Anti Bush read this ...

[ifly4food]

I can't answer that but to speculate.

My speculation is that a bottle of Anthrax would be a much more obvious fabrication whan some obscure equipment. If you're going to fabiricate something, don't make it an obvious fabrication.

 

[SquirrelDog]

All liberal BS!

I suppose the whole 9/11 thing was staged by are government too.

It is a fact that the economy if affected from 4 to 8 years after the president was in office...i.e. CLINTON

W. on the other hand is making the turn around faster than I have ever seen for the U.S.

Yes, this is partially due to the WAR but history shows that a war turns economy's around, Bush must have been reading. Not to mention we have these middle east country's with terroist destroying our skylines.

And for the guy on here who said Bush isn't going about handling the middle east, as terroists go, WHO THE HELL KNOWS how to handle them, its a new threat we have to LEARN to deal with. New as in this century.

The U.S. must first place troops on All our borders and once secure get the D$MN 13 million illegals out of this free loading society. Pay taxes or get out. I'm tired of paying for your 10 kids.
And if Pueto Rico isn't going to become state 51 and pay taxes like everyone else then lets stop supporting them, PLEASE!

For good reading try, "The terrible truth about Liberals" by Neil Boorts.

Squirreldog
if your not with us, then your not!

 

[Snakum]

Why don't you bleeding heart, pinko commie liberal fags stop smoking dope so you can sobber up long enough to realize just what is going on.

Nothing like open, intelligent dialog, eh?



Allow me to stoop to your level ...

I'm afraid if I sobered up I'd kill myself when I realized what your mother actually looks like the morning after.

Now ....

Are we any closer to open and intelligent dialog?

You guys are wasting your time, but 350 ... I do admire your guts. I gave up trying to carry on a rational conversation with our Republican brothers a long time ago. It's all just ranting and raving.

Besides ... as I said earlier ... both parties are equally corrupt and should be run out of town.



Minh

 

[KickSave]

Re: All liberal BS!

I suppose the whole 9/11 thing was staged by are government too.

It is a fact that the economy if affected from 4 to 8 years after the president was in office...i.e. CLINTON

W. on the other hand is making the turn around faster than I have ever seen for the U.S.

Yes, this is partially due to the WAR but history shows that a war turns economy's around, Bush must have been reading. Not to mention we have these middle east country's with terroist destroying our skylines.

Are you completely stoned? The economy isn't effected by things a president did 4 to 8 years ago any more than it's effected by future events which cannot be predicted. The economy under Clinton was the best in a century, and you want to say it's because of Reagan? Or Bush? Puhleaze! It was because of A) the Technology explosion and B) a balanced budget. A was not due to any president, but to the natural course of events, and B was CERTAINLY not due to ANY Repulican politican in this century (or the last). Raise spending, lower taxes, yeah, that's how we'll balance the budget, err, I mean get votes! It's irresponsible as heck, and Clinton was the first president in 12 years to do something about it... unless you consider saying "Read my lips" a positive step. The economy isn't directly effected by the president, but consumer confidence and therefore SPENDING plays a huge part, and under Clinton both were at very high levels. Consumer confidence started to erode right around the time WBush was jumping ahead in the polls, and the economy has slumped ever since. What epic turnaround are you seeing that is so much faster than any in recent history? That's the most ridiculous statement I've seen in this thread, and there have been some doosies! The economy is STILL in the toilet, and Bush's trickle down economics won't balance the budget, or stimulate the econmy ANY more than it did for Reagan or his daddy.


As for Clinton, yeah, he might have been a sex maniac, but he was no more dishonest than any other president since Carter, and he actually tried to pay for the things his government spent it's money on, unlike either Bush. And finally, those who blame Clinton for 9/11, can write Osama a letter and ask him what made him hate the USA so darn much... he'll tell you, it was when the infidels parked their army in the holy land, in 1990. That's when Al quaida was born.

Right now I simply can't imagine the hatred and destruction that we are due for in 10 more years as a result of our marginally justified invasion of Iraq. We've just given birth to the seed of 100 more Osama's who we don't even have on our radar screens yet. Our intelligence, and the supposed war on Terror, will absolutely NEVER stay ahead of people who want to kill themselves to make a point to us. ugh!

 

[SquirrelDog]

You have got to be kidding me if you believe that hunk of SH$T.

Talk to almost any economist and they will tell you the economy lags several years behind the administration it came from. This is taught everywhere, I mean come on!

Clinton to this country is like fleas to a dog. What a great guy, great role model for our young and the rest of the world to look at. Scum bag and a half. The guy is just sleezy and the only person worse is that skanky wife of his. Hmmm, cheats around all the time but she won't dump him, great values.

I can't believe you liberals call yourself pilots.
I can't believe you pilots call yourself liberals.

Don't get mad, I have friends with the above credentials.
But come on, we fly thousand pound machines that pour out millions of gallans of dead dinosaurs a year. You know gas and oil. One of the worst polluters out there.

having fun
Squirreldog

 

[prodigal]

crow

All you doubters talk as though we've searched every square inch of Iraq and found nothing. We've only begun the search and so far probably only looked in the most obvious places. Do you have any idea how easy it would be to hide this stuff? Do you think the Iraqis hid it in the "obvious" places?
When it's finally found, and it will be, there'll be a lot of crow served up on this here board. But I seriously doubt that any of the naysayers will be man enough to stand up and take the hit.

 

[JJay]

What I can't get past is, if Saddam did have WMD, why didn't he use them against our troops? He had nothing to lose. He knew we were trying to kill him and he knew he would be defeated. Why not try to do as much damage as possible? I can't come up with a logical explanation.

 

[prodigal]

Saddam may be mad in a way but he's not completely stupid. He knew quite well he could not stand up to our military. Therefore his strategy appears to have been to hide the WMD (posssibly in Syria-and he had a long time to do so) so as to garner more world support when we have trouble finding them, go underground and wage guerrilla resistance and try to make this another Vietnam for America. Then (he reckons) when we are forced to pull out due to war fatigue and anti-war sentiment here at home (thank you democrats), he'll come out of his hole and reclaim leadership. Actually makes a lot of sense from his perspective.

Here's a thougt . . . maybe Saddam hid the WMDs in France???

 

[prodigal]

To all you libs, dems and Clinton sycophants who believe Bush is lying about WMD, it has just occured to me that you think this way not just because you may have a different political view. You were conditioned by Bill Clinton for 8 years, consciously or subconsciously, to believe that almost everything that came out of the President's mouth was a lie, just like Pavlov's dogs. It's no wonder that you are so cynical when your own guy let you down so much.
As someone who came of age (way) before Clinton and actually know what the meaning of "is" is, I would challenge you to do some serious introspection about your motives and reasons for your vehemence.
In my opinion we now have a very moral and courageous President who has the courage to actually take meaningful action to protect America, not just lob a few cruise missiles into an aspirin factory and pay lip service to security. And by the way, protecting America from her enemies is Job #1, NOT social security, NOT education, NOT creating jobs. However important those other things may be, they are still secondary to homeland security. These enemies don't just mean to aggravate us, they mean to destroy America. If we don't defeat them the rest is meaningless.
And lest you think I am a Bush sycophant, I am not. The libertarian in me detests how the President is growing the federal government, education dept., and yes, even some aspects of the Homeland Security Dept. disturb me.
But we have already forgotten 9/11 and forgotten (or never realized) that this is really WAR. Long before 9/11 I had long conversations with my elders about what it must have been like to be alive during Pearl Harbor and WWII when we were in a fight for our very existence. The enemy then meant to destroy American. Wake up folks. Our enemy now doesn't use traditional military tactics, but they no less mean to destroy us. This is a fight for our survival.
So I sincerely challenge you doubters to examine your own motives and reasons for your vehemence against Bush. Good people of differing viewpoints can disagree on principle. But at least be intellectually honest and argue from hard fact and reason. We're all in this together as Americans.

 

[ilinipilot]

"Right now I simply can't imagine the hatred and destruction that we are due for in 10 more years as a result of our marginally justified invasion of Iraq. We've just given birth to the seed of 100 more Osama's who we don't even have on our radar screens yet. Our intelligence, and the supposed war on Terror, will absolutely NEVER stay ahead of people who want to kill themselves to make a point to us. ugh!"

Excellently put, this is why 9-11 happened in the first place. There are thousands of opinions on the war in IRAQ, BUSH, Clinton etc. BUT the underlying fact is that the US is not well perceived by the rest of the world, especially muslims. Until we do something about changing our perception we will fail.

I think the war in itself was justified but we went about it the wrong way. We need to start being a smaller player and let other countres take the lead becuase then the heat gets off of us. The titles on newspapers in the Muslim world is all about the US led invasion. Imagine our world wide perception if the war is led a muslin country with US assistance like Saudi Arabia for example.

Its my opinoin that, that would improve our world wide perception,

D

 

[prodigal]

We need to start being a smaller player and let other countres take the lead becuase then the heat gets off of us


Like who? Who even has the willingness, let alone the capability to do so? Germany? France, perhaps? The UN?
What you suggest would be nice for us but unfortunately we must take care of it ourselves because no one else will, at least until the hard lifting is done and things are stabilized. Hard but true.

 

[KickSave]

"You were conditioned by Bill Clinton for 8 years, consciously or subconsciously, to believe that almost everything that came out of the President's mouth was a lie, just like Pavlov's dogs. It's no wonder that you are so cynical when your own guy let you down so much."

Ummm....


Watergate - 1972
Iran Contra - 1986
Monica - 1996


Actually I think we've been conditioned to NOT believe the rhetoric
since WAY before Bill wanted to keep his personal indiscretions a secret. If you ask me, when comparing a president lying about having sex, vs lying about orchestrating a cover up of what they are illegally doing with my tax dollars or an illegal breakin to fix an election, it's hard for me to listen to conservitive high and mighty's talk so indignantly about this subject. Half the republican senators and congressmen who were chasing Clinton with a pitchfork, were guilty of virtually the same thing at one point in time.

 

[prodigal]

Watergate - 1972
Iran Contra - 1986
Monica - 1996


Actually I think we've been conditioned to NOT believe the rhetoric
since WAY before Bill wanted to keep his personal indiscretions a secret. If you ask me, when comparing a president lying about having sex, vs lying about orchestrating a cover up of what they are illegally doing with my tax dollars or an illegal breakin to fix an election, it's hard for me to listen to conservitive high and mighty's talk so indignantly about this subject. Half the republican senators and congressmen who were chasing Clinton with a pitchfork, were guilty of virtually the same thing at one point in time. [/B][/QUOTE]


Nor will you find me defending those particular acts of Republican presidents either. A spade is a spade. You can't justify Clinton by what others may have done. It reminds me of the child who gets caught smoking (or whatever) and excuses it by saying all the other kids do it.
When Nixon was finally outed, he knew he had done wrong, his party knew it, the press knew it and the nation knew it. There was no massive effort to justify it by equivocating about what the meaning of "is" is. How Orwellian is that?
At least Nixon finally did put the best interests of the nation above his own personal ambitions by resigning, showing at least some grace and decorum. But Clinton's own ambitions and self-interests were always more important than the nations.

 

[CLCAP]

Let's keep this real...those "components" were buried 12 years ago and even the current administration is not calling them the "smoking gun". The guy with the mustache was no saint by any means and the whole world is much better of without him but that doesn't mean that we weren't "lied" to when Powell told the UN that the Iraqi army could use those weapons against us on 45 minutes notice. We were all told by our president that we went to war (and about one American soldier gets killed every day right now) because of the threat of WMD's that those inept UN observers couldnt find for two full months - well we don't seem to be doing THAT much better than them having the whole country at our disposal. Just my 3 cents.....

 

[prodigal]

Why do you suppose the Iraqis themsleves stocked NBC suits? We found plenty of them, as well as copious stocks of atropine.
Come on folks, where there's smoke there's fire. Use your brains.
The stuff is out there somewhere. Maybe we don't have the right country at our disposal now. He could have easily moved it to Syria or Iran. It's indisputible that Iraq produced WMD as it's well documented that they used it on their own people. Conversely there is absolutely NO documentation, proof or any kind of evidence that it was ever destroyed.
Don't let your political views cloud your ability to reason.

 

[CLCAP]

I guess there's just no way that they could have been afraid that someone else will use WMD's on them....(read Iran), they sure used them on their own people....but back then they were our "friends". I don't dispute that there was less than perfect evidence of their destruction (they actually accounted for quite a bit according to the UN but not all) but on another note.....the stuff they found in Maryland a couple of weeks ago missed some essential documentation as well. Everything is not always black or white.....it's usually a shade of gray...

And let's for a minute assume that you are absolutely right and that Iraq had vast stockpiles of WMD's right until the war broke out. Let's also assume that they were (under our noses) moved to totalitarian countries in the region and to terrorist organizations. Well in that case - congratulation fellows, now the weapons that were under the control of one madman are under the control of several and stand a MUCH bigger chance to be used against us since we apparently have NO idea where they are. And on top of that once again - one American kid is dying every day - for what?

 

[prodigal]

clcap

As you stipulate to the existence of WMDs in Iran in your first paragraph above it follows that our invasion of Iraq therefore did not put Saddam's WMDs into Iran's hands. It also logically follows that Saddam would hardly disarm himself of his WMDs if he knew that Iran also possesed them.

As for "vast" stockpiles, well some of that stuff is so potent that really not much is needed to cause catastrophic deaths if used properly (or improperly as the case may be). Small to moderate amounts could be hidden anywhere, yes even under the noses of the US military and even the brilliant UN inspectors.

As for the loss of our guys over there, yes, it is tragic and I mourn their loss and pray every night that that day's loss will be the last. But we are now reminded that freedom and our way of life is not free and some unfortunately must pay for it. Although I had an awful dread about it, I do trust the President in taking us to war. I believe he is doing what he honestly feels is necessary to protect our country from the enemy. If it turns out that he really knowingly lied and did this for other than noble purposes, I'll be the first in line with a torch to burn him down (figuratively, of course). But I just do not believe this man is capable of such a thing.

 

[ShawnC]

A flask of certain nerve agents can kill an entire city if used right.

 

[Dragonbravo]

Typhoon,

You talk about Bush and corporate greed. Remeber the books were being burned by these unethical companies under Clinton's watch. Where was the FEC? Could it be that since the economy was good (becuase of inflated figures) that nobody cared that these guys were doing illegal stuff? It took Bush to bring the legal hammer down on these jerks.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Isn't the American way still "Innocent until proven guilty"?[/qoute]

Yes, but Saddam was proven guilty years ago. He was then given appeal after appeal after appeal, you aren't innocent in an appeal, you are guilty until proven innocent.

Or they were planted there.

Well, technically, it was in the scientists garden so ya, it was planted there.

And I suppose you have facts to back up your theory of how many Iraqis were killed?

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?

Pinko, commie, liberal whats? And you think I'm filled with hatred?
Whoa!

I was just trying to accomadate your intellect.

Why do you think that might be? Maybe because we unilaterally impose our will upon the region at whim? Osama himself said he hates us for "trespassing on the holy land". Oh, great solution, let's send more troops there and bomb the hell out of the place. That'll make them stop hating us.

So the 8 years of understanding that President Clinton projected towards the region had nothing to do with 9/11? Maybe they attacked because we never retaliated when they bombed our ships and embassies. Do you realize that terrorism world wide is down 40%? I'm sorry but force is the only thing that will work against these people. We can't hug them and make them think we like them. They just see that as a sign of weakness.

I never said Saddam was innocent. I only said bush lied about the WMD to justify this war.

So why lie about WMD's when it was so obvious that Saddam was guilty

Judging by your reading comprehension skills and your extensive vocabulary, you only attended the finest schools yourself.

My, my, you do have some issues. Where did this little anti-clinton diatribe come from? I never said Clinton was a saint, he's not. I'm questioning the double standard that is protecting Bush.

There is no double standard. Every time Bush speaks he is eventually proven right! He said that Iraq had the capability to produce WMD as well as possessing some WMD. We have found the capability part, we will soon find the actual weapons.

 

[KickSave]

Watergate - 1972
Iran Contra - 1986
Monica - 1996


Actually I think we've been conditioned to NOT believe the rhetoric
since WAY before Bill wanted to keep his personal indiscretions a secret. If you ask me, when comparing a president lying about having sex, vs lying about orchestrating a cover up of what they are illegally doing with my tax dollars or an illegal breakin to fix an election, it's hard for me to listen to conservitive high and mighty's talk so indignantly about this subject. Half the republican senators and congressmen who were chasing Clinton with a pitchfork, were guilty of virtually the same thing at one point in time.

Nor will you find me defending those particular acts of Republican presidents either. A spade is a spade. You can't justify Clinton by what others may have done. It reminds me of the child who gets caught smoking (or whatever) and excuses it by saying all the other kids do it.
When Nixon was finally outed, he knew he had done wrong, his party knew it, the press knew it and the nation knew it. There was no massive effort to justify it by equivocating about what the meaning of "is" is. How Orwellian is that?
At least Nixon finally did put the best interests of the nation above his own personal ambitions by resigning, showing at least some grace and decorum. But Clinton's own ambitions and self-interests were always more important than the nations. [/B][/QUOTE]

Oh yeah, Nixon had the country's best interest at heart the whole time when he was busy trying to fix the election, a real champion of democracy and public service there. Laughable!

Look I'm NOT defending Clintons character, far from it. But for you to sit around and attmept to imply that we don't trust Bush because of Bill, it's retarded! We don't trust Bush because all presidents (no, make that all politicians) lie, period, since day one, and it's HARDLY Clinton who started the mistrust. We don't trust Bush because the evidence is hardly there to support his claims of us being in imminent danger from Iraq. If more evidence comes out, the war will become more justified. It has nothing to do with Bill Clintons sex life.

 

[prodigal]

"Oh yeah, Nixon had the country's best interest at heart the whole time when he was busy trying to fix the election, a real champion of democracy and public service there. Laughable!"[QUOTE}

Now did I defend Nixon? I didn't even bring him up, you did. I merely pointed out that at least when he was caught he did the honorable thing and resigned, something Clinton would never do.
Are you trying to justify Clinton because of what Nixon did?



"If more evidence comes out, the war will become more justified. It has nothing to do with Bill Clintons sex life." [/B][/QUOTE]

So let's give them a chance to find it, why don't we, before we start impeaching Bush for lying. It could take a while. It takes as long as it takes.

 

[CLCAP]

Absoulutely agree!! But if no weapons are found - let's say in two years from now would you agree to start an investigation into the motives of this administration? Or are we just going to give them more time and never question them??

 

[enigma]

A moron.

I luv how some of you can only resort to name calling. Define moron, and then prove that GW Bush is a moron.

A womanizing, ambitious redneck.

I guess that you must be refering to Bill Clinton, but redneck refers to a working man. I don't think that Bill ever worked a day in his life.

A rich-boy empty suit artificial Texan.

Bush one, hardly an empty suit. You may not agree with him, but he wasn't an empty suit. Artificial Texan, yes.

A senile former cowboy actor.

Now, your starting to tick me off. Reagan was extremely well written. He gave radio commentarys in CA for years and he wrote every one. If you would actually research the issue instead of listening to Dan Rather et al, you would find a different level of respect for Ronald Reagan. I can't prove that he was or wasn't senile during his administrations, but I doubt that he would have continued if he knew he was impaired.

An honest pacifist.

Jimmy Carter, he had everyones respect until he pronounced Castro a good guy. Why didn't he stop when he was ahead?

Another empty suit.

No argument

A crook.

At least Nixon had the decency to step down when finally caught.

These are, in reverse order, the Presidents who've served in my lifetime. Not pretty, is it? (Note: an honest pacifist doesn't necessarily make a bad President...he just gets eaten alive because nobody else in politics is honest.) [/B]

 

[enigma]

Re: Re: All liberal BS!

And finally, those who blame Clinton for 9/11, can write Osama a letter and ask him what made him hate the USA so darn much... he'll tell you, it was when the infidels parked their army in the holy land, in 1990. That's when Al quaida was born.

Right now I simply can't imagine the hatred and destruction that we are due for in 10 more years as a result of our marginally justified invasion of Iraq. We've just given birth to the seed of 100 more Osama's who we don't even have on our radar screens yet. Our intelligence, and the supposed war on Terror, will absolutely NEVER stay ahead of people who want to kill themselves to make a point to us. ugh!

I'm afraid you're right in your last statement, but their hatred has little to do with 1990, or with our invasion of Iraq. They hate us because of religious reasons. We are a known as a Christian country, and they hate Christians and Jews. To make it worse, they see us as hypocrits because we are known as a Christian country, yet we produce billions of dollars of filth that is morally objectionable to them. They will try and destroy us because of our "Christianity", and if we all became atheists tommorrow, they would hate us for that. If we all became Muslim tommorrow, they would still hate us because of the amount of trash our country produces. They will hate us as long as we do/produce/be anything that is objectionable to them. The difference between them and us is quite simple, they kill those who they object to. We give our enemies foreign aid.

regards,
enigma

 

[KickSave]

"Oh yeah, Nixon had the country's best interest at heart the whole time when he was busy trying to fix the election, a real champion of democracy and public service there. Laughable!"[QUOTE}

Now did I defend Nixon? I didn't even bring him up, you did. I merely pointed out that at least when he was caught he did the honorable thing and resigned, something Clinton would never do.
Are you trying to justify Clinton because of what Nixon did?



"If more evidence comes out, the war will become more justified. It has nothing to do with Bill Clintons sex life."

So let's give them a chance to find it, why don't we, before we start impeaching Bush for lying. It could take a while. It takes as long as it takes. [/B][/QUOTE]

What a spin doctor you are. First off, I'm not justifying ANYTHING, although you are clearly defending Nixon as an honorable man, phooey! You accused those who doubt the WMD rationale for the war in Iraq as being tainted and influenced by Clintons lies. I merely pointed out that Presidents have been lying for ages. So it's not Bill Clinton that is the reason Bush is lacking credibility on this issue, it's the issues directly at hand here, nice try though. You then attempted to diminish the impact of Nixon's improprieties as if he was thinking of us - Bzzzt, wrong! When he was outed, he still didn't admit to anything, He quit and his buddy Gerald pardoned him before he would have been sent to prison. Quite an honorable man, uh huh.

And for the record, I'm NOT on any impeach Bush crusade. I'm no witchhunter, unlike the entire republican senate. Bush can't put together a string of gramtically correct sentances, and the supposed threat from the WMD hasn't materialized in nearly the way it was promised. that's why he lacks credibility with me, not becuase of Bill getting a BJ. But I'm willing to give them time to find the WMD, and I'll wait until then to make my final judgement on the merits of going to war, losing over 100 US lives, 1000's of innocent Iraqi civilians, and giving birth to a whole new breed of Amerca hating Osama types that we'll never see coming...

So far though, finding one centrifuge doesn't make me feel any safer over the next 10 years.