Interesting Spin on the definition of "Mandate"
Dave Wallen
Even so, President Bush will sit down with his Cabinet at 10 a.m.
today to begin his second term with a clearer and more commanding
mandate than he held for the first. He not only won a majority of the
popular vote — the first president since his father who didn't
have to settle for a plurality — but also will be submitting
legislative proposals to a friendlier, more Republican Congress.
--------
Personally, I always considered "mandate" to mean an overwhelming
majority, not the little bit of squeaking this incumbent slid in on.
Still, I suppose winning the pop. vote is something new for GLB..
(George "The Liar" Bush)
I guess if that's a mandate, I can call a 23-21 Cowboy victory a
"demoralizing dismantling of their opponent" and nobody will
disagree....
THE NFLGURU
"Dave Wallen" <t2...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d58f3384.0411...@posting.google.com...
I always considered Mandate to mean the guy Wallen spent Saturday Night
with.
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA H HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA H
Glad you are back Wallen, You weren't around for the Cowboys total
dismantling in Green Bay or Kerry's campaign being left in shambles.
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Allan Guyton
Wallen <t2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I had to laugh at the USA Todays reference:
>
> Even so, President Bush will sit down with his Cabinet at 10 a.m.
> today to begin his second term with a clearer and more commanding
> mandate than he held for the first. He not only won a majority of the
> popular vote — the first president since his father who didn't
> have to settle for a plurality — but also will be submitting
> legislative proposals to a friendlier, more Republican Congress.
>
> --------
>
> Personally, I always considered "mandate" to mean an overwhelming
> majority, not the little bit of squeaking this incumbent slid in on.
> Still, I suppose winning the pop. vote is something new for GLB..
> (George "The Liar" Bush)
Dunno, Dave, but a clear popular vote win, 5 new Republican Senators,
and gains in the House and in governor's mansions would seem to be an
endorsement of the Republican policies of late...
It's not 1984 Reagan, but it's a solid win for Bush.
Allan
Venger
"Allan Guyton" <agu...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:051120040005196247%agu...@mindspring.com...
No it's not - it's bigger.
Venger
TLG
<agu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <d58f3384.0411...@posting.google.com>, Dave
>Wallen <t2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I had to laugh at the USA Todays reference:
>>
>> Even so, President Bush will sit down with his Cabinet at 10 a.m.
>> today to begin his second term with a clearer and more commanding
>> mandate than he held for the first. He not only won a majority of the
>> popular vote -- the first president since his father who didn't
>> have to settle for a plurality -- but also will be submitting
>> legislative proposals to a friendlier, more Republican Congress.
>>
>> --------
>>
>> Personally, I always considered "mandate" to mean an overwhelming
>> majority, not the little bit of squeaking this incumbent slid in on.
>> Still, I suppose winning the pop. vote is something new for GLB..
>> (George "The Liar" Bush)
I'm still waiting for proof of these supposed lies, but I'm not
hearing any. And I've been waiting for more than a year.
Proof, not liberal talking points.
>Dunno, Dave, but a clear popular vote win, 5 new Republican Senators,
>and gains in the House and in governor's mansions would seem to be an
>endorsement of the Republican policies of late...
>
>It's not 1984 Reagan, but it's a solid win for Bush.
>
>Allan
I'd say the win of the majority vote (the highest number of votes EVER
given to a president), combined with the addition of Republican seats
in both the House and Senate -- including the long-overdue expulsion
of the partisan obstructionist Daschle (the first ouster of a Senate
leader since 1952) -- IS a mandate.
And if I were a Dem in Congress, I'd be thinking twice about trying
such obstructionist tactics in the future.
* * *
"[President Bush] is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter
and, where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words.
"I have knocked on the door of this man's soul and found
someone home -- a God-fearing man with a good heart and
a spine of tempered steel, the man I trust to protect my
most precious possession: my family."
-- Democrat Zell Miller, September 1, 2004
Ray
"Allan Guyton" <agu...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:051120040005196247%agu...@mindspring.com...
trouble for a very long time. I'm curious as hell to see what Colin Powell,
who I like and respect very much, has to say when he leaves them, maybe even
Condolesa Rice. You can't beat those inside stories and it's very clear that
Powell is out of the loop for policy differences and has been for quite
awhile, since before and even during the Iraq evidence presentation and his
open criticism afterward where he said " Not only has this intelligence been
wrong, I believe it was manipulated"..I'm alittle suprised by Rice leaving
although it may not be for the same reasons. General Clark's story about
how, when he was still a General in the White House, after 9/11 he was
walking by a room full of fellow General's and they asked him if he wanted
to hear a joke, where he replied "you guys don't have time for a joke". They
insisted that he had to hear this one, "Iraq". A priceless piece of the
innerworkings and real life.
As for me, I supported the war and the idea of sending a clear message to
the middle east that no government is safe that wants to harm us and would
give food, shelter, weapons and training facilities to terrorists but I
don't want to take over the world and turn everyone into a democracy with
the use of force. We'll see. If I'm lucky, Bush is right about what he's
doing and going to do. When you have a guy like Colin Powell, who has always
displayed honor and crediblity even in the aftermath of his presentation of
weapons of mass destruction, and he's some how out of the loop, you have to
wonder about what's really going on and what he may know that the others
don't know about war and what he thinks is going to happen in the end.
Again, maybe Bush will be right and he will be wrong, I'm hoping but
skeptical.
Ray
> Allan
Preacher
> "Allan Guyton" <agu...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:051120040005196247%agu...@mindspring.com...
>
> > It's not 1984 Reagan, but it's a solid win for Bush.
> >
> True but now he has to perform or the whole republican party will be in
> trouble for a very long time.
As is the whole country. Frankly, I don't really buy this line of
reasoning. Anyone who wins has their reputation and the reputation of
their party on the line. You can't avoid winning because you might be
held responsible later - that's just silly.
I agree with much of what you say here (as much as it frightens me,
given your rantings about Chad and Quincy). Trying to turn countries
into democracies by military force doesn't seem like a viable foreign
policy and appears to have the potential to damage the US domestically
and internationally. How Powell ends up on the outside and Rumsfeld ends
up on the inside, I still don't understand.
But we all better hope Bush is right, because he's got four more years
to work his magic. God help us all.
will
>Ray <ra...@chilitech.net> wrote:
>
>> "Allan Guyton" <agu...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:051120040005196247%agu...@mindspring.com...
>>
>> > It's not 1984 Reagan, but it's a solid win for Bush.
>> >
>> True but now he has to perform or the whole republican party will be in
>> trouble for a very long time.
>
>As is the whole country. Frankly, I don't really buy this line of
>reasoning. Anyone who wins has their reputation and the reputation of
>their party on the line. You can't avoid winning because you might be
>held responsible later - that's just silly.
Well, I think the idea is put up or shut up. Democrats are not in
charge and Republicans are. Frankly, the last thing I want to hear,
and the President already said it, is that he's depending on Democrats
to work with him to pass his agenda. Bull. He's trying to lay the
blame for his potential failure on the minority.
He's got a majority. He's got the tools. He either succeeds or he
fails. Don't throw the Democrats in the mix. Bush has the tools and
the responsibility and the last thing he should do is try to scapegoat
the minority for what he fails to accomplish. After all, he has a
mandate. No excuses, right?
will
>On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 07:58:01 -0600, will
><nore...@quincycarterbandwagon.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:09:26 GMT, no...@way.com (Preacher) wrote:
>>
>>>Ray <ra...@chilitech.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Allan Guyton" <agu...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:051120040005196247%agu...@mindspring.com...
>>>>
>>>> > It's not 1984 Reagan, but it's a solid win for Bush.
>>>> >
>>>> True but now he has to perform or the whole republican party will be in
>>>> trouble for a very long time.
>>>
>>>As is the whole country. Frankly, I don't really buy this line of
>>>reasoning. Anyone who wins has their reputation and the reputation of
>>>their party on the line. You can't avoid winning because you might be
>>>held responsible later - that's just silly.
>>
>>
>>Well, I think the idea is put up or shut up. Democrats are not in
>>charge and Republicans are. Frankly, the last thing I want to hear,
>>and the President already said it, is that he's depending on Democrats
>>to work with him to pass his agenda. Bull. He's trying to lay the
>>blame for his potential failure on the minority.
>
>Are you a uniter or a divider?
Neither. I am part of the divided.
>
>>He's got a majority. He's got the tools. He either succeeds or he
>>fails. Don't throw the Democrats in the mix.
>
>Why not? They're in the mix, even as a minority. It still takes 60
>Republican Senators to defeat a Democratic filibuster, for instance.
It only takes 51 to pass a bill. Can you name all the Democratic
filibusters that created gridlock for Bush so that he didn't get his
way?
will
>On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 09:15:32 -0600, will
><nore...@quincycarterbandwagon.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Why not? They're in the mix, even as a minority. It still takes 60
>>>Republican Senators to defeat a Democratic filibuster, for instance.
>>
>>It only takes 51 to pass a bill. Can you name all the Democratic
>>filibusters that created gridlock for Bush so that he didn't get his
>>way?
>
>What does that matter? That's the past. Bush has been getting flack
>for his judicial appointees since he took office.
Our representatives are doing their job. This is not a dictatorship.
We have checks in place to limit the power of the majority. If you
don't like that, move to Russia and take up with Putin.
>
will
>On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 10:21:05 -0600, will
><nore...@quincycarterbandwagon.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 16:10:39 GMT, Spike <sp...@spike.spike> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 09:15:32 -0600, will
>>><nore...@quincycarterbandwagon.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Why not? They're in the mix, even as a minority. It still takes 60
>>>>>Republican Senators to defeat a Democratic filibuster, for instance.
>>>>
>>>>It only takes 51 to pass a bill. Can you name all the Democratic
>>>>filibusters that created gridlock for Bush so that he didn't get his
>>>>way?
>>>
>>>What does that matter? That's the past. Bush has been getting flack
>>>for his judicial appointees since he took office.
>>
>>Our representatives are doing their job.
>
>And they'll continue to do it. Even the Dems with their minority.
>
>This is not a dictatorship.
>>We have checks in place to limit the power of the majority. If you
>>don't like that, move to Russia and take up with Putin.
>
>I never said that I had a problem with it. I said that the Dems are
>still in the mix. And you've just conceded that point.
They are not in the mix unless they filibuster everything. The
Democrats could not pass one piece of legislation. Short of the
filibuster, their vote should not be needed for one thing Bush wants
to do unless Republicans desert him.
Now, I ask you again a very simple question. How many bills did the
Democrats filibuster the last 4 years?
will
>On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 10:21:05 -0600, will
><nore...@quincycarterbandwagon.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 16:10:39 GMT, Spike <sp...@spike.spike> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 09:15:32 -0600, will
>>><nore...@quincycarterbandwagon.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Why not? They're in the mix, even as a minority. It still takes 60
>>>>>Republican Senators to defeat a Democratic filibuster, for instance.
>>>>
>>>>It only takes 51 to pass a bill. Can you name all the Democratic
>>>>filibusters that created gridlock for Bush so that he didn't get his
>>>>way?
>>>
>>>What does that matter? That's the past. Bush has been getting flack
>>>for his judicial appointees since he took office.
>>
>>Our representatives are doing their job.
>
>And they'll continue to do it. Even the Dems with their minority.
>
>This is not a dictatorship.
>>We have checks in place to limit the power of the majority. If you
>>don't like that, move to Russia and take up with Putin.
>
>I never said that I had a problem with it.
BTW, I think you do have a problem with it. You support Bush. I think
you are probably having a hard time seeing yourself for what you are
now.
Preacher
> Well, I think the idea is put up or shut up. Democrats are not in
> charge and Republicans are. Frankly, the last thing I want to hear,
> and the President already said it, is that he's depending on Democrats
> to work with him to pass his agenda. Bull. He's trying to lay the
> blame for his potential failure on the minority.
>
> He's got a majority. He's got the tools. He either succeeds or he
> fails. Don't throw the Democrats in the mix. Bush has the tools and
> the responsibility and the last thing he should do is try to scapegoat
> the minority for what he fails to accomplish. After all, he has a
> mandate. No excuses, right?
Hey, I'm all for no excuses, but I read his statement about depending on
Democrats as the obligatory reach across the aisle. Maybe he'll even
mean it this time, given that he doesn't have to run for reelection. But
I don't think he's trying to scapegoat the Demos. I sure hope he's not.
Kent
"will" <nore...@quincycarterbandwagon.com> wrote in message
news:5p0no0hcgfilqi0qe...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:09:26 GMT, no...@way.com (Preacher) wrote:
>
>>Ray <ra...@chilitech.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Allan Guyton" <agu...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>> news:051120040005196247%agu...@mindspring.com...
>>>
>>> > It's not 1984 Reagan, but it's a solid win for Bush.
>>> >
>>> True but now he has to perform or the whole republican party will be in
>>> trouble for a very long time.
>>
>>As is the whole country. Frankly, I don't really buy this line of
>>reasoning. Anyone who wins has their reputation and the reputation of
>>their party on the line. You can't avoid winning because you might be
>>held responsible later - that's just silly.
>
>
> Well, I think the idea is put up or shut up. Democrats are not in
> charge and Republicans are. Frankly, the last thing I want to hear,
> and the President already said it, is that he's depending on Democrats
> to work with him to pass his agenda. Bull. He's trying to lay the
> blame for his potential failure on the minority.
With Daschle out of the way, perhaps some of the Democrats can see the light
of day. I suspect some will join the "mandate" for change. Bush has some
innovative ideas that will benefit all Americans, not just conservatives.
Bush has defined his "plans" and removing politics from their discussion, I
think everybody can see the benefit.
>
> He's got a majority. He's got the tools. He either succeeds or he
> fails. Don't throw the Democrats in the mix. Bush has the tools and
> the responsibility and the last thing he should do is try to scapegoat
> the minority for what he fails to accomplish. After all, he has a
> mandate. No excuses, right?
Right.
Kent
Interesting how your position changes over the course of a single thread.
>
>
>
>
>>
>
will
Judges are not policy. They are appointments. Show me a policy that
the Democrats can foil without Republicans being the key vote?
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>
will
Of course he's trying to scapegoat Democrats in advance. How many
votes does it take to pass a bill? 51. How many Republicans are there?
55. He has to have someone to blame if things aren't going well at
midterm. When you control all the levers, you either take the blame or
find scapegoats.
Do you think at the midterm elections that he's going to say, if
things don't look great, that it is all his fault and that we should
blame the Republicans in Congress? He needs an escape route, so he'll
keep trying to find ways to blame the opponent.
The only tool available to Democrats is the filibuster. I want anyone
that thinks of Democrats as obstructionist to show me all the bills
the Democrats filibustered.
You can find a handful of judges. What I want to know is why Bush
didn't give a little himself if the Democrats felt strong enough to
filibuster these guys? Couldn't he moderate?
will
No, Kent, they can't. There are legitimate differences of opinion
within the mainstream of the US. IOW, hands off privatizing Social
Security. Balance the budget.
Privatizing Social Security will increase the deficit.
Ray
"Preacher" <no...@way.com> wrote in message
news:1gmrqfj.dvbgwxh9bi5mN%no...@way.com...
> Ray <ra...@chilitech.net> wrote:
>
>> "Allan Guyton" <agu...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:051120040005196247%agu...@mindspring.com...
>>
>> > It's not 1984 Reagan, but it's a solid win for Bush.
>> >
>> True but now he has to perform or the whole republican party will be in
>> trouble for a very long time.
>
> As is the whole country. Frankly, I don't really buy this line of
> reasoning. Anyone who wins has their reputation and the reputation of
> their party on the line. You can't avoid winning because you might be
> held responsible later - that's just silly.
>
security goes to hell, Iraq ends up with thousands of our soldiers dead for
nothing, the deficit gets so big that not even Bill Clinton could fix it,
etc. etc., which is much of what Kerry and many democrats have said, then
the republicans are in trouble. Some have argued that Bush won because of
his family values only. Again, hopefully I'm wrong. I was wrong about Reagon
the first time, thinking we're in trouble because these stupid voters just
elected a B movie star. I'm hanging on that one, hoping this is the case
again because I think it's possible that this guy got re-elected for all the
wrong reasons.
That said, I love it that the Arab world is upset that he got re-elected. I
just have serious doubts about his ideas and what seems to be fiscal
irresponsiblity. He's the president and while I don't agree with him in many
ways, I'll support him now but he better know what he's doing. And I hope he
doesn't listen and take seriously those radio and tv evangelists and talk
show hosts who are just pathetic. I hope they're getting taxed like the rest
us. They should be or they should shut up and preach religion like they're
supposed to.
Ray
Dave Wallen
> "Dave Wallen" <t2...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d58f3384.0411...@posting.google.com...
> >I had to laugh at the USA Todays reference:
> >
> > Even so, President Bush will sit down with his Cabinet at 10 a.m.
> > today to begin his second term with a clearer and more commanding
> > mandate than he held for the first. He not only won a majority of the
> > popular vote — the first president since his father who didn't
> > have to settle for a plurality — but also will be submitting
> > legislative proposals to a friendlier, more Republican Congress.
> >
> > --------
> >
> > Personally, I always considered "mandate" to mean an overwhelming
> > majority, not the little bit of squeaking this incumbent slid in on.
> > Still, I suppose winning the pop. vote is something new for GLB..
> > (George "The Liar" Bush)
> >
> > "demoralizing dismantling of their opponent" and nobody will
> > disagree....
>
> I always considered Mandate to mean the guy Wallen spent Saturday Night
> with.
>
> BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA H HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA H
??? You're reaching, boobie....your jokes are about as good as your
football analysis skills... have you ever found something you were
good at???
>
> Glad you are back Wallen, You weren't around for the Cowboys total
> dismantling in Green Bay or Kerry's campaign being left in shambles.
Every once in a while a poor team beats a better team. Like this
year's packer-cowboys game.
Other than that, the only thing being dismantled in Green Bay is the
packers franchise. Sherman's doing a hell of a job of it. At the rate
he's going, he's going to take the "GM of the decade" award away from
JJ!! I suppose when you spend 1/7 of your cap space on a washed up
interception machine, that's what happens.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Kent
As much as the Democrats?
>
Kent
Are you telling me privatizing social security can't be filibustered by the
Democrats?
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Kent
And not fixing it will cause it's demise in 20 years. Privatizing SS will
cause a near term deficit, and a long range savings to government. the
short term can be defined, the long term is infinity.
davewallen
"TLG" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:r9fmo0lji8tg0kgn3...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 00:05:19 -0500, Allan Guyton
> <agu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <d58f3384.0411...@posting.google.com>, Dave
> >Wallen <t2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I had to laugh at the USA Todays reference:
> >>
> >> Even so, President Bush will sit down with his Cabinet at 10 a.m.
> >> today to begin his second term with a clearer and more commanding
> >> mandate than he held for the first. He not only won a majority of the
> >> have to settle for a plurality -- but also will be submitting
> >> legislative proposals to a friendlier, more Republican Congress.
> >>
> >> --------
> >>
> >> Personally, I always considered "mandate" to mean an overwhelming
> >> majority, not the little bit of squeaking this incumbent slid in on.
> >> Still, I suppose winning the pop. vote is something new for GLB..
> >> (George "The Liar" Bush)
>
> hearing any. And I've been waiting for more than a year.
>
> Proof, not liberal talking points.
I have more evidence of Bush lying than Bush has of Saddam being a threat to
the US.
Or don't the same standards of proof apply when judging
Bush???????????????????
Seabee1973
>Bush???????????????????
Tell us or ya scared?
Seabee1973
> General Clark's story about
>how, when he was still a General in the White House, after 9/11 he was
>walking by a room full of fellow General's and they asked him if he wanted
>to hear a joke, where he replied "you guys don't have time for a joke". They
>insisted that he had to hear this one, "Iraq". A priceless piece of the
>innerworkings and real life.
>
>As for me, I supported the war and the idea of sending a clear message to
>the middle east that no government is safe that wants to harm us and would
>give food, shelter, weapons and training facilities to terrorists but I
>don't want to take over the world and turn everyone into a democracy with
>the use of force. We'll see. If I'm lucky, Bush is right about what he's
>doing and going to do. When you have a guy like Colin Powell, who has always
>displayed honor and crediblity even in the aftermath of his presentation of
>weapons of mass destruction, and he's some how out of the loop, you have to
>wonder about what's really going on and what he may know that the others
>don't know about war and what he thinks is going to happen in the end.
>Again, maybe Bush will be right and he will be wrong, I'm hoping but
>skeptical.
>
>Ray
>> Allan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Ford
"Seabee1973" <seabe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041107014117...@mb-m10.aol.com...
> >Or don't the same standards of proof apply when judging
> >Bush???????????????????
>
> Tell us or ya scared?
It's ARE you scared, boob.
davewallen
> >Bush???????????????????
>
> Tell us or ya scared?
Are you saying you want my proof?
A. GB stated for 50 weeks how Saddam was a threat to the US because of WMD.
2 weeks before the invasion, he suddenly dropped that line and decided upon
"regime change" as a reason. What is your reaction when a teenager tries
that "paradigm shift" on you? (PS> for your info, when he shifted 2 weeks
before the invasion, I started telling people I KNEW there were no WMD. It
was so obvious it could not be missed)
B. Tenet says that he made Bush take the "attempted uranium purchase" out of
at least one speech, yet 30 days later, the admin was using it as "proof" of
WMD again. What would YOU call someone that pulled that on you?
C. After being warned by the Clinton admin that the US was in danger, it
seems Condi forgot all her reading skills at home and decided that "there is
evidence that they may attack the US with hijacked airplanes" really meant
"this is in the past". What would you say about someone who suddenly and
conveniently forgot what they read? Oh, I know. You call her and cronies
the "saviours of America".
D. After 10 years (1992-present) of the neocons openly advocating that the
US needed to control Iraq because "oil is a strategic need of the US",
suddenly all the neocons get religion and decide that we just want Saddam to
go because he is "a bad, bad, man". Oh boy, another paradigm
shift..........
As PT said, there's one born every minute....so I guess there's someone else
born the exact same minute as me who would vote for Bush.......
Seabee1973
>
Speaking of boobs how are ya?
Seabee1973
>2 weeks before the invasion, he suddenly dropped that line and decided upon
>"regime change" as a reason. What is your reaction when a teenager tries
He outlined that in the state of the union adress in 2003 he gave a list of
about 5 things that was cause for attack.
even after the invasion he still said he believed there was weapons of mass
destruction over there.
>B. Tenet says that he made Bush take the "attempted uranium purchase" out of
>at least one speech, yet 30 days later, the admin was using it as "proof" of
>WMD again. What would YOU call someone that pulled that on you?
>
In an oct 2002 speech it was pulled in the jan 2003 state of the union
address it was a similar speech that george tenants men looked over and let
stay in the speech.
Also it is now confirmed that that story was true.
>C. After being warned by the Clinton admin that the US was in danger, it
>seems Condi forgot all her reading skills at home and decided that "there is
>evidence that they may attack the US with hijacked airplanes" really meant
>"this is in the past". What would you say about someone who
How much warning did they really give it is a he said she said he said he said
deal. Any one in america that did not know it would happen wa seither blind or
not paying attention it was made well aware of that fact. As a matter of fact i
dont even know if acity was named it was just that they were planning to fly
planes into federal buildings somehwere. You know how many federal buildings
there are in the US? Time magazine had a cover story with skyscrapers being
flown into on one of its covers in 98.
You would think starting in 1998 that it would have been harder to get on an
airplane but it wasnt. Am I blaming clinton for that no im not those same
procedures had been around for decades.
After the invasion o0f Iraq in one of saddams palaces was a portrait of Iraqi
airplanes flying into tall skyscrapers with us flags on it with the artists
name and date on it guess what that date was? 1998 HMMMMM think al-queda beat
him to the punch?
>D. After 10 years (1992-present) of the neocons openly advocating that the
>US needed to control Iraq because "oil is a strategic need of the US",
>suddenly all the neocons get religion and decide that we just want Saddam to
Thats all i heard from liberals was we were going over there for oil. If we
went over there for oil where is that cheap oil. if we were gonna invade a
country for oil venezuela would make more since since it is closer.
>As PT said, there's a democrat born every minute....so I guess there's someone
davewallen
> >A. GB stated for 50 weeks how Saddam was a threat to the US because of
WMD.
> >2 weeks before the invasion, he suddenly dropped that line and decided
upon
> >"regime change" as a reason. What is your reaction when a teenager tries
>
> He outlined that in the state of the union adress in 2003 he gave a list
of
> about 5 things that was cause for attack.
> even after the invasion he still said he believed there was weapons of
mass
> destruction over there.
Shit, even after the commission said there were none he STILL said we might
find some.
Some people just won't see the truth even if it bites em in the ass....
>
>
>
>
> >B. Tenet says that he made Bush take the "attempted uranium purchase" out
of
> >at least one speech, yet 30 days later, the admin was using it as "proof"
of
> >WMD again. What would YOU call someone that pulled that on you?
> >
>
> In an oct 2002 speech it was pulled in the jan 2003 state of the union
> address it was a similar speech that george tenants men looked over and
let
> stay in the speech.
> Also it is now confirmed that that story was true.
?? Not by any URL I can find.....
>
>
>
> >C. After being warned by the Clinton admin that the US was in danger, it
> >seems Condi forgot all her reading skills at home and decided that "there
is
> >evidence that they may attack the US with hijacked airplanes" really
meant
> >"this is in the past". What would you say about someone who
>
> How much warning did they really give it is a he said she said he said he
said
> deal. Any one in america that did not know it would happen wa seither
blind or
> not paying attention it was made well aware of that fact. As a matter of
fact i
> dont even know if acity was named it was just that they were planning to
fly
> planes into federal buildings somehwere. You know how many federal
buildings
> there are in the US? Time magazine had a cover story with skyscrapers
being
> flown into on one of its covers in 98.
?? I quoted the presidents daily briefing... it was pretty hard to mistake
the fact that something with airplanes was going to happen, yet Condi called
it "historical data"
> You would think starting in 1998 that it would have been harder to get on
an
> airplane but it wasnt. Am I blaming clinton for that no im not those same
> procedures had been around for decades.
>
> After the invasion o0f Iraq in one of saddams palaces was a portrait of
Iraqi
> airplanes flying into tall skyscrapers with us flags on it with the
artists
> name and date on it guess what that date was? 1998 HMMMMM think al-queda
beat
> him to the punch?
>
>
> >D. After 10 years (1992-present) of the neocons openly advocating that
the
> >US needed to control Iraq because "oil is a strategic need of the US",
> >suddenly all the neocons get religion and decide that we just want Saddam
to
>
> Thats all i heard from liberals was we were going over there for oil. If
we
> went over there for oil where is that cheap oil. if we were gonna invade a
> country for oil venezuela would make more since since it is closer.
Who do you think the higher cost of oil is helping more:?
A. Dick Cheney
B Iraqi citizens
Seabee1973
>find some.
>
You gonna believe a commision or Arab leaders who are over there every day?>Who
do you think the higher cost of oil is helping more:?
>
>A. Dick Cheney
>B Iraqi citizens
>
The higher cost of oil is maybe 10 percent of this