Replies to post #10748 on Simply Politics and News (GOV)

[NovoMira]

My thoughts re your post:

That's it, Peg? "Nice try."

And then you go on to spew the same old trash?

How can anyone take you seriously on this board?

Please...just once, give us a reason to believe in your credibility. Give us a chance to rationally think about this election.

After all, there just may be some who read this board that haven't decided who they will vote for.

Maybe they have now thought about Bush's last 4 years and have decided that he isn't the man for the job or maybe they have thought about it and think that he is the man.

What do you think? Isn't that your goal too? To make people think how they have been affected by Bush's presidency and vote accordingly?

FWIW, I'm hoping that this post to you might sway someone to my side.

[wstera2]

"GWB mislead (some say lied to) this country."

OK, prove it. Give me Bush's verbatim quotes & the evidence
that he lied or misled this country.

Until then, it's you who are lying just like John Kerry lies
when he says it.

"Which of GWB's excuses to pre-emptively invade Iraq did you buy into?"

I guess that UN Resolution 687 means nothing to you? Are you
just a Kool Aid drinking Michael Moore wannabe?

What credible evidence exists that the removal of Saddam
was "pre-emptive"?

I can tell you right now. There is none anywhere. It's one of
the Big Lies from Team Kerry, the DNC & the Michale Moore
crowd.

Text of UN Resolution 687 (AKA - The Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement)
http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/2002-11-15UNResolution687.asp

The Gulf War CEASE FIRE Agreement was a ZERO Tolerance
policy. That meant Saddam had to unconditionally;

1) Completely eliminate every aspect of his WMD PROGRAMS (not
just "stockpiles"). This included provisions for the complete
destruction of all offensive weapons. This had to be done in
a completely verifiable manner to UN Inspectors.

2) Saddam had to completely eliminate every tie to terrorists
(internal & external).

3) Saddam had to completely halt his crimes against humanity.

4) Saddam had to make full reparations to Kuwait, ET AL.

Now this was the short & sweet version. There were absolutely
no provisions that allowed any deviation from each explicit
requirement. It meant 100%, unconditional compliance. Every
single UN Resolution, including Resolution 1441 was
irrevocably tied to #687.

Saddam spent more than 12 years in utter defiance of every
one of the above requirements before Bush's so-called "rush
to war". You know, where "Bush lied & misled" America
into a "unilateral", "illegal" war to take over their oil for
his Big Oil cronies?

[wstera2]

GEORGE WILL:

Reasonable people can question the feasibility of Bush's nation-building and democracy-spreading ambitions. But, having taken up that burden, America cannot prudently, or decently, put it down. The question is: Which candidate will most tenaciously and single-mindedly pursue victory? The answer is: Not John Kerry, who is multiple-minded about most matters.

Tuesday's winner will not start from scratch but from where we are now, standing with the women of Bamiyan, Afghanistan. Back in Washington recently, Zalmay Khalilzad, U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, said those women were warned that Taliban remnants would attack polling places during the Oct. 9 elections. So the women performed the ritual bathing and said the prayers of those facing death. Then, rising at 3 a.m., they trekked an hour to wait in line for the polls to open at 7 a.m. In the province of Kunar an explosion 100 meters from a long line of waiting voters did not cause anyone to leave the line.

Which candidate can be trusted to keep faith with these people? Surely not the man whose party is increasingly influenced by its Michael Moore faction.

http://nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/31403.htm