NationStates Jolt Archive

there job is to go in periodically and look for banned weapons, ITS SUPPOSED TO TAKE FUCKING YEARS, why dont you go lern what you are talking about and come back

I know what I'm talking about.

But the issue was that Saddam was not providing them the unfettered access that he was required to provide based on a dozen UN resolutions dating back to 1991.

They were making no progress, because it was obvious - even to the UNMOVIC teams - that Saddam was not being upfront.

It took nearly 13 years, and they still weren't getting the support they needed. Coupled with our reports of Saddam's WMD obsession, and we couldn't afford to wait until they found something.

Please point out to me where I said that Iraq wasn't fought for terrorism. What I have said, and I have been consistent in saying it, is that the Iraq war was fought because Iraq was a sponsor of global terror and that they were pursuing weapons of mass destruction and that in today's world, we can't afford to wait until they actually attack us to take action.

The United Nations was NOT designed to combat terrorism. It was specifically designed to ensure that global wars like World War I and World War II do not happen again. The UN is made up of nation-states. It is wholly unequipped to deal with a non-state threat against it's members.

The Charter specifically allows its member states to respond to attacks in self-defence when they have been attacked. As I said before (and this is thin, I admit, but it's enough for legal grounds) Iraq had been attacking our forces in the no-fly zones for years, and we viewed them as a threat to us for their support of global terror. That's justification enough.

And if the UN is so designed to stop "unapproved attack and take over of random nations" where were they during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1980? Where were they during the North Vietnamese invasion of South Vietnam? Where were they during Argentina's assault on the Falklands? Where were they during the multiple wars in Africa?

And your analogy between the US removing Saddam and Germany invading Poland is ridiculous.
no, its not ridicuolous, germany invaded poland on some inane bullshit ground, USA did the same to iraq

never has iraq attacked the united states, and especially not on sept 11.

the president declared that al-queda was SYNONYMOUS with saddam hussein, and ill be damned if i can find the transcript or the video clip the daily show used of it

Your implication was that I said it - not the President.

I am the last person to defend the president's evisceration of the English language. But you're using one slip-up to villify him when he's said what he meant about ten thousand times since.

consult polls, see how many people believe iraq was working with al-queida, he skillfully LIED and persuaded the people through indirect lies and misled them to believe iraq was sponsoring al-quieda

I know the polls. I'm fully aware that 40% of the US still thinks Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

Please explain to me how someone lies without telling the lie. The President has come right out and said that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

LA Times, September 18 2003: ""We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th," Bush said in an impromptu session with reporters."

So if he's trying to convince people so hard that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 why is he saying here that they didn't do it?

no, its not ridicuolous, germany invaded poland on some inane bullshit ground, USA did the same to iraq

never has iraq attacked the united states, and especially not on sept 11.

Germany attacked Poland because it wanted to. As provocation, they took a bunch of convicted criminals, dressed them in Polish uniforms, and took them to a radio tower near the border, where they were killed. The Germans claimed that Poland attacked them, and they sent the forces over.

Iraq has attacked the United States, and they attacked Kuwait, a US ally. They've fought against our forces, and they've killed our troops. They supported global terror that has directly resulted in the deaths of American citizens abroad, particularly in Israel. They were a threat to the stability of the middle east and a threat to the United States and that's why we attacked them.

You are completely unreasonable.

I know what I'm talking about.

But the issue was that Saddam was not providing them the unfettered access that he was required to provide based on a dozen UN resolutions dating back to 1991.

They were making no progress, because it was obvious - even to the UNMOVIC teams - that Saddam was not being upfront.

It took nearly 13 years, and they still weren't getting the support they needed. Coupled with our reports of Saddam's WMD obsession, and we couldn't afford to wait until they found something.
no, you said if they were doing their job it wouldnt have taken 10 years

Germany attacked Poland because it wanted to. As provocation, they took a bunch of convicted criminals, dressed them in Polish uniforms, and took them to a radio tower near the border, where they were killed. The Germans claimed that Poland attacked them, and they sent the forces over.

Iraq has attacked the United States, and they attacked Kuwait, a US ally. They've fought against our forces, and they've killed our troops. They supported global terror that has directly resulted in the deaths of American citizens abroad, particularly in Israel. They were a threat to the stability of the middle east and a threat to the United States and that's why we attacked them.

You are completely unreasonable.
blah blah blah, mmm propaganda

"you cannot [differentiate] between al-qaeda and saddam when you are talking about the war on terror"

http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/indecision2004/index.jhtml
"words are louder than actions"

That's a link to Comedy Central. I don't see any video.

And even if there were, I'm sure the quote is taken out of context. In terms of terrorism, I would agree that Al Qaeda and Saddam - because of their past connections to terror, (both have sponsored it - Al Qaeda directly) are equal in terms of the war on terror. They are both threats, and they both must be removed.

One down, one to go.

no, you said if they were doing their job it wouldnt have taken 10 years

It shouldn't have taken 10 years at all. Had they complete access, it wouldn't have taken that long. Then they could come back every few years and recheck the sites.

There were spots in Iraq that NEVER were reviewed by UNMOVIC despite the fact that they'd been conducting these inspections for 13 years (not counting when they were THROWN OUT by Saddam, another violation of the UN resolutions that allowed them access).

blah blah blah, mmm propaganda

Your refusal to recognize that you are wrong is lamentable.

You are completely unreasonable.

What did I tell you....it truly is amazing. You will be on the ignore list next.
:rolleyes:

What did I tell you....it truly is amazing. You will be on the ignore list next.
:rolleyes:

I'll wear that badge with pride.

I'll wear that badge with pride.

As do I.... ;)

And can you tell me why you want to vote Bush without mentioning terrorism, september 11th, vietnam, iraq, kerry, or "the economy is strong"?

Those are almost all the reasons I'm voting Kerry.

You are asking a lot there. Chess Squares has blinders on. he can only see one thing.... "Bush Bad!" "Kerry Good!"

Good luck arguing with him, he has no sources and just rambles on like a drunken frat guy bragging about how he got Mary Sue back home to drop her knickers.

You are exactly right Biff! Chess Squares doesn't want to see anything that'll paint Bush in a Good light because he has absolute hatred for him. This is actually sad to see really.

What did I tell you....it truly is amazing. You will be on the ignore list next.
:rolleyes:

HAHA!!! So true. He hates anyone that doesn't share his viewpoint. BTW, i'm already on his ignore list for this reason.

As do I.... ;)

and me three ;)

Germany attacked Poland because it wanted to. As provocation, they took a bunch of convicted criminals, dressed them in Polish uniforms, and took them to a radio tower near the border, where they were killed. The Germans claimed that Poland attacked them, and they sent the forces over.

Iraq has attacked the United States, and they attacked Kuwait, a US ally. They've fought against our forces, and they've killed our troops. They supported global terror that has directly resulted in the deaths of American citizens abroad, particularly in Israel. They were a threat to the stability of the middle east and a threat to the United States and that's why we attacked them.

You are completely unreasonable.

I would like you to show me the date that Iraq attacked the United States, because in case you haven't been paying attention to the news... oh yea, they haven't. The only reason that our soldiers have been killed by Iraq is because we declared war on them and invaded. Therefore, when our soldiers were killed in Iraq, it was because Iraq was acting in self defense.

That's a link to Comedy Central. I don't see any video.

And even if there were, I'm sure the quote is taken out of context. In terms of terrorism, I would agree that Al Qaeda and Saddam - because of their past connections to terror, (both have sponsored it - Al Qaeda directly) are equal in terms of the war on terror. They are both threats, and they both must be removed.

One down, one to go.

Wow, you're an idiot. The link is to Comedy Central true enough. What you need to do is learn how to read and scroll down to where there is a video that he was posting about. A video called "words are stronger than actions" thus why he wrote just that below the link. Do you not even know how to use a computer?

I would like you to show me the date that Iraq attacked the United States, because in case you haven't been paying attention to the news... oh yea, they haven't. The only reason that our soldiers have been killed by Iraq is because we declared war on them and invaded. Therefore, when our soldiers were killed in Iraq, it was because Iraq was acting in self defense.

I am going to ask a simple "yes or no question."

Do you actually think that there were/are no terrorists in Iraq?

I am going to ask a simple "yes or no question."

Do you actually think that there were/are no terrorists in Iraq?

Do you actually think that there are no terrorists in the US? Should we start killing America citizens, just because you think they could be terrorists? Just because there is the possibility doesn't make it a fact.

And in response to your question, no, chances are there were terrorists in Iraq. However, the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 bombings were all citizens of Saudi Arabia. Do you see the US invading the Saudis?

I am going to ask a simple "yes or no question."

Do you actually think that there were/are no terrorists in Iraq?There's not a simple yes/no answer to that. Here's why.

Define what a terrorist is. An irregular soldier or member of a faction who attacks civilian targets that hold no real strategic value? There were indeed terrorists in Iraq during Saddam's reign--they generally consisted of two groups.

The first group consists of those people who were trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The second group consists of people who were trying to overthrow the government of Iran--Saddam encouraged this because he'd never really gotten over that war.

There was a third group--ansar al Islam--but they don't really count since Saddam hated them and they were essentially under coalition protection in the northern no-fly zone. Curiously enough, they were the only group in Iraq with a link to al Qaeda, and we had at least three opportunities to take out the leader of the group. We passed. Want to know why? Because he supposedly made our case against Hussein stronger. We had the motherfucker in our sights and passed for political reasons. Ugh

So yes--there were terrorists in Iraq. None of them were threatening the US directly. But there are now, because we didn't go in with enough force to secure the borders and secure the major population centers, and as a result, our military is tied down and our nation is more vulnerable as a result.

Let me ask a simple yes/no question: Are there more terrorists with a specific Anti-American agenda in Iraq now, or before the war?

Let me ask a simple yes/no question: Are there more terrorists with a specific Anti-American agenda in Iraq now, or before the war?

No.
Why? Because we are hunting them down. I assume that you are implying that more Iraqi people hate us now than hated us before we took their murderous dictator out of power. This is not true. Many Americans think that way because our wonderfull un-biased media only covers the bad parts of Iraq. Normal Iraqi's don't hate us there, those who profited from Sadam's corrupt regime and those terrorists who Sadam's regime were harboring are the "insurgents" that we have been fighting.

New, fairer question: Do you believe that Sadam's regime and those he supported posed no threat to the world or to the United States?

Let me ask a simple yes/no question: Are there more terrorists with a specific Anti-American agenda in Iraq now, or before the war?
that seems so obvious to me it looks like a trick question

So, democrats try to apeal to:
> The stupid
> Failures at life
> Tree huggers
> Pro abortionists
> Homosexuals
> Child molesters
> Fanatic feminists
> Terrorists
> Pacifists
> Communists and socialists

I certainly hope that the majority of our population isn't on this list. I hope our country hasn't fallen so far.

Worst things could probably befall your country than having it filled with the groups you've mentioned above.

Besides, most of those categories are only bad if you attatch negative connotations to them. The same thing can work for the people who the Republican Party appeals to:

> Fat-cat businessmen
> Oil-junkies
> Homophobes
> Chauvanists
> War-mongerers
> Fascists and Nazis

Unfortunately, since Bush won the election, the majority of the American population probably is on that list.

No.
Why? Because we are hunting them down. I assume that you are implying that more Iraqi people hate us now than hated us before we took their murderous dictator out of power. This is not true. Many Americans think that way because our wonderfull un-biased media only covers the bad parts of Iraq. Normal Iraqi's don't hate us there, those who profited from Sadam's corrupt regime and those terrorists who Sadam's regime were harboring are the "insurgents" that we have been fighting.

New, fairer question: Do you believe that Sadam's regime and those he supported posed no threat to the world or to the United States?
normal iraqis also want us the fuck up out of their country. and those "insurgents" arnt just among saddams party, they are coming from all parties in the country, they dont want us in their country


let me ask YOU a question

do you believe that saddam hussein was a supporter of international terrorism, specifically al-qaeda?


do you believe we went to iraq ONLY for the reason of liberating the iraqi people?

Worst things could probably befall your country than having it filled with the groups you've mentioned above.

Besides, most of those categories are only bad if you attatch negative connotations to them. The same thing can work for the people who the Republican Party appeals to:

> Fat-cat businessmen
> Oil-junkies
> Homophobes
> Chauvanists
> War-mongerers
> Fascists and Nazis

Unfortunately, since Bush won the election, the majority of the American population probably is on that list.
you forgot Extremist Christians

Extremist Christians? Nazis? It doesn't go together...

Extremist Christians? Nazis? It doesn't go together...
yes it does...

No, no, the Nazis persecuted extremist Christians.

Let me ask a simple yes/no question: Are there more terrorists with a specific Anti-American agenda in Iraq now, or before the war?

If you paid any attention to the news you would already know the answer. We have turned average citizens into terrorists by invading them and destroying their cities. Granted we took out their vicious leader, but we are also trying to impose upon them a westernized way of life. They dont want to change their way of life. We may be killing "terrorists" by the dozens, but with each one that we kill there are a dozen more that were friends with those people who didnt want to fight before, but now have a reason to. Revenge. War is never a good thing regardless of the intent. Hate breeds hate.

No, no, the Nazis persecuted extremist Christians.

The Nazis persecuted anyone who tried to take away power from their regeime, therefore nazis go perfectly hand in hand with the christians.

No.
Why? Because we are hunting them down. I assume that you are implying that more Iraqi people hate us now than hated us before we took their murderous dictator out of power. This is not true. Many Americans think that way because our wonderfull un-biased media only covers the bad parts of Iraq. Normal Iraqi's don't hate us there, those who profited from Sadam's corrupt regime and those terrorists who Sadam's regime were harboring are the "insurgents" that we have been fighting.

New, fairer question: Do you believe that Sadam's regime and those he supported posed no threat to the world or to the United States?And you know this how? Why don't you admit it--you're pulling these conclusions right out of your ass, and they smell like it. You go ahead and talk about how the biased media isn't telling us the story and I'll use the 1,000+ dead soldiers and the 5,000 plus wounded to argue my side.

As to the second question--I absolutely believe that Saddam's regime posed no threat to the US before the war. He had been effectively contained and was going nowhere.

Wow, you're an idiot. The link is to Comedy Central true enough. What you need to do is learn how to read and scroll down to where there is a video that he was posting about. A video called "words are stronger than actions" thus why he wrote just that below the link. Do you not even know how to use a computer?

Testy, testy.

I didn't see the link at the bottom.

But really - Comedy Central? They don't have this on any legitimate news sites? Not even on the moveon.org?

EDIT:

Okay, I found the thing. That link was TINY - and it was in the 4 point font that said "words are stronger than actions".

And I was right - the quote was taken out of context.

I would like you to show me the date that Iraq attacked the United States, because in case you haven't been paying attention to the news... oh yea, they haven't. The only reason that our soldiers have been killed by Iraq is because we declared war on them and invaded. Therefore, when our soldiers were killed in Iraq, it was because Iraq was acting in self defense.

It's a well established fact that Iraqi anti-aircraft batteries in the southern part of Iraq have been firing on US and allied aircraft in the zone for years. They shot down a predator drone in the middle of 2002.

Attacks on US forces represent attacks on the United States.

Like I said - it was thin - but it's enough for a lawyer to argue on.

But you're missing the overall point - Iraq was not an innocent party here. Up until Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, we had diplomatic relations with him. It was his decision to attack Kuwait, and his further decisions to use fund international terror that caused this war. Hussein could have put a stop to everything, but his choices led to his removal.

normal iraqis also want us the fuck up out of their country. and those "insurgents" arnt just among saddams party, they are coming from all parties in the country, they dont want us in their country

let me ask YOU a question

do you believe that saddam hussein was a supporter of international terrorism, specifically al-qaeda?

do you believe we went to iraq ONLY for the reason of liberating the iraqi people?

You're wrong about what the Iraqi people want.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/16/sprj.irq.poll/

That's the most recent polling I could find.

Do I believe that Saddam Hussein was a supporter of international terrorism? Yes.

Specifically Al-Qaeda? No.

Do I believe that we went to iraq ONLY for the reason of liberating the Iraqi people? No.

War is never a good thing regardless of the intent. Hate breeds hate.

I can think of a lot of Jews who would disagree with you.

I can think of a lot of African-Americans who would disagree with you.

As to the second question--I absolutely believe that Saddam's regime posed no threat to the US before the war. He had been effectively contained and was going nowhere.

That's fine - you are entitled to your opinion.

But if you are wrong, nothing happens.

If Bush agreed with you, and was wrong, thousands more American lives could have been lost.

And then you would be on these messages boards arguing that it's his fault, because he should've known better.

That's fine - you are entitled to your opinion.

But if you are wrong, nothing happens.

If Bush agreed with you, and was wrong, thousands more American lives could have been lost.

And then you would be on these messages boards arguing that it's his fault, because he should've known better.You can't have it both ways--although the Repubicans tried in 2002. Either Saddam was a clear and present danger to the US or he wasn't. Clearly, we can now see that he wasn't, and if you look back to early 2001, Colin Powell didn't think he was either. (http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm) We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.

So what happened in less than two years that turned Hussein from a person unable to project even conventional power against his enemies into a clear and present danger for the people of the United States? (I swear to God if you say 9/11, I will smack you.) Hussein was no more a threat to the US than my grandmama, until intelligence started being ginned up to make him into a danger.

You can't have it both ways--although the Repubicans tried in 2002. Either Saddam was a clear and present danger to the US or he wasn't. Clearly, we can now see that he wasn't, and if you look back to early 2001, Colin Powell didn't think he was either. (http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm)

So what happened in less than two years that turned Hussein from a person unable to project even conventional power against his enemies into a clear and present danger for the people of the United States? (I swear to God if you say 9/11, I will smack you.) Hussein was no more a threat to the US than my grandmama, until intelligence started being ginned up to make him into a danger.

I'm sorry but I have to say it. The world was not the same place - we couldn't evaluate intelligence the same way we did on September 10th.

I've seen it said here that Kerry supporters believe it's unfair to accuse the Senator for flip-flopping, because as time went on, he learned from his mistakes.

We know that Powell thought differently a year later, because he went before the UN and laid out some of the intelligence that we had.

We're going to go round and round here, because again - you are entitled to your opinion and you have the luxury of no consequences of being wrong. The President didn't and I cannot blame him for not erring on the side of caution.

I know what I'm talking about.

But the issue was that Saddam was not providing them the unfettered access that he was required to provide based on a dozen UN resolutions dating back to 1991.

They were making no progress, because it was obvious - even to the UNMOVIC teams - that Saddam was not being upfront.

It took nearly 13 years, and they still weren't getting the support they needed. Coupled with our reports of Saddam's WMD obsession, and we couldn't afford to wait until they found something.
Check out the President's speech when the US was in the process of invading Iraq. Bush made that ever so slight connection to 9/11 while talking about Saddam Hussein, it is almost like a subliminal message but it was there LOUD and CLEAR!!

Read the script and you cannot help but see the connection Bush was trying to establish and indeed he did establish that link because most polls after the invasion of Iraq had Americans linking 9/11 with Saddam.

Go for it!!

BTW, Bush knows all about subliminal messages, he used that word in the video (mind you, he can't pronounce the word properly) that Chess Squares was trying to get you watch, which btw would be another piece that you should see.

I'm sorry but I have to say it. The world was not the same place - we couldn't evaluate intelligence the same way we did on September 10th.

I've seen it said here that Kerry supporters believe it's unfair to accuse the Senator for flip-flopping, because as time went on, he learned from his mistakes.

We know that Powell thought differently a year later, because he went before the UN and laid out some of the intelligence that we had.

We're going to go round and round here, because again - you are entitled to your opinion and you have the luxury of no consequences of being wrong. The President didn't and I cannot blame him for not erring on the side of caution.Bullshit. Iraq was never involved in 9/11. The President knew that long before he started making war plans, and that didn't stop him from equating the al Qaeda attack and Saddam Hussein. He wanted this war no matter what it cost, no matter how many people were going to die, no matter what happened in terms of prosecuting the war on al Qaeda, no matter if we never captured Bin laden or any of the other major planners of the 9/11 attacks. Bush was planning a war in Iraq prior to the 9/11 attacks. It didn't matter what rhetorical hoops he and his administration had to jump through--we were going to have boots on the ground in Iraq before he left office, and his people in the DoD who "reexamined intelligence" and stovepiped it to the Vice-President's office made sure he had what he needed.

And what's more, I resent this idea that Bush was cautious when it came to this war--a cautious person would have formed a true coalition, not written up a list of countries that offered little but token support. A cautious person would have ensured that the intelligence analysis he was looking at was unbiased and not trying to move him toward a pre-conceived decision. A cautious person would have gone to war only as the last possible resort. Bush is anything but cautious.

Check out the President's speech when the US was in the process of invading Iraq. Bush made that ever so slight connection to 9/11 while talking about Saddam Hussein, it is almost like a subliminal message but it was there LOUD and CLEAR!!

Read the script and you cannot help but see the connection Bush was trying to establish and indeed he did establish that link because most polls after the invasion of Iraq had Americans linking 9/11 with Saddam.

Go for it!!

BTW, Bush knows all about subliminal messages, he used that word in the video (mind you, he can't pronounce the word properly) that Chess Squares was trying to get you watch, which btw would be another piece that you should see.

Please be more specific - there are about a zillion of those speeches, and I've read them all, but I can't put my finger on the one you are talking about.

And I finally found the damn link and I saw it. It's funny. There are a zillion examples of Kerry saying stupid things, as well, but they don't make the news because Bush's are funnier. And they are.

Bullshit. Iraq was never involved in 9/11. The President knew that long before he started making war plans, and that didn't stop him from equating the al Qaeda attack and Saddam Hussein. He wanted this war no matter what it cost, no matter how many people were going to die, no matter what happened in terms of prosecuting the war on al Qaeda, no matter if we never captured Bin laden or any of the other major planners of the 9/11 attacks. Bush was planning a war in Iraq prior to the 9/11 attacks. It didn't matter what rhetorical hoops he and his administration had to jump through--we were going to have boots on the ground in Iraq before he left office, and his people in the DoD who "reexamined intelligence" and stovepiped it to the Vice-President's office made sure he had what he needed.

I never said that Iraq was involved in 9/11. The President never said Iraq was involved in 9/11. The President has always known that. But Saddam Hussein, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, etc., etc. are all part of the same problem to him: a well funded, well coordinated global network of terrorists, funded, supported and protected by rogue regimes and all with the stated purpose of destroying the United States.

There is no evidence that the President was planning for a war in Iraq prior to 9/11 - at least, not planning for it any further than we plan for any number of possible war scenarios.

And a point where we fundamentally disagree here is that I see no problem with the President making the decision to go to war based on the information he had at the time.

And what's more, I resent this idea that Bush was cautious when it came to this war--a cautious person would have formed a true coalition, not written up a list of countries that offered little but token support. A cautious person would have ensured that the intelligence analysis he was looking at was unbiased and not trying to move him toward a pre-conceived decision. A cautious person would have gone to war only as the last possible resort. Bush is anything but cautious.

I didn't say he was cautious. I said he wasn't cautious. I apologize - that last sentence in my previous post wasn't as clear as it should have been. The point I was trying to make was that after 9/11, we didn't have the luxury of taking the time to do things the diplomatic, cautious way. Based on what we knew then, every second we waited, the more time we gave Saddam to develop his WMDs.

Again - you can't look at this based on what we know now. You have got to look at it from his perspective before the war started.

Oh the blissfull ignorance of it all

I can think of a lot of Jews who would disagree with you.

I can think of a lot of African-Americans who would disagree with you.

No, they wouldn't disagree with me, they could even be my case study for my statement. The Jews hate the Nazis, because the Nazis persecuted and murdered millions of their people. Some African-Americans hate white Americans for slavery, but thats because their entire reason for being in America was because we enslaved them by the thousands and shipped them over to the US. That is proof that intolerance and hatred will only cause more intolerance and hatred.
Seriously, if Hitler handn't decided that it was necessary to exterminate the entire Jewish race, the Jews probably wouldn't hate him as much. They would still hate him a little bit because he was a fucker who decided to go on a mass slaughter for world domination, thus whats not to hate. My point is, no matter what, hatred is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Could you forgive someone who killed your entire family?

I never said that Iraq was involved in 9/11. The President never said Iraq was involved in 9/11. The President has always known that. But Saddam Hussein, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, etc., etc. are all part of the same problem to him: a well funded, well coordinated global network of terrorists, funded, supported and protected by rogue regimes and all with the stated purpose of destroying the United States.

He linked the two here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020925-1.html) when there has never been any evidence that supported any kind of cooperation between the two.Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world.

Both of them need to be dealt with. The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.
[/quote]

There is no evidence that the President was planning for a war in Iraq prior to 9/11 - at least, not planning for it any further than we plan for any number of possible war scenarios.

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-11-oneill-iraq_x.htm) disagrees. The article says, "As early as January 2001, they began looking for ways to justify an invasion, O'Neill said.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein is a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill told 60 Minutes. "From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime.""

And a point where we fundamentally disagree here is that I see no problem with the President making the decision to go to war based on the information he had at the time.

Fair enough--but don't make it out like the President had overwhelming evidence that Iraq was the most dangerous threat out there. Even without al Qaeda on the table, North Korea is far more of a threat than Hussein ever was. Kim Jong Il is batshit crazy. Hussein is evil, but he's not batshit.

I didn't say he was cautious. I said he wasn't cautious. I apologize - that last sentence in my previous post wasn't as clear as it should have been. The point I was trying to make was that after 9/11, we didn't have the luxury of taking the time to do things the diplomatic, cautious way. Based on what we knew then, every second we waited, the more time we gave Saddam to develop his WMDs.

Again - you can't look at this based on what we know now. You have got to look at it from his perspective before the war started.
That's exactly what I've done. His decision to go into Iraq was pre-determined and it ignored very real threats in favor of a threat he wanted to believe existed.

I never said that Iraq was involved in 9/11. The President never said Iraq was involved in 9/11. The President has always known that. But Saddam Hussein, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, etc., etc. are all part of the same problem to him: a well funded, well coordinated global network of terrorists, funded, supported and protected by rogue regimes and all with the stated purpose of destroying the United States.

There is no evidence that the President was planning for a war in Iraq prior to 9/11 - at least, not planning for it any further than we plan for any number of possible war scenarios.

And a point where we fundamentally disagree here is that I see no problem with the President making the decision to go to war based on the information he had at the time.



I didn't say he was cautious. I said he wasn't cautious. I apologize - that last sentence in my previous post wasn't as clear as it should have been. The point I was trying to make was that after 9/11, we didn't have the luxury of taking the time to do things the diplomatic, cautious way. Based on what we knew then, every second we waited, the more time we gave Saddam to develop his WMDs.

Again - you can't look at this based on what we know now. You have got to look at it from his perspective before the war started.

Okay, stop trying to pull the WMD arguement as rationale for the war. It wasn't rationale for the war. We knew he didnt have any WMD. The CIA knew this, the DoD knew this, everyone knew. However, the Bush administration does have one very, very strong point, and that is manipulating the way that people view events.

They start with wanting a reason to go to war with Iraq (personally I believe that this was for two purposes oil, and to finish up what his dad started, but why it happened is a whole nother issue, that I may or may not address later). The UN sends in experts to determine whether or not Sadaam was infact making weapons of mass destruction which would put him in breach of the surrender agreement from the first Gulf War. However, Sadaam decided that he didn't want them snooping around his country, for whatever reason. Personally, I believe its because he was a dictator, and hes used to people doing everything he wants when he wants, so he wasn't about to fulfill someone elses request. The Bush administration then went on to create the assumption in the minds of the public that the fact that he didn't want anyone looking for WMD's meant that he must have them or be making them, and since the US was involved in the most recent conflict, they assumed that we would be the most likely target, instead of the nearby middle eastern countries, which he wasn't exactly on the best of terms with. Once they get enough people to believe that he has WMDs its just for the president to follow up and say that they have evidence that he infact has them, therefore it is necessary for the sake of the nation for us to go to war. Which he did. We ended up "winning" though there have been more casualties in the "post-war combat" than there were in the actual war. All in all, I believe that the Bush administration is very skilled in the art of deception, however, being decieving isn't exactly the best traits to have in a democratic society.

whats wrong with bieng a war-monger?

I'm a war-monger (or so I have bee called).

My dream is to die on the battlefield laying in the pool of blood of my fallen enemies fighting for the freedom and the dignity of my country. I have nothing wrong if I die in war and I greatly honor those who have died. I envy thier death for it was a good one. (what makes me mad is that I can enlist in the armed forces cause some of my disabilities and I'm the last male carrying my family name). Sorry if I offended any of those who thier loved ones, I was not making a negative comment to yours but arther a positive one. They were fighting for what was right and thier death, though can never bring them back, has earned them such a honor in my heart and praise beyond praise from me.

with all that aside...I'm voting for Bush cause I think he has what it takes to govern the country for one more term in a world thats hateful, evil, and distubred. He won't back down from stupid European powers that all they do is sit on thier butts (save for england). He doesn't change his mind when things look wrong for him and doesn't flip flop (as much as kerry).

And bieng a Christian...I would like to see a Christian president leading a Christian Nation. Im done ranting :)


Wow. wow. wow. wow. wow.
Okay, so your a hypernationalist, hypermasculinist, hegemonic ... words fail me. Basically you're a terrible person.

1) The nationalist drive to sacrifice oneself for one's nation and the desire for heroic death and the glory of battle has led to some of the worst atrocities of the twentieth century. Hitler used german nationalism to fuel the death machine that was the Third Reich and jutsify the holocaust. Not to call conservatives nazis... they just use some of the same logic.
2) "sitting on your butt" when that sitting is waiting to find out the facts about a situation before you engage in an activity as serious as war is hardly a vice - patience is a virtue. especially when it saves lives.
3) flip flopping isnt necessarily that bad. changing your opinion in regards to the latest information is called "thinking." mindlessly justifying your mistakes with a multi-million dollar propaganda machine is called the politics of the bush administration.
4) a christian nation, eh? whatever happened to freedom of religion? or do you say, 'screw rights except the second and tenth amendments"? Last time I checked, the right to believe and say what i want is what makes this countrry great, not my ability to shoot a defensless animal.
5) o yeah, and preservation of "your" family name ... chauvinist.

so, in conclusion, what i suppose you want is a jingoistic, militaristic, obstinate theocracy. sounds to me like you want the taliban.

PS im a man from texas who grew up in a republican household. I know you're going to give me flak about the feminism, but in spite of my hash surroundings, I am what I am.

No, they wouldn't disagree with me, they could even be my case study for my statement. The Jews hate the Nazis, because the Nazis persecuted and murdered millions of their people. Some African-Americans hate white Americans for slavery, but thats because their entire reason for being in America was because we enslaved them by the thousands and shipped them over to the US. That is proof that intolerance and hatred will only cause more intolerance and hatred.
Seriously, if Hitler handn't decided that it was necessary to exterminate the entire Jewish race, the Jews probably wouldn't hate him as much. They would still hate him a little bit because he was a fucker who decided to go on a mass slaughter for world domination, thus whats not to hate. My point is, no matter what, hatred is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Could you forgive someone who killed your entire family?

You missed my point entirely.

They COULDN'T disagree with you - because the Jews would all be dead, and the African-Americans would still be slaves in the Confederate States of America.

War can be justified. That was my point.

He linked the two here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020925-1.html) when there has never been any evidence that supported any kind of cooperation between the two.


You are completely misunderstanding what his trying to say here. Granted, he is saying it in his typical murky fashion.

What he meant wasn't that Hussein and Al-Qaeda are directly linked. He meant that they are cut from the same cloth - different, yet their goals are the same. And that he couldn't afford to view one as less of a risk than the other.

As for the O'Neil quote - O'Neil was, by that time, fired from his job as Treasury Secretary. The fact that after he was fired he came out criticizing the President over an issue that he would not have any direct information on - Treasury is not included in national security discussions - should send up some alarm bells that he may not be entirely credible.

Fair enough--but don't make it out like the President had overwhelming evidence that Iraq was the most dangerous threat out there. Even without al Qaeda on the table, North Korea is far more of a threat than Hussein ever was. Kim Jong Il is batshit crazy. Hussein is evil, but he's not batshit.

I'm not saying that. Saddam was a clear and present danger, but there are others. There were a lot of logical reasons why Saddam was first - Iraq is central to the whole region, and therefore in a very strategic location - both for causing trouble, and a good place for a US ally after the war. Second, we'd already been to war against him once - we knew his tactics and his capabilities and we had a lot of veterans from the first war who knew the area. Third, he wasn't popular with his people. Fourth we had a compelling, immediate reason.

I agree that Kim is batshit crazy, but he's an impotent batshit crazy dictator. The guy cannot even feed his own people - his craziness is merely his attempt to get our attention so he can negotiate with us for food aid. We have something North Korea wants, and they're willing to negotiate with us to get it. Further, China won't allow them to get into a pissing match with us - despite the tensions between our countries, China does not benefit having a state it protects and is nominally allied with in a shooting war with its largest trading partner. And they've already got nuclear weapons, so the risk of them using them against us if we attempted an invasion is extremely high.

This is an example where the President is doing what you wished he'd done in Iraq - he's being cautious.

That's exactly what I've done. His decision to go into Iraq was pre-determined and it ignored very real threats in favor of a threat he wanted to believe existed.

I disagree.

You missed my point entirely.

They COULDN'T disagree with you - because the Jews would all be dead, and the African-Americans would still be slaves in the Confederate States of America.

War can be justified. That was my point.

Brian, justifying Iraq to these uninformed people won't get you anywhere! Trust me. My sister (Formal Dances) and I have tried but they are hung up on 9/11 and on the WMD!

Frankly, I don't care for the reasons why we went in. The fact is we did and I supported it from the beginning. I didn't really care what the reasons where. Iraq had to be dealt with and we dealt with them. The world will probably be better off because of it.

Look what you have to realize is that regaredless of which way the election swings we will most likely have a white blue blood president with strong ties to buisness, the thing is as is many times these days with politics the public are forced to choose the person that would inflict less dammage upon the overall society both national and worldwide. Democracy is in shambles, is this country truly a peoples sovereignty or an oligarcy. We are constantly given choices both of which would be hopelessly inept, selected by groups of people we know as political parties operating under the disguise of free speech abuse our constitution, these parties whore themselves out to the highest bidder ensuring that as before the rich keep a certain amount of power over the political system, how much of a democracy is this when the people dont even actually elect the president, and yet few know of the ellectoral college. Whats more we have grown too dependant on a biased media that constantly skews its reports towards one or another political party (another debate that many disagree on). Our once promising society has been reduced to a corrupt ruin, a shadow of its former self, and we never ever even see the entire picture. Years from now is when the damage can be fully comprehended will people cry out in outrage for the injustice that has plagued this country since its roots.

Brian, justifying Iraq to these uninformed people won't get you anywhere! Trust me. My sister (Formal Dances) and I have tried but they are hung up on 9/11 and on the WMD!

Frankly, I don't care for the reasons why we went in. The fact is we did and I supported it from the beginning. I didn't really care what the reasons where. Iraq had to be dealt with and we dealt with them. The world will probably be better off because of it.Uninformed--you're one to talk, Corneliu. You don't even get the Republican talking points right half the time.

Okay, stop trying to pull the WMD arguement as rationale for the war. It wasn't rationale for the war. We knew he didnt have any WMD. The CIA knew this, the DoD knew this, everyone knew. However, the Bush administration does have one very, very strong point, and that is manipulating the way that people view events.

This is wrong. Just look at the evidence that Colin Powell showed the UN Security Council - that stuff wasn't made up. There was a strong believe in both the Bush and Clinton Administrations that Saddam was actively pursuing WMD.

The WMD rationale was the reason the President felt we needed to go to war.

We know now that it was wrong, but they had no way of knowing that short of invading and finding out.

They start with wanting a reason to go to war with Iraq (personally I believe that this was for two purposes oil, and to finish up what his dad started, but why it happened is a whole nother issue, that I may or may not address later).

We haven't made a single dime of a single drop of oil in Iraq. No American company is pumping oil over there.

The "finish up what his dad started" is complete speculation that's not provable. Don't say things like that, even if you believe them. It makes everything else you say look uncredible.

The UN sends in experts to determine whether or not Sadaam was infact making weapons of mass destruction which would put him in breach of the surrender agreement from the first Gulf War. However, Sadaam decided that he didn't want them snooping around his country, for whatever reason.
Personally, I believe its because he was a dictator, and hes used to people doing everything he wants when he wants, so he wasn't about to fulfill someone elses request.

He didn't have that right. He didn't have a choice - the UN didn't ask him if they could put in inspectors. They TOLD him they were coming, and that refusal would result in serious consequences. The ball was in Hussein's court and he blew it. That's his fault.

The Bush administration then went on to create the assumption in the minds of the public that the fact that he didn't want anyone looking for WMD's meant that he must have them or be making them, and since the US was involved in the most recent conflict, they assumed that we would be the most likely target, instead of the nearby middle eastern countries, which he wasn't exactly on the best of terms with. Once they get enough people to believe that he has WMDs its just for the president to follow up and say that they have evidence that he infact has them, therefore it is necessary for the sake of the nation for us to go to war.

They didn't go on to create an assumption. An assumption is when you take something for granted with no proof. The Administration felt that it had the proof, and it showed some of that proof to the world at large at the UN Security Council, and it showed all of the proof to Congress.

Iraq didn't get along with his neighbors, but he wasn't in a position to attack them. If he had opened his doors to Al-Qaeda after 9/11 (because they'd done more to harm America than he ever did) he could have provided them with weapons, money and WMD (if he had them) and that was why it was an immediate threat.

You're going into this discussion automatically assuming the worst about the President, and I don't think that's justifiable or fair.

Which he did. We ended up "winning" though there have been more casualties in the "post-war combat" than there were in the actual war. All in all, I believe that the Bush administration is very skilled in the art of deception, however, being decieving isn't exactly the best traits to have in a democratic society.

We did "win". The mission of the military was to remove the Hussein government and force the surrender of the Iraqi military. That mission was accomplished. Now we're working to make sure that our second mission - establishing a stable democracy in Iraq - is successful. Oddly enough, the second mission has proven harder than the first.

I don't think that we have been deceived at all. I think Americans are smart enough and educated enough to be able to sniff out when someone is lying to them - and when they aren't, they have the media to do it for 'em.

The Charter specifically allows its member states to respond to attacks in self-defence when they have been attacked. As I said before (and this is thin, I admit, but it's enough for legal grounds) Iraq had been attacking our forces in the no-fly zones for years, and we viewed them as a threat to us for their support of global terror. That's justification enough.



Ok, let's follow your logic.

UN allows other nations to respond to an attack by counter attacking.

Iraq attacked American/ British planes.

Ergo, America/ Britain has right to attack Iraq.

The logic is good, except your skipping a beginning step that,honestly, ruins your logic. The no-fly zones were illegal. Nowhere in the resolution after the Gulf War was there anything about America and Britain defending the Kurds and restricting were Iraqi planes could fly; thus, no no-fly zones.

So, here's the problem; Iraq is a sovereign nation. Iraq was a highly restricted, carefully watched nation with sanctions, but it was a sovereign nation nonetheless. So, in reality, America and Britain were infringing on Iraq sovereignity and attacking Iraq. Using your own logic, this allows Iraq to defend itself and attack the American/ British planes. To use those attacks as reasons for attacking Iraq under the UN charter is fallacious, and circular logic. So that's wrong. Stick with the terrorism angle, that works better. You can't justify the war by saying Iraq attacked us.

Uninformed--you're one to talk, Corneliu. You don't even get the Republican talking points right half the time.

I'm taking talking points? Sounds to me like your taking your points from the DNC as is CanuckHeaven, Chess Squares, and a couple of others.

I don't take anyone's talking points for gospel. I do research. Frankly Saddam had to go and I was dancing in the streets when Baghdad fell and I was Jumping up and down when we caught Saddam, something my mom never thought we do. Now, he'll be tried for the war crimes he committed.

There's nothing at all odd about the reconstruction being more difficult than winning the initial battle--do some reading about any post-war situation and you'll discover that.

Brian, justifying Iraq to these uninformed people won't get you anywhere! Trust me. My sister (Formal Dances) and I have tried but they are hung up on 9/11 and on the WMD!

Frankly, I don't care for the reasons why we went in. The fact is we did and I supported it from the beginning. I didn't really care what the reasons where. Iraq had to be dealt with and we dealt with them. The world will probably be better off because of it.

This is just an intellectual exercise with me.

I know full well that I'm not going to convince them that I'm right, but I am trying to convince them that there are some of us out there who have sound judgement, are educated and informed, and who still are voting for Bush.

I've found that when you disagree with someone, it's all to easy to label them as a nutty. But I had lunch today with one of the most liberal Democrats in the House of Representatives and we had a lot of good discussion and even when he laid out his reasoning behind his universal health care proposal, he made sense and was normal. I disagreed, but he wasn't a loon.

I hope that the folks I'm debating - the rational ones, at least - can at least respect me for thinking about this stuff.

There's nothing at all odd about the reconstruction being more difficult than winning the initial battle--do some reading about any post-war situation and you'll discover that.

I guess I should refresh my memory on this. But I just don't recall Japan, Germany or the rest of Europe being as much trouble as Iraq is being now.

Anything you recommend I should read?

There's nothing at all odd about the reconstruction being more difficult than winning the initial battle--do some reading about any post-war situation and you'll discover that.

Al Sadr's army is part of this trouble

Zarqawi is part of this trouble

Saddam loyalists are part of this trouble

Is this progression escaping you?

We know that Powell thought differently a year later, because he went before the UN and laid out some of the intelligence that we had.



Actually, Powell thought the case was beyond thin and didn't want to go in front of the UN with such a thin case. He, himself, cut out much of the intelligence because thought it was so ridiculous that the UN would laugh him out of there. Sure, Powell went to the UN and gave his case, but he was forced to by the administration; he didn't want to. He thought the Iraqi was was a bad idea, and he thought that sending only a hundred some thousand troops was a worse idea.

Ok, let's follow your logic.

UN allows other nations to respond to an attack by counter attacking.

Iraq attacked American/ British planes.

Ergo, America/ Britain has right to attack Iraq.

The logic is good, except your skipping a beginning step that,honestly, ruins your logic. The no-fly zones were illegal. Nowhere in the resolution after the Gulf War was there anything about America and Britain defending the Kurds and restricting were Iraqi planes could fly; thus, no no-fly zones.

This is a point of contention we've already gone over - there has been debate over the legality of the no-fly zones, but 1441 gave them legitimacy.

So, here's the problem; Iraq is a sovereign nation. Iraq was a highly restricted, carefully watched nation with sanctions, but it was a sovereign nation nonetheless. So, in reality, America and Britain were infringing on Iraq sovereignity and attacking Iraq. Using your own logic, this allows Iraq to defend itself and attack the American/ British planes. To use those attacks as reasons for attacking Iraq under the UN charter is fallacious, and circular logic. So that's wrong. Stick with the terrorism angle, that works better. You can't justify the war by saying Iraq attacked us.

I said the reasoning here was thin - but there's enough to argue a legal case over.

Iraq forfeited it's soveriegnty when it infringed upon the soveriegnty of Kuwait. They lost the war, and thus, they lost the ability to claim we were violating their sovereignty.

But you're right - th terrorism angle is the stronger of the two.

I guess I should refresh my memory on this. But I just don't recall Japan, Germany or the rest of Europe being as much trouble as Iraq is being now.

Anything you recommend I should read?
Here's an appropriate place to start, since it's a column from the New York Times of November 18, 1946 that President Bush quoted out of context in his acceptance speech. It's a pdf file (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/1946mccormick.pdf), but it's a small one. It discusses the situation in postwar Germany before the implementation of the Marshall plan and of the dangerous situation the Allies found themselves in. There was the real possibility of all Europe just going to hell.

Actually, Powell thought the case was beyond thin and didn't want to go in front of the UN with such a thin case. He, himself, cut out much of the intelligence because thought it was so ridiculous that the UN would laugh him out of there. Sure, Powell went to the UN and gave his case, but he was forced to by the administration; he didn't want to. He thought the Iraqi was was a bad idea, and he thought that sending only a hundred some thousand troops was a worse idea.

He didn't have to go.

He could have resigned.

But he didn't, and he went.

Here's an appropriate place to start, since it's a column from the New York Times of November 18, 1946 that President Bush quoted out of context in his acceptance speech. It's a pdf file (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/1946mccormick.pdf), but it's a small one. It discusses the situation in postwar Germany before the implementation of the Marshall plan and of the dangerous situation the Allies found themselves in. There was the real possibility of all Europe just going to hell.

Can I get something NOT from the New York Times? :)

Call it personal bias.

PS - Bedtime for me. Be back tomorrow.

Al Sadr's army is part of this trouble

Zarqawi is part of this trouble

Saddam loyalists are part of this trouble

Is this progression escaping you?
And the fact that we went in without enough troops to quell uprisings and secure the country is the first link in that progression. Bush and the DoD ignored all the military people who warned them that we would need a force at least twice the size we sent in--perhaps three times--in order to win the peace. Is that progression escaping you?

And the fact that we went in without enough troops to quell uprisings and secure the country is the first link in that progression. Bush and the DoD ignored all the military people who warned them that we would need a force at least twice the size we sent in--perhaps three times--in order to win the peace. Is that progression escaping you?

We do have enough troops in Iraq to do what is needed. If not, then CentCom would be asking for more. As far as I know, they have not asked for more troops. If they are not asking for troops, what does that tell you? That we don't need more.

I like the ide [sic] of a politician in office who got a close-up view of the Presidencies of Ronald Reagan and his successor.
Another reason to vote against Bush
We were attacked.
By Iraq? Really? When?

Can I get something NOT from the New York Times? :)

Call it personal bias.

PS - Bedtime for me. Be back tomorrow.What--am I your personal google searcher? :D

Seriously though--do some research on it, even if it's just basic noodling around. Rebuilding a war zone is tough in the best of times, because of the breakdown of even the most basic services. It really comes down to this--destruction is easier than construction, no matter what you're applying those forces toward.

He didn't have to go.

He could have resigned.

But he didn't, and he went.


True, he could have resigned, but honestly, how many people would? Plus, don't you think it would hurt his party if he resigned right before he was suppose to argue the case for invading Iraq. Let's be reasonable; expecting Powell to resign, causing distress to the White House before a war, and the soldiers that would probably be sent to Iraq anyways is not reasonable.

But anyway, I was just arguing your point about Powell changing his mind. He didn't.

By Iraq? Really? When?

Does the firing at our planes in the No Fly Zone constitute an attack on us? By George yes it does!

So yea we were constently attacked by Iraq

We do have enough troops in Iraq to do what is needed. If not, then CentCom would be asking for more. As far as I know, they have not asked for more troops. If they are not asking for troops, what does that tell you? That we don't need more.
It tells me that 1) we don't have to send even if they wanted them and 2) that the Secretary of Defense and the President have made it clear that there won't be any more troops going in and so not only is there no point in asking, any request will be frowned upon at the highest level. The initial statement by General Shinseki that we would need at least 300,000 to 400,000 troops in Iraq is what got him retired. Nobody who wants to continue his career in the service is going to make that mistake.

A reason that I would NOT vote for a democrat is because the entire party thinks of its voters as complete idiots and failures at life.
That's an interesting accusation coming from a party that didn't think the American public wouldn't be able to see the tissues of lies that were used to justify invading Iraq....

Does the firing at our planes in the No Fly Zone constitute an attack on us? By George yes it does!

So yea we were constently attacked by Iraq


By George, no it doesn't in the sense stated by the UN charter.

(Why you ask? Because the no-fly zones were not legal, and if they were legitimized it was after the fact; and because, therefore, we were invading Iraqi air space. That means, they had the right to attack us.)

We do have enough troops in Iraq to do what is needed. If not, then CentCom would be asking for more. As far as I know, they have not asked for more troops. If they are not asking for troops, what does that tell you? That we don't need more.


As far as you know? That's the logic and proof you're using? Look harder.

From the Washington Times (one of the more righ-leaning publications):

"Retired Gen. Eric Shinseki testified to Congress while he was Army chief of staff that the United States needed at least double the current occupation army to enforce peace. He quickly met a rebuke from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a key proponent of going to war to oust Saddam."

Of course, Wolfowitz also seriously thought that Iraqis would throw flowers and candy at the feet of American troops after the toppling of their government.

Can you please be a little more vague about that? How about some numbers? And who's "the wealthy"? Al Sharpton at least gave some. He said the top 1% should be paying about 15% of all the taxes. Is that enough?

Of course, Al didn't check his numbers before hand. The IRS says that the top 1% already pay 34% of all income taxes!

So how much is enough? Will it ever be enough or will it always be more, more, more?
Of course they pay about 34% of the taxes... look at what percentage of the wealth they control. If they control 34% (and in 1989, they owned 38% (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2548/is_251/ai_112721237), although it might be a bit lower now), then why shouldn't they be paying 34% of the taxes?

Does the firing at our planes in the No Fly Zone constitute an attack on us? By George yes it does!

So yea we were constently attacked by Iraq

Hmmm, how come you guys never took out that terrorist base camp in the Northern no fly zone? Did you know you actually helped them to thrive by keeping them safe from Saddam for all those years? it was also the ONLY group on Iraqi soil at the time. ( Yet now there's hundreds in all probability )

Of course I actually know that facts and truth will never get in the way of a good old right wing argument.

When did I make an accusation? It's just like a democrat to disessemble my statement and change it to what you want it to meen.

Anywho, if I were a child molester or a terrorist, I would vote for kerry.
Terrorist: Kerry would not provide the same security. I would be able to run a cell much more easily with Kerry in office.

Child molester: I probobly should have just said "criminal who hasn't been convicted yet" because democrats are much more for criminal rights than republicans. Criminals do not deserve rights, they deserve to be shot. (Don't even get me started on liberals and gun laws)
Are you a child molester or a terrorist? If not, how do you know who they would vote for? Have you taken a poll?
As for criminals not deserving rights, I have a feeling you'd might have a different opinion if you were ever convicted of a crime, especially if it was one you didn't commit.

I never said that Iraq was involved in 9/11. The President never said Iraq was involved in 9/11. The President has always known that. But Saddam Hussein, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, etc., etc. are all part of the same problem to him: a well funded, well coordinated global network of terrorists, funded, supported and protected by rogue regimes and all with the stated purpose of destroying the United States.

There is no evidence that the President was planning for a war in Iraq prior to 9/11 - at least, not planning for it any further than we plan for any number of possible war scenarios.

And a point where we fundamentally disagree here is that I see no problem with the President making the decision to go to war based on the information he had at the time.



I didn't say he was cautious. I said he wasn't cautious. I apologize - that last sentence in my previous post wasn't as clear as it should have been. The point I was trying to make was that after 9/11, we didn't have the luxury of taking the time to do things the diplomatic, cautious way. Based on what we knew then, every second we waited, the more time we gave Saddam to develop his WMDs.

Again - you can't look at this based on what we know now. You have got to look at it from his perspective before the war started.

Looking at what Bush's regime knew BEFORE the fact:

Anti-Islamic writer Salman Rushdie was forbidden entry to the US a week before September 11th. He has said he believes this is because the US government knew that terrorists were due to strike, using commercial aircraft, imminently.

http://www.ananova.com/entertainment/story/sm_409236.html

Attorney General John Ashcroft was warned not to fly on commercial flights. Before September 11th, Ashcroft started using only private flights, after warnings from the FBI, as early as July.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml

Mayor Willie Brown was given warning not to fly on commercial airlines ON september 11th.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/12/MN229389.DTL


And that warning most likely came from Condaleeza Rice (or one of her delegation) as reported on Pacifica Radio, May 17th 2002.

The CIA warned Bush that Al-Queda were planning to attack the US, hijacking commercial flights.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/15/bush.sept.11/index.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,718312,00.html

A Secret Taliban emmisary forewarned the US government of imminent attacks by Al-Queda.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=331115

United Airlines stocks traded at unusually high and active levels in the weeks leading up to September 11th. Large profits from this trading remained uncollected after 9/11.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/10/03/BU187948.DTL
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/29/MN186128.DTL

Also - most of the 'options' speculating that stock would go down, were traded through Duetschebank, formerly headed by Buzzy Krongard, who later became executive director of the CIA.

Bush had already formulated plans to strike Al-Quida in the days leading upto 9/11:

As early as 1995, Project Bojinka was uncovered by Phillipines Police, revealing a plan to use commercial flights as 'flying bombs', directly linked (by Ramzi Yousef) to the bombing of the World Trade Center:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9605/12/terror.plot/

But: Most importantly:

Bush's cabinet had drawn up concrete plans to invade Iraq (PNAC's Pax Americana), among other targets - in September of 2000. The document: "Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century". (4 Months before Bush even became president, and a year before 9/11)

http://www.sundayherald.com/27735

By George, no it doesn't in the sense stated by the UN charter.

(Why you ask? Because the no-fly zones were not legal, and if they were legitimized it was after the fact; and because, therefore, we were invading Iraqi air space. That means, they had the right to attack us.)

Actually I believe it was a NATO mandate. However as Brians Room has stated previously 1441 actually gave it legitamacy. Since Hussein fired on our planes after it was past, it constituted an act of war on America.

So YES it is an attack on the US and Hussein posed a threat to the US albeit a thin one but a threat none the less

Please be more specific - there are about a zillion of those speeches, and I've read them all, but I can't put my finger on the one you are talking about.

And I finally found the damn link and I saw it. It's funny. There are a zillion examples of Kerry saying stupid things, as well, but they don't make the news because Bush's are funnier. And they are.
First of all, the link to Bush's declaration of war on Iraq:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html

Now here are the salient points in the address that tries (although subliminally) to link Saddam with 9/11:

We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.
******
The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.
******
My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom.

As soon as I heard that speech, I picked up on it right away and it was even more obvious when I saw the written word. And the fact that he changed WMD to mean Weapons of Mass Murder, was certainly trying to paint Saddam as being dangerous to the people of the US.

Actually I believe it was a NATO mandate. However as Brians Room has stated previously 1441 actually gave it legitamacy. Since Hussein fired on our planes after it was past, it constituted an act of war on America.

So YES it is an attack on the US and Hussein posed a threat to the US albeit a thin one but a threat none the less
Well, even your very own Richard Perle stated that the attack against Iraq was illegal:

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2003/11/guardian_richard_perle_admits_iraq_invasion_was_illegal_under_international_law.html

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.
In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: “I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing.”

President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government’s publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.

But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that “international law … would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone”, and this would have been morally unacceptable.

French intransigence, he added, meant there had been “no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein”…

Guess what? Many people around the world agree totally with that sentiment.

Actually I believe it was a NATO mandate. However as Brians Room has stated previously 1441 actually gave it legitamacy. Since Hussein fired on our planes after it was past, it constituted an act of war on America.

So YES it is an attack on the US and Hussein posed a threat to the US albeit a thin one but a threat none the less
This argument also does not wash. Not even close:

Text of UN Resolution 1441

Iraqi Disarmament - November 8, 2002, approved unanimously by the 15-member security council.

This Resolution supercedes all the other Resolutions. Therefore the US had NO mandate to attack Iraq.

BTW, great digging there Grave n Idle!! :)

BTW, great digging there Grave n Idle!! :)

I did some research on this a while back, just for kicks...

I find it funny when someone says things like, what was it??? "There is no evidence that the President was planning for a war in Iraq prior to 9/11 - at least, not planning for it any further than we plan for any number of possible war scenarios".

People making arguments without researching the matter first. :)

I did some research on this a while back, just for kicks...

I find it funny when someone says things like, what was it??? "There is no evidence that the President was planning for a war in Iraq prior to 9/11 - at least, not planning for it any further than we plan for any number of possible war scenarios".

People making arguments without researching the matter first. :)
More people need to know the TRUTH. It is nice to see the facts coming out now. :)

Before Bush attacked Iraq, I was all for the attack against Afghanistan and fully supported my countrys' decision to send troops there. However, in retrospect, and considering that Afghanistan is no better off, I would withdraw my support for that effort as well.

Especially since Bush is not even concerned any more about the whereabouts of the guy, who he promised to "hunt down"!!

Bush had absolutely no foreign policy experience before becoming US president, the neocons who support him just taught him everything they knew about the world. Bush's foreign policies have just led to huge amounts of collateral damage. Instead of moving onto Iraq, a war which had absolutely no justification, the US should have stayed on in Afghanistan and fixed up the country properly, instead of 'cutting and running' the way they did. There aren't NEARLY enough troops on the ground in Afghanistan to keep the country safe.

Kerry, on the other hand, has at least faced war first hand, and knows the perils and dangers that it comes with.

If conservatives think bush has done a good job coming from a background of ZERO foreign policy experience, surely Kerry could do at least as good coming from a background of SOME foreign policy experience.

Funny how military service is somehow so applicable now that draft dodging Clinton isn't on the ballot.

Funny how military service is somehow so applicable now that draft dodging Clinton isn't on the ballot.

Yeah. You don't hear the Republicans complaining about someone who skipped out of active service anymore, do you?

Funny how military service is somehow so applicable now that draft dodging Clinton isn't on the ballot.

Yeah. Damn, with all those wars we were in under Clinton, it really hurt as that he was a draft dodger :rolleyes:

Funny how military service is somehow so applicable now that draft dodging Clinton isn't on the ballot.
i dont recall the whole of the 1992 election being on the merit of clinton's opponent's war record. and i dont recall clinton spending his time harassing it.

It would appear that no one actually answered my question. (I don't think anyways, there have been enough posts made. . .)
I think Sadam posed a thread, a real one. Maybe not a big enough threat to convince the pacifists. As far as I'm concerned, if some rock in Fiji poses a threat to US security, we need to be sending some cruise missiles to take out that rock. lol :sniper: :p


To our liberal freinds, this was just for fun, so don't start critisizing the cedibility of this post. Lol.

Okay, stop trying to pull the WMD arguement as rationale for the war. It wasn't rationale for the war. We knew he didnt have any WMD. The CIA knew this, the DoD knew this, everyone knew. However, the Bush administration does have one very, very strong point, and that is manipulating the way that people view events.

They start with wanting a reason to go to war with Iraq (personally I believe that this was for two purposes oil, and to finish up what his dad started, but why it happened is a whole nother issue, that I may or may not address later). The UN sends in experts to determine whether or not Sadaam was infact making weapons of mass destruction which would put him in breach of the surrender agreement from the first Gulf War.
Stop right there. You are doing great up to this point. BTW, I am in total agreement and judging by the comments by Paul O'Neill, you are right on the money.
However, Sadaam decided that he didn't want them snooping around his country, for whatever reason. Personally, I believe its because he was a dictator, and hes used to people doing everything he wants when he wants, so he wasn't about to fulfill someone elses request.
Starting in November 2002, after Resolution 1441 was passed, Saddam DID agree to allow the UN inspectors back into Iraq, as a matter of fact, over 300 inspectors were in Iraq right up to the final days before the US illegal invasion of Iraq.

Progress was being made by the UN inspectors and they were in the process of cutting up some short range missles (that slightly exceeded the distance allowable for travel by about 10 miles), but the UN ordered the inspectors out because the Bush indicated that the US was going to attack regardless of the ongoing investigation, and the progress that was being made.
The Bush administration then went on to create the assumption in the minds of the public that the fact that he didn't want anyone looking for WMD's meant that he must have them or be making them, and since the US was involved in the most recent conflict, they assumed that we would be the most likely target, instead of the nearby middle eastern countries, which he wasn't exactly on the best of terms with. Once they get enough people to believe that he has WMDs its just for the president to follow up and say that they have evidence that he infact has them, therefore it is necessary for the sake of the nation for us to go to war. Which he did.
The whole time the inspectors were in Iraq, Bush was making these allegations that WMD existed in Iraq, and the US went before the UN to plead their case, which turned out to be all lies based on "faulty" intelligence. The fact is that Bush was getting impatient because he was losing the window of opportunity to attack Iraq because the inspectors were finding NOTHING!!!!

We ended up "winning" though there have been more casualties in the "post-war combat" than there were in the actual war. All in all, I believe that the Bush administration is very skilled in the art of deception, however, being decieving isn't exactly the best traits to have in a democratic society.
The "art" of deception was orchestrated well before Sept. 11, 2001. That is why most people are so pissed off with the US. That is why France, said NO. That is why Russia, Germany, and China were also in opposition to the US "plan".

This quote should cover the massive deceit:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-11-oneill-iraq_x.htm

Suskind, also interviewed on 60 Minutes, said the Bush administration had already begun planning for an invasion of Iraq in January 2001 — eight months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington. The planning, Suskind said, involved discussions of war crimes tribunals, peacekeeping troops and questions about how to divide Iraq's oil wealth.

All the rest of the apologies offered here by Bush's "sympathizers" are 100% bullcrap. The war on Iraq was NOT necessary for the "defence" of America!! :eek:

I will further hazard a guess that the Bush administration would never have been authorized an attack on Iraq by Congress, IF they had known what was going on behind closed doors PRIOR to Sept. 11, 2001.

I agree with canuckheaven.

You can never be sure how good someone will function as a president, until he actually is one. That makes the coming elections a choice for or against Bush. It's not Kerry's fault, or anybody elses, but this is what it comes down to: was Bush a good president.

Then we have to look at what Bush has done for the US: there was a war in Afghanistan, which the US technically won, but neither the US or the Afghani people are any safer, because the warlords now rule Afghanistan outside of Kabul. There was a war on terror, how much attacks have been prevented? You never know, but you can know the cost, how much privacy have you all given up and how much money has been spent. Then there was a war in Iraq, which the US technically won, again, but over 1000 US soldiers have died in Iraq since the start of the war, there were no weapons of massdestruction and it was highly unlikely that Saddam was ever going to attack the US, even Canada was (not anymore, thanks to some provoked extremists) more likely to attack the US, to be honest.

The only question that remains, is wether Bush did well economically. That's mainly a question of preference. For the rich and wealthy he has been, and will be, quite profitable. For the less fortunate he hasn't.

As you might understand, I would vote for anyone running against Bush, which happens to be Kerry, at this moment. Though on the other hand, I couldn't see why anyone would seriously consider to vote for Bush.

Here's a question for the liberals: why do you support John Kerry? What will he do that qualifies him for the Office of President of the United States? After this post, I do not want to see anyone using the words Bush, Badnarik, Dubya, Nader, Cheney, Halliburton, Vietnam, or Voltron.

BushWhackKerry!

This argument also does not wash. Not even close:

Text of UN Resolution 1441

Iraqi Disarmament - November 8, 2002, approved unanimously by the 15-member security council.

This Resolution supercedes all the other Resolutions. Therefore the US had NO mandate to attack Iraq.

So just because it says Iraqi Disarmament, DOES NOT mean that they gave the No Fly Zones Legitamacy. I do believe that Brians Room posted something on this. I do believe that you missed it.

Yeah. You don't hear the Republicans complaining about someone who skipped out of active service anymore, do you?

There is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF that he skipped out of his committment.!

If you want to bring out records again, where is Kerry's records from the time he left being the admirals aide to the time he was discharged?

So just because it says Iraqi Disarmament, DOES NOT mean that they gave the No Fly Zones Legitamacy. I do believe that Brians Room posted something on this. I do believe that you missed it.
Well I didn't miss what Brian posted. What he posted was not factual and perhaps you did not read my post that states why it isn't?

i dont recall the whole of the 1992 election being on the merit of clinton's opponent's war record. and i dont recall clinton spending his time harassing it.

I will answer this one even though Chess Squares has me on ignore.

Clinton didn't run on his military record because he truelly did dodge the draft. This would've came out if he tried. As for harrassing his opponet's record, your right he didn't because GHWB was not running on his record.

Well I didn't miss what Brian posted. What he posted was not factual and perhaps you did not read my post that states why it isn't?

How is he wrong? Don't you think he'll know this alot better than you or I because of what he does for a living? CanuckHeaven, anyone that disagrees with you is wrong. You think you are always right. Guess what your not! Neither am I. However, the more you get back into the cornor the harder you fight.

Give it up. I do believe that Brians Room is right because I trust his judgement. I trust his experience in these matters.

I will answer this one even though Chess Squares has me on ignore.

Clinton didn't run on his military record because he truelly did dodge the draft. This would've came out if he tried. As for harrassing his opponet's record, your right he didn't because GHWB was not running on his record.What do you mean, "would have come out?" Forget for a moment that Clinton technically wasn't a draft dodger--he was on student deferments just like Dick Cheney was--that didn't stop everyone and their grandmother calling him a draft-dodging coward from 1992 onward. There are some right-wingers today who can't say the word Clinton without including the word draft-dodging as an epithet.

You really need to start getting your facts straight on this stuff Corneliu, or people are going to think you're some kind of hack who doesn't listen anything that he doesn't already agree with.

How is he wrong? Don't you think he'll know this alot better than you or I because of what he does for a living? CanuckHeaven, anyone that disagrees with you is wrong. You think you are always right. Guess what your not! Neither am I. However, the more you get back into the cornor the harder you fight.

Give it up. I do believe that Brians Room is right because I trust his judgement. I trust his experience in these matters.
Facts speak louder than hollow rhetoric, and you have no facts period. I am not backed into any corner and you are more than welcome to follow the links to the truth rather than continue regurgitating some BS crap.

Quit apologizing for Bush and trying to make excuses for him, because they don't wash in the face of the evidence.

and i have you on ignore corneliu because you have your head up the republican's collective asses and are immune to logic and reason

i also notice how you didnt address the point of not ripping on the opponents war record

Will Kerry send us into two unwinnable counter-insurgencies during a recession? No. Bush has, though. That sort of behavior should not be rewarded.

What do you mean, "would have come out?" Forget for a moment that Clinton technically wasn't a draft dodger--he was on student deferments just like Dick Cheney was--that didn't stop everyone and their grandmother calling him a draft-dodging coward from 1992 onward. There are some right-wingers today who can't say the word Clinton without including the word draft-dodging as an epithet.

You really need to start getting your facts straight on this stuff Corneliu, or people are going to think you're some kind of hack who doesn't listen anything that he doesn't already agree with.

First off, do you have proof that he had a student deferment? I know there is proof of Cheney's but I have not heard this one yet. So where is the proof that Clinton had a student deferment?

My facts are correct most of the time Incertonia however, I've seen alot of peple trying to use facts on here and get slammed down because they don't agree with people's ideology. Just because it does not agree with someone's thought process doesn't always make it wrong.

I'm already been told that till I was proven right. Arguing over deficit and everything else is all on how you look at numbers. Frankly, the economy is doing well considering we had a 1)recession, 2)a terror attack, 3)Corporate scandals, and 4)the global war on terror.

As for not listening, I do listen to a reasonable arguement but when all the people who are against the war have is 9/11 and WMD well I stop listening to those arguements because frankly 1)they are old and 2)not true. We've had intel that says he had them, Hussein stonewalled the inspection process (this is a known fact), and he continuously fired on our planes (another fact)!

Facts speak louder than hollow rhetoric, and you have no facts period. I am not backed into any corner and you are more than welcome to follow the links to the truth rather than continue regurgitating some BS crap.

Quit apologizing for Bush and trying to make excuses for him, because they don't wash in the face of the evidence.

I'm going to let someone more qualified than me answer your links. Frankly, that is out of my league and has nothing to do with my career :p

You are backed into a corner. Brians Room has got you there and he is very intelligent and down to earth and does know what he is talking about.

As for apologizing for Bush, I don't apologize for anyone but my own mistsakes. Stop saying that I do because its simply untrue. As for the evidence, if your talking about 9/11, WMD, or that you "claim" Bush lied, don't waste your breath. Its old and frankly, Bush never said that Iraq was tied to 9/11, we had intel that he had them and that Hussein was not fully compling with the Inspectors which turned to be false but I really didn't care at that point, and as for Bush Lieing, its not his fault that we had faulty intelligence, something you can't seem to grasp.

here's your answer

www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com :rolleyes:

and i have you on ignore corneliu because you have your head up the republican's collective asses and are immune to logic and reason

i also notice how you didnt address the point of not ripping on the opponents war record

If you have me on ignore then why did you respond to me?

I don't have my head up anyone's butt CS. I'm not immune to logic. My philosphy teacher has always complimented me on my logic. He's a liberal Democrat btw and we've had good structured debates with some humor thrown in. For a Liberal, he was nice and calm and listened to both sides. Even admitted he was wrong a couple of times.

As for not addressing his opponet's war record, he complimented his service and thanked him for serving in Vietnam. I don't see how this is ripping his war record. The Bush Administration has never ripped him of his service. Just the opposite infact. The only one that has called his services in question is the Swift Boat Vets for Truth and POWs who told there story regarding their time captured and being forced to listen to tapes of what John F. Kerry was saying when he arrived back home.

Looking at what Bush's regime knew BEFORE the fact:

Anti-Islamic writer Salman Rushdie was forbidden entry to the US a week before September 11th. He has said he believes this is because the US government knew that terrorists were due to strike, using commercial aircraft, imminently.

http://www.ananova.com/entertainment/story/sm_409236.html

Attorney General John Ashcroft was warned not to fly on commercial flights. Before September 11th, Ashcroft started using only private flights, after warnings from the FBI, as early as July.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml

Mayor Willie Brown was given warning not to fly on commercial airlines ON september 11th.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/12/MN229389.DTL


And that warning most likely came from Condaleeza Rice (or one of her delegation) as reported on Pacifica Radio, May 17th 2002.

The CIA warned Bush that Al-Queda were planning to attack the US, hijacking commercial flights.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/15/bush.sept.11/index.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,718312,00.html

A Secret Taliban emmisary forewarned the US government of imminent attacks by Al-Queda.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=331115

United Airlines stocks traded at unusually high and active levels in the weeks leading up to September 11th. Large profits from this trading remained uncollected after 9/11.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/10/03/BU187948.DTL
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/29/MN186128.DTL

Also - most of the 'options' speculating that stock would go down, were traded through Duetschebank, formerly headed by Buzzy Krongard, who later became executive director of the CIA.

Bush had already formulated plans to strike Al-Quida in the days leading upto 9/11:

As early as 1995, Project Bojinka was uncovered by Phillipines Police, revealing a plan to use commercial flights as 'flying bombs', directly linked (by Ramzi Yousef) to the bombing of the World Trade Center:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9605/12/terror.plot/

But: Most importantly:

Bush's cabinet had drawn up concrete plans to invade Iraq (PNAC's Pax Americana), among other targets - in September of 2000. The document: "Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century". (4 Months before Bush even became president, and a year before 9/11)

http://www.sundayherald.com/27735

This is the absolute most blatant example of conspiracy theories run amok.

The US government was not complicit in 9/11. They didn't have prior knowledge. The links you are establishing here and tenuous at best, and more like than not the result of coincidence, if not outright falsehoods.

I would respond to this in more detail, but I am still reeling from the fact that you appear to honestly believe that the US government knew 9/11 was going to happen and did nothing about it - in fact, took steps to profit from it.

I'm well aware of the neo-conservative angle on all of this, and I think that it is also being blown out of proportion. But I don't think that I've even got a chance of fighting back against this kind of layered paranoia.

I did some research on this a while back, just for kicks...

I find it funny when someone says things like, what was it??? "There is no evidence that the President was planning for a war in Iraq prior to 9/11 - at least, not planning for it any further than we plan for any number of possible war scenarios".

People making arguments without researching the matter first. :)

I've done the research.

Show me a document written by the President that indicates that he was planning for a war in Iraq prior to 9/11.

You can't, because it doesn't exist.

First of all, the link to Bush's declaration of war on Iraq:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html

Now here are the salient points in the address that tries (although subliminally) to link Saddam with 9/11:

We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.
******
The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.
******
My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom.

As soon as I heard that speech, I picked up on it right away and it was even more obvious when I saw the written word. And the fact that he changed WMD to mean Weapons of Mass Murder, was certainly trying to paint Saddam as being dangerous to the people of the US.

You're overanalyzing what he was saying here. This is a speech that's designed to inform the American people what is happening - not why. The why had already been made, in previous speeches. This was the speech that announced "we're going in".

The fact that he used the phrase Weapons of Mass Murder means he's got a good speechwriter, because WMD was getting pretty overhyped by that point. And I don't think that any reasonable person believed that Saddam Hussein could have launched an attack on the US directly.

I don't think there's anything subliminal there. The President has already said before that he viewed Hussein and Al-Qaeda as cut from the same cloth - so he's going to use the same language.

More people need to know the TRUTH. It is nice to see the facts coming out now. :)

Before Bush attacked Iraq, I was all for the attack against Afghanistan and fully supported my countrys' decision to send troops there. However, in retrospect, and considering that Afghanistan is no better off, I would withdraw my support for that effort as well.

Especially since Bush is not even concerned any more about the whereabouts of the guy, who he promised to "hunt down"!!

What was posted wasn't the "truth". It was a collection of random facts that when put near each other appear to paint a picture that isn't there.

Michael Moore is very good at that, too.

How can you make statements like "Afghanistan is no better off?" We don't know that. And I don't think it's possible to know that, because it all depends on your point of view. I'm sure the Taliban would say Afghanistan is worse off, but is their view valid? I haven't visited Afghanistan - before or after the war, and I am going to assume that you haven't either, so we are both going off of third and fourth hand information. But unless we see objective evidence that the country is worse off, this is a groundless statement.

And to say that the President isn't concerned about the whereabouts of bin Laden is again, ridiculous. He has been #1 on the FBI's most wanted list for almost a decade. We've got a significant number of special forces and CIA assets in the region actively hunting him. But the President, who tried to explain this to everyone when the war on terror began, recognized that this wasn't the usual war and finding bin Laden was going to take a long, long time.

These conspiracy theories make me sick - mainly because so many people are taken in by them.

Yeah. Damn, with all those wars we were in under Clinton, it really hurt as that he was a draft dodger :rolleyes:

Yeah, it didn't hurt us at all in Somalia, Bosnia, or Haiti at all.

Listen, the bottom line is simple:

The President's service during Vietnam is irrelevant.
Senator Kerry's service during Vietnam is irrelevant.
Bill Clinton's service during Vietnam is irrelevant.

I would prefer to judge them on how capable they have been during their time in government service, not the military.

This whole Vietnam argument detracts from the real debate.

This whole Vietnam argument detracts from the real debate.
But can anyone really defend Kerry's record on anything except Viet Nam?

Well I didn't miss what Brian posted. What he posted was not factual and perhaps you did not read my post that states why it isn't?

Canuck, what I stated was an interpretation of the law. What you have stated is an interpretation of the law.

There is no fact there - it's merely legal argument.

And the absence of any sanctions against the United States and Britain for maintaining the no-fly zone is, in my opinion, proof that they were not illegal.

Honestly, I don't know why we continue to debate the United Nations. From a purely objective standpoint, the UN has had little to no success since the Korean War in maintaining the peace between any of its member states nor has it been consistant in its attempts to sanction those members who violate its laws.

But can anyone really defend Kerry's record on anything except Viet Nam?

Well, that's what we have to debate.

Well, that's what we have to debate.


Isnt it a little late in the election cycle to be doing that? Just 'cause its the most important thing hasnt forced anyone to talk about it so far(mostly).

What do you mean, "would have come out?" Forget for a moment that Clinton technically wasn't a draft dodger--he was on student deferments just like Dick Cheney was--that didn't stop everyone and their grandmother calling him a draft-dodging coward from 1992 onward. There are some right-wingers today who can't say the word Clinton without including the word draft-dodging as an epithet.

You really need to start getting your facts straight on this stuff Corneliu, or people are going to think you're some kind of hack who doesn't listen anything that he doesn't already agree with.

The attacks on Clinton were unfair. The attacks on Bush are equally unfair. The attacks on Kerry - if they turn out to be baseless - are unfair. The Navy is investigating Kerry's medals now, and if they confirm them, I'm willing to throw the argument out the window.

Look at it from the perspective of the 60s - those who dodged the draft or refused to fight and protested were the GOOD guys. This was actively encouraged behavior. People sought student deferments so they didn't have to go. People sought service in the national guard, so they didn't have to go. The fact that people like Quayle, Bush, Clinton and Cheney who had connections and used them were merely doing what everyone else was trying to do. They are being penalized for being successful.

Vietnam is over. It was an intense and crazy period in US history, and we need to get it behind us. There is no need to keep rehashing it.

Everyone one of these public servants has a public record of service - we have what they've done in office to go by. And that's what we should judge them on.

Isnt it a little late in the election cycle to be doing that? Just 'cause its the most important thing hasnt forced anyone to talk about it so far(mostly).

Never too late to start, but you've got a point.

Never too late to start, but you've got a point.


If Kerry thought he had a winner with his senate record, he would have been talking about that during his convention/after the primaries. Same goes for Bush with his military record. They both trying to keep attention on their strengths. Why Kerry doesnt focus on the economy(which I think is doing pretty good) or healthcare I will never understand

Off Topic:

Since your a lobbyist, maybe you can tell me whats going on in Alan Keyes' head? Isnt he completely killing himself running in Illinois? He couldnt have though he had a prayer yet he went there anyway AND he is showing himself to be a complete opportunist. I used to like him too. But to go hard right on abortion(vocally) and Tax Freedom for African Americans. Is he trying to win by using a weapon of mass confusion?

If Kerry thought he had a winner with his senate record, he would have been talking about that during his convention/after the primaries. Same goes for Bush with his military record. They both trying to keep attention on their strengths. Why Kerry doesnt focus on the economy(which I think is doing pretty good) or healthcare I will never understand

Off Topic:

Since your a lobbyist, maybe you can tell me whats going on in Alan Keyes' head? Isnt he completely killing himself running in Illinois? He couldnt have though he had a prayer yet he went there anyway AND he is showing himself to be a complete opportunist. I used to like him too. But to go hard right on abortion(vocally) and Tax Freedom for African Americans. Is he trying to win by using a weapon of mass confusion?

Kerry's shifting his focus away from Vietnam and back to Iraq - which i think also is not going to help him. Hopefully Lockhart, Begala and Carville can drum some sense into him.

I've met Alan Keyes, and I must say that he has never struck me as the most levelheaded individual. Honestly, he's a place holder. Obama is going to win in Illinois, and Keyes is merely there because you never want to let an open Senate race go unchallenged. There was a much longer list of folks who said "no way in hell". Keyes got the nod because he didn't say no. And I think he realizes that so he's just taking the opportunity to stir folks up.

Kerry's shifting his focus away from Vietnam and back to Iraq - which i think also is not going to help him. Hopefully Lockhart, Begala and Carville can drum some sense into him.

I've met Alan Keyes, and I must say that he has never struck me as the most levelheaded individual. Honestly, he's a place holder. Obama is going to win in Illinois, and Keyes is merely there because you never want to let an open Senate race go unchallenged. There was a much longer list of folks who said "no way in hell". Keyes got the nod because he didn't say no. And I think he realizes that so he's just taking the opportunity to stir folks up.

Yeah, I think Iraq is a loser for Kerry. How is Carville going to help him? He didnt seem to be of much use to the Clintons. Doesnt it seem that he has gone off the deep end these past few years? I dont know much of Begala and Lockhart.

I guess that makes sense about Keyes. I dont understand how he thinks this will help him politically though.

check out https://www.intrade.com/ its a political trading site.

I've done the research.

Show me a document written by the President that indicates that he was planning for a war in Iraq prior to 9/11.

You can't, because it doesn't exist.

I guess you just looked down my list of links... decided there were too many for you to read (I appreciate you may be too busy), and so skipped straight to your 'conspiracy' response.

Well, here is where it would have paid to look at the links.

But, since you probably STILL won't look...

PNAC drafted their "Pax Americana' manifesto (Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century) before Bush even got into office. Jeb Bush is one of the 'steering committee' of PNAC, as are Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Cheney.

http://www.sundayherald.com/27735

There is no need to be so confrontational... you could find the evidence, too, if you chose to look.

I'll tell you why I support John Kerry as the next President of the United States:

*He'll keep abortion safe and legal
*He'll help reduce domestic violence with the Violence Against Women Act
*He'll close tax loopholes for corporations who move jobs overseas
*He'll make a mandatory national minimum wage increease
*He'll protect Social Security by rejecting privatization
*He'll roll back the huge tax cuts for the wealthy
*He'll prevent additional tax breaks for corporations
*He'll make a comprehensive Medicare and health care reform plan
*He'll reform Bush Medicare plan which largely benefits drug corporations
*He'll keep organized religion and prayer out of public schools
*He'll make mandatory clean air emissions standards
*He'll protect ANWR from oil drilling
*He'll refuse to write anti-gay discrimination in the Constitution
*He'll do a national review of death penalty fairness
*He'll require manufacturers to have safety devices on all new guns
*He'll require background checks on gun show purchases
*He'll increase federal funding for higher education
*He'll reject vouchers, which would take away funding from public schools for private & religious schools
*He'll restore a respected, multilateral foreign policy
He'll help us gain our independence from foreign oil via renewable energy sources
*He'll use war as a last resort
*He will not attack a country preemptively and unilaterally
*He will not reinstate the draft
*He will allow us to buy prescription drugs from other countries where they are cheaper
*He strongly opposes the Patriot Act, which is taking away our civil liberties
*He opposes raising the retirement age
*He'll extend unemployment benefits
*He'll make tougher fuel efficiency standards

All of these issues I have pointed out, Bush is against every one of them. I think it's time for a change. Don't you?

What was posted wasn't the "truth". It was a collection of random facts that when put near each other appear to paint a picture that isn't there.

Michael Moore is very good at that, too.

How can you make statements like "Afghanistan is no better off?" We don't know that. And I don't think it's possible to know that, because it all depends on your point of view. I'm sure the Taliban would say Afghanistan is worse off, but is their view valid? I haven't visited Afghanistan - before or after the war, and I am going to assume that you haven't either, so we are both going off of third and fourth hand information. But unless we see objective evidence that the country is worse off, this is a groundless statement.

And to say that the President isn't concerned about the whereabouts of bin Laden is again, ridiculous. He has been #1 on the FBI's most wanted list for almost a decade. We've got a significant number of special forces and CIA assets in the region actively hunting him. But the President, who tried to explain this to everyone when the war on terror began, recognized that this wasn't the usual war and finding bin Laden was going to take a long, long time.

These conspiracy theories make me sick - mainly because so many people are taken in by them.

Afghanistan is no better off, because the Taliban has done what it did during the Russian occupation - which is to retreat back to mountain areas, and fight a partisan war. Sure - in some areas (like the cities) the quality of life has improved for some of the people... especially women... but the Taliban is not destroyed, just hiding - and once everyone looks away again (like everyone did after the end of the Russian occupation), they will be back.

Added to this the mounting drug problem in Afghanistan since the current 'invasion'.

And you should probably research your facts a little more... but, I've seen how you hate 'conspiracy' stuff.

Bush actually STOPPED the Intelligence services from investigating Bin Laden and his ties AFTER he got into power. Not surprising - when you look at all the links between Bush and Bin Laden.

If I have to, I'll look up my links on this topic too... but you won't bother reading THOSE either.

Afghanistan is no better off, because the Taliban has done what it did during the Russian occupation - which is to retreat back to mountain areas, and fight a partisan war. Sure - in some areas (like the cities) the quality of life has improved for some of the people... especially women... but the Taliban is not destroyed, just hiding - and once everyone looks away again (like everyone did after the end of the Russian occupation), they will be back.

Added to this the mounting drug problem in Afghanistan since the current 'invasion'.

And you should probably research your facts a little more... but, I've seen how you hate 'conspiracy' stuff.

Bush actually STOPPED the Intelligence services from investigating Bin Laden and his ties AFTER he got into power. Not surprising - when you look at all the links between Bush and Bin Laden.

If I have to, I'll look up my links on this topic too... but you won't bother reading THOSE either.

If we are losing so many troops in Afghanistan to these partisans, why is this not being discussed by Senator Kerry in the campaign? Afghanistan is a work in progress, and nationbuilding doesn't happen in a day. It took a decade for Germany and Japan to get back on their feet after World War II. Afghanistan as been at work for almost twenty years non-stop.

Afghanistan's #1 export crop since the Soviet occupation has been heroin. This isn't something that just started.

I read everything you posted - and I dug around and found similiar things posted on a number of conspiracy type sites as well. At that point, I gave up. If any of the things that you said or construed had an iota of truth to them, they would be front page news across America and we'd be hearing about it every day from John Kerry. But we aren't, because they're ridiculous.

Yeah, I think Iraq is a loser for Kerry. How is Carville going to help him? He didnt seem to be of much use to the Clintons. Doesnt it seem that he has gone off the deep end these past few years? I dont know much of Begala and Lockhart.

I guess that makes sense about Keyes. I dont understand how he thinks this will help him politically though.

check out https://www.intrade.com/ its a political trading site.

He's not really a politician. He's just a radio talk show host. He's never held elected office, to my knowledge, but that hasn't stopped him from running often and losing every time. So think of it as a way to get more ratings after the election.

He's not really a politician. He's just a radio talk show host. He's never held elected office, to my knowledge, but that hasn't stopped him from running often and losing every time. So think of it as a way to get more ratings after the election.

He has NEVER won??? I always assumed he must have won one somewhere.

If we are losing so many troops in Afghanistan to these partisans, why is this not being discussed by Senator Kerry in the campaign? Afghanistan is a work in progress, and nationbuilding doesn't happen in a day. It took a decade for Germany and Japan to get back on their feet after World War II. Afghanistan as been at work for almost twenty years non-stop.

With this I have no doubt. If we were losing so many people in Afghanistan, people would be clamoring for the reason why and such. They are not so I don't believe we are losing as many people as people say we are and besides, the press would've been all over this too and they are not.

Oh and Brian, that is war for almost 20 years straight not work :p

*He'll keep abortion safe and legal

- It already is.

*He'll help reduce domestic violence with the Violence Against Women Act

- This has already been passed.

*He'll close tax loopholes for corporations who move jobs overseas

- What loopholes and how? He's going to have a Repubican Congress to deal with.

*He'll make a mandatory national minimum wage increease

- Not going to pass Congress.

*He'll protect Social Security by rejecting privatization

- He needs to do more than reject privatization to protect Social Security.

*He'll roll back the huge tax cuts for the wealthy

- They sunset if they're aren't specifically renewed. And the tax cuts weren't huge - they were similiar to what all of us got, but the dollar amount is larger because they have larger liabilities.

*He'll prevent additional tax breaks for corporations

- How is he going to keep jobs in America if he doesn't provide tax incentives to those corporations to stay?

*He'll make a comprehensive Medicare and health care reform plan

- That won't get passed by Congress.

*He'll reform Bush Medicare plan which largely benefits drug corporations

- That also won't get passed by Congress.

*He'll keep organized religion and prayer out of public schools

- It already is.

*He'll make mandatory clean air emissions standards

- They already are.

*He'll protect ANWR from oil drilling

- It already is.

*He'll refuse to write anti-gay discrimination in the Constitution

- This he can do, assuming that both houses pass the amendment, which they won't.

*He'll do a national review of death penalty fairness

- This has already been done.

*He'll require manufacturers to have safety devices on all new guns

-This will never pass, and I hope he tries it because it will lose him more seats in Congress than it did Clinton in 94.

*He'll require background checks on gun show purchases

- This will also never pass, and most gun show purchases are made by FFL holders, who are required to do checks on any sales anyway.

*He'll increase federal funding for higher education

- Every President has done that.

*He'll reject vouchers, which would take away funding from public schools for private & religious schools

- He can do that, assuming that there is some kind of federal push for these.

*He'll restore a respected, multilateral foreign policy

- He can do that.

He'll help us gain our independence from foreign oil via renewable energy sources

- The only way he can do that is by pumping money into research, and this won't happen overnight.

*He'll use war as a last resort

- He can do that.

*He will not attack a country preemptively and unilaterally

- He can do that.

*He will not reinstate the draft

- This will never happen. It'll never pass Congress and it's unnecessary.

*He will allow us to buy prescription drugs from other countries where they are cheaper

- Why would we need this after he reforms health care?

*He strongly opposes the Patriot Act, which is taking away our civil liberties

- Name one example of a citizen who has had their civil liberties taken away from them by the Patriot Act.

*He opposes raising the retirement age

- Then he'll have to find other ways to save social security.

*He'll extend unemployment benefits

- Congress has to do that, and they've already not done it once.

*He'll make tougher fuel efficiency standards

- This also has to pass Congress, and it won't.

The President does not have nearly the power you seem to think that he does here.

I guess you just looked down my list of links... decided there were too many for you to read (I appreciate you may be too busy), and so skipped straight to your 'conspiracy' response.

Well, here is where it would have paid to look at the links.

But, since you probably STILL won't look...

PNAC drafted their "Pax Americana' manifesto (Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century) before Bush even got into office. Jeb Bush is one of the 'steering committee' of PNAC, as are Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Cheney.

http://www.sundayherald.com/27735

There is no need to be so confrontational... you could find the evidence, too, if you chose to look.

I read through all of the links - granted I skimmed some. I started to respond to each one, point by point, but I realized that would take forever, so I gave up.

I still can't get that Sunday Herald link to work, but I know what you're referring to. The PNAC does not set American policy - yes, a lot of cabinet officials were/are on the board, but I don't think this was some kind of an evil conspiracy where they got elected and started finding reasons to spread Americanism across the globe by the sword.

Again - if this were true, then why has this not been trumpeted near and far by the Kerry campaign? They're not talking about PNAC. The media has mentioned it, but rarely. This is the type of argument that we only see thrown up on message boards. Why?

Probably because people recognize that it's a stretch.

I read through all of the links - granted I skimmed some. I started to respond to each one, point by point, but I realized that would take forever, so I gave up.

I still can't get that Sunday Herald link to work, but I know what you're referring to. The PNAC does not set American policy - yes, a lot of cabinet officials were/are on the board, but I don't think this was some kind of an evil conspiracy where they got elected and started finding reasons to spread Americanism across the globe by the sword.

Again - if this were true, then why has this not been trumpeted near and far by the Kerry campaign? They're not talking about PNAC. The media has mentioned it, but rarely. This is the type of argument that we only see thrown up on message boards. Why?

Probably because people recognize that it's a stretch.

Or, more likely, for the same reasons that there was no big fuss when Bush shelved the comprehensive terrorism defence plans that the Clinton regime handed over.

Perhaps it is because Americans have been so force-fed conspiracy theory in the media, that they immediately balk at anything that involves connecting dots for themselves. Were they to hear Kerry talk about the fact that Bin Laden's family sponsored G.W.Bush in his early career, about the fact that on September 12th, Bush was once again meeting with Bin Laden's family in America, on September 13th, during the enforced no-fly... the American Government DID allow one middle-east flight... of Bin Laden's relatives, to Saudi Arabia -- the public would clamp their hands over their ears.

I don't think it is much of a stretch to say that a document that does exist (that PNAC manifesto) is influencing current regime decisions: when you consider that one of the drafters of the document is now Vice President, one is Jeb Bush, one is the Defence Secretary, one is the Defence Secretary's deputy (and, incidentally - is head of the department currently being investigated under the 'israeli-spy' case, in which it has become public that Wolfowitz's department has a blueprint for regime change in IRAN), and one is Cheney's chief of staff.

That's not 'conspiracy theory' stuff... that's head-in-the-sand NOT to see it.

If we are losing so many troops in Afghanistan to these partisans, why is this not being discussed by Senator Kerry in the campaign? Afghanistan is a work in progress, and nationbuilding doesn't happen in a day. It took a decade for Germany and Japan to get back on their feet after World War II. Afghanistan as been at work for almost twenty years non-stop.

Afghanistan's #1 export crop since the Soviet occupation has been heroin. This isn't something that just started.

I read everything you posted - and I dug around and found similiar things posted on a number of conspiracy type sites as well. At that point, I gave up. If any of the things that you said or construed had an iota of truth to them, they would be front page news across America and we'd be hearing about it every day from John Kerry. But we aren't, because they're ridiculous.

It's incredible. Even if you have the evidence, you immediately discount it because a conspiracy theorist ALSO has it? You realise the incredulity that causes?

You have decided what news you will and will not hear. You immediately tune out certain things. If this is a symptom of a society, you have answered your own question about why this is not 'discussed more'.

Did you see that many of the links I posted WERE newspaper links, or news channel links?

You're overanalyzing what he was saying here. This is a speech that's designed to inform the American people what is happening - not why. The why had already been made, in previous speeches. This was the speech that announced "we're going in".

The fact that he used the phrase Weapons of Mass Murder means he's got a good speechwriter, because WMD was getting pretty overhyped by that point. And I don't think that any reasonable person believed that Saddam Hussein could have launched an attack on the US directly.

I don't think there's anything subliminal there. The President has already said before that he viewed Hussein and Al-Qaeda as cut from the same cloth - so he's going to use the same language.
Oh believe me, I do not have any doubts about this attempt in Bush's speech of trying to link Saddam Hussein with the attacks of 9/11 clearly in the minds of the people of America.

To think otherwise is foolhardy to say the least. 15 of 19 terrorists that attacked on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia yet they really never earned any special distinction from Bush. The only two people who got mentioned and frequently were Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. When the US attacked Iraq on March 20, 2003, the vast majority of Americans believed that it was in retaliation for what happened on 9/11.

Isn't it ironic that Saddam, who DID NOT attack the US on 9/11, became the major focus of US troops (over 150,000 in Iraq), while Bin Laden who was responsible for 9/11 is only being sought after by about 15,000 US troops?

And what did Bush have to say about Bin Laden on March 13 2002 (one week before the invasion of Iraq)?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --

THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore.

All the more reason to attack Iraq because the press was looking for Bush to make good on his promise to "hunt down" Bin Laden, and bring him to justice "dead or alive".

I am not over overanalyzing anything and I am squarely focusing on what Bush supporters don't want to focus on and that is Bush's lies and failures.

I'm going to let someone more qualified than me answer your links. Frankly, that is out of my league and has nothing to do with my career :p
Thanks for recognizing that you are not equal to the task. :eek:

You are backed into a corner. Brians Room has got you there and he is very intelligent and down to earth and does know what he is talking about.
I really don't feel that anyone has me pinned down and as far as inteligence is concerned, I do believe that I can hold my own in this debate.

As for apologizing for Bush, I don't apologize for anyone but my own mistsakes. Stop saying that I do because its simply untrue.
I am sorry, but that is all you do. You will not except facts period. You try and twist the truth and it is plainfully obvious.

As for the evidence, if your talking about 9/11, WMD, or that you "claim" Bush lied, don't waste your breath. Its old
It is not old, it is part of Bush's term in office, and it is very appropriate to talk about Bush's accomplishments (very few) and failures (many).

and frankly, Bush never said that Iraq was tied to 9/11, we had intel that he had them and that Hussein was not fully compling with the Inspectors which turned to be false but I really didn't care at that point, and as for Bush Lieing, its not his fault that we had faulty intelligence, something you can't seem to grasp.
Speaking of "old", that would be your argument. Bush was looking to attack Iraq, BEFORE 9/11, and you can read all about it from Paul O'Neill, President Bush's Treasury secretary:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-11-oneill-iraq_x.htm

BTW, here is a good one for you:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.

Why would 69% of Americans believe that? People aren't as naive as you think they are Cornlieu or maybe they are because they did take the Bush "bait", hook, line, and sinker.

Thanks for recognizing that you are not equal to the task. :eek:

Didn't say I wass not equal to it, I said that I will let someone more qualified than myself answer it. There is a difference. Thanks for quoting me out of context.

I really don't feel that anyone has me pinned down and as far as inteligence is concerned, I do believe that I can hold my own in this debate.

Your right you can hold your own but Brians Room has more of an insight here than you or me.

I am sorry, but that is all you do. You will not except facts period. You try and twist the truth and it is plainfully obvious.

FALSE!!!! I never apologize for anyone. I do accept facts however, what I don't accept is false reasoning. You oppose the Iraq War because it did not have UN Backing however it did have international backing just not by the UN. Something I'm sure you undoubtly know. Hussein WAS in violation of 17 UN Resolutions including 1441 but you have refused to accept that. He has not given full disclosure, something that Hans Blix once said and that you have refused to accept. And you talk about ME not accepting facts. As for twisting the truth, sorry dude, but I don't do that either. If I'm wrong I will admit it. I never really cared about the WMD charge. I've always considered it a weak one at best but I didn't care. That's a Fact. I know how many have died to give freedom to the Iraqis. That is a fact. I know who is behind the troubles in Iraq. That is a fact.

It is not old, it is part of Bush's term in office, and it is very appropriate to talk about Bush's accomplishments (very few) and failures (many).

Sorry but it is an old arguement. Our intelligence had faulty intel. That is NOT Bush's fault, that is the Intelligence Fault, something that the SSIC has stated too I might add that it was faulty intelligence. So your claim that Bush "Lied" is actually false. Bush has never connected Hussein to 9/11 so you can drop that line of arguement too. So yes it is old and totally unfounded.

Speaking of "old", that would be your argument. Bush was looking to attack Iraq, BEFORE 9/11, and you can read all about it from Paul O'Neill, President Bush's Treasury secretary:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-11-oneill-iraq_x.htm

That'll be Former Secretary of Treasury O'Neil and he has lost all credibilty. He came out the instant he was fired and questioned GWB. Sorry but O'Neil's motives are questionable at best.

BTW, here is a good one for you:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.

Why would 69% of Americans believe that? People aren't as naive as you think they are Cornlieu or maybe they are because they did take the Bush "bait", hook, line, and sinker.

From the same article

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.

We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.

Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.

FALSE!!!! I never apologize for anyone. I do accept facts however, what I don't accept is false reasoning. You oppose the Iraq War because it did not have UN Backing however it did have international backing just not by the UN. Something I'm sure you undoubtly know. Hussein WAS in violation of 17 UN Resolutions including 1441 but you have refused to accept that. He has not given full disclosure, something that Hans Blix once said and that you have refused to accept. And you talk about ME not accepting facts. As for twisting the truth, sorry dude, but I don't do that either. If I'm wrong I will admit it. I never really cared about the WMD charge. I've always considered it a weak one at best but I didn't care. That's a Fact. I know how many have died to give freedom to the Iraqis. That is a fact. I know who is behind the troubles in Iraq. That is a fact.


If your argument is that it was okay for the US to go to war with Iraq bacause Iraq was contravening 17 UN Resolutions, then you have a problem. If they are UN resolutions, then only the UN can decide on action.

America 'opted-out' of this mechanism - so UN Resolutions do not apply, but that also means that Bush deliberately opposed the UN, just so that he could go to war, and also Bush acted against UN guidelines.

How many died to give freedom to the Iraqis?

(There are some who would say that Iraqis STILL aren't free, since they are being occupied by a hostile power).

Who is behind the troubles in Iraq? Where are you going to start? Which President?



Sorry but it is an old arguement. Our intelligence had faulty intel. That is NOT Bush's fault, that is the Intelligence Fault, something that the SSIC has stated too I might add that it was faulty intelligence. So your claim that Bush "Lied" is actually false. Bush has never connected Hussein to 9/11 so you can drop that line of arguement too. So yes it is old and totally unfounded.

Actually, it IS Bush's fault. He is responsible for his government.

Look at the links I posted before, there is plenty of evidence that a) Bush's regime knew IN ADVANCE that 9/11 aircraft attacks were planned, and b) planned to invade Iraq a year BEFORE 9/11.

The 'israel-spy' snafu has also brought to light recently plans for the Regime Change of Iran. 3 years from now, will you be claiming that this never happened, and that Iran started it all?

That'll be Former Secretary of Treasury O'Neil and he has lost all credibilty. He came out the instant he was fired and questioned GWB. Sorry but O'Neil's motives are questionable at best.

Or maybe O'neil could talk about it, once he didn't have to worry about losing his job...

I guess you just looked down my list of links... decided there were too many for you to read (I appreciate you may be too busy), and so skipped straight to your 'conspiracy' response.

Well, here is where it would have paid to look at the links.

But, since you probably STILL won't look...

PNAC drafted their "Pax Americana' manifesto (Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century) before Bush even got into office. Jeb Bush is one of the 'steering committee' of PNAC, as are Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Cheney.

http://www.sundayherald.com/27735

There is no need to be so confrontational... you could find the evidence, too, if you chose to look.
You see herein lies the root of the problem. The last thing Bush supporters want to talk about, is that Iraq was part of the bigger plan. They (Bushies) would rather you believe that it was all about WMD or links to Al-Queada. Now that the truth is slowly leaking out, the spotlight becomes more focused on Bush and the game plan.

Bushies will do their level best to discredit any truthful connection between Bush and Iraq prior to 9/11. They would rather that the people focus on the lies of the SBVT. So keep digging Grave_n_idle, you are doing a great job!! :)

You see herein lies the root of the problem. The last thing Bush supporters want to talk about, is that Iraq was part of the bigger plan. They (Bushies) would rather you believe that it was all about WMD or links to Al-Queada. Now that the truth is slowly leaking out, the spotlight becomes more focused on Bush and the game plan.

Bushies will do their level best to discredit any truthful connection between Bush and Iraq prior to 9/11. They would rather that the people focus on the lies of the SBVT. So keep digging Grave_n_idle, you are doing a great job!! :)

*takes a bow*

And I have deliberately not even got started on the Bush/bin Laden linkages... seriously, though... strange that the supposed number one enemy has been left to go to ground... they sent, what, 15,000 troops to 'find' him?

If your argument is that it was okay for the US to go to war with Iraq bacause Iraq was contravening 17 UN Resolutions, then you have a problem. If they are UN resolutions, then only the UN can decide on action.

Flash: Germany, France, and Russia were in Saddam's back pocket. No matter what, France was going to veto it so under previous UN Resolutions we went in. So technically we did have UN Backing but not for a resolution that was supposed to have come up for a vote except France vowed to veto it. No wonder the Americans where upset and it didn't matter what side you were on. Allies don't stab allies in the back. Besides, its been said that if your going to vote no for the second one don't vote for this one.

America 'opted-out' of this mechanism - so UN Resolutions do not apply, but that also means that Bush deliberately opposed the UN, just so that he could go to war, and also Bush acted against UN guidelines.

So did France, Russia, and Germany. Did you know that they violated the same resolutions by oil contracts as well as arms? Another reason why they opposed our action but I guess that escaped you too.

How many died to give freedom to the Iraqis?

Last figure I saw was 1,000 Americans. I have forgot how many other lives where lost among various nations though I do remember at least 7 intel personel from Spain are among them.

(There are some who would say that Iraqis STILL aren't free, since they are being occupied by a hostile power).

Hostile Power? Is that what you are calling the US? I sure hope you are from another country buddy because if you are from the USA then I advise you to rethink your nationality real fast. I don't mind if you were against the war but calling us hostile is not going to win you any favors except from the Left and Canada and Anti-American Europe.

Who is behind the troubles in Iraq? Where are you going to start? Which President?

Not going to start that debate dude. Who is behind the troubles in Iraq? Saddam Loyalists, Moqtada Al Sadr's Militia (and I didn't think his Militia would disarm since more of them were killed in a fire fight), and Zarqawi who is linked to Al Qaeda.

Actually, it IS Bush's fault. He is responsible for his government.

Your right it is his government but Bill Clinton used this same intel when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998. Then, Daschel and Kerry and Gore and other Democrats supported this as did most republicans. Even I supported the bombing though I was hoping for a ground invasion of the nation. Before you bash an Administration regarding Intel, look at who else used the exact same intel.

Look at the links I posted before, there is plenty of evidence that a) Bush's regime knew IN ADVANCE that 9/11 aircraft attacks were planned, and b) planned to invade Iraq a year BEFORE 9/11.

Sorry dude, but I do not by that. Most of those are Conspiracy theories and have no shred of evidence to support them. Something that Brians Room also stated but I guess you missed it. I don't listen to Conspiracy theories. If these were true, it'll be blasted all over the media and it is not.

The 'israel-spy' snafu has also brought to light recently plans for the Regime Change of Iran. 3 years from now, will you be claiming that this never happened, and that Iran started it all?

Israeli spy? Now that is a new one. I have not heard that one so I won't comment on it till I know more. As for Regime Change in Iran, I don't think this will occur for awhile but I do believe that it will eventually because of its youth. Its Youth wants freedom and they will probably force it.


Or maybe O'neil could talk about it, once he didn't have to worry about losing his job...

There is a problem with this arguement and something I think you overlooked. O'Neil is Treasury. Treasury IS NOT on the National Security Council. Thus he could not know what Bush was planning. Sorry to break the news to you.

Oh poor misguided Corneliu, you're truly so naive.

Flash: Germany, France, and Russia were in Saddam's back pocket. No matter what, France was going to veto it so under previous UN Resolutions we went in. So technically we did have UN Backing but not for a resolution that was supposed to have come up for a vote except France vowed to veto it. No wonder the Americans where upset and it didn't matter what side you were on. Allies don't stab allies in the back. Besides, its been said that if your going to vote no for the second one don't vote for this one.


Allies don't stab allies in the back? And yet, when the US allies said "we're not ready to go to war on this, yet", America gave them all the finger and trotted off to go invade someone.

Unless the UN Resolution 'came-up', it was never a Resolution, so the US had no legal backing.


So did France, Russia, and Germany. Did you know that they violated the same resolutions by oil contracts as well as arms? Another reason why they opposed our action but I guess that escaped you too.


Didn't escape me, at all. So, the US isn't the only power with a vested interest in Iraq's mineral wealth. At least the European nations have jumped straight on the oil, rather than pretending it was about WMD's or the poor little Kurds.


Last figure I saw was 1,000 Americans. I have forgot how many other lives where lost among various nations though I do remember at least 7 intel personel from Spain are among them.


And all those Iraqis... but I guess you can just forget about them...


Hostile Power? Is that what you are calling the US? I sure hope you are from another country buddy because if you are from the USA then I advise you to rethink your nationality real fast. I don't mind if you were against the war but calling us hostile is not going to win you any favors except from the Left and Canada and Anti-American Europe.


Reading outside of the context... according the Iraq (remember, we were discussing Iraq, there?) the Americans are an occupying hostile power.

Actually, I wasn't even against the war. But, I don't like the fact that it has NOW been construed as a war on terror.


Not going to start that debate dude. Who is behind the troubles in Iraq? Saddam Loyalists, Moqtada Al Sadr's Militia (and I didn't think his Militia would disarm since more of them were killed in a fire fight), and Zarqawi who is linked to Al Qaeda.


Yeah - you're right. Let's ignore who armed Iraq in the first place. And all because they wanted someone to do their dirty work for them in Iran...

By the way, if an invading force entered the US and removed the American government, and set about systematically rounding up and torturing anyone who had any links to the Republican party - would you complain? Would you fight the hostile invader?

Last point on this... Bush has closer ties to Al Qaeda than Zarqawi. Actually go do some research for yourself...


Your right it is his government but Bill Clinton used this same intel when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998. Then, Daschel and Kerry and Gore and other Democrats supported this as did most republicans. Even I supported the bombing though I was hoping for a ground invasion of the nation. Before you bash an Administration regarding Intel, look at who else used the exact same intel.


And so, you're saying you supported Clinton? If one politician is 'shady' and the next one is 'shady', that still doesn't make it okay. And Bush deliberately shelved a complete anti-terrorism/homeland security policy that the Clinton regime had designed... so he CHOSE to have poor intelligence.


Sorry dude, but I do not by that. Most of those are Conspiracy theories and have no shred of evidence to support them. Something that Brians Room also stated but I guess you missed it. I don't listen to Conspiracy theories. If these were true, it'll be blasted all over the media and it is not.


You don't listen to ANY theories. What you are supposed to do, is track down the information, and then MAKE AN OPINION. All you are doing is saying what you've been told to say. Did you look at those links? Most of them are from VERY reputable sites... unless you think that the San Francisco Chronicle has a hidden agenda, and that CNN secretly hates america.

If those were true, people like you still chose not to hear them... my point becomes clear shortly...


Israeli spy? Now that is a new one. I have not heard that one so I won't comment on it till I know more. As for Regime Change in Iran, I don't think this will occur for awhile but I do believe that it will eventually because of its youth. Its Youth wants freedom and they will probably force it.


and this is going on NOW. This has been 'coming out' over the last two/three days... but still, you don't hear it...


There is a problem with this arguement and something I think you overlooked. O'Neil is Treasury. Treasury IS NOT on the National Security Council. Thus he could not know what Bush was planning. Sorry to break the news to you.

Actually, you may not know this, but sometimes politicians know MORE than just their job description... perhaps, that is even why O'Neil lost his job... I certainly don't know...

And also, Treasury, they control where the money goes, right... like allocating resources to proposed invasions....?

Finally. Condaleeza Rice has also been linked to the "Bush decided before" story.

Or, more likely, for the same reasons that there was no big fuss when Bush shelved the comprehensive terrorism defence plans that the Clinton regime handed over.

Perhaps it is because Americans have been so force-fed conspiracy theory in the media, that they immediately balk at anything that involves connecting dots for themselves. Were they to hear Kerry talk about the fact that Bin Laden's family sponsored G.W.Bush in his early career, about the fact that on September 12th, Bush was once again meeting with Bin Laden's family in America, on September 13th, during the enforced no-fly... the American Government DID allow one middle-east flight... of Bin Laden's relatives, to Saudi Arabia -- the public would clamp their hands over their ears.

I don't think it is much of a stretch to say that a document that does exist (that PNAC manifesto) is influencing current regime decisions: when you consider that one of the drafters of the document is now Vice President, one is Jeb Bush, one is the Defence Secretary, one is the Defence Secretary's deputy (and, incidentally - is head of the department currently being investigated under the 'israeli-spy' case, in which it has become public that Wolfowitz's department has a blueprint for regime change in IRAN), and one is Cheney's chief of staff.

That's not 'conspiracy theory' stuff... that's head-in-the-sand NOT to see it.

No - it is conspiracy theory stuff.

You don't understand at all how Washington operates, and that's what I'm trying to point out to you. PNAC is a think-tank. They have a bunch of famous policy people on their board of directors and the actual writing and work is done by the executive director and their staff. Bill Kristol runs PNAC, in addition to publishing the Weekly Standard. If anyone in the media wanted to go after him, his entire life is in print. But they don't. They full recognize that this story is not a story.

And obviously they wouldn't clamp their hands over there ears, as all of that information is available in Fahrenheit 9/11, and people are flocking to see it. But the legitimate media isn't picking it up, because it's not legitimate.

If the Clinton Administration had a "comprehensive terrorism defense" plan, they had ample time to impliment it themselves. I don't know how it works in Europe, but when a new President from a different party is inaugurated, they generally continue with policies already in place, but they halt any non-inacted ones.

Conspiracy theories don't get play over here because we've heard so many we can pick them out from a mile away.

It's incredible. Even if you have the evidence, you immediately discount it because a conspiracy theorist ALSO has it? You realise the incredulity that causes?

You have decided what news you will and will not hear. You immediately tune out certain things. If this is a symptom of a society, you have answered your own question about why this is not 'discussed more'.

Did you see that many of the links I posted WERE newspaper links, or news channel links?

No - I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that when I tried to verify the posts you made, I kept running into conspiracy type sites, not valid news sources.

The majority of the links you provided were the UK newspapers and CNN. The CNN links I had seen, and some of the UK links as well. But if I can't get independent confirmation from an American paper, like the NY Times or the Washington Post, then I'm going to discount it, the same way you would discount internal political information regarding Tony Blair if I were quoting conspiracy minded articles about him from the Washington Post.

I do this for a living - I know these people. And these are difficult concepts for American journalists to understand.

I'm sorry - but until I get evidence that doesn't sound like a Michael Moore movie, I'm going to go with my instincts and that this stuff is not legitimate.

Oh believe me, I do not have any doubts about this attempt in Bush's speech of trying to link Saddam Hussein with the attacks of 9/11 clearly in the minds of the people of America.

To think otherwise is foolhardy to say the least. 15 of 19 terrorists that attacked on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia yet they really never earned any special distinction from Bush. The only two people who got mentioned and frequently were Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. When the US attacked Iraq on March 20, 2003, the vast majority of Americans believed that it was in retaliation for what happened on 9/11.

Isn't it ironic that Saddam, who DID NOT attack the US on 9/11, became the major focus of US troops (over 150,000 in Iraq), while Bin Laden who was responsible for 9/11 is only being sought after by about 15,000 US troops?

And what did Bush have to say about Bin Laden on March 13 2002 (one week before the invasion of Iraq)?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --

THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore.

All the more reason to attack Iraq because the press was looking for Bush to make good on his promise to "hunt down" Bin Laden, and bring him to justice "dead or alive".

I am not over overanalyzing anything and I am squarely focusing on what Bush supporters don't want to focus on and that is Bush's lies and failures.

First of all, the "vast majority" of Americans don't believe that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. The latest polling indicated on 40%, as we've talked about before.

The fact that we have not YET caught bin Laden is not a failure. It's a lack of patience on your part. It will happen, given time.

As I said before - you do not kill a mouse with a sledgehammer. The forces we have tracking bin Laden are adequate. If we were to flood Afghanistan with troops, all we would do is hamper their efforts at rebuilding, and distract everyone from going after bin Laden, and further push him into hiding. The less he thinks we are doing, the more likely it is that he makes a mistake and we can finally catch him. By claiming that we're not doing anything, you're inadvertantly doing exactly what the President wants you to do - underestimate our resolve. Because when that happens, that's when we'll catch him.

What Bush is trying to do here is simple, if you between the lines. Bin Laden has been set up as a boogeyman - all of the emphasis has been put on capturing him. But Bush is right - he's just one person. Even if we capture bin Laden tomorrow, we won't have won the war on terror, because he has enough followers that someone will step up and take his place. So we must not let ourselves get distracted by going after the head of the hydra, when we must be focussing on the whole beast at the same time. And that's happening in many more places than just Afghanistan.

I don't want to belittle anyone here, but I find it slightly interesting that Corneliu and I are in the midst of a debate over who will make a better American President with two non-Americans.

I wish that I could argue saliently about the skeletons in the closets of Tony Blair or Paul Martin, but I can't. I guess I need to read more.

But in any event, I don't think we're going to convince anyone, but I am more than willing to keep arguing. :)

I don't want to belittle anyone here, but I find it slightly interesting that Corneliu and I are in the midst of a debate over who will make a better American President with two non-Americans.

I wish that I could argue saliently about the skeletons in the closets of Tony Blair or Paul Martin, but I can't. I guess I need to read more.

But in any event, I don't think we're going to convince anyone, but I am more than willing to keep arguing. :)

That makes two of us Brians Room! :)

Oh and regarding the Israli spy thing, I have more important things to do then watch 24/7 news channels. Its called school, work, and working on my career.

Steph, I'm not naive at all. Your actually the naive one for believing whatever it is that Kerry gives you.

Brian! Keep up the excellent work in DC my friend.

Yeah. Damn, with all those wars we were in under Clinton, it really hurt as that he was a draft dodger :rolleyes:

Haiti

Somalia (Yeah, Bush 1 got us in there, but Clinton did not send in the support that the troops needed to finish the job and thus caused many deaths. He is reviled by the military for this and many other reasons)

Bosnia

Kosovo

Operation Southern Watch

Operation Northern Watch

Clinton deployed the military more than any other president since FDR. It was funny that that military service was something the Democrats were adamant in stating that it was not necessary to have to be president in Clinton's case, but now they are so adament that it IS something that is necessary since they have a "war hero" running. Personally I do not think Kerry is any kind of hero. He is a self serving egotistical politician who just does not understand what he is getting into. His campaign is starting to implode and he is losing support. Our Canadian friends might want to see him elected, but unfortunately for them, they cannot vote.

Haiti

Kosovo



And the interesting thing about Kosovo is that they also used a company who came in and took over important jobs, like feeding the troops, laundry, aiding in infrastructure rebuilding, etc.

You know what company that was?

Halliburton.

And the interesting thing about Kosovo is that they also used a company who came in and took over important jobs, like feeding the troops, laundry, aiding in infrastructure rebuilding, etc.

You know what company that was?

Halliburton.

Yes and Halliburton didn't have an officer that was the vice-president at the time.

The attacks on Clinton were unfair. The attacks on Bush are equally unfair. The attacks on Kerry - if they turn out to be baseless - are unfair. The Navy is investigating Kerry's medals now, and if they confirm them, I'm willing to throw the argument out the window.

Look at it from the perspective of the 60s - those who dodged the draft or refused to fight and protested were the GOOD guys. This was actively encouraged behavior. People sought student deferments so they didn't have to go. People sought service in the national guard, so they didn't have to go. The fact that people like Quayle, Bush, Clinton and Cheney who had connections and used them were merely doing what everyone else was trying to do. They are being penalized for being successful.

Vietnam is over. It was an intense and crazy period in US history, and we need to get it behind us. There is no need to keep rehashing it.

Everyone one of these public servants has a public record of service - we have what they've done in office to go by. And that's what we should judge them on.Thanks for backing me up on the Clinton thing--Corneliu seems to have a thing for you, so maybe he'll believe it now.

As far as Kerry is concerned, since all the allegations made by the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush have been either completely debunked or have been explained, I'd say the attacks on his service record are certainly unfair, and since the attacks on his testimony argue that he's saying something he wasn't saying, I'd argue those attacks are unfair as well, although perhaps less so.

The attacks on Bush's service, however, are another story. The reason this has never been put to bed completely is because while the Bush campaign keeps saying they've released all the documents, every time something comes out that sheds more light on the subject (like last night's 60 Minutes piece), more documents mysteriously appear.

But while I think the controversy over Bush's service is fair, I think ultimately it's a bad idea from a political standpoint, because it detracts attention from the situation at hand, namely, Bush's record as President, which is poor to say the least. If Kerry can focus the debate on the last 3+ years, he wins hands down, because Bush's record is poor. If Bush can keep the debate on anything else, he's got a shot at pulling this off. More than in any other election I've seen recently, the key to victory is in framing the debate.

First of all, the "vast majority" of Americans don't believe that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. The latest polling indicated on 40%, as we've talked about before.
How do you explain this then?

Posted 9/6/2003 8:10 AM

Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.

Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.

The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two.

President Bush and members of his administration suggested a link between the two in the months before the war in Iraq. Claims of possible links have never been proven, however.

As you wrre saying? The ball has landed in your court and the net is a little higher than before?

The attacks on Bush's service, however, are another story. The reason this has never been put to bed completely is because while the Bush campaign keeps saying they've released all the documents, every time something comes out that sheds more light on the subject (like last night's 60 Minutes piece), more documents mysteriously appear.

But while I think the controversy over Bush's service is fair, I think ultimately it's a bad idea from a political standpoint, because it detracts attention from the situation at hand, namely, Bush's record as President, which is poor to say the least. If Kerry can focus the debate on the last 3+ years, he wins hands down, because Bush's record is poor. If Bush can keep the debate on anything else, he's got a shot at pulling this off. More than in any other election I've seen recently, the key to victory is in framing the debate.
I agree Incertonia 100%. Kerry really should be focusing on the multitudes of mistakes that Bush has made since taking office. It should be Bush's record that is front and center and never mind the window dressing.

I agree Incertonia 100%. Kerry really should be focusing on the multitudes of mistakes that Bush has made since taking office. It should be Bush's record that is front and center and never mind the window dressing.
To be fair to Kerry, it is happening on the campaign trail. I see reports of his stump speech everyday, and he consistently hammers Bush on the economy, on the job situation, and on the quagmire in Iraq. I don't have cable, so I can't say how it's coming through in the news, but on the networks, it gets very little play. Also, since I live in a state that will go to Bush only if the northern half falls into the ocean, I'm not seeing any tv commercials, so I don't know how those are playing or what they're saying, but when Kerry is campaigning in person, he's making his points.

One interesting thing about the personal appearances. We've both read of the loyalty oaths and the extensive screening that the Bush campaign requires of those who attend his rallies. Kerry doesn't have that, and as a result, some people have come to the rallies to disrupt the proceedings--they have a First Amendment right to make an ass of themselves in a public forum, so I have no objection to it. Here's the thing--Kerry's not afraid to look them in the eye and face them down, and if there are people who are legitimately undecided, who are legitimately torn between these two candidates, that's got to work in Kerry's favor.

As I said before - you do not kill a mouse with a sledgehammer. The forces we have tracking bin Laden are adequate. If we were to flood Afghanistan with troops, all we would do is hamper their efforts at rebuilding, and distract everyone from going after bin Laden, and further push him into hiding. The less he thinks we are doing, the more likely it is that he makes a mistake and we can finally catch him. By claiming that we're not doing anything, you're inadvertantly doing exactly what the President wants you to do - underestimate our resolve. Because when that happens, that's when we'll catch him.
Oh I see, the less people looking for Bin Laden, the easier it will be to capture him. Good plan. :eek:

What Bush is trying to do here is simple, if you between the lines. Bin Laden has been set up as a boogeyman - all of the emphasis has been put on capturing him. But Bush is right - he's just one person. Even if we capture bin Laden tomorrow, we won't have won the war on terror, because he has enough followers that someone will step up and take his place. So we must not let ourselves get distracted by going after the head of the hydra, when we must be focussing on the whole beast at the same time. And that's happening in many more places than just Afghanistan.
Ahhh so the master plan by Bush was to set up Bin Laden as the "boogeyman " (I am using your words), and then forget him?

He is only one guy after all. Let me see now, who was the Ace of Spades on the deck of Iraqi cards....oh yeah Saddam Hussein. So now that the US has the Ace of Spades, they don't need the Ace of Terrorism? Again...good plan. :eek:

Now try these on:

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...."
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
official White House site

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

In the meantime perhaps a little diversionary attack on Iraq will take the focus off "our number one priority".

Maybe Bush should call the phone company to see if Bin Laden has changed his phone number?

How do you explain this then?

Posted 9/6/2003 8:10 AM

Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.

Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.

The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two.

President Bush and members of his administration suggested a link between the two in the months before the war in Iraq. Claims of possible links have never been proven, however.

As you wrre saying? The ball has landed in your court and the net is a little higher than before?

I explain it easily:

POSTED - July 16 2003 (that's last year). It's outdated information.

The latest poll numbers indicate that 40% still believe that Saddam had something to with 9/11.

As far as Kerry is concerned, since all the allegations made by the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush have been either completely debunked or have been explained, I'd say the attacks on his service record are certainly unfair, and since the attacks on his testimony argue that he's saying something he wasn't saying, I'd argue those attacks are unfair as well, although perhaps less so.

I think it's clear that some of what has been said is questionable, but I think there are valid issues that the Swift Boat Vets brought up - namely the Cambodia issue, that Kerry's staff has stated was a mistake.

The only issue that I have with the way the Swift Boat Vets have been attacked by the pundits in the media. The only people that I feel have a right to call those guys liars are veterans who served with them - so Kerry is fair in saying it, because he was there, anyone else can't say it definitively, and no matter what anyone says about them, I feel they've earned the right to speak their peace.

As for the issue of his testimony, the veterans perceived what he said as a knock to them. Most of us weren't around to remember it, but they were. If they perceived it as demeaning them, and if in fact it was used by North Vietnamese torturers to try and lower the morale of our POWs, then they have every right to be angry, and I think it's fair that they bring this up.

But like I said before, the Vietnam issues on both sides are destracting us from legitimate discussions of the issues.

The attacks on Bush's service, however, are another story. The reason this has never been put to bed completely is because while the Bush campaign keeps saying they've released all the documents, every time something comes out that sheds more light on the subject (like last night's 60 Minutes piece), more documents mysteriously appear.

I don't think they're fair at all. Whether or not Bush fulfilled his obligation during the war makes no difference at all to anything. The issue with the revelation of more documents isn't the fault of the Bush campaign - it's the fault of DoD. I am certain that the President didn't keep copies of all of his service information - I know I don't have any of mine, and I was barely in the Navy. So in order for this information to be released, he's got to request it from the DoD. And in order for it to be released to the press, he's got to do two things - he's got to sign a waiver allowing it to be released, or he's got to give it to them himself. When this news group FOIA'd the documents, they apparently got copies of documents that the DoD told the president were lost and he didn't have copies of himself. At least, this is how I understand it to have occurred.

But in any event, we're still rehashing issues that occurred 30 years ago and have nothing to do with this race. Bush and Kerry both have long service records in government that can easily perused and the character of the men determined from that. We don't need to keep digging around Vietnam.

But while I think the controversy over Bush's service is fair, I think
ultimately it's a bad idea from a political standpoint, because it detracts attention from the situation at hand, namely, Bush's record as President, which is poor to say the least. If Kerry can focus the debate on the last 3+ years, he wins hands down, because Bush's record is poor. If Bush can keep the debate on anything else, he's got a shot at pulling this off. More than in any other election I've seen recently, the key to victory is in framing the debate.

You're right that it's a bad idea, but I don't consider Bush's record to be poor. In fact, he's gotten more landmark, campaign promised legislation passed than any President I can remember. But that's my subjective opinion.

Kerry needs highlight what he thinks the President has done poorly, but it's more important for him to articulate why he is the better choice. He has not yet done that. The President has been framing the debate, and he got ahead of Kerry and defined who Kerry was to the voters before Kerry did - and that's an amateurish mistake. He should have known better.

To be fair to Kerry, it is happening on the campaign trail. I see reports of his stump speech everyday, and he consistently hammers Bush on the economy, on the job situation, and on the quagmire in Iraq. I don't have cable, so I can't say how it's coming through in the news, but on the networks, it gets very little play. Also, since I live in a state that will go to Bush only if the northern half falls into the ocean, I'm not seeing any tv commercials, so I don't know how those are playing or what they're saying, but when Kerry is campaigning in person, he's making his points.

One interesting thing about the personal appearances. We've both read of the loyalty oaths and the extensive screening that the Bush campaign requires of those who attend his rallies. Kerry doesn't have that, and as a result, some people have come to the rallies to disrupt the proceedings--they have a First Amendment right to make an ass of themselves in a public forum, so I have no objection to it. Here's the thing--Kerry's not afraid to look them in the eye and face them down, and if there are people who are legitimately undecided, who are legitimately torn between these two candidates, that's got to work in Kerry's favor.

Well, they've also gotten an asswhipping from the people in the audience, too. http://www.enquirer.com/midday/09/09092004_News_mday_kerryprotest09.html

Generally, I don't see many people going to disrupt Kerry's functions. But there were two attempted disruptions in Bush's acceptance speech at the convention, and that is just deplorable. You may not agree with the man, but he's earned his right to speak.

I haven't seen these "loyalty oaths" and the rest of that nonsense, but I think it's a stupid thing to do. If I were at a Bush rally and a plant started heckling the President, I probably would be slapping the guy around too.

I explain it easily:

POSTED - July 16 2003 (that's last year). It's outdated information.

The latest poll numbers indicate that 40% still believe that Saddam had something to with 9/11.
I think you truly are missing the point?

"President Bush and members of his administration suggested a link between the two in the months before the war in Iraq."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

This is why Americans believed that Iraq was connected to 9/11, and that 70% believed there was a Saddam, 9-11 link. Let's call it BUSH lies.

You are really trying to skate past one.

Your link is a dead link.

You can't find one example where the Adminstration said Saddam was responsible for 9/11 because such an example does not exist.


Now, as for links to Al-Queda. Such links DO exist. And you best check out the 9/11 Report for the details on that.


So no. Bush did not lie.


:sniper:

Well, they've also gotten an asswhipping from the people in the audience, too. http://www.enquirer.com/midday/09/09092004_News_mday_kerryprotest09.html

Generally, I don't see many people going to disrupt Kerry's functions. But there were two attempted disruptions in Bush's acceptance speech at the convention, and that is just deplorable. You may not agree with the man, but he's earned his right to speak.

I haven't seen these "loyalty oaths" and the rest of that nonsense, but I think it's a stupid thing to do. If I were at a Bush rally and a plant started heckling the President, I probably would be slapping the guy around too.I wouldn't exactly call that an asswhipping. It's certainly not as bad as the Young Republican at the convention who kicked a female protestor while she was laying defenseless on the floor. I've posted video elsewhere--you may have seen it. If you haven't, I'll get you the link.

I don't want to belittle anyone here, but I find it slightly interesting that Corneliu and I are in the midst of a debate over who will make a better American President with two non-Americans.

I wish that I could argue saliently about the skeletons in the closets of Tony Blair or Paul Martin, but I can't. I guess I need to read more.

But in any event, I don't think we're going to convince anyone, but I am more than willing to keep arguing. :)
Well I wouldn't want to belittle you either, but you are not doing too bad of trying to keep up. :rolleyes:

I wouldn't exactly call that an asswhipping. It's certainly not as bad as the Young Republican at the convention who kicked a female protestor while she was laying defenseless on the floor. I've posted video elsewhere--you may have seen it. If you haven't, I'll get you the link.
In that same video clip, a protestor who was tresspassing punched one of the young republicans in the face. Those idiot protestors were not innocent.

In that same video clip, a protestor who was tresspassing punched one of the young republicans in the face. Those idiot protestors were not innocent.That claim was made in the video--the counterclaim was that the Young Republican was caught by a stray elbow. Regardless, that incident is not on film. The incident involving the kicking of a defenseless woman on the floor is on film.

Furthermore, what does innocence have to do with any of this? I didn't bring it into the conversation. But what are you suggesting--that a person expressing his or her right to self-expression is deserving of an asswhipping if you don't like what they're saying? Why do you hate America, MunkeBrain?

But what are you suggesting--that a person expressing his or her right to self-expression is deserving of an asswhipping if you don't like what they're saying?
I am suggesting that those who spread hate and chaos into places they are not invited like protestors need to be put down hard like rabid dogs.

Why do you hate America, MunkeBrain? :rolleyes: Whatever.

Hey, MunkeBrain--you're the one who's suggesting that the First Amendment to the US Constitution ought to be set aside simply because you disagree with what another person who happens to disagree with you has to say. Even on my worst, anger-filled, want-to-rip-a-lying-right-winger's-excuse-for-a-heart-out-of-his-chest-and-feed-it-to-him day, I don't think that the expression of an opinion, no matter how opposite it is of mine, warrants an asswhipping. So why is it that you hate one of the founding tenets of the US Constitution? Why is it you hate one of the first things most Americans point to when they're describing what makes the United States the greatest nation on earth?

Hey, MunkeBrain--you're the one who's suggesting that the First Amendment to the US Constitution ought to be set aside simply because you disagree with what another person who happens to disagree with you has to say. Even on my worst, anger-filled, want-to-rip-a-lying-right-winger's-excuse-for-a-heart-out-of-his-chest-and-feed-it-to-him day, I don't think that the expression of an opinion, no matter how opposite it is of mine, warrants an asswhipping. So why is it that you hate one of the founding tenets of the US Constitution? Why is it you hate one of the first things most Americans point to when they're describing what makes the United States the greatest nation on earth?They were trespassing and they deserved to get the crap kicked out of them.

No - I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that when I tried to verify the posts you made, I kept running into conspiracy type sites, not valid news sources.

The majority of the links you provided were the UK newspapers and CNN. The CNN links I had seen, and some of the UK links as well. But if I can't get independent confirmation from an American paper, like the NY Times or the Washington Post, then I'm going to discount it, the same way you would discount internal political information regarding Tony Blair if I were quoting conspiracy minded articles about him from the Washington Post.


So what you are saying is, if the politically biased reporting of an American newspaper doesn't match with the evidence available from other sources... it must be a conspiracy?

If YOU can't find evidence for something that someone else has already found evidence for, and reported in the media... it must be a conspiracy?

If 'conspiracy' sites have the same information you are looking for, even if it is also reported in other media... it must be a conspiracy?


I'm sorry - but until I get evidence that doesn't sound like a Michael Moore movie, I'm going to go with my instincts and that this stuff is not legitimate.

You have decided what news you will and will not hear. You immediately tune out certain things. If this is a symptom of a society, you have answered your own question about why this is not 'discussed more'.

First of all, the "vast majority" of Americans don't believe that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. The latest polling indicated on 40%, as we've talked about before.

The fact that we have not YET caught bin Laden is not a failure. It's a lack of patience on your part. It will happen, given time.

As I said before - you do not kill a mouse with a sledgehammer. The forces we have tracking bin Laden are adequate. If we were to flood Afghanistan with troops, all we would do is hamper their efforts at rebuilding, and distract everyone from going after bin Laden, and further push him into hiding. The less he thinks we are doing, the more likely it is that he makes a mistake and we can finally catch him. By claiming that we're not doing anything, you're inadvertantly doing exactly what the President wants you to do - underestimate our resolve. Because when that happens, that's when we'll catch him.

What Bush is trying to do here is simple, if you between the lines. Bin Laden has been set up as a boogeyman - all of the emphasis has been put on capturing him. But Bush is right - he's just one person. Even if we capture bin Laden tomorrow, we won't have won the war on terror, because he has enough followers that someone will step up and take his place. So we must not let ourselves get distracted by going after the head of the hydra, when we must be focussing on the whole beast at the same time. And that's happening in many more places than just Afghanistan.

Interesting... so the President is somehow lulling the american people into underestimating him? Why is he tricking his own people?

On the subject of 'buying into' stuff... why are you so sure that bin Laden is in Afghanistan? His family aren't from that region... his money isn't in that region... his business interests aren't in that region.

You are setting yourself up as a puppet of the rumour mills, which, I would guess, is exactly where the President wants you.

Your link is a dead link.

You can't find one example where the Adminstration said Saddam was responsible for 9/11 because such an example does not exist.


Now, as for links to Al-Queda. Such links DO exist. And you best check out the 9/11 Report for the details on that.


So no. Bush did not lie.


:sniper:
The link has been repaired.

Question for you? Do you honestly believe that 70% of Americans would say that Iraq was involved in 9/11 all on their own? Give me a break.

Bush lied, and he further tried to convey that very message when the US attacked Iraq on March 20, 2003.

They were trespassing and they deserved to get the crap kicked out of them.Care to cite legal precedent, both proving that they were trespassing and that the penalty for trespassing is an asswhipping by bystanders?

I am suggesting that those who spread hate and chaos into places they are not invited like protestors need to be put down hard like rabid dogs.

:rolleyes: Whatever.
The land of the brave and the home of the free???

The land of the brave and the home of the free???
It never ceases to amaze me that often, the people who talk the loudest about being patriotic and loving their country have absolutely no understanding of what their country stands for.

And the interesting thing about Kosovo is that they also used a company who came in and took over important jobs, like feeding the troops, laundry, aiding in infrastructure rebuilding, etc.

You know what company that was?

Halliburton.

Sounds too much like a conspiracy, to me.

In that same video clip, a protestor who was tresspassing punched one of the young republicans in the face. Those idiot protestors were not innocent.

Now, that's an interesting point...

To YOUR way of thinking, if a guy somewhere hits another guy... that immediately totally justifies you kicking a girl who is lying on the floor.

I would imagine you find it hard to keep friends, right?

They were trespassing and they deserved to get the crap kicked out of them.

How were they trespassing? They were granted legal passage - they were allowed into the venue... therefore they were NOT trespassing.

And since when was the legal response to assembly in a public venue, getting the "crap" kicked out of you?

Keep spreading the love.

By Iraq? :confused:


Has everyone on this earth forgotten about 9/11? Yes, by Iraq. We were attacked by Bin ladin and whoever else had a hand in 9/11. Why is this a difficult concept to grasp?
Originally Posted by MunkeBrain
I am suggesting that those who spread hate and chaos into places they are not invited like protestors need to be put down hard like rabid dogs.

Whatever.

Put down like rabid dogs? Okay, you go do that. And when youre in some federal pen-if you were lucky enough to get federal and not state-then we'll talk.

CanuckHeaven? I just saw a huge broadcast that said everyone-Kerry was stated by name in fact-thought there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. How did Bush lie exactly? Link me to your unbiased proof. Until then, don't tell someone else they don't have proof when all you have is your own opinions.

It never ceases to amaze me that often, the people who talk the loudest about being patriotic and loving their country have absolutely no understanding of what their country stands for.
Perhaps they believe that America should somehow be less tolerant of people who don't think the way they do or act the way they do?

It is kind of sad to see to say the least. :mad:

Perhaps they believe that America should somehow be less tolerant of people who don't think the way they do or act the way they do?

It is kind of sad to see to say the least. :mad:


Its called freedom of speech. You can say what you want, but saying the sky is pink doesn't make it pink. Stating your own versions of the truth doesn't make them true. See a pattern emerging?

Has everyone on this earth forgotten about 9/11? Yes, by Iraq. We were attacked by Bin ladin and whoever else had a hand in 9/11. Why is this a difficult concept to grasp?


So - why isn't America invading Saudi Arabia?

The Saud monarchy have links to terrorism. Bin Ladens money and family are from Saudi Arabia. Many of the 'militants' fighting the US in Iraq are Saudi Arabian.

Saudi Arabia has a whole lot more of a connection to Osama that Iraq does... but then, Saudi Arabia also has PERSONAL ties to the president, and contiunes to ship the US oil...

So - why isn't America invading Israel?

Aside from the repeated spy scenarios that Israel gets itself into in the US, and aside from the fact that Israel has been starting conflicts in the Middle East for half a century - there were Israeli camera's at Ground Zero, filming the WTC crash and collapse. They obviously knew in advance it was coming... so they surely had insider connections to terror - shouldn't the US be putting troops in there, and changing THEIR regime?

Has everyone on this earth forgotten about 9/11? Yes, by Iraq. We were attacked by Bin ladin and whoever else had a hand in 9/11. Why is this a difficult concept to grasp?
Of course you have no proof of an Iraqi connection to 9/11, although the Bush administration tried to convince Americans that there was indeed a link.

CanuckHeaven? I just saw a huge broadcast that said everyone-Kerry was stated by name in fact-thought there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. How did Bush lie exactly? Link me to your unbiased proof. Until then, don't tell someone else they don't have proof when all you have is your own opinions.
Bush lied about planning an attack on Iraq before 9/11 even happened.

As far as the WMD is concerned, as to whether Bush lied to Congress or not, we are going to have to wait for the 2nd half of the 9/11 Commissions Report, which I understand will not be until after the election in November.

The invasion of Iraq should never have happened, not until the provisions of Security Council Resolution 1441 had been fulfilled. It is also ironic that the US itself violated that very same Resolution under Article 10:

http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/2002-11-08UNResolution1441.asp

10. REQUESTS all member states to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programs or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

Bush was going to accomplish his goal, come Hell or high water.

Of course you have no proof of an Iraqi connection to 9/11, although the Bush administration tried to convince Americans that there was indeed a link.

Bush lied about planning an attack on Iraq before 9/11 even happened.

As far as the WMD is concerned, as to whether Bush lied to Congress or not, we are going to have to wait for the 2nd half of the 9/11 Commissions Report, which I understand will not be until after the election in November.

The invasion of Iraq should never have happened, not until the provisions of Security Council Resolution 1441 had been fulfilled. It is also ironic that the US itself violated that very same Resolution under Article 10:

http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/2002-11-08UNResolution1441.asp

10. [i]REQUESTS all member states to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programs or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA; [/]

Bush was going to accomplish his goal, come Hell or high water.

"Come Hell", indeed.

The link has been repaired.

Question for you? Do you honestly believe that 70% of Americans would say that Iraq was involved in 9/11 all on their own? Give me a break.

Bush lied, and he further tried to convey that very message when the US attacked Iraq on March 20, 2003.


Something that doesn't quite make sense to me in that poll. The Majority of Democrats feel that Saddam was connected to 9/11 as well.


Yet, the majority of Democrats are(and were) against the War in Iraq.



Soooo, either Democrats are just all around Cowards and afraid of a fight. Or somethings screwy about the poll. (Its probably the latter....)

Something that doesn't quite make sense to me in that poll. The Majority of Democrats feel that Saddam was connected to 9/11 as well.

Yet, the majority of Democrats are(and were) against the War in Iraq.

Soooo, either Democrats are just all around Cowards and afraid of a fight. Or somethings screwy about the poll. (Its probably the latter....)

Or, of course... maybe Democrats DO perceive a possible link between Iraq and 9/11... but still think that a war IN IRAQ was the wrong choice?

The American government sponsered the Irish Republican Army in it's terrorism against Britain for decades, but nobody suggested that Britain should have nuked the US into one big, smoking crater, did they?

Something that doesn't quite make sense to me in that poll. The Majority of Democrats feel that Saddam was connected to 9/11 as well.


Yet, the majority of Democrats are(and were) against the War in Iraq.



Soooo, either Democrats are just all around Cowards and afraid of a fight. Or somethings screwy about the poll. (Its probably the latter....)
Did you check the date on the poll? It was shortly after the invasion of Iraq. After the Bush administration had successfully manufactured a link between Iraq and 9/11.

I do believe that most Americans were fully behind Bush regarding the attack against Afghanistan and initally Iraq, that is until the truth started to filter through.

I'm not a liberal. I'm a very conservative person. I think the use of the words liberal and conservative as insults are weak PC copouts, personally. Just had to say that :)

I'm voting for Kerry because, even though he represents some things that I loathe(like abortion), because I believe that choosing Kerry will save more lives and promote less evil in general.
I'm voting for kerry for a better tax plan and a better economy. I'd like my job back. I'm voting for kerry to remove what I see as a mockery of my fundamentalist values being portrayed around the world by an individual who hides behind them but does not adhere to them.
I'm voting for kerry to have a president who does not have any known vendetta strong enough to warrant the use of a tragedy to initiate a war on a sovereign country.
I'm voting for a president who I feel is more in touch with reality and more successful in life and their endeavors.
I'm voting for a more honest president in my eyes.
I'm voting for who i think is a better man.

I fear for the world if Kerry doesnt get elected. I also vote out of that fear.

Face it all you right-wingers out thier. Bush rigged the election (though not directly), bush, in his incompetence let 9/11 happen even after reports from the FBI warning him that terrorists planned to use planes and attack america :sniper: . He kept up his business relations with the arabian royal family after it was almost certain that they had a hand in it :fluffle: . He took advantage of the american people, England and Australia, among others, to go to war with iraq to get their oil. He repeatedly lied afterwards and put the blame on his advisors. And now, it is too late to take the army home because they have to fix the mess they made.

Also polls aren't necessarily good ways of seeing whether something is good or bad. For instance, some fenominal amount of people in America can't even point out their country on a map.

Bush isn't likely to win the next election seeing as most of the people voting are, in fact left-wingers.

Also I'd like to point out, I agree that we should be allowed abortion. I understand that you are killing a baby but you can also look at it as something not actually alive yet. Children are hard work, as a lot of people will agree. Having a child at a young age can be extremely stressful especially with work and school, even more so if the father left her. Not also is it hard on the woman but the child aswell. Women, especially teenage women, should be given the right to choose to abort their child.

Originally Posted by Pan-Arab Israel
What are you smoking? Kerry was a vicious ideologue because he slandered American soldiers, while they were at war, in front of Congrerss while under oath! And he knew the allegations were total fabrications!



Originally Posted by Me
He slandered American soldiers in front of congress while under oath? Gee, you better alert Congress to this, since lying to Congress under oath is a crime. Wait a minute, Kerry is a free man to this day because: A) Kerry was testifying as a representative of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a group thousands strong. B) Name a single lie that Kerry told. There are documented cases of atrocities occuring, and what Kerry was reading was the testimony of the men Kerry represented. Kerry also admitted to being part of such things as free-fire zones, a regular practice that the men who were ordered to carry them out had no idea were against the rules of the Geneva Convention...the same Geneva Convention that the prison-keepers at Abu Ghraib were insufficiently acquainted with as well.

I'm sorry that some prisoners suffered more because of the propaganda the Vietnamese made out of Kerry's words that you are happily spreading for them. How dare you spread Vietnamese propaganda, sir!

Thought I'd bring this excerpt over to this thread, since it shows the cognitive dissonance Kerry-bashers hold so dear

Bush expressed more interest in takign out saddam because he tried tokill his daddy than he did for oil. I'm sure his friends made the desire for oil quite known to him, but Bush made it clear(at least to me) before the election and before 9/11 that he would have invaded Antarctica if thats where Saddam was based.

Abortion is another debate, but I'll bite :)
Babies dont just pop out of thin air. If you were raped and dont want to keep the child, I'm 100% okay with that. People need to be held accountable for their actions though, and a conscious choice to attempt the act of reproduction for recreation is not a justifiable reason to destroy another human being whether you created that life or not. You can think of them as not being alive, but you're fooling yourself. They are alive. Feigned ignorance for premeditated murder doesnt work, but it might make you feel better so long as you dont have to confront what happened. Yes, it can be hard, as much of life is. Its not impossible though, far from it. I've seen pre-teens carry children to term even though they still were children. I hate that situation from every angle but murder doesnt improve it or make life better for the mother. Thats a nasty scar and a lot of blood on some very young hands. And noone has to do it alone. I think the community should always do its part to support those that will be supporting it. As dysfunctional and anti-empathy as we are these days, you'd be surprised at how many people want to help and would find it impossible to choose not to if it were their aid or death for the child.
...bleh, all that and I still want to vote for kerry. I dont like this election.

I actually didn't know there was an abortion thread. Though well said. Even so women lose the freedom once they have a child. I don't mind so much if people dislike but but don't want it to be illegal.

As far as the origional topic, why Kerry?

Well, as far as I'm concerned, several reasons:

1) The "War on Terrorism" is going badly. We need a new approach, one more aware of the issues.

2) The economy is doing badly. Again, a new approach is needed. The current one is basically a variation on supply-side economics, which, in my opinion, is a risk, a gamble. When it works, it creates a large improvement, but when it doesn't work (in this case) it falls *hard.*

3) Civil liberties are being eroded. There are too many conformity laws and morality laws as it is, they should be reduced and removed, not added. I fear that the U.S. is well on it's way to becoming a defacto theocracy. (No, I'm not an atheist. I simply believe that theocracy is incompatible with freedom.)

4) I firmly believe that if something is wrong for one nation to do, it is wrong for any nation to do. Everyone seems to oppose someone wanting to take over the world, and to dictate what other countries must do. . .until it is thier own countrying doing the dictating. THen, suddenly, it seems okey-dokey-fine with them.

The Guy Who Runs Lavek

-- Remember, if everyone else is jumping off a bridge, there's probably a very good reason.

I lose my freedom through lots of choices I make. I could join the military or marry, for instance. Doesnt mean that i can take part in those things for fun and then shoot my CO or spouse once it becomes a burden. Yes, society fails to educate people on these kinds of very life changing choices. It fails to properly support them when they need it or hold people accountable when they need it. But trying to pin it on anyone but yourself for having another person killed because you regret a choice you made is indefensible.

You can always give up the child too. The US has some very unnecessary hoops to try to keep people from adopting, but there are people willing to jump through and even life Orphan Annie style is a good alternative if its better than the potential life the parent could offer.
If you do decide to stick it out, there are plenty of perfectly normal places in the country where $12k a year can sustain two parents and a child and full time bottom rung jobs can easily net you $9k or more for one person. If you decide to make it work, you can. Its not flashy, but a great many of us live it and are glad we're alive to do so. I'm not suggesting anyone do it, just saying its done and has been done for a very long time.

The tax cuts did spur consumer spending, and I personally did enjoy the $300 check I received in the mail, as did the other members of my family. I cannot understand why people do not believe that a tax cut for EVERYONE is fair - why should we penalize the people at the highest tax levels? They earned their money, for the most part, the same way I did. They deserve tax relief too.

Just to revisit your assertions in this post, have you considered the following:

The Bush Tax: How Much Is It Costing You?

http://www.bushtax.com/

The Bush Tax is huge – many times greater than most people’s income tax cut under Bush. For the bottom 60 percent of Americans, the average tax cut was just $304. The median tax cut for all Americans was only $470. In contrast, the average tax cut for those making over $1 million a year was $112,925.

How is Bush paying for his tax cuts?

To pay for his tax program, Bush raided Social Security Trust Funds and made off with $500 billion, eroding our protections for the elderly. Then he borrowed another $500 billion from foreigners, putting our future in their hands. For every $100 you got back in tax cuts, $40 was borrowed from foreigners, $20 was borrowed from Americans, and $40 was taken from Social Security.

Bush is largely to blame for the fiscal crisis that has forced states and communities to raise taxes and slash services. According to the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), “A conservative estimate suggests that federal policies are costing states and localities about $185 billion over the four-year course of the state fiscal crisis.” Bush has shifted health costs to states and forced states to pay for unfunded mandates for homeland security, election reform, and No Child Left Behind. As a result, states and communities have had no choice but to raise taxes and cut services. That’s the Bush Tax.

Rather than take responsibility for our common future, Bush has shifted costs to states and communities, who then pass them on to you. Across the country, people are seeing their property taxes skyrocket. State college tuition at 4-year schools has increased this year by an average of $579 nationwide. Half a million children have been deprived of health coverage. States and local government have cut vital services, and we’re all having to pay more for less. That’s the Bush Tax.

If the tax cuts didn't spur the economy on, I don't know what did, because it is demonstrably better today than it was last year at this time. And as I have said before, and none of you have seemed to realize, most of the people filing in the highest tax bracket aren't the megarich like Kerry and Bill Gates - they're small business owners, who are taking those tax cuts and hiring new people. That's good the economy.
The economy is running at a NEGATIVE 900,000 NET jobs since Bush took office. The economy has not been stimulated at all considering the above facts.

I don't paticularly like either candidate but I support Bush because he is not going to change his mind 5 minutes later because that what he thinks the voters want. When Bush says something he sticks with it not doing the famous Kerry Flip Flop.

I don't paticularly like either candidate but I support Bush because he is not going to change his mind 5 minutes later because that what he thinks the voters want. When Bush says something he sticks with it not doing the famous Kerry Flip Flop.

Although, some might argue that 'resistance to change' is a handicap, when things go wrong, and you just plug away anyhow.

I don't know if you noticed or not, but the President has a luxury not available to most politicians. The major political parties (in most 'democratic' nations) have representatives (titled as various different things... Party Head, Whip, etc.) who's main duty is convincing the OTHER politicians to vote in certain directions. Sometimes this is a matter of "toeing the party-line", sometimes it is to vote down propositions, etc.

Kerry - not having the luxury of presidency - is a politician, that is his job. He has to make political decisions. This could mean that he has to vote against a bill one day (for example - to stop a 'Republican' bill passing that has a load of 'extras' tacked on), and then vote for the same bill another day (after the failed bill is resubmitted, without all the extra junk).

Of course, if you JUST look at the votes cast, without looking at bill content, you can ignore that...

Just to revisit your assertions in this post, have you considered the following:

The Bush Tax: How Much Is It Costing You?

http://www.bushtax.com/

The Bush Tax is huge – many times greater than most people’s income tax cut under Bush. For the bottom 60 percent of Americans, the average tax cut was just $304. The median tax cut for all Americans was only $470. In contrast, the average tax cut for those making over $1 million a year was $112,925.

How is Bush paying for his tax cuts?

To pay for his tax program, Bush raided Social Security Trust Funds and made off with $500 billion, eroding our protections for the elderly. Then he borrowed another $500 billion from foreigners, putting our future in their hands. For every $100 you got back in tax cuts, $40 was borrowed from foreigners, $20 was borrowed from Americans, and $40 was taken from Social Security.

Bush is largely to blame for the fiscal crisis that has forced states and communities to raise taxes and slash services. According to the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), “A conservative estimate suggests that federal policies are costing states and localities about $185 billion over the four-year course of the state fiscal crisis.” Bush has shifted health costs to states and forced states to pay for unfunded mandates for homeland security, election reform, and No Child Left Behind. As a result, states and communities have had no choice but to raise taxes and cut services. That’s the Bush Tax.

Rather than take responsibility for our common future, Bush has shifted costs to states and communities, who then pass them on to you. Across the country, people are seeing their property taxes skyrocket. State college tuition at 4-year schools has increased this year by an average of $579 nationwide. Half a million children have been deprived of health coverage. States and local government have cut vital services, and we’re all having to pay more for less. That’s the Bush Tax.

The economy is running at a NEGATIVE 900,000 NET jobs since Bush took office. The economy has not been stimulated at all considering the above facts.

You could at least use info from a non-biased site. Well, if any existed. So, how will increasing taxes help our economy? Also, for those who like to credit Clinton for the 90's economic boom, that is incorrect. The main source was the fact that internet stocks were booming. Once the .com bubble burst, the stock market went down, obviously slowing the economy. I would like to know how any politician was responsible for that. Another source of the slowing of the economy is high oil prices. I am sure that most democrats would like to blame Bush for this, when really, it's not something that the president has controll over. When gas prices rise, less money is circulated elsewhere and inflation usually occurs. The Bush tax cuts were, at least, able to put money back into the pockets of americans, thus partially countering the negative effects of high oil prices. You make it sound like Bush had a perfect situation to work with and just screwed it up. This is not the case. He is dealing with many factors that are not under his controll. So, -900,000 jobs is not that bad considering that there is about 300,000,000 people in the US. A 900,000 job fluctuation could be caused by anything.

Also, to your statement about how the average tax cut is only $304 and people who make over $1 million get a tax cut of $112,925. The average American earns something like $27,000 a year? Maybe more, maybe less. I havn't looked, but $27,000 has to be preaty close. (If you have an accurate figure, please correct me) Now, because of the liberal bias of the source, I am sure that when they say "over 1 million", they meen somewhere around 10,000,000. So, using 27,000 vs 10,000,000,(its actually over 1 million, but this will do). . .

304/27,000. . . .112,925/10,000,000

You may do the math yourself. See what you get.

You could at least use info from a non-biased site. Well, if any existed. So, how will increasing taxes help our economy? Also, for those who like to credit Clinton for the 90's economic boom, that is incorrect. The main source was the fact that internet stocks were booming. Once the .com bubble burst, the stock market went down, obviously slowing the economy. I would like to know how any politician was responsible for that. Another source of the slowing of the economy is high oil prices. I am sure that most democrats would like to blame Bush for this, when really, it's not something that the president has controll over. When gas prices rise, less money is circulated elsewhere and inflation usually occurs. The Bush tax cuts were, at least, able to put money back into the pockets of americans, thus partially countering the negative effects of high oil prices. You make it sound like Bush had a perfect situation to work with and just screwed it up. This is not the case. He is dealing with many factors that are not under his controll. So, -900,000 jobs is not that bad considering that there is about 300,000,000 people in the US. A 900,000 job fluctuation could be caused by anything.

Also, to your statement about how the average tax cut is only $304 and people who make over $1 million get a tax cut of $112,925. The average American earns something like $27,000 a year? Maybe more, maybe less. I havn't looked, but $27,000 has to be preaty close. (If you have an accurate figure, please correct me) Now, because of the liberal bias of the source, I am sure that when they say "over 1 million", they meen somewhere around 10,000,000. So, using 27,000 vs 10,000,000,(its actually over 1 million, but this will do). . .

304/27,000. . . .112,925/10,000,000

You may do the math yourself. See what you get.
Well that would be about 88 times as much than the low man?

Try another somewhat biased site but it does graphically illustrate the facts:

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_tax_dist.gif

Cutting the wealthiest 2% brackets back to the average, would create $90 Billion in savings.

Well that would be about 88 times as much than the low man?

Try another somewhat biased site but it does graphically illustrate the facts:

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_tax_dist.gif

Cutting the wealthiest 2% brackets back to the average, would create $90 Billion in savings.
Did you actually do the division problem? The savings for the 2 incomes are proportional to eachother. They are the same fraction. If the high income makes 88 times more than the low and spends 88 times more, then shouldn't it save 88 times more?

BTW, do you know what makes up the wealthiest tax brackets? Companies and corporations, the same ones who hire most of the US's workers. By raising their taxes, it wont stop them from putting money in their own pockets, it will get them to cut jobs, or raise prices on goods and services. How will that help the economy?

Did you actually do the division problem? The savings for the 2 incomes are proportional to eachother. They are the same fraction. If the high income makes 88 times more than the low and spends 88 times more, then shouldn't it save 88 times more?

BTW, do you know what makes up the wealthiest tax brackets? Companies and corporations, the same ones who hire most of the US's workers. By raising their taxes, it wont stop them from putting money in their own pockets, it will get them to cut jobs, or raise prices on goods and services. How will that help the economy?
companies should be filing CORPORATE taxes, not personal ones
and the wealthiest dont spend the most, the poor people do, why the hell do you think they are poor and the rich people are rich? its not be not spending alot and spending alot respectively

companies should be filing CORPORATE taxes, not personal ones
and the wealthiest dont spend the most, the poor people do, why the hell do you think they are poor and the rich people are rich? its not be not spending alot and spending alot respectively

Especially in a 'cautious market' like the one we have at the moment, where the richest percentiles actually spend about the same amount as the poorest percentiles... and this isn't proportional... this is a case of 'earning' 100 times the income, and spending maybe three times the expenditure.

The rich are sitting on their money even more than usual in a depressed economy.

And, even when it's NOT a depressed economy, the rich aren't going out there putting a hundred times as much fuel in their car, buying a hundred times as much bread, etc. They have the luxury of available capital to invest, etc.

Especially in a 'cautious market' like the one we have at the moment, where the richest percentiles actually spend about the same amount as the poorest percentiles... and this isn't proportional... this is a case of 'earning' 100 times the income, and spending maybe three times the expenditure.

The rich are sitting on their money even more than usual in a depressed economy.

And, even when it's NOT a depressed economy, the rich aren't going out there putting a hundred times as much fuel in their car, buying a hundred times as much bread, etc. They have the luxury of available capital to invest, etc.

That is the point of being rich. We wouldn't have a capitalist society if the rich didn't have some benifits. The whole reason our country has been successful in the past, is because there was an incentive(spelling?) to work hard and "get rich". But now, we are at risk of following the same path as the downfall of the Roman empire. No one wants to try hard in school, get educated, or be successful because they want the government to take care of them and punish the people who did not fail at life. The great thing about the USA is that everyone has an opportunity. Everyone is given a free education, it is their choice of what they do with it. Many democatic voters I have spoken with, the same one's who complain that the poor can only remain poor and the rich keep on getting richer, dropped out of highschool or graduated with a very low average because they were lazy. I know you are going to say that some students don't have the same environment, and thus can't succeed. This is not true either. A good friend of mine; he came from a very bad home situation (dad was a drunk, etc. . .) and was of average inteligence. He took every opportunity he had, did his homework at school or elsewhere, got a job, saved up money, graduated near the top of his class and went on to college. The fact is, 90% of the low income workers are responsible for the positions that they are in.

Lol, sorry for turning this into a "stay in school, kids" lecture, but it's true. Most of what I have seen comming from liberal voters is class envy because they didn't succeed at life, nothing more.

Although, the democrats don't even look after the "little guy" either, so I see even less of a reason to vote that way.

That is the point of being rich. We wouldn't have a capitalist society if the rich didn't have some benifits. The whole reason our country has been successful in the past, is because there was an incentive(spelling?) to work hard and "get rich". But now, we are at risk of following the same path as the downfall of the Roman empire. No one wants to try hard in school, get educated, or be successful because they want the government to take care of them and punish the people who did not fail at life. The great thing about the USA is that everyone has an opportunity. Everyone is given a free education, it is their choice of what they do with it. Many democatic voters I have spoken with, the same one's who complain that the poor can only remain poor and the rich keep on getting richer, dropped out of highschool or graduated with a very low average because they were lazy. I know you are going to say that some students don't have the same environment, and thus can't succeed. This is not true either. A good friend of mine; he came from a very bad home situation (dad was a drunk, etc. . .) and was of average inteligence. He took every opportunity he had, did his homework at school or elsewhere, got a job, saved up money, graduated near the top of his class and went on to college. The fact is, 90% of the low income workers are responsible for the positions that they are in.

Lol, sorry for turning this into a "stay in school, kids" lecture, but it's true. Most of what I have seen comming from liberal voters is class envy because they didn't succeed at life, nothing more.

Although, the democrats don't even look after the "little guy" either, so I see even less of a reason to vote that way.
It wasn't until the monarchy (elitists) were overthrown, or marginalized in many countries before the people were actually able to thrive.

I understand where people are coming from in saying Kerry will lower tax prices, but why are they at the height they are now? Not because Bush wanted to make them that high. There wasn't much choice. America's economy, after 9-11, had a major drop, and a lot of people lost their jobs very quickly, putting people who couldn't find jobs (for various reasons) into a postion that they HAD to get social security, which is paid by...TAXES. Bush can't FORCE coorperations into staying in America, and they are the ones going to other countries to set up their factories. It makes more sense for them to go overseas where they can get more money than stay in America, finacially. Lastly, Bush isn't the one making the complete desicion on half of the topics being discussed, the other two branches of the government have to ok the topic also.

I understand where people are coming from in saying Kerry will lower tax prices, but why are they at the height they are now? Not because Bush wanted to make them that high. There wasn't much choice. America's economy, after 9-11, had a major drop, and a lot of people lost their jobs very quickly, putting people who couldn't find jobs (for various reasons) into a postion that they HAD to get social security, which is paid by...TAXES. Bush can't FORCE coorperations into staying in America, and they are the ones going to other countries to set up their factories. It makes more sense for them to go overseas where they can get more money than stay in America, finacially. Lastly, Bush isn't the one making the complete desicion on half of the topics being discussed, the other two branches of the government have to ok the topic also.
Are you sure you understand about taxes, finances, and corporations? Don't worry, you will still get your tax cut if you vote Kerry.

It wasn't until the monarchy (elitists) were overthrown, or marginalized in many countries before the people were actually able to thrive.

We don't have a monarchy. Most of the rich people worked hard to get where they are. Either way, this is still america and everyone has a chance to succeed.
A common misconception is that all big business has tons of extra money and just want to get even richer on the backs of their workers. This really isn't true. Companies don't have this massive pool of extra money sitting around. Granted, some corporations are corrupt. (oil and gas for example)

We don't have a monarchy. Most of the rich people worked hard to get where they are. Either way, this is still america and everyone has a chance to succeed.
A common misconception is that all big business has tons of extra money and just want to get even richer on the backs of their workers. This really isn't true. Companies don't have this massive pool of extra money sitting around. Granted, some corporations are corrupt. (oil and gas for example)
riiiight

That is the point of being rich. We wouldn't have a capitalist society if the rich didn't have some benifits. The whole reason our country has been successful in the past, is because there was an incentive(spelling?) to work hard and "get rich". But now, we are at risk of following the same path as the downfall of the Roman empire. No one wants to try hard in school, get educated, or be successful because they want the government to take care of them and punish the people who did not fail at life. The great thing about the USA is that everyone has an opportunity. Everyone is given a free education, it is their choice of what they do with it. Many democatic voters I have spoken with, the same one's who complain that the poor can only remain poor and the rich keep on getting richer, dropped out of highschool or graduated with a very low average because they were lazy. I know you are going to say that some students don't have the same environment, and thus can't succeed. This is not true either. A good friend of mine; he came from a very bad home situation (dad was a drunk, etc. . .) and was of average inteligence. He took every opportunity he had, did his homework at school or elsewhere, got a job, saved up money, graduated near the top of his class and went on to college. The fact is, 90% of the low income workers are responsible for the positions that they are in.

Lol, sorry for turning this into a "stay in school, kids" lecture, but it's true. Most of what I have seen comming from liberal voters is class envy because they didn't succeed at life, nothing more.

Although, the democrats don't even look after the "little guy" either, so I see even less of a reason to vote that way.

The downfall of the Roman empire was corruption, coupled with over-expansion. America has both of those problems, allthough it is easier to deal with the over-expansion problem with telecommunications and jet technology.

The 'Bread and Circuses' of the Roman empire was part of the solution to the problem of a decayed society - your people will not revolt as long as you give them enough food to survive (the Bread) and sufficient entertainment to divert them (the Circuses). 'Bread and Circuses' was not the CAUSE of the dissolution of the Roman Empire, it was a symptom. That modern America (and most of the Western World) exhibits that same symptom is a marker that there is something wrong with modern America.

I have met a lot of people who were very bright, who had crappy jobs - even WITH a college education. I have also met a lot of pretty dumb people who had nice jobs because they were given them by rich relatives. I have met wealthy people who have never worked a day in their lives, because they inherited wealth.

Your argument that capitalism supports hard work is, therefore, not based on a reality. Maybe it works, sometimes... but for the most part, the people rewarded MOST by capitalism, are those that have money already.

The downfall of the Roman empire was corruption, coupled with over-expansion. America has both of those problems, allthough it is easier to deal with the over-expansion problem with telecommunications and jet technology.

The 'Bread and Circuses' of the Roman empire was part of the solution to the problem of a decayed society - your people will not revolt as long as you give them enough food to survive (the Bread) and sufficient entertainment to divert them (the Circuses). 'Bread and Circuses' was not the CAUSE of the dissolution of the Roman Empire, it was a symptom. That modern America (and most of the Western World) exhibits that same symptom is a marker that there is something wrong with modern America.

I have met a lot of people who were very bright, who had crappy jobs - even WITH a college education. I have also met a lot of pretty dumb people who had nice jobs because they were given them by rich relatives. I have met wealthy people who have never worked a day in their lives, because they inherited wealth.

Your argument that capitalism supports hard work is, therefore, not based on a reality. Maybe it works, sometimes... but for the most part, the people rewarded MOST by capitalism, are those that have money already.

I think that we need more moderate politicians. Uber-liberalism really doesn't work, and neither does uber-concervatism. (spelling?) I think that the ammount each "rich" person is taxed should depend on how they got it and how they are contributing to society. We need higher taxes on inherited wealth and businesses taxes being dependant on how they are contributing to society. I know Kerry has said something like that before, but I know that wont happen even if he is elected. He will just raise taxes for everyone, rich or poor. We need some middle ground. Don't you agree?

re: I do not want to see anyone using the words Bush, Badnarik, Dubya, Nader, Cheney, Halliburton, Vietnam, or Voltron.

Give me an election where no one is using the words: Bush, Dubya, Cheney, orHalliburton and I wouldn't vote for Kerry!