NationStates Jolt Archive

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Due to the nature of this anxious nation regarding Iraq, The President of the United States, George W. Bush, will be addressing the nation in a primetime address from Fort Bragg, N.C.

It is also to be noted that apparently, there has now been a shift in plans as Secretary Rumsfeld confirmed that there have been talks between the insurgency and the US Commander in charge of the multinational force.

Thoughts?

I'm going to wait and see...hopefully there is good news for us.

Note to self, plant bomb under Fort Bragg, N.C.:D

I sure as hell hope there are talks. The sooner we get out of Iraq, the better. In fact, we should pull out of Afghanistan ASAP, too. Then, we can concentrate on our real enemies.

Well at least I won't miss anything on TV tonight.

*sums up statemnt*

*Bush makes faces for over an hour*
*Bush says the Iraq is a commitment and we must fight it out
*Bush says Iran is becomnig a threat and we commence bombing tomorrow, go buy a bomb shelter

"Ladies and Gentleman,

I, uh ... kinda screwed things up."

:D

Can we have at least one thread of serious discussion without pity ass insults and jokes?

"Ladies and Gentleman,

I, uh ... kinda screwed things up."

:D

If he actualy said that his approval ratings would go up

Can we have at least one thread of serious discussion without pity ass insults and jokes?

You asked for thoughts. Face the fact that a great deal of us do not care that the President is going to waste valuable air time tonight blowing propaganda out of his ass.

I look forward to it. It’s so refreshing to have a president who only speaks when there is something important. Unlike some presidents we could name that stuck their nose into everything.

I sure as hell hope there are talks. The sooner we get out of Iraq, the better. In fact, we should pull out of Afghanistan ASAP, too. Then, we can concentrate on our real enemies.

Who are they?

Can we have at least one thread of serious discussion without pity ass insults and jokes?
about the president and propaganda? no

You asked for thoughts. Face the fact that a great deal of us do not care that the President is going to waste valuable air time tonight blowing propaganda out of his ass.

How do you know its going to be propaganda. You know, that is why I really am beginning to hate politics. Because no one listens to eachother. I'm going to withold judgement till I actually hear what he has to hear.

Yes I did ask for thoughts. Notice the word thoughts. I did not ask for jokes or pity ass insults.

Can we have at least one thread of serious discussion without pity ass insults and jokes?

If by 'serious discussion' you mean boosterism, my guess is probably not.

How do you know its going to be propaganda. You know, that is why I really am beginning to hate politics. Because no one listens to eachother. I'm going to withold judgement till I actually hear what he has to hear.

Yes I did ask for thoughts. Notice the word thoughts. I did not ask for jokes or pity ass insults.

I notice the word thoughts, thank you very much. For someone who claims that people not listening to one another is what is wrong with politics, you sure do like to dismiss every opinion that disagrees with you. My exact thoughts, once reading your post, were "well, at least I won't miss anything good on TV when I'm out tonight." If you don't like my thoughts, then next time, don't ask for them.

How do you know its going to be propaganda. You know, that is why I really am beginning to hate politics. Because no one listens to eachother. I'm going to withold judgement till I actually hear what he has to hear.

Yes I did ask for thoughts. Notice the word thoughts. I did not ask for jokes or pity ass insults.

Jokes and insults are thoughts. Maybe you should clarified with "nice thoughts that don't offend me."

I notice the word thoughts, thank you very much. For someone who claims that people not listening to one another is what is wrong with politics, you sure do like to dismiss every opinion that disagrees with you.

Actually I dont. I listen to what other people have to say and when they are wrong, I let them know that they are wrong. When I do though, I get attacked. People need to stop attack other posters for ideas. It is their ideas and their opinions. No need to rail on someone because of it. I see that too many times on this thread and it is usually the liberals that do it.

My exact thoughts, once reading your post, were "well, at least I won't miss anything good on TV when I'm out tonight." If you don't like my thoughts, then next time, don't ask for them.

:rolleyes:

Actually I dont. I listen to what other people have to say and when they are wrong, I let them know that they are wrong. When I do though, I get attacked. People need to stop attack other posters for ideas. It is their ideas and their opinions. No need to rail on someone because of it. I see that too many times on this thread and it is usually the liberals that do it.

Nice to see you managed to work in an attack on liberals before ending that paragraph. Nicely done, and true to form.

Nice to see you managed to work in an attack on liberals before ending that paragraph. Nicely done, and true to form.

Because I'm right? Notice how its the liberals that are cracking the jokes and saying its propaganda before Bush even speaks?

I for one am looking forward to the speech. It should be a good one. Call it propaganda if you want but I want to know how people can call it propaganda even before he speaks. Is it propaganda because he a republican? If that is the case then I should stop listening to democratic propaganda since I listen to them too.

Anyway, this is should be an interesting speech and I will be listening closely to it.

Actually I dont. I listen to what other people have to say and when they are wrong, I let them know that they are wrong. When I do though, I get attacked. People need to stop attack other posters for ideas. It is their ideas and their opinions. No need to rail on someone because of it. I see that too many times on this thread and it is usually the liberals that do it.

No, you let them know when you THINK they are wrong. I've watched you in threads for months and months. Let's get one thing clear: you argue based on rhetoric and personal belief only. Your posts are littered with "this is wrong because I believe it is" or "this is right because that is what I think". Your entire basis for your arguments for the flag-burning amendment was "because I think it should be illegal". You rarely, if ever, offer any kind of unbiased evidence to support your stances. You offer us your opinion and the opinions of people who believe the same things as you. That is why you get attacked. You get attacked because you have an extreme holier-than-thou attitude, and you continually tell people that your opinions are correct and theirs incorrect. Your arrogance is uncanny. The only reason that it is "liberals" that attack you more is because your attitude is frequently directed towards them.



:rolleyes:

And why do you roll your eyes at me?

I don't have any thoughts yet. I have to hear the speech first. So, Corneliu, are you looking forward to the speech? Or are you even going to listen to it..?

Note to self, plant bomb under Fort Bragg, N.C.:D

First, that's just plain not funny. You may not like the man, but he doesn't deserve death. Nor does the planet, given the hell on Earth that such an assault would do to the markets. The result would be a period in which we'd all look back to the dot-com bust as a "minor readjustment". :(

Second, the Feds actually troll the 'net searching for stuff like that with computers that make a Cray look like an abacus. If you don't want guys in suits paying you a visit, just steer clear of making such posts.

Can we have at least one thread of serious discussion without pity ass insults and jokes?
You asked for their thoughts … they made it clear they don’t really care what the president has to say and don’t expect much out of the performance

They may have said it jokingly but they still shared their thoughts on the subject

First, that's just plain not funny. You may not like the man, but he doesn't deserve death. Nor does the planet, given the hell on Earth that such an assault would do to the markets. The result would be a period in which we'd all look back to the dot-com bust as a "minor readjustment". :(

Second, the Feds actually troll the 'net searching for stuff like that with computers that make a Cray look like an abacus. If you don't want guys in suits paying you a visit, just steer clear of making such posts.

Agreed. Just because I don't like the man does not mean I'd ever wish him dead. He actually seems like a really fun guy, someone I might like to hang out with. Just not someone I want leading my nation.

I don't have any thoughts yet. I have to hear the speech first. So, Corneliu, are you looking forward to the speech? Or are you even going to listen to it..?

I'm going to watch it then I'm going to give my impressions on it.

Because I'm right? Notice how its the liberals that are cracking the jokes and saying its propaganda before Bush even speaks?

I for one am looking forward to the speech. It should be a good one. Call it propaganda if you want but I want to know how people can call it propaganda even before he speaks. Is it propaganda because he a republican? If that is the case then I should stop listening to democratic propaganda since I listen to them too.

I haven't cracked a joke yet. If Bush has a reputation for delivering propoganda instead of speeches, it's not my fault. Nor is it the fault of liberals.

I'd watch, but instead I'll be watching the season finale of Doctor Who. Why? Because due to his track record where speeches and propoganda are concerned, I already have a pretty damn good idea of what to expect. I'll go online after the show and see if I can just get the salient bits from the CBC website.

Have fun watching Mr. Bush.

I haven't cracked a joke yet. If Bush has a reputation for delivering propoganda instead of speeches, it's not my fault. Nor is it the fault of liberals.

Care to prove such statements?

I'd watch, but instead I'll be watching the season finale of Doctor Who. Why? Because due to his track record where speeches and propoganda are concerned, I already have a pretty damn good idea of what to expect. I'll go online after the show and see if I can just get the salient bits from the CBC website.

Your loss.

Have fun watching Mr. Bush.

I hope Dr. Who gets interrupted. :D I know I know. Fat chance since your canadian.

...He actually seems like a really fun guy, someone I might like to hang out with.
How peculiar. I too think he'd be fun to have a couple of pints with (or does he drink? not anymore, eh?). Well, nevermind. Seems like someone you could have a fun night out with. Provided we didn't talk politics... I wouldn't want to fight with him.

I sure as hell hope there are talks. The sooner we get out of Iraq, the better. In fact, we should pull out of Afghanistan ASAP, too. Then, we can concentrate on our real enemies.
Do you actually believe that? I think a pullout of those places is the worst thing we could do now.

And why do you roll your eyes at me?

Why does anyone 'roll their eyes' at people here on NS? Personally, I loathe those emoticons. You don't see people in the real world actually rolling their one-tenth as much as they do here.

I think it's intensely rude, and I'd like to see the so-called 'smileys' go the way of the dinosaur.

How peculiar. I too think he'd be fun to have a couple of pints with (or does he drink? not anymore, eh?). Well, nevermind. Seems like someone you could have a fun night out with. Provided we didn't talk politics... I wouldn't want to fight with him.
As much as I despise his policies, I think he's a really nice guy and would be kinda fun to hang out with.

eh, he's a mediocre speaker at best. but i am interested to see what he has to say. what time does his speech start?

I'm going to watch it then I'm going to give my impressions on it.
Oh. That was just a friendly jab. Watching... actually listening... making own assesment... that kinda thing. Never mind. :)

(*wth was that great void thing...how did i manage to change nick without trying to?)

EDIT: arggh. Bunnyducks it should be!

Why does anyone 'roll their eyes' at people here on NS? Personally, I loathe those emoticons. You don't see people in the real world actually rolling their one-tenth as much as they do here.

I think it's intensely rude, and I'd like to see the so-called 'smileys' go the way of the dinosaur.
I am fine with the eye rolly though the head bang and guns are really really really annoying

I seriously think he will say everything the military-industrial complex wants him to

How peculiar. I too think he'd be fun to have a couple of pints with (or does he drink? not anymore, eh?).

He doesn’t. I’m pretty sure he’s a recovering alcoholic. Anyway, some people attribute his winning the last election to his personality. No matter what he did Kerry just couldn’t shake the wooden man image.

I'm going to watch it then I'm going to give my impressions on it.
No thanks, I prefer at least SLIGHTLY unbiased impressions

They misunderestimated me!

I am fine with the eye rolly though the head bang and guns are really really really annoying
It's really the guns that piss me off. Because of these style posts:
BUsh is teh n00b :sniper: :gundge: :mp5:
Shoot all of teh gays! :mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

I seriously think he will say everything the military-industrial complex wants him to

Is that you, Ike?

Winterion's gambling mecca, the Luxurion, has given me some odds on phrases that will be used! Place your bets now!

1:25 - "stay the course"
1:15 - "condi"
1:10 - "threat to freedom"
1:02 - "between a man and a woman"
3:02 - "sunni triangle"
7:02 - "last throes"
15:1 - "our mistake"
55:1 - "ham sandwich"
99:1 - "downing street memo"

and the long shot:

1500:1 - "look, guys, it was all Buddy's idea, get off my case"

:D

Because I'm right?

No Comment. :rolleyes:


I for one am looking forward to the speech. It should be a good one. Call it propaganda if you want but I want to know how people can call it propaganda even before he speaks.

I will watch it if only to see how many times he mentions 911 and terrorism and freedom AND yes I will be counting. :p

I suppose many of us call what he has to say "propaganda" because some of us have actually followed his presidency since 2000, what else are we to expect? :confused:

I am fine with the eye rolly though the head bang and guns are really really really annoying
Especially in the real world.

Winterion's gambling mecca, the Luxurion, has given me some odds on phrases that will be used! Place your bets now!

1:25 - "stay the course"
1:15 - "condi"
1:10 - "threat to freedom"
1:02 - "between a man and a woman"
3:02 - "sunni triangle"
7:02 - "last throes"
15:1 - "our mistake"
55:1 - "ham sandwich"
99:1 - "downing street memo"

and the long shot:

1500:1 - "look, guys, it was all Buddy's idea, get off my case"

:D

15:1 on "our mistake"? he is mroe like to say "potato salad"

I'm going to watch it, though it won't be as laugh outloud funny as him in teh debates.

nope...me name ish zappa

I haven't cracked a joke yet. If Bush has a reputation for delivering propoganda instead of speeches, it's not my fault. Nor is it the fault of liberals.

Care to prove such statements?

Well, if you doubt my veracity, try re-reading the thread to see if I have cracked any jokes. As to the balance of my statement: are you seriously asking me to prove that it's not my fault that Bush has a reputation for delivering propoganda instead of speeches? To prove that it's not the fault of liberals that Bush has a reputation for delivering propoganda instead of speeches? Well, all I will say is that Mr. Bush has made his own reputation, one that he is most comfortable with. He knows full well how 'liberals' view his propoganda tactics, and prefers to ignore the outrage and indignation. If he was at all concerned, he'd have tried reforming his reputation years ago. It's nothing to do with me. Sorry.

I'd watch, but instead I'll be watching the season finale of Doctor Who. Why? Because due to his track record where speeches and propoganda are concerned, I already have a pretty damn good idea of what to expect. I'll go online after the show and see if I can just get the salient bits from the CBC website.

Your loss.

Or, 'my gain'. It's all relative.

I hope Dr. Who gets interrupted. :D I know I know. Fat chance since your canadian.

And I hope Mr. Bush is interrupted. By America's other, muzzled voice. I know I know. Fat chance since it's Bush.

I look forward to it. It’s so refreshing to have a president who only speaks when there is something important. Unlike some presidents we could name that stuck their nose into everything.
I'm sure that having a President who lies to the public about things that are important (such as WMDs) is refreshing, too.

Look at what this man has done and is doing to our nation. We could have been the most benificial, powerful, and progressive nation today, because of how things were when the dust settled from WWII. Instead, we kill the environment for oil, we hold the UN in contempt, and we are hated by millions and millions of people. A lot of this is the fault of the Bush Administration.

We could have been the most benificial, powerful, and progressive nation today, because of how things were when the dust settled from WWII. Instead, we kill the environment for oil, we hold the UN in contempt, and we are hated by millions and millions of people. A lot of this is the fault of the Bush Administration.

Precisely. Give this man a prize, Chet.

Unfortunatley, I was unable to read all this and refrain from responding.

First of all, GWBush has yet to make a speach without verbally tripping, stumbling, and finally sprawling out on the floor in the manner of Chevy Chase on Saturday Night Live.

Second - he has yet to actually tell the citizens of the United States the entire truth even one time. He always includes a little piece of the truth, and then surrounds it with something that seems to be a cross between Republican political propaganda, what Big Business dictates, and a view of the world severly restricted by blinders that could be labled "I've always had tons of money" and "I'm a super-christian".

Third - his failure to tell the truth seems to be solidly based in his failure to see the truth.

Fourth - I can no longer listen to him. Not even little sound bites on the radio. Between his mangling the language, his propensity to have a very snide tone of voice when "discussing" any point of view other than his, his failure to actually see and/or understand what is going on, and his outright lying, I get incredibly angry whenever the idiot speaks. Since I can't get rid of the source, I tune it out.

Finally - he is surrounded by people who are either truly ignorant, or truly evil. They are bent on "reforming" this country into a one-religion, one-party, one-point-of-view, one-acceptable-response nation of unthinking idiots. That is NOT the country I grew up in, it is NOT the country I love, it is NOT the country I spent 29 years in the defense of, and it is NOT the country I want my children to live in.

He's a dolt, and I don't care what he says, the only interest I have in him is when will he go away.

I'm sure that having a President who lies to the public about things that are important (such as WMDs) is refreshing, too.

Look at what this man has done and is doing to our nation. We could have been the most benificial, powerful, and progressive nation today, because of how things were when the dust settled from WWII. Instead, we kill the environment for oil, we hold the UN in contempt, and we are hated by millions and millions of people. A lot of this is the fault of the Bush Administration.
Not alot, but they are doing a damn good job of their fair share of running this nation into the ground

How do you know its going to be propaganda.
Because everything is propoganda. Simply by saying that he supports the Iraq war, that is propoganda. Propoganda is any statement supporting one side of an issue, there would be no politics without propoganda.

Hey Corneliu - you didn't get back to me yet, am I still somehow supposed to prove that it's not my fault that Bush has a reputation for delivering propoganda instead of speeches?

'Cause I think all of these other fine people are making my case for me. Just FYI.

...And I even worked in a nice smiley for you. Enjoy.

We could have been the most benificial, powerful, and progressive nation today, because of how things were when the dust settled from WWII.

We have been the most beneficial, we are the most powerful, and progressive is a relative term.

Instead, we kill the environment for oil,

Don’t know about you, but I like driving, I like enjoying the luxuries brought to us by freight truck, and I like the abundance of food from petroleum powered farming equipment.

we hold the UN in contempt

People tend to hold corrupt organizations in contempt.

and we are hated by millions and millions of people

Jealousy is a very common form of hate.

Don’t know about you, but I like driving, I like enjoying the luxuries brought to us by freight truck, and I like the abundance of food from petroleum powered farming equipment.

We managed to put people on the moon with computers my calculator would laugh at and we can't create a replacement for oil products?

Jealousy is a very common form of hate.

But not necessarily what drives the hatred of millions and millions of people.

eh, he's a mediocre speaker at best. but i am interested to see what he has to say. what time does his speech start?

Well...CNN is beginning their coverage at 7:00 but I think it'll start around 8:00 Tonight

He is a politician so his speech will be propaganda. What President never did that?

I figure it will be laced about the great things in Iraq and Afghanistan. We will hear about things they never had before(ie: girls going to school) and the evil doers will want to break that up.

He will probably make some kind of threat against Syria.

Hmmmm I am wondering if he will inject some social security talk into it since his plans have basically exploded.

Hmmm the sweet smell of lame duck? ;)

Why does anyone 'roll their eyes' at people here on NS? Personally, I loathe those emoticons. You don't see people in the real world actually rolling their one-tenth as much as they do here.

You do however hear peoples voices and intonation in the real world in addition to bodylanguage. Without smileys distinguishing sarcasm from seriousness on this forum would be a good deal harder.

Can someone promise to tell me whether he mentions if there's running water on tap anywhere other than where the US troops are at? Ditto for lights and power.

Thanks in advance.

Ihatevacations]We managed to put people on the moon with computers my calculator would laugh at and we can't create a replacement for oil products?

Apparently not. Why you have any ideas?

He is a politician so his speech will be propaganda. What President never did that?

Touche! But it also won't hurt to listen to what he has to say. I listened to Clinton on every issue. Some I agreed with, others I didn't. But that is a different thread :D

I figure it will be laced about the great things in Iraq and Afghanistan. We will hear about things they never had before(ie: girls going to school) and the evil doers will want to break that up.

Probably right. Won't know though till he talks.

He will probably make some kind of threat against Syria.

You forgot Iran :D

Hmmmm I am wondering if he will inject some social security talk into it since his plans have basically exploded.

No I don't think he will. This is supposed to be about Iraq.

Hmmm the sweet smell of lame duck? ;)

LOL

As to the topic of the speech: NATO has just found a depot containing WoMD in Iraq that are vastly superior to anything the USA can hope to produce in the next 10 years ;)

As to the topic of the speech: NATO has just found a depot containing WoMD in Iraq that are vastly superior to anything the USA can hope to produce in the next 10 years ;)

Well, if that's the case, it's big news. Got a link?

As to the topic of the speech: NATO has just found a depot containing WoMD in Iraq that are vastly superior to anything the USA can hope to produce in the next 10 years ;)

That's funny, I just checked the news, and there's nothing about this 'depot containing WoMD' you've mentioned.

Link?

LOL

Ah, you're back. Must've found that spunk of yours.

So, do I still have to prove that it's not my fault that Bush has a reputation for delivering propoganda instead of speeches? You didn't get back to me on that one.

It's surprising how well a joke works with a ;) here.

Ah, you're back. Must've found that spunk of yours.

So, do I still have to prove that it's not my fault that Bush has a reputation for delivering propoganda instead of speeches? You didn't get back to me on that one.

Because it wasn't worth responding too. As someone else said, if one said is talking and the other side doesn't like it, its propaganda. It don't matter if its the Republicans, Democrats, socialists, independants, greens and what not.

As to the topic of the speech: NATO has just found a depot containing WoMD in Iraq that are vastly superior to anything the USA can hope to produce in the next 10 years ;)

LOL!!

To bad that isn't real. If it was, it would definitely shut up 95% of the people here. Alwell. Still funny as hell though :D

LOL!!

To bad that isn't real. If it was, it would definitely shut up 95% of the people here. Alwell. Still funny as hell though :D
Yeah but if it was there would be a source of superior quality out there … if that quality of design met up with a mass production market (such as china) things would get a lot more interesting

That's funny, I just checked the news, and there's nothing about this 'depot containing WoMD' you've mentioned.

Link?

i think it's sarcasm ;)

Can someone promise to tell me whether he mentions if there's running water on tap anywhere other than where the US troops are at? Ditto for lights and power.

Thanks in advance.

Looks to me like that's not an easy task, seeing as, you know, the terrorists are happy to capture and murder innocent civilians who are in Iraq to try and rebuild the place after three decades of Saddam's rule.

But you know, nevermind that, the US is at fault because their attempts just aren't good enough. Or something. I don't know. Your mind baffles me.

Yeah but if it was there would be a source of superior quality out there … if that quality of design met up with a mass production market (such as china) things would get a lot more interesting

Thank God, we have nukes. Someone tried to use better quality WMD on us, they'll get heated a few thousand degrees! :D

Anyway, we are about 6 hrs and 42 minutes from the start of his speech.

How do you know its going to be propaganda. You know, that is why I really am beginning to hate politics. Because no one listens to eachother. I'm going to withold judgement till I actually hear what he has to hear.

Because he's on record saying that he's not changing our policy, at all. At least that is what was reported by NPR this morning.

I got an advance copy of Bush's speech:
My fellow Americans:
blah blah blah soldiers blah blah blah patriotism blah blah blah sacrifice blah blah blah 9/11 blah blah blah terrorism blah blah blah Iran blah blah blah tax cuts blah blah blah last throes blah blah blah democracy blah blah blah liberals suck blah blah blah Karl Rove is my real daddy blah blah blah Republicans r0xx0rs blah blah blah God bless America.

I can't wait to not watch this fucking thing tonight.

Thank God, we have nukes. Someone tried to use better quality WMD on us, they'll get heated a few thousand degrees! :D

Anyway, we are about 6 hrs and 42 minutes from the start of his speech.
And they theoretically the same (Nukes can be considered a WMD)

And that’s assuming we catch production … if they go to miniaturization (suitcase or small non ICBM style weapons) it could be hard to catch before deployment

And if it is “more advanced” think of the yield they could get off of something backpack sized

Or biological …

Because he's on record saying that he's not changing our policy, at all. At least that is what was reported by NPR this morning.

Well no timetable to pull out has always been the policy. We won't pull out till 1) They ask us to leave or 2) things settle down that'll allow us to leave.

He is only doing this because the nation is getting anxious about it. I currently have a relative that is over in the desert so I'm going to be paying extra attention than I normally do. It should be an interesting speech.

Looks to me like that's not an easy task, seeing as, you know, the terrorists are happy to capture and murder innocent civilians who are in Iraq to try and rebuild the place after three decades of Saddam's rule.


Nothing innocent about those 'civilians', i.e. foreign contractors hired by Halliburton. Note the failure to hire fully-capable, skilled labour, engineers, etc. from within the Iraqi populace.

Oh, and btw? Iraq had running water, lights and power all throughout Saddam's three decades of rule.

It's surprising how well a joke works with a ;) here.

Indeed... I think we need *bigger* smileys ;)

Nothing innocent about those 'civilians', i.e. foreign contractors hired by Halliburton. Note the failure to hire fully-capable, skilled labour, engineers, etc. from within the Iraqi populace.

So civilians lose their lives and your ok with that? You just lost whatever credibility you just had with me. It is a shame that you don't care if civilians are getting killed.

It should be an interesting speech.

Does this mean you'll be returning to Moderation to ask the mods to ignore your earlier request to shut this thread down?

So civilians lose their lives and your ok with that? You just lost whatever credibility you just had with me. It is a shame that you don't care if civilians are getting killed.

No, I hate it when innocent civilians are killed - but I have no pity whatsoever for those seeking to indulge in profiteering from war.

Major difference there.

Well US kinda created the mess.

If they pull out. US would go down forever as one of the most hated nations for leaving Iraqi's to dry by themselves.

If they stay on, people would still complain about soldiers dying, people getting beheaded etc.

It's a no win win solution unless US stays there till it's all over. Maybe stuck for the next 5-10 years.

Does this mean you'll be returning to Moderation to ask the mods to ignore your earlier request to shut this thread down?

Normally, its done right away.

No, I hate it when innocent civilians are killed - but I have no pity whatsoever for those seeking to indulge in profiteering from war.

Major difference there.

So the people that are trying to restore power and water are profiteering? :rolleyes: The people that are trying to turn those things back on are getting killed. So how are these people that are turning these things back on profiteering? They are trying to help the Iraqi people!

Oh, and btw? Iraq had running water, lights and power all throughout Saddam's three decades of rule.

Yep - aside from the oppression and the fear that you might "disappear" in the middle of the night a dictatorship can be a quite pleasant and safe place to live. And looking at the number of people that bothers to turn up during elections in "the free world" a significant portion does not really care about having the freedom to vote anyway...

*turns his nation in a psychotic dictatorship for the good of the people*

No WMDs, no clear and present danger to our security. Not the real front line on terror like Saudi Arabia should be. Not enough troops deployed, not enough reinforcements enlisting. Over 1700 dead, 12,000 and up wounded 250 billion spent and counting. Plenty tax cuts for the rich, and protection for comatose invalids. What a top notch success "W" has been for our nation. Cannot wait til we start dropping bombs on Syria and Iran. Let the lame duch warmonger countdown begin.

Well no timetable to pull out has always been the policy. We won't pull out till 1) They ask us to leave or 2) things settle down that'll allow us to leave.

He is only doing this because the nation is getting anxious about it. I currently have a relative that is over in the desert so I'm going to be paying extra attention than I normally do. It should be an interesting speech.

I guess my response wasn't clear enough. He's speaking to an anxious public to tell them that he truly doesn't care enough about their opinions about the way our government is acting to take our discontent into account and act on it.

He's going to say "I'm sorry that you are unhappy, but this is the way it is, the way it will stay, and there's not really anything to do about it."

To me that doesn't sound like a responsive leader. It sounds like a parent speaking to a child -- and W is not my parent.

Edit: And we are not children.

So the people that are trying to restore power and water are profiteering?
Not even. The thing is, a great number of the people that have been kidnapped have lived in Iraq for years and years. And not only lived, but trying to help people suffering under Saddam. Some.. are 'profeteeering'. Being kidnapped/murdered seems to be a democratic thing there.

What is funny though... The Iraqis don't lack only power and water... but GAS! They are fucking infuriated when they can't get their cars running. For some reason I find that hilarious.

I guess my response wasn't clear enough. He's speaking to an anxious public to tell them that he truly doesn't care enough about their opinions about the way our government is acting to take our discontent into account and act on it.

Sometimes you have to ignore opinion polls in order to do what is right.

He's going to say "I'm sorry that you are unhappy, but this is the way it is, the way it will stay, and there's not really anything to do about it."

I hate to say this but good if he does. He is sticking to his guns. Anyway, yes there is something the people can do about it, its called votes. We do have Congressional Elections next year. If you don't like it, go to the polls and return the legislature to the Democrats. Doubt its going to happen but that is about the only way to change things.

To me that doesn't sound like a responsive leader. It sounds like a parent speaking to a child -- and W is not my parent.

No he's just the President of the United States. A leader has to make decisions. Yes those decisions may not be popular but as I stated before, you have to make unpopular decisions from time to time in order to effectively lead. I should know this. I was a leader when I was in the Auxillary of the USAF. I was even cadet commander for a time and I had to make unpopular decisions from time to time. In time, they realized why I made the decisions I made. So you see, its not easy being a leader.

So the people that are trying to restore power and water are profiteering? :rolleyes: The people that are trying to turn those things back on are getting killed. So how are these people that are turning these things back on profiteering? They are trying to help the Iraqi people!

No, they aren't there to help the Iraqi people. Not one of them. They are there to fulfill contractual obligations. There is a world of difference between the two.

They are being paid extremely well for their time and trouble (and why not? It's a dangerous place to fulfill a contractual obligation). These are not humanitarian organizations. These are professionals, and they are there because of the need to rebuild, which is due entirely to the illegal invasion and occupation of the formerly-sovereign nation of Iraq, which was instigated by your people, Corneliu.

They are profiting greatly from the swath of death and destruction brought on by the actions of your leaders, Corneliu. Leaders of a foreign power, from another part of the world. And while these Halliburton-selected professionals go about the task of 'turning everything back on' (though it's more complex than that, and you know it, you're just being simplistic for other reasons), while these highly-paid foreign workers set to the task of rebuilding, talented, professional Iraqis are allowed to do what? Queue for food and water rations? Get detained and tortured? What?

The contractors working Iraq are two steps below the scabs who cross picket-lines. No pity for 'em. Period.

So you see, its not easy being a leader.

Doesn't have to be.

Yep - aside from the oppression and the fear that you might "disappear" in the middle of the night a dictatorship can be a quite pleasant and safe place to live. And looking at the number of people that bothers to turn up during elections in "the free world" a significant portion does not really care about having the freedom to vote anyway...

*turns his nation in a psychotic dictatorship for the good of the people*

I said nothing about freedoms. I was talking about running water, power and lights, three things that the glorious liberators of Iraq have so far failed to provide for anyone but themselves.

No, they aren't there to help the Iraqi people. Not one of them.
I really can't see why you'd weaken your position like that..?
Still talking about all of them, including the independant constructors?

So the people that are trying to restore power and water are profiteering? :rolleyes: The people that are trying to turn those things back on are getting killed. So how are these people that are turning these things back on profiteering? They are trying to help the Iraqi people!
:rolleyes: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: All the security forces guarding these "reconstruction" companies are privately owned, so the military and U.S. government has no say on how they can behave and the companies don't get the same information that the military does thus making their job incoherent and uninformed. The reconstruction companies (all seem to be systeriously tied to Halliburton) are continuously overcharging the government and they don't keep track of their actual expenses. True they are helping the Iraqis, but then you must look at the conditions they are doing it under. I don't mean the dangerous insurgency, I mean the luxurious camps with three full meals a day and three flavors of ice cream with multiple toppings. One of the main reconstruction bases in Iraq, Anaconda, is guarded by the U.S. military and the supplies that the base requires is extensive. The more flavors of ice cream the base recieves and the more luxury items it gets, the more the truck drivers' and security forces' lives are put in harm's way. So, in a sense, Halliburton is killing American soldiers, and its own truckdrivers while overcharging the Pentagon for "rebuilding" efforts. That is very well known and accepted by the Administration, that Halliburton, Dick Cheney's company, continusously overcharged the Pentagon and continues to do so.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the Gitmo Diet:

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/GTMO-menu.pdf

I said nothing about freedoms. I was talking about running water, power and lights, three things that the glorious liberators of Iraq have so far failed to provide for anyone but themselves.

it is no longer necessary for the US to provide these things. That's what the Iraqi Government is supposed to do.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the Gitmo Diet:

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/GTMO-menu.pdf
Come on? not even a scan of something? The propagandist bullshit can do better than that

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the Gitmo Diet:

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/GTMO-menu.pdf
blach blach yuck. Seems like something from the Finnish school menus from the 80's. *shivers*

EDIT: I don't mean I thought it was torture (or this is), it just felt like it at the time.

it is no longer necessary for the US to provide these things. That's what the Iraqi Government is supposed to do.

So the US government can wash it's hands of everything now? No moral duty at all? I support Bush staying in Iraq, it's the only viable option but it seems that there is a criminal waste of Iraqi personnel who could help the reconstruction.

I really can't see why you'd weaken your position like that..?
Still talking about all of them, including the independant constructors?

Yes. They are profiting from human suffering. They are terrible, terrible people.

So the US government can wash it's hands of everything now? No moral duty at all? I support Bush staying in Iraq, it's the only viable option but it seems that there is a criminal waste of Iraqi personnel who could help the reconstruction.

did i say "wash of everything"? no. i said it's not the US's responsibility to provide power/water/gas because the Iraqi's have a new government that is supposed to do this. The US, and coalition, is there for security reasons.

Yes. They are profiting from human suffering. They are terrible, terrible people.

Now you have officially lost all credibility because that is so false it isn't even funny.

Mods please don't lock this thread till we see what happens post-speech.

did i say "wash of everything"? no. i said it's not the US's responsibility to provide power/water/gas because the Iraqi's have a new government that is supposed to do this. The US, and coalition, is there for security reasons.

And the US could not, with it's wealth of expertise get this going in the several months before the government took 'power' (seeing as it doesn''t even have a constitution yet I wouldn't give it the title of government but I'll keep it simple)

it is no longer necessary for the US to provide these things. That's what the Iraqi Government is supposed to do.
That's what they're supposed to do but they can't because they're young and weak. Iraq is between infancy and childhood. It has just ended its religous/economic/ethnic repression and thrown off the yoke of its despot/king/ayatollah through bloody/bloodless war/coup/voluntary exile/invasion by uninvited foreign power. They've chosen they're leader but their democracy is not up and running. They still haven't achieved any of the childhood milestones one looks for: First war; writing national anthem about that war; collecting taxes all by themselves, like a big country. Iraq hasn't learned to walk yet and still needs to be breast fed. Do you really expect him to be able to provide food for himself and get a job to make money?

did i say "wash of everything"? no. i said it's not the US's responsibility to provide power/water/gas because the Iraqi's have a new government that is supposed to do this. The US, and coalition, is there for security reasons.

You are correct. We are there for security reasons and if the terrorists stop kidnapping and blowing powerplants and water systems to high heaven, they would have all of this.

Ihatevacations']Come on? not even a scan of something? The propagandist bullshit can do better than that

okay, they get at least one slice of whole wheat bread seemingly every day.

one difference i notice between their diet and mine:

they eat a lot less meat and a lot more vegetables/fruits than I do. hehe

Now you have officially lost all credibility because that is so false it isn't even funny.

Mods please don't lock this thread till we see what happens post-speech.

I was never trying to be funny. I was trying to be dead serious.

Why would the mods lock this thread? I mean, apart from your earlier request to do so? Because I called the contractors terrible, terrible people?

Give me a break.

Yes. They are profiting from human suffering. They are terrible, terrible people.
Allright. Got that. And independent constructors, to you, are the ones working under the watchful eye of USA, right? So no sense, really, in saying independent 'constructors' as Margaret Hassan didn't really profit from human suffering. Please set your goalposts as to "no independent constructor never thought of the Iraqi people". I try to shoot.

And the US could not, with it's wealth of expertise get this going in the several months before the government took 'power' (seeing as it doesn''t even have a constitution yet I wouldn't give it the title of government but I'll keep it simple)

you make it sound like a walk in the park: "o, in several months the US should have everything running" c'mon man, you should know it's not as easy as that. as Achtung 45 said, it's very difficult to get a system in place. Especially when you're being sabatoged.

That's what they're supposed to do but they can't because they're young and weak. Iraq is between infancy and childhood. It has just ended its religous/economic/ethnic repression and thrown off the yoke of its despot/king/ayatollah through bloody/bloodless war/coup/voluntary exile/invasion by uninvited foreign power. They've chosen they're leader but their democracy is not up and running. They still haven't achieved any of the childhood milestones one looks for: First war; writing national anthem about that war; collecting taxes all by themselves, like a big country. Iraq hasn't learned to walk yet and still needs to be breast fed. Do you really expect him to be able to provide food for himself and get a job to make money?

I didn't say it was going to be easy for the Iraqi gov't, just said it was their responsibility. Right now, their highest priority should be getting rid of the insurgents and getting these basic necessities to the people. I know it's a bit of armchair quarterbacking, but eh. I wouldn't be surprised to see their national anthem to be about pulling out of this chaos they're in now.

Do you really expect him to be able to provide food for himself and get a job to make money?

They were able to THAT quite well before, under the old system... I even wonder if the average standard of living could have even been higher than that of the USA if Saddams regime had wanted that. You can say a lot of nasty things about dictatorships, but they can be very efficient.

you make it sound like a walk in the park: "o, in several months the US should have everything running" c'mon man, you should know it's not as easy as that. as Achtung 45 said, it's very difficult to get a system in place. Especially when you're being sabatoged.
Yeah, and too bad the Administration didn't have the foresight to realize it won't be something where you launch some hundred Tomahawk cruise missiles then march a shitload of tanks to Baghdad and then we leave in a little bit after everyone there kisses our asses for "liberating" them.

Because I'm right? Notice how its the liberals that are cracking the jokes and saying its propaganda before Bush even speaks?


This is called 'Observing prescedence'.
Propaganda has been that case in all his speeches.


My problem with Bush -

1. He's entirely too conservative for my tastes.

2. He's left us in Iraq too long, and where the heck is Bin Laden, remember? Our first target?

3. He keeps trying to rule America in a 'Moral' fashion. His. Sorry, his morals are not my morals, and this is my country too. Morality and Legislation only have mutant children when in bed together.

Can we have at least one thread of serious discussion without pity ass insults and jokes?

uhh....how about no.

Yeah, and too bad the Administration didn't have the foresight to realize it won't be something where you launch some hundred Tomahawk cruise missiles then march a shitload of tanks to Baghdad and then we leave in a little bit after everyone there kisses our asses for "liberating" them.

most of them -- vast, vast majority -- do appreciate their liberation.

it's the 20% Sunni minority -- and certainly not all Sunnis are in on the insurgency -- who don't like the newfound freedom.

it's those baqstards who need to be stopped so that the forward-looking iraqis can get on with life in a dictator-less regime.

most of them -- vast, vast majority -- do appreciate their liberation.

it's the 20% Sunni minority -- and certainly not all Sunnis are in on the insurgency -- who don't like the newfound freedom.

it's those baqstards who need to be stopped so that the forward-looking iraqis can get on with life in a dictator-less regime.

Proof from a source more credible than Faux News?

Yeah, and too bad the Administration didn't have the foresight to realize it won't be something where you launch some hundred Tomahawk cruise missiles then march a shitload of tanks to Baghdad and then we leave in a little bit after everyone there kisses our asses for "liberating" them.

and too bad that people who thought it was going to be that easy. I wasn't disillusioned into thinking it would be that simple, why are the majority of the people? (sorry for the long delay in response, had to help a doctor with an IT problem)

*edit*who says the Administration didn't have that foresight? did they say they were going to be in and out in weeks or months?

most of them -- vast, vast majority -- do appreciate their liberation.

it's the 20% Sunni minority -- and certainly not all Sunnis are in on the insurgency -- who don't like the newfound freedom.

it's those baqstards who need to be stopped so that the forward-looking iraqis can get on with life in a dictator-less regime.
REALLY? gee, I thought it was everyone! 80% isn't a vast, vast majority, just like 51% isn't a mandate. And it's not that they don't like the newfound freedom, it's far from that. You're parroting the Administration's rhetoric here and I won't stand for it. So how do we go about getting rid of the Sunni insurgency? Or more practically, how do we get rid of their motive to use blow themselves up? Ceratainly not by the method that we're doing it now. We are losing the war against them because they have knowledge of the land, they don't need a long ass supply line to keep going or one that we can cut off, they have resources that are effective enough to make a stand. True, many Iraqis love the American invasion, but there are many still who loathe it. The countless thousands who have died as a result of precision bombing and the impending fight with the insurgency.

We know already, that many in the insurgency are foreign, not Iraqi. This tells us that the Sunnis are in it for the long run, they aren't looking ahead to be done in four or five years, but four or five generations. They have much to lose and much to gain. Such as their way of life. We are stuck in this perpetual war, and we are fighting it in the worst possible way. Why the fuck did we kick over this can of worms anyway? We'll never know.

REALLY? gee, I thought it was everyone! 80% isn't a vast, vast majority...

80% of 1,000,000 is 800,000. if that's not a vast majority i don't know what is.

and as far as the insurgency, most of it's coming from saudi arabia (wouldn't say vast majority, because it's only 55%, per NBC). Stop them from coming to Iraq, and you stop a majority of suicide attackers.

*edit* okay, the part about i typed about insurgency is a bit redundant, since you already acknowledged it in your post. Do we have another israeli/palestinian conflict on our hands?

Somebody please hand him a bag of pretzels while he's on live TV saying "Have one!" with a big :D

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/bush.jpg

(Please do not take offense, even if you are GWB, it is only intended as a joke!)

*edit*who says the Administration didn't have that foresight? did they say they were going to be in and out in weeks or months?

Rumsfeld.

"I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today will last five days, five weeks or five months, but it won't last any longer than that."

Actually I dont. I listen to what other people have to say and when they are wrong, I let them know that they are wrong. When I do though, I get attacked. People need to stop attack other posters for ideas. It is their ideas and their opinions. No need to rail on someone because of it. I see that too many times on this thread and it is usually the liberals that do it.



:rolleyes:


I see a lot of attacks from the liberal corner when they are disagreed with. When people disagreed with you, you picked the ones that spoke their disagreements as jokes or gross exaggerations. You politely coddled those few cynical peoople for doing so. You did not chastise people for merely disagreeing.

And I have to give the liberals here some credit - they have been pretty polite too with their disagreement with your displeasure over their "thoughts".

And I have said this before in other threads and it still stands here. I do not see conservatives conducting personal attacks against liberals when they disagree with them. The reverse is far from true, and I see Corneliu has seen it too with attacks on HIM/HER in other threads.

The bitter name calling and angry, absurd exaggerations.

The liberals in this thread have thus far surprised me with their civility. The exaggerations are still here, but no vindictive posts yet.

Kudos.

...As someone else said, if one said is talking and the other side doesn't like it, its propaganda. It don't matter if its the Republicans, Democrats, socialists, independants, greens and what not.

No, Propaganda is giving only one side of a story, without mentioning the other side(s), or, and belittling or demeaning the other(s).

As an individual, or as the representative of a group, I can dislike anything another person/group says, but that doesn't make it propaganda. It most likely is propaganda, but not necessarily.

If something wasn't propaganda it would give only facts, without establishing an opinion that one side is superior to the other. You rarely see this anymore.

It's still true though, that there would be no politics without propaganda.

(Yes, I know this comment is very late in the discussion)

No WMDs, no clear and present danger to our security. Not the real front line on terror like Saudi Arabia should be. Not enough troops deployed, not enough reinforcements enlisting. Over 1700 dead, 12,000 and up wounded 250 billion spent and counting. Plenty tax cuts for the rich, and protection for comatose invalids. What a top notch success "W" has been for our nation. Cannot wait til we start dropping bombs on Syria and Iran. Let the lame duch warmonger countdown begin.


1700 deaths is one of the lowest casualty counts of any modern war. Where were people like you when so many thousands of people died in the two world wars?

No, they aren't there to help the Iraqi people. Not one of them.


With all due respect, that is an ignorant assessment. That's like saying all Liberals are mentally children. Your catch-all "not one of them" is as absurd a generalization as grouping all people from one political ideal into one category.

Such an angry, thoughless generalization lends itself to stereotyping liberals. And stereotyping ANY political base is something I heartily disagree with doing.

With all due respect, that is an ignorant assessment. That's like saying all Liberals are mentally children. Your catch-all "not one of them" is as absurd a generalization as grouping all people from one political ideal into one category.

Such an angry, thoughless generalization lends itself to stereotyping liberals. And stereotyping ANY political base is something I heartily disagree with doing.

Well sorry if my stated opinion puts your nose out of joint, but I'm sticking to it. I wouldn't work as a scab labourer, and I wouldn't work as a contractor in Iraq. I hold both groups in utter contempt.

It's got nothing to do with perceptions of 'liberality'. Ask me what I think of clubbing baby seals, maybe you'll be in for more of a shock.

Ok i've spent a while now reading this whole thread and seeing the arguments people are making and i thought that i would add my views on the subject as i get the impression most of you are from the US. Now i know a bit about the war, i don't know what you've been fed on tv and radio in the US but i know whats been here in the UK and this is where my view comes from. It is not intended to offend or missrepresent, just my own view.

Personally speaking when the war broke out amid all the arguments over it's legality and ethical standpoint i was of the view that 'the end justifies the means'. But however the 'end' of sadam being removed from power became vastly overshadowed by the pollotics and backhanded nature of it all. By backhanded i mean the way that afganistan was used as a way to get into iraq, remember thats why we are in this situation, thats why the middle east is close to breaking point with the west.

America is not a loved country in the world, maybe not even in it's own continent, and to me this seems to be because it is a somewhat 'selfish' country. Everything seems to be 'how can we help everyone and make ourselves look good?' i'll start with 9/11.

Whenever somebody mentions 9/11 and the events of that day they always seem to focus on the twin towers, now i'm not saying this is wrong, they are the most recogniseable of the three incidents that happened, and in terms of stiring emotion then a simple picture of the planes can still bring me to a standstill, but very little is said of the plane that hit the pentagon, or the plane who's highjackers were overpowered and the passengers made the plane crash early to save the lives of who knows how many people. And it is also portrayed as a great american loss, true it was, but it was also a worldwide loss. There were reports of 60 different nations losing members of their country in the attack but still america focuses on itself, (and yes i get the argument that they lost more, i don't argue that). After the attacks there was obvious calls from all over the world to bring the people to justice who organised this, and rightly so, and because of such the war in afganistan came about. A noble war, a war with a common goal throughout the globe, to bring international terrorism on a grand scale to an end. However after bin laden escaped to wherever it all gets clouded. To try to then go after iraq on the back of this was a mistake. I don't know about america but few poeple in europe bought the idea that bin laden and sadam were in cahoots. At the time of all this the england soccer manager was found out to be having 'relations' with two women, a political comedy program compared these two women with bin laden and sadam (they both can't stand each other, but like f*cking the same guy), it seemed well put.

So here was america trying to fight two wars against two regimes that it helped arm train and grow as nations. The taliban agianst the russians, and the iraqis against iran. At the time it was look how america is making the world better, but now it's look how bad these people are. After sadam had gone into hiding george bush was asked if he knew where bin laden was hiding, his reply was scary. 'i don't really care where he is, he's not my concern right now' NOT YOUR CONCERN!!!!!! this was the guy behined the biggest attack on america since pearl harbour and he doesn't care where he is, he's not looking for him! he doesn't want to get him as soon as possible to stop another attack! This made america go down in peoples oppinions as they seemed to have taken a great big shite on everyone who died on 9/11n to finish off what daddy couldn't do.

And now the war in iraq is 'over' but america cant leave as it's not a stable country, in my opinion it will never be a stable country. There will always be infighting between the different tribes of iraq and one joint goverment for the whole of iraq is little more than a pipe dream. This is where leaders such as sadam were a good thing. Now don't get me wrong, i'm not saying he was a good guy, far from it, but it is only with strong iron grip leaders that you could control a nation as large and diverse as iraq without it falling apart every time someone stole a goat. In many ways iraq is worse off now than before, in many ways it is a hell of a lot better than before as well, but the fact remains its in a mess and america has to try and sort it out.

Over here it's starting to be called america's second vietnam, people are starting to think that america will leave iraq high and dry due to pressure to bring the troops home. What america should do is stop trying to play the hero and admit they got some aspects of it wrong, go to the UN, and ask for help. Yes the UN aren't great but at least then all nations would be involved and things might move on a bit. Then the UK can stop being bush's lap dog and think for ourselves.

I know this has been long and somewhat boring, and i know i may have lost my way in places (my daughter keeps waking up, she's 1, i worry about her future) and i know thast some are going to have something to say about this. But this is kinda my view on bush and the war.

An aufull lot said about nothing

Care to prove such statements?



Your loss.




With all due respect to you, Dobbsworld does not have to prove that Bush spouts propagana, because that is his opinion even if he tries to represent that as fact. It's either an exaggeration or an opinion - take your pick but either way, he doesn't have to prove it.

He doesn't have to watch Bush tonight either and I respect his right not to.

Well sorry if my stated opinion puts your nose out of joint, but I'm sticking to it. I wouldn't work as a scab labourer, and I wouldn't work as a contractor in Iraq. I hold both groups in utter contempt.

It's got nothing to do with perceptions of 'liberality'. Ask me what I think of clubbing baby seals, maybe you'll be in for more of a shock.


I'm not a tit for tat person so I don't get the baby seal remark.

And since you called your previous post your "stated opinion" in this one, I apologize for my earlier characterization.

All I will say to you is that I agree to disagree with you.

Well put Dodgetopia. Unfortunately it's a little hard to read, capitals at the start of sentences and a bit more paragraphing would make that a lot easier to read.

I'm not a tit for tat person so I don't get the baby seal remark.

And since you called your previous post your "stated opinion" in this one, I apologize for my earlier characterization.

All I will say to you is that I agree to disagree with you.

I don't think you have anything to apologize for, actually. You think I'm generalizing to too great an extent, and on one level, I'll concede the point. But scabbing, and IMO, contracted labouring in Iraq, are ethical 180s from where I stand firmly.

No-one has a right to unfettered profiteering. No-one. Not even Halliburton and all those who serve her.

cheers wurz
I was kinda just impulse writing, whatever came into my head, coupled with screaming child!!!!

Have taken note on what you said and made the changes, hope thats better

Lots!

I like you :fluffle:

This is called 'Observing prescedence'.
Propaganda has been that case in all his speeches.

Yeah, but that's any politician. Especially Presidents. :(

My problem with Bush -

1. He's entirely too conservative for my tastes.
Fair enough.

2. He's left us in Iraq too long, and where the heck is Bin Laden, remember? Our first target?

We've only been in Iraq for 2 years. We'll be there at least 2-5 more years. And after that, we'll have bases in Iraq for at least 15.
I hate to say it, but for what's been done (toppling two governments at a cost of less than 2000 soldiers) when compared to "foreign adventures" over the past 200 years is a minor miracle. I'm not saying he's done everything right. I'm not saying he's done even most things right. But one must give him his due. The whole Middle East has been on the US's back burner for decades, and can politely be called a mess. I'm amazed it's going this well.

Bin Laden is almost certainly in either Syria or Pakistan.

3. He keeps trying to rule America in a 'Moral' fashion. His. Sorry, his morals are not my morals, and this is my country too. Morality and Legislation only have mutant children when in bed together.

To say they are not your morals is fine. But Clinton's weren't other people's morals. Nor were any other Prez, ever. It's just part and parcel of the system.

Sample of the speech:

"Iraq 9/11. Iraq 9/11. Iraq 9/11. We must not forget the lessons of 9/11. We must stay the coarse in Iraq. On 9/11 we showed our resolve. We should not cave to the terrorists. Iraq is a key battle in the war on terror. If we quit in Iraq everything we faught for after 9/11 will be lost. A winner never quits and a quitter never wins. Iraq 9/11. Iraq 9/11. Iraq 9/11."

(fine print: This administration is not saying that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11, Osama Bin Laden, or Al Qaeda. But if you want to make that connection yourself, please go ahead.)

Well sorry if my stated opinion puts your nose out of joint, but I'm sticking to it. I wouldn't work as a scab labourer, and I wouldn't work as a contractor in Iraq. I hold both groups in utter contempt.

It's got nothing to do with perceptions of 'liberality'. Ask me what I think of clubbing baby seals, maybe you'll be in for more of a shock.

(thank goodness nobody read before the edit... hehe)

If union workers don't want "scabs" taking their jobs, there's a simple solution:

stay on the freaking job

Sample of the speech:

"Iraq 9/11. Iraq 9/11. Iraq 9/11. We must not forget the lessons of 9/11. We must stay the coarse in Iraq. On 9/11 we showed our resolve. We should not cave to the terrorists. Iraq is a key battle in the war on terror. If we quit in Iraq everything we faught for after 9/11 will be lost. A winner never quits and a quitter never wins. Iraq 9/11. Iraq 9/11. Iraq 9/11."

(fine print: Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, Osama Bin Laden, or Al Qaeda)

And you know what? We cannot surrender to the likes of Zarqawi (mentioned in the speech) nor surrender to the demands of Osama Bin Laden (also mentioned in the speech) Haven't heard of anything that says that he's making a Iraq-Al Qaeda connection.

I just heard of a sample portion. I need to hear it with the rest of the speech. That is why I hate it when samples are released before hand. Its hard to put it what is released into context without the rest of the speech.

The world envies USA...
... ... that's why they say the things they do..!


Maybe so. Okay.

Couple of hours to that Bush speech, right?

If I may, I try to explain something.

GWB's foreign policy doesn't resonate here. Finns are usually as pro-America as you can get, cos of our history. When we were asked: "The USA does right what comes to its foreign policy, and needs our support"... 2% said 'I fully agree'. 5% said 'we partially agree'...

That's LOW, even when compared internationally. What is the reason?

Two themes of the current American foreign policy. Hegemonism and messianism.

Hegemonism is a situation one power is powerful enough where nobody can't counter it.

Messianism is the 'reason' for hegemony. "To Bring freedom and democracy to all peoples. Whatever it takes"



To peoples, like Finns, understanding hegemony can be hard. The only thing we know about hegemonies is our history: "We will fight to the last finn" (Sweden), or "We will show them how live" (Russia). The hegemons are those who want something from us, they want our blood, or our sacrifice. They don't care about us.



Is it a wonder we give only 2% of a wote to GWB?

We have been trained to trust nobody but ourselves.



There is going to be ONE HELL OF A SPEACH needed to make us 'Europeans' trust anybody else than ourselves.

Bush's hegemonial mission could be some grand strategy that could surpass 'realism' though.

*drunk, s'posed to post more* (or less)

have a good night, and do watch the speech... so if he's misquoted (or his quotes are taken out of context), you'll know better when you read your morning paper.

have a good night, and do watch the speech... so if he's misquoted (or his quotes are taken out of context), you'll know better when you read your morning paper.

So very true Frangland. Not to mention, the speech itself will be available to download.

have a good night, and do watch the speech... so if he's misquoted (or his quotes are taken out of context), you'll know better when you read your morning paper.
and also so you can compare what he really says with what the White House censors afterwards.

Well, having just watched the season finale of 'Doctor Who' rather than tuning in to Mr. Bush's monologue, I can report feeling a world of good for having done so.

It is a rare thing for a television program to bring tears to my eyes, but I was sobbing for most of it, I don't mind telling you. When it was all over, I turned to my mate and said, 'That...this show...this is the best television series I've seen in...since...well. Huh. This is the best series that I've...ever seen.'

And I was still sobbing.

But don't think I was just ignoring Mr. Bush, that's simply not so. The crucial vote on same-sex marriages is being held (or was just held, lemme check - yep, was held...oh we won, nice way to end the day, btw) tonight, and I avoided the coverage of that, too.

Hmm, I must make some threads and touch base on some of these things. Well, hope the speech was entertaining, I'm sure we'll all be hearing all about it for the next little while. Good luck, and good night.

Sample of the speech:

"Iraq 9/11. Iraq 9/11. Iraq 9/11. We must not forget the lessons of 9/11. We must stay the coarse in Iraq. On 9/11 we showed our resolve. We should not cave to the terrorists. Iraq is a key battle in the war on terror. If we quit in Iraq everything we faught for after 9/11 will be lost. A winner never quits and a quitter never wins. Iraq 9/11. Iraq 9/11. Iraq 9/11."

(fine print: This administration is not saying that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11, Osama Bin Laden, or Al Qaeda. But if you want to make that connection yourself, please go ahead.)

Bush idiot. Bush idiot. Bush idiot.

(Repeat eight hundred times)

I'm definitely not saying Bush is an idiot, but I will allow the people I am brainwashing on national TV to make that connection themselves with no help from me.

Brilliant.

Didn't really watch it live (looking forward to get it tomorrow). He connected 9/11 with Iraq?!? Really? You are shitting me, He is smarter than that...

Didn't really watch it live (looking forward to get it tomorrow). He connected 9/11 with Iraq?!? Really? You are shitting me, He is smarter than that...

No he didn't do that Bunnyducks. Not in the least.

What he did say, and something that really does make sense, "When the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down."

NATO is establishing a military academy to train the next generation of Iraqi officers. The Security forces are beginning to do missions on their own without our support.

It was rather a great speech. He kept it short and straight to the point.

No he didn't do that Bunnyducks. Not in the least.

What he did say, and something that really does make sense, "When the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down."

NATO is establishing a military academy to train the next generation of Iraqi officers. The Security forces are beginning to do missions on their own without our support.

It was rather a great speech. He kept it short and straight to the point.

Agreed. His speech was as much about how much America wants Iraq to be safe thanks to her own forces as about encouraging support of the war itself.

Can we have at least one thread of serious discussion without pity ass insults and jokes?

NEVER! We're on the internets!

Courtesy dies here. :D :sniper:

"Iraq 9/11. Iraq 9/11. Iraq 9/11.
So basically, Bush is reciting some Hare Krishna mantra?

So basically, Bush is reciting some Hare Krishna mantra?

Nope. Not once did he equate Saddam with 9/11. Not once in his entire speech.

Nope. Not once did he equate Saddam with 9/11. Not once in his entire speech.
Who said that? I didn't say that.

Who said that? I didn't say that.

Sorry! Just sounded that way to me! :D

My apologies.

Proof from a source more credible than Faux News?


How about info from someone who is actually there? 20% is about right, most of the new miority do not hate us. Most of the hate is perpetuated througha school of thought(hate) and fueled by foreign guys with nothing better to do.

Rumsfeld.

"I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today will last five days, five weeks or five months, but it won't last any longer than that."

ah, in that case, rumsfeld is an idiot.

Stop taking Rumsfeld's quotes out of context. He was talking about the invasion itself.

Stop taking Rumsfeld's quotes out of context. He was talking about the invasion itself.

Which lasted less than a month. March 19, 2003 to April 9, 2003. Not bad!

Which lasted less than a month. March 19, 2003 to April 9, 2003. Not bad!
It was that fast because 1) the American military can fight that type of conventional war where there is land to be gained, 2) because Iraq had a horrible military, and most importantly 3) many of the militants knew they had a better chance if they stayed in the cities and waited for the American troops and private companies to rebuild the country.

Stop taking Rumsfeld's quotes out of context. He was talking about the invasion itself.
Huh. I must have been confused about the definition of the word 'is'...

bush amy not of said there was a connection between bin laden and iraq last night, but he has in the past. that was his reasoning for going in after afganistan.

besides where does bush get off telling all these countries to get rid of all there big missiles when he wont even think about unplugging the machines that control americas, never mind getting rid of them.

if america want places like china and korea to see they are dedicated to peace and start the decomisioning of wmd's then they should get rid of some (not all) of their own first/as well

hey wurtz! whats all this :fluffle: about?

:rolleyes:

To be honest, I had to keep a bag close to me during his speech, just in case I had to puke. Despite all the evidence that he was wrong, he keeps trying to tie Iraq to 9/11. I think he's went to that well once too often and it isn't going to work for him anymore. People are tired of him exploiting 9/11 for political gain, myself included. Note how he said "terrorists" instead of "insurgents" nice try Bushy!

Also, his argument that if we don't fight them there, we'd have to fight them here just does not hold water. He doesn't seem to understand that Muslims stick together, apparently we are allowed to have allies, but Iraq is not. If jihads's wanted to come to America they will still come whether they are fighting in Iraq or not. His argument is weak at best. It certainly didn't change my mind one bit and I doubt it will of changed many minds, perhaps a few, but I doubt it.

I think the senate and congressional races will be very telling in 2006. We shall see if his party suffers for the sins of the administration or not. I'm going to guess they will.

Just remember change is inevitable. That's not to say you should let apathy creep in - just that change must and will come.

Make it a change for the better, folks. You'll be happier for it.

Despite all the evidence that he was wrong, he keeps trying to tie Iraq to 9/11.

Care to show me where in the speech he tried to do that? Oh wait, he didn't try that in this speech. Next?

I think he's went to that well once too often and it isn't going to work for him anymore. People are tired of him exploiting 9/11 for political gain, myself included. Note how he said "terrorists" instead of "insurgents" nice try Bushy!

And they aren't terrorists when they blow up civilians? They aren't terrorists when they behead someone? I'm glad that I am not of the same school of thought as you.

Also, his argument that if we don't fight them there, we'd have to fight them here just does not hold water.

Accurate enough. THey are being driven there because we are their. They are trying to drive us out of there with suicide bombers and they aren't succeeding. So why doesn't it hold water?

He doesn't seem to understand that Muslims stick together, apparently we are allowed to have allies, but Iraq is not.

USA is an Iraqi ally. Are you talking about the terrorists? No they shouldn't have allies. As for muslims sticking together, I don't see every muslim blowing themselves up so I guess they dont. BTW, sunnis are going to be a part of the political process. Are you upset that they are?

If jihads's wanted to come to America they will still come whether they are fighting in Iraq or not. His argument is weak at best. It certainly didn't change my mind one bit and I doubt it will of changed many minds, perhaps a few, but I doubt it.

Won't change the minds of liberals but that is to be expected. Frankly, I think his speech is spot on. My mom, who is as politically independent as they come, was also impressed by the speech and she is not easily impressed.

I think the senate and congressional races will be very telling in 2006.

Republicans will retain control of both houses of Congress. My prediction.

We shall see if his party suffers for the sins of the administration or not. I'm going to guess they will.

I'm guessing not.

Care to show me where in the speech he tried to do that? Oh wait, he didn't try that in this speech. Next?



" After September the 11th, I made a commitment to the American people: This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy.

Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war."

You were saying? Or I know, maybe Iraq being part of the same 'war' inspired by 9/11 is just coincidence.

And they aren't terrorists when they blow up civilians? They aren't terrorists when they behead someone? I'm glad that I am not of the same school of thought as you.

Nope a terrorist is not an insurgent. If blowing up civilians makes you a terrorist, our air force is a terrorist agency.

There is more to the definition of terrorist than "blowing up civilians" or even "beheading someone."


Accurate enough. THey are being driven there because we are their. They are trying to drive us out of there with suicide bombers and they aren't succeeding. So why doesn't it hold water?

Uh because "trying to drive us out with suicide bombers" is not the same as "we'll have to fight them here in the US?"

How about how DOES it hold water?

USA is an Iraqi ally.

And Vichy was Germany's ally.

Frankly, I think his speech is spot on. My mom, who is as politically independent as they come, was also impressed by the speech and she is not easily impressed.

Coming from you I doubt your mother is as politically independent as you claim.

Republicans will retain control of both houses of Congress. My prediction.

On that you're undoubtedly correct.

" After September the 11th, I made a commitment to the American people: This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy.

Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war."

You were saying? Or I know, maybe Iraq being part of the same 'war' inspired by 9/11 is just coincidence.

Nice quote. Now tell me how it proves what the liberals are saying? I guess you haven't noticed the fact that there are terrorist attacks every day? No I guess you haven't seen that. Iraq has become the latest battlefield in the War on Terror. All I have to do is read the front page of the newspaper or watch the news to be reminded of that fact.

Nope a terrorist is not an insurgent. If blowing up civilians makes you a terrorist, our air force is a terrorist agency.

I think you have the wrong definition of a terrorist. We don't do it on purpose. No Technology is perfect. However, these murderous thugs are doing it on purpose! :rolleyes: I also notice that you missed the beheadings part.

There is more to the definition of terrorist than "blowing up civilians" or even "beheading someone."

I take it back. You did catch it. However, civilians are getting killed on purpose.

Uh because "trying to drive us out with suicide bombers" is not the same as "we'll have to fight them here in the US?"

Oh brother. They are trying to drive us out of Iraq with suicide bombers. It won't work what so ever. We're not leaving until Iraq is able to take care of itself. "When Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."

How about how DOES it hold water?

:rolleyes:

And Vichy was Germany's ally.

Yea and Vichy France didn't last long did it?

Coming from you I doubt your mother is as politically independent as you claim.

Trust me. She doesn't like politics at all. She doesn't even vote because of all the crap that both sides spew.

On that you're undoubtedly correct.

The only reason being that Howard Dean has pissed off alot of people, both republican and democrat alike.

" After September the 11th, I made a commitment to the American people: This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy.

Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war."

You were saying? Or I know, maybe Iraq being part of the same 'war' inspired by 9/11 is just coincidence.

Thank you, I was just about to get that quote for Corneliu.. it was in fact his last line of the speech!. Thanks!

9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11.
Bla bla bla Bla bla bla Bla bla bla Bla bla bla Bla bla bla Bla bla bla Bla bla bla Bla bla bla Bla bla bla Bla bla bla Bla bla bla Bla bla bla Bla bla bla Bla bla bla Bla bla.

That's all he said. :p

Nice quote. Now tell me how it proves what the liberals are saying? I guess you haven't noticed the fact that there are terrorist attacks every day? No I guess you haven't seen that. Iraq has become the latest battlefield in the War on Terror. All I have to do is read the front page of the newspaper or watch the news to be reminded of that fact.

If so, it is only because we've invaded Iraq and "terrorism," as a form of warfare, is the only viable method of combating that open to these 'insurgents.' And dragging up the ghost of 9/11 again is just fucking sick. There's NO connection so why bring it up? As a cheap shot to get people to emotionally connect Iraq and 9/11 now that reason is gone. It'll work, but then that doesn't make it right.



I think you have the wrong definition of a terrorist. We don't do it on purpose. No Technology is perfect. However, these murderous thugs are doing it on purpose! :rolleyes: I also notice that you missed the beheadings part.

Hey, you were the one who loosely seemed to define terrorist as "blowing up civilians and beheading people." What definition are you actually using then? Doing it on purpose? I suppose we're just ACCIDENTALLY dropping bombs. Oops!


Oh brother. They are trying to drive us out of Iraq with suicide bombers. It won't work what so ever. We're not leaving until Iraq is able to take care of itself. "When Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."

And of course we get to decide whether Iraqis are standing up. This is nothing more than saying, "we'll stay there as long as our puppet government can't stand without our support." You keep saying "Iraq" here but what you mean is our puppet government.

None of this has anything to do with "fighting them here" as in the US. Are you willing to accept that part as bullshit yet, or do you still think insurgents and suicide bombers are going to be roaming US streets after a pull-out?


Trust me. She doesn't like politics at all. She doesn't even vote because of all the crap that both sides spew.

That doesn't mean she's in any way politically independent. Lots of people don't like politics. And lots of people don't vote. They're not all 'independent,' they're just people who choose to avoid politics and waste their chance to exercise political power...

Republicans will retain control of both houses of Congress. My prediction.

Xanaz - We shall see if his party suffers for the sins of the administration or not. I'm going to guess they will.

Corneliu - I'm guessing not.


Lots of people predicted Kerry would beat Bush after the war was started and they were wrong. It always comes down to what the majority will vote for and the people upset by what they saw were a large minority. Large - but still significantly a minority.

I'll be curious to see if that changes, but I seriously doubt it will.

If so, it is only because we've invaded Iraq and "terrorism," as a form of warfare, is the only viable method of combating that open to these 'insurgents.' And dragging up the ghost of 9/11 again is just fucking sick. There's NO connection so why bring it up? As a cheap shot to get people to emotionally connect Iraq and 9/11 now that reason is gone. It'll work, but then that doesn't make it right.



It's been stated that the insurgents are a minority trying to prevent the wishes of the majority from coming to fruition. So yes, it is a war.

So you are saying the majority of the people in Iraq - those who want freedom - are on the wrong side of this conflict?

No, you let them know when you THINK they are wrong. I've watched you in threads for months and months. Let's get one thing clear: you argue based on rhetoric and personal belief only. Your posts are littered with "this is wrong because I believe it is" or "this is right because that is what I think". Your entire basis for your arguments for the flag-burning amendment was "because I think it should be illegal". You rarely, if ever, offer any kind of unbiased evidence to support your stances. You offer us your opinion and the opinions of people who believe the same things as you. That is why you get attacked. You get attacked because you have an extreme holier-than-thou attitude, and you continually tell people that your opinions are correct and theirs incorrect. Your arrogance is uncanny. The only reason that it is "liberals" that attack you more is because your attitude is frequently directed towards them.

And why do you roll your eyes at me?
Ummmmm.....you must be referring to Corny, and you nailed it perfectly.

Lots of people predicted Kerry would beat Bush after the war was started and they were wrong. It always comes down to what the majority will vote for and the people upset by what they saw were a large minority. Large - but still significantly a minority.

I'll be curious to see if that changes, but I seriously doubt it will.

Considering that the MAJORITY of Americans want us to stay in Iraq (according to an ABCNews poll) the Republican Party will retain control.

Ummmmm.....you must be referring to Corny, and you nailed it perfectly.

I couldn't agree more as well. We can't ALL be wrong!

It's been stated that the insurgents are a minority trying to prevent the wishes of the majority from coming to fruition. So yes, it is a war.


1. What does whether they are a minority or not have to do with anything?
2. I never said it wasn't war...


So you are saying the majority of the people in Iraq - those who want freedom - are on the wrong side of this conflict?

That's a loaded question and you [should] know it. No, I did not say that.

Considering that the MAJORITY of Americans want us to stay in Iraq (according to an ABCNews poll) the Republican Party will retain control.

They will retain control for that and a lot of other reasons.

1. What does whether they are a minority or not have to do with anything?
2. I never said it wasn't war...



That's a loaded question and you [should] know it. No, I did not say that.


I just wanted to see how you'd answer.

You obviously disagree with the war and I respect that.

The way you worded some of your criticisms made me curious and I wanted to see how you'd respond to - yes, I admit it - a loaded question. You criticized offensive actions by the US when Coneliu contrasted US efforts and methods against those of the insurgents and your responses looked like you were defending the CAUSE the insurgents were fighting, and not necessarily just their motivation to take action. I wanted to see if that was the case, and my guess is it wasn't.

They will retain control for that and a lot of other reasons.

Good point.

I just wanted to see how you'd answer.

You obviously disagree with the war and I respect that.

The way you worded some of your criticisms made me curious and I wanted to see how you'd respond to - yes, I admit it - a loaded question. You criticized offensive actions by the US when Coneliu contrasted US efforts and methods against those of the insurgents and your responses looked like you were defending the CAUSE the insurgents were fighting, and not necessarily just their motivation to take action. I wanted to see if that was the case, and my guess is it wasn't.

I don't disagree with the war - it was when we wound up staying to prop up a government after having gotten Saddam, essentially the occupation. In my mind the war we started and the objectives we had, we finished and we achieved. I'm sick of hearing the "if we leave someone like Saddam might seize control" argument too... because frankly, there will ALWAYS be that risk no matter what. It's like saving a woman from being raped, taking the guy to jail, and then kicking your feet up on the table and saying you'll stay there to help her against anyone LIKE that guy happens to show up.

Except it's not that simple an analogy, because we'd also wind up removing the woman's brain and replacing it with a computer program designed by us, and then when we press "AGREE" she says "YES! STAY FOREVER!" we hold that up as justification.

That's my take anyway.

I don't disagree with the war - it was when we wound up staying to prop up a government after having gotten Saddam, essentially the occupation. In my mind the war we started and the objectives we had, we finished and we achieved. I'm sick of hearing the "if we leave someone like Saddam might seize control" argument too... because frankly, there will ALWAYS be that risk no matter what. It's like saving a woman from being raped, taking the guy to jail, and then kicking your feet up on the table and saying you'll stay there to help her against anyone LIKE that guy happens to show up.

Except it's not that simple an analogy, because we'd also wind up removing the woman's brain and replacing it with a computer program designed by us, and then when we press "AGREE" she says "YES! STAY FOREVER!" we hold that up as justification.

That's my take anyway.


I understand your point. I merely disagree with it because my belief is that pulling out now would leave that country in shambles. That country doesn't have enough of a capability to stop a well armed and determined minority from eliminating a regime endorsed by the majority.

It is also my belief that sooner, rather than later, that country will be able to handle itself with the training programs we have in place to prepare its internal security forces for that responsibility.

I don't believe it was our intent to stay forever, and I don't think that Corneliu ever said it was either.

You are fully correct when you say the risk will always be there that the government might be overthrown by another radical. But by staying a little longer (not forever), we decrease that risk.

To be honest, I had to keep a bag close to me during his speech, just in case I had to puke. Despite all the evidence that he was wrong, he keeps trying to tie Iraq to 9/11.
He did no such thing.

After September the 11th, I made a commitment to the American people: This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy.

Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war.
Are you denying that Iraq is now the center of the war on terror? Who else is setting off bombs in crowded markets? Osama Bin Laden recognizes it as so. Al Zarqawi has recognized it as so. That's why terrorists are flocking to Iraq from all over the Middle East; from "Saudi Arabia and Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and others" as Bush put it.


Note how he said "terrorists" instead of "insurgents" nice try Bushy!
I guess you missed this bit of his speech:
Some of the violence you see in Iraq is being carried out by ruthless killers who are converging on Iraq to fight the advance of peace and freedom. Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia and Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and others. They are making common cause with criminal elements, Iraqi insurgents, and remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime who want to restore the old order.
Bush clearly recognizes that we're fighting different groups who have different motives. There are true insurgent Iraqis fighting the US invaders, but there are just as many foreign fighters just trying to spill American blood.

Nope. Not once did he equate Saddam with 9/11. Not once in his entire speech.
A Bush apologist through and through. Ever play connect the dots? Well try connecting the dots in Bush's speech:

Bush also said Iraq is a base for planning attacks on America and its allies, and that many insurgents share the same beliefs that inspired the attacks of September 11, 2001.

"Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania," Bush said.

If you can't see the implied connection, then you are not paying attention. If you do see the connection, then you are making apologies for Bush, and living in denial.

ABush also said Iraq is a base for planning attacks on America and its allies, and that many insurgents share the same beliefs that inspired the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Your really are brainwashed. This statement DOES NOT PROVE that he equated 9/11 terror attacks to Iraq. What he said was what he said. He stated that those that are in iraq ARE OF THE SAME BELIEF that inspired such attacks.... That is not equating the 9/11 attacks to Iraq. I suggest you stop trying to twist quotes.

"Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania," Bush said.

Again doesn't prove that he equated 9/11 terror attacks to Iraq. Your really need to adjust your listening and comprehension skills.

If you can't see the implied connection, then you are not paying attention. If you do see the connection, then you are making apologies for Bush, and living in denial.

Your the one in denial since apparently you don't understand the phrase SAME BELIEFS and Same Murderious IDEOLOGY! Get a clue CH.

Okay...and when does the voice of reason open up and say that the ONLY FUCKING REASON that there are terroristsi n Iraq now is because of the WAR in the FIRST GODDAMNED PLACE!?

Your really are brainwashed. This statement DOES NOT PROVE that he equated 9/11 terror attacks to Iraq. What he said was what he said. He stated that those that are in iraq ARE OF THE SAME BELIEF that inspired such attacks.... That is not equating the 9/11 attacks to Iraq. I suggest you stop trying to twist quotes.
Ahhh the Bush apologist suggests that it is I that is brainwashed. You can't see the trees for the forest? Have you ever heard of someone creating an allusion? All Bush is doing is perpetuating the allusion that he conjured up in 2001, you know, the one linking 9/11 with Saddam Hussein. He is just being a bit more subtle about it now. BTW, how does Bush know that those in Iraq "ARE OF THE SAME BELIEF that inspired such attacks"? Your answer should prove most enlightening.

Again doesn't prove that he equated 9/11 terror attacks to Iraq. Your really need to adjust your listening and comprehension skills.
I hear the faint chant as you type....Bush is right, Bush is always right, Bush never lies, Bush is right......

Come on now, it does not take rocket science to figure that Bush likes to use repetition to sell his propaganda. If he says it enough times, you will buy it and try and sell it to me. I am not buying today, thanks anyways.

Your the one in denial since apparently you don't understand the phrase SAME BELIEFS and Same Murderious IDEOLOGY! Get a clue CH.
I eagerly await your explanation about these "SAME BELIEFS". "Shock and Awe" is an okay procedure for right sizing the sovereign country of Iraq, but any Iraqi who tries to defend his country from these invaders are somehow "MURDEROUS" thugs? No, I think the clueless one would be you?

Considering that the MAJORITY of Americans want us to stay in Iraq (according to an ABCNews poll) the Republican Party will retain control.
That contrasts with this story, and poll results:

Poll: USA is losing patience on Iraq (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-12-poll_x.htm)

By Susan Page, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Nearly six in 10 Americans say the United States should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq, a new Gallup Poll finds, the most downbeat view of the war since it began in 2003.........

In the Gallup Poll, 56% say the Iraq war wasn't "worth it," essentially matching the high-water mark of 57% a month ago.

• Of those who say the war wasn't worth it, the top reasons cited are fraudulent claims and no weapons of mass destruction found; the number of people killed and wounded; and the belief that Iraq posed no threat to the United States.

BTW, how does Bush know that those in Iraq "ARE OF THE SAME BELIEF that inspired such attacks"? Your answer should prove most enlightening.
It's not that hard to figure out. Who's the most prominent insurgent leader in Iraq right now? Answer: Abu Musab al Zarqawi. The same Abu Musab al Zarqawi who voluntarily fought with the Taliban and Al Qaeda against the US in Afghanistan. It's safe to assume the terrorists in Iraq led by Zarqawi have the same beliefs as the terrorists who plowed planes in American buildings.


"Shock and Awe" is an okay procedure for right sizing the sovereign country of Iraq, but any Iraqi who tries to defend his country from these invaders are somehow "MURDEROUS" thugs? No, I think the clueless one would be you?
Are you being purposely dense? Shock and Awe was a massive yet highly precise attack on Iraq's military installations. The murderous thugs in Iraq are purposely setting off bombs in hospitals, hotels and markets. Comparing the two points only to your own cluelessness.

That contrasts with this story, and poll results:

Poll: USA is losing patience on Iraq (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-12-poll_x.htm)

By Susan Page, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Nearly six in 10 Americans say the United States should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq, a new Gallup Poll finds, the most downbeat view of the war since it began in 2003.........

In the Gallup Poll, 56% say the Iraq war wasn't "worth it," essentially matching the high-water mark of 57% a month ago.

• Of those who say the war wasn't worth it, the top reasons cited are fraudulent claims and no weapons of mass destruction found; the number of people killed and wounded; and the belief that Iraq posed no threat to the United States.
According to the latest ABC/Washington Post Poll:
When asked, "Do you think the United States should keep its military forces in Iraq until civil order is restored there, even if that means continued U.S. military casualties; or do you think the United States should withdraw its military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if that means civil order is not restored there?"
Keep forces in Iraq: 58%
Withdraw: 41%

So, America may not be happy with the situation, but they realize leaving would be a horrible mistake.

It's not that hard to figure out. Who's the most prominent insurgent leader in Iraq right now? Answer: Abu Musab al Zarqawi. The same Abu Musab al Zarqawi who voluntarily fought with the Taliban and Al Qaeda against the US in Afghanistan. It's safe to assume the terrorists in Iraq led by Zarqawi have the same beliefs as the terrorists who plowed planes in American buildings.
You mean the same Abu Musab al Zarqawi who the US had multiple chances to take out in northern Iraq, the no-fly zone--and yet who the Bush administration decided to let alone because he was their "link" between Hussein and Bin Laden? That guy?

Don't you dare bring that fucker into the conversation as some sort of defense for Bush. US soldiers are dead because of that decision, a decision made only for political gain, because there was no strategic gain to be had. No--Bush doesn't get to play that card, because he had his chance to be rid of Zarqawi long ago and passed it up so he could have his glorious little war on Hussein.

According to the latest ABC/Washington Post Poll:
When asked, "Do you think the United States should keep its military forces in Iraq until civil order is restored there, even if that means continued U.S. military casualties; or do you think the United States should withdraw its military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if that means civil order is not restored there?"
Keep forces in Iraq: 58%
Withdraw: 41%

So, America may not be happy with the situation, but they realize leaving would be a horrible mistake.
And that poll was taken when? Oh, it was December 16-19, 2004, in other words over 6 months ago. A lot can and did change in 6 months?

According to the latest ABC/Washington Post Poll:
When asked, "Do you think the United States should keep its military forces in Iraq until civil order is restored there, even if that means continued U.S. military casualties; or do you think the United States should withdraw its military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if that means civil order is not restored there?"
Keep forces in Iraq: 58%
Withdraw: 41%

So, America may not be happy with the situation, but they realize leaving would be a horrible mistake.

I agree...I wasnt for the war in Iraq, and I sure as h311 dont agree with Bush on just about anything, but packing up and leaving things in the state of anarchy that exists is NOT the answer.

Bush made this mess and now we HAVE to clean it up,for the sake of the Iraqi people above anything else.

And that poll was taken when? Oh, it was December 16-19, 2004, in other words over 6 months ago. A lot can and did change in 6 months?
No. June 23, 2005-June 26, 2005.
Sorry I forgot the link. There's a whole bunch of them.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Associated Press/Ipsos poll Jun.20-22, 2005
Should the United States keep troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, or should the United States bring its troops home from Iraq immediately?"
Keep in Iraq:59%
Leave: 37%
Same site as the other one.

Associated Press/Ipsos poll Jun.20-22, 2005
Should the United States keep troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, or should the United States bring its troops home from Iraq immediately?"
Keep in Iraq:59%
Leave: 37%
Same site as the other one.
Perhaps the pollsters are out of step or oversampling certain party supporters, because the two polls are diametrically opposite?

Our troops die every day while Bush sits in his office and contemplates the invasion of Iran and N.Korea and in turn the deaths of thousands more Americans and Iranians/whoever is unlucky enough to be his next target while Americans looks like a nation of retards because we (eventhough I didnt vote for him) re-elected this idiot..

I cant stress this enough, we CANNOT just leave Iraq as it is...it would prove to be an even bigger mistake then Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Bush Administration is at fault for this but we as a nation must carry the responsibility for the decision as we put this psychopath in office and kept him there.

Perhaps the pollsters are out of step or oversampling certain party supporters, because the two polls are diametrically opposite?
They're pretty similar. Both the ABC and AP polls show near 60% approval for keeping the troops in Iraq 'til the country is stable. Both polls also show about 40% approval for an immediate withdrawl.
Looking at the many polls here:
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm ;
I come to the conclusion that the American public does not like how the Iraqi occupation is going, but they understand it would be much worse if we cut and run.

It's not that hard to figure out. Who's the most prominent insurgent leader in Iraq right now? Answer: Abu Musab al Zarqawi. The same Abu Musab al Zarqawi who voluntarily fought with the Taliban and Al Qaeda against the US in Afghanistan. It's safe to assume the terrorists in Iraq led by Zarqawi have the same beliefs as the terrorists who plowed planes in American buildings.
In politics, it is never safe to assume anything. From Answers.com:

He is alleged to be a senior al Qaida associate of Osama bin Laden. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell described Zarqawi as an "al Qaida operative." Senior U.S. military officials have described him as a "separate jihadist."

Besides, the Bush comment stated the following:

Bush also said Iraq is a base for planning attacks on America and its allies, and that many insurgents share the same beliefs that inspired the attacks of September 11, 2001.

I think you missed the connection? Proving that statement to be true, would be mighty difficult.

Are you being purposely dense? Shock and Awe was a massive yet highly precise attack on Iraq's military installations. The murderous thugs in Iraq are purposely setting off bombs in hospitals, hotels and markets. Comparing the two points only to your own cluelessness.
I think the two are worthy of comparison:

When it comes to Iraq, Ullman likes the idea of cruise missiles -- lots of them, right away. CBS News reports that Ullman’s ideas are the basis for the Pentagon’s war plan. The U.S. will smash Baghdad with up to 800 cruise missiles in the first two days of the war. That’s about one every four minutes, day and night, for 48 hours.

The missiles will hit far more than just military targets. They will destroy everything that makes life in Baghdad livable. "We want them to quit. We want them not to fight," Ullman told CBS reporter David Martin. So “you take the city down. You get rid of their power, water. In 2,3,4,5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted."

I imagine that TV ratings were up that week?

When those airplanes flew into the WTC, I got a sick uneasy feeling in my gut. It wasn't any different watching the US anihiliate Baghdad, and yes many innocent women, men, and children were victims. You can rationalize and jusify all you want, but the US should not have invaded Iraq in the first place. It had NOTHING to do with the war on terror. Who is clueless?

Ahhh the Bush apologist suggests that it is I that is brainwashed. You can't see the trees for the forest? Have you ever heard of someone creating an allusion? All Bush is doing is perpetuating the allusion that he conjured up in 2001, you know, the one linking 9/11 with Saddam Hussein. He is just being a bit more subtle about it now. BTW, how does Bush know that those in Iraq "ARE OF THE SAME BELIEF that inspired such attacks"? Your answer should prove most enlightening.

*sticks by the brainwashed comment* The reason being is that this just shows that your level of intelligence. Learn to think for yourself for once in your life.

As for Bush knowing, anyone with eyes and ears can see it. Carbombs at hostpitals. Suicide bombers at other civilian gathering places. Yea, anyone that can actually read a paper or watch and listen to television can see it.

I hear the faint chant as you type....Bush is right, Bush is always right, Bush never lies, Bush is right......

Bush is wrong on Immigration policy, Bush is wrong on the BRAC Report (Though the BRAC was wrong first), Bush made mistakes yes but he is human and everyone makes mistakes. I take it you never made a mistake in your life?

Come on now, it does not take rocket science to figure that Bush likes to use repetition to sell his propaganda. If he says it enough times, you will buy it and try and sell it to me. I am not buying today, thanks anyways.

*sighs* CH, you really don't have a clue do you? No I can see that you don't. No amount of info is going to dissaude from what you already believe. You think he made a connection between Saddam and 9/11 in this speech, he didn't. But you believe this as do most other liberals. Don't really see how since I've reviewed his speech four times already.

I eagerly await your explanation about these "SAME BELIEFS". "Shock and Awe" is an okay procedure for right sizing the sovereign country of Iraq, but any Iraqi who tries to defend his country from these invaders are somehow "MURDEROUS" thugs? No, I think the clueless one would be you?

Same Beliefs: Those that espouse a certain philosphy of another

As for Shock and Awe, it was a precision missile and air strike on Iraqi Military complexes. It took place a few days AFTER the invasion had already began. As for murderous thugs, those that commit crimes on civilians (the people who Bush was referring too but you don't care) are Murderous Thugs.

As for me being clueless, no I am not. I actually pay attention to the events over in Iraq. So the only clueless one here is you.

*sticks by the brainwashed comment* The reason being is that this just shows that your level of intelligence. Learn to think for yourself for once in your life.
Well, the fact remains that I don't live in the US and I don't have to make apologies for your president. The people that live outside the US can see that Bush continues to draw a parallel between Iraq and the attacks on 9/11, although, he is much more subtle about it. He knows the excuse is wearing thin, but as long as people such as yourself keep trying to defend and justify his actions, then he will use those tools.

As for Bush knowing, anyone with eyes and ears can see it. Carbombs at hostpitals. Suicide bombers at other civilian gathering places. Yea, anyone that can actually read a paper or watch and listen to television can see it.
Car bombings and suicide bombings are being carried out by insurgents who want the US out of their country. This does not naturally equate that they would fly planes into your buildings. So your point and his are flawed to say the least. Bush desperately wants you to think that their is a link so that he can continue to sell the war in America. Wake up Corny.

Bush is wrong on Immigration policy, Bush is wrong on the BRAC Report (Though the BRAC was wrong first), Bush made mistakes yes but he is human and everyone makes mistakes. I take it you never made a mistake in your life?
Bush rarely, as in almost never, apologizes for his mistakes. The only problem that his mistakes so far have caused over 100,000 casualties and many think that that it is unacceptable.

*sighs* CH, you really don't have a clue do you? No I can see that you don't. No amount of info is going to dissaude from what you already believe. You think he made a connection between Saddam and 9/11 in this speech, he didn't. But you believe this as do most other liberals. Don't really see how since I've reviewed his speech four times already.
You've reviewed his speech four times and you still can't see it? Keep working on it, and perhaps it will sink in?

Same Beliefs: Those that espouse a certain philosphy of another
You mean like Bush and yourself? Bush cannot relate the Iraqi insurgents to the terrorists that attacked the WTC. He can try and that is the mental picture that he would like to create in the minds of Americans but it does not make it so.

As for Shock and Awe, it was a precision missile and air strike on Iraqi Military complexes. It took place a few days AFTER the invasion had already began. As for murderous thugs, those that commit crimes on civilians (the people who Bush was referring too but you don't care) are Murderous Thugs.

As for me being clueless, no I am not. I actually pay attention to the events over in Iraq. So the only clueless one here is you.
Precision guided my ass. The fact remains that the carnage has been excessively high:

The fact that most bombing missions in Iraq today are pre-planned, with targets allegedly carefully vetted, further indicts those who wage this war in the name of freedom. If these targets are so precise, then those selecting them cannot escape the fact that they are deliberately targeting innocent civilians at the same time as they seek to destroy their intended foe. Some would dismiss these civilians as "collateral damage". But we must keep in mind that the British and US governments made a deliberate decision to enter into a conflict of their choosing, not one that was thrust upon them. We invaded Iraq to free Iraqis from a dictator who, by some accounts, oversaw the killing of about 300,000 of his subjects - although no one has been able to verify more than a small fraction of the figure. If it is correct, it took Saddam decades to reach such a horrific statistic. The US and UK have, it seems, reached a third of that total in just 18 months.

Iraq has been one colossal mistake from the get go, and the biggest problem is that there doesn't appear to be an "end" in the near future. In the meantime, you just hang in there making excuses and eventually it will wear you down.

A lots been said here about who is a terrorist and who isn't, and to be honest it's just a matter of opinion.
To americans the people in iraq are terrorists and to the people in iraq it is the americans who are the terrorists.
In the 80's and 90's the leaders of sien fein (irish political party) would come to america every year as a fund raiser. This is the same sien fein that is the political voice of the irish republican army or IRA. The same IRA that carried out some of the most horrific bombings on the british public since ww2 with no regard for life. The same IRA that was either directly or indirectly funded by american dollars.

So don't nobody try to take the holier than thou stance that america are right untill you've experienced things like this first hand, things like realising you wouldn't be here if an IRA plot to kill your dad hadn't worked.

Just because Bush hasn't made the link between iraq and 9/11 in his latest speech does not mean he has made the link plenty of times before. If you go beliving your leader one speech to the next and just forget about everything said before then thats worse than not beliving at all as all your doing is letting them pull your strings and guide you where they want.


oh and does bush still not care where Bin Laden is like he said before? :confused:

oh and does bush still not care where Bin Laden is like he said before? :confused:
as for everything else you said, you're absolutely true...we're listening to Big Brother tell us fact when it's really opinion and we don't know it. Perhaps the best line in the documentary Outfoxed: (Paraphrased of course) "the thing that makes American propaganda so great is that the people don't know it's propaganda.

As to the question no and yes. Do I smell a pair of flip flops? Here's what he said about that:
well I haven't found the one I'm looking for but here's another showing how little he cares (and that he still has some frat boy left in him)
WASHINGTON POST: Why do you think bin Laden has not been caught?
DUBYA: Because he's hiding.

here it is:
"Uhh -- Gosh, I -- don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those, uhh, exaggerations."-- To quote Dubya (3/13/2002): "I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him." Third Presidential Debate, Tempe, Arizona, Oct. 13, 2004

http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200506291143.asp

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200506290912.asp

Two Articles that my father sent me via email. Very interesting stuff.

http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200506291143.asp

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200506290912.asp

Two Articles that my father sent me via email. Very interesting stuff.


To mccarthy's comments I offer:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/29/hayes.911/index.html

To mccarthy's comments I offer:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/29/hayes.911/index.html

To this I offer up The Connection By Stephen F. Hayes.

Its a book detailing the connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.

To this I offer up The Connection By Stephen F. Hayes.

Its a book detailing the connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.

Well looking at his other publiccations, he seems to like the shrub and cheney.

Does he list out his evidence?

I will put it on my read list which is uncountable ;)

Well looking at his other publiccations, he seems to like the shrub and cheney.

Does he list out his evidence?

I will put it on my read list which is uncountable ;)

*Evidence he used in the book*

CIA Debriefings
Top-Secret memos from our national intelligence agencies
Interviews with Iraqi military leaders
Washington insiders

http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200506291143.asp

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200506290912.asp

Two Articles that my father sent me via email. Very interesting stuff.
Yes those articles are very interesting. They definitely support my debate points about Bush trying to connect 9/11 with Iraq and they shoot down your entire argument. Thanks. :)

Yes those articles are very interesting. They definitely support my debate points about Bush trying to connect 9/11 with Iraq and they shoot down your entire argument. Thanks. :)

Considering that Osama bin Laden and Saddam had connections, it supports the fact that Saddam had Terror connections even to al Qaeda so no it doesn't prove me wrong.

*Evidence he used in the book*

CIA Debriefings
Top-Secret memos from our national intelligence agencies
Interviews with Iraqi military leaders
Washington insiders
huh, I wonder why a former CIA officer who wishes to remain anonymous says Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and that invading Iraq was the worst thing we could do to fight terrorism, so that suggests that either the Bush Administration is retarded, or it's not a GWOT. And I don't think the PNAC is that retarded if they were able to appoint a president and turn America into Oceania. And I'm not too entirely sure about that list of "evidence" because all the evidence from those sources I've seen say otherwise (like my aforementioned example).

Considering that Osama bin Laden and Saddam had connections, it supports the fact that Saddam had Terror connections even to al Qaeda so no it doesn't prove me wrong.
Considering that William McKinley was our first Black President, it was a huge achievement African Americans. If this were true, your statement would be true as well.

Considering that Osama bin Laden and Saddam had connections, it supports the fact that Saddam had Terror connections even to al Qaeda so no it doesn't prove me wrong.
Give it up. You just contradicted yourself big time. Just to remind you what you stated earlier in this thread and my counter comments:

*sighs* CH, you really don't have a clue do you? No I can see that you don't. No amount of info is going to dissaude from what you already believe. You think he made a connection between Saddam and 9/11 in this speech, he didn't. But you believe this as do most other liberals. Don't really see how since I've reviewed his speech four times already.
You've reviewed his speech four times and you still can't see it? Keep working on it, and perhaps it will sink in?

Nope. Not once did he equate Saddam with 9/11. Not once in his entire speech.
A Bush apologist through and through. Ever play connect the dots? Well try connecting the dots in Bush's speech.

Now, from the article that YOU linked to:

The president should know he hit the sweet spot during his Fort Bragg speech because all the right people are angry. The New York Times, with predictable disingenuousness, is railing this morning that the 9/11 references in the speech are out of bounds because Iraq had “nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks.” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and the tedious David Gergen, among others, are in Gergen’s words “offended” about use of the 9/11 “trump card.”

No one is going to buy the propaganda 4 years later. I can see the spin doctors are working overtime and you got run over by the dogma. You were wrong and you cannot even admit it, which is truly sad.

No one is going to buy the propaganda 4 years later. I can see the spin doctors are working overtime and you got run over by the dogma. You were wrong and you cannot even admit it, which is truly sad.
And yet he's just been said to be the "best conservative" based on ability to admit fault.
...which is much like the POTUS, and his parroting the White House and using virtually the same lines and sources and repeatedly contradicting himself, lying and not being able to admit it makes me wonder if he isn't Dubya himself! :D

And yet he's just been said to be the "best conservative" based on ability to admit fault.
...which is much like the POTUS, and his parroting the White House and using virtually the same lines and sources and repeatedly contradicting himself, lying and not being able to admit it makes me wonder if he isn't Dubya himself! :D
Corny the Prez himself? :eek:

Naw, I just think that Corny suffers from delusions of Bushamania, and is a victim of the propaganda machine, which produces a lot of hamburger.

How do you know its going to be propaganda. You know, that is why I really am beginning to hate politics. Because no one listens to eachother. I'm going to withold judgement till I actually hear what he has to hear.

Yes I did ask for thoughts. Notice the word thoughts. I did not ask for jokes or pity ass insults.


I would watch it Corneliu. I honestly think it's a good thing that he is talking about it. At least he isn't blowing this issue off. Who knows? He might even say something true.

Corny the Prez himself? :eek:

Naw, I just think that Corny suffers from delusions of Bushamania, and is a victim of the propaganda machine, which produces a lot of hamburger.

No I'm not the President. At least, not the President yet! :D

I would watch it Corneliu. I honestly think it's a good thing that he is talking about it. At least he isn't blowing this issue off. Who knows? He might even say something true.

And the speech is full of truths. To bad the liberal left has brushed it off as if it was nothing.