PDA

View Full Version : How would you rate the President's address to the nation?



Sniper
03-06-2003, 11:06 PM
This is just an informal poll to see what people think and why.

iceblizzard69
03-06-2003, 11:14 PM
I didn't watch it so I don't know

Sniper
03-06-2003, 11:29 PM
If he was trying to sell people on the war, then I think he fell short of that goal. Plus, I didn't like the news conference format they used. It looked to me as if the reporters' questions were presubmitted. While he was answering questions he glanced down at the podium quite a bit as if he were reading answers from there. This suggests, to me, that his answers were preprepared for him and that he was afraid of a spontaneous news conference.

I'm sure other people will see this differently than me.

Peebs
03-06-2003, 11:55 PM
You think he actually ANSWERED questions? I thought he danced around them like Fred Astaire.
My favorite was when one reporter asked how a war would impact the economy.
Bush went on to talk about the lives lost on Sept 11th and how we are affected by terrorist.

WTF? Answer the damn question you boob! :rolleyes:
OR he gave his standard "Saddam is a bad guy" line over and over and over.

Kamikaze
03-07-2003, 12:58 AM
He was running in rehtorical circles all night long. After 10 minutes you pretty much heard everything he was going to say for the rest of the conference. My question is, why wasn't Helen Thomas there?

ohall
03-07-2003, 02:08 AM
Originally posted by Sniper
This is just an informal poll to see what people think and why.

It was a homerun, it pretty much shuts Blixx up tomorrow.

Oliver...

Muck
03-07-2003, 03:09 AM
Sure he didn't answer questions directly. He was being DIPLOMATIC. I thought that was what everyone wanted?? No, it's probably better to say that we wouldn't mind killing Saddam Hussein.

As for the economy questions, etc, what do you think the answers were?? I mean, I still can't believe that our reasons for potentially going to war still have to be justified. I've got it. Maybe we should pull our troops out of every country in the world and stop monitoring rogue nations and terrorist groups. Lets just mind our own business at home and let guys like Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong do whatever they want over there. Think the world would be a better place?? Think AMERICA would be a better place?? Think America would be a SAFER place??

I've got news for some of you. You need to wake up and acknowledge the threat that this world is facing. Acknowledge that Iraq has had 12 years to do what it was told (disarm). Acknowledge that, instead of disarming, they've built an dangerous chemical and biological arsenal and murdered millions of their own people. Acknowledge that they've financed the terrorists who threaten our country. So again, why are we still demanding the president answer the same mundane questions to which we already know the answers??

Anyone with half a brain knew the answers to every single question those reporters asked. Which brings up another point. How lame is it to be a White House journalist?? You ask questions that can't possibly be answered straight up. And the guy you're talking to really doesn't want you around. I just don't see how it would be fulfilling.

Anyway, I think the president did a good job tonight.

Dajesus
03-07-2003, 03:55 AM
the whole thing pissed me off! He made miss a week of Freinds and scrubs, so i could wath him say absolutely nothing new. I repect the president's postion, but i hate George and his moron brother Jeb. Stupid Jeb is pretty much forceing me to move back to NY since my girlfreind and myself will both be working in public education ad would rahter work at McDonalds that to be a teacher in this state.

Sniper
03-07-2003, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by Peebs
You think he actually ANSWERED questions? I thought he danced around them like Fred Astaire.
My favorite was when one reporter asked how a war would impact the economy.
Bush went on to talk about the lives lost on Sept 11th and how we are affected by terrorist.

WTF? Answer the damn question you boob! :rolleyes:
OR he gave his standard "Saddam is a bad guy" line over and over and over.

:lol: Maybe I should have he said attempted to answer. Responded might have been a better choice of words.

PhinPhan1227
03-07-2003, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by Sniper
If he was trying to sell people on the war, then I think he fell short of that goal. Plus, I didn't like the news conference format they used. It looked to me as if the reporters' questions were presubmitted. While he was answering questions he glanced down at the podium quite a bit as if he were reading answers from there. This suggests, to me, that his answers were preprepared for him and that he was afraid of a spontaneous news conference.

I'm sure other people will see this differently than me.


If the answers were presubmitted, why would they have been able to ask the same question over, and over, and over again? Sometimes one after the other? The questions seemed spontanious to me. Perhaps he was looking at notes sent to him on a teleprompter by an aid? Or perhaps he just looks down when thinking? Either way, in your scenario, it would assume that reporters were willing to only give canned questions. I doubt the Whitehouse would have trusted reporters to stick to that format. Laslty, there aere questions asked which seemd to genuinly bother the President. If he was expecting them, I doubt that would have been his response.

PhinPhan1227
03-07-2003, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by Peebs
You think he actually ANSWERED questions? I thought he danced around them like Fred Astaire.
My favorite was when one reporter asked how a war would impact the economy.
Bush went on to talk about the lives lost on Sept 11th and how we are affected by terrorist.

WTF? Answer the damn question you boob! :rolleyes:
OR he gave his standard "Saddam is a bad guy" line over and over and over.


Question-Wn't war have a negative impact on the economy?

Answer-Sure, but not as much of an impact as another 9/11 will. This was might cost anywhere from 50-250 billion. The imapct to the airline industry ALONE after 9/11 was greater than that.

How is that not an answer? Try to remember, just because someone doesn't say what you want them to say, it doesn't mean they didn't answer the question.

PhinPhan1227
03-07-2003, 10:24 AM
I'd say THIS speech was meant to be somber. It was meant to counterpoint the image of "gung-ho cowboy" Bush who's slavering for war. In that respect, I think he did a good job. Heck, he almost looked like he was going to tear up a couple of times. The next speech or two, if they're announcing war, will probably be more "rah-rah".

Peebs
03-07-2003, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Question-Wn't war have a negative impact on the economy?

Answer-Sure, but not as much of an impact as another 9/11 will. This was might cost anywhere from 50-250 billion. The imapct to the airline industry ALONE after 9/11 was greater than that.

How is that not an answer? Try to remember, just because someone doesn't say what you want them to say, it doesn't mean they didn't answer the question.

COSTING 50-250 billion or stating that DID not answer the question, so much so that the reporter HAD to ask it AGAIN. Also constantly refering to 9-11 through out his whole Q&A is getting a wee tiresome. He's constantly having to fall back on what was considered his "finest hour" which AS a NY (IMO)...it wasn't. It was Rudy's...it was Pataki's, not his.
The Federal Government STILL hasn't given NY the funds they promised for clean up and recovery.

And again WHO cares about the inflating airline industry post 9-11???? Will average Joe and Jill HAVE A FREAKING job if we go to war? How HIGH will gas prices rise? I don't know about you but my salary hasn't increased to meet the high demands on energy. And I don't even LIVE in Cali. Those poor people will be up to $3.00 a gallon soon.

He was asked pretty simple questions and the American public got nothing.





Perhaps he was looking at notes sent to him on a teleprompter by an aid? Or perhaps he just looks down when thinking? .

Notes by an aide? That's comforting :rolleyes: Maybe the aide should be President. Looking down while thinking? Gee the first thing I notice in a person I can't trust is lack of eye contact when speaking to them.
I've seen the Senate approriations commitee question the Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage on C-Span. They fired question after question after question at him. From everything to HIV prevention Internationally to paper clips (It was about the depts budget) and sec. Armitage was able to eloquently and intelligently answer EVERYONE of those questions without having to repeat the "party line" over and over again. Never looking down, never losing eye contact, never relying on "notes".

So what's the Presidents problem?

PhinPhan1227
03-07-2003, 12:01 PM
The impact to the airline industry was just one facet of the economic impact of 9-11 which your well aware of, so don't play obtuse. The impact on the ENTIRE economy of a 9-11 attack is FAR greater than the cost of a war on Iraq. ESPECIALLY when you factor in our current and ongoing costs of "containment". Lastly, almost every "expert" has perdicted that a quick resolution in Iraq would result in an immediate boost to the economy, and lowering of oil prices. Lastly, I'm not that concerned about how well a President does or doesn't issue a speech. In my opinion, Bush did pretty well. It wasn't the rousing speech post 9-11, but I don't think it was meant to be. If you want to think that GW is an idiot, that's your right, and I hoghly doubt that anything I could say would sway you in any way. But the reality of the situation is that he's our elected President, and he was 100% correct when he said that he is MANDATED by the Constitution to deal with anything which he decides is a threat to the United States. He's determined that Saddam is a threat, and he's going to deal with him. I support him in that, you don't, but them's the facts.

Muck
03-07-2003, 12:09 PM
I see nobody's responded to my post. I figured I'd be picked apart by now (or at least . I guess my argument (the meat and potatoes of the issue) is sound and the what we're bickering over here is the president's public speaking skills and questions with answers we really don't want to hear.

PhinPhan1227
03-07-2003, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Muck
I see nobody's responded to my post. I figured I'd be picked apart by now (or at least . I guess my argument (the meat and potatoes of the issue) is sound and the what we're bickering over here is the president's public speaking skills and questions with answers we really don't want to hear.


You have to bear in mind Muck that much of this country isn't concerned with the potential deaths of more Americans, or the ongoing deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians. They're only concerned with how the President presents himself, and whether we "look bad" to the rest of the world. After all, they may not "like us". Never mind that they continue to buy our products, listen to our music, and watch our movies in ever increasing numbers, we also need to be "liked". They'd rather attack the minutia, because they have no response to the larger issues. Now you know why liberal talk radio never worked.

Peebs
03-07-2003, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Lastly, almost every "expert" has perdicted that a quick resolution in Iraq would result in an immediate boost to the economy, and lowering of oil prices. Lastly, I'm not that concerned about how well a President does or doesn't issue a speech. In my opinion, Bush did pretty well.

Uh huh...just like the last attack on Iraq in 91 boosted the economy, it didn't and it was the last nail in Papa's politcal coffin.
And you don't care that the Leader of this country comes off looking like a mumbling, stumbling, repeat the same damn rhetoric over and over moron? See I personally would like the world to veiw America like it's leader and he be intelligent, strong and know what the hell he's talking about. Be strong in foreign policies and diplomatic. Bush is NONE of the above.

It's like dejai vu alll over again (
Yogi Berra ) Been there done that...

AND YES "peacenicks" ARE VERY concerned with the human toll, both military and civilian. There are STILL post Desert Storm vets dying because the US still haven't figured out or even recognized the "post DS syndrome" that plagued many soldiers. And if you would like proof all I have to do is contact a friend who is HEAVILY active in Vet Affairs.
So here we go again...this time without any major allies besides Great Britain, pissing off every major country just so we can look like Cowboys. Goody I can hardly wait

PhinPhan1227
03-07-2003, 01:35 PM
Rather than calling veterans affairs, why not speak to a few veterans? Why not ask them whether they'd rather remove Saddam NOW or LATER? And you still haven't answered why the deaths of thousands of Iraqi's every year is of no concern to you. Lastly, I said that after THIS war the economy would improve. You've got a market right now that's stagnant waiting to see what's going to happen. Give Saddam more time? Great, and let our economy rot while you're giving him MORE time AGAIN! You want the world to view America as a strong leader? Great, we can toe the line of the UN and just keep saying "this is your last chance...no...wait....THIS is your last chance....ok...best 2 out of 3?....No, really THIS is your LAST chance...um...can I think about it for a week?". A strong leader? You want us to be the Neville Chamberlin of the 21st Century. Lastly, given the choice between a President who sounds eloquent but can't make a decision without running 4 opinion polls, and a leader who sounds "rustic", but follows his heart, I'll take the leader! As I've said before, I'm not a fan of everything GW has done, I'm just sure that he's done a better job so far than any of the Dem candidates that were presented in the last election.

WharfRat
03-07-2003, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by Peebs

. And if you would like proof all I have to do is contact a friend who is HEAVILY active in Vet Affairs.



Originally posted by PhinPhan1227

Rather than calling veterans affairs, why not speak to a few veterans? Why not ask them whether they'd rather remove Saddam NOW or LATER?


Speaking as someone who was actually IN the military... in a combat unit (as opposed to a pencil pusher at the VA)... and one who is still in contact with those in my old unit... a unit, by the way, that chased Saddam's "elite" Republican Guard across the desert in '91... I can tell you this... The men and women in uniform, are ready to go.... I'd have to say that most ACTIVE combat personnel would agree, it should have been done 12 years ago, but since it wasn't... it needs to be dealt with ASAP. I for one, would much rather go into combat in an offensive role now, to take out a despot, who if we don't, will eventually force us to fight in a defensive posture... which is much more dangerous, and costly in terms of human life.
Sorry Peeps...no disrespect to your friend... but someone who is active in veterans affairs, does not have a clue what SSG Richard Mendoza of the 4th Mech Inf Btn thinks... he was there in '91...and will gladly go back if it means cleansing the world of this threat to us, the middle east, and his own people...

As far as knocking Bush for looking at notes written by aides?
Tell me ONE single president in modern history, who has NOT used notes from aides for press conferences etc... or given a speech that was written by a "speech writer" or used a "press agent" to deal with the press.... to use that against Bush is simply a double standard.

As far as "major allies" ... you would call France a "major ally"? *cough...cough* France is a joke... they won't go because they know what we'll find....
Germany? I could do about two paragraphs about Germany's state of mind right now... my brother has lived and worked there for almost 30 years.... he works in the American Consulate in Munich,and has been married to a German national for about 20 years... I'll save Germany for another time...
Spain, Great Britain, Australia, Several Eastern European countries, and the very powerful Turkish military are endorsing our actions...so tell me again how we are pissing off the entire world? Or is it just your definition of the "entire world" meaning France, Germany and Russia... all of whom have something to hide.....


I wasn't going to get involved in this one... until I read that someone active in veteran's affairs was being used as a valid indicator of how the current and former military personel feel about the Gulf War... and/or the upcoming conflict.

PhinPhan1227
03-07-2003, 02:40 PM
Go Army WharfRat!! 11H myself. They phased it out in favor of 11M, right after I finished Basic but it was still a blast driving around in the HMMV's blowing crap up...:) Oh, and ANY soldier will tell anybody who asks that they'd rather face an enemy when they're weak than when they're strong. Case in point, N. Korea vs Iraq.

WharfRat
03-07-2003, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Go Army WharfRat!! 11H myself. They phased it out in favor of 11M, right after I finished Basic but it was still a blast driving around in the HMMV's blowing crap up...:) Oh, and ANY soldier will tell anybody who asks that they'd rather face an enemy when they're weak than when they're strong. Case in point, N. Korea vs Iraq.

HooWaahhh! http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif

Peebs
03-07-2003, 05:33 PM
I DO NOT have to justify my friends involvement BUT she's a member of Rolling Thunder, a Local Viet Nam Vets group and a WWII Vets group, he late husband and her current B/f BOTH Viet Nam Vets. She is in DC EVERY Veterans day and EVERY Memorial day (as part of Rolling Thunder) at the Wall. She volunteers at the Local VA hospital and organizes fund raisers for local homeless Vets in addition to lobbying State Officials on Vet affairs....
YEP she's involved.

WANNA say something STUPID now PhinPhan? Or are you going to come back with your normal bullsh&t blabber on how I didn't address the death of Iraqi's? WOW and where you on the same page as all conservatives that when we sent troops to Bosnia yelled "It's a CIVIL war we shouldn't get involved"? I bet you were.
So ONE lost US soldier is ONE too many in Iraq. But I guess that count doesn't bother you does it? Let the bodies fall where they may?

And WarfRat, thank you for serving the Country. But as the Daughter(Marines WWII) and Granddaughter(Marines WWI) AND Sister (Viet Nam) NON pencil pushers :rolleyes: I can easily say no one is this house is for this war. Neither is my Vet active friend who is surrounded by Vets for it either.

iceblizzard69
03-07-2003, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by WharfRat

Spain, Great Britain, Australia, Several Eastern European countries, and the very powerful Turkish military are endorsing our actions...so tell me again how we are pissing off the entire world? Or is it just your definition of the "entire world" meaning France, Germany and Russia... all of whom have something to hide.....


Basically all of the Balkan nations besides Greece support the war, and Poland does too. Iran may support the war. Also, our most important allies in the war are Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. Kuwait is one of the USA's best allies, better then most European nations.

The whole world is NOT against this war, just a lot of it. There are a bunch of nations that actually support it besides the USA, Spain, and the UK.

Also, when the war starts, expect Mexico, Angola, and Cameroon, along with a few other nations, to join the USA's side.

PhinPhan1227
03-07-2003, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by Peebs
I DO NOT have to justify my friends involvement BUT she's a member of Rolling Thunder, a Local Viet Nam Vets group and a WWII Vets group, he late husband and her current B/f BOTH Viet Nam Vets. She is in DC EVERY Veterans day and EVERY Memorial day (as part of Rolling Thunder) at the Wall. She volunteers at the Local VA hospital and organizes fund raisers for local homeless Vets in addition to lobbying State Officials on Vet affairs....
YEP she's involved.

WANNA say something STUPID now PhinPhan? Or are you going to come back with your normal bullsh&t blabber on how I didn't address the death of Iraqi's? WOW and where you on the same page as all conservatives that when we sent troops to Bosnia yelled "It's a CIVIL war we shouldn't get involved"? I bet you were.
So ONE lost US soldier is ONE too many in Iraq. But I guess that count doesn't bother you does it? Let the bodies fall where they may?

And WarfRat, thank you for serving the Country. But as the Daughter(Marines WWII) and Granddaughter(Marines WWI) AND Sister (Viet Nam) NON pencil pushers :rolleyes: I can easily say no one is this house is for this war. Neither is my Vet active friend who is surrounded by Vets for it either.


I still don't see how you've addressed it. Apparently you DO feel that it's ok for Iraqi citizens to have to live under that regime when it's whithin in our power to stop it. And yes, ONE dead American soldier is one too many. But if you're unwilling to spend a single American life now, you're going to spend a lot more of them later. One of the marks of a bad leader is that he's willing to spend his soldiers lives freely. But another mark of a bad leader is that he's unwilling to spend them at all. The body count usually winds up the same in both cases. As for Bosnia, I was quite in favor of limited US involvement. I felt that the majority of troops should come from European nations for a number of reasons, but I was in favor of US involvement. Conversely, I think we'd be insane to allow N. Korea to escalate into a ground war because the body count would be huge on both sides. America doesn't belong in EVERY conflict, but we certainly belong in SOME of them. Again, if you're willing to walk past the ally where a woman is being raped, you share SOME of the blame for that rape.

WharfRat
03-07-2003, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by Peebs

And WarfRat, thank you for serving the Country. But as the Daughter(Marines WWII) and Granddaughter(Marines WWI) AND Sister (Viet Nam) NON pencil pushers :rolleyes: I can easily say no one is this house is for this war. Neither is my Vet active friend who is surrounded by Vets for it either.

OK Peebs you want to compare family military history?.... I counter that with being a Son (WWII Army) Nephew (WWII Army) Grandson (WWI Army) Brother (Vietnam Army) Cousin (Vietnam Air Force) Son in Law (Korea Navy) as well as being a veteran myself ... all of whom are in favor of eliminating this before it gets to a point where more civilians as well as military personel die.... and trump it with the people in my old unit who I keep in touch with.. IMO I feel them to be a little more "active" than someone who visits the wall every year... sorry hon...but I've visited the wall also... I've also visited friends, and former foxhole companions in the VA hospitals...men that I lived and trained with... I saw my cousin come back fron 'Nam a completely different person than when he left....
I guess it all depends on what color the lenses of our glasses are....

Peebs
03-07-2003, 07:12 PM
How dare you play tid for tat and how dare you down play someone's effort ON THE VETS SIDE. I'm proud of the large amount of time my friend spends for Veteran causes, what do you do on Memorial day? Hang a flag and have a BBQ like 85% of this culture? I commend her because she is pro-active and did not serve. But gives her time.
I also resent your comment about "pencil pushers in VA". No matter what a person does or did in the Military it is all important and they are still serving their country. You think your better than someone who did KP because you were in combat? What about my Nephew who was a active Marine during Desert Storm? He was in DC and never shipped over. Was that his fault? Should he of not had full military guard at his funeral? He served his time in the service and almost all of his time in the reserves when he was discharged.
Who made you the "hero police"?

Anyway at least I'm not the only one who thinks the Presidents speech was a big dance:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2079763/

Gray Matter
Bush's incomprehension of foreign viewpoints.
By William Saletan
Posted Thursday, March 6, 2003, at 9:18 PM PT


If you tuned in to President Bush's Thursday night press conference to understand his point of view on Iraq, you got what you came for. If you tuned in to find out whether he understood yours, tough luck. That was the deal when we traded in Bill Clinton for Bush. We got a president who understood the difference between truth and lying. We gave up one who understood everything in between. The upside is that our president is doing the right thing in Iraq. The downside is that he can't talk anyone else into going along.


Clinton was famous for seeing three sides of a two-sided issue. There was the time he agreed with the congressional majority on the Persian Gulf war but said he shared the concerns of the minority. There was the time he lamented having raised people's taxes too much. And of course, there was the time he pondered the meanings of "is."

Bush suffers no such ambivalence. Everything he knows about foreign policy, he learned in kindergarten: Love your neighbor, stand by your friends, honor your word. Thursday night, a reporter asked whether Bush held a grudge against Saddam Hussein. "I swore to protect and defend the Constitution," said Bush. "I put my hand on the Bible and took that oath. And that's exactly what I am going to do." He described the United Nations the same way: "The fundamental question facing the Security Council is, will its words mean anything?"

Bush has no trouble calling a lie a lie. While French sophisticates parse the adequacy of Iraq's latest ploy, Bush sees Saddam's game as a whole. "These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming. These are the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade," said Bush. As for those who preach peace, the president observed, "Allowing a dangerous dictator to defy the world and harbor weapons of mass murder and terror is not peace at all. It is pretense."

But sometimes, things aren't black and white. Sometimes they're gray. When the governments of France, China, or Mexico don't see things your way, you have to start the process of persuasion by understanding where they're coming from. That's where Clinton was at his best and Bush is at his worst. Four times at his press conference, Bush was asked why other countries weren't seeing things our way. Four times, he had no idea.

Bloomberg News reporter Dick Keil asked Bush why American allies who had seen U.S. intelligence on Iraq didn't agree that the threat was sufficient to require war. Bush replied that other countries agreed with him. Fox News reporter Jim Angle asked why "so many people around the world take a different view." Bush replied that protest was healthy but that it wouldn't change his opinion—as though the question had been about his opinion. ABC News correspondent Terry Moran asked why "so many governments and peoples around the world now not only disagree with you very strongly, but see the U.S. under your leadership as an arrogant power." Bush replied that the world would come around. Finally, Fort Worth Star-Telegram reporter Ron Hutcheson asked Bush about critics who feared war would destabilize the Middle East: "Do you ever worry, maybe in the wee, small hours, that you might be wrong, and they might be right?" Bush didn't budge. "I know we'll prevail," he said. "And out of that disarmament of Saddam will come a better world."

Again and again, Bush was asked to explain why other nations didn't see things his way. Again and again, he changed the subject to himself and his supporters.

At one point, Bush declared that Iraq's failure to disarm "cannot be denied." At another, he said of Saddam's compliance with U.N. resolutions, "It's hard to believe anybody is saying he isn't in defiance of 1441." At no point did Bush grapple with the fact that Iraq's failure to disarm is being denied and that other governments are saying Saddam isn't in defiance of 1441.

"I pray daily," Bush told the press corps. "I pray for guidance and wisdom and strength." Oh, well. Two out of three ain't bad.

t2thejz
03-07-2003, 07:18 PM
it was alright. I dont think he dodged the questons. I think he answered them the best he could with saying as much as he could. they were stupid questons

WharfRat
03-07-2003, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by Peebs
How dare you play tid for tat and how dare you down play someone's effort ON THE VETS SIDE. I'm proud of the large amount of time my friend spends for Veteran causes, what do you do on Memorial day? Hang a flag and have a BBQ like 85% of this culture? I commend her because she is pro-active and did not serve. But gives her time.
I also resent your comment about "pencil pushers in VA". No matter what a person does or did in the Military it is all important and they are still serving their country. You think your better than someone who did KP because you were in combat? What about my Nephew who was a active Marine during Desert Storm? He was in DC and never shipped over. Was that his fault? Should he of not had full military guard at his funeral? He served his time in the service and almost all of his time in the reserves when he was discharged.
Who made you the "hero police"?



Let's get something straight... it was not me who started the "tit-for-tat"...with listing family vets..
How dare YOU for assuming anything about what I, or anyone in my family do on memorial day? Not that I should "have to justify" my activities... but I make it a point to participate in an annual Bike run with fellow Vets on that day... our destination? The Wall.
I don't think I am better than anyone for being in a combat unit...and I defy you to show me where I implied anything of the sort. My comment about "pencil-pushers" in the VA, was not even remotely about what they did in the military(especially since many of those who are now VA officials were in combat, but they are not now)..... but to make the point that they are not currently active in the military. Perhaps the term was too strong, if so I appologize...
but to imply that I look down on those that served in non-combat roles is pompous to say the least.
so, maybe you should re-read my posts, before going on rants about me trying to be "hero-police" ... something I find more offensive than "pencil-pusher" Especially when I never implied that any service in the military is better than any other...

themole
03-07-2003, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by chicagodolphan
He was running in rehtorical circles all night long. After 10 minutes you pretty much heard everything he was going to say for the rest of the conference. My question is, why wasn't Helen Thomas there?

Someone mistook her for a "prune" and ate her!:evil:

WharfRat
03-07-2003, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by themole
Someone mistook her for a "prune" and ate her!:evil:

:lol:

WharfRat
03-07-2003, 10:11 PM
...and here is a positive article about the speech....

.SHOW 'EM (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/55493.htm)

By JOHN PODHORETZ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



March 7, 2003 -- THE president last night called the bluff of the French and Germans. "It's time," he said, "for people to show their cards." He wants a vote at the United Nations on Saddam Hussein's failure to meet his disarmament obligations. The president wants those who are acting as Saddam's diplomatic shields to put themselves on the record forevermore.
George W. Bush made it clear he would not be a party to an effort by the diplomatic shields to avoid the serious consequences of their actions. They will have to vote. They will have to choose.

"Saddam Hussein is not disarming," he said during last night's powerfully grave press conference. "That is a fact. It cannot be denied." If he were disarming, "we would see it." It wouldn't take hundreds of inspectors. It would take only a few, who could stand "in a parking lot" while Saddam brought out the weapons for them to examine.

The president pre-empted chief weapons inspector Hans Blix's report to the United Nations today by informing America and the world that our intelligence shows Saddam is moving his weapons of mass destruction to new hiding places every 12 to 24 hours.

We know Saddam has these weapons. Everybody knows he has them.

The French, Germans and Russians seem to have decided that it's better for Saddam to have these weapons than it is for the United States to remove them from the face of the earth.

Now the president is forcing them to make that view known.

France or Russia can, if they choose, veto a new resolution that reaffirms the language of Resolution 1441 and the fact of Saddam's refusal to adhere to it. President Bush will then do what Congress authorized him to do in October - he will lead a military effort to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and his regime.

And when the war is over, he will show the world the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam attempted to hide.

At that very moment, the powers that opposed us at the United Nations (and very possibly the United Nations itself) will be exposed. History will judge them the 21st century versions of Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister who returned from surrendering Central Europe to Adolf Hitler and declared that he had secured "peace for our time."

To those who claim we should allow the inspectors more time, the president had a very plain riposte: "The risk that somehow inaction will make the world safer is not a risk I'm willing to take for the American people."

Last night's press conference offered another breathtaking example of the iron will and determination of George W. Bush - and his willingness to stand firm on his convictions and principles. "I will not leave the American people at the mercy of the Iraqi dictator and his weapons," he said.

"I swore to protect and defend the Constitution," the president said. "That's what I swore to do. I put my hand on the Bible and swore that oath."

If regime change does not take place, Bush essentially said, he would be guilty of presidential negligence. He repeated his conviction that weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein's hands pose a "direct threat" to the United States.

"Used to be that we could think you could contain a person like Saddam Hussein," he said, "that oceans could protect us from this type of terror. Sept. 11 should say to the American people that we're now a battlefield."

America as a battlefield. It's a horrible, sobering image. And a true one. "The costs of the attacks on America on Sept. 11 were enormous," he said. "I am not willing to take that chance again."

You can see now, on his face and in his demeanor, how the past 18 months have aged George W. Bush - how the responsibilities of leadership have etched worry and pain into his once-boyish cheeks.

And you can see how his gravity contrasts with the jaunty affect of Hans Blix and the nose-in-the-air demeanor of French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin. They are playing a diplomatic game.

Last night, the president said: Game over

ohall
03-08-2003, 12:46 AM
Originally posted by Peebs
COSTING 50-250 billion or stating that DID not answer the question, so much so that the reporter HAD to ask it AGAIN. Also constantly refering to 9-11 through out his whole Q&A is getting a wee tiresome. He's constantly having to fall back on what was considered his "finest hour" which AS a NY (IMO)...it wasn't. It was Rudy's...it was Pataki's, not his.
The Federal Government STILL hasn't given NY the funds they promised for clean up and recovery.

And again WHO cares about the inflating airline industry post 9-11???? Will average Joe and Jill HAVE A FREAKING job if we go to war? How HIGH will gas prices rise? I don't know about you but my salary hasn't increased to meet the high demands on energy. And I don't even LIVE in Cali. Those poor people will be up to $3.00 a gallon soon.

He was asked pretty simple questions and the American public got nothing.






Notes by an aide? That's comforting :rolleyes: Maybe the aide should be President. Looking down while thinking? Gee the first thing I notice in a person I can't trust is lack of eye contact when speaking to them.
I've seen the Senate approriations commitee question the Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage on C-Span. They fired question after question after question at him. From everything to HIV prevention Internationally to paper clips (It was about the depts budget) and sec. Armitage was able to eloquently and intelligently answer EVERYONE of those questions without having to repeat the "party line" over and over again. Never looking down, never losing eye contact, never relying on "notes".

So what's the Presidents problem?

If another 9/11 happens it will cost this country 2-3 trillion dollars just like the last one did and unknown AMERICAN innocent lives.

I'm sorry some of you continue to NOT remember what's important here. Our country and the safety of our citizens. Everyone else is secondary, period. Sorry if that's not PC enough for some of you, but that's reality and the real world.

Oliver...

ohall
03-08-2003, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
You have to bear in mind Muck that much of this country isn't concerned with the potential deaths of more Americans, or the ongoing deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians. They're only concerned with how the President presents himself, and whether we "look bad" to the rest of the world. After all, they may not "like us". Never mind that they continue to buy our products, listen to our music, and watch our movies in ever increasing numbers, we also need to be "liked". They'd rather attack the minutia, because they have no response to the larger issues. Now you know why liberal talk radio never worked.

That's because the ppl who orginizing such things hate America and want it to fall. And no I'm not talking about the ppl who post here, I have no clue if any of you care give a damn.

Oliver...

ohall
03-08-2003, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by Peebs
Uh huh...just like the last attack on Iraq in 91 boosted the economy, it didn't and it was the last nail in Papa's politcal coffin.
And you don't care that the Leader of this country comes off looking like a mumbling, stumbling, repeat the same damn rhetoric over and over moron? See I personally would like the world to veiw America like it's leader and he be intelligent, strong and know what the hell he's talking about. Be strong in foreign policies and diplomatic. Bush is NONE of the above.

It's like dejai vu alll over again (
Yogi Berra ) Been there done that...

AND YES "peacenicks" ARE VERY concerned with the human toll, both military and civilian. There are STILL post Desert Storm vets dying because the US still haven't figured out or even recognized the "post DS syndrome" that plagued many soldiers. And if you would like proof all I have to do is contact a friend who is HEAVILY active in Vet Affairs.
So here we go again...this time without any major allies besides Great Britain, pissing off every major country just so we can look like Cowboys. Goody I can hardly wait

Actually it did boost the economy, the economy was at a 10 year high when Bush#1 lost in November 1992. The American public which is spoon fed by Liberal news sources thought it was the opposite, because those news sources lied. Please remember the way we get news today is no where near how we get news today!

Oliver...

ohall
03-08-2003, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by WharfRat
...and here is a positive article about the speech....

.SHOW 'EM (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/55493.htm)

By JOHN PODHORETZ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



March 7, 2003 -- THE president last night called the bluff of the French and Germans. "It's time," he said, "for people to show their cards." He wants a vote at the United Nations on Saddam Hussein's failure to meet his disarmament obligations. The president wants those who are acting as Saddam's diplomatic shields to put themselves on the record forevermore.
George W. Bush made it clear he would not be a party to an effort by the diplomatic shields to avoid the serious consequences of their actions. They will have to vote. They will have to choose.

"Saddam Hussein is not disarming," he said during last night's powerfully grave press conference. "That is a fact. It cannot be denied." If he were disarming, "we would see it." It wouldn't take hundreds of inspectors. It would take only a few, who could stand "in a parking lot" while Saddam brought out the weapons for them to examine.

The president pre-empted chief weapons inspector Hans Blix's report to the United Nations today by informing America and the world that our intelligence shows Saddam is moving his weapons of mass destruction to new hiding places every 12 to 24 hours.

We know Saddam has these weapons. Everybody knows he has them.

The French, Germans and Russians seem to have decided that it's better for Saddam to have these weapons than it is for the United States to remove them from the face of the earth.

Now the president is forcing them to make that view known.

France or Russia can, if they choose, veto a new resolution that reaffirms the language of Resolution 1441 and the fact of Saddam's refusal to adhere to it. President Bush will then do what Congress authorized him to do in October - he will lead a military effort to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and his regime.

And when the war is over, he will show the world the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam attempted to hide.

At that very moment, the powers that opposed us at the United Nations (and very possibly the United Nations itself) will be exposed. History will judge them the 21st century versions of Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister who returned from surrendering Central Europe to Adolf Hitler and declared that he had secured "peace for our time."

To those who claim we should allow the inspectors more time, the president had a very plain riposte: "The risk that somehow inaction will make the world safer is not a risk I'm willing to take for the American people."

Last night's press conference offered another breathtaking example of the iron will and determination of George W. Bush - and his willingness to stand firm on his convictions and principles. "I will not leave the American people at the mercy of the Iraqi dictator and his weapons," he said.

"I swore to protect and defend the Constitution," the president said. "That's what I swore to do. I put my hand on the Bible and swore that oath."

If regime change does not take place, Bush essentially said, he would be guilty of presidential negligence. He repeated his conviction that weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein's hands pose a "direct threat" to the United States.

"Used to be that we could think you could contain a person like Saddam Hussein," he said, "that oceans could protect us from this type of terror. Sept. 11 should say to the American people that we're now a battlefield."

America as a battlefield. It's a horrible, sobering image. And a true one. "The costs of the attacks on America on Sept. 11 were enormous," he said. "I am not willing to take that chance again."

You can see now, on his face and in his demeanor, how the past 18 months have aged George W. Bush - how the responsibilities of leadership have etched worry and pain into his once-boyish cheeks.

And you can see how his gravity contrasts with the jaunty affect of Hans Blix and the nose-in-the-air demeanor of French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin. They are playing a diplomatic game.

Last night, the president said: Game over

Tell me what use is the UN? It's about time an American President had the guts to do what Bush is doing! We supply and keep the UN alive and for what? For France to constantly bitch and moan everytime something needs to be done? This is the same crap they did before the 1st Gulf war.

Oliver...

Peebs
03-08-2003, 01:22 AM
More articles about "cowboy-ism"

http://slate.msn.com/id/2079678/





Actually it did boost the economy, the economy was at a 10 year high when Bush#1 lost in November 1992. The American public which is spoon fed by Liberal news sources thought it was the opposite, because those news sources lied. Please remember the way we get news today is no where near how we get news today!
Really? Then why was the country in the mist of catch phrase of the 90's "downsizing"?? Huh? Company's were laying off people left and right-here on the Island the TWO biggest employers (Grumman and Doubleday) laid off THOUSANDS because the economy was so bad (I was one of the "downsized" in 90). We were NOT at a "10 year high" and again....."show me the facts".




If another 9/11 happens it will cost this country 2-3 trillion dollars just like the last one did and unknown AMERICAN innocent lives.
9/11-Al Qaede and Saddams "weapons of mass destruction" are two separate things. First there is no proof that either is connected. Second, the WTC and the Pentagon were not destroyed by "weapons of mass destruction". It was done with American airplanes and box cutters. Maybe we should be checking Iraq for box cutter factories since that was the weapon of choice for highjacking the planes. So even connecting the two by the President was ridiculous. As if we all forgot the sight of the planes being flown into the building. :rolleyes:
Besides here is the excerpts from Blix's findings that Iraq's action have been a "substantial measure of disarmament".
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.blix/index.html

ohall
03-08-2003, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by Peebs
More articles about "cowboy-ism"

http://slate.msn.com/id/2079678/





Really? Then why was the country in the mist of catch phrase of the 90's "downsizing"?? Huh? Company's were laying off people left and right-here on the Island the TWO biggest employers (Grumman and Doubleday) laid off THOUSANDS because the economy was so bad (I was one of the "downsized" in 90). We were NOT at a "10 year high" and again....."show me the facts".




9/11-Al Qaede and Saddams "weapons of mass destruction" are two separate things. First there is no proof that either is connected. Second, the WTC and the Pentagon were not destroyed by "weapons of mass destruction". It was done with American airplanes and box cutters. Maybe we should be checking Iraq for box cutter factories since that was the weapon of choice for highjacking the planes. So even connecting the two by the President was ridiculous. As if we all forgot the sight of the planes being flown into the building. :rolleyes:
Besides here is the excerpts from Blix's findings that Iraq's action have been a "substantial measure of disarmament".
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.blix/index.html

Peebs anytime you want to do your lil internet search thingy you'll see that the USA was on a 8 month up swing, out of it's recession in November of '92. The definition of the end of a recession is 2 positive qaurters.

Yes Peebs 3 stolen American planes are not WMD, just imagine when terrorist funded by Iraq can use something like that! Odds are it will cost us much more than 2-3 trillion dollars, so we had better take care of Saddam then, huh?

If you think making the leep from what happened on 9/11 to WMD is wrong? Then I really don't know what to say except I suggest you talk to your political party. Because they feel the same when it comes to this. It's not much of a leep at all!

Blixx can go eat his French cheese as far as I'm concerend. The Iraqi's have not lived up to resolution 1441, that's a fact. The rest is spin, just like the UN tried to stop the 1st Gulf war. France is shamless when it comes to protecting it's financial claims in Iraq. And if you do not understand that, that's your problem not mine.

Oliver...

Peebs
03-08-2003, 01:51 AM
If you think making the leep from what happened on 9/11 to WMD is wrong? Then I really don't know what to say except I suggest you talk to your political party. Because they feel the same when it comes to this. It's not much of a leep at all!
YES they are separate. Because there is NO PROOF that Saddam has backed ANY terrorists including Al Quade.
On the other hand, even our own intelligence has concluded that the likelihood of further terrorist attacks in the US would increase should Bush go ahead and invade Iraq -- the first time in American history in which the US has preemtively invaded another nation.



Now let's not even North Korea which last night the President when asked said it's "a regional issue" . THEY are the threat, they have the capabilities of reaching the US. But THAT'S not his concern?

And YOU made the statement about the country being on a "10 year high"...YOU do the homework. Not me.

ohall
03-08-2003, 03:24 AM
Originally posted by Peebs
YES they are separate. Because there is NO PROOF that Saddam has backed ANY terrorists including Al Quade.
On the other hand, even our own intelligence has concluded that the likelihood of further terrorist attacks in the US would increase should Bush go ahead and invade Iraq -- the first time in American history in which the US has preemtively invaded another nation.



Now let's not even North Korea which last night the President when asked said it's "a regional issue" . THEY are the threat, they have the capabilities of reaching the US. But THAT'S not his concern?

And YOU made the statement about the country being on a "10 year high"...YOU do the homework. Not me.

Yes there is proof, and further more there doesn't have to be. It's understood it's a logical assumption even if they hate each other which they do they would help each other when it comes to destroying us America. So Iraq would help any terrorist group in this. Iraq has and will again, the point is to stop them from giving the terrorist that will the BETTET stuff to really hurt us.

Korea is a problem, a problem that has to be dealt with differently for obvious reasons. Just look at Korea's neighbors Peebs, your answers are there.

Oliver...

Sniper
03-08-2003, 04:59 AM
Originally posted by Oliver
Yes there is proof, and further more there doesn't have to be. It's understood it's a logical assumption even if they hate each other which they do they would help each other when it comes to destroying us America. So Iraq would help any terrorist group in this. Iraq has and will again, the point is to stop them from giving the terrorist that will the BETTET stuff to really hurt us.

Korea is a problem, a problem that has to be dealt with differently for obvious reasons. Just look at Korea's neighbors Peebs, your answers are there.

Oliver...

The Iraq/Al Queda link Powell gave was very circumstantial. It basically boiled down to an Al Queda agent getting some medical treatment in an Iraqi hospital. Very unconvincing.

There is probably more of a link between Al Queda and Saudi Arabia.

ohall
03-08-2003, 05:07 AM
Originally posted by Sniper
The Iraq/Al Queda link Powell gave was very circumstantial. It basically boiled down to an Al Queda agent getting some medical treatment in an Iraqi hospital. Very unconvincing.

There is probably more of a link between Al Queda and Saudi Arabia.

Yes very true there is, but they aren't led by leaders that will attack, invade neighbors and supply WMD to terrorist. It may be the birth place to many terrorist, but that has more to do with the importance of Saudi Arabia to Muslims, not the government that governs that country.

Oliver..

Sniper
03-08-2003, 06:01 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
If the answers were presubmitted, why would they have been able to ask the same question over, and over, and over again? Sometimes one after the other? The questions seemed spontanious to me.

Looking down at the podium and saying, "Let's see whose got an easy one," seems spontaneous to you?

How about when he said "King, John King. This is a scripted..."?

Sniper
03-08-2003, 06:24 AM
Originally posted by chicagodolphan
He was running in rehtorical circles all night long. After 10 minutes you pretty much heard everything he was going to say for the rest of the conference. My question is, why wasn't Helen Thomas there?

I'd say it was retribution.

WharfRat
03-08-2003, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by Sniper

There is probably more of a link between Al Queda and Saudi Arabia.

Well then it's a good thing we have all those troops there :whew:

WharfRat
03-08-2003, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by Peebs

Besides here is the excerpts from Blix's findings that Iraq's action have been a "substantial measure of disarmament".
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.blix/index.html

...and here's an analysis of those "findings"

SECURITY COUNCIL'S ROTTEN SHOW A HANS-DOWN LOSER (http://www.nypost.com/commentary/31788.htm)

By STEVE DUNLEAVY



March 8, 2003 -- HANS Blix tells us on one hand Iraq is cooperating, on the other hand they are not cooperating enough, and yet on another hand inspectors need more time.
That makes Hans have three hands, which qualifies him for the circus.


U.N. ambassador, Jeremy Greenstock, then struck a chilling note:

"There are 6,500 chemical bombs [in Iraq] not accounted for."



"Blix essentially gave Iraq another pass," said Marc Ginsberg, former ambassador to Morocco and onetime presidential adviser.


Let's face it, the United Nations is about as relevant as a yak in the Gobi Desert.
That about sums up the UN ... AFAIC.

Sniper
03-08-2003, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by WharfRat
...and here's an analysis of those "findings"

SECURITY COUNCIL'S ROTTEN SHOW A HANS-DOWN LOSER (http://www.nypost.com/commentary/31788.htm)

By STEVE DUNLEAVY






That about sums up the UN ... AFAIC.

Is Steve Dunleavy a world renouned weapons expert?

WharfRat
03-08-2003, 04:25 PM
No, but I would venture to guess that Marc Ginsberg and Jeremy Greenstock have a pretty good source of info....

Peebs
03-08-2003, 04:51 PM
Steve Dunleavy? The poster boy for trash journalism? You would believe what he says over what Blix, the chief weapons inspector had to report to the UN?
It's amazing where people pick and choose their news sources!

iceblizzard69
03-08-2003, 05:02 PM
Dunleavy works for the Post. He was on the front page like 2 weeks ago from Normandy. I read the Post, but I don't read it for News, I read the Sports and Page 6.

Sniper
03-08-2003, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by WharfRat
No, but I would venture to guess that Marc Ginsberg and Jeremy Greenstock have a pretty good source of info....

It isn't like Ginsburg or Greenstock gave Dunleavy an exclusive interview. He just threw a couple of their quotes into his article to give it some semblance of credibility.

WharfRat
03-08-2003, 06:30 PM
Ok... how about I "pick and choose" The Associated Press?


Blix also documented lingering questions about Iraqi weapons program in a 173-page dossier, which said Baghdad may still possess about 10,000 liters of anthrax, Scud missile warheads and drones capable of flying far beyond a 93-mile limit.
This IS Blix saying this right?


Interviews with nuclear scientists have been conducted more frequently because the nuclear inspectors don't mind the scientists tape recording the interviews, a sticking point for the chemical and biological teams. Gee, I wonder why that's a "sticking point"?


Inspectors' spokesman Hiro Ueki said Iraqi workers crushed six Al Samoud 2 missiles Saturday at the al-Taji military complex north of Baghdad, under the supervision of weapons inspectors. Three of the missiles had warheads and three didn't. I wonder where the other 3 warheads are? Don't you? or do you care?


"We demand that the Security Council and the world decide on ... the lifting of sanctions on Iraq in a comprehensive and complete way," said a spokesman for a meeting Saturday of Saddam and top-level officials, quoted by official Iraqi news media.
The spokesman claimed the weapons inspectors had verified Iraq has rid itself of weapons of mass destruction - something the inspectors said would take months to do - and appealed for a ban on such weapons to be extended beyond Iraq: to Israel, and eventually to the United States.
When did the inspectors ever say Iraq has "rid itself of weapons of mass destruction"?

Is the AP a good enough source for you?

Full Story (http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20030308/D7PL6EF00.html)

BTW ... "Some people" use a plethora of sources, from a variety of different media, to become as informed as possible, rather than just reading what they want to hear ;)

WharfRat
03-08-2003, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
It isn't like Ginsburg or Greenstock gave Dunleavy an exclusive interview. He just threw a couple of their quotes into his article to give it some semblance of credibility.

So the quotes aren't valid?

ohall
03-08-2003, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by WharfRat
So the quotes aren't valid?

No because it quites their whinning.

I wonder if they will be whinning so much when the war starts and our soldiers are in direct danger?

Oliver...

Sniper
03-08-2003, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by Oliver
No because it quites their whinning.

I wonder if they will be whinning so much when the war starts and our soldiers are in direct danger?

Oliver...


Unfair Oliver. I will always support the men and women in uniform and will never wish danger to anyone.

Sniper
03-08-2003, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by WharfRat
So the quotes aren't valid?

I don't know. I would have to see what they said as a whole before I can make that determination.

WharfRat
03-08-2003, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
I don't know. I would have to see what they said as a whole before I can make that determination.

I would like to see the entire conversation too... and get the full context, but that is true with many, many quotes in news articles....

ohall
03-09-2003, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by Sniper
Unfair Oliver. I will always support the men and women in uniform and will never wish danger to anyone.

Sorry after some of the things I've seen a few of you post recently I wasn't sure. I'm glad that this is the way you think.

Oliver...

Peebs
03-09-2003, 11:28 AM
I wonder if they will be whinning so much when the war starts and our soldiers are in direct danger?
No because it quites their whinning.

Just because I ( and the more Liberal-minded on the board) are against military action at this time, does not make us Anti-American or anti military.
This country and it's freedom...and the Constitution... mean more to me than you could know.

We are just as pro American as you are... we would just go about things in a different way.

Peebs
03-09-2003, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by iceblizzard69
Dunleavy works for the Post. He was on the front page like 2 weeks ago from Normandy. I read the Post, but I don't read it for News, I read the Sports and Page 6.
Well there you go! The NY Post. :rolleyes: Why they have never won a pulitzer prize for journalism is BEYOND me. :rolleyes:
I don't even read their sports page. I like the Daily News sports pages better.

iceblizzard69
03-09-2003, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by Peebs
Well there you go! The NY Post. :rolleyes: Why they have never won a pulitzer prize for journalism is BEYOND me. :rolleyes:
I don't even read their sports page. I like the Daily News sports pages better.

The Post is still an excellent publication for intellectual human beings. :lol:

I hate all other newspapers though, and the Post does have the best entertainment and sports news.

WharfRat
03-09-2003, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Peebs
Well there you go! The NY Post. :rolleyes: Why they have never won a pulitzer prize for journalism is BEYOND me. :rolleyes:
I don't even read their sports page. I like the Daily News sports pages better.

Ok .. but what about the AP? or did we skim over that post?

Marino1983
03-09-2003, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by Oliver
No because it quites their whinning.

I wonder if they will be whinning so much when the war starts and our soldiers are in direct danger?

Oliver...


This is a low blow Oliver.... I will support any troop involvement, it's not a case of not supporting the men in battle, it's more of a case of questioning why they are in the battle to begin with !!

Your comment reflects the conservative cry "that if you are against us you are not a real American" ..... That is nothing but pure right wing BULL S*** !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:rolleyes: Marino1983

ohall
03-09-2003, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by Marino1983
This is a low blow Oliver.... I will support any troop involvement, it's not a case of not supporting the men in battle, it's more of a case of questioning why they are in the battle to begin with !!

Your comment reflects the conservative cry "that if you are against us you are not a real American" ..... That is nothing but pure right wing BULL S*** !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:rolleyes: Marino1983

I wondered out loud and I got the answer. You getting all bent over it is just more whinning IMO.

I guess we'll see how things are once the war starts.

Oliver...

Sniper
03-09-2003, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Oliver
I wondered out loud and I got the answer. You getting all bent over it is just more whinning IMO.

I guess we'll see how things are once the war starts.

Oliver...

I think it is better to hear dissent now before the conflict starts rather than dissenting during the actual conflict

themole
03-09-2003, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by Oliver
If another 9/11 happens it will cost this country 2-3 trillion dollars just like the last one did and unknown AMERICAN innocent lives.

I'm sorry some of you continue to NOT remember what's important here. Our country and the safety of our citizens. Everyone else is secondary, period. Sorry if that's not PC enough for some of you, but that's reality and the real world.

Oliver...

How true Oliver! Not only could it cost us another 2-3 trillion dollars, but one of the magnitude of 9/11 could very well throw our economy into a deep depression, then the lefties will surely be screaming for blood, anybodies blood because their asses will have to go out and scrounge for something to eat. :lol:

Peebs
03-09-2003, 05:54 PM
No, because we "lefties" well understand that Bush's hard on for Saddam and his unfound "weapons of mass destruction" HAD NOTHING to do with what happened on 9/11....
No bombs, no chemical weapons...Afghanistan, box cutters and American airplanes.
Btw....where is Osama? What happened to "we're gonna smoke him out of the caves"?
And cost who? NY'ers paid for our own clean up and police/Fire/FBI OT....the Feds promised $$ and STILL a year and a half later haven't delivered. Who do you think is going to be paying for the "rebuilding"? Certainly NOT the Feds.

ohall
03-09-2003, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by themole
How true Oliver! Not only could it cost us another 2-3 trillion dollars, but one of the magnitude of 9/11 could very well throw our economy into a deep depression, then the lefties will surely be screaming for blood, anybodies blood because their asses will have to go out and scrounge for something to eat. :lol:

The problem is mole that it is going to happen again. This is the thing it seems like some ppl are missing or just don't want to understand. But do we want it to happen 1 or 2 more times or 4 or 5 more times?

Another problem I see in how some ppl think is that they don't seem to think we are really at war here. It's almost like they think the 9/11 thing was just a 1 time thing. Not just some posters here, but ppl in general.

I'm glad our government is doing what it takes to keep our citizens and this country as safe as it can be during this war. I think anything less than be wrong.

Oliver...

ohall
03-09-2003, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by Peebs
No, because we "lefties" well understand that Bush's hard on for Saddam and his unfound "weapons of mass destruction" HAD NOTHING to do with what happened on 9/11....
No bombs, no chemical weapons...Afghanistan, box cutters and American airplanes.
Btw....where is Osama? What happened to "we're gonna smoke him out of the caves"?
And cost who? NY'ers paid for our own clean up and police/Fire/FBI OT....the Feds promised $$ and STILL a year and a half later haven't delivered. Who do you think is going to be paying for the "rebuilding"? Certainly NOT the Feds.

So you want us to ignore 17 resolutions, and at what point do agree with going in and living by the cease fire that was signed by Saddam?

Some of you may want to ignore how this world works, but the reality is Saddam has to go for every reason you can think of. He breaks all agreements he makes with the world. He is evil in every sense of the world like Hitler was. If he gets a chance he will go after Ameirca and the easiest way to do that is the way that the terrorist did in 9/11 or to supply terrorist with better weapons to bring us to our knees. To me it only seems to be common sense

Honestly do you not understand we are at war with terrorism or do you think this is some made up scenario?

What upsets me is that ppl like you will be calling for Bush's head if a terrorist act was successful and Bush was doing what you want him to do. Let's face it, to some of you here he can do no right, because you feel he is really not the President of the USA.

Oliver...

themole
03-09-2003, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by Oliver
The problem is mole that it is going to happen again. This is the thing it seems like some ppl are missing or just don't want to understand. But do we want it to happen 1 or 2 more times or 4 or 5 more times?

Another problem I see in how some ppl think is that they don't seem to think we are really at war here. It's almost like they think the 9/11 thing was just a 1 time thing. Not just some posters here, but ppl in general.

I'm glad our government is doing what it takes to keep our citizens and this country as safe as it can be during this war. I think anything less than be wrong.

Oliver...

I share those same fears Oliver.

That's why I don't care who's asses we have to kick to get this situation under control.

In the history of this nation wev'e never had an enimy quite like this one, wev'e had to fight other nations that declared war on us, but not certain people within a nation declaring war on us. My thoughts are if a nation is harboring terrorist then they are just as responsible as the terrorist.

I am a naturally suspicious person and would not be surprised if all of the Islamic nations were not covertly behind this.

Marino1983
03-09-2003, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by Oliver
So you want us to ignore 17 resolutions, and at what point do agree with going in and living by the cease fire that was signed by Saddam?

Some of you may want to ignore how this world works, but the reality is Saddam has to go for every reason you can think of. He breaks all agreements he makes with the world. He is evil in every sense of the world like Hitler was. If he gets a chance he will go after Ameirca and the easiest way to do that is the way that the terrorist did in 9/11 or to supply terrorist with better weapons to bring us to our knees. To me it only seems to be common sense

Honestly do you not understand we are at war with terrorism or do you think this is some made up scenario?

What upsets me is that ppl like you will be calling for Bush's head if a terrorist act was successful and Bush was doing what you want him to do. Let's face it, to some of you here he can do no right, because you feel he is really not the President of the USA.

Oliver...


So when Saddam is toppled everything will be hunky dory and there will not be a chance that someone worse will rise to power in a few years ??? It's people like YOU that think war is a justification for killing innocent people... That pisses me off when you conservatives wrap yourselfs in the American Flag and spout off that your way of thinking is GODS way of thinking and if you disagree you are not a patriot or a "REAL" American.. :fire:

You compare saddam to hitler to justify the cowboy attitude of a an ""elected"" official that talks like he is still on his ranch in good ole Texas ... I have not read anywhere on this thread that ANYONE doesn't believe that saddam is not evil and a major problem ... I find it rather interesting that the documents that YOUR president's administration has been spinning about Irag's nuclear capabilities have come under media scrutiny!!


But then I guess it's the fault of the liberal media right oliver ?? Take a chill pill oliver,, you are taking mine and other's opinions about this and other political situation's too personal lol... :rolleyes: Marino1983

ohall
03-10-2003, 12:37 AM
Originally posted by Marino1983
So when Saddam is toppled everything will be hunky dory and there will not be a chance that someone worse will rise to power in a few years ??? It's people like YOU that think war is a justification for killing innocent people... That pisses me off when you conservatives wrap yourselfs in the American Flag and spout off that your way of thinking is GODS way of thinking and if you disagree you are not a patriot or a "REAL" American.. :fire:

You compare saddam to hitler to justify the cowboy attitude of a an ""elected"" official that talks like he is still on his ranch in good ole Texas ... I have not read anywhere on this thread that ANYONE doesn't believe that saddam is not evil and a major problem ... I find it rather interesting that the documents that YOUR president's administration has been spinning about Irag's nuclear capabilities have come under media scrutiny!!


But then I guess it's the fault of the liberal media right oliver ?? Take a chill pill oliver,, you are taking mine and other's opinions about this and other political situation's too personal lol... :rolleyes: Marino1983

It's called life Marino, when this bad guy is gone there will be another bad guy to replace him, You either spend your life defending freedom or you will lose your freedom to one of these guys. I am always amazed how some ppl have this bubble gum opinion of how the world works.

I call Saddam a Hitler, because that's exactly what he is. He kills ppl based on their religion, and has done so to the tune of millions. I guess you didn't hear about it?

Yes the Liberal press is all about making it seem like you can fight evil ppl with flower power, or if you name and hug the trees daily. Let me tell you a M-16 in Saddams face will motivate him hell of a lot more than a daisey in his hand!

With all due respect, some of you need to wake up, and believe me I am chilled. I am holding back so much it's scary.

Oliver...

WharfRat
03-10-2003, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Marino1983
I find it rather interesting that the documents that YOUR president's administration has been spinning about Irag's nuclear capabilities have come under media scrutiny!!


Actually ... it's only a single document... and it was the British that it was given to, but nobody has said who gave it to them. So to imply that all the documents are "under scrutiny" is not a factual statement.

Marino1983
03-10-2003, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by Oliver
It's called life Marino, when this bad guy is gone there will be another bad guy to replace him, You either spend your life defending freedom or you will lose your freedom to one of these guys. I am always amazed how some ppl have this bubble gum opinion of how the world works.

I call Saddam a Hitler, because that's exactly what he is. He kills ppl based on their religion, and has done so to the tune of millions. I guess you didn't hear about it?

Yes the Liberal press is all about making it seem like you can fight evil ppl with flower power, or if you name and hug the trees daily. Let me tell you a M-16 in Saddams face will motivate him hell of a lot more than a daisey in his hand!

With all due respect, some of you need to wake up, and believe me I am chilled. I am holding back so much it's scary.

Oliver...


See this is a response that sacres me !!! People that think that they know more about this country, the world, life in general than another person that has a different view of world order and they try to belittle them !!! Funny but you never responded to the document about Iraqs nuclear capabilities :confused: ..

If you feel that THIS country should be concentraiting all their military strengths on Iraq,, while a country with NUCLEAR capabilities like Korea,, has all but declared war on AMERICA and is being delt with by stating that Korea is a regional problem :rolleyes:... then god bless you oliver ...............

And with all due respect, some of YOU need to wake up !!! You have no clue how hard that I am holding back oliver, it might be scary for you but I can feel a few blood vessels ready to EXPLODE ............ Marino1983

Sniper
03-10-2003, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by Marino1983
See this is a response that sacres me !!! People that think that they know more about this country, the world, life in general than another person that has a different view of world order and they try to belittle them !!! Funny but you never responded to the document about Iraqs nuclear capabilities :confused: ..

If you feel that THIS country should be concentraiting all their military strengths on Iraq,, while a country with NUCLEAR capabilities like Korea,, has all but declared war on AMERICA and is being delt with by stating that Korea is a regional problem :rolleyes:... then god bless you oliver ...............

And with all due respect, some of YOU need to wake up !!! You have no clue how hard that I am holding back oliver, it might be scary for you but I can feel a few blood vessels ready to EXPLODE ............ Marino1983

This flawed approach to foreign policy is sending the wrong message to other countries. Basically we are telling them:

If you don't want us to invade you like Iraq then you better have nuclear capabilities like N. Korea.

PhinPhan1227
03-10-2003, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
This flawed approach to foreign policy is sending the wrong message to other countries. Basically we are telling them:

If you don't want us to invade you like Iraq then you better have nuclear capabilities like N. Korea.


Really? I thought the message we were sending was "If you don't want us to invade you, don't invade your neighbors". Or have we threatened to invade any countries which AREN'T openly covetous of their neighbors?

ohall
03-10-2003, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Really? I thought the message we were sending was "If you don't want us to invade you, don't invade your neighbors". Or have we threatened to invade any countries which AREN'T openly covetous of their neighbors?

Exactly, it's funny how that lil nugget is always left out when some defend the axis of evil. Whether they know it or not, that's exactly what they are doing. Why anyone would be on the other side of defending the evil in this world is beyond me. Korea, Iran or Iraq are not a piece of ground to make a moral stance on IMO.

Oliver...

LeftCoastPhin
03-10-2003, 08:00 PM
Not sure why I feel the need to add my opinion but what the heck.

First of all, those who oppose the war are not anti-american, it is their right to have their opinion. I would hope they would still support our troops, and I'd bet that most will. To be able to question our leadership is what makes our country great, and free.

That said, I am in favor of the war because I feel that Sadam is a madman, who is very deceitful. In light of 9/11, I agree with President Bush that we must be proactive. I do not think he would ever use his WMD directly against us, his consequences would be to severe. So, I dont buy the argument that he has never directly attacked us so why would he now? That is not what concerns me. What I do think he would do is sell his weapons to the highest or most anti american bidder, and that's what in my mind makes him a legitmate threat to the U.S.

I can see the argument against the war, how it was Bin Laden, not Sadaam who was responsible for 9/11. How there is no concrete evidence to link the two. But the fact is, if you think that Sadaam is creating all of these weapons for the sole purpose of defense, then I think you are mistaken. It has been proven that Sadaam harbors terrorists, in fact what he does to his people makes him a terrorist. So, why wouldn't he aid them with weapons and harboring? Also, we just arrested a key Al Quada terrorist, and continue to look for Bin Laden. This must be fought on a multi-tiered front.

Anyway you slice it, more good then bad comes from ridding an already unstable region of one of it's most hated and feared madman.

I invite you to look at the country of Qatar, now that is a role model for positive middle east change. People especally women are given way more rights then ever before and their first lady is a key player in govt. Yes, I am impressed with their Americanization with our investments, education, and culture. That sounds ethnocentric I'm sure, but I just happen to believe that our way of life is the best. I am not in favor of force feeding culture if it's not wanted but when I saw those Quatar women interviwed on Dateline and to see the joy in their faces talking about all the benefits they now have, my heart was touched. I would think they are welcoming all of this change.

My point is I stand for freedom of ALL people, and I think the people of Iraq deserve the same chances that Quatar citizens are enjoying or at least have the opportunity to govern themselves the way they see fit. That will never happen with Sadaam around.


By the way, both sides make good cases on Bush's speech ability, but that shouldn't be more important on what is right and what is wrong.

ohall
03-10-2003, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by LeftCoastPhin
Not sure why I feel the need to add my opinion but what the heck.

First of all, those who oppose the war are not anti-american, it is their right to have their opinion. I would hope they would still support our troops, and I'd bet that most will. To be able to question our leadership is what makes our country great, and free.

That said, I am in favor of the war because I feel that Sadam is a madman, who is very deceitful. In light of 9/11, I agree with President Bush that we must be proactive. I do not think he would ever use his WMD directly against us, his consequences would be to severe. So, I dont buy the argument that he has never directly attacked us so why would he now? That is not what concerns me. What I do think he would do is sell his weapons to the highest or most anti american bidder, and that's what in my mind makes him a legitmate threat to the U.S.

I can see the argument against the war, how it was Bin Laden, not Sadaam who was responsible for 9/11. How there is no concrete evidence to link the two. But the fact is, if you think that Sadaam is creating all of these weapons for the sole purpose of defense, then I think you are mistaken. It has been proven that Sadaam harbors terrorists, in fact what he does to his people makes him a terrorist. So, why wouldn't he aid them with weapons and harboring? Also, we just arrested a key Al Quada terrorist, and continue to look for Bin Laden. This must be fought on a multi-tiered front.

Anyway you slice it, more good then bad comes from ridding an already unstable region of one of it's most hated and feared madman.

I invite you to look at the country of Qatar, now that is a role model for positive middle east change. People especally women are given way more rights then ever before and their first lady is a key player in govt. Yes, I am impressed with their Americanization with our investments, education, and culture. That sounds ethnocentric I'm sure, but I just happen to believe that our way of life is the best. I am not in favor of force feeding culture if it's not wanted but when I saw those Quatar women interviwed on Dateline and to see the joy in their faces talking about all the benefits they now have, my heart was touched. I would think they are welcoming all of this change.

My point is I stand for freedom of ALL people, and I think the people of Iraq deserve the same chances that Quatar citizens are enjoying or at least have the opportunity to govern themselves the way they see fit. That will never happen with Sadaam around.


By the way, both sides make good cases on Bush's speech ability, but that shouldn't be more important on what is right and what is wrong.

I never said anyone as anti-American, I said they may not know they are supporting the axis of evil. The ppl in Iraq, Iran and North Korea are very smart ppl and minipulate millions of ppl without them knowing it. That's why they are what they are.

Just like these actors that go around defending Saddam when they don't even know they are doing that. Saddam is GREAT at framing the situation to enable ppl to defend him, for 12-years in fact. It's something, starting with ppl like Hitler were masters of. They pray on ppl who are unhappy with certain areas of our governemnt or a government and use them to get their desired results.

In fact other governments are not immune to this, look at what is going on in the U.N. right now.

Oliver...

Marino1983
03-10-2003, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
This flawed approach to foreign policy is sending the wrong message to other countries. Basically we are telling them:

If you don't want us to invade you like Iraq then you better have nuclear capabilities like N. Korea.


This is what a lot of people are questioning .... But as usual this administration turns a deaf ear to it and continues to beat the war drum... The compassionate conservative :confused:, more like the passionate conservative !!!!:eek: Marino1983

LeftCoastPhin
03-10-2003, 08:23 PM
I never said you called anyone anti-american Oliver, it was a generic statement, my opinion.

themole
03-10-2003, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by Marino1983
This is what a lot of people are questioning .... But as usual this administration turns a deaf ear to it and continues to beat the war drum... The compassionate conservative :confused:, more like the passionate conservative !!!!:eek: Marino1983

Either way it works for me.

themole
03-10-2003, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by LeftCoastPhin
Not sure why I feel the need to add my opinion but what the heck.

First of all, those who oppose the war are not anti-american, it is their right to have their opinion. I would hope they would still support our troops, and I'd bet that most will. To be able to question our leadership is what makes our country great, and free.

That said, I am in favor of the war because I feel that Sadam is a madman, who is very deceitful. In light of 9/11, I agree with President Bush that we must be proactive. I do not think he would ever use his WMD directly against us, his consequences would be to severe. So, I dont buy the argument that he has never directly attacked us so why would he now? That is not what concerns me. What I do think he would do is sell his weapons to the highest or most anti american bidder, and that's what in my mind makes him a legitmate threat to the U.S.

I can see the argument against the war, how it was Bin Laden, not Sadaam who was responsible for 9/11. How there is no concrete evidence to link the two. But the fact is, if you think that Sadaam is creating all of these weapons for the sole purpose of defense, then I think you are mistaken. It has been proven that Sadaam harbors terrorists, in fact what he does to his people makes him a terrorist. So, why wouldn't he aid them with weapons and harboring? Also, we just arrested a key Al Quada terrorist, and continue to look for Bin Laden. This must be fought on a multi-tiered front.

Anyway you slice it, more good then bad comes from ridding an already unstable region of one of it's most hated and feared madman.

I invite you to look at the country of Qatar, now that is a role model for positive middle east change. People especally women are given way more rights then ever before and their first lady is a key player in govt. Yes, I am impressed with their Americanization with our investments, education, and culture. That sounds ethnocentric I'm sure, but I just happen to believe that our way of life is the best. I am not in favor of force feeding culture if it's not wanted but when I saw those Quatar women interviwed on Dateline and to see the joy in their faces talking about all the benefits they now have, my heart was touched. I would think they are welcoming all of this change.

My point is I stand for freedom of ALL people, and I think the people of Iraq deserve the same chances that Quatar citizens are enjoying or at least have the opportunity to govern themselves the way they see fit. That will never happen with Sadaam around.


By the way, both sides make good cases on Bush's speech ability, but that shouldn't be more important on what is right and what is wrong.

Hear hear, Very well said leftcoast.

ohall
03-10-2003, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by LeftCoastPhin
I never said you called anyone anti-american Oliver, it was a generic statement, my opinion.

Sorry I didn't put it in my reply, but my intentions were to clarify. I didn't think that was meant for me alone or for me specifically left, sorry.

Oliver...

Sniper
03-11-2003, 03:01 AM
Originally posted by Oliver
Sorry I didn't put it in my reply, but my intentions were to clarify. I didn't think that was meant for me alone or for me specifically left, sorry.

Oliver...

Oliver,

You clarify much better than GWB. Look and see:

"I should have clarified it by my statement. I just clarified it by my—not should have—I just." George W. Bush

:D

ohall
03-11-2003, 03:17 AM
Originally posted by Sniper
Oliver,

You clarify much better than GWB. Look and see:

"I should have clarified it by my statement. I just clarified it by my—not should have—I just." George W. Bush

:D

All Presidents fumble and stumble. Honestly everytime one of you do that stuff with Bush I just chuckle. Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush#1, Clinton and Bush#2 all have done similar things.

It's my belief that with the over coverage that is today's reality of our world, this is why it seems Bush#2 may fumble and stumble more than past Presidents.

I don't think you become President unless you are an intelligent person, and fumbling stumbling words is not a sign that you are unintelligent.

Oliver...

LeftCoastPhin
03-11-2003, 01:11 PM
Thanks Mole! No worries Oliver. By the way Oliver, you have a good BS decector, I like that.

Also, even though I disagree adamantly, I respect those who are anti war as long as they make a good case. At least they are not sheep like a lot of Americans. As for those Hollywood morons, well, most of them are sheep who dont form their own thoughts, therefore no respect.

ohall
03-11-2003, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by LeftCoastPhin
Thanks Mole! No worries Oliver. By the way Oliver, you have a good BS decector, I like that.

Also, even though I disagree adamantly, I respect those who are anti war as long as they make a good case. At least they are not sheep like a lot of Americans. As for those Hollywood morons, well, most of them are sheep who dont form their own thoughts, therefore no respect.

Thx Left, that's because I'm full of BS myself! :D

Oliver...