PDA

View Full Version : Saddam Hussein Captured!!



sammyeaglesfan
12-14-2003, 07:17 AM
News reports on CNN that he has been captured, It's close to 3am here in Cali when it was reported.

wileydawg
12-14-2003, 08:11 AM
We got that sucker

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031214/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_saddam&cid=540&ncid=716

njfinfan
12-14-2003, 08:14 AM
They just made the official announcement - "we got him." AWESOME! Now if only we could get Bin Laden.

Chisel Monkey
12-14-2003, 08:45 AM
There are pictures of the But Dumpling @ http:///www.foxnews.com/

wileydawg
12-14-2003, 08:48 AM
This could not have happened at a better time........

Let there be Peace on earth -- Good will to all people, God bless those still in harms way.

njfinfan
12-14-2003, 08:50 AM
Amen wiley. God Bless America. Did anyone watch the video? It was great.

LoXiN
12-14-2003, 09:05 AM
We got that damn son of a Bitch.
What I love now is that Germany France and Russia are all now saying "This is a great day for the Iraqi people." but yet back last December they hated the idea of going in.

What a World we live in when,
The best rapper is a white guy,
The best golfer is a black guy,
Germany doesnt want a war,
and France is calling US Arrogant.

I hate them damn french.

Crennelichick
12-14-2003, 09:33 AM
Nice quote Loxin, with all the crap we spew about each other's fans, this kind of news story is humbling, and takes precedence over all our differences.
Merry Christmas Finz Fanz

Emskirch
12-14-2003, 10:27 AM
I don't think its that big of a deal, he lost power in his country and was living in a hole.....

This doesn't mean the troops are coming home, which is the most important thing right now...

wileydawg
12-14-2003, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by Emskirch
I don't think its that big of a deal, he lost power in his country and was living in a hole.....

This doesn't mean the troops are coming home, which is the most important thing right now...

Maybe, just maybe the incentive to fight on by his followers will wane. I say prayers evrey night for those in harms way. It is essential to those people over there that every American support their efforts. Unlike what many of us faced in Nam.

dusty_hog
12-14-2003, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by Emskirch
I don't think its that big of a deal, he lost power in his country and was living in a hole.....

This doesn't mean the troops are coming home, which is the most important thing right now...

That's exactly what I said about an hour ago. Is this going to stop the troops from getting shot, or blown up, or killed? Absolutely not. It might even add fuel to these a-holes, killing more of our troops.

All this means is that the clown of a President is going to get re-elected because he did something his father couldn't. It took 460 of our American soldiers lives, but we got the guy who lived in a hole. Sounds like we got Punk'd.

Emskirch
12-14-2003, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by dusty_hog
All this means is that the clown of a President is going to get re-elected because he did something his father couldn't. It took 460 of our American soldiers lives, but we got the guy who lived in a hole. Sounds like we got Punk'd.

I tried not to bring politics in it :cry: And I refuse to say anything related to politics... <cough cough> weapons of mass destruction <cough>:D

Chisel Monkey
12-14-2003, 10:48 AM
`

wileydawg
12-14-2003, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by dusty_hog


That's exactly what I said about an hour ago. Is this going to stop the troops from getting shot, or blown up, or killed? Absolutely not. It might even add fuel to these a-holes, killing more of our troops.

All this means is that the clown of a President is going to get re-elected because he did something his father couldn't. It took 460 of our American soldiers lives, but we got the guy who lived in a hole. Sounds like we got Punk'd.

Unbelievable, the man (Saddam) killed 400,000 muslims, women/children/men hacked them up and deprived his Country of billions of dollars.

These kinds of statements could only come from an area that can't figure out how to count a vote.

Sometimes the shallowness of folks amaze me

Emskirch
12-14-2003, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by wileydawg


Unbelievable, the man (Saddam) killed 400,000 muslims, women/children/men hacked them up and deprived his Country of billions of dollars.

These kinds of statements could only come from an area that can't figure out how to count a vote.

Sometimes the shallowness of folks amaze me

What amazes me is that its a celebration in the US. In Iraq I can understand.

The same thing is happening (dictatorship) in other countries.

The only thing as a Vet that I want to see is the troops come home. See, Saddam is caught, but more US Soldiers will die. Probably today, tommorow, and so on and so on.

I don't think the capture of a man in a hole will stop the killing of our men and women.

:cry:

TerryTate
12-14-2003, 10:58 AM
While i still think going in there was a waste of time, resources, and lives (at the time I was pro-war), I'm glad that we got this sucker, maybe I will be happy that we went in if Saddam cooperates and tells us where those phantom weapons of mass destruction are...

DeDolfan
12-14-2003, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by wileydawg


Maybe, just maybe the incentive to fight on by his followers will wane. I say prayers evrey night for those in harms way. It is essential to those people over there that every American support their efforts. Unlike what many of us faced in Nam.

agreed. Hell, alot of us got spit on when we came back home in '69, for doing the very same thing we are now.

Crennelichick
12-14-2003, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by wileydawg


Unbelievable, the man (Saddam) killed 400,000 muslims, women/children/men hacked them up and deprived his Country of billions of dollars.

These kinds of statements could only come from an area that can't figure out how to count a vote.

Sometimes the shallowness of folks amaze me

It's a shame that some can't leave their personal political platform aside in these situations. The capture of Hussein is good for humanity. How this shapes up politically will all hash out in the future.

DeDolfan
12-14-2003, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by dusty_hog


That's exactly what I said about an hour ago. Is this going to stop the troops from getting shot, or blown up, or killed? Absolutely not. It might even add fuel to these a-holes, killing more of our troops.

All this means is that the clown of a President is going to get re-elected because he did something his father couldn't. It took 460 of our American soldiers lives, but we got the guy who lived in a hole. Sounds like we got Punk'd.

It will be interesting to see how all this unfolds in the next few weeks. Sodom (pun intended) supposedly was still directing what forces were left. Maybe now it will subside a bit.
I wouldn't worry too much about boy George getting re-elected. People around here have been wondering where he's been for the last few months and why he spends so much time campaigning instead of staying home tending to biz. he's worried to death about the election and I expect him to take FULL credit for capturing Sodom. Anyway, if we had captured him a week or 2 before the election, it would make a difference but with a year left, alot more of his underhandedness will surface and piss off more folx. I didn't mind his father as prez, but this guy...............well, let's just say we'd better watch our 6!

PhinPhreak
12-14-2003, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by Crennelichick
Nice quote Loxin, with all the crap we spew about each other's fans, this kind of news story is humbling, and takes precedence over all our differences.
Merry Christmas Finz Fanz


Hey man what do you mean by that? Our team oh sorry just a reflex :lol: :jk: I agree Cren stuff like this shows how petty some of the crap that goes on between fans at times is.

Hopefully this is the beginning to the end.

And now back to your regulary scheduled program.


:billsbite :nesucks: :jetssuck: :lol:

wileydawg
12-14-2003, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by Crennelichick


It's a shame that some can't leave their personal political platform aside in these situations. The capture of Hussein is good for humanity. How this shapes up politically will all hash out in the future.

Agreed

And Dedol I know that sentitment well, it was pretty ugly for those that were drafted and volunteered.

jaketaylor
12-14-2003, 11:47 AM
What shocks me is that the soldiers took him in alive. What I mean by that is, one would think that US troops would be inclined to kill him and drag his dead body in. A smug and very alive Saddam is probably the LAST thing that president Bush wanted. If there was EVER a case for a brutal person getting the death sentence, its this guy.
What will be show in time though, is that the United States actually helped build this man up when he was in power and now we had to go capture the monster that we helped create.
The soldiers over in Iraq will still be attacked by all of the other factions within that country. There are a ton of people over there who could care less about Saddam and just dont want any Americans in their country. An international hate crime if you will...
I agree that it is a little late for the other countries who were against the war to now jump on the bandwagon. Now that the heavy battles are over, they want to "help". How thoughtfull.
God Bless the now free Iraqi people and God Bless America.
And I hope that God understands when Saddam is hanged by his balls.

dusty_hog
12-14-2003, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by wileydawg


Unbelievable, the man (Saddam) killed 400,000 muslims, women/children/men hacked them up and deprived his Country of billions of dollars.

These kinds of statements could only come from an area that can't figure out how to count a vote.

Sometimes the shallowness of folks amaze me

It's too bad that I don't even live anywhere near to Florida, so what you're saying is absolute garbage.

Yeah, 400,000 muslims, but did you know any of them? (Actually the figure you have is only about 10% of what he killed, get your facts right...)

How about the soldiers over there right now for the US? Know any of them? Because I do. I guess I must be shallow when I want my friends to come back safe and alive. Gee, just lock me up and throw away the key.

dusty_hog
12-14-2003, 12:09 PM
I swear this is real, I heard it on NBC when Tim Russert was talking...

Being a Bills fan, him and the anchor were talking about Saddam, and then it came up about how we could find him but the Bills couldn't win a Super Bowl. This is when Russert said (not a direct quote): "The odds of finding Hussein were a lot better than the Bills winning the Super Bowl anytime soon." :lol:

I'm not making this up to start trash talking, I just find it pretty funny. And here I thought that Fins fans were down on their team.

Prime Time
12-14-2003, 12:11 PM
Alright. Great news to hear on this Sunday Morning, good to know we got him. He was hiding in a hole? :lol: Re-Elect Bush!!!

dolfan06
12-14-2003, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by sammyeaglesfan
News reports on CNN that he has been captured, It's close to 3am here in Cali when it was reported. that guy had been living in a hole for months. he looked terrible. all those videos that had been released were all bullsh!t! :rolleyes:

dusty_hog
12-14-2003, 12:12 PM
Prime Time,

It just doesn't shock me that you're a Republican.

TerryTate
12-14-2003, 12:13 PM
:roflmao:

wileydawg
12-14-2003, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by dusty_hog


It's too bad that I don't even live anywhere near to Florida, so what you're saying is absolute garbage.

Yeah, 400,000 muslims, but did you know any of them? (Actually the figure you have is only about 10% of what he killed, get your facts right...)

How about the soldiers over there right now for the US? Know any of them? Because I do. I guess I must be shallow when I want my friends to come back safe and alive. Gee, just lock me up and throw away the key.

You conviently left out your biased political view (that is what was shallow)-- Yes I know some kids that are serving and yes I'd like them home. The matter remains that Saddam was feeding women/children into tree sherdders feet first for kicks

America has, my young friend , always went to bat for the the oppressed, sure there is more oppression out there, but this situtation had no political solution after 20+ years (est.) Not many Americans knew the Jews either or the Vietnamese or the Koreans. America stood the line against Communism and fought in Serbia, ran the Taliban out all to lift oppression

400,000 (roughly) is what has been documented for War Crimes trials so far, the estimates are a million killed. (fact checker)

Muck
12-14-2003, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by Crennelichick


It's a shame that some can't leave their personal political platform aside in these situations. The capture of Hussein is good for humanity. How this shapes up politically will all hash out in the future.

Here here!! Lets be happy that we captured the S.O.B. and leave out the political stuff. It's great seeing the guy scared like that on video.

Fresh
12-14-2003, 12:34 PM
So when do we kill the biatch?
:woot:

Muck
12-14-2003, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by wileydawg
These kinds of statements could only come from an area that can't figure out how to count a vote.

What is it with visiting Pats fans and that phrase this week?? Is that your fallback response for everything you disagree with?? Pretty much throws an asterisk next to everything thing you say. It's about as accurate as "I'd expect nothing less from an area where men beat up women who root for the other team". Catch my drift?? Great, now STFU.


Sometimes the shallowness of folks amaze me

What an ironic, hypocritical statement. Especially coming from a "wise elder". :rolleyes:

zevo
12-14-2003, 12:43 PM
:troops: :usa: :cpatch: :troops: :troops: :troops: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

wileydawg
12-14-2003, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Muck


What is it with visiting Pats fans and that phrase this week?? Is that your fallback response for everything you disagree with?? It's about as accurate as &quot;I'd expect nothing less from an area who beats up women who root for the other team&quot;. Catch my drift?? Great, now STFU.



What an ironic, hypocritical statement. Especially coming from a &quot;wise elder&quot;. :rolleyes:

What are you new here LOL a Eagle fan living in Tampa and saw the vote thing first hand

iceblizzard69
12-14-2003, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by jaketaylor
What shocks me is that the soldiers took him in alive. What I mean by that is, one would think that US troops would be inclined to kill him and drag his dead body in. A smug and very alive Saddam is probably the LAST thing that president Bush wanted. If there was EVER a case for a brutal person getting the death sentence, its this guy.
What will be show in time though, is that the United States actually helped build this man up when he was in power and now we had to go capture the monster that we helped create.
The soldiers over in Iraq will still be attacked by all of the other factions within that country. There are a ton of people over there who could care less about Saddam and just dont want any Americans in their country. An international hate crime if you will...
I agree that it is a little late for the other countries who were against the war to now jump on the bandwagon. Now that the heavy battles are over, they want to &quot;help&quot;. How thoughtfull.
God Bless the now free Iraqi people and God Bless America.
And I hope that God understands when Saddam is hanged by his balls.

Saddam will NOT get the death penalty. He is a Prisoner of War and if we killed him it would really piss off every country in the world (well, most countries are pretty pissed off at us anyway.) I was for the war, and I am happy Saddam was caught, but killing him would be a huge mistake because it would anger many nations.

Also, the "battles" are not over. Just because we caught Saddam does not mean that everything in Iraq is over. More Americans in Iraq have died after Bush went onto a battleship to announce that the mission was complete. This war is far from over, and the battles are not over. There is still a lot of work that needs to be done.

dusty_hog
12-14-2003, 12:48 PM
Preach on Muck, preach on!

Fresh
12-14-2003, 12:49 PM
How about we give them Bush and call it a done deal?

dusty_hog
12-14-2003, 12:50 PM
So Wiley, you not only saw it first-hand, you were one of the Florida residents that don't know how to vote? You ended up voting for Harry Browne, didn't you? :lol:

Muck
12-14-2003, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by wileydawg
What are you new here LOL a Eagle fan living in Tampa and saw the vote thing first hand

Give me a break. You make those statements with your azz on your shoulders. With that condescending tone. Sorry, but like Tyler Durden said, "You're not special. You are not a beautiful snowflake".

Hey, since you live in FLA. Wouldn't that make you part of the fiasco....since, in your words, the entire state can't figure out how to vote??

Oh my bad. You're an Eagles fan. That changes everything. :rofl:

EDIT: BEAT ME TO IT DUSTY!! ;)

dusty_hog
12-14-2003, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by ChambersOwnz84
How about we give them Bush and call it a done deal?

:lol:

Come on now, you really think Iraqis are that stupid to take that deal? If they are, throw in the Bills. They could use a relocation.

wileydawg
12-14-2003, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by dusty_hog
So Wiley, you not only saw it first-hand, you were one of the Florida residents that don't know how to vote? You ended up voting for Harry Browne, didn't you? :lol:

The Left Coast didn't seem to have that problem....... At first it was amusing then turned to statewide shame

dusty_hog
12-14-2003, 12:52 PM
The only time I found NFL countdown entertaining:

TJ and Irvin saying, "Saddam got JACKED UP!"

dusty_hog
12-14-2003, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by wileydawg


The Left Coast didn't seem to have that problem....... At first it was amusing then turned to statewide shame

So you really are a part of the shame? Shame, shame!

Fresh
12-14-2003, 12:53 PM
My only concern about this, is election 2004. Bush becomes Prez for another 4-years? That would be DISGUSTING! Which is why this would be a better deal than sending a 5th rounder for the likes of Junior Seau.

dusty_hog
12-14-2003, 12:54 PM
Yeah, I'm going to move to Canada until January of 2009 now.

wileydawg
12-14-2003, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by dusty_hog


So you really are a part of the shame? Shame, shame!

Part the shame, but pointing a finger

CirclingWagons
12-14-2003, 01:03 PM
I hope they "Mussolini" him...that would own

dolfan06
12-14-2003, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by Emskirch


What amazes me is that its a celebration in the US. In Iraq I can understand.

The same thing is happening (dictatorship) in other countries.

The only thing as a Vet that I want to see is the troops come home. See, Saddam is caught, but more US Soldiers will die. Probably today, tommorow, and so on and so on.

I don't think the capture of a man in a hole will stop the killing of our men and women.

:cry: i think the appearance of saddam at the time of his capture will do more to stop the fighting over there. think about it, he was asking his people to die for him, when you think he had a gun on his person and didn't shoot himself or any of the soldiers that caught him, shows just what type of a person he really is!;)

canephin
12-14-2003, 01:13 PM
That's exactly what I said about an hour ago. Is this going to stop the troops from getting shot, or blown up, or killed? Absolutely not. It might even add fuel to these a-holes, killing more of our troops.

All this means is that the clown of a President is going to get re-elected because he did something his father couldn't. It took 460 of our American soldiers lives, but we got the guy who lived in a hole. Sounds like we got Punk'd.


You know i may be the only one who supports our President but man you guys are downright pathetic. Your the type that can't realize the huge importance this has on the world, who cares if we didn't find weapons of mass distruction. Can you imagine if this guy had the opportunity to get his hands on weapons of mass destruction and put it in the hands of guys like bin laden or any terrorist group. This country needs to realize that what we have done is the ultimate contribution to the world. Even if it does come at a cost. And thats what it all comes down to, everything comes at a cost. I am sorry to any of you who have lost a family member to this but this is the risk we have to take as Americans. We need to stand united behind our president and stop complaining all the time.

dusty_hog
12-14-2003, 01:15 PM
What rookie? Dude, stand behind our president who lied to the world saying that the SOB had WMD's? Sorry, I can't support this putz.

dolfan06
12-14-2003, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by canephin
That's exactly what I said about an hour ago. Is this going to stop the troops from getting shot, or blown up, or killed? Absolutely not. It might even add fuel to these a-holes, killing more of our troops.

i think now that the people see who they were following, they just might give up. ge was living like a rat for crying out loud. and those tapes of him calling for his people to fight were all bullsh!t!:rolleyes:

Fresh
12-14-2003, 01:23 PM
We have no damn president to stand behind. Bush, you ain't no friend of mine. 50 should make a song for Bush.

Muck
12-14-2003, 01:26 PM
Gotta love hearing that he gave up like a little b*tch. They're saying he then became unremorseful and tried to justify his crimes. "I was a just but firm ruler".

DIE!!

jaketaylor
12-14-2003, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by iceblizzard69


Saddam will NOT get the death penalty. He is a Prisoner of War and if we killed him it would really piss off every country in the world (well, most countries are pretty pissed off at us anyway.) I was for the war, and I am happy Saddam was caught, but killing him would be a huge mistake because it would anger many nations.

Also, the &quot;battles&quot; are not over. Just because we caught Saddam does not mean that everything in Iraq is over. More Americans in Iraq have died after Bush went onto a battleship to announce that the mission was complete. This war is far from over, and the battles are not over. There is still a lot of work that needs to be done.

Read my post again please, I never said that the battles were over. I said that now that the heavy battles are over. Did you even read my post?

Bling
12-14-2003, 01:53 PM
George W. Bush gets re-elected...BOOK IT!

canephin
12-14-2003, 01:54 PM
What rookie?


I ain't no damn rookie, and you can ask a few guys on here that know me from other sites. Its funny you said you can't stand behind our president but you still haven't said anything in reference to what i said in my post.

Pagan
12-14-2003, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by dusty_hog
What rookie? Dude, stand behind our president who lied to the world saying that the SOB had WMD's? Sorry, I can't support this putz.

Gods, do you dems EVER give up on that WMD issue?

Doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that Saddam DID have them, or did he gas his own people with broccoli farts?

You seem to forget that Hussein had FIVE MONTHS to get the WMDs OUT of Iraq while Bush was trying to appease the liberal pu$$ies at the UN who were whining about him wanting to go to war. Had he gone in right away, we'd have found them. More than likely, they're in Syria at the moment.

It's amazing that people can't give the man ANY credit. If it was a dem president, you'd be crowing like a rooster right now. :rolleyes:

sammyeaglesfan
12-14-2003, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by Emskirch
I don't think its that big of a deal, he lost power in his country and was living in a hole.....

This doesn't mean the troops are coming home, which is the most important thing right now...


But once his followers see how he was a coward hiding in a hole they will not fight for him anymore.

Fresh
12-14-2003, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by blingbling2334
George W. Bush gets re-elected...BOOK IT!

Sad...

DolphinDevil28
12-14-2003, 03:15 PM
All you hate filled, angry liberals will complain about ANYTHING you can find about GW. The man would cure cancer, and you'd find somehow to spin it that it ruined the economy or some dispicable claim.

The man liberated a country that was under tyranny for 35 years, freed millions of people and most importantly, ELIMINATED A THREAT TOWARDS THE UNITED STATES. And you're bitching about some missles that we didn't find. Also, compared to other wars that paralleled the significance of this one, the casualties were kept to a minimum.

It may just be me, but I'd take a president who has the BALLS to stand up to evil powers in the world and liberate innocent victims ANYDAY compared to the loser who cut military spending to finance wastefull give-away welfare programs for those who refused to work.
All the while getting blow-jobs in the Oval Office.

Bush - Cheney 04!!!

baccarat
12-14-2003, 03:53 PM
This is a step in the right direction for our troops and getting the Iraqi people a self governing country. Hopefully, Saddam will now get a trial by a jury composed of everyday Iraqis, not bureaucrats from countries that were against ridding Iraq of Saddam. Saddam is a monster and his death will bring no tears to my eyes or the eyes of the family members of the people he killed.

As for this 'Saddam is not as bad as people think' argument, wake up! As former UN Human Rights Rapporteur Max Van der Stoel said, "[Human rights violations in Iraq] are the worst since World War II." How about this? Let's have a brutal psychopath cut off your genitals, send them to your family and then have some partisan say 'It's no so bad, eh?'

I hope that Saddam's capture will be an important piece, in the long run, to helping our soliders help the fair people of Iraq.

God Bless America


EDIT: This is a good site to visit. It's not a BS site, which the net has plenty of. It offers some facts about the suffering of the Iraqis by Saddam.
http://www.indict.org.uk/index.php

DeDolfan
12-14-2003, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by jaketaylor
What shocks me is that the soldiers took him in alive. What I mean by that is, one would think that US troops would be inclined to kill him and drag his dead body in. A smug and very alive Saddam is probably the LAST thing that president Bush wanted. If there was EVER a case for a brutal person getting the death sentence, its this guy.
What will be show in time though, is that the United States actually helped build this man up when he was in power and now we had to go capture the monster that we helped create.
The soldiers over in Iraq will still be attacked by all of the other factions within that country. There are a ton of people over there who could care less about Saddam and just dont want any Americans in their country. An international hate crime if you will...
I agree that it is a little late for the other countries who were against the war to now jump on the bandwagon. Now that the heavy battles are over, they want to &quot;help&quot;. How thoughtfull.
God Bless the now free Iraqi people and God Bless America.
And I hope that God understands when Saddam is hanged by his balls.

Bush probably wanted him dead but it is better to have gotten him like this. Think about it, this way only probves that he was nothing but a brutal fake. If he was killed during capture, we would be facing even tougher resistance that we already are because he would have been a martyr for sure. If he was truly a genuine leader, he would have had charges down that hole just in case we found him he could've detonated it killing himself along with countless US soldiers. THAT would have been his only true victory in making his own sacrifice for the "cause". That would rile up the Jihad a hell of alot more than it is now, IMO. Now he'll be seen as the coward that he really is and ppl over there may very well say, F this, and see a different way perhaps.

DeDolfan
12-14-2003, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by canephin



You know i may be the only one who supports our President but man you guys are downright pathetic. Your the type that can't realize the huge importance this has on the world, who cares if we didn't find weapons of mass distruction. Can you imagine if this guy had the opportunity to get his hands on weapons of mass destruction and put it in the hands of guys like bin laden or any terrorist group. This country needs to realize that what we have done is the ultimate contribution to the world. Even if it does come at a cost. And thats what it all comes down to, everything comes at a cost. I am sorry to any of you who have lost a family member to this but this is the risk we have to take as Americans. We need to stand united behind our president and stop complaining all the time.

Well, if this prez had only lied about a blow job, it would be a different story. They had no WMDs no proven ties to Bin Laden, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't/couldn't exisit in the future. You make it sound like it's OK to go invade other countries simply because their leader is a bad person. Bush had a personal agenda in this clearly and he duped the entire [almost] population into buying it. We didn't have reason to not believe him before hand because he had ALL this evidence and proof that warranted us to go extract him. Once we invaded Iraq, it was past the point of no return and Bush has been constantly looking for excuses ever since. But simply stating what has happened does not make anybody pathetic.

DeDolfan
12-14-2003, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by Pagan


Gods, do you dems EVER give up on that WMD issue?

Doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that Saddam DID have them, or did he gas his own people with broccoli farts?

You seem to forget that Hussein had FIVE MONTHS to get the WMDs OUT of Iraq while Bush was trying to appease the liberal pu$$ies at the UN who were whining about him wanting to go to war. Had he gone in right away, we'd have found them. More than likely, they're in Syria at the moment.

It's amazing that people can't give the man ANY credit. If it was a dem president, you'd be crowing like a rooster right now. :rolleyes:

syria? You serious? Well, then I'll bet there are satelite phots of that movement, don't ya reckon? but if that info was divulged, then Bush wouldn't have an excuse to go in, would he? if they were still there, during those 5 months, would it be a safe assumption that the UN inspectors would have found something? Nobody ever denied him not having them. Just not at the convenient time that Bush "said so" and pushed for the war. The reps spared no expense to nail Clinton for his lie. Question is, will thewy have the balls to confront Bush as well? I don't think so.

DeDolfan
12-14-2003, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by DolphinDevil28
All you hate filled, angry liberals will complain about ANYTHING you can find about GW. The man would cure cancer, and you'd find somehow to spin it that it ruined the economy or some dispicable claim.

The man liberated a country that was under tyranny for 35 years, freed millions of people and most importantly, ELIMINATED A THREAT TOWARDS THE UNITED STATES. And you're bitching about some missles that we didn't find. Also, compared to other wars that paralleled the significance of this one, the casualties were kept to a minimum.

It may just be me, but I'd take a president who has the BALLS to stand up to evil powers in the world and liberate innocent victims ANYDAY compared to the loser who cut military spending to finance wastefull give-away welfare programs for those who refused to work.
All the while getting blow-jobs in the Oval Office.

Bush - Cheney 04!!!

Nobody is complaining about getting rid of Sodom in the first place. It's this thing called lying thru his teeth to every American justifying his case for war. Something is wrong here when the gov goes after one prez for lying about a blow job and such but apparently has no case for another who's lie/s cost many Americans' lives. Something BAD wrong with this picture!

Phishstix
12-14-2003, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


Nobody is complaining about getting rid of Sodom in the first place. It's this thing called lying thru his teeth to every American justifying his case for war. Something is wrong here when the gov goes after one prez for lying about a blow job and such but apparently has no case for another who's lie/s cost many Americans' lives. Something BAD wrong with this picture!

and what is sad is that it's not over yet. young people will lose their lives everyday for the next couple of years in that hellhole, and for what? some damn oil

DolphinDevil28
12-14-2003, 09:11 PM
What did he lie about???????? That Saddam is an evil dictator that has to be taken out of power?? Thats TRUE. And GW took him out.

What is it going to take for you people to realize that we need to get evil out of power around the world?? Another September 11th?

Because GOD DAMMIT thats what you friggin liberals sound like you want.

God help us if you people ever elect a Al Gore or Joe Lieberman of the world to defend us with all the evil that exists. We'd be screwed.

You people have so much animisity towards the President that you'd do ANYTHING to get him out of office. THAT is what's sad.

Phishstix
12-14-2003, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by DolphinDevil28
What did he lie about???????? That Saddam is an evil dictator that has to be taken out of power?? Thats TRUE. And GW took him out.

What is it going to take for you people to realize that we need to get evil out of power around the world?? Another September 11th?

Because GOD DAMMIT thats what you friggin liberals sound like you want.

God help us if you people ever elect a Al Gore or Joe Lieberman of the world to defend us with all the evil that exists. We'd be screwed.

You people have so much animisity towards the President that you'd do ANYTHING to get him out of office. THAT is what's sad.

i just think dub went about it wrong. if he would have just come out and said, 'look, i don't like this guy, we're gonna go get him because he tried to kill my dad', that would have been cool. but to say he's a threat (only to his arab neighbors), he had wmd's (where are they?), and try to tie him to bin laden and 9/11 (bin laden hates his guts) wasn't cool at all.

Kamikaze
12-14-2003, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by Pagan


Gods, do you dems EVER give up on that WMD issue?

Doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that Saddam DID have them, or did he gas his own people with broccoli farts?

You seem to forget that Hussein had FIVE MONTHS to get the WMDs OUT of Iraq while Bush was trying to appease the liberal pu$$ies at the UN who were whining about him wanting to go to war. Had he gone in right away, we'd have found them. More than likely, they're in Syria at the moment.

It's amazing that people can't give the man ANY credit. If it was a dem president, you'd be crowing like a rooster right now. :rolleyes:

No, we will never give up, because that was the reason Bush took us to war. He kept saying Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States, and that he'd use his WMDs, etc etc etc. Since we've been unable to find a single one since we've been there, you'd have to be a ****ing idiot to not realize how much a big black eye to the administration this is. Why do you think they've had to change their justification for the war midstride?

Saddam had the WMDs at one time, but maybe, just maybe, he actually destroyed them per the UN Resolution 1441. Given Bush used that resolution as a justification for war, it makes the entire invasion look even more illegal.

The whole pre-war yammering about WMDs was just gaming up the Ameircan public for war. A lie repeated often enough becomes what again? Truth. That's why this whole thing has changed into a humanitarian mission. The lie to get us into war worked, and they simply pulled the bait and switch.

Given you think the WMDs were shipped to Syrira in the run-up to war, are you suggesting that we invade Syria? Or any country where these phantom WMDs may be? We'd have seen them being shipped, and if you suggest otherwise, then you and I both should be pissed that our billions of dollars in satellite technology is going to complete waste. Seeing 1984 manifesting itself in real life is so damn unsobering.

Getting onto the topic of Saddam's capture itself, I'm glad we finally have him in our custody. The fact they found him in a hole in the ground is pretty strong evidence that he hasn't been co-ordinating the insurgent attacks on our troops. Be they Saddam loyalists, Iraqi resisters who have no love for Saddam or the United States, or foreign nationals coming to the #1 place to fight America these days, they're a de-centralized guerilla force. So, sadly, the attacks will probably continue, and intensify.

Saddam should no doubt be subject to a war crimes tribunal. How this will be done is up in the air though. Saddam knows a lot of things, things that would incriminate the United States in a lot of shady dealings. After all, the gas he used on the Kurds came from the United States, and we did support his regime while they fought their war against Iran in the 1980s. The whole thing could backfire. All I really ask is that the truth come out, whether it is pretty or not.

Is the war over? Absolutely not. We all remember what happened the last time Bush declared "victory", so getting ahead of ourselves would not be wise. We need to save face by getting a democratic government in place as quickly as possible, and getting our troops out of there as well. If we can't have the Iraqis choose their own government, then we will be leaving them in the same situation they were in before we invaded. Then the war will have officially been one of the biggest blunders in American history.

And will Bush be re-elected because of this? Please, any realistic Republican or Democrat would tell you that this capture will have a negligible effect on the election. If anything, it puts more pressure on Bush to get the job done now.

And as for our good friend, Osama Bin Forgotten? Yeah, we kinda do need a new boogeyman don't we? I mean, we need a singular person with which to identify as the enemy, and we currently don't have one anymore. We might be hearing a lot about Bin Laden in the next few months. I'm not sure, but we'll see.

I still think they've had him in Gitmo all along, waiting to trot him out as Bush's October Surprise.

iceblizzard69
12-14-2003, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by DolphinDevil28
All you hate filled, angry liberals will complain about ANYTHING you can find about GW. The man would cure cancer, and you'd find somehow to spin it that it ruined the economy or some dispicable claim.

The man liberated a country that was under tyranny for 35 years, freed millions of people and most importantly, ELIMINATED A THREAT TOWARDS THE UNITED STATES. And you're bitching about some missles that we didn't find. Also, compared to other wars that paralleled the significance of this one, the casualties were kept to a minimum.

It may just be me, but I'd take a president who has the BALLS to stand up to evil powers in the world and liberate innocent victims ANYDAY compared to the loser who cut military spending to finance wastefull give-away welfare programs for those who refused to work.
All the while getting blow-jobs in the Oval Office.

Bush - Cheney 04!!!

I'm happy that we had the balls to step up against these oppressive nations. However, conservatives will always complain about everything that liberals do. It works both ways.

Also, Bush shouldn't have lied about WMDs. I supported the war but that is just wrong.

baccarat
12-14-2003, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by iceblizzard69


I'm happy that we had the balls to step up against these oppressive nations. However, conservatives will always complain about everything that liberals do. It works both ways.


It's called partisanship and although sometimes it's excusable it should be avoided. BTW, Liberman is strong on defense and reminds me of FDR. If he were to get the nom, I'd vote for him.

dusty_hog
12-14-2003, 10:57 PM
I love how people say that dubya eliminated a threat to the US. Something his father couldn't do I suppose? Such a threat too, with all the weapons and terrorism...NO..WAIT....THAT WAS A MAN CALLED BIN LADEN YOU FREAKS! It's been proved that Saddam had no part in 9-11, so you Bible-toting Republicans can take that and put it in your campaign fundraisers.

What will this country do with Saddam? With the way he looked, I wouldn't be surprsised if he appeared on a very special episode of "Queer Eye for the Dictator Guy". :lol: Come on people, it's called a joke...LAUGH!

dusty_hog
12-14-2003, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by Phishstix


i just think dub went about it wrong. if he would have just come out and said, 'look, i don't like this guy, we're gonna go get him because he tried to kill my dad', that would have been cool. but to say he's a threat (only to his arab neighbors), he had wmd's (where are they?), and try to tie him to bin laden and 9/11 (bin laden hates his guts) wasn't cool at all.

Thank you phish, at least you see it correctly. He went around the back of the UN, saying it needed to be done now and all that garbage, and then bombed them starting the war prematurely on
'credible evidence' that they found Saddam. I guess the info was like a pregnancy, it took 9 months to really happen.

canephin
12-14-2003, 11:56 PM
you know what i find funny, is how so many of you think you know as much as the government does about the situation. Do you know how much they don't tell you, today they hinted into to that. Saying that there was 600 to 700 people involved collecting evidence on all diferent areas of the matter and yet you think you can sit here decide for yourself that there was no weapons of mass distruction in the area (which personally doesn't matter i am glad we went in anyway) and to sit here and say George W is stupid for having gone to Iraq is piontless is in my opinion the most assinine statement that can be made. And who are you guys to talk about Bible republicans, hey atleast this dude is standing for whats right and not gettin blow jobs under the desk. So you think goin to Iraq and trying to work things out was piontless.... ok so was when Billy bob blow job going to Israil and trying to stop fighting that has been going on for centuries. Now nice of him to try but we all saw how succesful that was and yet everone sits here and bashes Bush for not doing what everyone else has already tried. Everyone tried talking Suddam into letting them in to do inspections for years. And George when he saw a threat to the United States with a maniac at the wheel. Its like a father who sees a problem and takes care of it. He knew that this man would not negotiate. And Bush also knew that it was gonna be tough getting in there intime before Suddam got rid of the weapons of mass distruction.

Fact is even if this man didn't have weapons of mass distruction he was a killer of his own people, he needed to get rid of them and as much as you people don't seem to understand these people in Iraq are loving everyone of us for what we have done. You could see the joy in there eyes.

canephin
12-15-2003, 12:02 AM
oh and all of you who sit here and complain about the casualties also need to understand that with the responsibility that our nation has it comes at a cost, everything does, i am really sorry to any of you who have lost any relatives or close ones but you can't take your anger out on Bush, the fact that the resistence was so harsh and people had to die to try to get to a man so evil that people would use there lives to fight for him is the exact reason we need to get in there and stop this breed of people and give them the knowledge they need to know in order to stop this type of violent behavior.

TerryTate
12-15-2003, 12:18 AM
Canephin sure its an ethical thing to do, but when he said the PRIMARY REASON was Weapons of Mass Destruction, and none were found, the war was won, but the mission hasnt been accomplished....the finding of Saddam was the only way Bush could save his @$$ as far as being reelected...Its one thing to say "we are going in to get that pr!ck because he's an a-hole to his people", but its another to say for another reason and not accomplish that task, thats the problem I have with this administration...and you know what, if he mentioned that reason "because hes an a-hole to his people" he would not have gotten as much support, so he dredged up this WMD excuse, and it wont be an excuse once he finds them, if he in fact does....

dusty_hog
12-15-2003, 12:19 AM
Oh my, here we go with Clinton gettin some head.

How did I know that that was coming (no pun intended).

Wasn't the country...oh, I dunno.....doing well, not in a war, etc., when Clinton was the President? Yep.

Republi-cane....it's none of your f'n business who or what any President is doing in his PRIVATE LIFE!

If new evidence came out that President Lincoln had had an affair while he was President, would that change your mind of him? Well, he freed the slaves and all, but that bastard got a ******* from someone that wasn't his wife! You republicans are so ignorant sometimes.

TerryTate
12-15-2003, 12:25 AM
Jefferson fathered interracial children with a slave, who the feck cares already....

Kamikaze
12-15-2003, 12:33 AM
We need a little alternative perspective. See, We Caught The Wrong Guy (http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121503A.shtml).

CirclingWagons
12-15-2003, 02:00 AM
go to www.google.com and type in: miserable failure

Mr.Murder
12-15-2003, 03:44 AM
Google, www.SCI.com, www.carlysle.com see the joint venture capital aquisition merger firms calling the shots and making big energy, war, and space exploration profits. They also have pharmacy/cancer/aids and technology lobbies.
SCI even posts a proud page on the US Chamber of Commerce to Taiwan ( key area Bush surrenedered to China) and the ambassador to Taiwan Bush appointed whose previous post was a state dept. aid to China/Mongolia. Their business site lists outsource assessments and venture capital backing for such moves , the TOP 6 OF WHICH are US outsourcings to Taiwan and CHina via the Bush league's unfair trade act.
So while our guys/gals risk their lives their jobs get sold off, Nike, GM, FORD, and oil/energy providers company regional presidents litter the sites board of directors and ventures. Neil Bush got over 2 million in lobby deals from the free trade benefactors? Almost a dollar per job (minus the holiday hiring season it will be about 75 cents per job soon) selloff rate right now. That is hwy Bush is all bout values, the value of your job to his brother's outsource lobby.
Bush's free trade agreement with Columbia- the leading killer of union workers (more than the entire globe combined outside of their borders). AFL-CIO reports that over 2,000 lives were lost here this year and Bush hails his "free trade" (oxymoron) agreement with them as being a terrific example of improved policy and a safer terror free world.
There will be terror everywhere this guy is taking dumps on everyone everywhere he goes. And they have the nerve to cut back 200 VA hospitals in America at this time as well in smaller/rural areas.
Neil Bush lived in Colorado and was a savings and loan embezzler?And ENRON's accounting firm was headquartered in Colorado and one of their chief legal counsels was a representative for the Taliban American John Walker Lynch detained in Guantanimo? Why is oil/energy scam money with ties to shrub's pardoned felon brother taking care of a known terrorist?


As for the war and Saddam, great news from several points for both sides.
1- Troop morale is improved.
2- Iraqis can now move forward and not have the ghost of oppression haunt their new government.
3- We can speed up "Iraqi-ization" and GET OUR TROOPS HOME.
4- The ties of Rumsfeld-Cheney to Saddam can be achieved and reinforced so Powell/Rice can take over and fool middle class voters of black heritage into voting for them.
5- The US can prove we are of higher standards and not torture/kill him openly so future POW/MIA soldiers of ours can perhaps recieve good treatment in other areas of deployment since the Bush league will go to war everywhere possible.
6- Halliburton overcharging and making us haul to Iraq can cease and their aquisition/merger stratagy on the stock market can rob a lot of hypocritical flag wavers of their money on loss-limit levels.

Now if he was leading the resistance of the Hole-in-the-Ground gang where were his maps and radios and chain of command? Look-alike or was he just trying to simplify and achieve martyr status? The latter seems most likely.
It seems the chain of command was removed and this will change little live time. Perhaps the armed counterinsurgents we have (former prisoners that Saddam armed for combat and we then enlisted as members of the new army) will now continue their war crimes and turn more opinion against us for indirect oversight also.
Our soliders are better than this and should not have their merits discredited with these new Iraqi "soldiers". Their actions enrage and inspire Jihad vs. America and our soldier's presence does as well. We showed that our ground troops are better men by not killing their leader, now bring ours home . The longer we stay, more will fight against us as outsiders instead of liberators.We should have learned as much by now.
The failure of democracy would be blamed on us instead of the Muslim culture's own shortcomings. Let the UN in and get ours out with other arab oversight so these issues can be addressed in such fashion.

Rick 1966
12-15-2003, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by canephin



You know i may be the only one who supports our President but man you guys are downright pathetic.

You aren't the only one on either count.

DolphinDevil28
12-15-2003, 10:57 AM
Wow. A liberal calling a Republican ignorant. If that isn't irony at its best...

Rick 1966
12-15-2003, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by DolphinDevil28
Wow. A liberal calling a Republican ignorant. If that isn't irony at its best...

It's the main difference between liberals and conservatives...both can be ignorant and stupid on occasion, but the liberals are sure to be more arrogant and self-righteous about it.

Pagan
12-15-2003, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by dusty_hog

Wasn't the country...oh, I dunno.....doing well, not in a war, etc., when Clinton was the President? Yep.



Yep...because Clinton was too much of a ***** to do anything when the Cole was bombed, when our embassy was bombed, etc.

He stuck his head in the sand, the quintessential Liberal Democrat thing to do.

PhinPhan1227
12-15-2003, 01:33 PM
Other than the fact that he provided a REALLY bad example to America's kids, I don't care that Clinton got head while in office. I do care that he lied under oath about it...but other than that, no biggy. As for GW, Saddam DID produce WMD's, that's been established. He was only able to prove that he got rid of a portion of those weapons. And he violated international laws which were in place to watch over the production of further WMD's. Maybe he had stockpiles when we invaded, and maybe he didn't. What we CAN say for sure is that as soon as the international scrutiny slacked off(which it would have), he was going to pursue them again. Eventually, he was going to have to be removed. We removed him when he was weakest, rather than waiting for him to regain his strength. That's why the troops love GW. The last thing they want is a CIC who sends them into a fair fight.



Originally posted by dusty_hog
Oh my, here we go with Clinton gettin some head.

How did I know that that was coming (no pun intended).

Wasn't the country...oh, I dunno.....doing well, not in a war, etc., when Clinton was the President? Yep.

Republi-cane....it's none of your f'n business who or what any President is doing in his PRIVATE LIFE!

If new evidence came out that President Lincoln had had an affair while he was President, would that change your mind of him? Well, he freed the slaves and all, but that bastard got a ******* from someone that wasn't his wife! You republicans are so ignorant sometimes.

PhinPhan1227
12-15-2003, 01:38 PM
Do you honestly think that planning for Sept 11th started the day Bill left office? Clinton's doctrine to terrorists was clear. Kill Americans and we'll launch cruise missiles at empty buildings and tents. We WERE at war during Clintons term...we just never fought back.



Originally posted by dusty_hog
Oh my, here we go with Clinton gettin some head.

How did I know that that was coming (no pun intended).

Wasn't the country...oh, I dunno.....doing well, not in a war, etc., when Clinton was the President? Yep.

Republi-cane....it's none of your f'n business who or what any President is doing in his PRIVATE LIFE!

If new evidence came out that President Lincoln had had an affair while he was President, would that change your mind of him? Well, he freed the slaves and all, but that bastard got a ******* from someone that wasn't his wife! You republicans are so ignorant sometimes.

Phishstix
12-15-2003, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Do you honestly think that planning for Sept 11th started the day Bill left office? Clinton's doctrine to terrorists was clear. Kill Americans and we'll launch cruise missiles at empty buildings and tents. We WERE at war during Clintons term...we just never fought back.




OK, what does terrorism have to do with Saddam?

Mr.Murder
12-15-2003, 05:52 PM
Actually Laden's first attack was planned and staged while daddy Bush was in office, it happened a few month's into Bill's tenure but clearly had been in motion before then. CLinton's antiterror bill was blocked by Newt and the repubs "constitutional amendment to balance budget" crew in response to such.
Instead he launched cruise missles, but asked for CONgressional approval first. Nobody called for an all out war at the time then either from your party, yes or no? Perhaps Laden's ties to lobby money via second party (his family) gave him a warning to leave. We will never know these things will be declassified 30 years later, if ever. Much of this topic has already been stricken from record via Ashcroft's fakeriot act or via other branch posts/offices (EPA for example) who can now use security breach clause to strike ANYTHING from record.

PhinPhan1227
12-16-2003, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by Phishstix


OK, what does terrorism have to do with Saddam?

I was responding to Dusty_Hogs post...so maybe you should ask him that question?

PhinPhan1227
12-16-2003, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by Mr.Murder
Actually Laden's first attack was planned and staged while daddy Bush was in office, it happened a few month's into Bill's tenure but clearly had been in motion before then. CLinton's antiterror bill was blocked by Newt and the repubs &quot;constitutional amendment to balance budget&quot; crew in response to such.
Instead he launched cruise missles, but asked for CONgressional approval first. Nobody called for an all out war at the time then either from your party, yes or no? Perhaps Laden's ties to lobby money via second party (his family) gave him a warning to leave. We will never know these things will be declassified 30 years later, if ever. Much of this topic has already been stricken from record via Ashcroft's fakeriot act or via other branch posts/offices (EPA for example) who can now use security breach clause to strike ANYTHING from record.

Thank you...proof in point, we've been at war for decades. As for anyone else calling for war...call me crazy but I actually look for a little leadership from my President.

DolphinDevil28
12-16-2003, 05:37 PM
Also, Clinton had chances to arrest Bin Laden and did not. There is proof of that.

canephin
12-16-2003, 09:07 PM
Look both administrations in my opinion are doing good at what they did or are doing. But i am also tired of hearing people complain so much about Bush and how hes hurt the economy and crap. Wasn't it Bush's plan to take care of home and country that won him the election. I remember it like it was yesterday, Bush was talkin about fixing schools and taking care of ourselves before going to other countries, but when September 11th came what happend? Well just like any other administration would have done they had to retaliate (Pearl Harbor) and when its this kind of act (terrorism) then the only way to go is not at a country as it started out being but after groups of people such as Bin Ladens group the alkida, and many others but when word came his way that Suddam was supplying these groups and could even have the potential to even put a nuclear weapon in there hands then you have a serious problem compiled with the fact that Suddam still isn't letting anyone into his country to do inspections, so you tell me with as much millitary inteligence what you would have done. I know what i would have done. I would have come on to the American people and said were going after Suddam because he has WMD, he has all the leads to it and were goin after him.

Granted it took the military like 5 weeks before they were even let in the area so you wanna tell me that thats not enough time to disasemble and remove that equipment, oh no thats right it was only the either war head or missile that needed to be taken away, so the average time it takes to get that disasembles is uh one to two days depending on quality of help. So how long do you think it took to drive it out of there. Now when we get there we find the what equipment thats right, so you wanna tell me theres all this equipment and stuff and all the right scientist in the world out of work to make a WMD and a lunatic mad enough to give it to someone that thinks there doing Gods work by killing us. Take all that into consideration and tell me if you wouldn't have gone in there. And tell me you wouldn't leave until you knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that this country would not fall into the same hands that it was in before. The Bush administration is making sure that this country is no longer a threat and trying to get support for it. I think that it sucks to have people die around you that you knew and loved in fact there are no words to describe how it feels, but i am heavily considering goin into the millitary myself and i think that the best way for this country to be effective is to no matter what follow and stand behind every move our president makes and yes i liked Bill Clinton i think he was a great president, not so great of a person to watch from a moral perspective but a commander and chief.

Mr.Murder
12-17-2003, 02:08 AM
Bush was playing golf for an extended vacation and getting a job approval rating in the mid to low 30s before 9-11 and the SENTATE INTEL BRIEFINGS show he was given Bin Laden's name in writing, the motive of attack, the possible locales, and the possible day of one being Muslim signifigant politically or otherwise (which would be 9-11).

Leadership ? Leadership? WISE leadership is what want not appointed leadership that is faulted.

Cheney is trying to block the energy task force appointment of ENRON scam artist Ken Lay's disclosure, he deserves our tax dollars and further oversight of utilites and water?
As for Iraq , they were never a threat to us, only to perhaps Israel (another country in violation of 1441 and numerous other UN mandates).
The country was not in his hands when he was captured, rather the hands of some of SAddam's REPUBLICAN GUARD. Saddam was not a democrat his soldiers were Republican Guard... let us not mince words.
What election promise has Bush kept? Nobody from ENRON was jailed like he promised, in fact some of them were Cheney's appointments. Education was underfunded. Health care's overhaul helps only drug companies and prevents us from leveraging fair prices for medicine to make the gov't end of the burden greater than previous. VERY UNWISE.

Hans Blix the chief inspector was kept out of postwar Iraq for a reason- he could have determined it was a sham reason for going further than he previously hinted.
Nice answer to the plan to cut back 200 VA hospitals at a time of war also. Ignore the truth does not make it go away, and stating lies repeatedly does not make them true, both of your argument lines fail in these important regards.

No WMDs, the rumor of Niger was confirmed by Britain who had no embassy there so they had no leads to verify. Phil WIlson has stated as much, and he was sent there to verify. Experienced dilpomat/ intel background makes his words weigh heavier than a white house the "forgot" who made the statements.


1227 if war was part of the plan for decades it seems we have found the key components.... Bush Sr. from CIA , Texas Oil/War lobby, and El Presidente with direct ties to guns for terror Ollie North and a sordid slew of others.

Truly now more than ever it is time for a regime change here.

sammyeaglesfan
12-17-2003, 05:22 AM
Are you a history major ? :)

PhinPhan1227
12-17-2003, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by Mr.Murder
No WMDs, the rumor of Niger was confirmed by Britain who had no embassy there so they had no leads to verify. Phil WIlson has stated as much, and he was sent there to verify. Experienced dilpomat/ intel background makes his words weigh heavier than a white house the &quot;forgot&quot; who made the statements.


1227 if war was part of the plan for decades it seems we have found the key components.... Bush Sr. from CIA , Texas Oil/War lobby, and El Presidente with direct ties to guns for terror Ollie North and a sordid slew of others.

Truly now more than ever it is time for a regime change here.

Two points here...

ONE...WMD's fall into thrre categories....Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical. The Niger rumor was ONLY concerning nuclear components. The evidence relating to the biological and chemical weapons has NEVER been disputed....

TWO...WAR has been ongoing with terrorists since before the Munich Olympics. Over the last decade, that war has greatly escalated. The majority of that escalation took place during Clintons era.

Lastly, the next true war we fight may very well be with the Chinese. Pity that we won't have much of a technological advantage when we do. Thanks again Bill!!!!

Mr.Murder
12-17-2003, 05:38 PM
And the Bush league's free trade plans including an outsource of the bomb detonators we now use to a chinese supplier. source:AFL-CIO, cspan free trade discussion.
You need to stop blaming Clinton for the uber-chimp's shortcomings...

PhinPhan1227
12-18-2003, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by Mr.Murder
And the Bush league's free trade plans including an outsource of the bomb detonators we now use to a chinese supplier. [i] source:AFL-CIO[/], cspan free trade discussion.
You need to stop blaming Clinton for the uber-chimp's shortcomings...

Bush has plenty of faults, and plenty of his policies I disagree with. But Bush didn't give China technology that will allow their missiles to reach US soil....Bill Clinton DID.

Mr.Murder
12-18-2003, 11:57 AM
We would not give such if we did not believe we had sufficient tech upgrade to overcome such. See also how we unloaded WW1 era ordinance to saddam in the form of gas weapons...
Perhaps these are strict hard target deployments that we can monitor as well. The Clintons are globalists as well and Hillairy needs to stay in her senate spot. The white house has enough of both. At least Bill did not sell off almost every job remaining, he kept the medium to upper scale works intact and all of the white collar jobs.
Bush even tried to give away transport jobs by letting truckers take their loads to destination when the scrutiny for safety/insurance for Mexican drivers is nonexistant. Unions pressure helped to stop such and as a result our highways are safer.

Continue this debate please, and change your nic to punch clown while you're at it, you are lasting into the fourth round... same way Bush will last to a fourth year.

Mr.Murder
12-18-2003, 12:05 PM
Also, Clinton had chances to arrest Bin Laden and did not. There is proof of that.

Elaborate please...

ohall
12-18-2003, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by Phishstix


OK, what does terrorism have to do with Saddam?

Everything. This is the man that was paying Palestinian families 25k for each homicide bombing on Israel. Not to mention the numerous unsupported reports (at this time) that place terrorist groups training in Iraqi the past 2 decades.

How about the terrorism going on right now in Iraq that Saddam is bank rolling, or rather was bank rolling?

We’re very fortunate to have a President smart enough to fight terrorism away from our home soil. Years from now the actions President Bush have taken will come in to sharp focus. Better to have soldiers fighting terrorist on foreign soil than having every day citizens dieing on our home soil. It’s pure genius.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
12-18-2003, 03:17 PM
Lol...nice leap of faith. Someone with your Marxist leanings should CERTAINLY remember that Lenin claimed that the West would sell the Communists the rope with which they would be hung. It's especially funny that you would take that position considering the Dems staunch opposition to a missile defense system of ANY sort.



Originally posted by Mr.Murder
We would not give such if we did not believe we had sufficient tech upgrade to overcome such. See also how we unloaded WW1 era ordinance to saddam in the form of gas weapons...
Perhaps these are strict hard target deployments that we can monitor as well. The Clintons are globalists as well and Hillairy needs to stay in her senate spot. The white house has enough of both. At least Bill did not sell off almost every job remaining, he kept the medium to upper scale works intact and all of the white collar jobs.
Bush even tried to give away transport jobs by letting truckers take their loads to destination when the scrutiny for safety/insurance for Mexican drivers is nonexistant. Unions pressure helped to stop such and as a result our highways are safer.

Continue this debate please, and change your nic to punch clown while you're at it, you are lasting into the fourth round... same way Bush will last to a fourth year.

Mr.Murder
12-19-2003, 12:09 AM
Marxist? Marx bothers would be the deaf mute that is our executive branch... no transparancey, continually striking down records or holding closed doors meetings.

PhinPhan1227
12-19-2003, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by Mr.Murder
Marxist? Marx bothers would be the deaf mute that is our executive branch... no transparancey, continually striking down records or holding closed doors meetings.

Lovely rhetoric, but it doesn't change the fact that your trying to excuse the sale of missile technology that will allow China to threaten us directly, and you're using the missile defense shield which nobody but the GOP has been fighting for.

Mr.Murder
12-19-2003, 09:49 PM
Maybe they want to allow missile technolgy to develop to force funding on it... same way we gave soviets strategic aircraft technology at the end of WW2. Anyways Saddam, how 'bout those WMD? Oh ,never mind regime change was more important!
Nice to see your doubletake on unions as well. When it suits you and is politically expedient then it part of wise policy otherwise it is detrimental as usual.
Another mushroom cloud in the making for sure... let's go to war now. They estimated we needs 5 to 1 kill ration to win a land war with China, and were watching their body count from nam closely as a result. if China is such a threat why no push for Taiwan's independance? Bush basically squelched such and said he would not support that effort as part of his 'unfair trade' agreement.

Clinton's fromer ambassador to China is Bush's ambassador to Taiwan and is the head of the US chamber of commerce there. They are such a threat that we have become business buddies.'Spose selling away our jobs to people working for comparative slave labor is part of being a good patriotic american and good 'ol boy...par for the course.

PhinPhan1227
12-22-2003, 09:31 AM
Wow, again....wow. China stands to become one of the largest economies in the world...they're a nation with a long history of opposition to the West...they're a repressive regime...and they have never hesitated to expand at the expense of their neighbors...yet somehow they're NOT a threat? At least the Russians still consider themselves Westerners. The Chinese consider everyone else inferior, and have shown NO desire to become a partner in the world community. China is and will remain the biggest threat to the US for a VERY long time. As for Unions, I've never flip flopped on them. There ARE a few good Unions. Not many, but a few. For the most part they're just like every other large organization. They started out with a good idea, but size and momentum have twisted that idea. They now exist primarily for one sole reason...to KEEP existing. The benefit of their members is secondary at best.

Mr.Murder
12-24-2003, 06:44 AM
China is so bad, why did W's bro the pardoned felon Neil Bush take the most lobby money from their interest for free trade and why did Shrubya send more jobs there via unfair trade and why did Bush let it be known he will no support taiwan's efforts to become independant of China?

PhinPhan1227
12-24-2003, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by Mr.Murder
China is so bad, why did W's bro the pardoned felon Neil Bush take the most lobby money from their interest for free trade and why did Shrubya send more jobs there via unfair trade and why did Bush let it be known he will no support taiwan's efforts to become independant of China?

As for unfair trade, every US President has been guilty of kissing their asses since Carter. For Taiwan, open support of their independance is a big step towards open war on the island, which would be a huge body count. I disagree with Bush's support of the status quo with China...but at least he didn't sell them the knife which they may eventually stick us with.

Mr.Murder
12-24-2003, 04:35 PM
Hmmm actually this started with Nixon's detente and his rumored chinese whore's affair who slept at the Presidential yacht... remeber Kissinger was the one face that was a constant and he appeared at the "Marco Polo" award ceremony along with Bush leaguers!
Let us not mince words here, place the blame where it 'LAYS" with Ken/Cheney/Bush ENRON stop avoiding the issue...

Mr.Murder
12-24-2003, 06:09 PM
Undaunted by this Herculean task, Rice agreed to the request, and the clueless Bush Jr. quickly became dependent on her smartitude. Her excellent tutoring paid tremendous dividends in shining moments like Bush's 1999 interview with a Boston TV reporter, in which he was unable to name the president of Pakistan while praising the military coup which created the anonymous fellow's dictatorship.(rotten.com)

Condie rice is a landmark of great policy decisions perhaps we will shed further light on the china free trade with that impressive early work she accomplishewd with SHrubya...
Rice had all the qualifications for membership in the new Bush administration — a close personal bond with the president, the ability to make him look good (well, less bad) and (needless to say) deep ties to the oil industry. Chevron even named a tanker after her. Rice was a former member of the board of directors of Chevron, as well as Charles Schwab, Transamerica, Hewlett Packard and The Rand Corporation.


Rice also brought her silver-tongued diplomacy to the Arab world, reassuring panicky Arab leaders that the U.S. only wanted to bring "diplomacy and freedom" to all the nations of the Middle East, which just what the monarchists, theocrats and dictators wanted to hear. The response in a Jordanian newspaper was pretty typical:

"As for you, black Condoleezza Rice, swallow your tongue, remember your origins and stop talking about liberation and freedom. Have you not been taught by your cowboy masters that 'slaves' cannot liberate themselves, that they are not capable to capture the large Islamic world whose cultural roots are planted in the depths of history. The slaves who are happy with their enslavement, O Condoleezza, will continue to be enslaved. They will never be free and will never free others."
(rotten.com)

1977 Intern, U.S. State Department.
1980 Intern, Rand Corporation.
1982 Becomes a Republican.
1986 Begins working for the Reagan administration as part of a Council on Foreign Relations fellowship.
1989 Appointed to National Security Council by George HW Bush. Bush, introducing Rice to Gorbachev: "This is Condoleezza Rice. She tells me everything I know about the Soviet Union."
17 Mar 1989 "I started looking around for a major and I needed one that I could finish quick. I like politics, I wasn't quite clear on what political science was, but it sounded interesting." Washington Post

1991 Named a trustee, Rand Corporation, where she serves until 1997.
7 May 1991 Named a director, Chevron Corporation.
7 Oct 1991 Named a director, Transamerica Corporation (exact date is an estimate).
1993 Appointed provost, Stanford University.
1995 Chevron names their largest oil tanker (136,000 tons) the Condoleezza Rice.

1998 Meets with George HW Bush at Kennebunkport during the summer, to discuss foreign policy.
1 Jul 1999 Resigns provostship at Stanford University to heklp with George HW Bush's campaign. Her fellow "foreign policy Vulcans" were Dick Cheney, George Schultz, and Paul Wolfowitz.
1 Jul 1999 Appointed senior fellow, Hoover Institute.
15 Jan 2001 Resigns as a director of Chevron.
22 Jan 2001 Appointed National Security Advisor by George W Bush.
May 2001 Oil tanker Condoleezza Rice renamed to Altair Voyager. Chevron's Fred Gorell: "We made the change to eliminate unnecessary attention caused by the vessel’s original name." This was likely done at the behest of the Bush Administration, but nobody is saying anything. Multinational Monitor.
16 May 2002 At a press conference, Condoleezza Rice declares: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon -- that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."
13 Nov 2002 National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice declares: "He already has other weapons of mass destruction. But a nuclear weapon, two or three our four years from now -- I don't care where it is, when it is -- to have that happen in a volatile region like the Middle East is most certainly a future that we cannot tolerate."
12 May 2003 National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice declares: "U.S. officials never expected that we were going to open garages and find weapons of mass destruction."
13 Jul 2003 National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice tells Fox News Sunday: "I believe that we will find the truth, and I believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."
24 Sep 2003 While interviewing National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on his television show The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly declares: "Last March, I stuck up for you guys. After Colin Powell went to the United Nations -- and I said on Good Morning America that I believed that we were right to go to war, the United States, based upon weapons of mass destruction and the danger that Saddam posed. And I also said to Good Morning America: if the weapons found to be bogus, I'd have to apologize for my stance. Do I have to apologize?" Rice says no, but offers no specific evidence for the existence of WMDs in Iraq.
10 Nov 2003 During a five-minute interview via satellite with Fox affiliate WTVT-TV, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice declares: "I think that the administration has made it clear that we have no evidence and have never claimed a direct link of Saddam Hussein and his regime to the events of September 11th, saying that he planned them or controlled them or something. It is very clear that he had links to terrorism that were broad and deep, including numerous contacts with al Qaeda, including an al Qaeda associate, a man named al Zarqawi, who was operating his network out of Baghdad. The network that ended up ordering the killing of an American citizen, an American diplomat in Jordan, Mr. Foley. So, yes, Saddam Hussein had links to al Qaeda, links to terrorism. But we have never claimed that he had a direct link to the September 11th events."


Cleary this is just too much info to post here, but ONE ITEM WAS LEFT.... 1996 The Hua Mei affair, in which during the Clinton administration, American military technology secrets are allegedly passed to Red China. Rice refuses interviews on this matter.
FOR FINAL EMPHASIS.

The closest info I could search follow- up to is a right wing group whose posts laud Bush Sr. for blocking China trade agreemenns, guess the clown is busy learning mandarin and chopstick eitiquette now that Junior is all up the Chinese free trade wazoo...

Anyways this wonderful attempt to tie all of this Hua Mei technology transfer,( some of which could be used for things as simple as ATM) into a military coup of tech weapons has a strange connection to Bush that until today is overllooked. The ability to make a country that size smaller with tech upgrades was a definite economic leverage for unfair trade market dominance that Bush has since brought to fruition!
The transfer of information occured at Stanford University while Condie Rice was there and she had previous State Dep't posts under papa Bush! No wonder she refuses to respond interview requests for this!
In the 1997 investigation, Provost Condoleezza Rice said, "we'll follow what is a normal process under these circumstances,"

Vice Provost and Dean of Research Charles Kruger stated the University will "explore the situation" with Lewis.

"Similar issues arise quite frequently," Rice added. "It's not all that unusual that issues arise concerning conflict of interest," she said.

Quite prophetic indeed. It seems that a clintonite named lewis was the implicated wrongdoer from the US side since the supposed "TECH SWAP" trade was information already known and thus not of signifigant value.
Now the disclosure of how much of this we DID know could very well have breached our code of ethics for source cover and that the web site(softwar) and each of the parties involved at Stanford(CR included) says a lot about what kind of poor serivce level Rice has shown since this occurred under her post and her previous experience should have prevented such breach occurrences.
It was Clinton's fault that a Bush post at a sensitive security oversight job let security divulgence occur with another country.

Thanks I am feel so much safer knowing Ms. Yellowcake was the provost of this department when such occurred. Inspire me more, the deeper you dig in Bush league policy the worse it gets...

PhinPhan1227
12-29-2003, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by Mr.Murder
Hmmm actually this started with Nixon's detente and his rumored chinese whore's affair who slept at the Presidential yacht... remeber Kissinger was the one face that was a constant and he appeared at the &quot;Marco Polo&quot; award ceremony along with Bush leaguers!
Let us not mince words here, place the blame where it 'LAYS&quot; with Ken/Cheney/Bush ENRON stop avoiding the issue...

Yep...Bush and Co were the ones who caused Enron. No question. I'm sure that the Dems who tried to tie him into it saw all this evidence and just said..."oh well". Face facts Murder...if there was ANY link between Enron and Bush that wasn't mirrorred by Clinton and Co, the Dems would have plastered it all over ever newsroom in America. They couldn't find it. Sorry, but I'll take their efforts over your's and whatever crackpot websites you care to dredge up.

Mr.Murder
12-29-2003, 08:11 PM
Crackpot websites? Bush/Cheney's own campaign funding listing? You are right, they are crackpots.
All of those letter that are public record of Bush sending love letters to "Kenny boy" Lay of ENRON proves the Clintons made mistakes all right. Great line of reasoning.
Condie Rice was at Stanford when Missile secrets made their way to CHina, and that is definitely Clinton's fault. That is public record,if Condie is so great why does refuse interviews on this matter?

Bush league tactic- lost the argument , resort to namecalling instead of replies with FACTS.

PhinPhan1227
12-30-2003, 10:26 AM
Answer the question...why, if there was malfeasance on the part of any of Bush's group, didn't the Dems in Congress pursue it? God knows they were looking for ANYTHING to get a network soundbite after the Clinton thing...so why did they drop it? Do tell?

Mr.Murder
12-31-2003, 12:05 AM
How much of Bush's voting record was scrutinized? How many times was he bailed out of debates, how many times was follow-up to his statements cut off? He was spoon fed every step of they way.
Gore was such a "meanie" was the main point of every debate. Yeah that was a real merit issue. We deserved better from the media in this as well. It seems Gore tried to pursue such but was just a big ol' debate meanie...
The money trail leads to W, and that is a matter of public record. keep trying to spin it otherwise all you want. A spade is still a spade...

And you still refuse reply on Ms.Yellowcake's malfeasances as well... you are right, it was Clinton's fault that her oversight was part of the missile weapons scam. If she had nothing to do with the matter why does she still refuse interview???

PhinPhan1227
12-31-2003, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by Mr.Murder
How much of Bush's voting record was scrutinized? How many times was he bailed out of debates, how many times was follow-up to his statements cut off? He was spoon fed every step of they way.
Gore was such a &quot;meanie&quot; was the main point of every debate. Yeah that was a real merit issue. We deserved better from the media in this as well. It seems Gore tried to pursue such but was just a big ol' debate meanie...
The money trail leads to W, and that is a matter of public record. keep trying to spin it otherwise all you want. A spade is still a spade...

And you still refuse reply on Ms.Yellowcake's malfeasances as well... you are right, it was Clinton's fault that her oversight was part of the missile weapons scam. If she had nothing to do with the matter why does she still refuse interview???

I refuse to reply because I have no information on the matter. If I get information from both sides I'll feel free to comment on it. As for Bush, which voting record would that be? The man was a GOVERNOR!!! Governors don't vote on ANYTHING!!! You want to scrutinize his voting record? Here you go.....IT DOESN'T EXIST!! Now, wasn't that simple? Once again...if there was evidence of wrong-doing, the DNC would have plastered it all over the media, and the media would have eaten it up. It didn't happen because it isn't there.

Mr.Murder
12-31-2003, 11:11 PM
A dozen letter from Bush to Ken Lay are no evidence that he had any dealings/knowledge of ENRON in his own state, and proof of financial backing.WHile he was Governor! And that state's deregulation allowed them to hike pirces in (guess where) CALI!
The Daily Enron is a group of citizens, some of whom were duped in stock purchases others who faced them in enviro battles, and others who were fed up with a 250% increase in power bills for their states/regions at select times...
These people do not pay for commericals on television, and enough reports on regular media have occurred as well (that neo-CON-Men such as the Lay committee and Bush league backers choose to ignore them does not mean they do not exist) that for you to overlook such just shows your logic is clouded by emotion...

AL GORE TRIED TO MENTION SUCH IN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE WAS CUT OFF FROM REPLY AND TERMED A 'BIG MEANIE'.


You refuse to reply because CON-DUH-LIES-UH rice refuses to reply. Or because repliCONS just ignore it and hope it goes away. Why bring it up as debate if it implies republican wrongdoing?
So the ENRON/Ken Lay/fre trade to Taiwan/China thread that even has kissinger's approval and participation in is something you do not care to research or just ignore until it becomes a non-issue to you?
China was first mentioned by yourself as a threat to us with missile technology. I followed it up with the FACT that the technology leak occurred at Stanford while Condie was there... a mere coincidence for sure... her experience with the state dep't should have prevented such things from occurring.
Unless she followed the model of giving Soviets military and nuke technology to escalate an arms war that we had occur post world war 2. Then we see that China would become the main reason to use space technology upgrades for Star Wars anitballistic response.
Well whaddya know! The Carlysle group run by George Sr. is a leader in aerospace research and almost a top ten defense contract group as well!
Another problem being created to profit the Bush league... the same way they propped Saddam until the time was expedient for war!(THREAD TOPIC): He had no ties to Al Queda whatsoever, he avoided them for control motif as stated by Phil Wilson the former CIA assessor. The ONLY area of Iraq found to contain Al Queda operatives was hostile to Saddam throughout, along the Iran border and an area that was the war zone for both countries in their previous ground war. That section still is a hot zone... hopefully the earthquake relief groups can help provide true diplomacy to get inroads there for peace since their demographic is young and less set in ways, more responsive to progressive change.


Most of the world SEES THE BUSH LEAGUE MODEL AS NOT BEING ONE FOR PROGRESS. THAT IS WHY WE MEET GROWING HOSTILITY. DEAN HAS NAILED IT ON THE HEAD, THESE COUNTRIES LOVE OUR PEOPLE THEY HATE THE POLICY OF THE CURRENT "Leader".

PhinPhan1227
01-05-2004, 11:55 AM
As far as Enron/Bush are concerned, I just don't have enough interest to bother researching the matter. I have faith that the DNC's watchdogs did all the digging that was possible on the matter. Had there been anything of substance, they would have presented it to the media. They didn't...therefore there isn't. Either that or they're incompitant. As for deregulation, it was CALIFORNIA'S deregulation that got them in trouble, not Texas'!!! How about just a SMIDGEN of accountability here? And what, no comment about the fact that you're looking for a voting record from Bush? Sheesh, now you need to take econ 101, amer hist 101, AND civics 101? You're going to be a busy puppy this semester.

Mr.Murder
01-05-2004, 10:00 PM
Accountability... Bush is ENRON's #1 donation recipient...FACT. From thier own disclosure statements, many of the people in the group following them are republicans who were bilked of 401k funds... try again with smear tactics. The facts show you wrong.
Oh, by the way the CALI deregulation began under Pete Wilson and the majority of it became enacted under Davis. Yell at me about accountability, when the prvodier source was out of state and thus needed further federal regulatory asistance that Bush jr. helped squelch whilst Lay, and Neil Bush were lobbying "Ahnold"...

PhinPhan1227
01-06-2004, 09:36 AM
California's woes were California's fault. If other people took advantage of thier mistakes, that may not be the nicest thing in the world, but it's hardly illegal. And where the flock does Arnold come into play? And you're still not acknowledging the fact that you apparently don't know the difference between a Governor and a Congressman?

Mr.Murder
01-06-2004, 10:45 PM
Pete Wilson set into action the deregulation schemes, strangeley enough commerce across state lines becomes a federal issue yet was conveniently overlooked in this aspect.
The energy lobby has its money with the recall effort and that same lobby made businesss leave Cali in droves. I see no connection whatsoever. By the way this thread is about the war.
It seems things are worse now,Saddam is captured, people still want us out. We are still spending over ten times the "conservative" estimates first given... gee those conservatives are so unconservative.

PhinPhan1227
01-08-2004, 09:34 AM
Right...the thread is about the war(so why din't you stick to that in the first place?). So here's the bottom line....building a Democracy takes time. It's taken time in every instance where we have done it. Oh...and how many times are you going to try and ignore the fact that you don't know the difference between a Senator and a Governor?

dolfan06
01-08-2004, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Right...the thread is about the war(so why din't you stick to that in the first place?). So here's the bottom line....building a Democracy takes time. It's taken time in every instance where we have done it. Oh...and how many times are you going to try and ignore the fact that you don't know the difference between a Senator and a Governor? this is gettin too deep for me.:(

PhinPhan1227
01-08-2004, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by dolfan06
this is gettin too deep for me.:(

Murder asked about GW's voting record. Since GW has never served in the legistlature at either state or federal levels, he HAS no voting records. Governors and PResidents don't VOTE on anything. They are a majority of one. Bottom line, Murder needs to take a basic Civics class, and I'd just like to see him acknowledge that fact.

dolfan06
01-08-2004, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Murder asked about GW's voting record. Since GW has never served in the legistlature at either state or federal levels, he HAS no voting records. Governors and PResidents don't VOTE on anything. They are a majority of one. Bottom line, Murder needs to take a basic Civics class, and I'd just like to see him acknowledge that fact. i voted in all the national elections and on a couple of union contracts, but i have no idea who else voted on what!:( ;)

PhinPhan1227
01-09-2004, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by dolfan06
i voted in all the national elections and on a couple of union contracts, but i have no idea who else voted on what!:( ;)

Lol...THAT voting record is confidential. Although we can hope and assume that he DID vote for his dad in his Primary and Presidential elections...:cool:

Mr.Murder
01-09-2004, 07:57 PM
Bush as Governor sent a lovely list of letters to Ken Lay, initiated legislation at the state level for him as well, I have already printed those and 1227 has overlooked them... let me restate his ties for those who have overlooked it or are new to this forum... as for 1227 he has no excuse, overlooking facts in a standard M.O. (method/ops) for the NeoCon-men...



FACT:
Top Presidential Recipients
of Enron Contributions, 1989-2001*


Name Total
George W. Bush (R)
$113,800

Bob Dole (R)
$95,650

Al Gore (D)
$13,750

George H. W. Bush (R)*
$13,000

Bill Clinton (D)
$11,000 NOTE: Totals do not include the 1988 election cycle, when George H.W. Bush first ran for president.




*Based on FEC data downloaded 11/1/01.
More Faux News please! Stop spouting their swill propaganda and look into public records!

Political Giving in Texas

Enron has been a prolific financial supporter of George W. Bush’s political career, beginning first with Bush’s successful bid for Texas governor in 1994. Texans for Public Justice, an Austin-based non-profit research group, found in a January 2000 study that Enron was the biggest corporate supporter of Bush’s 1994 and 1998 gubernatorial campaigns in Texas, with its employees contributing more than $312,000 during the two races. Of that total, former Enron chief Kenneth Lay contributed $100,000, making him one of the most generous individual contributors to Bush on the state level. Click here for TPJ's searchable database of contributors to Bush's state campaigns.

AND IT GETS BETTER:

Four years later, Enron gave at least $500,000 to the San Diego host committee, according to the Republican National Committee. In 2000, Enron donated $250,000 to the Philadelphia convention committee. However, none of the totals include the virtually undisclosed amounts of money Enron spent on parties and receptions at the conventions. For example, Enron in 2000 helped to throw a lavish luncheon in honor of then-vice-presidential candidate Dick Cheney. And while the company didn’t contribute directly to any of the last three Democratic National Conventions, Enron did throw parties for some of its closest friends there...


AND STILL MORE GRAFT...Corporate Jets

On top of its political contributions, Enron also made its company jet readily available to the Bush-Cheney campaign during the 1999-2000 election cycle at a greatly reduced price. An analysis of Federal Election Commission records shows that Bush-Cheney paid Enron roughly $60,000 for use of its jet during the campaign. Federal rules permit such use, as long as the campaigns reimburse the company for the cost of a first-class plane ticket—a major bargain, considering corporate jets cost at least $1,000 per flight hour, not including other charges. The Center analyzed Bush's corporate jet use in the Winter 2000 issue of Capital Eye.

Contributions to Attorney General John Ashcroft

Attorney General John Ashcroft, who recused himself from the Justice Department’s criminal probe of fallen energy giant Enron, raised a total of $57,499 from the company for his failed 2000 Senate campaign. Nearly half of that total -- $25,000 – was given by former Enron CEO Kenneth Lay to Ashcroft’s joint fund fundraising committee in the form of soft money. The Ashcroft Victory Committee also raised another $25,000 in soft money directly from Enron Corp., bringing that committee’s total take from Enron to $50,000. Ashcroft raised a total of $2,500 from Enron employees in his campaign account during the 1999-2000 election cycle. The money arrived from five Enron employees on the same day – June 1, 1999 – and in identical amounts of $500. The Enron PAC contributed $4,999 to Ashcroft’s campaign committee in 1999-2000.

Over 50 high-level Bush administration officials have had meaningful ties to the now defunct energy company. For example, the Secretary of the Army Thomas E. White worked at Enron for nearly two decades, and he served as vice chairman of Enron Energy Services. The President's top economic advisor Lawrence B. Lindsey and Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick served on Enron's advisory board. According to financial disclosure forms, at least 40 administration officials owned Enron stock. These officials include senior officials at the White House, the Departments of the Treasury, Commerce, and State, the U.S. Trade Representative's office and EPA. The President reportedly refers to Enron CEO Ken Lay by the affectionate nickname "Kenny Boy

Enron Campaign Contributions to Bush, DeLay and GOP
So how exactly did Ken Lay and Enron have so much influence on George W. Bush, his White House, and congressional Republicans? The answer is simple: money.

Enron Corporation is President Bush's number-one career patron, having given him more money throughout his political career than any other contributor. Enron Corporation PAC, and Enron executives, employees and their family members contributed a total of $736,800 to President Bush from 1993 to 2001. Enron also contributed $250,000 to the Republican National Convention for its 2000 convention.

Kenneth and Linda Lay gave $276,500 to George W. Bush from 1993 to 2000, including $100,000 to the President's inaugural fund, $10,000 to his election recount fund and $40,000 to his 1999 State Victory Fund Committee.


But it was not just the Bush campaign that raked in Enron contributions. From 1989-2001, Enron Corporation PAC, and Enron executives, employees and their family members gave a total of $5,951,570 in hard and soft money to federal candidates and parties. Of this amount, 74% ($4,404,162) went to Republicans and 26% ($1,547,408) to Democrats.


More specifically, one of the top House Republican leaders has been a big beneficiary of Enron contributions and is deeply tied to Enron.Not only has Tom DeLay raised a lot of money from Enron, but his top staff have raked in Enron consulting fees. Ed Buckham, Karl Gallant and John Hoy were awarded a $750,000 contract by Americans for Affordable Electricity, an Enron-funded coalition, after DeLay recommended to Enron that they hire the team. (Roll Call, 2/25/02) His connections to Enron are so strong that "some call DeLay the 'congressman from Enron,'." (The National Journal June 3, 2000om DeLay and his political network have collected more than $200,000 from Enron and its executives over the last seven years.

From 1989-2000, Majority Whip Tom DeLay has raked in more than $28,000 from Enron's PAC and employees for his congressional campaign. His PAC, Americans for a Republican Majority (ARMPAC) got $50,000 in soft money from Enron in 2001. Enron gave $10,000 in soft money to ARMPAC in 2000, and between 1995-2000 Enron and its employees gave $47,250 in hard money. Kenneth Lay gave $50,000 to Republican Majority Issues Committee in 2000 - another one of DeLay's fundraising operations. (Roll Call, 2/25/02)




» May 22, 1997: Enron, EX-IM, and a Secretive Gov. Bush
In May 1997 Enron executives wrote and asked Gov. Bush to urge the Texas Congressional delegation to support authorization and appropriation for the Export-Import Bank. Gov. Bush did not provide a written response to Enron, however Shirley Green, former Bush correspondence director, composed a hand-written note describing the communication between the governor and Ken Lay regarding Ex-Im. She notes that, "...the Gov is no fan of Ex-Im but didn't want to put it on paper." This is a perfect example of both the close relationship between Enron and Bush as well as the secretive nature of the Bush Adminstration.

» December 21, 1994: Letter from Ken Lay to Gov.-Elect Bush
Ken Lay asks Governor-elect George Bush to consider Pat Wood for the post at the Public Utility Commission. Lay also addresses tort reform.

» June 5, 1997: Letter from Ken Lay to Governor Bush
Ken Lay writes to Gov. Bush complimenting him on his work towards energy deregulation.

» July 1996: Ken Lay writes Bush
Ken Lay writes to Gov. George W. Bush to push for deregulation of the Texas energy markets.

» May 1995: Ken Lay writes Gov. Bush pushing for deregulation
Ken Lay writes to Texas Gov. George Bush pushing utility deregulation









» May 22, 1997: Enron, EX-IM, and a Secretive Gov. Bush
In May 1997 Enron executives wrote and asked Gov. Bush to urge the Texas Congressional delegation to support authorization and appropriation for the Export-Import Bank. Gov. Bush did not provide a written response to Enron, however Shirley Green, former Bush correspondence director, composed a hand-written note describing the communication between the governor and Ken Lay regarding Ex-Im. She notes that, "...the Gov is no fan of Ex-Im but didn't want to put it on paper." This is a perfect example of both the close relationship between Enron and Bush as well as the secretive nature of the Bush Adminstration.

» December 21, 1994: Letter from Ken Lay to Gov.-Elect Bush
Ken Lay asks Governor-elect George Bush to consider Pat Wood for the post at the Public Utility Commission. Lay also addresses tort reform.

» June 5, 1997: Letter from Ken Lay to Governor Bush
Ken Lay writes to Gov. Bush complimenting him on his work towards energy deregulation.

» July 1996: Ken Lay writes Bush
Ken Lay writes to Gov. George W. Bush to push for deregulation of the Texas energy markets.

» May 1995: Ken Lay writes Gov. Bush pushing for deregulation
Ken Lay writes to Texas Gov. George Bush pushing utility deregulation.

» Jan. 1997: Personal note from Lay to Gov. Bush


» April 1997: Ken Lay to Gov. Bush
Ken Lay asks Gov. Bush to meet with the visiting ambassador from Uzbekistan where Enron had aspirations of oil and gas ventures.

» April 1997: Personal Note from Bush to Lay


» April 1997: Personal note from Gov. Bush to Lay


» April 199&; Lay to Bush
Ken Lay singles out Texas PUC commissioner, Pat Wood, for praise in this letter to Gov. Bush. Lay later hand picked Wood to head FERC while on the Bush transition team in 2000. Wood consistently backed Enron in Texas regulatory matters.
» Nov. 1998: Personal note from Ken Lay to Gov. Bush


» Dec. 1998: Lay to Gov. Bush
Lay did not always get his way with Gov. Bush. In this letter Lay asks that the Gov. speak at an upcoming conference encouraging American investment in Africa's private sector. Across the top Bush scrawled "No."

» Jan. 1999: Personal note from Gov. Bush to Ken Lay


» April 1999: Personal note from Gov. Bush to Ken Lay


» Ken Lay, George H. Bush & Marco Polo
In 1999 then Texas Governor George H. W. Bush awarded Enron CEO Kenneth Lay the Marco Polo Award. The award recognized Lay for playing "an instrumental role in China's economic development." Henry Kissinger shared the podium with Bush and Lay at the award ceremony. Click on the headline above to view the original documents.

EACH OF THESE IS LISTED AT THE DAILY ENRON

Mr.Murder
01-09-2004, 09:39 PM
I was wrong about pointing Bush's term as Gov and the bed he shared with ENRON, and Pete Wilson's energy deregulation scheme for the rape of Cali taxpayers on powerbills and its effect of driving out state businesses. Bush has erased the need to do so by giving tax break subsidies for outsourcing business so the decision to move out no longer is strictly fiscal need merit formulated.

Now this was about Saddam's capture, and we have troops fighting and suffering causalties since as well.
I'm glad to see saddam captured, and wonder why Cochran is not helping him. Too bad he didnt drive a white bronco around Iraq's capital all day. It would have made better photo ops than the spider hole!

Great news- Ken Lay has promised to pour embezzled cash into the spider hole and fill it up with dollars stolen from taxpayers and prevent Saddam from ever hiding in it again! See how wonderfully this war served smokescreen from the biggest theft of American taxpayers ever! It only took a few hundred soldier's lives and far more injured. Shame on Bush, to stoop new lows for personal gain.


The difference between a Senator and Governor, Shrubya was a gov. and much of his utility work deregulations affected other states. It seems like at the congress was frying big ol' blow job fishes instead of doing real work and a lot of these utility work scams somehow were overlooked.
SO Clinton got less money than a retired president (Shrubya's dad) recieved in lobby money , a sure sign that he was more involved with power /utility/stock fraud than the man whose governor term had wonderful/close ties to Ken Lay. The same chimp whose vice president gave Lay a job with taxpayer money as oversight of utility industry.

Mr.Murder
01-09-2004, 10:50 PM
Right...the thread is about the war(so why din't you stick to that in the first place?). So here's the bottom line....building a Democracy takes time. It's taken time in every instance where we have done it. Oh...and how many times are you going to try and ignore the fact that you don't know the difference between a Senator and a Governor?


Senators, upper legislative branch body, 6 year terms. Simple enough...

The thread was war, but you brought up China, I researched CHina discrepancy and discovered Condie Rice had oversight at Stanford while the weapons technology sam occured there. Then you reiterate China and I brought up the fact the Neil Bush was part of the CHina lobby money for unfair trade.

Neil Bush is also closely connected to ENRON and Ken Lay, damned near as much as his brother who was governor of the state their main business building was located at. Neil Bush was part of embezzle/fraud scheme at Colorado where ENRON's chief legal team was at. Somehow that firm got a guilty plea bargain for treason at a time of war for John Walker Lindh the American Taliban.
Simple enough, the Bush league has very close ties to terror, Cheney's budget to the Talibanw as stricken from record but enough of was already stated to not be forgotten, the chickens will come home to roost soon enough.

Thread topic saddam. He was captured, the fighting continues , simple enough proof that his capture by Kurds did not merit all out celebration and should in no way diminish his dealings with members of the Bush cabinent at previous times.
The war is still going on, the claims that taking him out would stop the fighting were not so. The threat of WMD timeliness was equally false.The REPUBLICAN guard is still well armed and fighting. SO are anti-saddam inusrgents, some of whom were ironically armed by our counterinsurgency efforts.
We went from WMD to Saddam, From Saddam to fighting, from foghting to CHina missile, from China Missile to COndie Rice Stanford Provost security breach, From Condie's missile gap/tech breach to Neil Bush's unfair trade ties/embezzling... all of these good reasons to question the current leadership and why it is spilling our sons and daughters blood elsewhere while ignoring important issues at home.



If this is your idea of great leadership, well we are lucky your idea of terrible is not in office...

PhinPhan1227
01-10-2004, 02:54 AM
Wow...someone forgot to take their Ritalin I see. You're more "all over the map" than Hitler in 1939. Congrats though...you managed to generate three MASSIVE posts, containing hundreds of words(BTW...not too many "Neo-Cons" would vote for Lieberman), and despite that sheer volume, STILL failed to address the fact that you don't know that Governors don't vote. Impressive.

Mr.Murder
01-10-2004, 04:03 AM
Veto is not a vote??? Getting legislation started by members of the state legislature who share the same political party and endorsing it and in effect lobbying such to pass is not a vote of the most obvious kind but is in its own right much of what makes things happen... the executive branch of state legislature has no ability to do this?
AND state judges don't really make rulings they just pass voting scams up to the supreme court also. And state legislators do not mimic legislative ability for seperation of powers either do they? We are just absolutely mistaken about this whole darned gov't notion, glad you were here to straighten it all out for us 1227.
You are so right, veto power is unheard of, only presidents can use it! Not that we would worry about vetos, Bush has most of his wonderufl legistion pass, and his signature just signs into law, much like what most state governor have to do for nonconsenus items. Surely it was just power bills that were consensus and Bush signed them into effect earlier instead of forcing them to sit unsigned until their vote made it law according to procedure and let such legislation work out its bad results otherwise.
Wait a minute who are you trying to fool the record shows enron paid him well so of course he went forward with signing such bills into law to expedite the benefactors while Governor.

PhinPhan1227
01-10-2004, 10:05 AM
A veto and a vote are two different things Murder. For a vote, there must be parity. There is no parity in the executive branch. That's why it's called The Executive Branch. It's singular. But hey...I'm feeling magnanimous, so I'm willing to go with the assumption that maybe you were thinking of the veto when you made that inane comment(highly doubtful...but hey, I'm an optimist). Here's a follow up question...since you keep referring back to the thread topic, why do you find the need to keep linking GW to Enron in all of your posts? I have decent reading skills, but I just can't see how

"Saddam Hussein Captured!!"

reads as

"Lets find links between Bush and Enron"

Damn man, do we have to add basic reading to the list of classes you need to take this Spring?

Mr.Murder
01-13-2004, 11:31 PM
The argument made was that somehow Bush is a wise leader. ENRON's chariman is CURRENTLY on Cheney's energy task force, 86 grand a year of taxpayer's money going to the clown is WISE!
That is thread theme.WISE leadership and how it pertains to Saddam...
Oh but 1227's panties are all soiled over this obvious conclusion of the BUSH IS LOGICAL thread line.
The THREAD LINE is Saddam, and by the way, EVERY intelligence source available HAS PROVEN that SADDAM and Bin Laden were ENEMIES, not allies. All those times Saddam and 9-11 were mentioned the same sentence or referred to as conparative arguments to build up to war were proven falsehoods and as such should NEVER be uttered. tenet said as much from the CIA. O'Neil's papers have proven as much since from his brief Secretary of treasury tenure with this current regime. WISDOM SAID THE TWO WERE NOT CONNECTED AND IT WAS PROVEN.
As for Osama Bin Laden's capture and Clinton these are the facts, the Saudis were the middle men and the reason the deal fell apart. We do not invade the Saudis, instead we invade Iraq who challeneges them as the top Oil producer. How convenient. Saddam's brothers and George SR were PROVEN business buddies and have profited off of this war.Saudis get their business interests covered while being the main link to 9-11. WISDOM!
George bush Sr. left Somalia on Clinton's desk, that was justified deplyoment by 1227's method and the FACT that Bush SR left that problem for others and it fueled Osama more is ignored by 1227. Same way reagan/Bush James baker tucked tail from Lebanon over 200 marines later.WISE BUSH LEAGUE DECISIONS.

Oh you said they would not have soldiers die in vain or put them in harm's way??? History says otherwise. Argue those FACTS.Argue them wisely, you have yet to do so.

So you seem to say the Texas deregualtion scheme Bush helped enact was an override veto vote? Perhaps so but making it stay unsigned would have prevented unfair legislation from going through in time relevant fashion. Shrubya signed it through anyways. That is equal to a near consensus vote level. Only a consensus can override it.
So that is equal to a lot of VOTES in state level voting records. Thanks for giving yourself the opportunity to learn 1227.

PhinPhan1227
01-15-2004, 01:33 PM
Initial thread-"Saddam Captured !! quote:

News reports on CNN that he has been captured, It's close to 3am here in Cali when it was reported


Murder when his assertions are confronted-"By the way this thread is about the war."

Murder when his other assertions are confronted-"The argument made was that somehow Bush is a wise leader. "

So in a nutshell, so long as it's an attack on GW or any other Republican, it's ok to diverge from the topic. Hypocrite.

Mr.Murder
01-16-2004, 09:27 PM
Well it seems you said that the previous post as well. I just got through posting the arguments, why one was comparative to the other, and the heart of the issue in and of itself.
You returned with another barely balanced spin on things!It was nearly 3 AM CST...

Mr.Murder
01-16-2004, 11:03 PM
And as Ken lay and ENRON being relevant, Arthur Andersen attorney James Brosnehan represented American American Taliban who got off with a guilty plea for Treason without death penalty. The Taliban and Bin laden were 9-11, Al Queda as the link... Bush had Taliban visit the ranch in 98, Andersen is ENRON's legal reps who defended the Taliban in treason trial, Al Queda was tied to them as guilt by association and now proven to HAVE NO TIES WHATSOEVER to Saddam in fact both were bitter enemies.

So Bush bashing would point out the FACT that his money/launder crew had ties to the Taliban, a convicted traitor, and the so-called legit reasons for invasion of Iraq.Somehow this is hypocritical of asking why our soldiers have their blood spilled per week in other areas of the world.

Thanks for informing me that FACTs and matter of record, such as 43 million in Taliban funds that Cheney had W strike down from record are in no ways tied to the blood-money oil trail...

You are so right, it is hypocrites who ask why we funded terror and defend them and then go to war with their enemies as well.The Bush regime has ties to these people as a Gov and president through his father's Carlysle group and in Oil matters with Cheney are matters of public record. FACTS being applied in relevant fashion are hypocritical?


Saddam had no ties to Al Queda, Bin Laden family did. That was the initial reason for war with Iraq and its WMD program which was no threat.

Iraq's technology was all world war one items, none of which were deployable threats. Their trench warfare used artillery and crop dusters for trench fights with WW one technology. Our GPS assistance was also part of what coordinated such attacks in their war with Iran.
Without our guidance coordinates they were little threat. Inspections had destroyed/ rendered useless their delivery capability as well.
So Saddam is out now, a guy we helped entrench power with, a country we destabilized covertly and overtly, which was third world status in both military and industrial capacity. And we are supposed to feel safer...we never were threatened by him.
So who are we siding with now that are Saddam like? Countries in Africa that have recently killed 2 million christians, or countries who did illegal oil aquisition/occupations, or countries who have killed union workers, workers rights representatives.

The saying is you get what you pay for? We paid for this? In blood and deficit? True repubs, stubborn frugal elephants, would have nothing to do with this gross misspent big gov't fiasco. True Dems would have nothing to do with a war on false premise that has let focus off of our country and its economy and standard living occur.

Dems were mules because that came along with the 40 acres and the promise of a better tommorrow as you did your part in clearing the land accessing economy and value.They would let some issue slide but their kick would have many behind it.
Repubs were stubborn strong slow to act sure to move powerbrokers.Fewer in number, bigger in cash size and ethic value.
Bush is neither,
NO ETHIC WHATSOEVER, QUICK TO ACT IN UNWISE FASHION HE IS A TRAITOR TO REPUKE IDEAS. NO FUTURE HOPE NO PRESENT INCLUSIVE PLAN, NO LEADERSHIP AS THE ONE WHO FACILITATES LIKE THE MULE IN THE FIELD(AKA DEMOS)- BUSH IS A POLITICAL ANOMALIES(ANOMA-LIES) INCARNATE .

PhinPhan1227
01-17-2004, 11:24 PM
The point is Murder, the thread started as a discussion on the capture of Saddam Hussein. An inteligent line of discussion would have included the Pro's and Cons of an Iraq without Saddam. You however are incapable of having ANY discussion that doesn't include an attack on GW. HAtred not only blinds, it makes people stupid as well. Lol...it's funny that you bring up the history of the Democratic and Republican parties(I'm a registered Independant btw, but since you've never let facts bother you before, why now?). The Republican PArty was founded to oppose the slave holding Democrats. In point of fact, the SOLE platform of the Republican Party at it's inception was an end to the spread of slavery. Before you idolize any of the parties, perhaps you should know where they came from? Theo hood wearing Klansmen in Alabama weren't Republicans Murder.

dolfan06
01-17-2004, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
The point is Murder, the thread started as a discussion on the capture of Saddam Hussein. An inteligent line of discussion would have included the Pro's and Cons of an Iraq without Saddam. You however are incapable of having ANY discussion that doesn't include an attack on GW. HAtred not only blinds, it makes people stupid as well. Lol...it's funny that you bring up the history of the Democratic and Republican parties(I'm a registered Independant btw, but since you've never let facts bother you before, why now?). The Republican PArty was founded to oppose the slave holding Democrats. In point of fact, the SOLE platform of the Republican Party at it's inception was an end to the spread of slavery. Before you idolize any of the parties, perhaps you should know where they came from? Theo hood wearing Klansmen in Alabama weren't Republicans Murder. i think the best comments about life in iraq without saddam, come from a little town in michigan, called dearborn!:(

PhinPhan1227
01-17-2004, 11:46 PM
I heard an Iraqi expat on NPR a few days ago. He lamented the fact that his fellow Liberals were the ones who were opposed to the war, for the most part only because of their hatred of GW. He pointed out that supporting Saddam is supporting Fascism. And supporting fascism just because you hate GW would be like supporting Hitler because you didn't like FDR.

dolfan06
01-17-2004, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
I heard an Iraqi expat on NPR a few days ago. He lamented the fact that his fellow Liberals were the ones who were opposed to the war, for the most part only because of their hatred of GW. He pointed out that supporting Saddam is supporting Fascism. And supporting fascism just because you hate GW would be like supporting Hitler because you didn't like FDR. they interviewed a bunch of iraqis that had been in this country for 15-20 years because of saddam!:(

PhinPhan1227
01-18-2004, 04:42 AM
He was one of them. An author who was finally returning. He described himself as liberal, and someone who generally leaned towards the left. That was why it pained him so to see those with whom he identified himself aligning against his peoples freedom, for such a horrible reason.

dolfan06
01-18-2004, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
He was one of them. An author who was finally returning. He described himself as liberal, and someone who generally leaned towards the left. That was why it pained him so to see those with whom he identified himself aligning against his peoples freedom, for such a horrible reason. there is a whole community in michigan. most are in political exile!:(

Mr.Murder
01-21-2004, 01:42 AM
EVERY republican voted against desegregation, the "dixiecrats" helped with it... that gets overlooked conveniently. The civil war started over taxes, had it been over slavery the abolitionist John Brown's revolt would have started it.
I was glad Lincoln moved us forward, but there were 3 slavery states that sided with the North, sold many slaves, forfeited some slaves from other states and re-sold them before the war's end.
When the states tried secession it began the war. The Union was brought back from tatters, albeit reconstruction and segregated society actually started under the Republicans watch and led to the 60s. Perhaps had the Republican leadership been as virtuous as claimed on this matter the reconstruction would have never occurred and the country could have moved forward a hundred years in advance.

The Republicans had Sherman then go west, slaughter Native Americans, and claim the land for god. It was a big happy ending for everyone involved according to most history books. We are doing the same thing in Iraq now, freeing those people who are 'not ready or able to grasp freedom for their selves' and so deserve a provisional gov't and reservation system complete with kurfews, house searches, and forfeited resources that will be given to companies that exploit the situation, people, land, and resources. ONE NATION UNDER GOD!

Hmmm, maybe one day America will get lucky, have a police state, be run by a few large corporations, and one day be able to elect the leaders of choice via democratic elections(only the ones who the gov't says can run). Let's see how the Iraq experiment goes first.

By the way, the bill is going up another 60 billion , and the white house staff man who admitted the REAL COST will be in the 200 BILLION range (give or teak 50, 60 70, or even a few hundred million dollars extra).


Oh, and Saddam-Rumsfeld-Cheney pictures, treaties, handshakes make most people conclude this: BAD LEADERS DO BUSINESS AND AS SUCH SHOULD BE OUSTED. It has cost a lot to accomplish this, we are halfway done. Saddam is in jail anyways. The others should be as well.

Bin Forgotten? A matter of time before Bush has to finally own up to being close allies with his family. Once he tries to get OBL his bros will probably go public with their ties to Bush Sr. Damn what kind of extoriton money are we fishing out for that and how is hiding it? Oh, I know! The Patriot Act 2! No financial trasnactions can be made public and those who investigate such can be considered terrorists...
Just specualtion based on previous Bush policy (Prescott Sr.'s funding of Nazi germany's largest Steel manufacturer and a third of their explosives). Seems we have forgotten their method and motives or rather the media chooses not to report them.

PhinPhan1227
01-21-2004, 11:18 AM
Lol...

1)"I was glad Lincoln moved us forward"...Damn, I didn't realize you were there!!!

2)I find it hysterical that people think that rich white Democrats care about poor minorities one whit more than rich white Republicans. Howard Dean understands poor black people? Did he gain that understanding growing up a rich white kid in New England? Heck, GW doesn't understand poor black people any better than Howard Dean, but at least he grew up in a state that HAS poor black people. The Liberal Left, for all that they have been the self proclaimed champions of minorities, have done more damage than good over the years. They've created an atmosphere of suplication for minorities in general, and blacks in particular. You want to know why many black people think that they need the government to get by? It's because people have told them that they need the government to get by. Tell a kid that he's a C level student and he'll grow up a C level student.

Mr.Murder
01-26-2004, 07:08 PM
Bush was a C level student, I see your point now. Something must be done or we settle for ineptitude.
As for saying I was /was not there, snide remarks from the peanut gallery will not be considered value. As for the slavery issue and the repukes being the abolitionist champion, strange I recall EVERY repuke voting to protect segregation and relying a few dixiecrats' help to force the courts to say otherwise.

"I didn't realize you were there..." 1227.

By the way, Democrats have acutally minority representatives in Congress! Those "Rich white Democrats" are just too much, some of them even have black skin, 'spose they use blackface makeup to fool black voters into thinking they care about them...

So do I need to refresh your memory on losing the post when you argue that my response to your replies is off time line for relevance?
As for the Iraqi exiles, Chalabi is a convicted embezzler and sat next to the first lady during the state of the union, many of his lie-heavy moneygrubbers are part of a WMD defector network whose lies are being shown for what they were- money interest misquote points either out context or completely untrue.
All apologies to you 06 not knowing you personally, and not all of these misplaced Iraqis are wrongdoers. Many of them were close enough to Saddam to have had bad dealings at one point or another though and ex post facto or away from him are suddenly virtuous. Many others are now Americans anyways and have no need to return there, are welcomed to stay here by most people and are welcome here, their talents and diversity can make our country better in the long run for the short term damage a few of the others have done now/recently.

Mr.Murder
01-26-2004, 08:06 PM
So saddam was captured, and our soldiers are no safer. This was of course Clinton's fault for 1- having the saudis foil an attempt to arrest bin laden in the Sudan and not risk soldier's lives in the process, and 2- for the Cole bombing which resulted from Bush SR leaving our soldiers in Somalia for the next president to face.
So Bin Laden attacked us and was in another country and the only access there was to cross soveriegn lands who did not let go there and we should have done so anyways and had the world turn against for doing so like the Iraq situation has done.
Not even papa Bush was that stupid. Nuff said about that. Oh wait, papa is business buddies with the Bin laden family and has strangely profitied off this war/arms race which has been escaleted by key people who had business/gov't dealings with Condie Rice, the Carlysle group, and Halliburton. Clearly this was CLinton's fault that Bush's dad is a tight business allie with OBL's family and their entrenched Saudi oil ties.

So it is Clinton's fault that Saddam was supplied weapons by the Reagan/Bush cabinet, that Bush Sr lacked the cahones and world support to invade soveriegn Iraq, and that Bin Laden had Saudi cover and family business ties to Clinton's political counterparts.

And since these facts stand on their own merit the Democrat's history of interracial wives with slaves and bama klansmen are just further reinforcing points that bush is chosen by god to lead our country. 1227 you have brought up points as sidebars to avoid facing what was already stated each time and then occasionally fall back on the same circular logic each time to avoid facing up the fact that this entire ordeal has more to do with the Bush league than any one group in world politics at every key point where interaction with the united states has occurred.
It was Clinton's fault defense tech secrets went to China via third party at a college Dept. Condie Rice has oversight for which has facilitated a star wars plan for a new arms race. Shame on Bill for not jailing Condie outright and letting this happen. Once again your attempt to move away from the thread has proven more Bush league wrongdoing 1227.
And a guy with an avatar of a kid pissing on sport sign saying anything is IRONIC in politics thread is proof once again the Clinton was wrong in policy form and content after trying to have a peaceful solution blocked. Telling Congress what military action could be done without harming soldiers lives and starting wars, and having an antiterror bill blocked by Gingritch and intelligence briefings warning of continued Al Queida/Bin laden efforts go ignored by Shrubya that would have stopped 9-11 before it could be implemented were all clearly Bill Clinton's fault . Finding solutions without an overbudgeted war that has not gotten OBL and has left us overextended and less safe a result after invading a country that was for all practical means first world technology and whose leader while bad is less of a threat to people than many of the leaders we currently back (Colombia, etc).

I feel much more safer now, knowing that a country whose best army technology in the Iran/Iraq war was to fly crop dusters over trenches and spray gas or use ordiannce we gave him to GPS target Iranians (our help made them effective twice over).
Fact of the matter is he was no threat to us. As for Ude having pics of his daughters, it was a girls gone wild white house style tape... proof we need to invade a country and stop their threat to underaged drinking/dopesmoking elitists kids all over America...

Fact- Jeb Bush's daughter was a bigger threat behind the driver's wheel to Americans than Saddam was to any of our land or people.
Maybe Saddam can go the same Rehab Rush Limbaugh and her are at...

PhinPhan1227
01-27-2004, 10:49 AM
Um...where does my Avatar piss on a logo? Seeing things are we? My avatar is the kid from Family Guy. What IS ironic however is a guy who is screamingly Pro-Union posting on a BBS for a sport where the Union is one of the weakest in existance. I'd think you'd do better on a baseball BBS. As for minority Democrats, there are also minority Republicans. None of which has any bearing on my comment, since the vast majority of both parties are made up of rich white men. And I find it humorous that you are naive enough to think that one group of rich, white, men is any more virtuous than any other group of rich white men. As if the rich, white Democrats made thier money virtuously where the rich white Repubs made it through exploitation. Please!!!

Mr.Murder
01-27-2004, 10:10 PM
And how many of those minority republicans hold elected office? Thought so... and the person with the kid pissing logo was not you, notice I did not address 1227 for that comment, I did not quotes you for that pasrt of the thread- it was the guy with the LSU signature and a seperate avatar(page 6 I believe but am not certain...).

Attention span goes to the last post, as stated the page before this when each attempt at comebacks you make forgets the pages before it, such as my ringing up China as opposed to you, and it turns out the China mentioned is the same country that Stanford let get missile secrets whilst Clinton was president and Condie Rice was provost. Your delay action was that while Bush league was wrong in SOME AREAS CLINTON WAS FAR MORE WRONG OTHERS AND IT TURNS OUT(upon followup) THESE OTHER AREAS HAD DIRCET LINKS TO A CURRENT WHITE HOUSE STAFF/CABINET MEMBER.
So your reply then becomes the thread topic again once your weak diversion was proven another Bush league link to antiamerican interest. Perhaps I should paste the 3 pages of tangent argument and the final evidence that such a smokescreen led to another Bush league fire. Arson is intent, each of your attempts to delay action and change thread have resulted in further Bush league discrepancies.

So this is how it works, lose argument change subject, follow up delaying action and return to subject, say I am off course, return to subject thread after reply and have another statement which when studied seems to merit further Bush league shortcomings.

Thanks again 1227.

And the "rich white men rule the country" take is great, it just seems a lot of the rich white repubs were at different times business associates of Saddam- it is proven. Shake hands with the killer Cheney.Fund a war that kills a million of his and Iran's people, bomb them into third world status and continue business sanctions that starve even more, dig up the the mass graves from the conflicts,starvations, and the gas attacks and counterinsurgents we armed for destabilization and terror as a war alibi and ignore the previous FALSE claim of mass WMD hard ordinance.

The usually O'lie-ly and Hannity line of argument end a lost point with "all politicians are crooked" delay action to cover your kicked tail. The faux line of reasoning continues for you.

PhinPhan1227
01-28-2004, 12:48 AM
Lol...Murder, I'll be the first to admit that I have neither the time nor interest to slog through your posts and attempt to dig out the points, much less respond to them. The bottom line is that this post was a celebration of the capture of Saddam Hussein. A person who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of human beings has been brought to justice, and that's a GOOD thing. Anything beyond that is a detraction of that basic point. Are we as a nation in part responsible for Saddam Hussein? You bet. Both Democrats as well as Republican Presidents have given him and other rogue nations support in time of greater conflicts. In the same way, we were in part responsible for the creation of the Taliban. When you have a greater enemy, you must sometimes treat with a lesser enemy. Think of it as Atropine, using a little poison to defeat a bigger poison. The Atropine will save you from the nerve toxin, but it's still lousy for your body. But it would do WONDERS for your credibility if you would accept that BOTH Republicans as well as Democrats have employed this policy. Again, none of which alters the fact that Saddam is a mass murderer many times over. It was his choice to invade his neighbors and it was his choice to murder his citizens. He is now no longer in power and that's a good thing. Attempt to spin it any way you want, the world is a better place with him in custody.

Mr.Murder
01-30-2004, 01:37 AM
So saddam was every bit the bad guy yes, he called for oil powered OPEC states to help poor arab nations, his literacy rates and women's rights were progressive mideast models. Then the diot got involved iwth the US state dep't and oil money lobbies started fighting wars and had civil wars in his own land we helped fund.
You are right the world is better without him. Behaviorism model is that his response with threat-stimulus we used on him or used through him on others was part of functional pragmatism. Fight fire with fire, or in this case fight armed violent Iranians and nationlist ethnic insurgents with Ak's and gas that we suppplied him.
The Shah of Iran was not freely elected either, they have not forgotten- to the point the red cross was asked not to help for the earthquake relief after a Bush cabinet man tried to help counter-Iraq terror insurgents who are expatriated Iranians. (www.usndemvet.com)
We put the Shah in for Oil money after free elections chose otherwise. Then when that blows up on us we get Saddam strentghened to get at a situation that Bush Sr' s CIA ties helped get started.Now we are helping terror agents again with ties to Saddam loyalists? Makes a lot of sense. Arming our next enemies beforehand as usual.

Nice line of reasoning. Chalabi the fraud embezzler is the next Iraqi president we trying to insert. A box full of uncounted ballots in Dade county(or Iraq's equivalent thereof) for whoever Chalabi runs against will be ignored. Our supreme court will appoint a president there soon.

Two wrongs do not make a right. It usaually just snowballs to an evil avalanche that has more ramifications and a continuance of strife/problems. See also Noriega(another Bush leaguer).

Yes a cab driver in spider hole, they are so much better off now.

PhinPhan1227
01-30-2004, 11:15 AM
Lol...literacy rates in Cuba are great as well. Doesn't make Castro a "good guy". Saddam is/was a fascist. He's no better/worse than Hitler/Musolini. The man SLAUGHTERED civilians in the HUNDREDS of thousands. He SUPPORTED terrorist groups. It's evidence of your blatant bias that you would rather chum up with an animal like Saddam JUST because you have such a hatred of Bush. You would have sent Jews into the ovens just because you hated Churchill.

Mr.Murder
01-30-2004, 02:56 PM
Hitler's backing had financial ties to Bush's granpa- his holdings in said interests were seized by Roosevelt during WW2. Had FDR not died it is possible that Prescott Bush would have been jailed, postwar.Strangely enough one of the Bush brothers and Cheney were business partners with Saddam in matters also, perhaps foreshadowed by the first money tie to death?
Mass graves from a land war that is estimated to have killed a million Iranians alone. No forensics are being done for their unearthing, just photo-ops. Easy to keep stories one-sided in said fashion...

So we supported Saddam to get at Iran? And Iran went violent after we backed assassination of a democratically elected leader and inserted the Shah? So who are funding/helping this current war on terror that will be our next enemy? Those who forget the past will repeat it...

PS- When will Saddam be tried at the Hague? Certainly not until after the election cycle coming up... why no push for immediate justice? Oh I Know- Martha Stewart is a bigger priority for the Bush cabinet right now...much more important fish to fry...

PhinPhan1227
01-30-2004, 06:13 PM
Ok...I'll say this slowly. Saddam killed more than 100k Iraqi's. Amazingly, the Iraqi's want first crack at him, and that might take a bit to put together. After they get done with him perhaps they'll let the Haque take a shot at whatever's left. As for Bush's Grandfather, did you also dig up Joe Kennedy's list of crimes? Or do you only dig up useless trivia on the great grandfathers of Republicans?

Section126
01-31-2004, 07:11 PM
PhinPhan1227, I like give and take......Pub versus Dem......as much as any political junkie..........but when Murder goes into all the Urban legends such as: The Bush Family funded the third reich, Bush is trying to start a new 3rd reich, and all of those other bull$hit liberal fantasies, I just realize that you cannot argue with a Nut.

Oh, and yeah that Joe Kennedy was a swell guy. :rolleyes:

PhinPhan1227
01-31-2004, 07:29 PM
Well, I've seen some right wingers do the same with Clinton. But Murder HAS managed to demonstrate fully that he has a deep and abiding hatred of GW Bush, and as such is completely unobjective where he is concerned.

Mr.Murder
02-01-2004, 06:12 AM
Prescott bush had money seized in WW2 for supporting nazi war machine, including a company producing almost half their pig iron and a third of their explosives, it is a matter of public record.

So if I bvring up facts that is a conspiracy? Or would the person hiding facts be the one doing that?
Strike records from congress, 43 pages of 9-11 info hidden, yeah it is those whacky leftist libs trying to hide information from the public about one of the worst days in our nation's history...
Unobjective? I voted for his ****ing father , thanks anyways 1227, was invited to join the young republicans by the local Repub party leader whose last name is Bush and has state level post, thanks anyways.

PhinPhan1227
02-01-2004, 11:56 AM
If you bring up facts whose ONLY value is to taint the issue, that's a demonstration of bias. Who gives a rats rear end WHAT Prescott Bush did? How does that have ANY impact on GW? There's a reason some facts aren't brought up in court...they bring NOTHING to the discussion, but only serve to inflame emotions. Bottom line Murder, you have a deep and abiding hatred for GW Bush. That's screamingly obvious in EVERY one of your posts. As such, you have NO objectivity, and NO credibility where he is concerned. Truly, if he managed to cure cancer, you'd find a way to denigrate it. Personally, I find Bush to be FAR from perfect. I just think he's a little bit better than anyone the DNC is going to nominate(I already said I'd consider Lieberman). That's called being objective and moderate. You're neither, and as such I see no value in any of your commentary.

Mr.Murder
02-02-2004, 01:10 AM
Objective about www.miserablefailure.com sure thing. Bush has taken us back to the verge of a great depression.
McGovern slams Bush's policies as well, and I suppose he is just an angry liberal?
Bush said it best "you're either for me or against me..." ring this citizen's vote up for the latter.

dolfan06
02-02-2004, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by Mr.Murder
Objective about www.miserablefailure.com sure thing. Bush has taken us back to the verge of a great depression.
McGovern slams Bush's policies as well, and I suppose he is just an angry liberal?
Bush said it best &quot;you're either for me or against me...&quot; ring this citizen's vote up for the latter. i don't really get that deep into politics, but i do know bush lied to us about the reason for going into iraq, and that is inexcuseable as far as i'm concerned!:(

PhinPhan1227
02-02-2004, 01:27 AM
Originally posted by dolfan06
i don't really get that deep into politics, but i do know bush lied to us about the reason for going into iraq, and that is inexcuseable as far as i'm concerned!:(

Than apparently you are privy to facts which the rest of us are not. In order to show that Bush lied, you have to demonstrate that he was aware that the intel concerning nuclear capabilites was incorrect. Have you seen any evidence that he knew that? Because apparently the BBC couldn't prove that Tony Blair was lying when he delivered incorrect facts, and their head just resigned because of that false accusation.

PhinPhan1227
02-02-2004, 01:29 AM
Originally posted by Mr.Murder
Objective about www.miserablefailure.com sure thing. Bush has taken us back to the verge of a great depression.
McGovern slams Bush's policies as well, and I suppose he is just an angry liberal?
Bush said it best &quot;you're either for me or against me...&quot; ring this citizen's vote up for the latter.

For someone who slams Bush for innacuracy you sure do enjoy lying Murder. Bush stated that you were with US, or you were with the terrorists. And that is an accurate statement. Nothing about him...just us and them. Facts aren't poisonous Murder, they're ok to get straight every ONCE in a while.

dolfan06
02-02-2004, 01:40 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Than apparently you are privy to facts which the rest of us are not. In order to show that Bush lied, you have to demonstrate that he was aware that the intel concerning nuclear capabilites was incorrect. Have you seen any evidence that he knew that? Because apparently the BBC couldn't prove that Tony Blair was lying when he delivered incorrect facts, and their head just resigned because of that false accusation. yep, on meet the press, colon powell said he knew and bush knew the WMD weren't there!;)

PhinPhan1227
02-02-2004, 06:52 PM
Lol

dolfan06
02-02-2004, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Lol i don't know if powell was full of crap or not, but thats what he said!;)

Dolfan02
02-03-2004, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by dolfan06
i don't really get that deep into politics, but i do know bush lied to us about the reason for going into iraq, and that is inexcuseable as far as i'm concerned!:(

Hey there,

I have a question: If you came up to me and asked to me to intrude and search your neighbor's house (let's say if I was the police), because you are certain he posesses dozens of illegal automatic weapons and drugs, and then when I do go into your neighbor's house I don't find any illegal automatic weapons or drugs, but yet I find several dead bodies in his house and several more buried in his backyard... would you think it was worth it to invade his house?

dolfan06
02-03-2004, 01:40 AM
Originally posted by Dolfan02


Hey there,

I have a question: If you came up to me and asked to me to intrude and search your neighbor's house (let's say if I was the police), because you are certain he posesses dozens of illegal automatic weapons and drugs, and then when I do go into your neighbor's house I don't find any illegal automatic weapons or drugs, but yet I find several dead bodies in his house and several more buried in his backyard... would you think it was worth it to invade his house? good question, and bush did find dead bodies. but WMD were not on his agenda, neither were the dead bodies!;)

PhinPhan1227
02-03-2004, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by dolfan06
i don't know if powell was full of crap or not, but thats what he said!;)

O....K....do you have a transcript, or even a news story about such a blockbuster admission? Seems to me CNN would be running that statement 24/7, and yet I haven't heard a peep.

Mr.Murder
02-03-2004, 05:09 PM
The dead bodies were part of the iran/iraq war. Intelligence briefings being released point these facts outr as well. GWB approval ratings are at an all time low.

He cannot even keep mail from congress that is tainted for terror. We are safer? And the other airliner that 'crashed' after 9-11 was not part of a terror attack?
Janet's breasteses are more important than this... wtg media, a real standard bearer of value.

ohall
02-03-2004, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by Mr.Murder

He cannot even keep mail from congress that is tainted for terror. We are safer?

No one can do that, not at a 100% clip any way. What a good President will do is make it painful for the ppl who want to do such things. Just like foreign Terrorist. You make them pay for what they think they want to do.

There is a reason why drug use is down in the US since Bush has been President. Drug users know they will pay a steep price for breaking the law with a conservative President in office. Just like when drug use went up when Clinton was President, they knew things would be safer for them.

We are without a doubt safer with a conservative President, because we are fighting a foe that needs to be fought, not a foe that should be talked to death for years and years.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
02-03-2004, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by Mr.Murder
The dead bodies were part of the iran/iraq war. Intelligence briefings being released point these facts outr as well. GWB approval ratings are at an all time low.

He cannot even keep mail from congress that is tainted for terror. We are safer? And the other airliner that 'crashed' after 9-11 was not part of a terror attack?
Janet's breasteses are more important than this... wtg media, a real standard bearer of value.


The sad thing Murder is that there've been people like you throughout human history. You're so blinded by your ideology that you're willing to support someone like Hussein, Hitler, Stalin, just to spite the guy in power. The irony of the situation is that you're also one of the first people lined up against the wall and shot once that person comes to power. There was actually a number of Jews who supported Hitler in his early years. And the Bolshevicks lasted just long enough to realize what they had done after the Revolution. Those ideological students who helped put Castro in power? They worked and died in the cane fields. There's photographic evidence of Saddam gassing Kurds by the thousands. Eye witness and first hand accounts of torture, mutilation, and execution for crimes which existed nowhere but in the minds of Hussein and his sons. Invasion of TWO neighbors without provocation. And still Hussein is a victim in your mind. Not only are you a sheep Murder, you're the kind of sheep who supports the wolf just to spite the farmer. The only tragedy is that people like you always find a way to take innocent people with them.

Mr.Murder
02-03-2004, 05:47 PM
Without provocation? Iran/Iraq war had both sides at fault. Kuwait slant drilling oil from underneath Iraq's land shelf (the world second largest oil field) and stealing two islands for offshore Oil that were claimed by Iraq.
Kuwait was iraq's at one time, Blair's country made them after WW2 to have an oil colony.

Give someone a gun and promise them an airstrike, see if they get killed when you don't provide the airstrike. The Kurd conflicts were part of our counterinsurgency, these facts cannot be ignored.
But you're right, saddam was terrible anyone who anything to do with him should be jailed....Cheney, Rumsfeld... we'll rebuild alcatraz for ya!

Mr.Murder
02-03-2004, 05:53 PM
Safer- 9-11 on shrubya's watch, I feel so much safer. Safer- DC snipers on shrubya's watch, i feel so much safer.
A sniper is still driving around (Ohio area?) and taking shots at things. Seems like this is being ignored for more important stories like breasteses during superbowls.

ohall
02-03-2004, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by Mr.Murder
Without provocation? Iran/Iraq war had both sides at fault. Kuwait slant drilling oil from underneath Iraq's land shelf (the world second largest oil field) and stealing two islands for offshore Oil that were claimed by Iraq.
Kuwait was iraq's at one time, Blair's country made them after WW2 to have an oil colony.

Give someone a gun and promise them an airstrike, see if they get killed when you don't provide the airstrike. The Kurd conflicts were part of our counterinsurgency, these facts cannot be ignored.
But you're right, saddam was terrible anyone who anything to do with him should be jailed....Cheney, Rumsfeld... we'll rebuild alcatraz for ya!

After this post it's obvious to me your not playing with a full deck.

I'm sorry if this comes across as an insult, but I can't think of a more poilte way of expressing that point.

Oliver...

ohall
02-03-2004, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by Mr.Murder
Safer- 9-11 on shrubya's watch, I feel so much safer. Safer- DC snipers on shrubya's watch, i feel so much safer.
A sniper is still driving around (Ohio area?) and taking shots at things. Seems like this is being ignored for more important stories like breasteses during superbowls.

I get the feeling your the type of guy that rarely feels safe. You know what I mean?

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
02-03-2004, 06:08 PM
Without provocation. Neither Iran nor Kuwait were threatening Iraqi territoty or citizens. If Iraq had a problem with Kuwaiti slant drilling, they could have taken out the bdrill sites without invading/raping the country. As for the Kurds, yes Bush Sr screwed up. But what you're missing is the reason those people were willing to fight and die in the first place. But that's something a person like you will always miss.

Mr.Murder
02-03-2004, 06:22 PM
Had Bush said when Saddam asked that he would not allow Kuwait to be invaded then it would be a different matter. he told him he would not intervene, then he got real mad aboput it ex post facto.

A person like me understands diplomcay, bush could have prevented this with his own words and saved you or anyone else from having fought over this in the first damned place.

Strange you should mention sugar fields in Cubs, bush Sr' s brother owned one of those plantations that was using slave labor there to make tons of money and inspired resistance against the plantation system there. The same kind of plantation system those old Democrats had in the south before the civil war before finding true party roots in inclusive fashion.

Nice of you to remind us that the Bush league lost 20 million hard cash alone out of Cuba's independace, not counting their Oil interests for arbusto/Zapata there.

Dolfan02
02-03-2004, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by Mr.Murder
The dead bodies were part of the iran/iraq war. Intelligence briefings being released point these facts outr as well. GWB approval ratings are at an all time low.

He cannot even keep mail from congress that is tainted for terror. We are safer? And the other airliner that 'crashed' after 9-11 was not part of a terror attack?
Janet's breasteses are more important than this... wtg media, a real standard bearer of value.

PhinPhan1227 gave you a great response, I can't imagine what else drowns you in confusion and blindness. I would give you my rebuttal, but it would be a waste of my time due to the fact that you are either a very young child or new to this country with very little proper education. And I'm not saying that because we disagree, but because the way you write, how little sense you make, and how you utter some irrelevant matter.

So with that being said, I just want to give you some quick advice that I noticed you need to be aware of from your previous quote: first, just because CNN reports Bush's "approval rating are at an all-time low", don't take it as fact. Unfortunately you are unaware that CNN is completely owned by the Democratic party and their affiliates. You will NEVER find anything or anyone that speaks in favor for Bush on CNN. How do I know that little "poll" came from CNN? Well everyone (but you) knows how they are the only people to run up those little "polls" that you find "factual". My advice: take a little bit of news from every corner before you make you a judgement. And secondly, since you brought up Janet's boob, have you given up? Do you feel its time to change the issue at hand? Certainly, none of the Bush administration has brought it up nor made any comment about it, they have stayed focused with their more important matters. But then again, I'm sure that if Mr. Clinton was president, he would have found it more ideal to call Janet Jackson up on the phone to talk about the matter, maybe even offer an intern position at the White House. My advice: don't look like an *** when you speak.

PhinPhan1227
02-03-2004, 06:47 PM
What slave labor? Those workers made as much money as the migrant workers do right here in Florida. It was a lousy system, but it worked better than the one that's in place now. Before Castro, Cuba could at least feed itself. Now it has to import food. As for Kuwait, how do you know what Saddam would have done? Did he also ask Bush's permision before invading Iran? All of which has nothing to do with the fact that the man is a mass murdurer, and yet you seem to think the world was better off with him in power. Once again, it's people like you that allow people like him to get into power in the first place.