Kerry knocks Bush on handling of Mideast conflict - New England Patriots Forums

***IcyPatriot*** · 07-24-2006, 01:25 AM

John-Boy Kerry has been lifting the weights I see.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...DATE/607230360

Quote:

U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D- Mass., who was in town Sunday to help Gov. Jennifer Granholm campaign for her re-election bid, took time to take a jab at the Bush administration for its lack of leadership in the Israeli-Lebanon conflict.
"If I was president, this wouldn't have happened," said Kerry during a noon stop at Honest John's bar and grill in Detroit's Cass Corridor.
Bush has been so concentrated on the war in Iraq that other Middle East tension arose as a result, he said.
Oh really John...so you're saying that you would have been smoking the peace pipe with Hizbollah, Syria and Iran. That your charm and intellect would have made the Hizbollah dig up all their infrastructure on Israel's border. Oh, sorry, I forgot...the monetary inequalities that exist in the Middle East are what makes peacefull terrorists kill...my bad...sorry if I don't toe the liberal philosophies.

Quote:

Hezbollah guerillas should have been targeted with other terrorist organizations, such as al-Qaida and the Taliban, which operate in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Kerry said. However, Bush, has focused military strength on Iraq.
"This is about American security and Bush has failed. He has made it so much worse because of his lack of reality in going into Iraq.…We have to destroy Hezbollah," he said.
way to go John-Boy...get out that rock slinger of yours. Boy oh boy...Syria and Iran would have been so happy to see you John-Boy. don't worry about Saddam...he would have helped you as long as you let him continue his genocide and terror government. such an @ssbag...Perhaps Gore needs some help eating all those cookies.

***Harry Boy*** · 07-24-2006, 05:50 AM

The people knew what they were doing when they REJECTED this guy, he's a joke.

***BelichickFan*** · 07-24-2006, 07:23 AM

Anyone who assumes that there would be peace in the middle east if he were in charge is not only delusionary but totally clueless - not to mention ignorant of history.

ctpatsfan1 · 07-24-2006, 08:26 AM

[QUOTE=NEM]Kerry has a good point. Bush refused to follow Clinton's peace meeting between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Bush aid he would take a hands off approach and let them work it out themselves.

9/11 happened, according to the Saudi Ambassador, and the King of Jordan, because of that. It was planned, but according tothem, Bin Laden followed through with it because Bush did nothing to help the Palestinians.

Similar situation here, and then add in our illegal invasion of Iraq, totally destabilizing the middle east.

Now Bush has refused to intervene, even when being asked by the Saudis.

Look for another attack on our soil very soon because of Bush's ignorance.[/QUOTE]

pulllease NEM, the more likely attack will take place on American assets outside the country most likely in Africa or Asia. They don't have the operational capability to strike here anymore. At least not like 9/11. Perhaps some wannabe cell in Detroit or something but nothing orchestrated to the level of 9/11.

***BelichickFan*** · 07-24-2006, 09:08 AM

Clinton did nothing for actual, lasting peace in the middle east. A nice, temporary band aid and nothing more.

(and before NEM whines about me mentioning Clinton, he started it

)

***BelichickFan*** · 07-24-2006, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEM

Dude, I'm just responding to your praising of Clinton for everything. You brought him up, I responded. I'm not blaming Clinton, the middle east is too *****ed up for anyone to fix. But I'm also not going to sit here and have you wax poetic about what a great job he did to fix the problem - because he didn't fix anything.

The middle east is like a house infested with fleas. You just can't get rid of them all.

***BelichickFan*** · 07-24-2006, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEM

Nobody can ever fix the middle east problem, and that is the reason we should not even be in Iraq...Americans are dying for nothing, and apparently you agree.

Unfortunately the stakes are getting higher, with nuclear technology getting closer and closer over there. I don't know what the solution is, I doubt there is a good one or even on non terrible one. But I do know I'm not going to think that pushing it off for two more years will do any good. By that time, Iran will have nukes and Israel will just be a hot place with no life.

***BelichickFan*** · 07-24-2006, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEM

All out war accomplishes only one thing, dead people, many of them Americans. Youcan go in, full force, into Syria,Iran, etc...and kill tesn of thousands,maybe millions...and theywill keepcoming and coming and coming, like the energizer terrorist.

Unfortunately,diplomacy and a meeting of the minds is the only thing that will work, and unfortunately for us, we are stuck with a diplomatic boob and additional diplomatic boobs working for him.

There can be no meeting of the minds with the mindless boobs in the middle east. Killing them all is the only option and I don't think that's do-able. We're in a big time mess and it's been brewing for a hell of a long time with both (R)s and (D)s resposible for ignoring it for decades.

***Harry Boy*** · 07-24-2006, 10:54 AM

The "End Of The World" will come out of the Middle East and as America's dip ***** liberals lay burning in Nuclear Waste they will be pleading to anyone that will listen "oh please don't offend them".