his words well, then I would say Mr. Kerry must be our man! I don't
think anyone has ever accused Mr. Bush of being a detailed orator.
Further I would add that with the 9/11 report stating that there is no
state-sponsored connection between Iraq and 9/11 (however there does
seem to be one with Iran!), and the latest CIA report claiming there
are no, nor were there, WMD in Iraq, we can't afford an administration
that continues to insist this war was good idea.
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 07:53:14 -0500, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It was indeed a very poor choice of words......and at this critical
> juncture, you can't afford to do that.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gruss Gott
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 10:23 PM
> Subject: Re: POLL:
>
> >On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 18:27:31 -0400, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > He means that we should be able to convince other nations, primarily
> our
>
> If you read the transcript you'll find that he said:
>
> 1.) He would never give another nation a veto on American security
> (this invalidates your entire argument) and,
>
> 2.) When you lead your nation to war, you have to prove to its people
> that the war is necessary via reasoning that, "passes the test, passes
> the global test."
>
> In context it's clear that by "global" he meant "complete" not
> "worldwide" as you ascribe to him. It was a very poor choice of words
> since it allows people to misrepresent his
> view.________________________________
>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
