Last night was the start of his campaign.

McCain supports the person who is closer to his ideals. He has nothing in common with Kerry when it comes to policy. The dems are upset because McCain is not supporting their guy, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with him selling out. So Bush attacked him previously. The dem primary got pretty vicious too, I don't see any complaints about Dean support of Kerry. Just a lot of double talk.

You gave no examples so there was nothing to rebut but bogus claims.

And if you can't understand that starting a war should require truthful claims that can be proven, then you should not even bother debating because you have no respect for the horror of war.

Now you CLAIM there were terrorist training camps in Iraq associated with Al Qeada... Links? And I notice you claim Iraq, rather than supported by the Iraqi Government. This is a fine distinction because the only camps were in Kurdish controlled northern Iraq and were affilliated with the groups fighting against Saddam... i.e. this is not evidence of ANY link between Saddam and terrorism. In fact, we were protecting these terrorists under our no fly zone because they were against Saddam. Now they are affliliated with Saddam... more lies. Is this the camps you are talking about:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/
Bush intentionally let a terrorist go that has since killed hundreds... Yea, Bush is a real fighter against terrorism when he purposely blocks attacks on terrorists to justify a war against a country without ties to terrorism

Oh and your Abu Nidal terrorist group, the leader is dead and there is debate if the group even exists anymore. They have not attacked westerners since the 80's and have not done anything for a decade. The group is interested only in the Isreali / Palistinean conflict.

You Republicans are Hypocritical. You support Saddam while he is gassing his own people and harboring an active Abu Nidal group. Then over a decade later when the WoMD and terrorists are gone, you decide that is justification for war when at the time Rumsfeld was over there shaking hands with the guy.

Ikari nailed it:

And horribly transparent to all of us.

Catz

__________________
I'll get nicer when you get smarter.

...you are referring to the Swift Boat Viet Nam Hero ads, please post your proof of the connection. I can't seem to remember Bush whining like you little babies that Kerry was behind the Michael Moore-on, crock-u-mentary, unlike Kerry, the please make them stop whiner.

Freedom of speech, it works both ways.

He stated that his party doesn't have the stomach to fight the fight necessary in the war on terror. Doesn't that make him a lap dog too?

I'm surprised he has room on his lap for more.

That ought to tell us something right there...Kerry's good friend, John McCain, would prefer to see the guy who used dirty politics to beat him in 2000 in office than his good friend.

hrm.

Tell me again how Kerry would be a good president? His "good friend" doesn't seem to want him to win.

Catz

__________________
I'll get nicer when you get smarter.

The entire Giuliani speech was nothing but a bunch lies:

First he says " You are with us or with the terrorists"

What a load of poop. You can be anti-terrorism and Anti-Bush. Kerry will be just as strong, if not stronger, on terrorism. The statement is just plain a lie like much of his speech was lies or distortions.

No that wasn't a load of poop because that was his opinion on the matter...he agreed with Bush and you just can't take it, face it. You can't lie when you state your opinion., you make no sense

He refered to Kerry for being for the war and then against it. Again this is a plain lie and distortion. Kerry voted for the Authorization to use war as a last resort. He gave the President the Authorization he needed as leverage for diplomatic efforts and to use war as a last resort.

Yes and Bush felt they exhausted all diplomatic options...keeping the inspectors in there for a couple more months wouldn't ahve done anything...Blix came out saying that he isn't going to say Saddam has WMD but he can't say he doesn't either....just because you don't feel he exhausted all options (12 years of getting it together wasn't even good enough) doesn't mean they weren't exhausted
President Bush misused that vote to launch a was when inpectors had not been given time to do their work.

He gave him plenty of time...Saddam was playing them and the UN like a fiddle and Bush knew it...he has even said so...the bottom line is you feel diplomatically resolving this issue with Saddam who ignored resolution after resolution (which may I remind you are DIPLOMATIC resolutions) also had Blix give them the where to and before hand notification before he and his team were allowed to go to each site.

Diplomacy had not failed.
How long would need if 12 years wasn't good enough of diplomatic attempts?

And Bush had to change the goal lines to live in exile or war.

Yeah so? It's about time...it was the UN's agreement that exile be an option, Bush didn't even want to give that a try but he did and it still didn't work...AGAIN

DID THE SENATE VOTE TO AUTHORIZE WAR IF HE DID NOT LIVE IN EXILE? NO!

Uh yes the senate and congress both voted for the war...what are you talking about? It takes a lot more then Bush to say "let's go to war!" if his cabinet and fellow congressmen don't agree...he wouldn't beable to soley go to war for his personal "oil agenda"...read the book "Plan of Attack" by Bob Woodward...or go to www.amazon.com and look up a summary of it...you'd be suprised of how much you are mistaken here

Kerry is 100% consistant that the voted for the autorization for war and is against the way the war was started.

Which was what exactly? Kerry has stated he supported the war when it first happened until he realized along with everyone else that their was faulty intelligence on some issues and jumped on the popular band wagon of Bush bashing...he is an opportunist remember...he does what's best at the time for those he is surrounded by at that time...Saddam had plenty of time to demolish or hide his WMD or plans

"A day earlier, the United Nations announced inspectors could not find some equipment they were looking for at a missile-related site; it was not the first time in a week of inspections that such a problem arose.

Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, speaking to the Associated Press on Tuesday at U.N. headquarters, said Iraq has not obstructed U.N. weapons inspectors during their first week of work but must explain the missing equipment.

Access to Saddam's dozens of presidential sites was an explosive issue in the previous round of inspections, in the 1990s, when the Iraqis sought to bar U.N. monitors.

It took personal negotiations between Saddam and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to reach an accommodation: Inspectors could visit with diplomatic escort and advance notice."

and waiting for those inspectors to inspect that they couldn't find diddley squat would have gave the French the ball in their court by saying there wasn't any visible WMD's all while ignoring Blix's other conclusion that he couldn't rule OUT that Saddam did have them...the UN would have had no choice but to leave Saddam alone and vote no for any war...Kerry wouldn't have risked that had he been in office...he wanted Saddam out and he felt action was the only way, he felt he was a threat and if the UN had their way and the inspectors stayed inside Saddam would have won again...now war...Saddam still in power. Mind you there were many Iraqi people who hated Saddam that were helping the US forces with inside intelligence about the whereabouts of Saddam and other secret info. they did this in trusting the US wouldn't pull back on this and go get Saddam...it would have been a huge mistake if we didn't follow through with this war.

References to the Iron Curtain and the Berlin wall. I think they are great references.... Do you know that they fell without firing a shot!!!!! That is the example people should see... That war is not the only answer. Somehow this was used to justify killing tens of thousands of innocent people under false pretenses.... What a frickin joke.

False pretenses? What exactly? WMD that have been found YET or how about the pretenses of the unaccounted for WMD that Hans Blix attested to himself...where are those genius?

And then the whole part that the Republicans stand for FREEDOM. If you feel all oppressed people should be freed using the US military, then I am going to disagree with you. So "attacking all dictators is good to spread freedom" is the new Bush Doctrine. "Pre-emptive war based on lies" is the Bush doctrine.... No Thanks.. Freedom to kill whomever the USA feels like without just cause is not freedom to me.

Again that is all propaganda...pure rhetoric BS and deep down I think you know it as well as others but your political stance won't allow you to see the whole picture...just the one that supports you politically, the one that puts America in a bad light suits you best regardless of any other facts or information to the contrary...this war wasn't based on LIES...check out the definintion for lies will ya? If Bush is that big of a genius to pull this off all the while basing it on a big conspiracy of lies then you give him more credit then any Republican does...he must be the most brilliant man ever in history...cuz he fooled us ALL. The more you speak the more you make my case for me, thanks

And if I want freedom, I want freedom in my own country... You know the one that now allows secret police searches that have never been allowed before until Bush and the Patriot act. Bush stands more for secret police than he does for freedom.
Why do you have something to hide like Saddam? Only those people who do would be afraid of that act and show their dislike so openly for an act that is supposed to get the "bad guys"...are you one of them? Also yo speak of freedoms? Don't abuse the freedoms that others have fought and died for because from the sounds of it you seem to pity only those and when it suits you politically...did you care about any of these lives before the war? The Iraqi's? Probably not...your heart bleeds on when it's convenient for you to make a point in these people's dead blood...what a disgrace you are. YOu want this and that and whine whine whine...welll I like it the way it is...how about MY vote? What I want?

Like I said, the whole speech was a lie, distortion and a load of poop. If I want to vote for a wise fight against terrorism, I will vote for Kerry. If I want to vote for Freedom, I will vote for Kerry.

And you do that so ignorantly....you can't prove Bush lied because he didn't so that is about as big of load of "poop" you can get. If I want to vote for a stronger and safer America I will vote for Bush...if I want to vote for a flip flopping opportunist who cares more about his image then his county...I'd vote for Kerry...I think you can tell who I am voting for

And there was a glaring absence of any mention of Osoma Bin Laden. You know, the guy that actually attacked us and is still free.

So? As if that would have made a difference in your opinion of the speech...ROTFLMAO...nice one...that's the thing with libs...they act like whatever was missing is exactly what they needed to agree with you...but since it wasn't mentioned then they ignore everything else...hearing only what you want is called "narrow-mindedness"

And the speech was perfectly scripted to use 9/11 as a political tool.

Gosh you are good...your opinions somehow turn into facts simply because you want them to

Just because Bush was president when we got attacked is no reason to re-elect him.

You are RIGHT...there is plenty of other reasons which have been stated on these boards ad nauseum...but again you don't listen to it all...only what suits you remember?

And just because the country pulled together, it would have happened whomever was in office, it is not reason to re-elect Bush.

Ohhhh now you blame Bush for everything under the yellow sun but don't give him credit for anything...Hmmm someone sounds liberally brainwashed to me and quite double standardishly to

what did he do to pull the nation together

Oh I don't know showed strength and leadership...stood strong in his convictions and followed through with what he has always said and still is doing what he promised...just that though

... Visit ground zero.

Oh yeah that too...he geve his heart and compassion to so many...those hwoo have lost their loved one's he was there as a human, a friend not just the President. Thanks for reminding

Oh boy, like any president wouldn't have done that. All Bush has managed to go is squander all that good will to go fight terrorism and spent the rest of his term as President dividing the country and the world with his pig headed ignorant policies.

Blame Bush for all our problems even one's that were here in this country waaaaaaaaaay before he got here...it has always been divided...Bush is just the popular scapegoat

History will just Bush as a great President and the War in Iraq as a great thing.... Nice try, But I don't think so.... That is unless vietnam is considered a great idea by history

WTF??? Okkkkkkeey Dokey

Giuliani in 2008? I believe that McCain's speech was the start of his campaign for 2008. I still hold out some hope that the delegates will actually nominate McCain instead of Bush. Well, I know it won't happen, but wouldn't that be exciting?

Maybe last night was the start of two campaigns -- i.e. McCain/Giuliani 2008! I could get behind that ticket.

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller

That's possible, I think Giuliani will be the Pres in 2008. The only one to turn NYC around plus how he handled 9/11 is huge. Plus he is a great "common man" speaker. He reminds me of Reagan. I could see McCain as VP. I think Romney is another candidate.