Kennedy's latest remarks

[The Drunken Actuary]

Originally Posted by fallout

I think people in the republican party are far too relaxed heading into '04. W is by no means a cinch.

As usual, I agree with fallout. Bush is very vulnerable.

[fallout]

Originally Posted by The Angry Drunk

As usual, I agree with fallout. Bush is very vulnerable.

Of course we agree. Are you not one of my aliases?

[The Drunken Actuary]

Originally Posted by fallout

Of course we agree. Are you not one of my aliases?

No avatar, lots of posts....must be.

Originally Posted by fallout

Of course we agree. Are you not one of my aliases?

I thought the fun part of having multiple aliases was to have them argue with each other?

[Truth Soldier]

More GOP responses:

Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites) Chairman John Warner, a Virginia Republican, talked of a serviceman's "young wife surrounded by small children" who "hear that this whole thing has been a fraud. Is that safeguarding those put in harm's way? I say no."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...sa_congress_dc

There are certain arguments that shouldn't be made. This goes up there with "Air traffic control should be privatized, except at the airport near where I stay, because I'm personally concerned about safety there." Not as bad, but pretty bad.

[E. Blackadder]

And you're fine with Kennedy's remarks?

Originally Posted by The drunken Senator from MA

...this was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud.

[also]

some of the $4 billion being spent on Iraq each month was "being shuffled" to leaders in other countries "bribing them to send in troops."


Of course if they're true that would be an outrage, but is he going to back this up. I doubt it. Is anyone going to call him on it? hah.

[Truth Soldier]

Do Kennedy's remarks strongly suggest by themselves that he's wrong?

[E. Blackadder]

Do you mean the level of detail by which he's substantiated this charge?
sure.

Looks like the standard form for getting off a cheap shot.

[Truth Soldier]

How is it a cheap shot?

Oh yeah, before the war the Bushies said they had definite proof that Saddam was an imminent threat, but it turns out there was no imminent threat at all. But Kennedy shouldn't dare call them on this; he should be polite and pretend nothing ever happened, because people are still dying now and we don't want to bother potential widows with their little children. That way Bush can roll to re-election next year, because that's really what this country needs more than anything else. Anyone objective will tell you that.

[fallout]

Originally Posted by ln

How is it a cheap shot?

Oh yeah, before the war the Bushies said they had definite proof that Saddam was an imminent threat, but it turns out there was no imminent threat at all. But Kennedy shouldn't dare call them on this; he should be polite and pretend nothing ever happened, because people are still dying now and we don't want to bother potential widows with their little children. That way Bush can roll to re-election next year, because that's really what this country needs more than anything else. Anyone objective will tell you that.

The jury is still out. Saddam definetly had WMDs. He definetly hated America. What would he have done if left in power? Thankfully we will never have to know.

Perhaps it boils down to how you define "imminent threat".