OT: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?
Frankenshank
Can someone explain the logical reason WHY our fine American soldiers
continue to die in IRAQ?
Im just totally lost now... or maybe I'm dumb but:
1) WHOOOPS! no WMD's... sorry
2) WHOOPS! Saddam wasn't responsible for 9-11
3) We're bringing DEMOCRACY & Freedom... kaBOOOOOOMMM!
I'm sorry to admit I was a registered Republican, voted for Bush
TWICE..
I would like a cogent explanation as to WHY?
FrankenShank
sfb
Please find another course to play politics.
"Frankenshank" <grooveme...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1159208266.8...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Frank Ketchum
"Frankenshank" <grooveme...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1159208266.8...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Can someone explain the logical reason WHY our fine American soldiers
> continue to die in IRAQ?
Don't apologize, that is why this group exists, for off topic, political
posts.
> Im just totally lost now... or maybe I'm dumb but:
> 1) WHOOOPS! no WMD's... sorry
To end the WMD programs as president Bush described prior to going in.
Nobody denies that Iraq had WMD programs. Well, some do but they are the
same that say Iran wants nuclear technology to provide power for their
country, not nuclear weapons.
> 2) WHOOPS! Saddam wasn't responsible for 9-11
Nobody said he was. Iraq as part of the "axis of evil", one of the largest
if not the largest state sponsors of terrorism. Who ever claimed Saddam was
tied to 9-11?
> 3) We're bringing DEMOCRACY & Freedom... kaBOOOOOOMMM!
You have a problem with spreading democracy and freedom around? Got yours,
screw the rest huh?
Fairway
Frankenshank wrote:
> I apologize for the off-topic post
> Can someone explain the logical reason WHY our fine American soldiers
> continue to die in IRAQ?
American citizens are murdered in their homes on American soil or
killed in car crashes on the highways. The invasion into Iraq was a
well organized business and Saddam was a SOB. Unfortunately Rumsfeld
didn´t think ahead. He is a poor reader of the human soul. Bush is OK
but Rumsfeld bungled it. F
Bobby Knight
<grooveme...@aol.com> wrote:
I'd like a cogent explanation as to why you voted for him the first
time :-)
___,
\o
|
/ \
.
"Someone likes every shot"!
bk
"R&B"
over here.
Or something like that.
Randy
Tex
First explain why you feel the need to go OT.
Second, explain why 40,000 people are killed each year in auto
accidents. In the past 4 years, that's 30 TIMES more deaths than in
Iraq. Yet, who's doing anything about it?
Maybe we need to concentrate our efforts where we can do more good.
Explain that.
Tex
spring
dsc
Gore... is a four letter word... :) AH... but so is Bush. Just can't
win can Wie (and neither cans she)? :)
Seriously, I wouldn't vote for Gore to be dog catcher... we were just
lucky that Clinton didn't get killed or kicked out of office during
his terms. :)
A Brick in the Wall
"Frank Ketchum" <fket...@earthlinknospaam.net> wrote in message
news:zjVRg.6151$UG4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Frankenshank" <grooveme...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1159208266.8...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>I apologize for the off-topic post
>> Can someone explain the logical reason WHY our fine American soldiers
>> continue to die in IRAQ?
>
> Don't apologize, that is why this group exists, for off topic, political
> posts.
>
>> Im just totally lost now... or maybe I'm dumb but:
>> 1) WHOOOPS! no WMD's... sorry
>
> To end the WMD programs as president Bush described prior to going in.
> Nobody denies that Iraq had WMD programs. Well, some do but they are the
> same that say Iran wants nuclear technology to provide power for their
> country, not nuclear weapons.
>
>> 2) WHOOPS! Saddam wasn't responsible for 9-11
> Nobody said he was. Iraq as part of the "axis of evil", one of the
> largest if not the largest state sponsors of terrorism. Who ever claimed
> Saddam was tied to 9-11?
>
Now THAT is funny --- you were being funny weren't you?
A Brick in the Wall
"Frank Ketchum" <fket...@earthlinknospaam.net> wrote in message
news:zjVRg.6151$UG4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> news:1159208266.8...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>I apologize for the off-topic post
>> Can someone explain the logical reason WHY our fine American soldiers
>> continue to die in IRAQ?
>
> Don't apologize, that is why this group exists, for off topic, political
> posts.
>
>> Im just totally lost now... or maybe I'm dumb but:
>> 1) WHOOOPS! no WMD's... sorry
>
> To end the WMD programs as president Bush described prior to going in.
> Nobody denies that Iraq had WMD programs. Well, some do but they are the
> same that say Iran wants nuclear technology to provide power for their
> country, not nuclear weapons.
>
>> 2) WHOOPS! Saddam wasn't responsible for 9-11
> Nobody said he was. Iraq as part of the "axis of evil", one of the
> largest if not the largest state sponsors of terrorism. Who ever claimed
> Saddam was tied to 9-11?
>
==== Here's the smoking gun even you cannot deny.... ======
FACT: President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the
Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force
against "nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001."
On Thursday in Cincinnati, Ohio, Cheney described Saddam as a "man who
provided safe harbor and sanctuary to terrorists for years" and who
"provided safe harbor and sanctuary as well for al Qaeda."
In Wisconsin on Friday, he said the "al Qaeda organization had a
relationship with the Iraqis."
"The bottom line is that we're [in Iraq] for the safety and security of the
nation, and our friends and allies around the world," Cheney said.
"We didn't do anything to provoke the attack of 9/11. We were attacked by
the terrorists, and we've responded forcefully and aggressively."
==
In September 2003, Cheney said Iraq under Saddam had been "the geographic
base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but
most especially on 9/11."
==
RUSSERT: Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in
September 11?
CHENEY: "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last
talked, Tim, of course, was that report that-it's been pretty well confirmed
that [9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a
senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last
April, several months before the attack." [NBC, Meet The Press, 12/9/01]
==
CHENEY: If we're successful in Iraq, . we will have struck a major blow
right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the
terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most
especially on 9/11." [NBC, Meet The Press, 9/14/03]
==
CLAIM: There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda
and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established
relationship there." - Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04
CLAIM: "The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it
built weapons of mass destruction." - President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03
CLAIM: "Iraq [is] the central front in the war on terror." - President
Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03
CLAIM: "You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam." - President
Bush, 9/25/02
CLAIM: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties." -
President Bush, 9/17/03
CLAIM: "There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda." - Vice
President Cheney, 9/14/03
Bobby Knight
Quoting the ones who are being held up as liars is a smoking gun?
John B.
You're not serious are you? This is all tongue-in-cheek, right?
AKA Gray Asphalt
"Frankenshank" <grooveme...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1159208266.8...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Apparently Don Rumsfield is the only one who knows and he is a space cadet,
no a spaced commander. Maybe Cheney knows but he seems to be in a different
world too, somewhere in space too, with Darth Vader. I don't really know
though. I mean, who do you trust?
multi
<fket...@earthlinknospaam.net> wrote:
>Got yours, screw the rest
Isn't that the Republican motto?
multi
>Nobody denies that Iraq had WMD programs.
I guess if you can't get through to Rush, posting to RSG is the next
best thing.
"R&B"
news:1159208266.8...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
I wouldn't worry too much about it. Your President told us today that the
Iraq War will one day be nothing more than a "comma" in history books.
I'm sure all the families of fallen soldiers who died fighting for a comma
just loved hearing that from their leader, the "Compassionate Conservative."
Randy
AKA Gray Asphalt
""R&B"" <noneofyou...@all.com> wrote in message
news:toednVn3DdOr9YXY...@giganews.com...
Where can I find the quote and the context. This sounds like political
suicide for the entire party. And if it's as bad as it sounds ... how can
you spin it? If I were running for congress, it would be on the TV by now
... maybe just the quote without comment. and maybe "I did not approve this
statement". It might work for both sides.
AKA Gray Asphalt
BLITZER: Let's move on and talk a little bit about Iraq. Because this is a
huge, huge issue, as you know, for the American public, a lot of concern
that perhaps they are on the verge of a civil war, if not already a civil
war.... We see these horrible bodies showing up, tortured, mutilation. The
Shia and the Sunni, the Iranians apparently having a negative role. Of
course, al Qaeda in Iraq is still operating.
BUSH: Yes, you see - you see it on TV, and that's the power of an enemy that
is willing to kill innocent people. But there's also an unbelievable will
and resiliency by the Iraqi people.... Admittedly, it seems like a decade
ago. I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, it
will look like just a comma because there is - my point is, there's a strong
will for democracy.
from "The History Channel"
http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=700003337&tstart=0&mod=1159126988182
This is a chat room and not an official post of the "History Channel"
Da Ringer.
1990.
Simple as that.
Da Ringer
"Frankenshank" <grooveme...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1159208266.8...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
A Brick in the Wall
"Bobby Knight" <bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:ltggh2hje29i9a8dd...@4ax.com...
I would say so -- it shows Bush cannot say he never made a connection
between 9/11 & Iraq. (Like Ketchum says he never did)
The others show Cheney in the same light ---
Of course Ketchum will hide from the post..... which is par for his
course....
Now to something completely different ---
I shot 40 tonight with some of the worst shots possible -- dubbed tee ball
on 10 goes 50 yards --- bogey --- completely smothered 5W in the mud on 11
(560 yard uphill) goes 30 - 40 yards -- followed by an unbelievable 5W then
a PW to 6' -- par
A chunked 5W on 14 followed by a SW to 3'.
A thin 7W on 16 ends up pin high just off the green -- routine par...
Every putt inside of 12' fell.
I don't know if I should feel like I'm ready for our county wide Senior Open
at the end of the week or I should put the clubs up...
A Brick in the Wall
Chris Bellomy
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
Frank Ketchum
"A Brick in the Wall" <NoS...@NoThanks.com> wrote in message
news:45180...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
>
> ==== Here's the smoking gun even you cannot deny.... ======
>
I am quaking with fear.
> FACT: President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the
> Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized
> force against "nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized,
> committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
> 2001."
>
Iraq has a long history of aiding terrorists, including al Qaeda. If you
don't believe me, refer to the well respected United Nations.
>
> On Thursday in Cincinnati, Ohio, Cheney described Saddam as a "man who
> provided safe harbor and sanctuary to terrorists for years" and who
> "provided safe harbor and sanctuary as well for al Qaeda."
>
Hmm, I wonder why we found all of those al Qaeda in Iraq when we went in.
> In Wisconsin on Friday, he said the "al Qaeda organization had a
> relationship with the Iraqis."
They were in and continue to be in Iraq. This is not that hard to
understand.
>
> "The bottom line is that we're [in Iraq] for the safety and security of
> the nation, and our friends and allies around the world," Cheney said.
>
And your problem with this would be?
<snip more and more and more of the same>
The government was lambasted after September 11 for not connecting the dots.
The government since September 11 has done a fine job of connecting the dots
and aggressively facing terrorism head on. If you don't like what is
happening, then that is your prerogative. You get one vote just like I do.
I just can't see how some people can be so gullible as to believe what is
put out by the media that can't stand this administration's guts. I suggest
you not let it ruin your life.
Good luck.
Bobby Knight
<fket...@earthlinknospaam.net> wrote:
<clip>
>I just can't see how some people can be so gullible as to believe what is
>put out by the media that can't stand this administration's guts. I suggest
>you not let it ruin your life.
>
>Good luck.
Bush is doing that to thousands of our young troops. If you think,
for a second, that we're doing any good in Iraq you 're sorely misled.
--
___,
\o
|
/ \
.
“Someone likes every shot”
bk
Frank Ketchum
My post was a response to a question posted here. I clearly indicated in my
reply that this is a stupid place to have this discussion.
And you think that Iraq had no WMD programs?
Chuck
If he was serious about protecting this country from terrorism there'd be a
national security policy/project to get this country off it's dependency on
foreign oil.
Bert Robbins
Lesser of two evils both times!
annika1980
Frankenshank wrote:
> I apologize for the off-topic post
> Can someone explain the logical reason WHY our fine American soldiers
> continue to die in IRAQ?
>
>
>
Halliburton.
$$$,$$$,$$$,$$$,$$$
Carbon
> Second, explain why 40,000 people are killed each year in auto
> accidents. In the past 4 years, that's 30 TIMES more deaths than in
> Iraq. Yet, who's doing anything about it? Maybe we need to concentrate
> our efforts where we can do more good.
Oh, I see. More Americans die in car accidents therefore the failed
invasion of Iraq doesn't matter. That's a fascinating argument. However
can even things up pretty quick by including all the civilians killed
since the invasion. Are we still pretending to care about them?
While you're at it, the National Intelligence Estimate says that the oil
war in Iraq has worsened the threat of terrorism. Tell us how it doesn't
matter. Link: http://tinyurl.com/m98rd
Excerpt:
Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat
By MARK MAZZETTI
Published: September 24, 2006
WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by
American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and
occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism
and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11
attacks.
The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct
role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in
recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the
House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington
involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.
Howard Brazee
terrorists in his goal to overthrow Saudi Arabia.
Howard Brazee
>Second, explain why 40,000 people are killed each year in auto
>accidents. In the past 4 years, that's 30 TIMES more deaths than in
>Iraq.
So what's that got to do about whether people should be dying in Iraq?
>Yet, who's doing anything about it?
Lots of people.
>Maybe we need to concentrate our efforts where we can do more good.
1. By doing what?
2. Why can't we try to do 2 right things?
multi
<fket...@earthlinknospaam.net> wrote:
>And you think that Iraq had no WMD programs?
That's what the UN said, and that's what Bush's teams that cost the
taxpayers a billion dollars said. Doesn't matter what I think. But
here's what the chimp in chief thinks:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060821.html
"Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main
reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of
mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to
make weapons of mass destruction."
In other words, Iraq had a chemical industry, like almost every other
country in the world. Bush has made the definition of WMD so insipid,
that any house in America qualifies as having the capacity. Just mix
bleach and ammonia, and you'll get a cloud of gas more dangerous than
anything that was in those rusted-out shells that Rick Santorum was
braying about a few weeks ago. But as long as there was a rumor that
Saddam was considering a plan to form a committee to do a feasibility
study on the possibility of developing a project to investigate the
ramifications of budgeting some money to pay a scientist to write a
proposal on the viability of a potential future program, we had to
take him out.
Bonus, from the same source:
Q What did Iraq have to do with that?
THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?
Q The attack on the World Trade Center?
THE PRESIDENT: Nothing.
Note that I gave a citation for my data. Let's see you back up your
claim that the UN says Saddam was working with al Qaeda. You do
realize, don't you, that recent US intelligence reports have noted
that Saddam was actively opposed to al Qaeda, and that before we
invaded the only al Qaeda presence in Iraq was plotting to overthrow
him, but it was in the northern region that Saddam could not attack
because it was protected by OUR patrolling jets, and that all 16 US
intelligence agencies have concluded that our invasion of Iraq has
made us less safe, and increased the number of terrorists.
A Brick in the Wall
>
> "A Brick in the Wall" <NoS...@NoThanks.com> wrote in message
> news:45180...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>>
>>
>> ==== Here's the smoking gun even you cannot deny.... ======
>>
>
> I am quaking with fear.
>
>
>> FACT: President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the
>> Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized
>> force against "nations, organizations, or persons who planned,
>> authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on
>> September 11, 2001."
>>
>
> Iraq has a long history of aiding terrorists, including al Qaeda. If you
> don't believe me, refer to the well respected United Nations.
>
Thank you for showing that you are true right wing fool and that you are too
dumb to hide your ignorance. I mean -- do you expect us all to ignore the
last part of the quote? Are you truly that foolish? If the answer is yes
explains much.
A Brick in the Wall
"Bert Robbins" <sc...@you.com> wrote in message
news:2ZSdnSHJSMlQHIXY...@comcast.com...
But are you happy now?
Bert Robbins
Yes, I am more happier now than I was in October of 2000 and October of
2004.
"R&B"
news:1159234106.4...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Go rent the movie "Why We Fight" (with Dwight Eisenhower on the cover, at
your local video store).
Then you'll know the real reason why we keep getting involved in these wars.
You pretty much hit the nail on the head: $$$$$$.
Randy
ynaught
news:1159208266.8...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Can someone explain the logical reason WHY our fine American soldiers
> continue to die in IRAQ?
So that there is something to talk about on RSG.
bill-o
On 25-Sep-2006, "Frankenshank" <grooveme...@aol.com> wrote:
> I would like a cogent explanation as to WHY?
Just to chap your ass you OT putz.
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
Alan Murphy
news:1159208266.8...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>I apologize for the off-topic post
> Can someone explain the logical reason WHY our fine American soldiers
> continue to die in IRAQ?
>
>
Because of what happened on 9/11.
Read the article below on why you should find out more
about this incident. No rumours, no histrionics, just a simple
desire for the truth.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14921.htm
Alan
"It's the free-fall speed, stupid"
A Brick in the Wall
What drugs are you on?
Bert Robbins
I've only been on the drugs since March of 2005.
Frank Ketchum
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 01:08:29 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
> <fket...@earthlinknospaam.net> wrote:
>
>>And you think that Iraq had no WMD programs?
>
> That's what the UN said, and that's what Bush's teams that cost the
> taxpayers a billion dollars said. Doesn't matter what I think. But
> here's what the chimp in chief thinks:
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060821.html
> "Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main
> reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of
> mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to
> make weapons of mass destruction."
>
Here are some other folks (including UN weapons inspectors) who also must
have lied about Iraq and the WMDs.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to
the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein,
Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9,
1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last
visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has
reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological,
chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War
status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is
doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-
range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From
a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford,
& Tom Lantos among others
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between
Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to
dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit
monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has
developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological
capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear
weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and
Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while
retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We
cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright,
1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some
day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10
times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all
weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its
agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence
reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet
achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical
and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United
States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were
before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing
nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he
were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would
face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26,
2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with
the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in
the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past
four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has
continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat
Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use
them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and
all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." --
Bill Clinton in 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members,
though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible
events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked,
Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he
succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security
landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American
security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in
1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a
warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those
trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of
2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass
destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them
against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our
allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam
Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available
means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already
used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build
more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons,
and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John
Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security.
It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a
clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination
to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." --
John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of
mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we
should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to
weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction
has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will
continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham,
December 2002
"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive
his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim
Jeffords, October 8, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he
is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction
cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority
to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but
as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and
particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed
to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.
He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing
the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass
destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator,
leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He
presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone
to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.
That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has
spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and
disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian
Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates
of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the
means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological
weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the
United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors
discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq
was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is
still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to
think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued
biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims
about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq
used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish
population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past,
there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt
that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass
destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the
proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave
importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the
development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to
countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection
process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible
intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still
has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium
perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic
missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these
deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX
substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored
in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains
significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly
reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons
Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to
enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that
difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always
underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of
mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very
real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both
against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop
delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring
these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle
East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards
Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has
systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of
international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying
time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United
Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are
simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
Miss Anne Thrope
Golf is just as much a pointless waste of time as invading Iraq was.
dsc
Frankenshank wrote:
> I apologize for the off-topic post
> Can someone explain the logical reason WHY our fine American soldiers
> continue to die in IRAQ?
>
> Im just totally lost now... or maybe I'm dumb but:
> 1) WHOOOPS! no WMD's... sorry
> 2) WHOOPS! Saddam wasn't responsible for 9-11
> 3) We're bringing DEMOCRACY & Freedom... kaBOOOOOOMMM!
>
> I'm sorry to admit I was a registered Republican, voted for Bush
> TWICE..
>
> I would like a cogent explanation as to WHY?
Why are we there now... some contributing factors...
1) because the first Bush didn't finish the job back in 91/92
2) because the UN (corrupt pos) didn't do it's job
3) because Germany, France and Russia sold us out
4) because Amerians in general are soft (on war) and didn't have the
resolve to finish the job in Korea, Vietnam, first gulf conflict, etc.
and are clammorring for us to not finish this job either. That makes us
look weak. When you appear weak you can't just tell Saddam to cease
what he's doing or else.
5) Beacuse or #4, Saddam)though he could just wait us out. Afterall, he
had Germany, France and Russia (and the UN) in his pocket. He would
most likely have been correct if anyone other than a determined hard
headed Texas Cowboy were POTUS.
6) Also because of #4 two half-pint mini-me dictators (Iran and N.
Korea) are stirring up trouble.
Carbon
> "multi" <mu...@asm.org> wrote in message
> news:851hh2tgp84ips6vk...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 01:08:29 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
>> <fket...@earthlinknospaam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>And you think that Iraq had no WMD programs?
>>
>> That's what the UN said, and that's what Bush's teams that cost the
>> taxpayers a billion dollars said. Doesn't matter what I think. But
>> here's what the chimp in chief thinks:
>>
>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060821.html "Now,
>> look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we
>> went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass
>> destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make
>> weapons of mass destruction."
>>
>>
> Here are some other folks (including UN weapons inspectors) who also
> must have lied about Iraq and the WMDs.
According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the failed oil war in
Iraq has actually worsened the threat of terrorism. Here, spin this:
http://tinyurl.com/m98rd
Bush and his handlers were able to sell this disastrous invasion by
feeding everyone deliberately misleading summaries that grossly overstated
evidence for Saddam's stockpiles of WMD. Bush and his handlers had the raw
data and knew the evidence was very shaky. WMD was just an excuse, a means
to seize control of the oil. Or do you think the billions of barrels of
proven, high quality oil reserves in Iraq is just an irrelevant detail?
John B.
I find it astounding that three and a half years into this war, people
still cling to these myths. IRAQ HAD NO WMD when we invaded. Whether
they had a WMD "program" is debatable, depending on how you define
"program." But to say that the existence of a WMD "program" without any
actual WMD is justification for a war that has cost 2,600 American
lives, hundreds of billions of dollars is insane.
Frank Ketchum
"Carbon" <nob...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.09.26....@nospam.verizon.net...
>
> According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the failed oil war in
> Iraq has actually worsened the threat of terrorism. Here, spin this:
> http://tinyurl.com/m98rd
>
Spin what? A link that doesn't go anywhere? What a great point you make.
> Bush and his handlers were able to sell this disastrous invasion by
> feeding everyone deliberately misleading summaries that grossly overstated
> evidence for Saddam's stockpiles of WMD. Bush and his handlers had the raw
> data and knew the evidence was very shaky. WMD was just an excuse, a means
> to seize control of the oil. Or do you think the billions of barrels of
> proven, high quality oil reserves in Iraq is just an irrelevant detail?
Right. Bush wanted the oil! He is an oil guy!
So why has the price of oil continued to rise since we went into Iraq and it
is just now starting to go down? If we got all of this oil out of Iraq,
doesn't the price go down? Supply and demand? ? ? ?
Frank Ketchum
>> Here are some other folks (including UN weapons inspectors) who also
>> must have lied about Iraq and the WMDs.
>
> According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the failed oil war in
> Iraq has actually worsened the threat of terrorism. Here, spin this:
You think it is spin to post people's quotes huh? Pretty lame.
Bobby Knight
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=9c610738-4147-4473-a432-e779a609bae3
___,
\o
|
/ \
.
"Someone likes every shot"!
bk
MnMikew
"Bobby Knight" <bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:7ssih2djth9i6gmo4...@4ax.com...
Talk about spin, jesus. No agenda or spin here, yaaaaaaa. Olberman is
partisan hack, and he rips on Fox News as being partisan, LOL!
Carbon
> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.09.26....@nospam.verizon.net...
>>
>> According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the failed oil war in
>> Iraq has actually worsened the threat of terrorism. Here, spin this:
>> http://tinyurl.com/m98rd
>>
>>
> Spin what? A link that doesn't go anywhere? What a great point you
> make.
That's weird. It worked yesterday. Full link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?ex=1316750400&en=da252be85d1b39fa&ei=5088
>> Bush and his handlers were able to sell this disastrous invasion by
>> feeding everyone deliberately misleading summaries that grossly
>> overstated evidence for Saddam's stockpiles of WMD. Bush and his
>> handlers had the raw data and knew the evidence was very shaky. WMD was
>> just an excuse, a means to seize control of the oil. Or do you think
>> the billions of barrels of proven, high quality oil reserves in Iraq is
>> just an irrelevant detail?
>
> Right. Bush wanted the oil! He is an oil guy!
>
> So why has the price of oil continued to rise since we went into Iraq
> and it is just now starting to go down? If we got all of this oil out
> of Iraq, doesn't the price go down? Supply and demand? ? ? ?
Incompetence. The ongoing instability in the Middle East has had and will
continue to have a big effect on the price of oil. Naturally this is
completely opposite to what Bush and his handlers expected, so it's just
another little detail they got wrong.
MnMikew
As it has been for many, many years. Perhaps you remember the gas lines
during the Carter years.
Frank Ketchum
"Carbon" <nob...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.09.26....@nospam.verizon.net...
>
> continue to have a big effect on the price of oil. Naturally this is
> completely opposite to what Bush and his handlers expected, so it's just
> another little detail they got wrong.
Geez, you can't even keep your own conspiracy theories straight. Let me
help. You are saying Bush and his handlers wanted the price to go down?
But they are oil guys! I thought that was why we were in Iraq! Oil guys
are benefitted by high oil prices, not low ones.
bzzzt, try again.
dsc
> to seize control of the oil.
Okay, we have to think that is a possibility...
Exactly what is meant by seize control? Is it supposed to be the same
as steal or what?
Bobby Knight
wrote:
>>>
>> http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=9c610738-4147-4473-a432-e779a609bae3
>
>Talk about spin, jesus. No agenda or spin here, yaaaaaaa. Olberman is
>partisan hack, and he rips on Fox News as being partisan, LOL!
>
He was dead on. Period. George Bush is the worst president since
Buchanan. Period.
A Brick in the Wall
They must some kind of powerful happy pill.
MnMikew
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:14:29 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmi...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>> http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=9c610738-4147-4473-a432-e779a609bae3
>>
>>Talk about spin, jesus. No agenda or spin here, yaaaaaaa. Olberman is
>>partisan hack, and he rips on Fox News as being partisan, LOL!
>>
>
> He was dead on. Period. George Bush is the worst president since
> Buchanan. Period.
That would be your opinion.
multi
<fket...@earthlinknospaam.net> wrote:
>"multi" <mu...@asm.org> wrote in message
>news:851hh2tgp84ips6vk...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 01:08:29 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
>> <fket...@earthlinknospaam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>And you think that Iraq had no WMD programs?
>>
>> That's what the UN said, and that's what Bush's teams that cost the
>> taxpayers a billion dollars said. Doesn't matter what I think. But
>> here's what the chimp in chief thinks:
>>
>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060821.html
>> "Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main
>> reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of
>> mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to
>> make weapons of mass destruction."
>>
>
>Here are some other folks (including UN weapons inspectors) who also must
>have lied about Iraq and the WMDs.
What an incredible waste of bandwidth. And as usual, no citations,
since it is obviously a cut and paste job from a right wingnut
website.
But at least it has the dates of the quotes, and that's the key.
Most Americans, including Democrats, believed that Saddam had WMDs
before November of 2002, and all but two of your quotes are from
before then. Nobody KNEW whether he had WMDs, because we hadn't had
any inspectors in there since Clinton pulled them out in 1998, just
before he bombed Iraq --- an action that was roundly criticized by the
Republicans at that time as a "wag the dog" stunt to delay his
impeachment proceedings. But according to the conclusions of Bush's
hand-picked, billion-dollar inspection team, that stunt destroyed the
last remnants of Saddam's weapons facilities. Note that even when our
inspectors were there in 1998, they hadn't found any WMDs; they just
said that Saddam hadn't properly accounted for the WMDs we knew he had
in 1980's. Also note that with the exception of mustard gas, the
shelf life of the chemical weapons Saddam had in the 1980's is only a
couple of years.
So we now know that Saddam actually didn't have any stockpiles,
facilities, or programs since 1998 at the latest, and probably more
like 1995. But we didn't know that in October of 2002, when Congress
voted to authorize force ONLY IF all other remedies failed.
The UN paid attention, and passed a resolution ordering Saddam to
admit inspectors into Iraq, and let them see EVERYTHING, with no
warnings, no exemptions for presidential palaces, etc.
Saddam caved. The UN went in, and looked at every site that the CIA
suspected of being involved in WMD. They found nothing. They
interviewed Saddam's scientists, who all said that the programs had
been abandoned years ago. They even inspected all of Saddam's
conventional weapons, and when they found some missiles that they
thought might be able to fly 113 miles instead of the UN limit of 90
miles, they ordered them destroyed. Saddam allowed the destruction.
So things went exactly as the Democrats hoped. They voted to
authorize force in Iraq ONLY if Saddam didn't meet their conditions of
allowing full inspections by the UN. With this incentive, the UN
passed a tough resolution, and Saddam obeyed it. It appeared that we
had accomplished the goal of disarming Iraq without firing a shot. A
great success for the Dems.
But Bush didn't want a diplomatic success, he wanted to be the War
President. So he invaded anyway.
By the time Bush invaded, in late March of 2003, he didn't have to
guess. He didn't have to assume the worst. He KNEW, without any
doubt, that our intelligence had been wrong, and the defectors had
been lying. He KNEW, without any doubt, that the locations that the
CIA suspected from satellite photos were not WMD factories. He KNEW,
without any doubt, that if Saddam had any WMDs left, they were few,
scattered, and posed no threat to anyone, least of all the US. And he
KNEW, without any doubt, that Saddam had allowed the inspectors in,
had cooperated with them, and had even allowed them to destroy his
most powerful conventional weapons.
Bush still lies about this. He has said on at least four occasions
http://www.unknownnews.net/inspectors.html
that the reason we invaded was because Saddam didn't let the
inspectors in. What contempt he must have for the intelligence of his
supporters. More importantly, he lied to Congress. The bill that
Congress passed in October of 2002 authorized force against Iraq ONLY
if Bush certified, in writing, that all diplomatic measures had
failed, and that Iraq was an immediate threat to the US. Neither
condition was met --- by March 2003, we knew that Saddam was no
threat, and the latest report from Hans Blix said that Saddam was
actively cooperating with the UN, i.e. the diplomatic measures were
working.
No problem for a pathological liar like Bush. He signed a letter to
Congress saying that diplomatic measures had failed, that Iraq was a
serious threat to the US, was a participant in the 9-11 attacks (no
evidence for this has ever been produced), and that war was the only
option.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html
Bottom line --- quoting Dems from before the inspectors went in to
Iraq and found nothing, is like quoting people about the shape of the
world before Columbus returned from his voyage. If the experiment
proves that your hypothesis is wrong, you're not a hypocrite to change
your position. You're stupid if you don't. Bush had five months of
solid intelligence from UN inspectors, saying that Saddam had no
significant quantities of WMDs, before he invaded.
Only two of your quotes are from after the date the inspectors went
into Iraq. One is from a Republican, William Cohen, so it's
irrelevant to your case about what Dems thought. Yes, he was
Clinton's SecDef, but he is still a lifelong Republican, and even as
SecDef, he never even considered invading Iraq. He lobbed a few
missiles, with no loss of US life.
The only relevant quote is the one that Kerry made in January 2003.
By selective editing, you make it sound like he was hot to invade, but
it was actually an ANTI-WAR speech. He said, as any intelligent
person would, that we can't allow Saddam to have WMDs, but he also
said that we needed to disarm him by diplomatic means, and that IF
those failed, then we needed to make sure that we had our NATO allies,
i.e. France and Germany, solidly behind us before we contemplated
military action. He warned, correctly, of the consequences of going
in before diplomatic means failed, or without the support of the
world.
This is from the same speech that you quoted:
http://kerry.senate.gov/low/record.cfm?id=189831
"In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now
affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious
consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on
Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and
make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously
admitted to possessing.
"But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the
hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary
work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said
frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to
war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we
have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies
available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American
people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.
"The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the
time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of
making their case to the American people and to the world.
"I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary.
We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we
lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted
so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of
Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more
immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be
particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if
we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq
would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's
participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any
institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the
President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy
because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show
the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition.
Mr. President, do not rush to war."
multi
<fket...@earthlinknospaam.net> wrote:
>So why has the price of oil continued to rise since we went into Iraq and it
>is just now starting to go down? If we got all of this oil out of Iraq,
>doesn't the price go down? Supply and demand? ? ? ?
Saying that Bush wanted to control Iraq's oil doesn't mean he wanted
the price to go down. His buddies, the oil companies, are making
record profits with the price of oil up. Whether he planned that or
not, it's not a bad thing to him. I think it's more likely that he
just wanted to get control of it to keep it from going to China,
rather than us. Ironically, his bumbling has almost ensured that Iran
will now turn to China as an ally.
3putt
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>> http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=9c610738-4147-4473-a432-e779a609bae3
>>>
>>>Talk about spin, jesus. No agenda or spin here, yaaaaaaa. Olberman is
>>>partisan hack, and he rips on Fox News as being partisan, LOL!
>>>
>>
>> He was dead on. Period. George Bush is the worst president since
>> Buchanan. Period.
>
Chris Bellomy
: On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:14:29 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmi...@aol.com>
: wrote:
:
:>>>
:>> http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=9c610738-4147-4473-a432-e779a609bae3
:>
:>Talk about spin, jesus. No agenda or spin here, yaaaaaaa. Olberman is
:>partisan hack, and he rips on Fox News as being partisan, LOL!
:
: He was dead on. Period. George Bush is the worst president since
: Buchanan. Period.
Ironically, given my partisan identity, it's not Bush whom I compare
to Buchanan -- it's Clinton. Bush, I guess, would be the Civil War
in that analogy, as I blame Clinton for laying the groundwork for Bush
just as I blame Buchanan for laying the groundwork for the Civil War.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
Dene
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:14:29 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmi...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>>
> >> http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=9c610738-4147-4473-a432-e779a609bae3
> >
> >Talk about spin, jesus. No agenda or spin here, yaaaaaaa. Olberman is
> >partisan hack, and he rips on Fox News as being partisan, LOL!
> >
>
> He was dead on. Period. George Bush is the worst president since
> Buchanan. Period.
Name the last president you actually liked. LBJ??
-Greg
Alan Illeman
"Frankenshank" <grooveme...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1159208266.8...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Can someone explain the logical reason WHY our fine American soldiers
> continue to die in IRAQ?
>
> Im just totally lost now... or maybe I'm dumb but:
> 1) WHOOOPS! no WMD's... sorry
> 2) WHOOPS! Saddam wasn't responsible for 9-11
> 3) We're bringing DEMOCRACY & Freedom... kaBOOOOOOMMM!
>
> I'm sorry to admit I was a registered Republican, voted for Bush
> TWICE..
>
> I would like a cogent explanation as to WHY?
>
> FrankenShank
>
It's all about the money..
http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2006/09/26/house_debates_70_billion_more_for_iraq_afghanistan/
Chris Bellomy
: Name the last president you actually liked. LBJ??
I liked Carter quite a lot. If he had been able to make his foreign
policy stick, this would be a much better world right about now. As
a politician, though, he was clearly a failure.
LBJ was a flawed giant, a Shakespearean tragedy in real life, at
the same time one of our greatest and one of our worst presidents.
Eisenhower was a good caretaker president, smarter than he let on.
My enthusiasm for Truman isn't as great as most Dems.
FDR, otoh, truly was great.
Yes, you can read this as a rebuke of Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush,
Clinton and Bush.
Bobby Knight
wrote:
James thought he was too....
Bobby Knight
<pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>
>I liked Carter quite a lot. If he had been able to make his foreign
>policy stick, this would be a much better world right about now. As
>a politician, though, he was clearly a failure.
>
>LBJ was a flawed giant, a Shakespearean tragedy in real life, at
>the same time one of our greatest and one of our worst presidents.
>
>Eisenhower was a good caretaker president, smarter than he let on.
>
>My enthusiasm for Truman isn't as great as most Dems.
>
>FDR, otoh, truly was great.
>
>Yes, you can read this as a rebuke of Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush,
>Clinton and Bush.
It really depends on how one judges them. FDR was great, Truman ok,
Eisenhower probably the best since he did nothing...except found the
Interstate system. Kennedy may have been a great one had he lived,
you hit the nail on the head with LBJ, I was wrong about
Buchanan...Nixon was the worst, Carter probably the best man that ever
held the office, but a terrible president. Ford was going to be fine,
but had to shoot himself in the foot with the pardon. Bush #1,
ho-hum, I liked Clinton, and then there is Chimp In Chief. (Thanks
Multi, that's perfect).
Dene
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> Dene <gds...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> : Name the last president you actually liked. LBJ??
>
> I liked Carter quite a lot. If he had been able to make his foreign
> policy stick, this would be a much better world right about now. As
> a politician, though, he was clearly a failure.
He had no resolve. Remember his speech urging Americans to volunarily
control prices. Also...."we just created another 100,000 jobs.
I voted for him....twice.
> LBJ was a flawed giant, a Shakespearean tragedy in real life, at
> the same time one of our greatest and one of our worst presidents.
He inheirited Vietnam from Kennedy. However, his civil rights record
was outstanding and courageous.
> Eisenhower was a good caretaker president, smarter than he let on.
They say he didn't do much....but perhaps there wasn't that much to do.
Unique time in history.
> My enthusiasm for Truman isn't as great as most Dems.
Straight shooting Dems are rare.
> FDR, otoh, truly was great.
Agree.
> Yes, you can read this as a rebuke of Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush,
> Clinton and Bush.
Clinton could have been great. Both Bush's are mediocre.
Reagan.....outstanding!! The best president since Roosevelt (Teddy).
-Greg
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the failed oil war in
>Iraq has actually worsened the threat of terrorism.
Talk about the obvious.
"R&B"
>> Your President told us today that the
>> Iraq War will one day be nothing more
>> than a "comma" in history .
> Where can I find the quote and the context.
Here ya go...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsQTxeIV_Y8
Randy
Carbon
I'll type slower and you try to follow along. I never said that Bush and
his handlers had plans one way or the other regarding the price of oil.
What I said was they had naively expected to have stabilized the Middle
East by now. Obviously they have completely and totally failed at that. In
fact, they have given up on trying to control the country and have
retreated to Baghdad.
For the record, the Soviets did exactly the same thing when their invasion
of Afghanistan failed. By they end they were prisoners in a country they
supposedly controlled, refusing to leave Kabul for fear getting killed.
Carbon
> It really depends on how one judges them. FDR was great, Truman ok,
> Eisenhower probably the best since he did nothing...except found the
> Interstate system. Kennedy may have been a great one had he lived, you
> hit the nail on the head with LBJ, I was wrong about Buchanan...Nixon
> was the worst, Carter probably the best man that ever held the office,
> but a terrible president. Ford was going to be fine, but had to shoot
> himself in the foot with the pardon. Bush #1, ho-hum, I liked Clinton,
> and then there is Chimp In Chief. (Thanks Multi, that's perfect).
Was Nixon the worst? I don't know. Yes, he was Machiavellian and evil, but
at least his IQ was over a hundred. Unlike Wubya, he at least understood
the issues. I can't even stand watching Bush speak. He stutters his way
through something someone else wrote and has no idea what the hell he's
talking about. How did this *idiot* ever get to be President?
Carbon
Yes, blindingly obvious. And yet the true believers on the right will deny
it to their last breath.
bill-o
On 26-Sep-2006, Carbon <nob...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
> Obviously they have completely and totally failed at that
One has only failed when they have given up, this is obviously not the case.
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
bill-o
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf
Fairway
Frankenshank wrote:
> I apologize for the off-topic post
> Can someone explain the logical reason WHY our fine American soldiers
> continue to die in IRAQ?
it a fact that the wars in Asia have weakened the US economy? If so
it´s a great worry to us all, not only Americans. F
A Brick in the Wall
Here is where you have it wrong --- they will deny it to someone else's last
breath.
A Brick in the Wall
Bravo --- do you have a blog site? I think it is a place I'd hang out.
I predict you will hear crickets from Frank now -- or you should if has any
sense left.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Was Nixon the worst? I don't know. Yes, he was Machiavellian and evil, but
>at least his IQ was over a hundred. Unlike Wubya, he at least understood
>the issues. I can't even stand watching Bush speak. He stutters his way
>through something someone else wrote and has no idea what the hell he's
>talking about. How did this *idiot* ever get to be President?
Because he learned early that that style would get him the rural vote.
Tex
bill-o wrote:
> Why not get the whole thing?
>
> http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf
Because the whole thing dilutes the argument :)
And, it can't be true if it wasn't all leaked to the Press....and we
all know, the Press only reports the truth, not the spin.
<g>
Tex
A Brick in the Wall
"Tex" <markte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159360429.6...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
But are we believe everything we need to make a choice is now included in
Bush's de-classified version?
I see 2 sides of a street here.
Carbon
> On 26-Sep-2006, Carbon <nob...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Obviously they have completely and totally failed at that
>
> One has only failed when they have given up, this is obviously not the
> case.
Bush and his handlers can stay the course all they want. Other than
wasting more billions and the lives of more American troops, they are not
going to change the outcome. The Iraq war has turned into a hopeless
quagmire, just like Vietnam did. And of course, just like the Soviet
invasion of Afghanistan.
Carbon
Very good point.
Tex
A Brick in the Wall wrote:
You are believe anything you wish.
Tex
Chris Bellomy
:
You guys realize that the Key Judgments isn't the "whole thing,"
don't you?
John B.
bill-o wrote:
> On 26-Sep-2006, Carbon <nob...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Obviously they have completely and totally failed at that
>
> One has only failed when they have given up, this is obviously not the case.
>
> --
> bill-o
Oh, horseshit. Bill. If you set out to shoot a 99 and after 17 holes
you're at 98 and the 18th is a par 4, have you not failed?
John B.
multi wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:44:52 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
> <fket...@earthlinknospaam.net> wrote:
> >So why has the price of oil continued to rise since we went into Iraq and it
> >is just now starting to go down? If we got all of this oil out of Iraq,
> >doesn't the price go down? Supply and demand? ? ? ?
>
> Saying that Bush wanted to control Iraq's oil doesn't mean he wanted
> the price to go down. His buddies, the oil companies, are making
> record profits with the price of oil up. Whether he planned that or
> not, it's not a bad thing to him. I think it's more likely that he
> just wanted to get control of it to keep it from going to China,
> rather than us. Ironically, his bumbling has almost ensured that Iran
> will now turn to China as an ally.
Oil marketing is not an us vs. them proposition. It's hard to imagine
how Bush could bar the sale of Iraqi oil to China, or for that matter
why he would want to.
John B.
MnMikew wrote:
> "Bobby Knight" <bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
> news:gn3jh2togoc0n8e6l...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:14:29 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmi...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>>>
> >>> http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=9c610738-4147-4473-a432-e779a609bae3
> >>
> >>Talk about spin, jesus. No agenda or spin here, yaaaaaaa. Olberman is
> >>partisan hack, and he rips on Fox News as being partisan, LOL!
> >>
> >
> > He was dead on. Period. George Bush is the worst president since
> > Buchanan. Period.
>
It would be mine, too.
John B.
Dene wrote:
> Bobby Knight wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:14:29 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmi...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >>>
> > >> http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=9c610738-4147-4473-a432-e779a609bae3
> > >
> > >Talk about spin, jesus. No agenda or spin here, yaaaaaaa. Olberman is
> > >partisan hack, and he rips on Fox News as being partisan, LOL!
> > >
> >
> > He was dead on. Period. George Bush is the worst president since
> > Buchanan. Period.
>
>
If it weren't for Vietnam, LBJ would be on Mt. Rushmore now.
John B.
Well, gosh, now the White House has de-classified the report, and will
wonders never cease? It says exactly what the NY Times said it says!
Ken Meltzer
John B. wrote:
>If you set out to shoot a 99 and after 17 holes
> you're at 98 and the 18th is a par 4, have you not failed?
What if you declare "Mission Accomplished" and walk off the course?
Best,
Ken
Bobby Knight
wrote:
What if you declare "Mission Accomplished", stay on the course and
hit every shot out of bounds from then on?
--
___,
\o
|
/ \
.
“Someone likes every shot”
bk
Ken Meltzer
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On 27 Sep 2006 09:40:04 -0700, "Ken Meltzer" <comm...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >John B. wrote:
> >>If you set out to shoot a 99 and after 17 holes
> >> you're at 98 and the 18th is a par 4, have you not failed?
> >
> >What if you declare "Mission Accomplished" and walk off the course?
> >Best,
> >Ken
> What if you declare "Mission Accomplished", stay on the course and
> hit every shot out of bounds from then on?
Then it would be the caddy's fault for reporting your score.
Best,
Ken
MnMikew
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 21:40:39 GMT, "3putt" <golf24/7...@golfing.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:14:29 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmi...@aol.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=9c610738-4147-4473-a432-e779a609bae3
>>>>>
>>>>>Talk about spin, jesus. No agenda or spin here, yaaaaaaa. Olberman is
>>>>>partisan hack, and he rips on Fox News as being partisan, LOL!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He was dead on. Period. George Bush is the worst president since
>>>> Buchanan. Period.
>>>
>>
> James thought he was too....
Bobby and James were close, personal friends. :-)
MnMikew
"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159372868....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
good liberals you are.
Bobby Knight
MnMikew
Yep, baaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
Bobby Knight
wrote:
>
>"Bobby Knight" <bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>> You're teachable!!!!!
>
>Yep, baaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
>
:-)
bill-o
On 27-Sep-2006, "John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
> bill-o wrote:
> > On 26-Sep-2006, Carbon <nob...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Obviously they have completely and totally failed at that
> >
> > One has only failed when they have given up, this is obviously not the
> > case.
> >
> > --
> > bill-o
>
> Oh, horseshit. Bill. If you set out to shoot a 99 and after 17 holes
> you're at 98 and the 18th is a par 4, have you not failed?
I find your definition of failure oh so superficial, golf, unless you are a
professional, is not about setting a score mark for each round, it is about
PLAYING the gemme! While I didn't agree with the way this war started,
leaving now would just confirm to the world what weak babies we are and that
we cannont be trusted to keep our word. We brioke it, it's ours.
--
bill-o
John B.
Where did I say, or even imply, anything like that?