Kerry Blames Bush For War In Lebanon

[Nerf Hofflemire]

Kerry Blames Bush For War In Lebanon. (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060723/UPDATE/607230360)

Although president Bush has nothing to do with the Isreal-Lebanon war, that doesn't make him exempt from being blamed for it.

"If I was president, this wouldn't have happened,"- Kerry

"Bush has been so concentrated on the war in Iraq that other Middle East tension arose as a result"-Kerry Does anyone else see how stupid that sounds?

"The president has been so absent on diplomacy when it comes to issues affecting the Middle East... we're going to have a lot of ground to make up because of it."-Kerry

"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."-Kerry

He condems Bush for this war, and then says that we need to destroy Hezbollah?

I'm so glad we have Kerry as one of our wonderful senators, so we always know that no matter who you are or what you belive, he'll always be on your side.

[Dr. Madd]

Kerry, like most of his ilk, speaketh with forked tongue.

[Goose]

Nerf you beat me to it; I as about to post this in the humor section.

[earthtoned]

We have to destroy Hezbollah.[/SIZE]"-Kerry

[/B]He condems Bush for this war, and then says that we need to destroy Hezbollah?

I'm so glad we have Kerry as one of our wonderful senators, so we always know that no matter who you are or what you belive, he'll always be on your side.

well i will agree with kerry to this extent: invading iraq has stretched out our military to the point that it makes it very unlikely we will be able to react to the much graver threats from iran, syria etc. with meaningful military force. Why arent we actively helping with this military operation? i would suggest that if we were not embroiled in iraq, we would be. i think anyones position on this depends largeley on whether one beleives that invading iraq was an important part of the war on terror. i happen to have supported the invasion of iraq, but not relating to the war on terror. i feel the invasion was important for national security, but it has exacerbated the WOT in the process, partly becuase we have failed to bring security and order to the country..in my opinion becasue we went in with a force much too small to achive this goal. the security vaccum left there has been a magnet for terrorists around the world. i dont know if it is too late to send in more troops at this point, or if there is the political will, but to say that the problems there have not affected the bush administrations ability to respond to the recent threats from iran, N. korea, hexbollah etc, i think youre fooling yourself.

[Dagummit]

well i will agree with kerry to this extent: invading iraq has stretched out our military to the point that it makes it very unlikely we will be able to react to the much graver threats from iran, syria etc. with meaningful military force.
Are you joking? The military's forces aren't stretched thin...where did you get that at? The democratic playbook?

Right now, the US could handle attacks in N.Korea, Venezula, Cuba, Iran/ Iraq, other parts of the middle east, AND in this country.

It wouldn't even be near a problem, but thanks to that shitbag Clinton, our military was cut down and it is hard to get it back to pre-Clinton sizes with the democrats refusing to pay the military members (to include would be's) more and give more incentatives to join....they would rather give all that money to tsunami victims on the other side of the globe and hurricane victims that are nothing but leeches to this society to begin with.

[earthtoned]

thats great of you to have such confidence in our armed forces, but according to a contractor for the pentagon, it is incorrect:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1536797

[BushRocks]

But I really don't think anyone realizes just how powerful this country is...

[Guns R Cool]

We have 1.5 million soldiers. We have like 300,000 in combat zones. We're not stretched thin. If WWIII broke out, we'd be fine.

[earthtoned]

i don't dispute our power. however, it is going to be very difficult to sustain this type of activity without reinstating the draft, a political 3rd rail to say the least. Perhaps we should have mandatory service? The other option is to pull out of these countries as an occupying force and exert our power soley through airpower and covert operations. I may have preferred this approach prior to the invasion of iraq, but then again we would have little influence on a new government without a security force. now it seems we're in for the long haul, and with very little contribution from the international community, meaning we're going to bare the brunt of the costs in both resources and casualties. i just hope that the iraqi trainees surprise us all and are able to stand up as the US stands down without the country devolving into complete chaos. they're at an average of around 100 civilian deaths a day now for the last few months. Without better security than that, all the democracy in the world isnt going to help. American power? for sure, but it has to be calculated and planned better. Ive heard it said here that it was clinton who reduced our army to where it is, and to an extent this is true, but that policy is no different from the bush administrations approach, a result of the Rumsfeld doctrine, which is a vision of a leaner, more efficient army that would fight quicker, precise battles and not be drawn into protracted ground presence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumsfeld_doctrine

there is very little difference between this approach and that of clinton, the only difference was that 9/11 ocurred on Bush's watch. im sure i'll get plenty disagreement here, but im not convinced that had clinton been in office at the time there wouldnt have been a similar if not identical reaction. how they would have run the wars differently, thats up for debate.

[BushRocks]

Another liberal idiot, and another reason why Democrats have blown 12 years worth of elections.....

[Peace_by_superior _power]

i dont know why no one has mentioned this but even if Kerry was president he couldnt do jack. sorry buddy congress declares war not the president.

[The anti liberal]

Aw just shut the F*** up already Kerry. You lost the election, get over it, admit your GW's Bitch and go back to Mass.

[Guns R Cool]

i dont know why no one has mentioned this but even if Kerry was president he couldnt do jack. sorry buddy congress declares war not the president.

:clap1: Obviously we need to inform the liberals of this.

[FKLBRLS]

Leave it to liberals to blame everything on Bush. Kerry complains that "Bush has stretched the military thin." Well what does he care it's not like he planned to use it against Hezbollah. The military is not stretched thin. There are servicemen all over the world, in Japan, Germany, Turkey, Africa, Bosnia, Italy, etc. However most are here in the US.

And if Bush decided to send the troops to destroy Hezbollah, Kerry would've bitched about that too.

[Jimbo]

Even though Congress declares War, the president controls the military. Its one reasons that even if the libs win back every seat in November we won't have to worry about being invaded, because the President controls the military.