Kerry blames Bin Liner for defeat, not self

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by stoatman, Jan 31, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. John "Of course I've got policies, read my website, they'll be on there later" Kerry blames Bin Liner for his defeat, but in characteristic style doesn't explain how. Here's a newsflash, John, you're a boring git who can't hold one coherent thought or policy from one day to the next, and apparenly you're like that socially too - maybe that's why you lost? You're also the proof that it's easier to get people to vote for someone rather than against them...

  2. In that same interview he was asked if the US and World are safer since elections have taken place in Iraq and he responded NO and then blabed on.

    The next question was if the US and World are safer since Saddam was removed and he responded YES.

    Am I missing something Saddam is removed and the world is safer but free elections and the world is in peril....Man what an enlightened and educated individual Mr. Kerry must be :D
  3. Yeh because he didnt have a policy on national security (apart from the good old liberal policy of burying their heads in the sand until the problem passes them by :roll: )
  4. C'mon, he didn't have a policy on anything except "Whatever Bush does, I will do differently"... :roll:
  5. or, (taken from tone's book)

    "Which way is the wind blowing today?" :twisted:
  6. There was an even scarier story in todays Independent. The boring sod is planning to run again in 2008. Is he turning into the septic's Neil Kinnock ?
    Ballsing up elections, without really trying very hard, and then expecting to keep his job and carrying on ? In my opinion Wesley Clark would have been a great candidate. Anti -Iraq, and he had impeccable credentials as the ex SACEUR. Draft dodging Dubya would have had great difficulty dissing him. But they binned him in the Primaries because he wasn't a member of the top 50 richest families like all the other Presidents.

    Dear Democrats - Sack Lurch Now !
  7. What rubbish!

    1. He makes the centerpiece of his campaign the fact that he fought in Viet Nam. That's a distinction he shares with thousands of other men who were not running for president. Some of these men served with much greater distinction than he. There's nothing distinctively presidential about it. Honorable service skippering a "Swift" boat (if that's what his service actually was) would be to his credit, but it doesn't in itself stand as prima facie proof of fitness for the office.

    2. He declares that even with the benefit of post-invasion information, as to the lack of nuclear weapons, etc., in Iraq, he would have invaded the place also. He cut the ground out from under the anti-war faction that supported him.

    3. In the course of the presidential debates, he announces that "of course" it's always the prerogative of the president to launch, in his sole discretion, a military invasion of another country where he thinks it prudent to do so. Here, again, he concedes a fundamental premise of the Bush administration.

    4. He made himself appear ridiculous through absurd self-contradictions. "I actually voted in favor of [funding the invasion] before I voted against it."

    5. He rushes to concede the outcome at a time when it still was in substantial doubt, due to irregularities in voting, and vote-counting procedures.

    Unless Sen. Kerry covertly recruited bin Laden to compose Sen. Kerry's laughably inept campaign strategy, he's got no basis for pinning the blame on ObL.

    Sen. Kerry's campaign was reminiscent of a professional prizefighter who bets against himself and then takes a dive.
  8. He is starting to make GCWB look like a leader. I would have only credited that skill to a lobotomised obergine.