Late news re: Bush's flip flop on war

[ljb]

You all know Bush has said we can't win the war on terror and then flip flopped to say we can win the war on terror. Well tonight at a sparesly attended rally in Justaminutenow Mo. Bush has suggested a possible tie. Go figure! This dude now has all the bases covered. If he can cover the juice he has a sure winner hey!!;)

[Secretariat]

LBJ,

Look at this link....

http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVArticle.asp?ID=20348&pid=1176

I was never in a fraternity as I didn't really go to college till after the war, but just wondering if this was normal stuff.

[ljb]

Sec,
I was never in a fraternity either. I did not attend college until my oldest child began school. Perhaps one of the Frat boys on board could fill us in.

[sq764]

It might be something to ponder, except for the fact that Kerry is NOW saying the war was no good because the $200 billion should have been used for afterschool care (even though Bush raised federal school care funding 65%)..

So... First the war was right (when he voted for it), THEN it was fundamentally wrong (when he was trying to bash Bush), THEN it was right but he would have handled it differently(when he realized voters want a tough president), THEN it was wrong because of the cost (when, um, I give up, I have no freaking idea of what triggered this idiocy)...

[ljb]

First Bush said they had wmds, then he said they had nukes, then he said saddam is a threat, then he said saddam is evil, then he said Osama. Oh wait a minute he seems to have passed over Osama. Go figure!
It's a shame we have people putting their ass on the line daily in that shithole they call Iraq for what?

[sq764]

I think you are mixed up.. Kerry sad Sadaam was evil..

How forgetful we can be..

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by sq764
It might be something to ponder, except for the fact that Kerry is NOW saying the war was no good because the $200 billion should have been used for afterschool care (even though Bush raised federal school care funding 65%)..

So... First the war was right (when he voted for it), THEN it was fundamentally wrong (when he was trying to bash Bush), THEN it was right but he would have handled it differently(when he realized voters want a tough president), THEN it was wrong because of the cost (when, um, I give up, I have no freaking idea of what triggered this idiocy)...

You like to think you know what Kerry said, but you entirely misrepresent just as the SW group about his 71 speech.

Kerry has been entirely consistent on this, and stated the same thing over and over. You just prefer to misdirect from the truth.

1. Kerry authorized the President to use necessary force based on intelligence provided to him, AND based on the the President's assurances that Bush would go to the UN to "build a coalition" and "to allow the inspections to work." Bush in fact did neither. He became impatient and sent our troops into battle ill equipped and without an exit strategy. By his own "miscalcualtion" (Bush's words not mine), we were not greeted as liberators, but occupiers. I don't like to hear that either, but Rumsfeld has referred to as occupiers for the peace. Kerry spoke long on the Senate floor about not stiking "pre-emptively" unless those two conditions were met and as a last resort. BY Bush's own admission, this was was not imminent, and according to the CIA it was not "imminent". However, the american public and the senate were fed the fear of WMD's and the impression certainly was it was imminent, Why else send troops into battle without the best body armor available? Granted, nine months after the March invasion, troops were full outfitted with the new armor, but it indicates an impatience based on (a) no imminent threat (b) lack of preparation, no plan for post-war (c) lack of safety for troops (d) failure to form a true coalition (e) failure to spread the costs internationally rather than American taxpayers paying for 90% of it (f) diversion from search for 911 Al Queda.


2. Now the second authorization was an appropriations bill and in lieu of the above supporting Bush's choice to strike without meeting the critiera Kerry had outlined in his first Senate speech would have been the hieght of flip-flopping. Kerry tried to compromise by offering an amendment to cover the costs which Biden tried to push, but it was defeated. This amendment asked for the wealthiest people in the country to forego their tax cut to pay for this selective war. A war in which most of thier children were not participating, but that amendment was defeated and hence discretionary spending skyrocketed and the deficit grew immensely. And yes, money that could have gone to education, or insurance, or infrastruture here or deal with Social Security issues or Veterans affairs or any of a number of issues were shelved in favor of an irresponsible fiscal policy. Bullying his way through with "no matter what it costs." Well, he may say that but obviously if it costs the wealthiest people in this country to pay for this war, they don't want to do it, either in money or in lives or they would have voted for Kerry's amendment. The question is WHY did GW Bush threaten to veto the appropriations bill IF the Kerry amendment was added? Why did he push us into deficits to pay for his selective war rather than ask the wealtihest people in this country to pay for the war he choose to initiate?

Kerry has made this clear over and over again. I don't know how many times he has to say this.

[sq764]

The question really is why did Kerry say the war was a mistake and he would have never done it, then later say that he would have gone to war, but done it differently?

I know you will dodge around this question, as always, but I will still wait and hope for a direct answer..

[ljb]

The question is: Why did Bush say nukes and wmds? I know you'll try to spin this but I will wait for your response.

[sq764]

Can you answer the question? Or is that your answer?

[Tom]

SQ, he hasn't got a clue what a quesiton of an answer is.
He is just an internet graffitti troll. He posts liberish and probably doesn't even know what he posts.
You will get a more inteligent answer from a cinder block.
I just love it when two libs start feeding each other' signorance. It's like watching synchronized siezures!:p

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by sq764
The question really is why did Kerry say the war was a mistake and he would have never done it, then later say that he would have gone to war, but done it differently?

I know you will dodge around this question, as always, but I will still wait and hope for a direct answer..

The war as Bush entered into it was without question a mistake as Kerry has said. The point he is making (and I hate to keep repeating myself) is that (a) no coalition built (b) US pays 90% of costs (c) US suffers 90% of causalties (d) Inspections not given time to work (e) No plan for a post war Iraq (f) No need for urgency as Iraq was not an imminent threat. (g) Troops not adequately protected with best body armor when we went in March 2003.

Reading this of course it was a mistake, not to mention that no WMD's were found, no 911 connection to Al Queada found, etc.

When Kerry says he would never have done it, he is saying he would never have done it like Bush. He said this in Cincinnatii again the other day. He keeps saying the same thing over and over, but you guys keep twisitng it.

You say he would have gone to war and done it differently. I've actually heard the quote differently that (a) he doesn't regret his vote to give the President authorization (b) if after inspections had run their course and a coalition was built and Hussein was still not co-operating then miltiary action may have been needed.

When he says he would have done it differently, all you have to do is read the transcript of Kerry's speech from the Senate floor on the vote to give the President the authorization. It covers the bases on what he would have done differently.

This is all part of the political machine attempting to paint Kerry as a flip flopper, when in fact his stance has been consistent on this since his first vote. I can't blame Rove and the boys, they have little else.

[sq764]

Sec, HOW would Kerry have done it differently? We may never know.. It's easier to say you would have done it differently but not tell how..

Easy to say you're going to lower healthcare costs AND taxes, but don't tell how..

Do you even get that this is the reason why his convention was a disaster?? He laid out nothing in the way of an agenda.. He was too busy painting himself as this decorated war hero and had no time for real issues..

He's a disaster and thankfully, American voters are opening their eyes to how unfit he is to run a country.. It's over, deal with it.

[ljb]

War should always be the last option. War is hell. If you don't believe me ask lsbets or others who are in the shithole right now.
You should only go to war because you HAVE to not because you WANT to.
Rove and the gang of four were planning this war prior to 9/11. 9/11 just helped them expidite there goals. It's a shame we have Americans putting their ass on the line for this political ploy.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by sq764
Sec, HOW would Kerry have done it differently? We may never know.. It's easier to say you would have done it differently but not tell how..

Easy to say you're going to lower healthcare costs AND taxes, but don't tell how..

Do you even get that this is the reason why his convention was a disaster?? He laid out nothing in the way of an agenda.. He was too busy painting himself as this decorated war hero and had no time for real issues..

He's a disaster and thankfully, American voters are opening their eyes to how unfit he is to run a country.. It's over, deal with it.

Of course he's stated numerous times HOW he would have done it differently.

1. His amendment on the floor of the Senate which Bush threatened veto would have actually paid for the war rather than foisting it onto future generations. THat's fiscal responsiblity.

2. He would have engaged allies rather than antagonizing them in getting help to "pay" for the war, not just in terms of manpower, but in the financial costs. He's stated this over and over again.

3. He's talked about a multi-national presence in Iraq including Arab nations (even Bush Sr. realized you don't go into a middle-eastern country creating the perception of Middle Ages Crusade) and creating an environment in which we would not be viewed as occupiers.

4. He's talked how he would have listened to his advisors about the costs, and avoided the potential hazards of going to war and only useing pre-emptiion after ALL avenues were exhausted.

Whether you support the war or not isn't the issue. Pat Leahey's Senate speech before the war outlined EXACTLY what was going to happen in Iraq. EXACTLY. Kerry chose to trust the Commander in chief to act responsibly, but Bush acted impetuously, and that's why I question Bush's leadership, not something he did 40 years ago as a pilot, but his brazen disregard for listening to other opinions other than the partisan ones surrounding him, ala Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld -- the PNAC boys who had already stated thier intentions in 98. A good Commander in Chief wants the "worst case scenarios", not the rosy ones. Crap like we'll be greeted as liberators with flowers. What the hell kind of statement was that by Cheney. This administration did not plan for worst case scenarios and that is why the war has been prolonged, why insurgency is on the rise in Iraq, and why our deficits have ballooned. Look at GW Bush's assessments prior to the war on what this war was going to cost in terms of dollars, and look at it now. His estimates were flat out wrong by HUGE margins. Can you imagine what the cost would have been HAD Hussein actually had weapons of mass destruction and used them on our troops? Our troops would have been sitting ducks out there if he had any minimal nuclear capability.

As to your other points, Kerry has talked about HOW he's going to recover some revenue by taxing those making over 200,000, and investing in new technologies to grow the economy. Even Greenspan says with the outsourcing of the information technology, "new" technologies" will have to replace them to effectively grow our economy. Kerry wants to invest heavily in those technologies. Bush wants to do practically nothing, but invest in hope and war.

You talk of Kerry's plan. What the hell are Bush's specifics to reduce the deficit except to create more deficits! He's listed NOTHING on how he is going to reduce the economy except "hoping" there will be growth with no serious investment in new technologies. I realize far right Repubs do a lot of praying, and now I understand why. THey're gonna need a lot of help, perhaps a miracle, to get us out of the fiscal mess this New England Texan has created for us with these deficits.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by ljb
It's a shame we have Americans putting their ass on the line for this political ploy.

And what political ploy might that be? The oh-so-popular "American soldiers being killed abroad" vote?

[sq764]

"I realize far right Repubs do a lot of praying, and now I understand why. THey're gonna need a lot of help, perhaps a miracle, to get us out of the fiscal mess this New England Texan has created for us with these deficits."



Wow, I didn't take you for one to concede the election so early..

[ljb]

From PA
"And what political ploy might that be? The oh-so-popular "American soldiers being killed abroad" vote? "
Well let's see now, we were told we needed war because of WMDs. LIE 1. We were told we needed war because of Nukes. LIE 2. We were told we needed war because of imminent threat. LIE 3. We were told we needed war because of Al Queda ties. LIE 4.
At first I thought we were just going to war for the oil but after further review it appears the war was started to rev up the patriotic fervor and gain control of congress. And that my friend is the political ploy. And I repeat it is a shame we have over one thousand (1,000) dead Americans for that! For Shame for shame.:(

[sq764]

So this was a political ploy to rev up patriotic fever huh?

So you are saying that American voters only give a crap about feeling patriotic and will vote for the man who makes them feel this way?

Wow, you are more shortsighted than I ever imagined.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Secretariat

2. He would have engaged allies rather than antagonizing them in getting help to "pay" for the war, not just in terms of manpower, but in the financial costs. He's stated this over and over again.

Like who? The French? The Germans? We have learned in the last year that both of those so called "Allies" were selling and trading with Iraq. Including Military weapons that were used on our forces during the war. This is such crap and it is nothing more than hyperbole with an agenda. Stop saying it, people know better.........at least informed people do...........

[ljb]

From sq764
"So this was a political ploy to rev up patriotic fever huh? "
Yep that is what I am saying. The rest of your post is from your imagination. I cannot vouch for what you imagine. But keep on trying.

[sq764]

LJB, you're in denial my man.. Kerry is not losing because American voters can't decide on the right candidate..

He is losing because his campaing was ineffective.

He's losing because he hasn't proven that he can be an effective leader of this country.

He's losing because he isn't as likeable as Bush.

He's losing because he is focusing his energy on the wrong issues.

He's losing because he spent more time on his war record (a questionable one at that), than addressing issues that matter most to voters.

He's losing because he is completely out of touch with Americans.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by JustRalph
Like who? The French? The Germans? We have learned in the last year that both of those so called "Allies" were selling and trading with Iraq. Including Military weapons that were used on our forces during the war. This is such crap and it is nothing more than hyperbole with an agenda. Stop saying it, people know better.........at least informed people do...........

Whatever you think of the Germans and the French I sure as <Cheney> wish they were helping to pay the bill for this incursion into Iraq.

And, SQ, I guess we'll have to wait for election day to find out.

[sq764]

Sec, why do you post in, and reference polls only until they are completely out of your favor?

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by sq764
Sec, why do you post in, and reference polls only until they are completely out of your favor?

You're consumed by this poll thing. I have no idea what you're on now.

[sq764]

like an aged pro boxer you are... duck and dodge, duck and dodge, forget what you just wrote, duck and dodge..

that routine's getting quite boring...

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by sq764
like an aged pro boxer you are... duck and dodge, duck and dodge, forget what you just wrote, duck and dodge..

that routine's getting quite boring...

Well, I used to like boxing. Loved the days of Muhammad Ali and Joe Fraizer.

But I'm still not understanding what poll you're talking about.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by ljb
At first I thought we were just going to war for the oil but after further review it appears the war was started to rev up the patriotic fervor and gain control of congress.

Ahhhh...so the whole oil thing isn't exactly panning out like you hoped (and I told you all...I was right again)....so now, you have to go FURTHER out into fantasy land to come up with the idea that we went into Iraq to win more seats in Congress and to win an election....

Yup...the first Iraq war worked out SO well for George Herbert Walker Bush, why wouldn't it work for GWB, right LJB???

You're a hoot. Do you think??? THINK MCFLY, THINK!

[Tom]

Ljb, you don't have the attentioin span to masterbate. Your drivel is so ignorant I cannot belive a functioning human being could belive it.
Are you really Tereeza?

A mind is a terrible thing to waste. *sigh*

[Lance]

Tom wrote:

"Ljb, you don't have the attentioin span to masterbate. Your drivel is so ignorant I cannot belive a functioning human being could belive it."

Schweitz,

This is what I mean. Take a look at this buffoon and his attacks. Is this not an embarrassment?

[Tom]

Originally posted by Lance
Tom wrote:

"Ljb, you don't have the attentioin span to masterbate. Your drivel is so ignorant I cannot belive a functioning human being could belive it."

Schweitz,

This is what I mean. Take a look at this buffoon and his attacks. Is this not an embarrassment?

The attacks, Lindsey, are being started by this idiot against our servicemen and against our president who is one of the few people who understand that we are war with a cancer in humanity. I will not ignore them and I will not shut up because you are offended by some people who understand who the real terrorists and enemy of mankind are. That we, after 9-11-01 are still more worried about offending muslems rather than our security is the embarassment. But rest assurred, there are enough people out here in the know that will not give up the fight.
Count on it.

[ljb]

From PA
"Ahhhh...so the whole oil thing isn't exactly panning out like you hoped (and I told you all...I was right again).... "
Well then I don't know PA maybe it was for oil. Halliburton is making out like a bandit on this war. You tell me. Whatever , we all know it wasn't for WMDs or nukes or imminent threats or the terroists (they are in Afghanistan/Pakistan) it must have been for something. Maybe the gang of four just wanted to try out their arsenal?

[ljb]

Tom,
Nice to see you are continuing with you policy. If you have nothing to say, you say it anyway. :D

[Tom]

Ljb,
You have not a clue as to what decent Americans think. You have no clue as to what this war on terror is all about. It is people like you who hlld this country down. OBL wants to kill you too. I hope he doesn't..I want to hear your spin when we cath him and bring him to trial.
Or will you be on his defense team?

[ljb]

Tom,
The terroists were from Saudi Arabia, they hid in Afghanistan/Pakistan. The gang of four invaded Iraq. Who does not have a clue?
If you are going to continue to believe and repeat the propaganda put out by Rove and company, there is no hope for you. Tom, at times you sound like a fairly intelligent human being, why don't you shake loose of those old binds and think for yourself?

[Tom]

I was a liberal once, L, and I did shake loose of those binds and learned to think for myself. I was in favor of full invasion of Iraq from Desert Storm on. My idea back then to take advantage of having eveything in place already to take out Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and anyone else who looked cross-eyed at us. I became well aware of the islamic menace in 1972 when the palestinean animals killed the Israeli olympic team. It just took the world a while to catch up to me. And Israel. Those guys are sitll hunting down nazis! Talk about committment and perseverence. A lesson to be learned by all.

[ljb]

Well I will say, you have been a war monger longer then many on board here. Many empires have tried your methods only to eventually fail. After the loss of many lives and the expenditure of many dollars, empire building is not a good long term investment.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by ljb
From PA
"Ahhhh...so the whole oil thing isn't exactly panning out like you hoped (and I told you all...I was right again).... "
Well then I don't know PA maybe it was for oil. Halliburton is making out like a bandit on this war. You tell me. Whatever , we all know it wasn't for WMDs or nukes or imminent threats or the terroists (they are in Afghanistan/Pakistan) it must have been for something. Maybe the gang of four just wanted to try out their arsenal?

Don't forget LJB, that our troops placed greater emphasis on protecting oil fields than on defending the Iraqi infrastructure, museums, or even supplying Iraqis with essentials such as electicity and food. And American companies like Halliburton have bascially taken over those fields. As to Afghansitan, it is interesting that almsot as soon as Karzi was appointed President, that a contract was signed to run a pipleine of oil through Afghansitan. Before the poppy fields were secure we had managed to make plans for pumping oil through the country.

No PA, no backtracking here. Oil was a major ingredient in our foreign policy in the mid-East, otherwise we'd be over in Sudan right now.

[JustRalph]

I want them to get the oil. Go get the oil!!........... it makes the world go round.......... hooray for Oil! Quit acting like you could get along without it..........

Letter to Mr. Bush

Go get the Oil. Every Friggin drop of it.

Kill whomever gets in our way. Bomb the Crap out of them.

Thanks.


You Friend, Oil Consumers all over the U.S.

[ljb]

From Jr,
"I want them to get the oil. Go get the oil!!........... it makes the world go round.......... hooray for Oil! Quit acting like you could get along without it..........
Letter to Mr. Bush
Go get the Oil. Every Friggin drop of it.

Kill whomever gets in our way. Bomb the Crap out of them.
Thanks.

You Friend, Halliburton Board of Directors.
Jr, The red is a correction i made to your post, probably just an oversight on your part.
You're welcome.;)

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Don't forget LJB, that our troops placed greater emphasis on protecting oil fields than on defending the Iraqi infrastructure, museums, or even supplying Iraqis with essentials such as electicity and food.

And do you think that MAYBE this has to do with the fact that OIL is the MAJOR (if not only) thing that will keep the IRAQI ECONOMY alive in the future? If they don't protect the oil fields, and they are destroyed, then where is the money going to come from to pay for electricity (forget about producing the electricity in the first place) and food?

The Iraqis obviously need their oil to survive as a nation. Of course protecting the oil fields would be the first priority. How could you post such an ignorant reply?

[formula_2002]

A vote for Bush is a vote for Tom Delay, John Ashcroft, and perhaps two Bush appointments to the US Supreme Court.

Be careful what you vote for, your children will have to live with it.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
And do you think that MAYBE this has to do with the fact that OIL is the MAJOR (if not only) thing that will keep the IRAQI ECONOMY alive in the future? If they don't protect the oil fields, and they are destroyed, then where is the money going to come from to pay for electricity (forget about producing the electricity in the first place) and food?

The Iraqis obviously need their oil to survive as a nation. Of course protecting the oil fields would be the first priority. How could you post such an ignorant reply?

Uh Pa, American corps were put in charge of all the oil, not Iraqi firms. There's no contingency to pass these over to Iraqi firms. Halliburton, and company are in charge.

Why do Iraqis need oil to survive? We're paying for their gas at a nickel a galloon, we're paying to build up their military with our taxpayer money in exchange for access to their oil, and we're patrolling their streets.

But since this thread is about Bush flip flops I'll return to topic and post a very good AP article today. I just wonder when the conservative TV news will begin addressing it.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=703&e=3&u=/ap/20040912/ap_on_el_pr/flipping_and_flopping

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
Well I will say, you have been a war monger longer then many on board here. Many empires have tried your methods only to eventually fail. After the loss of many lives and the expenditure of many dollars, empire building is not a good long term investment.

Again, you are wrong. Empire buildiong is what is done by the evil ditators who capitalize on those unwilling to defend themselves. Remeber Hitler and Europe?
Now, kindly point out the empire we built there. did we canibalize Germany? No. Did we build an empire there? No.
Did the Soviets do that in every country they supposedly liberated during the war? Yes. When they tried to starve out Berlin, who was it that loaded up airplanes and flew 24-7 to feed the Germans in Belrin? Got a clue yet?
I don't think so.
You are the kind of person who allows evil dictators to flourish.

[Tom]

"Don't forget LJB, that our troops placed greater emphasis on protecting oil fields than on defending the Iraqi infrastructure, museums, or even supplying Iraqis with essentials such as electicity and food."

Got to get those museums back up and running. Top priority.
With the SH family gone, the Iraq's have notnhing standing in thier way to fix thier own infrastructure and make theor own lunch. We have tried to help them. they are more interested in committing terrorist acts than taking care of their own people.
Unless....hmmm.....unless maybe all those terror attacks are coming from outside terrists and not your average Joe-Iraqi?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Uh Pa, American corps were put in charge of all the oil, not Iraqi firms.

Who else had the means to protect the oil fields from sabatoge? Oh wait, I forgot. This is all just one big conspiracy theory, so whatever REASON I might try to bring to the table will be shot down.

Wait...you're right! They are preparing my HALLIBURTON BAR CODE TATOO as we speak...the Halliburton police just knocked on my door, and are ready to stamp my forehead......HEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLPPPPPPPPP MMMMMMMMMMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[PaceAdvantage]

Oh shit! You were WRONG! I was WRONG. This tatoo doesn't say Halliburton at all.....

It's got something written on it, I'm having trouble reading it from all the sedatives given to me after the "stamping procedure"....wait a second...I'm getting it now.....






Property of:

C A R L Y L E G R O U P



HOLY SHIT MAN!

HHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLPPPPPPPPPPP MMMMMMMMMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[schweitz]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Oh shit! You were WRONG! I was WRONG. This tatoo doesn't say Halliburton at all.....

It's got something written on it, I'm having trouble reading it from all the sedatives given to me after the "stamping procedure"....wait a second...I'm getting it now.....






Property of:

C A R L Y L E G R O U P



HOLY SHIT MAN!

HHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLPPPPPPPPPPP MMMMMMMMMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL :D :D

[ljb]

Glad to see the rightys have lost it again, resorting to stupidity! Next they will be telling someone to go (Cheney expletive deleted) themselves! :D

[Lefty]

lbj, Bush said Saddam had WMD's and was working on Nukes because the World Intelligence said so. A defector Iraqui scientist said Saddam working on Nukes. Kerry said he had WMD's, Albright said he had Wmd's. Clinton said he had wmd's. With all that it would have been remiss of him not to go to war in Iraq. And Osama is still being sought.
"go to war cause you have to not because you want to." Wow, how many Dem pundits have i heard say that. All you dems have convenient memories.

[ljb]

From Lefty,
"Bush said Saddam had WMD's and was working on Nukes
This lie has cost us over one thousand lives and millions of dollars.
The gang of four was relying on information from that con man Chalabi .

[Lefty]

And intelligence from the rest of the world. If he had ignored all this intelligence and the words of every top level democrat and saddam hit us, all you libs be wanting to imprison him. It's easy to be a mon morn qtrback and you're excellent at it.
Besides we still got rid of Saddam, and he was funding terrorists been proven and the world's better off. Thanks, Mr. President!

[Tom]

The real thing here that I am focusing on is that given we had bad intellignece, Bush has stayed the course and not backed down from the challenges. Kerry, like he did in Viet Nam, turned and ran. What a great guy to have leading the free world! A quitter.
Ljb, is the world better off with SH out of power or not?

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Who else had the means to protect the oil fields from sabatoge? Oh wait, I forgot. This is all just one big conspiracy theory, so whatever REASON I might try to bring to the table will be shot down.

Wait...you're right! They are preparing my HALLIBURTON BAR CODE TATOO as we speak...the Halliburton police just knocked on my door, and are ready to stamp my forehead......HEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLPPPPPPPPP MMMMMMMMMMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Uh, gee, Pa, you forgot to post my sentence directly after that.

"There's no contingency to pass these over to Iraqi firms. Halliburton, and company are in charge.

Why do Iraqis need oil to survive? We're paying for their gas at a nickel a galloon, we're paying to build up their military with our taxpayer money in exchange for access to their oil, and we're patrolling their streets."

I at least appreciate JR's honesty:

"Letter to Mr. Bush

Go get the Oil. Every Friggin drop of it.

Kill whomever gets in our way. Bomb the Crap out of them.

Thanks."

PA, I ws responding to your assertion that we were backtracking about the war in Iraq being about oil.

My response was:

"No PA, no backtracking here. Oil was a major ingredient in our foreign policy in the mid-East, otherwise we'd be over in Sudan right now. "

LBJ,

When they start typing in CAPS and getting silly, you know you're getting close to what they know in their hearts to be true.

[JustRalph]

Don't forget that Saddam's WMD's are hidden in the Bekaa Valley in Syria..........doubt it? read between the lines of Colin Powell's latest statements.............

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by JustRalph
Don't forget that Saddam's WMD's are hidden in the Bekaa Valley in Syria..........doubt it? read between the lines of Colin Powell's latest statements.............

I can'r even understand when this admin speaks "on the lines" let alone between them.

Are you now advocating an invasion of Syria? We don't even have Iraq stabilized according to Rumsfeld.

[Tom]

Sec writes:

"Letter to Mr. Bush

Go get the Oil. Every Friggin drop of it.

Kill whomever gets in our way. Bomb the Crap out of them.

Thanks."

You are thinking like me. Good for you. Welcome over. I will order you your name tag and complimentary coffee mug. We meet Wednesdays at 10.



:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :D :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Secretariat]

Tom, I appreciate the comment, but I can't be like Joe Biden. The correct source was JR on that one. I would never want to take credit for his quote.

[ljb]

From Tom
"Ljb, is the world better off with SH out of power or not?

Well Tom, with Americans being killed daily in Iraq and the rest of the muslim world waiting there chance to do the same. And Osama hiding safely in Afghanistan/Pakistan and the numerous Iraqui civilians being killed daily and the millions of dollars being spent in this quagmire. The question is up for debate. Other then the Saudi royal family I am not sure who is better off.
At least when Saddam was around the Iraquis knew whose ass they had to Kiss.

[Lefty]

I'm amazed that you, lbj, think you know more about what's going on in Iraq than the guys on this board who are actually there. amazingggggggggggggggg!

[ljb]

Lefty,
Are you refering to the General that just said the gang of four have their headuptheirass as far as fighting a war goes?

[Lefty]

I don't recall mentioning a General. Is there one on this board that's in Iraq? Read more carefully please. Of course, you're being your usual sarcastic self. Also there were some soldiers on tv that said they coul;dn't watch the news when they got back cause it was so different from what they actually saw and experienced in Iraq. The Gen you refer too prob not in Iraq and is being an armchair qtrback. But whatever, he's in minority of the miltary's feelings on Iraq.

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
From Tom
"Ljb, is the world better off with SH out of power or not?

Well Tom, with Americans being killed daily in Iraq and the rest of the muslim world waiting there chance to do the same. And Osama hiding safely in Afghanistan/Pakistan and the numerous Iraqui civilians being killed daily and the millions of dollars being spent in this quagmire. The question is up for debate. Other then the Saudi royal family I am not sure who is better off.
At least when Saddam was around the Iraquis knew whose ass they had to Kiss.
I thought so. Did it ever occurr to you that the violence in Iraq is not becasue of us, it is becasue of terrorists looking to take over the country? Not one innocent Iraq has been killed by the US in a long time. You are saying the the Iraqi people do not count as humans beings, that they do not deserve freedon, that leaving th em under SH's rule, to be killed by the hundreds of thousands was the right thing to do? And you call ME a war onger?
BTW, Happy Ramadan.

[ljb]

From Lefty,
"I don't recall mentioning a General. Is there one on this board that's in Iraq?
Don't know Lefty, best as I can recall there is one poster on this board from Iraq. I do't know what rank he is. Also the General I mentioned is a Marine, not sure what branch our poster is in either.

[ljb]

Tom,
Your last note is just malarkey.
Happy Ramadan to you also.

[PaceAdvantage]

Those of you who have no sense of humor can go FOX yourselves....

You know who you are.....

[ljb]

From PA
"Those of you who have no sense of humor can go FOX yourselves....

You know who you are..... "

Cute, Fox is shorter then (Cheney expletive deleted).
It works.
Guess we could start calling the Faux network the (Cheney expletive deleted) network.