|
Post by genesda on Mar 16, 2004 6:26:44 GMT -5
It looks like Kerry has been caught in a serious lie.
He stated that he MET with foreign leaders and they expressed a concern for Bush being re-elected. They supposedly said "we need you to beat this guy in the general election. Well, it turns out that he again said, he didn't meet with them, but talked to some. The lie is in that he said they "LOOKED" at him. Well, if he didn't "MEET" with them,. how could they "look" at him? He refuses to name any leaders that he met with, and I believe he should put up or shut up.
I know there is hatred for Bush, but why? Would this liar be better at defending this nation than what we've had so far? It would be a disaster to elect this liberal phony.[/color]
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Mar 16, 2004 6:48:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 17, 2004 7:21:45 GMT -5
You must be referring to this story. It looks as though the reporter corrected himself and Kerry did not say foreign leader. www.drudgereport.com/kerrybo.htm He did in fact say foreign leader. He is now back tracking because of the implications. There is a call for a Congressional investigation because if Kerry did meet with those leaders, he is undermining the president's actions in Iraq, which amounts to treason. He said it and spent several days DEFENDING it until this latest flip flop where he is now saying he said "more" instead of "foreign". He said "Foreign leaders" and is now trying to back out of it for more than one reason. 1. He is a liar 2. He could be charged with treason.
He defended his statement for several days before several meetings AND DIDN'T DENY he said "foreign" until now. Why? The answer is obvious. Someone pointed out that he copuld be in trouble, so now comes the "spin" on what he said. Kerry even has the press sheilding and making excuses defending him from his own lies. I've heard the tape! He saisd they "looked at me". The only way they could look at him is to be with him. He did say "foreign leaders".
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Mar 17, 2004 7:29:15 GMT -5
You must be referring to this story. It looks as though the reporter corrected himself and Kerry did not say foreign leader. www.drudgereport.com/kerrybo.htm He did in fact say foreign leader. He is now back tracking because of the implications. There is a call for a Congressional investigation because if Kerry did meet with those leaders, he is undermining the president's actions in Iraq, which amounts to treason. He said it and spent several days DEFENDING it until this latest flip flop where he is now saying he said "more" instead of "foreign". He said "Foreign leaders" and is now trying to back out of it for more than one reason. 1. He is a liar 2. He could be charged with treason.
He defended his statement for several days before several meetings AND DIDN'T DENY he said "foreign" until now. Why? The answer is obvious. Someone pointed out that he copuld be in trouble, so now comes the "spin" on what he said. Kerry even has the press sheilding and making excuses defending him from his own lies. I've heard the tape! He saisd they "looked at me". The only way they could look at him is to be with him. He did say "foreign leaders".
[/color][/quote] No, the link I provided was the story from the writer of the original article, Patrick Healy. So in esscence you're calling the writer a liar since it was he who admitted he made a mistake in transcribing. The writer said he said "more". This whole thing is much ado about nothing.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Mar 17, 2004 7:34:01 GMT -5
2. He could be charged with treason. [/color][/quote] Treason??? LOL!! I think you'd better look up what is considered a treasonable offense before you go over the top with this one.
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Mar 17, 2004 16:35:39 GMT -5
Treason??? LOL!! I think you'd better look up what is considered a treasonable offense before you go over the top with this one. Is lying to the American people Treason?
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 18, 2004 6:12:54 GMT -5
No, the link I provided was the story from the writer of the original article, Patrick Healy. So in esscence you're calling the writer a liar since it was he who admitted he made a mistake in transcribing. The writer said he said "more". This whole thing is much ado about nothing. I'm aware of healy. Kerry spent days defending the "transcription error" while refusing to name the "foreign leaders" . He never denied saying foreign leaders until a day ago. Which is it? Kerry was defending an error or was he defending what he said which was later said to be an error. If Kerry didn't say "foreign leaders", why didn't he deny saying it from the very beginning? Why did he defend keeping those "foreign leaders" a secret? Was that because he didn't know what he actually said? Any way you look at this, Kerry can't be trusted. \He now is saying "other leaders" from around the world. That's the same as "foreign leaders".
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 18, 2004 6:15:36 GMT -5
Treason??? LOL!! I think you'd better look up what is considered a treasonable offense before you go over the top with this one. You're right. I wrote too fast. What I should have said was that he is attempting to undermine the policies of the USA while being nothing more than a candidate for the commander-in-chief's job. Any way you look at Kerry, he's not the man he wants people to believe he is. He's nothing more than a gigilo.
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 18, 2004 6:16:54 GMT -5
Is lying to the American people Treason? Of course not. It shows dishonesty. You just have to go back to Clinton/Algore to see that. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Mar 18, 2004 6:43:26 GMT -5
Is lying to the American people Treason? Of course not. It shows dishonesty. You just have to go back to Clinton/Algore to see that. [/color][/quote] Or Weapons of pkmtyolm Destruction....
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Mar 18, 2004 6:45:15 GMT -5
[quote author=genesda link=board=narrowdebate&thread=1079436404&start=6#0 date=1079608374 He now is saying "other leaders" from around the world. That's the same as "foreign leaders".
[/color][/quote]
Where's the link for this?
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 18, 2004 10:22:31 GMT -5
Or Weapons of pkmtyolm Destruction.... You lioberals are going to have to find a new song to sing. The facts are: 1. saddam had WMD's.
2. That was confirmed and BELIEVED by the U.N., USA, Britain, Germany, France, and a host of other nations.
3. Saddam ADMITTED that he had them.
4. Saddam's sons-in-law were executed for giving the information about WMD's to the world.
Bush was the victim of a weakened C.I.A. intelligence because of liberals like Clinton, Algore and Kerry.
The question you and other liberals should be asking is "where are the WMD's", because they DID IN FACT EXIST! Hating Bush is more important to liberals than national security and this is more obvious every day. Instead you want to call Bush a liar, when he didn't, and that's just partisian lies being told about Bush.
We haven't had a president in a long time who was as honest as Bush is now. Kerry is lying every day and the partisian press just reports his lies as though they were facts. I truly believe if Kerry were president when Bush won, Saddam would still be in Kuwait. His statements indicate this every time he opens his mouth.
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Mar 18, 2004 10:32:48 GMT -5
Or Weapons of pkmtyolm Destruction.... You lioberals are going to have to find a new song to sing. The facts are: 1. saddam had WMD's.
2. That was confirmed and BELIEVED by the U.N., USA, Britain, Germany, France, and a host of other nations.
3. Saddam ADMITTED that he had them.
4. Saddam's sons-in-law were executed for giving the information about WMD's to the world.
Bush was the victim of a weakened C.I.A. intelligence because of liberals like Clinton, Algore and Kerry.
The question you and other liberals should be asking is "where are the WMD's", because they DID IN FACT EXIST! Hating Bush is more important to liberals than national security and this is more obvious every day. Instead you want to call Bush a liar, when he didn't, and that's just partisian lies being told about Bush.
We haven't had a president in a long time who was as honest as Bush is now. Kerry is lying every day and the partisian press just reports his lies as though they were facts. I truly believe if Kerry were president when Bush won, Saddam would still be in Kuwait. His statements indicate this every time he opens his mouth.
[/color][/quote] i've questioned a number of marines and sailors on this -- most come back with a rather curt, "are you stupid" type of reply - something along hte lines of... well gee where do you think they are?? hey saddam -- we know you've got em, you've bragged about them forever and now we're coming to get them -- oh but wait -- let's hold off for ooh say 9 months this time alone wait we wait for some "approval" do ya think that would give you enough time to get them out of the country?! well duh - tell us you're doing a surprise inspection next week and it's not too much of a surprise now is it?!
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 18, 2004 10:43:20 GMT -5
Where's the link for this? I'm not aware of the link. He says this at meetings. I heard him say this on a tape that Rush has on his program. Try WWW.Rushlimbaugh.com and look around. He played it from his radio show from 3/17/04. It was Kerry saying that. The man is a liar, and the TRUE liar between himself and Bush. The man flip flops on every issue. If you haven't witnessed this by now, I don't know what to say to you.
[/color]
|
|
Beth
Full Member
Posts: 200
|
Post by Beth on Mar 18, 2004 11:05:42 GMT -5
I KNOW who those leaders were Kerry was talking too! Could they possibly be people like: 1. pkmtyolyar Arafat 2. The King of Saudi arabia 3. The Ayatollah of Iran 4. The King of Jordan Just to name a few of those "leaders" Heres the plan: Turn the US allies against us. Kill as many Americans, civilians & soldiers, in Iraq and other parts of the world as possible between now and the elections in November so that Kerry will be elected. Hold off on attacking the USA until after November. If Kerry is elected in November, he won't have the have what it takes to deal with these barbarians and will roll over and give these people whatever they want, namely Israel. The world community will then appease Islamic terrorists in hopes they will leave them alone.
|
|