Senator Clinton Assails Bush and G.O.P. at Campaign Fund-Raiser
NY Times
Senator Hillary Clinton castigated President Bush and Washington Republicans today as mad with power and bent on marginalizing Democrats during a speech to 1,000 supporters at her first major re-election fund-raiser, which netted about $250,000.
Mrs. Clinton, who is running for a second term in 2006 and is widely described as a possible Democratic nominee for the presidency in 2008, said that her party is hamstrung because Republicans dissemble and smear without shame and the news media has lost its investigatory zeal for exposing misdeeds.
Left unchallenged, especially if Democrats fail to pick up seats in next year’s Congressional elections, she said, Republican leaders could ram through extremist conservative judges, wreck Social Security and make unacceptable concessions to China, Saudi Arabia and other nations that are needed to finance the United States budget deficit.
“There has never been an administration, I don’t believe in our history, more intent upon consolidating and abusing power to further their own agenda,” Mrs. Clinton told the audience at a “Women for Hillary” gathering in Midtown Manhattan this morning.
“I know it’s frustrating for many of you; it’s frustrating for me: Why can’t the Democrats do more to stop them?” she continued to growing applause and cheers. “I can tell you this: It’s very hard to stop people who have no shame about what they’re doing. It is very hard to tell people that they are making decisions that will undermine our checks and balances and constitutional system of government who don’t care. It is very hard to stop people who have never been acquainted with the truth.”
June 7, 2005 - 07:45 AM on June 7th, 2005
I heard her make excuses, but I heard no plan of attack. She might think of putting some ideas on the table to help resolve the problems.
June 7, 2005 - 08:20 AM on June 7th, 2005
“It is very hard to stop people who have never been acquainted with the truth.â€
Well, she’s certainly an expert on this one, isn’t she? I wonder if she realizes the irony of her statements?
June 7, 2005 - 08:24 AM on June 7th, 2005
She is a lying, manipulative, bitch-on-wheels.
’nuff said.
June 7, 2005 - 08:36 AM on June 7th, 2005
2- Surely you jest Candy!:smile: Great point!
June 7, 2005 - 08:36 AM on June 7th, 2005
Every word of her speech could be directed at the Clinton administration in particular and the Democrat dominated Congress since the 1970s.
If Sen. Clinton needs a personal example of her arrogance and self importance, point her to her self promotional tour of Afghanistan with Harry Reid and how Ms. “Double wide, duelly hips” and Sen. Reid plowed to the front of the chow line to get a double heapin helpin’ of the best goodies before the soldiers were fed in violation of long standing protocol where visiting politicians WAIT until ALL the troops are fed FIRST.
June 7, 2005 - 08:53 AM on June 7th, 2005
5-:smile:
June 7, 2005 - 11:31 AM on June 7th, 2005
Seems like a lot of projecting to me, all things considered.
June 7, 2005 - 12:20 PM on June 7th, 2005
“Republicans dissemble and smear without shame…”
“It is very hard to stop people who have never been acquainted with the truth.â€
Wow, Righties! It must feel special to be personally addressed by Sen. Clinton!
June 7, 2005 - 12:23 PM on June 7th, 2005
I wonder how Vince Foster feels those statements…..
June 7, 2005 - 12:24 PM on June 7th, 2005
…or Ron Brown.
…or a randomly incinerated Branch Davidian…
…or one of a dozen Billy Blowjob rape victims….
….or web Hubbell
…or a random former travel office employee
June 7, 2005 - 12:30 PM on June 7th, 2005
9, 10 -
Pul-leeze! Will I ever understand what accounts for you irrational hatred of the Clintons? You must have a very dark belief system to demonize one of the best presidents this country has ever had. Fortunately, he will be returning to the White House in a few years as the First Gentleman.
June 7, 2005 - 12:42 PM on June 7th, 2005
“You must have a very dark belief system to demonize one of the best presidents this country has ever had.”
Well, I can see why you don’t understand the psychology of “Clinton haters” because I have a hard time seeing the rationalization from the Bush haters. However to say Clinton was one of the best Presidents this country has ever had is just as big an enigma to me. The only productive thing that came out of the Clinton Era was when he talked India and Pakistan down from a nuclear show down. Other than that, we have….
1) The failure of WTC I attack.
2) The bubble economy and resulting recession
3) This misinterpretation of the peace time dividend and thus the disassembling of our intelligence and military.
4) NAFTA
5) Giving China MFN trading status.
6) Impeachment due to perjury
7) Embarrassment of the Affair in the white house.
These are just the tip of the iceberg!
Ted
June 7, 2005 - 12:47 PM on June 7th, 2005
Fortunately, he will be returning to the White House in a few years as the First Gentleman.
Things to stock up on should the above comes to pass:
Era (because protein gets out protein)
Shout Wipes
Resolve Carpet Cleaner
Scotchgard
Cigars
June 7, 2005 - 12:49 PM on June 7th, 2005
June 7, 2005 - 12:50 PM on June 7th, 2005
12, Ted, don’t forget the North Korea deal where Kim, Mentally-Ill got economic assistance and got to keep his nuke program going. Now, because of Clinton’s appeasement, Kim, Mentally-Ill has Nuclear tipped missles to threaten the world with.
Harry, take off those Clinton issue, Rose (law firm) colored glasses and see the Clintons as the corrupt politicians they are.
June 7, 2005 - 01:02 PM on June 7th, 2005
Let’s discuss his oh-so-successful military campaigns against….
A compound full of fundamentalist christians
1 8 year old cuban boy
a sudanese aspirin factory
the scary serbian army…
Bill Clinton was possibly one of the WORST president’s of the 20th Century, his justice department turned a blind eye to corporate graft and corruption, he sold the cum-stained lincoln bedroom to the highest bidder, Chinese communist or otherwise, he presided over half a dozen attacks on US soil, embassies, even warships, by MUSLIM ANIMALS, yet did nothing (except help to gut the intelligence apparatus).
He is a national joke.
June 7, 2005 - 01:12 PM on June 7th, 2005
Ranking the 3 best presidents of the 20th Century and the 3 worst.
1. Ronald W. Reagan – restored national pride, ended the cold war…..’nuff said.
2. Harry S. Truman – managed difficult post-war decisions and handled economy well
3. George W. Bush – visionary leader able to see the growing threat of radical islam to not only the uS, but to the entire civilized world, and willing to take the fight to the enemy.
Worst.
1. FDR – although arguably a great wartime president, his New Deal has crippled a nation with entitlements, a culture of dependency and a welfare mentality…..this man did more damage to the US than any single individual, maybe in history.
2. Jimmy Carter – Do I really need to elaborate? America weakened, inflation, gas shortages, hostages, oh my.
3. Bill Clinton – Gutted the intelligence and defense budgets, allowed half a dozen attacks on US soil, allowed Enron, worldcom and others to rob, rape and pillage, unfettered… lied to a grand jury…..”soiled” the oval office…probably raped and had people killed (vince foster, ron brown) had ATF thugs murder american citizens (ruby ridge, waco)
simply atrocious.
June 7, 2005 - 01:16 PM on June 7th, 2005
Hmmm. It seems like we disagree on a thing or two.
June 7, 2005 - 01:18 PM on June 7th, 2005
Looks like theres a wicked witch again and she is looking to take the whitehouse in 2008 and she will be worse the 10 bill clintons its our countries worse nightmare since pearl harbor and 9-11:eek:
June 7, 2005 - 01:19 PM on June 7th, 2005
17- “The New Dealers’ War; FDR and The War within World War II” by Thomas Fleming is a good book on FDR and his presidency.
June 7, 2005 - 01:22 PM on June 7th, 2005
Hey, I’m sure plenty of people disagree…it’s my opinion… but you’d find it awfully hard to argue against the benefits of Reagan’g great victory, and the horrors of the “New Deal”
June 7, 2005 - 01:25 PM on June 7th, 2005
Yes, and I would be one to disagree with Mike’s assessment. Some important names such as “Lincoln”, “Washington” and “Jefferson” are missing from his list.
I would rate Reagan as on of the greatest in the 20th century though.
Ted
June 7, 2005 - 01:28 PM on June 7th, 2005
My list was STRICTLY 20th Century Ted.
what do you think?
June 7, 2005 - 01:34 PM on June 7th, 2005
23,
My bad- I missed that. opkay- my 2 cents:
Best
1) Reagan
2) Truman
3) FDR
Worst
1) Carter
2) FDR
3) Nixon
Yes, I know FDR is on both lists. He was a great wartime President and rallied us sucessfully during one of our most perilous times and won the war too! but then, there’s the welfare state he created…
Ted
June 7, 2005 - 01:44 PM on June 7th, 2005
Out of the presidents of the 20th century; Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft,Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Warren Gamaliel Harding, John Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Clark Hoover, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight David Eisenhower, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Richard Milhous Nixon, Gerald Rudolph Ford, James Earl “Jimmy” Carter, Ronald Wilson Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, William Jefferson Clinton; FDR is always on the top of those lists, but if you ask me, America would not be where it is today without Dwight D. Eisenhower.
June 7, 2005 - 01:45 PM on June 7th, 2005
I can’t argue too much with that.. you could make the case for FDR, but also that he was just smart enough to have good generals running the war.
the Nixon one, I disagree with… Clinton did far more harm to the nation, it’s security, and the respect for public service than Nixon.
June 7, 2005 - 01:45 PM on June 7th, 2005
24: He did what he had to do get America out of the depression and help empower the poor
June 7, 2005 - 01:46 PM on June 7th, 2005
you mean best AND worst, right sabor?
Eisenhower presided over a sort of post WWII malaise, and made bad decisions vis a vis Korea.
June 7, 2005 - 01:49 PM on June 7th, 2005
Oh, don’t forget after pulling out of Somolia (Black Hawk Down), he decided to go to Kosovo and fight that one at 35,000 feet.
Didn’t we take out the occupied Chinese embassy then? Didn’t that set us up for the “bumping” incident where our people were detained after being forced to land on Chinese soil?
June 7, 2005 - 01:49 PM on June 7th, 2005
27-Though there is some truth to that, at what cost? Are you familiar with the Montgomery Wards fiasco? Are you familiar with why the unions had a surge in membership during FDRs’ terms?
June 7, 2005 - 01:50 PM on June 7th, 2005
Hey peejz!
June 7, 2005 - 01:51 PM on June 7th, 2005
30 is not meant as sarcasm Sabor. I am just asking if you are familiar with those situations.
June 7, 2005 - 01:52 PM on June 7th, 2005
29- Good point.
June 7, 2005 - 01:53 PM on June 7th, 2005
and how has that “empowerment of the poor” turned out for them, sabor?
Anecdotal, as well as objective data says that black literacy and the stability of the family was HIGHER before the New Deal…..
June 7, 2005 - 01:55 PM on June 7th, 2005
28:
I meant the beautiful interstate highway system the helped to created that has established the phenomenon known as suburbia to exist which is evver increasing giving people homes with a view and allows humans to travel across the country with out stopping at a single stop light.
June 7, 2005 - 02:09 PM on June 7th, 2005
anyone who has ever driven the PA turnpike or I-80 through PA may beg to differ with you on that one, Sabor.
June 7, 2005 - 02:10 PM on June 7th, 2005
34: You got a source for that. In all my years I have never heard anything like that especially since that was during segragation and hence limiting the amount of education a black person could receive.
June 7, 2005 - 02:14 PM on June 7th, 2005
37-I am going to do a search to find it, but I did see what Mike is referring to. I know he didn’t make it up.
June 7, 2005 - 02:16 PM on June 7th, 2005
I was being facetious, it has contributed to the one thing I despise most, urban sprawl. But the model for it was taken after Nazi Germany and their Autobahn, which was used for military purposes and Ike saw it first hand and wanted it back in the US, that is why it is so straight and wide…for planes to land.
June 7, 2005 - 02:23 PM on June 7th, 2005
So where’s the moonbat when we are talking about FDR?
Ted
June 7, 2005 - 02:27 PM on June 7th, 2005
40:?
June 7, 2005 - 02:37 PM on June 7th, 2005
40- soaking his bones
June 7, 2005 - 02:37 PM on June 7th, 2005
38, I will look up the statistics, these are widely cited by both Dr. Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams, both highly respected Black economists who cite the New Deal and Civil Rights movement as being destructive to the black family, black literacy and black upward mobility.
June 7, 2005 - 02:47 PM on June 7th, 2005
Citing a conservative economist is like citing a liberal environmentalist. They are always going to side with the few anecdotal evidence that they have in order to produce what they favor.
June 7, 2005 - 02:52 PM on June 7th, 2005
Sabor, I’ll grant you that Sowell and Williams are both conservatives…..
However, I will uncover the test scores and divorce illegimatacy rates….and guarantee you will be quite shocked to see that Black standardized test scores were higher in the 1940’s than today, and the illegitamacy rate was much lower
you doubt this?
June 7, 2005 - 02:54 PM on June 7th, 2005
you are probably the kind of idiot liberal that thinks there are FEWER trees in North america today than in 1700, when, in fact, there are MANY more.
June 7, 2005 - 03:24 PM on June 7th, 2005
Well considering the size of the U.S. was 1/5 what is now I find that hard to believe. But there are roughly the same number of trees, but not more. BUt what you cite are trees which could be counted in somebody’s yard and the logging “forests” which are nothing more than tree farms that support nothing except the trees being grown there. THere is no ecosystem being contained in these areas. There is no underbrush, no small animals, no larger animals, only the certain species of trees being grown there. What matters are the old growth forests which are roughly 50% smaller now than they were even 100 years ago.
P.S. I am trying to have a civilized conversation with you and if you feel like you need to name call then go right ahead KKKlanmember
June 7, 2005 - 03:27 PM on June 7th, 2005
the facts are, sabor that reforestation and the ability to actually put out forrest fires are what have enabled there to me more trees today than there were 300 years ago….
but you won’t hear greenpeace telling you that.
kkk…that’s a good one.
the only kkk man I know is a Democratic Senator…party of the people…party of tolerance…
June 7, 2005 - 03:37 PM on June 7th, 2005
But the ability to prevent forest fires has actually caused more severe ones because now the minor ones which burned the dead timber are being left to continue to pile up which in turn is more kindling to destroy more forests
June 7, 2005 - 03:43 PM on June 7th, 2005
Sabor, are you on crack????
300 years ago, droughts and lightning would touch off forest fires that would burn areas the size of New Jersey, with nothing to stand in their way…today, we have the ability to put them out before they consume even a fraction of the acreage they did back then.
you are a wackjob.
June 7, 2005 - 03:54 PM on June 7th, 2005
Dildo, those natural incinerators acted as a way to clean up the forest and get rid of dead growth, part of life. These were minor fires compared to todays which have decades of accumulated dead trees and brush which causes more to burn faster and hence more severe fires today than yesteryear.
June 7, 2005 - 04:01 PM on June 7th, 2005
Name calling is fun, I see why you do it all the time. Does it make you feel like a tough guy because I sure don’t feel any different.
June 7, 2005 - 06:42 PM on June 7th, 2005
52-sometimes it is just a reflex.
June 7, 2005 - 06:49 PM on June 7th, 2005
Like when you can’t make a valid argument and have to start acting like a child by calling somebody an idiot, stupid et cetera.
June 7, 2005 - 06:51 PM on June 7th, 2005
54-no on the contrary. When you have spelled it out for the idiot you are speaking with, and they still don’t get it.
June 7, 2005 - 06:54 PM on June 7th, 2005
You kind of lose you audience when you do that, though
June 7, 2005 - 07:07 PM on June 7th, 2005
Someone said something of note in the beginning of this thread. Character, in my opinion, has MUCH to do with leadership.
I noticed that when GW Bush flew into Iraq, they showed pictures of him serving chow to the soldiers. This is a courtesy to let the Soldiers know that THEY COME FIRST! I have done it many a time. Hillary thinks that Service men and women are BENEATH her. This has been expressed by her statements during Vietnam, and during her tour as the First Whore.
Anyway, she would be the type to feed her C@CKsukker before the troops.
What a Bitch!
June 9, 2005 - 04:48 AM on June 9th, 2005
11- best President?:shock: maybe at giving every opportunity for terrorist strikes, redefining sex for our children, causing an aspirin shortage in Iraq, causing the steady decline of the Northern States economies because of NAFTA. The biggest oof!- Somolia- killing soldiers through his stupidity. The only reason he wasn’t removed from office after impeachment- Gore was VP and the Republicans foresaw the damage he would do!
13, 14- ya got it!
35- oops- stoplite in Wallace, Idaho:wink:
47- “logging “forests”which are nothing more than tree farms that support nothing except the trees being grown there. THere is no ecosystem being contained in these areas. There is no underbrush, no small animals, no larger animals, only the certain species of trees being grown there. What matters are the old growth forests which are roughly 50% smaller now than they were even 100 years ago.”
Sabor- I happen to live in one of the states where you state there is no undergrowth, etc., in the quote marks. 2 years ago- Montana’s forests were being leveled because of the forest fires. We had to stay inside our homes, couldn’t go anywhere because of pending evacuations, etc., etc because of environmentalists preventing the fires from being put out. Here is a link to the description of the fires: Robert Megaplex – 107409 ac. Robert Fire – 57570 ac; Trapper Creek Complex -
19150 ac; Middle Fork Complex – 11851 ac; Rampage Complex – 24488 ac …
http://www.fs.fed.us/nwacfire/fireinfo/.
Because of Clinton/Gore environmental policies, the state of Montana will never look the same. In 2 short months, we lost over a million acres of old growth forests, how many animals, who knows. It is disgusting what the environmentalists do. They dig up roads by D9 Cats and put a whole into their sacred earth 20 feet deep, then cut down old growth trees to finish destroying the path that disabled people tread on (like me). Get your facts straight.
50- not to sound rude but….the environmentalists are trying to prevent slurry from being dropped from airplanes to put out fires and want “let it burn” policies to go on. The only reason Bush started fighting the fires so quickly is because Mrs. Bush had to be evacuated as a fire was advancing toward her vacation in Glacier Park 2 years ago.
51- you wouldn’t think they were minor fires if you lived here! Not when you can see the damage and feel the fire winds 15 miles away.:cry:
June 9, 2005 - 04:52 AM on June 9th, 2005
I forgot to say- Hilary is a vicious woman who will stop at nothing to get her way. She, in my mind, is psychotic and dangerous. Here’s a good place to do research on her: http://www.daywilliams.com/clinton_related_deaths_02.html. I’m sure Shelley Kelly and Ron Brown would have had alot to say if they wouldn’t have died so young.
June 9, 2005 - 06:47 AM on June 9th, 2005
There’s the Common Folk I have missed:smile: Glad to see you back on the boards, if only for a bit!:grin:
June 9, 2005 - 10:02 AM on June 9th, 2005
58: The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has defined a set of standards that all new Interstates must meet unless a waiver from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is obtained. These standards have become stricter over the years. One almost absolute standard is the controlled access nature of the roads. Except for a few exceptions, traffic lights (and cross traffic in general) are limited to toll booths and ramp meters (metered flow control for lane merging during rush hours). So either your example must not be an interstate highway and is either a state highway, U.S. highway, county road, whatever or there is some kind of exemption and the “interstate” is not a freeway.
June 11, 2005 - 02:51 AM on June 11th, 2005
June 13, 2005 - 03:22 AM on June 13th, 2005
58- It’s on Interstate 90 for your info. I’ve only driven over it for going on 25 years or so now. Might be because of being out West:roll: Definitely know it is there.
June 15, 2005 - 12:53 PM on June 15th, 2005
Sen. Clinton spoke the truth… something Bush has a serious problem doing. The world will be a better place when he is re-plated in Texas!:!:
June 15, 2005 - 12:55 PM on June 15th, 2005
64- She wouldn’t know the truth if it bit her on her fat ass:roll:
June 15, 2005 - 12:57 PM on June 15th, 2005
well, at least she is not responsible for the needless deaths of 1700+ American soldiers.. Bush has thier blood on his hands because of his LIES!
June 15, 2005 - 12:59 PM on June 15th, 2005
67,
Before you go on- I would like you to provide proof that Bush lied about the war. That doesn’t mean your opinion, nor does it mean a conspiracy theory. I want irrefuatable facts.
Ted
June 15, 2005 - 01:02 PM on June 15th, 2005
66, so Bill, you’d rather have the Traitorus liar Kerry in office? You know the Winter Soldier lies that Kerry told the Senate and the North Vietnamese uses as justification to BEAT our POWs, some of which succumbed to the beatings. Try this slogan Bill. Repeat after me, “Kerry Lied, POWs Died”.
June 15, 2005 - 01:04 PM on June 15th, 2005
65, you mean those double wide, deully hips?
June 15, 2005 - 01:05 PM on June 15th, 2005
where shall I start…..
1) prrof of WMDs… he had none
2) proof of a connection between Sadam and Al Queda… he had none
3) proof of Iraq having or in the process of getting nuclear weapons… he had none
he made claims of these to be facts.. none have proven to be so…
Bush lied and 1700+ American soldiers died…
how on Earth can you defend him???:???:
June 15, 2005 - 01:08 PM on June 15th, 2005
65-How did you know:razz:
June 15, 2005 - 01:15 PM on June 15th, 2005
mocking her appearance is funny.
why do you get so offended when i call President Cheney an ogre?
i guess it’s just funny when you do it.
June 15, 2005 - 01:20 PM on June 15th, 2005
72, I didn’t see Cheney in Afghanistan push his way in front of the line of soldiers in a chow hall to get double heaping helpings of Thanksgiving dinner like Mrs. Trailertrash and Dipstick Harry Reid did. I don’t see you get offended when Reid, Clinton, and other Democrats DIS the troops. What’s the matter, shiloh, you have no respect for the troops either?
June 15, 2005 - 01:25 PM on June 15th, 2005
68
admittedly our choices in the last election were limited… but Kerry served honestly in VN and was awarded metals for his actions there. Bush avoided service with the help of his daddy and went into the ANG (which at the time meant no active duty)..
and if you get down to brass tacks, he didn’t even fulfill his service in the guard…
he is an embarrassment to this great county!
June 15, 2005 - 01:30 PM on June 15th, 2005
pcd, i assume you’re not saying that anyone who was against the war hates America & disrespects the troops.
June 15, 2005 - 01:31 PM on June 15th, 2005
70,
Please continue, because you have thus far have not proved that Bush lied about anything.
Here is the definition of “lie”, for your convenience from dictionary.com
lie
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Do I have to remind you that Bush was going by the information the FBI and CIA were providing him. They failed to gather accurate intelligence (as did the rest of the world, I might add). To say Bush lied is like saying that when people beleived the earth was flat, they were also lying. Of course, they weren’t either
Now, please provide evidence that he lied. Remeber, a lie is a deliberate falsehood and not making a statement based on what is to be beleived accuarte evidence at the time.
Ted
June 15, 2005 - 01:31 PM on June 15th, 2005
70,
Please continue, because you have thus far have not proved that Bush lied about anything.
Here is the definition of “lie”, for your convenience from dictionary.com
lie
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Do I have to remind you that Bush was going by the information the FBI and CIA were providing him. They failed to gather accurate intelligence (as did the rest of the world, I might add). To say Bush lied is like saying that when people beleived the earth was flat, they were also lying. Of course, they weren’t either
Now, please provide evidence that he lied. Remember, a lie is a deliberate falsehood and not making a statement based on what is to be beleived accuarte evidence at the time.
Ted
June 15, 2005 - 01:32 PM on June 15th, 2005
74, Bill, you are full of manure. Bush served honorably. Kerry scammed his medals and his early exit from Vietnam. On top of that Kerry gave Aid and Comfort to the enemy with his lying testimony before the Senate while still in the reserves. There is nothing honorable about that gigolo Kerry.
June 15, 2005 - 01:33 PM on June 15th, 2005
75- asked and answered move along:roll:
June 15, 2005 - 01:34 PM on June 15th, 2005
74,
Yes, in many ways Bush is an embarrassment to this country but the same can be said about Bill Clinton and John Kerry.
Ted
June 15, 2005 - 01:37 PM on June 15th, 2005
75, I AM saying MOST of those people HATE America and HATE the Troops and what they stand for.
I see you dodged the direct question to you, as usual, shi. Why do you approve of The Megalomaniac from Chappaqua and Dispiccable Harry Reid Disrespecting the troops?
June 15, 2005 - 02:13 PM on June 15th, 2005
77
do you honestly believe that Bush thought there were WMDs in Iraq? That they had direct contact with Al Queda? That they had nuclear capbilities?
”’ ok, lets just say for the sake of this conversation that he did… that being the case, why in the name of God (something W thinks he has a direct connection to) didn’t he change course when he realized his information was incorrect??????
June 15, 2005 - 02:16 PM on June 15th, 2005
82, Bill, why do you want to give Iraq back to Saddam? After Saddam was captured was the time the special teams didn’t find the WMD, but people like you don’t even think of the 17 months Saddam had to hide them or ship them out of his country. Oh, I forgot, that was the UN taking their sweet time looking for figleves for Saddam.
June 15, 2005 - 02:22 PM on June 15th, 2005
82,
It doesn’t matter what I believe, it matters what I can prove, especially if I state something as fact.
That is something that a lot of people have lost site of.
Regarding your other statements…
1) Yes, Hussein’s regime did have direct contact with Al Queda, but we do not know what the results of those meeting were, if anything. This is exactly why the 9/11 Commission report said that there was no proof of a collaborative effort between Al Queda and Hussein.
2) Yes, we know there were (and emphasis on were) WMD’s in Iraq at one time. Per UN resolution, it was Hussein’s responsibility to account for them. He failed to do so, just as the UN and the US has failed to do so presently.
3) We know that he did NOT have nuclear capabilities.
Those three statements are facts.
As for why he didn’t change course- we were already in the war, and IMO justifiably so.
Ted
June 15, 2005 - 02:22 PM on June 15th, 2005
PCD,
why are we so concerned with Iraq? If we had put the efforts into dealing with the threats of Al Queda instead of dealing with Sadam, Bin Laden would be captured or killed… Iraq is not, and was not a threat to the United States. Bush has misled us terribly.
June 15, 2005 - 02:24 PM on June 15th, 2005
85,
Iraq was still a threat to the United states, and although it was proably not my first choicxe after FAganistan in the war on terror, it was still a valid choice none the less.
Ted
June 15, 2005 - 02:29 PM on June 15th, 2005
Bill, why are you so stupid?
Iraq had been threatening its neighbors for years, threatening the free flow of oil at market prices. Saddam was constantly trying to circumvent all the UN sanctons. Did you get one of Saddam’s oil vouchers?
Zarquawi went to Baghdad for treatment when he was injured in Afghanistan. Saddam also harbored Abu Nidal for years. Some how you believe Saddam was this innocent little crackpot like Kim, Mentally Ill. Just leave them alone, kowtow to their threats, and let them kill as many of their people as they want.
We are fighting Al-queda in Iraq NOT THE UNITED STATES you bloody fool. Now, if you want to wait until Al Queda attacks here again, mine if I save you the wait and blow your brains out now?
June 15, 2005 - 02:29 PM on June 15th, 2005
war should be the LAST possibe course of action…
the conflict in Iraq was not,,, it was pre-emptive, and it was the wrong thing to do. 1700+ families in this country are paying the price for this foolish and sad decision…
June 15, 2005 - 02:34 PM on June 15th, 2005
pcd
we are fighting Al Queda in Iraq ONLY because of our occupation of the country. Bin Laden loathed Sadam, as did Al Queda. The middle East has put away their differences and come together to fight us because of what we have done there. We are MUCH less safe than before we invaded.
… and please refrain from calling me names sir. I will not stupe to that level…
June 15, 2005 - 02:43 PM on June 15th, 2005
Bill, you are stupid. That is not a name, but your lack of intelligence.
It is idiots like you who tell the FBI and CIA that they cannot share information about the AlQueda bombing of the World Trade Towers. The GORELICK memo. If such information had been shared, Bill Clinton would have been impeached AND removed from office for not taking Bin Laden when the Sudanese offered him to us.
The Islamists don’t recognize governments or borders. Fools like you think that they would have left us alone if we just would have destroyed Israel and Christianity for them.
June 15, 2005 - 02:47 PM on June 15th, 2005
89, that we are mush less safe line is total Barbara Streisand. If we were so less safe, why are we so unconcerned about our open borders? Why are you not hiding under your bed? Look at all you America haters with your open air rallies. If we weren’t safe, you’d either be attacked during your damn rallies or you would be at home cowering under your beds afraid of the Christians, the GOP, or the DEA coming to get you.
June 15, 2005 - 02:48 PM on June 15th, 2005
I’ll notice that Bill has changed his tune from “lie” to “misled”
I’ll make it simple for you….here is a LIE.
“I did not have sex with that woman”
—-billy blowjob.
June 15, 2005 - 02:49 PM on June 15th, 2005
88- Do you even know how many U.N. resolutions Sadddam broke?
June 15, 2005 - 02:50 PM on June 15th, 2005
PCD
You are expressing your level if ignorance quite effectively. I feel sorry for your family and Friends that they must be exposed to you. Perhaps if you had managed to actually graduate from the 8th grade you would be able to see this. Do yourself a favor and present your arguments to yourself in the mirror prior to posting> That way you might see the errors of your ways and save yourself from yet even more embarassment….
… though I guess you could use the argument that “ignorance is bliss”…
June 15, 2005 - 02:54 PM on June 15th, 2005
94- And you are what, a graduate of the 9th grade? Please provide facts for the arguement you are attempting to make here Bill. The only thing I see you making is an ass of yourself.
June 15, 2005 - 02:56 PM on June 15th, 2005
Bill, I guess you are just another arrogant retard of the left. You focus on your poor, little ego getting beating as an excuse why you can’t refute anything. You should be thankful God has allowed you to be so stupid and live in the US where you can be stupid and still vote.
June 15, 2005 - 03:09 PM on June 15th, 2005
92
would you not rather have an intelligent sex fiend in the whitehouse than a fool with a 2 digit IQ?
June 15, 2005 - 03:16 PM on June 15th, 2005
97, Al Gore (2 digit IQ) did not get into the White House. According to the purported Yale records released by Kerry, Kerry’s grades were not as good as George Bush’s.
The sex fiend let Bin Laden go to plot and execute 9/11, not only that, while he was getting Monicas, Kim mentally ill was making Nukes that he agreed with Clinton not to do.
But, little trolls like you will go around making assenine insinuations to justify your America Hatred.
June 15, 2005 - 03:29 PM on June 15th, 2005
pcd
I do not hate America. Why do you feel that anyone that disagrees with you must hate America? That is quite shallow.
June 15, 2005 - 03:53 PM on June 15th, 2005
88,
Yes, it was preemptive from a conventional standpoint. That has nothing to do with it being right or wrong, however. Iraq was a threat to our national security.
89,
No, we are in Iraq fighting Al Queda so we don’t have to fight them on US soil. While Sadaam was a secularist, he was beginning to coddle up to many of the religious based radical movements beginning in the early 90’s on an “an enemy of my enemy is my friend” basis. There was also proof that he had some terrorist training camps before Desert Storm, not to mention the state sponsored assassination attempt of Bush I.
Oh, and we haven’t been attacked since 9/11 so I don’t see how you say we aren’t safer. Granted, at one point I am sure we will be, but it is doubtful if it will yield the same effects as 9/11. besides, it takes years for policy changes such as this to take effect.
97,
OOC, are you of the same ilk that always claimed that Kerry’s was more intelligent than Bush? You know that’s been debunked, right?
Ted
June 15, 2005 - 03:57 PM on June 15th, 2005
Bill,
This is the tell tale trait of the “neo-consevative”. If you do not agree 100% with their views, you obviously hate America. The odd thing, is that that type of mind-set is decidedly un-Americam. Our friend PCD is very closed minded and destined to live in his shallow, closed world. Don’t be upset with him, feel sorry for him. He is unable to help himself.
June 15, 2005 - 04:06 PM on June 15th, 2005
101-I don’t think it would be considered “close-minded” as much as a dislike for ignorance.
June 15, 2005 - 04:10 PM on June 15th, 2005
Peejz,
Just one question…
If one were to disagree with your views, would you automaticly classify him as un-American?
June 15, 2005 - 04:16 PM on June 15th, 2005
103-More than likely not, but then again, I haven’t seen PCD call you un-american either:roll:
June 15, 2005 - 04:36 PM on June 15th, 2005
It was not me that he called un-American, it was Bill. Though I may disagree with certain views others have, I would not immediatly call someone un-American because of that. This country is made up of many different ethnicities which is a very possitive thing. We all do not see thing exactly the same way. Yet, we are all Americans. Having a different opinion does not make it a wrong opinion. That is what this country was founded on.
June 15, 2005 - 04:48 PM on June 15th, 2005
I can decidely say that I have disagreed with PCD, Peejz, Kilo and the like and have never been accused of hating America.
I have often found a tell tale sign of someone who has no idea of what a Neo-Con is that they usually pre-emptively call people Neo-Cons.
Funny how that works
Ted
June 15, 2005 - 04:52 PM on June 15th, 2005
point taken….
I’ll be careful to think carefully prior to using the term.
June 15, 2005 - 04:54 PM on June 15th, 2005
105-”It was not me that he called un-American, it was Bill”- Well why are you getting involved? It didn’t concern you did it?
June 15, 2005 - 04:57 PM on June 15th, 2005
I guess not, I was simply pointing out that the comment was not proper.
June 15, 2005 - 05:05 PM on June 15th, 2005
109-That would be a matter of opinion. I won’t edit it. The debate becomes quite spirited around here. It isn’t a place for thin skinned people. All opinions are welcome here. I only edit a post if it is double posted.
June 15, 2005 - 05:14 PM on June 15th, 2005
Haven’t seen anything onm this as I browsed the site, so i thought I’d post a quickie in the interest of keeping folks advised. Ciao.
From Truthout, more on the Downing Street Memo(s) and the rush to war:
… One document, a briefing paper partnered with the Downing Street Minutes, states bluntly that British officials knew an invasion would be illegal, but had no choice but to figure out a way to frame it as legal, because Bush was going into Iraq no matter what and would use British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia to do so. This would make Britain complicit in the invasion even if they decided not to send troops, and so it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal.
How does one go about creating the conditions for legality? By framing facts and intelligence around the policy, of course. The word “Lie” does not appear in any of the released documents, but the need to lie, the decision to lie, in order to justify war permeates every word.
This document also exposes the Bush administration’s rhetorical nonsense about “supporting the troops” by describing how their war plans did anything but. In a section of this briefing paper titled “Benefits/Risks,” the authors wrote, “Even with a legal base and a viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks. A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point.” …
June 15, 2005 - 05:15 PM on June 15th, 2005
Conversation would be most dull if all parties agreed on everything…:???:
June 15, 2005 - 05:25 PM on June 15th, 2005
Hmmmmm Ellis…
This would make the Blair adminsitration less than honest~
June 15, 2005 - 05:34 PM on June 15th, 2005
113. Trying to shift the focus?
June 15, 2005 - 05:36 PM on June 15th, 2005
no need to…
June 15, 2005 - 05:47 PM on June 15th, 2005
112-Exactly:smile:
June 15, 2005 - 06:16 PM on June 15th, 2005
just curious why Wacko Jacko is getting more news coverage than this?
June 15, 2005 - 06:23 PM on June 15th, 2005
117-As we talked about in another thread, there really is no story to the memos other than the fact that they don’t get the press some people think they merit.
June 15, 2005 - 06:29 PM on June 15th, 2005
but if the memos are valid, questions do need to be asked. (and answered)
June 15, 2005 - 06:34 PM on June 15th, 2005
119-What is it that you are looking for? What question would you ask that hasn’t been asked?
June 15, 2005 - 06:42 PM on June 15th, 2005
the memo details how our government did not believe Iraq was a greater threat than other nations; how intelligence was “fixed” to sell the case for war to the American public; and how the Bush Administration’s public assurances of “war as a last resort” were at odds with their privately stated intentions.
you must ask yourself: Was I misled? Did President Bush tell me the truth when he said he would not take us to war unless absolutely necessary?
I think Bush owes everyone a response to this question.
June 15, 2005 - 07:07 PM on June 15th, 2005
121-That’s where we disagree. This memo does not lead me to ask those questions. I do not ask those questions because I paid attention to everything that was said leading up to the invasion. I also felt we cut and ran in 91 and should have completed the mission. Saddam was given ample opportunity to comply with resolution 1441, but he chose not to. I do believe he was a threat to the security of this nation. I continue to support the war. Am I troubled by the deaths? Yes, but unfortunately that is a price we pay for our freedom.
June 15, 2005 - 08:38 PM on June 15th, 2005
101, Max, take your elitist condesension and shove it. Get your facts straight. I am NOT a neo-con. I am an Ultra Conservative. You are a pissant goat roper.
When I see a closed minded America hater like Bill, I call them on it. YOu, Bill, shiloh, ellis, have very thin skins because you fight with words and nasty words cut you to the quick.
Bill is an America hater because he adopts the rhetoric of the America’s enemies and blames America for all the ill of the Progressive movement. A movement that would see America destroyed rather than have a non-Progressive philosophy run the country.
June 15, 2005 - 08:44 PM on June 15th, 2005
99, Bill you are as shallow as a Rather/Mapes investigation. You are the one that moves on from accusation to a new accusation as soon as your last accusation is blown out of the water. YOU attack with lies and falsehoods. YOU swallow like Lewinski forged documents just to reverse an election that Gore couldn’t steal or Kerry win.
June 16, 2005 - 06:25 AM on June 16th, 2005
Well, part of the problem is that we don’t know the legitimacy of the Downing Street memo. This is probably the main reason the mainstream press hasn’t jump all over it. It is sourced anonymously, and we all know the press’ recent track record regarding those type of sources.
As far as the questions presented in 121, those have been answered long, long ago as they were repeatedly asked through 2 years of campaign and post campaign rhetoric. At this point, we are beating the proverbial dead horse.
Ted
June 16, 2005 - 06:43 AM on June 16th, 2005
125. The authenticity has not been questioned. Even Blair and Bush in their press conference last week did not debunk the existence of the memo. The memo first appeared in the British press.
You say the questions raised in 1212 have been answered. I say those “answers” were incomplete, probably not truthful, and misleading. It’s time for a full, honest, accurate accounting.
This is not a dead horse. It’s a serious issue that anyone who wantts the truth would pursue. Remember, over 1700 military dead, scores wounded, international relations derailed and severely damaged, a presence in Iraq for a long time per ground commanders, no exit strategy, etc. Perhaps the truth scares you.
June 16, 2005 - 07:14 AM on June 16th, 2005
127,
Actually, you are not correct. When mentioned in the press conference, Bush and Blair did not say it was true. They actually denied the assertion that are put forth by the memo.
This memo’s authenticity has not been verified, (when I say authenticity, I mean the “facts” contained there in) for the source is anonymous. Can I can make a statement anonymously and without any verification uphold it as true? Of course not- so why is this any different?
You may say the answers are incomplete- that is your opinion. If you wish to continue to search for the proverbial pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, that is your prerogative.
Sorry- but this is a dead horse. The only people who don’t recognize this are the desperate “notBush” clan. Just as it did during the Clinton era, that kind of thinking makes no sense.
Ted
June 16, 2005 - 07:25 AM on June 16th, 2005
126, ellis is still shilling for forged, ginned up, not true documents from anonymous sources? ellis, dear shyster, you have no shame and no integrity, but you are a typical Progressive.
June 16, 2005 - 07:26 AM on June 16th, 2005
Ted, why do you point your posts at the post you are posting???
June 16, 2005 - 07:36 AM on June 16th, 2005
129,
I have no idea- must be talking to myself!
Ted
June 16, 2005 - 07:43 AM on June 16th, 2005
128,
For all we know, the document may be authentic, however that doesn’t mean the contents of the documents are true. With out collaborative evidence one can’t just assume that it is, though.
Ted
June 16, 2005 - 07:49 AM on June 16th, 2005
131, for all we know, this may be one moonbat who got his/her hands on official stationary to write down their delusions.
Just like that dingbat AZ State Rep that issued a press release on State Democrat Caucus stationary demanding Sean Hannity be arrested for entering the country illegally.
Personally I think the authors in both these examples should be punished severely for frauduelently misrepresenting themselves and propagating Libel.
June 16, 2005 - 07:52 AM on June 16th, 2005
Ted,
Bush and Blair didn’t deny the memo, either. That’s my point. Also, there have been other memos to surface that point to the same conclusions ans the “Downing Street Memo.” All of the memos are of UK origin, and come from high ranking officials involved in the UK decision-making process.
June 16, 2005 - 08:09 AM on June 16th, 2005
133, ellis, how many of these memo sources got “Oil for Food” vouchers from Saddam?
June 16, 2005 - 08:29 AM on June 16th, 2005
133,
Bush and Blair denied the contents of the memo were true.
As I said, no evidence that points to the truth of the content of the memo, and just because it came from a British government official doesn’t mean there isn’t an agenda involved here.
Let’s face it this is by no means evidence, but something used to prop up straw man arguments made by people who will do anything they can to smear Bush or Blair. This is partitioned politics at it’s ugliest, and no more.
This is why both parties suck, at least for one reason.
June 16, 2005 - 09:15 AM on June 16th, 2005
back from a few winks of needed sleep…
…
gentlemen,
If said memo does prove to be true… Would the items stated in the document not even slightly cause you to question the motives of the Bush administration? Or is it that you take every word that they say as gospel?
June 16, 2005 - 09:19 AM on June 16th, 2005
Max, did it ever occur to you that your side is lying from the start and trying to use lies in any way they can to reverse an election where your side was basically told to go to Hell?
June 16, 2005 - 09:33 AM on June 16th, 2005
you are so correct PCD,,,,
in 2000 Bush actually got less votes than Gore..
in 2004 Bush got 51% of the popular vote.
a magnificent mandate to be sure!….
why do you refuse to answer the question I asked?
June 16, 2005 - 10:04 AM on June 16th, 2005
Because your side has a long history of forging documents, false testimony, and stuffing ballot boxes.
Also, Bush got more than 51%. You can’t even get that right in your Bush hatred.
June 16, 2005 - 10:13 AM on June 16th, 2005
136,
I don’t doubt the memo to be authentic (although we yet to have that proof), what I want is collaborative evidence. This means no hearsay, rumors or conspiracy theories, but evidence.
This is a similar to a common tactic from news media. One will run with a story from an anonymous source. Then another paper will run it, then another until one paper runs it as the gospel truth because by that time it will have run in twenty or thirty papers, but all still from the same anonymous source.
I want evidence, not spread thin hear say..
Ted
June 16, 2005 - 10:18 AM on June 16th, 2005
Ted, beaware MoveOn.org and a few other “Progressive” organizations are urging their members to target different media people demanding they publicize this “document” and castigate Bush for taking us to war.
June 16, 2005 - 10:25 AM on June 16th, 2005
pcd
the “Progressive”organizations that you mention are simply trying to get the mainstream media to report news rather than spend time reporting on Michael Jackson. I would think that you would want to know all the facts before making your decision on a matter as important as this might be.
June 16, 2005 - 10:34 AM on June 16th, 2005
Max, why confuse the issue with facts? FoxNews is “fair and balanced” [gag] … what do they say? Isn’t that all the conservatives need to know? Fox’ position and also what’s in the morning talking points memo/email from RNC (or whoever distributes it)? And don’t tell me there is no morning memo … a very well respected and honest friend who works in the DC/national news arena confirms its presence.
June 16, 2005 - 10:40 AM on June 16th, 2005
ellis with his anonymous sources again. You ready for the mothership to beam you up, ellis?
June 16, 2005 - 10:41 AM on June 16th, 2005
Fu Xnews on the right, Air America on the left, and corporate owned and censored media in the middle… the state of journalism in this country right now is in extremely sad shape…
June 16, 2005 - 10:44 AM on June 16th, 2005
142-Max, as I stated before, many of us studied this prior to the invasion. We are satisfied with the information we were given in the years, months, and days leading up to the invasion. You still have not answered my question in #120. All you did is tell me what you thought I should ask.
June 16, 2005 - 10:45 AM on June 16th, 2005
MaxQ… I agree with that.
However, there is not denying the leftist bent of the producers / editors / reporters.
don’t forget.. in 1996, 43% of 43% voted for William Fellatio Jefferson Blythe Clinton
92% of washington based correspondents cast their votes for the blowjob king..
does that tell you anything about the state of journalism in this country?
June 16, 2005 - 10:46 AM on June 16th, 2005
145-How so?
June 16, 2005 - 10:46 AM on June 16th, 2005
143,
I say to you again-
What “facts” have the downing street memo revealed?
Ted
June 16, 2005 - 10:53 AM on June 16th, 2005
satisfied with the information you have been provided? you can’t be serious!
tell me… when was the last time that you have seen a dead American soldier from the Iraq war on US TV? You have not.. Do you wonder why that might be??? Think about it… the VN war was brought to an end by the nightly reports of dead and maimed soldiers being beamed into our living rooms. We the people demanded an end to it! The current administration has the corporation’s that own the media outlets by the balls… you see the “news” that W wants you to see and nothing more…
June 16, 2005 - 10:56 AM on June 16th, 2005
150-:roll:
June 16, 2005 - 10:58 AM on June 16th, 2005
150
Peejz
I agree with you completely on this ;0)
June 16, 2005 - 11:01 AM on June 16th, 2005
150,
Actually, I saw a dead soldier on last night’s news. Also was references the 1700+ dead soldier, but the figures was the current amount.
Ted
June 16, 2005 - 11:04 AM on June 16th, 2005
Ted,
you are pin-point correct on this… It is the number of dead that is most important.
June 16, 2005 - 11:05 AM on June 16th, 2005
Jim lehrer does his teary-eyed little tribute every day at the end of the News Hour.
What I want to know is….. 1,700 american soldiers have lost their lives in over 2 years in Iraq and Afghanistan, toppling brutal and hostile regimes and liberating 50 million people
in the same time, in New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and DC alone, 2,235 people have been murdered on the streets…
when is Mayor Williams, Mayor Street, etc. going to be comfortable announcing an end to major combat operations in these ghettos????
….just a little perspective for you folks.
June 16, 2005 - 11:06 AM on June 16th, 2005
155-Hey, don’t add reality to this:wink:
June 16, 2005 - 11:06 AM on June 16th, 2005
150, Max, your MoveOn.org hysteria dosen’t move me. You going to try to tell me that “October Surprise” was true, too?
June 16, 2005 - 11:08 AM on June 16th, 2005
157- You mean it wasn’t?
June 16, 2005 - 11:13 AM on June 16th, 2005
154,
An attempt to twist words will get you nothing more than a label of “just another Michael Moore” with me and just places you in the category of those whose opinions I can not respect.
155,
Perspective is what is lacking, you are correct. Here is what it boils down to for anyone who is concerned:
Was the war warranted?
If one thinks it was, then one can not possibly think that the 1700 men and women who gave their lives was in vain. Given history and proper perspective.
If one thinks it was not, then the lives were needlessly given, pacifists aside.
Ted
June 16, 2005 - 11:20 AM on June 16th, 2005
gentlemen,
my point simply is that we have 2 very opposite news broadcast forums(far right and far left) …
there is absolutly nothing in the middle.
I find that one must view as many sources as possible (from all views) and make an effort to decipher what small amounts of truth one can…
June 16, 2005 - 11:21 AM on June 16th, 2005
here I go… agreeing with ted yet again
June 16, 2005 - 11:22 AM on June 16th, 2005
160-Now you say your arguement is the news? Please:roll: IMO, you don’t like what you hear, therefore the problem is the source, or lack of it. It couldn’t possibly be you.
June 16, 2005 - 01:15 PM on June 16th, 2005
you are right… I don’t like what I have been hearing.
But, the issue is that major corporations now own the media outlets. Therefore they refuse to upset the applecart with actual reporting. Everything is sugarcoated. They don’t want to piss of anybody (left or right). There are stockholders to answer to now… And we the public are the ones that suffer (no matter where you stand on the political playing field)…
June 16, 2005 - 01:18 PM on June 16th, 2005
163-I could very easily turn that arguement around and ask why I don’t hear of the good that is coming from the war. Everynight on the local and national news, I hear the bad, but I usually need to scour the papers to find any good. I am not sure where it is you get your news, but there is no shortage of war reports on my television.
Are you now calling for a change in the laws concerning the ownership of Media Outlets?
June 16, 2005 - 01:33 PM on June 16th, 2005
Peejz,
It is a war… good news and war are mutually exclusive terms..
Changing the laws concerning ownership of media outlets would help. I’m not sure of the best way to do that, but it couldn’t make things any worse.
Example: (though not pertaining to news) look at the mess that Clear Channel has done to radio in this country.
June 16, 2005 - 01:49 PM on June 16th, 2005
165-I disagree. Much good has come of this war. I am sorry you are not able to see that.
June 16, 2005 - 01:52 PM on June 16th, 2005
peejz
you mean…
25 million muslim women no longer subject to virtual slavery?
Rape rooms closed down?
Schools and hospitals being built?
Mass graves no longer being filled?
you mean those GOOD things?????
June 16, 2005 - 02:03 PM on June 16th, 2005
144. I assure you that my source is solid and legitimate. He is in the news field. I choose not to enter his name in this forum. You don’t believe me? I don’t give a flying fig newton. Anything that contardicts your position, pcd, or impugns your statement(s) is marginalized with a simple “BS” from you and your ilk. Does it feel good to always be right? Perhaps why it’s “right wing” … y’all neve rmake a mistake; just asl any of you.
June 16, 2005 - 02:05 PM on June 16th, 2005
167-There you go:wink:
June 16, 2005 - 02:05 PM on June 16th, 2005
146. peejz, the info you were given prior to the invasion came from the same people who the memos suggest did wrong. What did you expect pre-invasion? Misleading is misleading … some call it lying.
June 16, 2005 - 02:07 PM on June 16th, 2005
170-I wasn’t misled about anything. And by the way, if your source is so good, why not post his/her name?
June 16, 2005 - 02:07 PM on June 16th, 2005
c’mon ellis…I haven’t heard one yet today..
let’s get a BUSH LIED!! HALIBURTON!! CARLYSLE GROUP!!!
how exactly do Michael Moore’s nuts taste as they slap ever-so-gently on your ready chin?
June 16, 2005 - 02:10 PM on June 16th, 2005
168,
I don’t think it is unreasonable fr anyone on this forum to ask anyone else to back up their claims with proof.
170,
I will once again put forth the challenge- please show me where George Bush lied about the war.
Ted
June 16, 2005 - 02:13 PM on June 16th, 2005
171. peejz, I choose not to get a friend involved with the numb-nuts here. I respect him too much. Shed all the doubt you want. The truth hurts, huh?
172. kilogram, you’re such a fool.
June 16, 2005 - 02:17 PM on June 16th, 2005
oh, I’m the fool
like ted said…please show me ONE thing that the president LIED about.
ONE THING!!!!
June 16, 2005 - 02:17 PM on June 16th, 2005
174- I look at it as a lie Ellis
June 16, 2005 - 02:19 PM on June 16th, 2005
Gotta run, folks. I’ll check back again some time. Just can’t stay away … guess I need to remind myself that there are real live folks who think like y’all do (the right wingers). BTW, the truth on most of the issues raised here probably lies somewhere in the middle.
June 16, 2005 - 02:20 PM on June 16th, 2005
176. So be it, peejz. It’s what I was told. Ciao.
June 16, 2005 - 02:20 PM on June 16th, 2005
People who stand in the middle of the road……….get run over.
June 16, 2005 - 02:24 PM on June 16th, 2005
179-:lol:
June 16, 2005 - 02:25 PM on June 16th, 2005
Yet another challenge left unanswered.
Ted
June 16, 2005 - 02:38 PM on June 16th, 2005
ever thought perhaps that not many people have the time to keep up with the 3 of you tag teaming them? just because someone leaves does not give you a victory. and no I don’t want to take their place.
June 16, 2005 - 02:45 PM on June 16th, 2005
183,
It isn’t a matter of time. It is a matter of one getting their facts straight. It is a challenge I put forth because I know it is one that can not be met.
When someone makes an assertion a fact, it is time to provide proof.
Ted
June 16, 2005 - 02:55 PM on June 16th, 2005
Ok just to please you tell me about WMD… should be easy, you must have this one well polished by now (oh and I have 4 minutes before home time)
June 16, 2005 - 03:01 PM on June 16th, 2005
No comment? Oh man you disapoint me again…. I’m off
June 16, 2005 - 03:11 PM on June 16th, 2005
what about the WMD???
you mean the WMD’s that John F. Simoes Ferierra Heinz Kennedy Kohn said were there?
or the WMD’s that William Jefferson Blythe Clinton said were there (between head sessions)
or the WMD’s that the entire US congress said were there?
or maybe the WMD’s that the CIA and British Intelligence said were there?
Or maybe the WMD’s that the dead Iranians and Kurds in Mass graves experienced FIRST HAND???
those ones?
June 16, 2005 - 03:13 PM on June 16th, 2005
yes, I can see how you might think that President Bush made it all up out of thin air…just to enrich Haliburton’s pockets..I totally get that.
idiot.
June 16, 2005 - 03:24 PM on June 16th, 2005
184,
I’m not the one making the assertion that Bush lied. The burden of proof is not mine to carry.
Ted
June 16, 2005 - 03:29 PM on June 16th, 2005
by their logic, Bush, the entire congress, the UN, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, British Intelligence, Tony Blair, etc. etc. etc….ALL LIARS.
June 16, 2005 - 06:09 PM on June 16th, 2005
The fact that there still are idiots in this country that think the way you people do is most disheartening to normal Americans. You all would have been very comfortable living in Nazi Germany.
Wait, thats it, I must have stumbled upon the website of the American Nazi Party!
Have any of you ever had an original though for yourself, or do you just take the brownshirts line of bull and consider that the absolute truth?
June 16, 2005 - 08:13 PM on June 16th, 2005
Lol, calm down guys, calm down, just playing devils advocate, I support the war 100% and for a lot less reasons than they came up with. For me Sadam’s a asshole was good enough. It does upset me that they had to justify their actions beyond that simple fact, especially the WMD story, it was simply one excuse too many. You have to admit that the post war political climate would have been better without the whole WMD crap.