.

Can you say: DENIAL?

I just went through the transcripts again and I can't find a reference where OBL endorses Kerry or says he wants Kerry to win.

Is there another tape ????

BTW here's what OBL said

'Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked.'

Doesn't sound like much of an endorsement to me.

Maybe Anne Coulter has the real transcript :roll:

Go back and read the article from the first post of this thread.

Yes, because the article is more accurate then the original transcripts. :roll:

"It means that any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president, it means that it chose to fight us and we will consider it an enemy to us, and any state that will vote against Bush, it means that it chose to make peace with us and we will not characterize it as an enemy," the Web site said, according to MEMRI's translation.

Al-Jazeera executives said they decided to post the entire speech because rumors were circulating that the network omitted parts that "had direct threats toward specific states, which was totally untrue."

And just what would MEMRI (The Middle East Media Research Institute out of London) and the New York Post have to gain from skewing the translation??? :?: ?????

MEMRI
“The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) was established in 1978 “to inform the debate over U.S. policy in the Middle East.” It was co-founded by Meyrav Wormser and Israeli former prime ministerial terror advisor Yigal Carmon. Wormser was executive director of MEMRI for four years. MEMRI’s headquarters are in Washington, and it has offices in Berlin, London and Jerusalem. MEMRI translates articles from the Arabic press, often those, which give the worst possible image of the Arabs. It widely circulates its translations, which have often produced a stir in the Western press. MEMRI’s website reproduces lavish plaudits for MEMRI, almost all of them from those with a neoconservative outlook.”
-from Neo-conservative Ascendancy In The George W. Bush Administration, Ayoon wa Azan

I agree. In other words, we would let the opinons of other countries determine what is in our best national interest.
Curt

I'm trying to assume that you UNDERSTAND the distinction I and others have made here... Do you? Because the word "determine" has a meaning that is NOT included in what Kerry said. I may TALK, PERSUADE, CAJOLE, NEGOTIATE, CONVINCE etc without ceding control. I suspect you understand the distinction but because you don't trust Kerry, you are putting words in his mouth, and then punching him.

[Kerry said. I may TALK, PERSUADE, CAJOLE, NEGOTIATE, CONVINCE etc

"He is a man no one should worry about, because he has no beliefs at all. He is not going to introduce some manic radical plan, because he is poll-driven, and it is therefore impossible to know where or for what he stands."

Yes, because the article is more accurate then the original transcripts.

I'm trying to assume that you UNDERSTAND the distinction I and others have made here... Do you? Because the word "determine" has a meaning that is NOT included in what Kerry said. I may TALK, PERSUADE, CAJOLE, NEGOTIATE, CONVINCE etc without ceding control. I suspect you understand the distinction but because you don't trust Kerry, you are putting words in his mouth, and then punching him.

That is quite possibly true. OK, maybe even PROBABLY true. Kerrys point though is that if we had tried harder, we probably would not be there now. Saddam would still be in power and we would still be controlling him via sanctions and inspections.

and you then say that this means we would have not invaded Iraq. I merely point out that this conclusion of yours, does indeed mean we are "outsourcing" our national security--in this example, to France.

it is actually probably pointless to argue something as "partisan" as the meaning of English words with some of these folks.

Kerry's global test is really very, very simple. Kerry only wants to fight wars worth fighting, not wars of convenience. If there is a compelling reason for America to defend herself or someone else, that war will easily pass the global test.

That's all there is to it.

verticalreality wrote:
How do they do that?