and i realise, that after the loss, its gonna be an even touchier subject... but....... http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20041108&s=facts what do you think? are you willing to tackle any of those points, let alone touch the whole mess? also, what do you think of obstenity as a trait when it comes to being an effective leader. i know that in my military chain of command, the higher ups who are considered to be the best leaders are able to admit when wrong, to learn from mistakes. the ones that nobody likes, and dont do as effective of a job, are the ones who refuse to admit any faults whatsoever. just curious about your take.
1. Yes they have, it's all been approved by Congress 2. The Boston Globe article (couldn't get the other) notes that the delay is with the production facility and that even as they realized the problem, it was impossible to correct quickly. 3. They also ignored estimates from people who said we wouldn't even need 100,000. 4. We were, in fact, not. 5. That is true. 6. Define a major combat operation? Was the regime of Saddam Hussein still fighting at that point? 7. "A few days later, a somewhat sheepish President Bush publicly corrected the vice president." From the article and before the commission report. 8. It was a theory and they chose one side of it. Prove they weren't used for that. 9. I thought we were mad at them for spending too much. 10. Let's just say for a moment that he did have some, what reason would he have to reject an approach to have someone hand-deliver it for him? 11. Yet when staring down the United States and a president armed with a blank check to wage war against him he refused to blink the face of almost certain defeat and disgrace? 12. If he had it all to do over again I'm sure he'd cancel the vacation, fly to Afghanistan and personally hike through the mountains until he found and killed Bin Laden, WITH HIS BARE HANDS! 13. How many would be enough? 100 more? 1000 more? 14. Were we supposed to spend more or less on this one? I get confused. 15. "Bush did not substantially increase funding for these programs and actually proposed cuts to the Department of Defense component as well as suggested spending shifts in programs in the Departments of Energy and State." Underfunding seems to suggest a decrease when in fact he did increase funding to the program. That's just plain misleading. Someone else want to take the next 15? I actually have better things to do on a Sunday night. OGHT, stealing posts is wrong.
Ah "facts" from the michael moore school of debate - tell half the story and ignore the other side. I wish I had more time but as for iraqi's welcoming americans....many did and many get along fine with american soldiers. I can post pics if you want, there are several. Plus BBC and ABC polls conducted in iraq show the majority of iraqi's feel the war will ultimately better their lives. Also many of the 'insurgents' aren't Iraqi's but from syria, iran and of course Al-Zarqawi from Jordan. Simply put, these facts about Iraq is not a good starting point on a debate about Iraq.
ok so you think Bush using Kerry's own voting record against him is crap and you think your own thread is crap. Great.