PDA

View Full Version : Conscience of the Democratic Party



BigFinFan
07-09-2004, 10:30 PM
Mary Jo Kopechne would have been 65 years of age this year. Read about her and her killer below.

When Sen. Ted Kennedy was merely just another Democrat bloating on Capitol Hill on behalf of liberal causes, it was perhaps excusable to ignore his deplorable past. But now that he's become Sen. John Kerry's leading campaign attack dog, positioning himself as Washington's leading arbiter of truth and integrity, the days for such indulgence are now over.

It's time for the GOP to stand up and remind America why Sen. Kerry's chief spokesman had to abandon his own presidential bid in 1980 - time to say the words Mary Jo Kopechne out loud.

As is often the case, Republicans have delude themselves into thinking that most Americans already know the story of how this "Conscience of the Democratic Party" left Miss Kopechne behind to die in the waters underneath the Edgartown Bridge in July 1969, after a night of drinking and partying with the young blonde campaign worker. But most Americans under 40 have never heard that story, or details of how Kennedy swam to safety, then tried to get his cousin Joe Garghan to say he was behind the wheel. Those young voters don't know how Miss Kopechne, trapped inside Kennedy's Oldsmobile, gasped for air until she finally died, while the Democrats' leading Iraq war critic rushed back to his compound to formulate the best alibi he could think of.

Neither does Generation X know how Kennedy was thrown out of Harvard on his ear 15 years earlier -- for paying a fellow student to take his Spanish final. Or why the US Army denied him a commission because he cheated on tests.

As they listen to the Democrats' "Liberal Lion" accuse President Bush of "telling lie after lie after lie" to get America to go to war in Iraq, young voters don't know about that notorious 1991 Easter weekend in Palm Beach, when Uncle Teddy rounded up his nephews for a night on the town, an evening that ended with one of them credibly accused of rape.

It's time for Republicans to state unabashedly that they will no longer "go along with the gag" when it comes to Uncle Ted's rants about deception and moral turpitude inside the Bush White House.

The Democratic Party, not to mention Sen. John Kerry, should be ashamed to have the national disgrace from Massachusetts as their spokesman. And the GOP needs to say so out loud.

Clumpy
07-10-2004, 02:36 AM
Number of coalition deaths now totals 1,000

I guess this is not a crime

Kencoboy
07-10-2004, 12:21 PM
I love how you guys argue about conservatives and liberals. The one point I wish to make is that they're all scumbags anymore. Yes, Ted Kennedy is a pompous overbearing lout who happened to make his fame off of his brother's name. For every Democrat you name there's a Republican just as bad. Tricky Dick Nixon, Barry Goldwater, Newt Gingrich.

There are no real choices between the parties anymore. The media has polarized the liberal/conservative labels into "liberals bad, conservatives good" when the parties themselves know they must at least appear to be moderate to be elected.

Yes Ted Kennedy is a murderous jackass. What's your point. Dubya sent this country to war under false pretenses that have directly resulted in the deaths of 882 Americans as of today. What the hell should the penalty be for that???

Clumpy
07-10-2004, 12:28 PM
I love how you guys argue about conservatives and liberals. The one point I wish to make is that they're all scumbags anymore. Yes, Ted Kennedy is a pompous overbearing lout who happened to make his fame off of his brother's name. For every Democrat you name there's a Republican just as bad. Tricky Dick Nixon, Barry Goldwater, Newt Gingrich.

There are no real choices between the parties anymore. The media has polarized the liberal/conservative labels into "liberals bad, conservatives good" when the parties themselves know they must at least appear to be moderate to be elected.

Yes Ted Kennedy is a murderous jackass. What's your point. Dubya sent this country to war under false pretenses that have directly resulted in the deaths of 882 Americans as of today. What the hell should the penalty be for that???


Well said :up:

BigFinFan
07-10-2004, 03:46 PM
How many were killed in WW I, WW II, Korea or Vietnam? Do you hold the man who was President during those wars responsible for each death?

Of course not, but yet you hold GWB responsible for deaths during his Presidency.

GWB is the Commander in Chief, he is responsible for keeping America safe. If he had done nothing (Afghanistan and Iraq) Democrats and America would be pissed. He did something and Democrats and America are pissed!

Regardless of his actions Democrats and America are pissed!

Wake up and realize that we are safer today than we were just one year ago!

DeDolfan
07-10-2004, 04:38 PM
I love how you guys argue about conservatives and liberals. The one point I wish to make is that they're all scumbags anymore. Yes, Ted Kennedy is a pompous overbearing lout who happened to make his fame off of his brother's name. For every Democrat you name there's a Republican just as bad. Tricky Dick Nixon, Barry Goldwater, Newt Gingrich.

There are no real choices between the parties anymore. The media has polarized the liberal/conservative labels into "liberals bad, conservatives good" when the parties themselves know they must at least appear to be moderate to be elected.

Yes Ted Kennedy is a murderous jackass. What's your point. Dubya sent this country to war under false pretenses that have directly resulted in the deaths of 882 Americans as of today. What the hell should the penalty be for that???

Well said !!

BigFinFan
07-10-2004, 08:20 PM
Still, no one has answered my question:

How many were killed in WW I, WW II, Korea or Vietnam? Do you hold the man who was President during those wars responsible for each death?

iceblizzard69
07-10-2004, 10:25 PM
Still, no one has answered my question:

How many were killed in WW I, WW II, Korea or Vietnam? Do you hold the man who was President during those wars responsible for each death?

Depends on the war. I think people place the blame on the deaths in Vietnam on LBJ. The war was unnecessary and it was a war that we should not have fought. Other wars such as WW2 were worth fighting. However, think of it like this: If Bush decided not to go to Iraq, the American servicemen who died in Iraq would probably still be alive. You can blame him for those deaths because his decisions led to those people dying. You can also blame the presidents during any other war, including those worth fighting, because of the president didn't decide to go to war, the people who died would have probably lived longer lives (of course, people can die in other ways, which is why I use the word "probably.")

Even though you can blame the presidents during wars for the deaths of soliders, I personally don't believe in that. However, there are some wars (Vietnam for example) that were not worth fighting and 56,000 American servicemen died because of a bad decision. However, other wars, such as WW2, were worth fighting, and sadly many died in that war, but if that war wasn't fought, the world would be a totally different place today, and it probably wouldn't be better in a good way.

As for Iraq, I don't think the decision to go in is as bad as the decision to go into Vietnam, but it definitely isn't on the level of WW2. I did support the war initially but I'm not sure if it was a war that we had to fight. I do see some positives coming out of it, such as a democracy in the Middle East and that a horrible man in Saddam Hussein is no longer a running a nation. However, I wasn't expecting the war to be as bad as it is. I do think we should stay in Iraq because if we left, the situation would just get worse. We have to finish what we started.

Kencoboy
07-10-2004, 11:41 PM
How many were killed in WW I, WW II, Korea or Vietnam? Do you hold the man who was President during those wars responsible for each death?

Of course not, but yet you hold GWB responsible for deaths during his Presidency.

GWB is the Commander in Chief, he is responsible for keeping America safe. If he had done nothing (Afghanistan and Iraq) Democrats and America would be pissed. He did something and Democrats and America are pissed!

Regardless of his actions Democrats and America are pissed!

Wake up and realize that we are safer today than we were just one year ago!
Safe from what??? A towelhead sequestered in a cave somewhere in the Middle East?? Saddam Hussein was absolutely frightening when they pulled him from his spider hole. When you say safe, what do you mean?? Around 3000 Americans died on 9/11 from a total of 290,000,000 people. I don't feel any safer, just less pissed.

When you have a president who has monetary ties to the Bin Laden family and Saudi Arabian royalty, whose administration consistantly sold the American people on Iraq's WMD's that did not exist, whose buddies stand to make a lot of money from the war itself (Halliburton et al), and who planned to invade Iraq long before 9/11 happened; who in the hell else could be responsible for the casualties in Iraq??

U.S. Involvement in WWI and WWII came from a Declaration of War from Congress. Period. No B.S. police action nonsense.

Korea and Vietnam grew out of the WWII aftermath. Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson all bear responsiblity for these wars,

BUT the difference is those 3 did not use their position and office to bear false witness to the American people so that their pals could get rich!!! AT LEAST NOT DIRECTLY!!!

People are holding Dubya responsible not because of a liberal bias in the media, or a liberal conspiracy to get him, or because he was a coke snorting alcholic Air Force deserter.

They are holding him accountable because he and his cronies are lying self-serving sacks of s__t. Period.

The American public is sick and tired of the flat out dishonesty inherent in our political system. Period.

Only simpletons buy into the arguments that the conservatives and liberals want you to hear and believe. Period.

They all need to go away!!!!:fire:

Clumpy
07-10-2004, 11:56 PM
Even better :up:

PhinPhan1227
07-11-2004, 02:21 AM
[QUOTE=Kencoboy]
When you have a president who has monetary ties to the Bin Laden family and Saudi Arabian royalty, whose administration consistantly sold the American people on Iraq's WMD's that did not exist, whose buddies stand to make a lot of money from the war itself (Halliburton et al), and who planned to invade Iraq long before 9/11 happened; who in the hell else could be responsible for the casualties in Iraq??


BUT the difference is those 3 did not use their position and office to bear false witness to the American people so that their pals could get rich!!! AT LEAST NOT DIRECTLY!!!



#1-The Bin Laden family has no connection to Osama, so who cares about Bush's ties with them?

#2-The PResident takes an oath to defend America. If Bush attacked Iraq in honor of that oath than I don;t hold him responsible. Attacking Iraq was the right thing to do. It's the first long term solution to the Middle East that anyone has pursued. Bush has made mistakes along the way which probably cost more lives than nessesary, but the invasion itself was justified.

#3-John Kerry may have allowed American POW's to remain in Vietnam in order to get normalized relations with that country so that his cousin could win the real estate and reconstruction rights there...talk about profiteering.

Marino1983
07-11-2004, 03:01 PM
How many were killed in WW I, WW II, Korea or Vietnam? Do you hold the man who was President during those wars responsible for each death?

Of course not, but yet you hold GWB responsible for deaths during his Presidency.

Because this was a war of revenge, oil, cloaked with the premise that "well isn't the WORLD better off without Hussein" that is why !!!!!!!

And according to the latest polls on the subject (something that YOU conservatives consider gospel) most Americans feel the same way !!!!

:fire:

Marino1983

Fin_Fanatic
07-11-2004, 07:26 PM
Because this was a war of revenge, oil, cloaked with the premise that "well isn't the WORLD better off without Hussein" that is why !!!!!!!

And according to the latest polls on the subject (something that YOU conservatives consider gospel) most Americans feel the same way !!!!

:fire:

Marino1983

even though revenge and oil were never mentioned by bush as reasons to go to war??? interesting assumption. and since we are polarizing each other.... YOU liberals pay attention to the polls just as much as any conservatives. so your remark is a waste of space

themole
07-12-2004, 08:28 PM
Number of coalition deaths now totals 1,000

I guess this is not a crime


Clumpy, I've poked a few "fun" jabs at you, but after that statement, I'll have nothing more to do with you. KMA & FU! :fire:

Bling
07-12-2004, 11:54 PM
I thought Congress allowed Bush to go to war... *cough* what about our buddy Kerry, he's just as responsible. So before we label Bush the murder, blame Kerry and the rest of the Democrats THAT also allowed the war.

ohall
07-13-2004, 12:23 AM
I thought Congress allowed Bush to go to war... *cough* what about our buddy Kerry, he's just as responsible. So before we label Bush the murder, blame Kerry and the rest of the Democrats THAT also allowed the war.

Ain't that the truth, and the DEM's strategy in this is going to bite them on their azz. If they BASH Bush on the invasion of Iraq they are in turn bashing themselves. I don't think they have the 1st idea of what they are even doing. Kerry is one of the worst politicians I have ever seen.

Oliver...

ltfinfan
07-13-2004, 11:17 AM
Number of coalition deaths now totals 1,000

I guess this is not a crime


wow leave it to a kerry supporter to compare the murder of an innocent girl by a drunken bum to the deaths of American soilders trying to free an oppressed people

PhinPhan1227
07-13-2004, 11:33 AM
wow leave it to a kerry supporter to compare the murder of an innocent girl by a drunken bum to the deaths of American soilders trying to free an oppressed people


Actually, that would be a lesser charge than murder...vehicular manslaughter. Carries a lesser sentance than murder.

BigFinFan
07-13-2004, 11:34 AM
Many people have lost sight of why we are in Iraq.

I am glad to know that you haven't!


wow leave it to a kerry supporter to compare the murder of an innocent girl by a drunken bum to the deaths of American soilders trying to free an oppressed people

DolFan31
07-13-2004, 12:33 PM
I thought Congress allowed Bush to go to war... *cough* what about our buddy Kerry, he's just as responsible. So before we label Bush the murder, blame Kerry and the rest of the Democrats THAT also allowed the war.

Congress voted for the war based on false intelligence..


Many people have lost sight of why we are in Iraq.

I am glad to know that you haven't!

BigFinFan
07-13-2004, 12:46 PM
Congress voted for the war based on false intelligence..

What false intelligence? Just because we have not found the weapons does not mean that he did not have them.

PhinPhan1227
07-13-2004, 01:02 PM
Congress voted for the war based on false intelligence..


They had the same intelligence the President had. More importantly, the long term goals are still accurate and in place.

Bling
07-13-2004, 01:10 PM
Congress voted for the war based on false intelligence..

oh God, everyone believed it. The CIA is the "murder". But of course to liberals, the less people think, the more votes they get.

BigFinFan
07-13-2004, 01:13 PM
How many were killed in WW I, WW II, Korea or Vietnam? Do you hold the man who was President during those wars responsible for each death?

Since nobody answered my questions, I will give you the facts from these Wars.

Civil War
Timeframe: 1861- 1865
Killed: 624,511
President: Abraham Lincoln

World War I
Timeframe: 1914 - 1918
Killed: 116,516
President: Woodrow Wilson

World War II
Timeframe: 1941 - 1945
Killed: 295,000
President: Franklin D. Roosevelt

Korean War
Timeframe: 1950 - 1953
Killed: 33,741
President: Harry Truman

Vietnam War
Timeframe: 1965 - 1975
Killed: 58,169
President: Lyndon Johnson / Richard Nixon

All these years I have heard how great President Lincoln was - 624,511 dead!

According to your logic: (Dubya sent this country to war under false pretenses that have directly resulted in the deaths of 882 Americans as of today. What the hell should the penalty be for that???) all prior Presidents who sent troops to War should be exhumed and tried for treason.

You need to focus on the big picture, and stop being so simple minded!

DolFan31
07-13-2004, 01:13 PM
They had the same intelligence the President had. More importantly, the long term goals are still accurate and in place.

Congress and the Presidential Administration are at fault(especially the DOD and the CIA) for the intelligence mistakes that shouldve been looked over.

BigFinFan
07-13-2004, 01:19 PM
Congress and the Presidential Administration are at fault(especially the DOD and the CIA) for the intelligence mistakes that shouldve been looked over.

So you admit that your golden boy Kerry is at fault?

PhinPhan1227
07-13-2004, 01:24 PM
Congress and the Presidential Administration are at fault(especially the DOD and the CIA) for the intelligence mistakes that shouldve been looked over.


You're blaming elected officials for the mistakes of a beaurocracy. Those personell have been in thier jobs for decades.

Bling
07-13-2004, 01:31 PM
this is probably the same people that believed Bush tricked votes in Palm Beach, and stole the election. I'm sure Michael Moore is your role model too. I swear, Michael Savage says it best "Severe Liberalism is a mental disease"

Bling
07-13-2004, 01:33 PM
How many were killed in WW I, WW II, Korea or Vietnam? Do you hold the man who was President during those wars responsible for each death?

Since nobody answered my questions, I will give you the facts from these Wars.

Civil War
Timeframe: 1861- 1865
Killed: 624,511
President: Abraham Lincoln

World War I
Timeframe: 1914 - 1918
Killed: 116,516
President: Woodrow Wilson

World War II
Timeframe: 1941 - 1945
Killed: 295,000
President: Franklin D. Roosevelt

Korean War
Timeframe: 1950 - 1953
Killed: 33,741
President: Harry Truman

Vietnam War
Timeframe: 1965 - 1975
Killed: 58,169
President: Lyndon Johnson / Richard Nixon

All these years I have heard how great President Lincoln was - 624,511 dead!

According to your logic: (Dubya sent this country to war under false pretenses that have directly resulted in the deaths of 882 Americans as of today. What the hell should the penalty be for that???) all prior Presidents who sent troops to War should be exhumed and tried for treason.

You need to focus on the big picture, and stop being so simple minded!


how dare you claim FDR, Johnson, Truman, and Wilson are murders. They're Democrats, and they're perfect.

PhinPhan1227
07-13-2004, 01:40 PM
How many were killed in WW I, WW II, Korea or Vietnam? Do you hold the man who was President during those wars responsible for each death?

Since nobody answered my questions, I will give you the facts from these Wars.

Civil War
Timeframe: 1861- 1865
Killed: 624,511
President: Abraham Lincoln

World War I
Timeframe: 1914 - 1918
Killed: 116,516
President: Woodrow Wilson

World War II
Timeframe: 1941 - 1945
Killed: 295,000
President: Franklin D. Roosevelt

Korean War
Timeframe: 1950 - 1953
Killed: 33,741
President: Harry Truman

Vietnam War
Timeframe: 1965 - 1975
Killed: 58,169
President: Lyndon Johnson / Richard Nixon

All these years I have heard how great President Lincoln was - 624,511 dead!

According to your logic: (Dubya sent this country to war under false pretenses that have directly resulted in the deaths of 882 Americans as of today. What the hell should the penalty be for that???) all prior Presidents who sent troops to War should be exhumed and tried for treason.

You need to focus on the big picture, and stop being so simple minded!

Aren't you forgetting the troops killed in Vietnam during JFK's term?

ohall
07-13-2004, 01:48 PM
Congress voted for the war based on false intelligence..

See this is what I don't get, maybe cause I'm stupid. But if the worlds Intel is flawed even to this day how do they know there are no WMD, based on what?

Oliver...

BigFinFan
07-13-2004, 01:58 PM
See this is what I don't get, maybe cause I'm stupid. But if the worlds Intel is flawed even to this day how do they know there are no WMD, based on what?

Oliver...


I gotta quote the movie JFK on this one:

"I mean, how do you know who your daddy is? Because your mama told you so?"

We (the US) has a superior intelligence agency. Iraq had/has WMD's - we have proof! Just remember that you cannot believe everything that you read/hear from the media!

BigFinFan
07-13-2004, 02:03 PM
Aren't you forgetting the troops killed in Vietnam during JFK's term?

In 1965 the United States sent in troops to prevent the South Vietnamese government from collapsing.

ohall
07-13-2004, 02:18 PM
I gotta quote the movie JFK on this one:

"I mean, how do you know who your daddy is? Because your mama told you so?"

We (the US) has a superior intelligence agency. Iraq had/has WMD's - we have proof! Just remember that you cannot believe everything that you read/hear from the media!

No doubt, but some ppl do not trust the government. Some ppl think some politicians would sell American soldiers lives for oil. What you are asking some ppl to do is use logic to come to an understanding on this subject when logic is not a friend in their day to day lives. Most ppl get their poltical info from Extra and nightly magazine shows. Asking some ppl to use logic is a lot to ask for when you realize what some ppl see as reality. There are ppl in this country who believe we have NEVER been to the moon and the world is flat.

But my point was, even using their flawed logic, their conclusion is full of huge holes. How can we be confident their findings are any good seeing as how they admit our current Intel is still poor? It just boggles the mind. Well of course that assumes someone would take the time to think through the logic they are trying to sell that is.

Oliver...

BigFinFan
07-13-2004, 03:27 PM
Oliver...

It is called seeing the BIG picture..

Thinking outside of the Box...

You and I get it!!!

themole
07-13-2004, 05:55 PM
All.. This is all I need to know. Our president said that he was going to hunt down and kill "International terrorism" where ever it could be found! That's enough for me.

Is it working? You bet! No terrorist attacks on our soil lately. Will there be? Who knows. They are a little preoccupied right now.

"An idol mind, is the devils workshop". The U.S. military has them busy digging foxholes. Not much time for terrorism.

As far as freeing an oppressed people? :shakeno: IMO, not one red blooded american soldiers life is worth the blood of that whole nation. One exception, they are there as soldiers for hire.

PhinPhan1227
07-13-2004, 06:15 PM
All.. This is all I need to know. Our president said that he was going to hunt down and kill "International terrorism" where ever it could be found! That's enough for me.

Is it working? You bet! No terrorist attacks on our soil lately. Will there be? Who knows. They are a little preoccupied right now.

"An idol mind, is the devils workshop". The U.S. military has them busy digging foxholes. Not much time for terrorism.

As far as freeing an oppressed people? :shakeno: IMO, not one red blooded american soldiers life is worth the blood of that whole nation. One exception, they are there as soldiers for hire.


It's an investment. Free those people, let them becaome a stable base in the region, and less blood will have to be spilt down the road. Just think if we had sent a small force of men early to wipe out Hitler or Togo.

Bling
07-13-2004, 08:28 PM
they do get it... unfortunately, they don't want to admit it.

themole
07-13-2004, 09:49 PM
It's an investment. Free those people, let them becaome a stable base in the region, and less blood will have to be spilt down the road. Just think if we had sent a small force of men early to wipe out Hitler or Togo.


12... "Sub Rosa" yes.

If the Mosque were fair targets, and we would prosecute the war the way we did to Adolph then yes.

Our forefathers warned us of becoming intangled in the affairs of other nations.

These people have been getting it wrong for one thousand years.

I'm satisfied with hunting down and killing terrorist.

ohall
07-13-2004, 10:39 PM
It's an investment. Free those people, let them becaome a stable base in the region, and less blood will have to be spilt down the road. Just think if we had sent a small force of men early to wipe out Hitler or Togo.

If that was to take place in today's world the DEM's would be going after their own just like Blair's party is going after him. It is one screwed up world these days.

People are trying to make it seem like pre-emtive wars are a new thing to mankind or for this country.

Oliver...

ohall
07-13-2004, 10:40 PM
they do get it... unfortunately, they don't want to admit it.

You know 2 or 3 months ago I would have said you're wrong, but now I think you're 100% correct. They know exactly what they are doing and they know they are wrong and they just don't give a damn.

Oliver...

themole
07-13-2004, 11:08 PM
These are they. Thomas Jefferson - “The man who would choose security over freedom deserves neither.” :shakeno:

PhinPhan1227
07-14-2004, 10:31 AM
These are they. Thomas Jefferson - “The man who would choose security over freedom deserves neither.” :shakeno:


I have no problem giving up SOME freedoms for increased security. We do it every time we fly, and even when we agree to allow the government to require drivers licenses. Just as in all things, there's no black or white. There's no "total freedom", without SOME security. If you can't feel secure, how do you feel free? If you don't feel free, how do you feel secure?

BigFinFan
07-14-2004, 12:03 PM
I have no problem giving up SOME freedoms for increased security. We do it every time we fly, and even when we agree to allow the government to require drivers licenses. Just as in all things, there's no black or white. There's no "total freedom", without SOME security. If you can't feel secure, how do you feel free? If you don't feel free, how do you feel secure?

Nice point PhinPhan1227!

Kencoboy doesn't think that we are safer today.


Safe from what??? A towelhead sequestered in a cave somewhere in the Middle East?? Saddam Hussein was absolutely frightening when they pulled him from his spider hole. When you say safe, what do you mean?? Around 3000 Americans died on 9/11 from a total of 290,000,000 people. I don't feel any safer, just less pissed.

DeDolfan
07-14-2004, 12:57 PM
They had the same intelligence the President had. More importantly, the long term goals are still accurate and in place.

This is true. We all had the same intel. It's the same intel used to make the case at the UN. Because of that intel, the whole congress voted about 75%-25% to use war if necessary. Since then reports came out to the contrary, Bush didn't admit to it then. If he did then and offered some kind of apology and set a plan in action to try and straighten things out, most folks could've and would have gone along with him. Since he didn't, alot of ppl turned against him, rightfully so, IMO. Now even after the Senate intelligence committee report confirmed the intel as false just last week, Bush still doesn't acknowledge any errors. But to be honset, I don't think it would have made any difference to do it now, since the time to have 'fessed up would've been last fall, IMO. Maybe last year he would've, but to do so now would be political suicide since most folks may think he's really wishy-washy and figure it to be just a poilitcal move. i can't blame him for playing his hand out right now but he should have drawn another card back then.

PhinPhan1227
07-14-2004, 01:17 PM
This is true. We all had the same intel. It's the same intel used to make the case at the UN. Because of that intel, the whole congress voted about 75%-25% to use war if necessary. Since then reports came out to the contrary, Bush didn't admit to it then. If he did then and offered some kind of apology and set a plan in action to try and straighten things out, most folks could've and would have gone along with him. Since he didn't, alot of ppl turned against him, rightfully so, IMO. Now even after the Senate intelligence committee report confirmed the intel as false just last week, Bush still doesn't acknowledge any errors. But to be honset, I don't think it would have made any difference to do it now, since the time to have 'fessed up would've been last fall, IMO. Maybe last year he would've, but to do so now would be political suicide since most folks may think he's really wishy-washy and figure it to be just a poilitcal move. i can't blame him for playing his hand out right now but he should have drawn another card back then.

As far as I can tell, the complete information is only NOW coming in. And what does the President HAVe to apologise for? He didn't screw up the intel, it was given to him screwed up. An apology would also undermine the continuing efforts to secure a stable Iraq, which is the true goal and which has never changed.

ohall
07-14-2004, 01:24 PM
This is true. We all had the same intel. It's the same intel used to make the case at the UN. Because of that intel, the whole congress voted about 75%-25% to use war if necessary. Since then reports came out to the contrary, Bush didn't admit to it then. If he did then and offered some kind of apology and set a plan in action to try and straighten things out, most folks could've and would have gone along with him. Since he didn't, alot of ppl turned against him, rightfully so, IMO. Now even after the Senate intelligence committee report confirmed the intel as false just last week, Bush still doesn't acknowledge any errors. But to be honset, I don't think it would have made any difference to do it now, since the time to have 'fessed up would've been last fall, IMO. Maybe last year he would've, but to do so now would be political suicide since most folks may think he's really wishy-washy and figure it to be just a poilitcal move. i can't blame him for playing his hand out right now but he should have drawn another card back then.

Apologize for what? He did what any President should do when his/her CIA director tells him/her "it's a slam dunk case" when talking about the WMD in Iraq. If any President was to not act after a CIA director tells them that they should then be impeached IMO.

As things are turning out it is becoming more and more clear that Saddam was doing his BEST to get materials from Niger to re-start his nuclear program. Bush took a beating a year ago after the Niger info was in his state of the union address. Why did he take a beating over that info? Because some said that info about Niger was false. We now know it was accurate info. If someone is thinking Saddam sent representatives to Niger to talk about vacation plans they are out of their mind. The majority of Niger's economy is based on supplying raw material for nuclear programs for the entire world.

The more the DEM's try and make Bush pay a political price for invading Iraq the more voters will hold the DEM's accountable as well. The DEM's are making a huge mistake going after Bush for the invasion of Iraq. They are just as culpable as he is.

Oliver...

DeDolfan
07-14-2004, 01:30 PM
As far as I can tell, the complete information is only NOW coming in. And what does the President HAVe to apologise for? He didn't screw up the intel, it was given to him screwed up. An apology would also undermine the continuing efforts to secure a stable Iraq, which is the true goal and which has never changed.

The President is the #1 citizen in this country. he is like the CEO of a big company and when something goes wrong, he is ultimately the one responsible. I know he didn't screw up the intel, yada yada, and not blaming him for using it then as it was the only intel available and what he told us was no reason for any of us not to believe him. Where the apology was due, was when reports flowed in proving the lntel as being bad.............. that was where the apology was necessary. Maybe an apology then and an honest effort to right things with the iraqi ppl may, JUST may have averted alot of the insurgent uprisings and such. That could have been accomplished along with maintiang the original goal. but since that never happened, alot of folks are thinking that there was another agenda involved perhaps.

DeDolfan
07-14-2004, 01:34 PM
Apologize for what? He did what any President should do when his/her CIA director tells him/her "it's a slam dunk case" when talking about the WMD in Iraq. If any President was to not act after a CIA director tells them that they should then be impeached IMO.

As things are turning out it is becoming more and more clear that Saddam was doing his BEST to get materials from Niger to re-start his nuclear program. Bush took a beating a year ago after the Niger info was in his state of the union address. Why did he take a beating over that info? Because some said that info about Niger was false. We now know it was accurate info. If someone is thinking Saddam sent representatives to Niger to talk about vacation plans they are out of their mind. The majority of Niger's economy is based on supplying raw material for nuclear programs for the entire world.

The more the DEM's try and make Bush pay a political price for invading Iraq the more voters will hold the DEM's accountable as well. The DEM's are making a huge mistake going after Bush for the invasion of Iraq. They are just as culpable as he is.

Oliver...

Apologize for using false intel, even tho it was not his fault. for not confirming the info received, etc. If something doesn't become of this, it may look more and more like some kind of conspiracy was involved.
do you not believe the SIC report from last Friday?

ohall
07-14-2004, 02:10 PM
Apologize for using false intel, even tho it was not his fault. for not confirming the info received, etc. If something doesn't become of this, it may look more and more like some kind of conspiracy was involved.
do you not believe the SIC report from last Friday?

Honestly no I don't and here is why. 1st they say our current Intel gathering services are still flawed. Now based on that why would anyone assume anything they are saying based on what they call current flawed Intel services would be true? Sorry their argument does not hold water to me. It's like the old saying, two wrongs do not make a right.

It has become very clear Saddam was paying terrorist to commit terrorist acts against Israel, he harbored MULTIPLE terrorist within his country, he was doing everything he could to re-start his nuke program, Russia warned us that Saddam may be planning a 9/11 style attack in our country. These are facts that have all been verified as facts. My point being, why should Bush #43 say he's sorry when there's nothing to be sorry about?

I don't think for 1 second we the public in general will ever know all the Intel this President used to decide to invade Iraq. As far as I'm concerned that's the way it should be. I trusted Clinton when he took us to war in Kosovo and when he bombed that aspirin factory. I don't think these men ever put American soldiers in harms way unless they absolutely have to.

I'm sorry I don't subscribe to the Michael Moore theory of how America is bad and corrupted by oil and oil alone.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
07-14-2004, 02:22 PM
The President is the #1 citizen in this country. he is like the CEO of a big company and when something goes wrong, he is ultimately the one responsible. I know he didn't screw up the intel, yada yada, and not blaming him for using it then as it was the only intel available and what he told us was no reason for any of us not to believe him. Where the apology was due, was when reports flowed in proving the lntel as being bad.............. that was where the apology was necessary. Maybe an apology then and an honest effort to right things with the iraqi ppl may, JUST may have averted alot of the insurgent uprisings and such. That could have been accomplished along with maintiang the original goal. but since that never happened, alot of folks are thinking that there was another agenda involved perhaps.

None of which addresses the fact that the main reason for being in Iraq hasn't changed. We're still there to establish a stable nation. In my opinion I'd have no problem with Bush apologizing for focusing on WMD's in the first place whether they were there or not, but other than that...nada.

BigFinFan
07-14-2004, 02:42 PM
Perosnally speaking, I do not want a President to apologize.

"My fellow Americans, I am sorry"

FOR WHAT!?!

- Capturing Sadaam?
- Trying to establish peace in the Middle East?

DeDolfan
07-14-2004, 03:04 PM
None of which addresses the fact that the main reason for being in Iraq hasn't changed. We're still there to establish a stable nation. In my opinion I'd have no problem with Bush apologizing for focusing on WMD's in the first place whether they were there or not, but other than that...nada.

There were four key points on what the SIC said was wrong about the intel on Iraq.

1) Saddam was trying to reconsititue it's nuclear program.

2)Iraq had chemical and biological weapons.

3)Saddam was developing an unmanned plane, proboable intended to deliver biological weapons.

4)Iraq had an active research program to deveolpe and produce biological weapons that was larger and more advanced than the programs were before the 1991 gulf war.

As the SIC report said, ALL of these were proven false, whether any of us want to believe it or not. What were the "reasons" for going into Iraq?
Saddam was an immediate threat to us.
Iraq was planning to supply terrorisrts, yada yada yada.

The reason, myself included, why alot of folks turned against Bush, was the whole thing was a fallacy. If the SIC proved the intel was bad, then wouldn't good old common sense tell you that Saddam was NOT a threat to us, immediate or other wise, etc, etc, etc?? They could probably start another witch hunt if they wanted. Afterall, Clinton was impeached for "lying", yes? i'm not saying he did, since he couldn't have known the intel was bad at the time either. But what if he did? It is looking more and more all the time that he has another agenda in iraq. Do you honestly think that he was all that concerned for the citizens of Iraq? If so, are we going to start invading other countriews as well, ie, Iran and N Korea? China, perhaps?
bTW, it was looking this way lonf before Moore's movie hit the streets also.

DeDolfan
07-14-2004, 03:07 PM
Perosnally speaking, I do not want a President to apologize.

"My fellow Americans, I am sorry"

FOR WHAT!?!

- Capturing Sadaam?
- Trying to establish peace in the Middle East?


For what?? :confused: How about misleading the citizens of the USA for starters.

So, you would much rather have a leader that will not acknowledge any possible mistakes? He has been proven to be wrong, but yet he won't atone for it in anyway. THAT is my only problem with him. He must be straight with all of us and he has shown no willingness to do so. Sorry!!

ohall
07-14-2004, 03:11 PM
There were four key points on what the SIC said was wrong about the intel on Iraq.

1) Saddam was trying to reconsititue it's nuclear program.

2)Iraq had chemical and biological weapons.

3)Saddam was developing an unmanned plane, proboable intended to deliver biological weapons.

4)Iraq had an active research program to deveolpe and produce biological weapons that was larger and more advanced than the programs were before the 1991 gulf war.

As the SIC report said, ALL of these were proven false, whether any of us want to believe it or not. What were the "reasons" for going into Iraq?
Saddam was an immediate threat to us.
Iraq was planning to supply terrorisrts, yada yada yada.

The reason, myself included, why alot of folks turned against Bush, was the whole thing was a fallacy. If the SIC proved the intel was bad, then wouldn't good old common sense tell you that Saddam was NOT a threat to us, immediate or other wise, etc, etc, etc?? They could probably start another witch hunt if they wanted. Afterall, Clinton was impeached for "lying", yes? i'm not saying he did, since he couldn't have known the intel was bad at the time either. But what if he did? It is looking more and more all the time that he has another agenda in iraq. Do you honestly think that he was all that concerned for the citizens of Iraq? If so, are we going to start invading other countriews as well, ie, Iran and N Korea? China, perhaps?
bTW, it was looking this way lonf before Moore's movie hit the streets also.

Proven false because they were not found in Iraq as of yet. This does nothing to address the possible reality that Saddam moved his WMD program to Syria.

Oliver...

ohall
07-14-2004, 03:12 PM
For what?? :confused: How about misleading the citizens of the USA for starters.

So, you would much rather have a leader that will not acknowledge any possible mistakes? He has been proven to be wrong, but yet he won't atone for it in anyway. THAT is my only problem with him. He must be straight with all of us and he has shown no willingness to do so. Sorry!!

He didn't mislead anyone, the Intel did. He has nothing to apologize for. When your CIA director says it's a slam dunk case he'd be an idiot to not act.

Oliver...

DeDolfan
07-14-2004, 03:20 PM
He didn't mislead anyone, the Intel did. He has nothing to apologize for. When your CIA director says it's a slam dunk case he'd be an idiot to not act.

Oliver...

I realize all of that, Oliver. As I said before, that is exactly why almost everyone was behind him. i never blamed Bush for the bad intel and it was indeed a bummer. Makes us all look stupid. What makes it looks as tho he did mislead us is the fact that he won't acknowledge the bad info or even atone for it. I'm sorry, but that just smacks of sneaky underhandedness. If Clinton was still prez and acted in the same manner, didn't atone for anything, the republican controlled gov would have had another special prosecutor and impeachment proceedings going on right now. That much is hard to deny and the way it's boiling down to is simply which side of the fence we sit on.

ohall
07-14-2004, 03:26 PM
I realize all of that, Oliver. As I said before, that is exactly why almost everyone was behind him. i never blamed Bush for the bad intel and it was indeed a bummer. Makes us all look stupid. What makes it looks as tho he did mislead us is the fact that he won't acknowledge the bad info or even atone for it. I'm sorry, but that just smacks of sneaky underhandedness. If Clinton was still prez and acted in the same manner, didn't atone for anything, the republican controlled gov would have had another special prosecutor and impeachment proceedings going on right now. That much is hard to deny and the way it's boiling down to is simply which side of the fence we sit on.

I don't get what you are getting at. He is not to blame for any of that he would be out of place to apologize for something he had nothing to do with. He didn't gather the Intel, and he didn't lie by repeating that bad Intel. He was simply doing his job by making decisions based on the Intel he was getting. Why should he apologize for that?

If he apologizes for things like that it would do more harm than good IMO.

For me I don't care what other countries think about this country. They don't have a choice but to do business with us. If they don't their countries will fold because we are the worlds largest consumer goods country. Like it or not there's nothing to worry about as far as international politics go. France was never going to vote for an invasion of Iraq, even if their best friend Clinton wanted to go in there. Granted that's why Clinton never went in there though. He let international pressure push he and our country around. I'm glad there is a President in office right now who doesn't allow that to happen. As far as I'm concerned France owes this country an apology for costing extra loss of life. If they played ball we could have entered Iraq through Turkey and if that happened less American soldiers lives would have been lost in the war and the occupation.

I think you are asking the wrong person and country for an apology.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
07-14-2004, 05:51 PM
Again, I personally don't give a crap about WMD's and never did. I even said that before the invasion. Saddam screwed up. He could have stayed in power had he cooperated. He didin't and that gave us an excuse to move in. Again, it's a long term solution to terrorism, and that hasn't changed.



There were four key points on what the SIC said was wrong about the intel on Iraq.

1) Saddam was trying to reconsititue it's nuclear program.

2)Iraq had chemical and biological weapons.

3)Saddam was developing an unmanned plane, proboable intended to deliver biological weapons.

4)Iraq had an active research program to deveolpe and produce biological weapons that was larger and more advanced than the programs were before the 1991 gulf war.

As the SIC report said, ALL of these were proven false, whether any of us want to believe it or not. What were the "reasons" for going into Iraq?
Saddam was an immediate threat to us.
Iraq was planning to supply terrorisrts, yada yada yada.

The reason, myself included, why alot of folks turned against Bush, was the whole thing was a fallacy. If the SIC proved the intel was bad, then wouldn't good old common sense tell you that Saddam was NOT a threat to us, immediate or other wise, etc, etc, etc?? They could probably start another witch hunt if they wanted. Afterall, Clinton was impeached for "lying", yes? i'm not saying he did, since he couldn't have known the intel was bad at the time either. But what if he did? It is looking more and more all the time that he has another agenda in iraq. Do you honestly think that he was all that concerned for the citizens of Iraq? If so, are we going to start invading other countriews as well, ie, Iran and N Korea? China, perhaps?
bTW, it was looking this way lonf before Moore's movie hit the streets also.

themole
07-14-2004, 06:38 PM
I have no problem giving up SOME freedoms for increased security. We do it every time we fly, and even when we agree to allow the government to require drivers licenses. Just as in all things, there's no black or white. There's no "total freedom", without SOME security. If you can't feel secure, how do you feel free? If you don't feel free, how do you feel secure?

1227...We have no arguement. A few weeks ago my wife, mother in law and myself flew from Jax to Nashville to visit my daughter.

My first commercial plane trip since 911. I was very pleased to see security do their job. I made my wife and mother in law know from the "get go", if any passengers fit the profile of those who tend to commandeer jets planes and crash them into buildings, we were not flying!

I would drive that 11 hours.

Lucky for us we had an "Air Marshall or Fedreral Agent" on board. I spotted the telltale signs under his clothing, and noticed a familiarity between him and the stewardess. What ever rights I lost due to the Patriot Act, at this time, I don't believe I miss.

BUT! Those lobsters aren't very worried when they are emersed into that cool pot of water sitting on the burner either.

A friend of mine entered into Viet Nam in 1963 as an adviser to RVN. He related to me that the freest he had EVER been in his life was on patrol in the bush with the RVN soldiers. I asked how so? He replied...I WAS the law! I could take a life and command with out ANY repercussion to myself. At the time there was a problem with ARV troops cutting and running under fire, that was not to be tolerated under any circumstance! I kind of understood what he was saying, when you are in a place where it is kill or be killed. In his opinion it was truly the "law of the jungle" and he was the Sovereign. I found it a little unnerving to extrapolate the thoughts and feelings he was trying to have me understand. But I did get a glimpse of HIS experience with "total freedom".

themole
07-14-2004, 07:27 PM
I realize all of that, Oliver. As I said before, that is exactly why almost everyone was behind him. i never blamed Bush for the bad intel and it was indeed a bummer. Makes us all look stupid. What makes it looks as tho he did mislead us is the fact that he won't acknowledge the bad info or even atone for it. I'm sorry, but that just smacks of sneaky underhandedness. If Clinton was still prez and acted in the same manner, didn't atone for anything, the republican controlled gov would have had another special prosecutor and impeachment proceedings going on right now. That much is hard to deny and the way it's boiling down to is simply which side of the fence we sit on.


De...he doesn't have to atone for "hunting down and killing international terrorism, where ever it may be found". That was his first promise to us after 911. He had to start somewhere, Iraq was a natural choice. WMD are hidden in the sands of one or more of the countries over there. Most likely belonging to Saddam. Who's next? This group of Dirt Dobbers, are as dangerous to the free world as Nazi Germany or the the USSR. They already own france.

PhinPhan1227
07-15-2004, 01:20 AM
1227...We have no arguement. A few weeks ago my wife, mother in law and myself flew from Jax to Nashville to visit my daughter.

My first commercial plane trip since 911. I was very pleased to see security do their job. I made my wife and mother in law know from the "get go", if any passengers fit the profile of those who tend to commandeer jets planes and crash them into buildings, we were not flying!

I would drive that 11 hours.

Lucky for us we had an "Air Marshall or Fedreral Agent" on board. I spotted the telltale signs under his clothing, and noticed a familiarity between him and the stewardess. What ever rights I lost due to the Patriot Act, at this time, I don't believe I miss.

BUT! Those lobsters aren't very worried when they are emersed into that cool pot of water sitting on the burner either.

A friend of mine entered into Viet Nam in 1963 as an adviser to RVN. He related to me that the freest he had EVER been in his life was on patrol in the bush with the RVN soldiers. I asked how so? He replied...I WAS the law! I could take a life and command with out ANY repercussion to myself. At the time there was a problem with ARV troops cutting and running under fire, that was not to be tolerated under any circumstance! I kind of understood what he was saying, when you are in a place where it is kill or be killed. In his opinion it was truly the "law of the jungle" and he was the Sovereign. I found it a little unnerving to extrapolate the thoughts and feelings he was trying to have me understand. But I did get a glimpse of HIS experience with "total freedom".

Lol...if you're the only man in the room with a gun, you ARE free, at least in that room. Lucky you to have been able to wait that long to fly. My dad passed away in October 2001, and I had to fly back to Florida to be with him his last few days. VERY wierd.

themole
07-15-2004, 06:52 AM
Lol...if you're the only man in the room with a gun, you ARE free, at least in that room. Lucky you to have been able to wait that long to fly. My dad passed away in October 2001, and I had to fly back to Florida to be with him his last few days. VERY wierd.

My condolences to you 12, on the passing of your dad. I lost mine in 1987, still miss him everyday.

PhinPhan1227
07-15-2004, 11:31 AM
My condolences to you 12, on the passing of your dad. I lost mine in 1987, still miss him everyday.

It's funny, but the times I think of him most are during the season. I started watching the Phins with him and he took me to my first game. He also missed the birth of my son by only a couple of years which hurts too. But there are enough great memories to make up for it. Cheers man.

BigFinFan
07-15-2004, 12:26 PM
1227...We have no arguement. A few weeks ago my wife, mother in law and myself flew from Jax to Nashville to visit my daughter.

My first commercial plane trip since 911. I was very pleased to see security do their job. I made my wife and mother in law know from the "get go", if any passengers fit the profile of those who tend to commandeer jets planes and crash them into buildings, we were not flying!

I would drive that 11 hours.

Lucky for us we had an "Air Marshall or Fedreral Agent" on board. I spotted the telltale signs under his clothing, and noticed a familiarity between him and the stewardess. What ever rights I lost due to the Patriot Act, at this time, I don't believe I miss.

BUT! Those lobsters aren't very worried when they are emersed into that cool pot of water sitting on the burner either.

A friend of mine entered into Viet Nam in 1963 as an adviser to RVN. He related to me that the freest he had EVER been in his life was on patrol in the bush with the RVN soldiers. I asked how so? He replied...I WAS the law! I could take a life and command with out ANY repercussion to myself. At the time there was a problem with ARV troops cutting and running under fire, that was not to be tolerated under any circumstance! I kind of understood what he was saying, when you are in a place where it is kill or be killed. In his opinion it was truly the "law of the jungle" and he was the Sovereign. I found it a little unnerving to extrapolate the thoughts and feelings he was trying to have me understand. But I did get a glimpse of HIS experience with "total freedom".

Should have known that you would be guilty of "Racial Profiling". :roflmao:

DeDolfan
07-15-2004, 05:21 PM
I don't get what you are getting at. He is not to blame for any of that he would be out of place to apologize for something he had nothing to do with. He didn't gather the Intel, and he didn't lie by repeating that bad Intel. He was simply doing his job by making decisions based on the Intel he was getting. Why should he apologize for that?

If he apologizes for things like that it would do more harm than good IMO.

For me I don't care what other countries think about this country. They don't have a choice but to do business with us. If they don't their countries will fold because we are the worlds largest consumer goods country. Like it or not there's nothing to worry about as far as international politics go. France was never going to vote for an invasion of Iraq, even if their best friend Clinton wanted to go in there. Granted that's why Clinton never went in there though. He let international pressure push he and our country around. I'm glad there is a President in office right now who doesn't allow that to happen. As far as I'm concerned France owes this country an apology for costing extra loss of life. If they played ball we could have entered Iraq through Turkey and if that happened less American soldiers lives would have been lost in the war and the occupation.

I think you are asking the wrong person and country for an apology.

Oliver...

look at it this way........... a good trusted friend [CIA] tells a father [GWB] that a bully is beating up his kid in school. The father goes down to the school and tells what he knows [making the case for war] to the principal [UN]. he is told that it will be looked into. Instead, the father finds the kid and beats his azz really good. Later on, we find out that the father's friend had told him the wrong info [kay, Clarke, SIC whatever reports]. The next logical step would be for the father to go back to the school and explain why he had acted the way he did because he had no reason to believe the info he acted on was false [the whole USA] and would apologize for his actions, in dire hoped the kis doesn't sue the pants off him [whatever recourse is available].
If someone bumps you accidently out at the end of an ailse in publix and you "inadvertently" knock some lady down, are you not going to apologize to her even tho it was not "exactly" your fault?
So, you see, it's really no different even this involves 2 countries instead of of a few individuals. THAT is why he should apologize and if you truly believ that offering an apology is a sign of weakness, then i guess there is nothing else left to say about it. But I can not see why you think that an apology would do more harm than good tho.

i particulary don't care much about what other countries thgink of us either, but it may be about time to tho. Granted, most of the socialists countries have disbanded but there is this thing called the EU that is organizing. Why are they doing that? Who knows, but if say Russia joins, if they're not already, then they become bigger. Suppose they start acting like one big country politically instead of the economics involved. Don't you think they would make a formidable foe? Not that it would ever happen but it could tho. and suppose china joins up with them and N Korea! We would always be the most powerful nation in the world forever. Remeber the fall of the Roman Empire? They got too big for their own britches also!

DeDolfan
07-15-2004, 05:27 PM
[QUOTE=PhinPhan1227] and gave us an excuse to move in. [/ QUOTE]
And tHAT'S exactly what it all has been..........an excuse!!

DeDolfan
07-15-2004, 05:30 PM
De...he doesn't have to atone for "hunting down and killing international terrorism, where ever it may be found". That was his first promise to us after 911. He had to start somewhere, Iraq was a natural choice. WMD are hidden in the sands of one or more of the countries over there. Most likely belonging to Saddam. Who's next? This group of Dirt Dobbers, are as dangerous to the free world as Nazi Germany or the the USSR. They already own france.

I never said that. i only said that he needs to atone for his actions against iraq. terrorism was largely an "excuse" for iraq but it has all been proven WRONG and confirmed! The bad part about it all now is the mess we created there and have to clean up somehow.

DeDolfan
07-15-2004, 05:33 PM
Lol...if you're the only man in the room with a gun, you ARE free, at least in that room. Lucky you to have been able to wait that long to fly. My dad passed away in October 2001, and I had to fly back to Florida to be with him his last few days. VERY wierd.

my condolences as well. Mine passed away in 85 and tho they say that time heals all wounds, it is not all entirely true.

PhinPhan1227
07-15-2004, 07:14 PM
[QUOTE=PhinPhan1227] and gave us an excuse to move in. [/ QUOTE]
And tHAT'S exactly what it all has been..........an excuse!!

Pearl Harbor was an excuse to join WWII. There's always an excuse

themole
07-15-2004, 09:00 PM
Should have known that you would be guilty of "Racial Profiling". :roflmao:


:lol: I prefer to call it a safety check.

BigFinFan
07-15-2004, 11:09 PM
:lol: I prefer to call it a safety check.

I was just giving you a hard time - as usual!

I flew home from Diego Garcia in December 2001. I flew back to Diego Garcia in January 2002, then back home in February 2002. After changing commands, I went to Japan 5 times in a nine month period (March - ecember) in 2002.

We are trained to be vigilant, but flying that much shortly after 9/11, I was always on the edge of my seat - just checking. I will say this, I got better seating on all trips due to being in the Military. IT seemed as thought the air crew felt better with servicemen near the exits.

DolFan31
07-15-2004, 11:18 PM
Ok there was WMD in Iraq, THAT REAGAN SOLD TO SADDAM DURING THE IRAN/IRAQ WAR TO WIPE OUT THE IRANIANS! After U.N. sanctions, Gulf War I, and bombings during the Clinton Administration, Saddam's WMDs were destroyed for the most part. So, here's 3 things that really bothers me about this war and WMD:

1.Rumsfeld said we knew where the WMD were: "..they're in the area around Baghdad and Tikrit."

2.Bush warned Saddam to get rid of the WMD or step down from power or he would face a military invasion. What if he did get rid of the WMD like he was told to? If we knew for sure there was WMD in Iraq, and we cant seem to find any, and we have theories floating around that Saddam got rid of the weapons and sent them to other countries(Syria has been mentioned), isnt that what he was supposed to do? Ok, you're going to say he was supposed to destroy them. How are you supposed to do this? Maybe getting rid of the WMD to other countries was his solution. We invaded anyway.

3. Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis? I wasn't alive in the 1960's during the height of the Cold War, but I do know many things about this period in our history. When the Soviets sent missiles to Cuba, what happened? We found out. How? Spy work. And how did the public know what the US government knew? They showed us the evidence that Cuba had missiles and they were pointed in our direction: spy photos taken by a spy plane that flew over Cuba. Why didnt this happen this time around? If we really had proof, where is it? Why weren't we allowed to see it?

This is what bothers me about the WMD argument for this war.

As far as freeing an oppressed people(who dont seem very grateful), if this is what our foreign policy is going to be about, we got a lot of work to do.

BigFinFan
07-15-2004, 11:24 PM
Ok there was WMD in Iraq, THAT REAGAN SOLD TO SADDAM DURING THE IRAN/IRAQ WAR TO WIPE OUT THE IRANIANS! After U.N. sanctions, Gulf War I, and bombings during the Clinton Administration, Saddam's WMDs were destroyed for the most part. So, here's 3 things that really bothers me about this war and WMD:

1.Rumsfeld said we knew where the WMD were: "..they're in the area around Baghdad and Tikrit."

2.Bush warned Saddam to get rid of the WMD or step down from power or he would face a military invasion. What if he did get rid of the WMD like he was told to? If we knew for sure there was WMD in Iraq, and we cant seem to find any, and we have theories floating around that Saddam got rid of the weapons and sent them to other countries(Syria has been mentioned), isnt that what he was supposed to do? Ok, you're going to say he was supposed to destroy them. How are you supposed to do this? Maybe getting rid of the WMD to other countries was his solution. We invaded anyway.

3. Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis? I wasn't born in the 1960's during the height of the Cold War, but I do know many things about this period in our history. When the Soviets sent missiles to Cuba, what happened? We found out. How? Spy work. And how did the public know what the US government knew? They showed us the evidence that Cuba had missiles and they were pointed in our direction: spy photos taken by a spy plane that flew over Cuba. Why didnt this happen this time around? If we really had proof, where is it? Why weren't we allowed to see it?

This is what bothers me about the WMD argument for this war.

As far as freeing an oppressed people(who dont seem very grateful), if this is what our foreign policy is going to be about, we got a lot of work to do.

Do you honestly expect the journalist to show those Iraqi that are happy? That won't sell newspapers, magazines, or anyhting else. During times of crisis, the only thing that these guys are going to show is tragedy.


The WMD's were there, and so were the capabilities.

Remember - BIG PICTURE!

DolFan31
07-15-2004, 11:50 PM
Do you honestly expect the journalist to show those Iraqi that are happy? That won't sell newspapers, magazines, or anyhting else. During times of crisis, the only thing that these guys are going to show is tragedy.


The WMD's were there, and so were the capabilities.

Remember - BIG PICTURE!

ITs the governments job to inform the public about harm coming to this country, and if another country poses a threat, Id like to see some proof, and the journalists dont need to show it, the Government shouldve with a press conference, not the NBC/CBS/ABC Nightly News.

Where's the proof?

BTW - The Media are scumbags, whether you think theyre liberal, conservative, or nuetral, they do only broadcast mostly negative crap for profit(ratings, selling newspapers/magazines).

themole
07-15-2004, 11:53 PM
Ok there was WMD in Iraq, THAT REAGAN SOLD TO SADDAM DURING THE IRAN/IRAQ WAR TO WIPE OUT THE IRANIANS! After U.N. sanctions, Gulf War I, and bombings during the Clinton Administration, Saddam's WMDs were destroyed for the most part. So, here's 3 things that really bothers me about this war and WMD:

1.Rumsfeld said we knew where the WMD were: "..they're in the area around Baghdad and Tikrit."

2.Bush warned Saddam to get rid of the WMD or step down from power or he would face a military invasion. What if he did get rid of the WMD like he was told to? If we knew for sure there was WMD in Iraq, and we cant seem to find any, and we have theories floating around that Saddam got rid of the weapons and sent them to other countries(Syria has been mentioned), isnt that what he was supposed to do? Ok, you're going to say he was supposed to destroy them. How are you supposed to do this? Maybe getting rid of the WMD to other countries was his solution. We invaded anyway.

3. Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis? I wasn't alive in the 1960's during the height of the Cold War, but I do know many things about this period in our history. When the Soviets sent missiles to Cuba, what happened? We found out. How? Spy work. And how did the public know what the US government knew? They showed us the evidence that Cuba had missiles and they were pointed in our direction: spy photos taken by a spy plane that flew over Cuba. Why didnt this happen this time around? If we really had proof, where is it? Why weren't we allowed to see it?

This is what bothers me about the WMD argument for this war.

As far as freeing an oppressed people(who dont seem very grateful), if this is what our foreign policy is going to be about, we got a lot of work to do.


So forget about WMD. First priority was "Hunt Down international terrorist and Kill Them Where Ever They Can Be Found". Don't worry your pretty little head about the rest of it. :D

DolFan31
07-16-2004, 12:00 AM
So forget about WMD. First priority was "Hunt Down international terrorist and Kill Them Where Ever They Can Be Found". Don't worry your pretty little head about the rest of it. :D

Forget about WMD? That was the main purpose of going to war! America's credibility could be tarnished cuz of this!

You'll get it when the next time we go to war that only the UK(depending if Blair is still PM), Saudi Arabia(will help only if they remain our main oil exporter), and a handful of countries with no militaries help us.

ohall
07-16-2004, 12:01 AM
Forget about WMD? That was the main purpose of going to war! America's credibility could be tarnished cuz of this!

You'll get it when the next time we go to war that only the UK(depending if Blair is still PM), Saudi Arabia(will help only if they remain our main oil exporter), and a handful of countries with no militaries.

A quick question, what was the main reason that the US entered WW2? Then tell me after the war was done what was the public's opinion for the US getting into that war?

Oliver...

themole
07-16-2004, 12:17 AM
ITs the governments job to inform the public about harm coming to this country, and if another country poses a threat, Id like to see some proof, and the journalists dont need to show it, the Government shouldve with a press conference, not the NBC/CBS/ABC Nightly News.



If not on NBC/CBS/ABC, who? Want them to project the press conference off the moon? :lol:

PhinPhan1227
07-16-2004, 01:39 AM
Forget about WMD? That was the main purpose of going to war! America's credibility could be tarnished cuz of this!

You'll get it when the next time we go to war that only the UK(depending if Blair is still PM), Saudi Arabia(will help only if they remain our main oil exporter), and a handful of countries with no militaries help us.


Care to check the figures for the number of non-American/British troops who helped us in the LAST war(Gulf War I)?

ohall
07-16-2004, 11:35 AM
Care to check the figures for the number of non-American/British troops who helped us in the LAST war(Gulf War I)?

Ah no most DEM's don't have a clue how things work when America is involved in a war. We've always shouldered the largest burden, and some ppl can never admit that, because that would mean they are playing a lil game of gotcha with the President.

Oliver...

DeDolfan
07-16-2004, 12:56 PM
Pearl Harbor was an excuse to join WWII. There's always an excuse

No, Pearl Harbor was the REASON, not an excuse. Til then, we had minded our own buisness. Besides, We, pearl harbor, was attacked by another sovereign nation, with real armies with real uniforms with their own weapons and such. BIIIIG frikkin' difference there!!

ohall
07-16-2004, 01:01 PM
No, Pearl Harbor was the REASON, not an excuse. Til then, we had minded our own buisness. Besides, We, pearl harbor, was attacked by another sovereign nation, with real armies with real uniforms with their own weapons and such. BIIIIG frikkin' difference there!!

So why did we join the war in Europe? If the only correct way for us to go to war with a country is in direct defense of an attack, why didn't we go after Japan and Japan alone?

When you answer because they were a member of the AXIS nations you'll understand why we went into Iraq after Afghanistan.

Oliver...

DeDolfan
07-16-2004, 01:16 PM
So forget about WMD. First priority was "Hunt Down international terrorist and Kill Them Where Ever They Can Be Found". Don't worry your pretty little head about the rest of it. :D

yup, after 9/11, Bush rightfully declared war on terrorism wherever it is. That's all fine and dandy but if that is really true, then why haven't we invaded iran, pakistan, phillipines, china, n korea, colombia, etc, to name a few, as well? it's awful funny how that [terrorism] was part of the reason for invading iraq but yet all the reasons for doing so have been proven false. I've not said this before, but if I was bush, I would be wanting to know just who screwed up all the bad intel. It smacks more and more of a damned conspriacy all the time. 31 said it right when he asked how we knew that russia was putting missles in Cuba. That was even back in the day when there was no spy satellites. There was no excuse for bad intel today with the technology available. It is totally inexcusable and unaccepatble and yet Bush has done nothing to get to the bottom of it. Another screwy thing, who is being sent to prison, etc. for the "torturing" at Abu grabby prison?? The poor bastards that had nothing to do with it and were doing what they were told. We found out that the "orders" came from high up. Then we even find out that it even came from rumsfeld himself saying something of the like as to "use methods other than normal ones", or such. Nobody is even being questioned in the CIA/FBI foulsups, nor the prison deal.Bet you one thing tho, if this had all taken place 4 years ago during Clinton's time, evryone of yous here would be calling for his head. And you know it. I can't remember a time when this country has been so partisian and it seems we're so bent on going to hell in a handbasket. The reps are so blineded with bush's crap that ya'll can't see straight. Take off the blinders and have a looksee around ya. Hell, even a dumbassss like me can see what's going on and I had figured alot of folks here to be alot smarter than i ever would be. Sheeeesh !!

DeDolfan
07-16-2004, 01:17 PM
a lil game of gotcha with the President.

Oliver...

Ya mean like with Clinton??!! :D

BigFinFan
07-16-2004, 01:26 PM
No, Pearl Harbor was the REASON, not an excuse. Til then, we had minded our own buisness. Besides, We, pearl harbor, was attacked by another sovereign nation, with real armies with real uniforms with their own weapons and such. BIIIIG frikkin' difference there!!

World Trade Center - TWICE
USS Cole
US Embassy compound in Beirut
US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut
US Embassy in Kuwait
US Embassy in Beirut
US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main
TWA Flight 840
Pan Am Flight 103
US Military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
US Military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia (Khobar Towers)
US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
USS Cole (Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war)

We have been under a constant attack since 1979!


How many more times should we get ***** slapped before we act?

DeDolfan
07-16-2004, 01:37 PM
So why did we join the war in Europe? If the only correct way for us to go to war with a country is in direct defense of an attack, why didn't we go after Japan and Japan alone?

When you answer because they were a member of the AXIS nations you'll understand why we went into Iraq after Afghanistan.

Oliver...

WWII began when germany started invading neighboring countries. They attacked Englan, France, Belgium, Poland, etc, etc., bringing them all into it. We were allies with them and we had to sit on our hands and do little since we had not been attacked. the war was going on for over 2 years when Japan attacked us, that allowed FDR to get us into it. i guess we "didn't" have to go into Europe but i guess that FDRs "good neighbor policy" had something to do with it. But it's quite different this time. WE'RE the ones that did the invading.

PhinPhan1227
07-16-2004, 01:37 PM
No, Pearl Harbor was the REASON, not an excuse. Til then, we had minded our own buisness. Besides, We, pearl harbor, was attacked by another sovereign nation, with real armies with real uniforms with their own weapons and such. BIIIIG frikkin' difference there!!


ROFL!! We minded our own business? People actually think we entered the War after Dec 7th 1941. For YEARS before that US Servicemen were dying in DROVES to get supplies to England and the Soviets. We were also in conflict with Japan prior to that when we started cutting them off from nearby resources. We were at war LONG before Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor WAS an excuse. It was an excuse that much of the country was sorely looking for. As for being attacked by a sovereign nation, what do you think Iraq was prior to us taking over? Who do you think was manning the tanks we blew up? Just because we are in a guerilla war now, doesn't mean we weren't in a stand up conflict before. Oh, and talk to a veteran of the Pacific theater about the battles for the islands.

DeDolfan
07-16-2004, 01:40 PM
World Trade Center - TWICE
USS Cole
US Embassy compound in Beirut
US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut
US Embassy in Kuwait
US Embassy in Beirut
US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main
TWA Flight 840
Pan Am Flight 103
US Military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
US Military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia (Khobar Towers)
US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
USS Cole (Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war)

We have been under a constant attack since 1979!


How many more times should we get ***** slapped before we act?

Did I ever say that we shouldn't act? But when we act, do it responsibly and against the right ones. of all those events you mentioned, how many did iraq do? Huh?

PhinPhan1227
07-16-2004, 01:48 PM
yup, after 9/11, Bush rightfully declared war on terrorism wherever it is. That's all fine and dandy but if that is really true, then why haven't we invaded iran, pakistan, phillipines, china, n korea, colombia, etc, to name a few, as well? 31 said it right when he asked how we knew that russia was putting missles in Cuba. That was even back in the day when there was no spy satellites. There was no excuse for bad intel today with the technology available. !

You're the product of too much Tom Clancy.

#1-You fight one battle at a time whenever you can. By invading Iraq we eliminated the WMD programs in Libya, and The Sudan without firing a shot. We've also got Iran to come to the bargaining table because of it. Look, after Clinton gutted our military we CAN'T go after any of the other ones yet.

#2-We had spy planes like the U2 to see into Cuba. But a missile is a VERY obvious thing. A plant to make chem/bio weapons fits into a very small building and can look like almost any factory. What good is a spy satelite then? The best Intel STILL comes from the guy on the ground. That hasn't changed. And the biggest problem is that for 40 years we have been gearing to fight the Commies...we have Russian linguists, chinese linguists, Cuban linguists...you don't build a spy network over night. It takes decades.

ohall
07-16-2004, 01:50 PM
Ya mean like with Clinton??!! :D

So you think playing politics with a President lying under oath during peace times, is the same as playing political games during times of war are the same?

I know you're half joking with your response, but the other half, the serious part is scary to me.

Oliver...

ohall
07-16-2004, 01:58 PM
WWII began when germany started invading neighboring countries. They attacked Englan, France, Belgium, Poland, etc, etc., bringing them all into it. We were allies with them and we had to sit on our hands and do little since we had not been attacked. the war was going on for over 2 years when Japan attacked us, that allowed FDR to get us into it. i guess we "didn't" have to go into Europe but i guess that FDRs "good neighbor policy" had something to do with it. But it's quite different this time. WE'RE the ones that did the invading.

Yet not one of those countries you listed beyond Japan attacking us invaded or attacked the USA directly. If we use the same logic being applied to this President today we never should have entered the European part of WW2.

Why doesn't Israel deserve our support in that region? They have not been directly invaded, but they are under attack from terrorist on a daily basis. Saddam was a terrorist as far as I'm concerned and I wish this administration would make that case. A leader that funds offers safe passage and shelter to terrorist IMO is the same as the terrorist. We won't even talk about the genocide he committed on a daily basis.

Pre-emptive war is nothing new to this country and to this world. We had every right to invade Iraq, and the more time passes the more it becomes clear Saddam himself was a terrorist. This political gotcha game the DEM’s are playing is going to lose them seats in the congress and senate and will lose them the Presidency. The DEM party is very slow to adjust and learn from its mistakes.

Oliver...

Section126
07-16-2004, 02:11 PM
Did I ever say that we shouldn't act? But when we act, do it responsibly and against the right ones. of all those events you mentioned, how many did iraq do? Huh?

Ask and you shall recieve:

World Trade Center - The first time, there is evidence that Iraq aided Ramsey Yousef

US Embassy compound in Beirut- Hezbollah and Hamas were funded by Iraq and Iran at that time...open funding of Hezbollah continued till the day Saddam was deposed.

US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut- SAME

US Embassy in Kuwait- SAME
US Embassy in Beirut- SAME

US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main- SAME

Pan Am Flight 103- Libya was closely aligned with Iraq at the time.

US Military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia- Guess which country those terrorists lived in for 3 years prior to the attacK.....

:0wned:

ohall
07-16-2004, 02:21 PM
Did I ever say that we shouldn't act? But when we act, do it responsibly and against the right ones. of all those events you mentioned, how many did iraq do? Huh?

Do you believe that the Russian President would lie about what terrorist acts Saddam was possibly organizing against America?

Putin gave Intel to the President that Saddam was trying organize a 9/11 style attack within the USA. For me that's all I would need as President to take him out after 13-years of enabling him and failed UN diplomacy.

What would it take for some like you to agree to invading Iraq, another 3,000 innocent ppl losing their lives, or would 5,000, 10,000 be a better #?

Oliver...

themole
07-16-2004, 02:24 PM
yup, after 9/11, Bush rightfully declared war on terrorism wherever it is. That's all fine and dandy but if that is really true, then why haven't we invaded iran, pakistan, phillipines, china, n korea, colombia, etc, to name a few, as well? it's awful funny how that [terrorism] was part of the reason for invading iraq but yet all the reasons for doing so have been proven false. I've not said this before, but if I was bush, I would be wanting to know just who screwed up all the bad intel. It smacks more and more of a damned conspriacy all the time. 31 said it right when he asked how we knew that russia was putting missles in Cuba. That was even back in the day when there was no spy satellites. There was no excuse for bad intel today with the technology available. It is totally inexcusable and unaccepatble and yet Bush has done nothing to get to the bottom of it. Another screwy thing, who is being sent to prison, etc. for the "torturing" at Abu grabby prison?? The poor bastards that had nothing to do with it and were doing what they were told. We found out that the "orders" came from high up. Then we even find out that it even came from rumsfeld himself saying something of the like as to "use methods other than normal ones", or such. Nobody is even being questioned in the CIA/FBI foulsups, nor the prison deal.Bet you one thing tho, if this had all taken place 4 years ago during Clinton's time, evryone of yous here would be calling for his head. And you know it. I can't remember a time when this country has been so partisian and it seems we're so bent on going to hell in a handbasket. The reps are so blineded with bush's crap that ya'll can't see straight. Take off the blinders and have a looksee around ya. Hell, even a dumbassss like me can see what's going on and I had figured alot of folks here to be alot smarter than i ever would be. Sheeeesh !!

In a word "CLINTON"! That is who is responsible for all our intelligence woes. He decimated the CIA and all covert activity abilities left over from the cold war.

edited by: 1227 :roflmao:

PhinPhan1227
07-16-2004, 02:44 PM
In a word "CLINTON"! That is who is responsible for all our intelligence wows. He decimated the CIA and all covert activity abilities left over from the cold war.


Um...not much of a "wow" to our intelligence community nowadays. (I know it was a typo...but too good to pass up... :lol: )

themole
07-16-2004, 03:01 PM
Um...not much of a "wow" to our intelligence community nowadays. (I know it was a typo...but too good to pass up... :lol: )

:D Actually 12 I was busy with a true "WOW!" check my post out in the lounge.

DolFan31
07-21-2004, 02:39 PM
I suppose Clinton is the reason for all of our problem eh?

I think the Republican-led government has really gotten it wrong with terrorists groups: they can survive, organize, and attack us or anyone without a state sponsor, and its going to kill us in our effort in the War Against Terrorism. Attack the terror groups, not dictators, otherwise we're going to be destracted from fighting our real enemies. Unless of course theres some REAL evidence that comes out that a state has sponsored a terrorist group, which no evidence has come out that Iraq supported any terrorist group.

There was a good political cartoon I saw last week. It was like this:

Republican Elephant: We have evidence that Saddam and Al Qeada met once, so they must have been working together!

Democrat Donkey: But we meet everyday!

DolFan31
07-21-2004, 02:48 PM
And what do you Bush supporters think of this?

This is Bush's greatest flip-flop of all-time:

Bush, on Bin Laden's whereabouts:
"I dont know, I dont care. Its really not that important"

ohall
07-21-2004, 02:57 PM
And what do you Bush supporters think of this?

This is Bush's greatest flip-flop of all-time:

Bush, on Bin Laden's whereabouts:
"I dont know, I dont care. Its really not that important"

I believe his point is simple, if UBL is caught al-Qaeda will still go on. The only way to really stop these radical muslims is to cut off their supply of $ and the invasion of Iraq was a huge step towards this goal.

And that's not a flip flop, that's a quote taken out of context!

Oliver...

DolFan31
07-21-2004, 03:13 PM
I believe his point is simple, if UBL is caught al-Qaeda will still go on. The only way to really stop these radical muslims is to cut off their supply of $ and the invasion of Iraq was a huge step towards this goal.

And that's not a flip flop, that's a quote taken out of context!

Oliver...
:shakeno:

IT IS A FLIP-FLOP! Bush said he wanted Osama dead or alive! True, Al Queda will most likely still go on with or without UBL, but hes still responsible for 3,000 deaths! That is a piss poor of an excuse for not catching the head of the 9/11 attacks as well as previous attacks against us. And stopping their funding is not enough to stop these guys. The War in Iraq has done NOTHING to stop or hault terrorism, only has stretched out our military and jhas taken up resources that were used in Afghanistan to find UBL and root out Al Queada cells. The fact we hadnt been attacked since is not an indicator of our success in the war on terror. It simply means that the terrorists are waiting for the right moment like they did on 9/11. You clearly have shown me that no matter what Bush says or does, you will support it, even if its wrong.

"I believe his point is simple, if UBL is caught al-Qaeda will still go on."

Thats like saying we shouldnt capture murderers and rapists and theives, because crimes will still go on.

BigFinFan
07-21-2004, 03:22 PM
Please post the entire quote by President Bush

ohall
07-21-2004, 03:31 PM
:shakeno:

IT IS A FLIP-FLOP! Bush said he wanted Osama dead or alive! True, Al Queda will most likely still go on with or without UBL, but hes still responsible for 3,000 deaths! That is a piss poor of an excuse for not catching the head of the 9/11 attacks as well as previous attacks against us. And stopping their funding is not enough to stop these guys. The War in Iraq has done NOTHING to stop or hault terrorism, only has stretched out our military and jhas taken up resources that were used in Afghanistan to find UBL and root out Al Queada cells. The fact we hadnt been attacked since is not an indicator of our success in the war on terror. It simply means that the terrorists are waiting for the right moment like they did on 9/11. You clearly have shown me that no matter what Bush says or does, you will support it, even if its wrong.

"I believe his point is simple, if UBL is caught al-Qaeda will still go on."

Thats like saying we shouldnt capture murderers and rapists and theives, because crimes will still go on.

No you took a quote totally out of context. Of course UBL is important to catch, but in the larger picture of terrorism which he was addressing with that comment there is an even bigger problem to address for this country and the world.

Keep spinning if you want to. Most ppl understand ppl who take things out of context have an agenda.

Oliver...

ohall
07-21-2004, 03:32 PM
Please post the entire quote by President Bush

I doubt that will happen, because the LIBERAL web site or e-mail he got it from doesn't have the entire quote in context.

Oliver...

DolFan31
07-21-2004, 03:38 PM
Please post the entire quote by President Bush

Asked for and recieved.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --

THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.

And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.




What a bunch of b.s. :fire:

DolFan31
07-21-2004, 03:40 PM
I doubt that will happen, because the LIBERAL web site or e-mail he got it from doesn't have the entire quote in context.

Oliver...

Oh really? :rolleyes:

DolFan31
07-21-2004, 03:41 PM
No you took a quote totally out of context. Of course UBL is important to catch, but in the larger picture of terrorism which he was addressing with that comment there is an even bigger problem to address for this country and the world.

Keep spinning if you want to. Most ppl understand ppl who take things out of context have an agenda.

Oliver...

Its not spin, its his own words! I understand that we're not just fighting UBL/Al Queda, but that doesnt mean you just give up on the one man that started this war to begin with!

ohall
07-21-2004, 03:44 PM
Asked for and recieved.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --

THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.

And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.




What a bunch of b.s. :fire:

Umm this quote you originally posted, "I dont know, I dont care. Its really not that important" is not in what you just posted!

Yeah, BS the thing most ppl who understand what we are up against call reality.

Oliver...

BigFinFan
07-21-2004, 03:45 PM
Wow - I read that entire post and I did not see the word "I don't care" anywhere.

ohall
07-21-2004, 03:45 PM
Oh really? :rolleyes:

Yes really, I'm still waiting for you to post a LINK in full context of what you originally posted. The last post you just posted does not contain your original quote whatsoever.

Keep spinning.

Oliver...

ohall
07-21-2004, 03:46 PM
Its not spin, its his own words! I understand that we're not just fighting UBL/Al Queda, but that doesnt mean you just give up on the one man that started this war to begin with!

What you posted is total spin. You have drank too muck LIBERAL cool-aid as far as I can see.

Oliver...

BigFinFan
07-21-2004, 03:46 PM
DolFan31, you should read your post for yourself and not always beleive Michale Moore.

DolFan31
07-21-2004, 03:53 PM
DolFan31, you should read your post for yourself and not always beleive Michale Moore.

Even tho Moore has facts to back up most of his claims?

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes

DolFan31
07-21-2004, 04:00 PM
What you posted is total spin. You have drank too muck LIBERAL cool-aid as far as I can see.

Oliver...

Ah, but I did post the correct quote, entirely. I was looking for it when I posted what I thought he said, for that I apologize. So let's review what he did say.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --

THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore.(not true, Syria, Yemen, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, not to mention the outskirts of Iraq..) And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.

And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.


*Please note this is from the official website of the White House, so I do not garauntee everything in this quote hasnt been tampered with.

ohall
07-21-2004, 04:09 PM
Ah, but I did post the correct quote, entirely. I was looking for it when I posted what I thought he said, for that I apologize. So let's review what he did say.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --

THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore.(not true, Syria, Yemen, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, not to mention the outskirts of Iraq..) And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.

And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.


*Please note this is from the official website of the White House, so I do not garauntee everything in this quote hasnt been tampered with.

I see nothing in there that paints the picture you were originally trying to paint. Why would Bush spend any of his personal time thinking about UBL? He is the President he has more important things to deal with than day to day worrying about one man who is not even that important any longer to terrorist. We have issolated him, and he is unable to function as he wants to function. If he was caught it would be nothing more than a press opportunity for the White House.

People have taken UBL's place because #1 he is no longer healthy and #2 America has made him useless to terrorist.

Your last sentence is a total insult to anyone with half a brain.

Keep spinning.

Oliver...

DolFan31
07-21-2004, 04:12 PM
I see nothing in there that paints the picture you were originally trying to paint. Why would Bush spend any of his personal time thinking about UBL? He is the President he has more important things to deal with than day to day worrying about one man who is not even that important any longer to terrorist. We have issolated him, and he is unable to function as he wants to function. If he was caught it would be nothing more than a press opportunity for the White House.

People have taken UBL's place because #1 he is no longer healthy and #2 America has made him useless to terrorist.

Your last sentence is a total insult to anyone with half a brain.

Keep spinning.

Oliver...

How about your 5 post is an insult to everyone who died on September 11th? Whatever happened to justice for all? So because he supposedly is "isolated" and "weak", we should leave him be? What a crock.

DolFan31
07-21-2004, 04:13 PM
Imagine what would happen had Bill Clinton or Al Gore said the same things Bush said in this speech.

They wouldve been executed.

ohall
07-21-2004, 04:17 PM
How about your 5 post is an insult to everyone who died on September 11th? Whatever happened to justice for all? So because he supposedly is "isolated" and "weak", we should leave him be? What a crock.

Something just ain't right with you man. No where does the President say he is giving up the fight on terrorism.

Keep ignoring the fact that UBL is isolated and has basically become nothing more than a publicity opportunity if caught.

Oliver...

ohall
07-21-2004, 04:18 PM
Imagine what would happen had Bill Clinton or Al Gore said the same things Bush said in this speech.

They wouldve been executed.

Pure speculation on your part. I'm sure it makes you feel better to believe that though.

Oliver...

Section126
07-21-2004, 04:27 PM
Even tho Moore has facts to back up most of his claims?

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes

I am sorry but I read like the first 6, and 5 out of 6 were lies.......And not only half truths....but flat out LIES.

Get outta here with that crap.

DolFan31
07-21-2004, 04:30 PM
Something just ain't right with you man. No where does the President say he is giving up the fight on terrorism.

Keep ignoring the fact that UBL is isolated and has basically become nothing more than a publicity opportunity if caught.

Oliver...

And no where did I say Bush said he was giving up the War on Terror nor did I say he should or is. Spin, spin, spin!

Im saying that no matter what status(unless dead) UBL is, he SHOULD BE CAUGHT AND BROUGHT TO JUSTICE!

PhinPhan1227
07-21-2004, 08:22 PM
And no where did I say Bush said he was giving up the War on Terror nor did I say he should or is. Spin, spin, spin!

Im saying that no matter what status(unless dead) UBL is, he SHOULD BE CAUGHT AND BROUGHT TO JUSTICE!


The fact that 11,000+ Special Forces troops are STILL hunting for Osama doesn't tell you that Bush still wants him found and brought to justice? Actions speak louder than words right? And before you bring up Iraq, regular Army troops are pretty much useless in the hunt for Osama. We have as many of the right kind of troops looking for Osama as we have available.

DolFan31
07-23-2004, 02:29 PM
The fact that 11,000+ Special Forces troops are STILL hunting for Osama doesn't tell you that Bush still wants him found and brought to justice? Actions speak louder than words right? And before you bring up Iraq, regular Army troops are pretty much useless in the hunt for Osama. We have as many of the right kind of troops looking for Osama as we have available.

So with Bush saying that he doesnt focus much on Bin Laden(see Bush quote) doesnt give aid to our enemies?



World Trade Center - TWICE
USS Cole
US Embassy compound in Beirut
US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut
US Embassy in Kuwait
US Embassy in Beirut
US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main
TWA Flight 840
Pan Am Flight 103
US Military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
US Military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia (Khobar Towers)
US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
USS Cole (Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war)

We have been under a constant attack since 1979!


How many more times should we get ***** slapped before we act?

But we did act..

Things accomplished under Clinton re terrorists:

Perps of 1993 WTC bombing caught and punished.
Perps of 1995 OK city bombing caught and punished.
Perps of 1996 Khobar Towars bombing caught and punished.
Perps of 1998 Embassy bombings caught and punished.
Signed Anti-terrorism legislation.
Bombed Al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan.
Thwarted attempt to blow up Holland tunnel.
Thwarted attempt to blow up Lincoln Tunnel
Thwarted attempt on life of Pope.
Thwarted attempt to blow up LAX.
Thwarted two attempts to plant bombs in cites in the Northeast
and Northwest US.
Thwarted al-Qaida's efforts to establish a militant Islamist
state in Bosnia.
Signed anti-terrorism legislation.
Signed airport security bill.
Ordered Taliban money frozen.
Ordered bin Laden money frozen.

Section126
07-23-2004, 02:37 PM
So with Bush saying that he doesnt focus much on Bin Laden(see Bush quote) doesnt give aid to our enemies?



But we did act..

Things accomplished under Clinton re terrorists:

Perps of 1993 WTC bombing caught and punished. REALLY?
Perps of 1995 OK city bombing caught and punished. :roflmao:
Perps of 1996 Khobar Towars bombing caught and punished. LIE.
Perps of 1998 Embassy bombings caught and punished. LIE
Signed Anti-terrorism legislation. :roflmao:
Bombed Al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan. :roflmao:
Thwarted attempt to blow up Holland tunnel. :rolleyes:
Thwarted attempt to blow up Lincoln Tunnel :lol:
Thwarted attempt on life of Pope. :rolleyes:
Thwarted attempt to blow up LAX. MAYBE
Thwarted two attempts to plant bombs in cites in the Northeast
and Northwest US. :roflmao:
Thwarted al-Qaida's efforts to establish a militant Islamist
state in Bosnia. HUGE MASSIVE LIE.
Signed anti-terrorism legislation. Your'e repeating yourself.
Signed airport security bill. YEAH THAT WORKED!!!!
Ordered Taliban money frozen. That was BUSH
Ordered bin Laden money frozen.BUSH again.
I think that posting KNOWN lies and untruths should get you: :ban:

DolFan31
07-23-2004, 03:10 PM
Perps of 1993 WTC bombing caught and punished. REALLY?
Yes http://www.adl.org/learn/jttf/wtcb_jttf.asp
Perps of 1995 OK city bombing caught and punished. No laughing matter because its true.
Perps of 1996 Khobar Towars bombing caught and punished. Not a lie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khobar_Towers_bombing
Perps of 1998 Embassy bombings caught and punished. Not a lie, but not all perpes were caught. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_U.S._embassy_bombings
Signed Anti-terrorism legislation.
Bombed Al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan. [COLOR=DarkRed]True
Thwarted attempt to blow up Holland tunnel. True
Thwarted attempt to blow up Lincoln Tunnel True
Thwarted attempt on life of Pope. True
Thwarted attempt to blow up LAX. True
Thwarted two attempts to plant bombs in cites in the Northeast
and Northwest US. True
Thwarted al-Qaida's efforts to establish a militant Islamist
state in Bosnia. HUGE MASSIVE LIE. Tell me how so and back it up.
Signed anti-terrorism legislation. Your'e repeating yourself.
Signed airport security bill. YEAH THAT WORKED!!!!
Ordered Taliban money frozen. That was BUSH No, both Presidents did.
http://www.iie.com/publications/pb/pb01-11.htm
Because Islamic fundamentalist terrorists continued to train and operate out of Afghanistan, and more specifically because the Taliban continued to harbor Osama bin Laden and his terrorist networks that were believed to be responsible for bombing two US embassies in Africa, the Clinton administration imposed comprehensive sanctions on the Taliban in 1999. The executive order banned all trade with the areas in Afghanistan under Taliban control, froze Taliban assets in the United States, and prohibited financial contributions to the Taliban by US persons.
Ordered bin Laden money frozen.BUSH again. Ditto.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/40180_main25.shtml
"U.S. officials said the 27 individuals and suspected supporters of terrorism listed by the president had little, if any, money in U.S. bank accounts three years after former President Clinton froze bin Laden's financial holdings in the aftermath of terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing hundreds."


Using your logic, you'd think that Clinton absolutely without a doubt did NOTHING to thwart terrorism. Maybe what Clinton did wasn't 100% effective, but he did some something.

PhinPhan1227
07-23-2004, 05:17 PM
Perps of 1993 WTC bombing caught and punished. REALLY?
Yes http://www.adl.org/learn/jttf/wtcb_jttf.asp
Perps of 1995 OK city bombing caught and punished. No laughing matter because its true.
Perps of 1996 Khobar Towars bombing caught and punished. Not a lie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khobar_Towers_bombing
Perps of 1998 Embassy bombings caught and punished. Not a lie, but not all perpes were caught. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_U.S._embassy_bombings
Signed Anti-terrorism legislation.
Bombed Al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan. [COLOR=DarkRed]True
Thwarted attempt to blow up Holland tunnel. True
Thwarted attempt to blow up Lincoln Tunnel True
Thwarted attempt on life of Pope. True
Thwarted attempt to blow up LAX. True
Thwarted two attempts to plant bombs in cites in the Northeast
and Northwest US. True
Thwarted al-Qaida's efforts to establish a militant Islamist
state in Bosnia. HUGE MASSIVE LIE. Tell me how so and back it up.
Signed anti-terrorism legislation. Your'e repeating yourself.
Signed airport security bill. YEAH THAT WORKED!!!!
Ordered Taliban money frozen. That was BUSH No, both Presidents did.
http://www.iie.com/publications/pb/pb01-11.htm
Because Islamic fundamentalist terrorists continued to train and operate out of Afghanistan, and more specifically because the Taliban continued to harbor Osama bin Laden and his terrorist networks that were believed to be responsible for bombing two US embassies in Africa, the Clinton administration imposed comprehensive sanctions on the Taliban in 1999. The executive order banned all trade with the areas in Afghanistan under Taliban control, froze Taliban assets in the United States, and prohibited financial contributions to the Taliban by US persons.
Ordered bin Laden money frozen.BUSH again. Ditto.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/40180_main25.shtml
"U.S. officials said the 27 individuals and suspected supporters of terrorism listed by the president had little, if any, money in U.S. bank accounts three years after former President Clinton froze bin Laden's financial holdings in the aftermath of terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing hundreds."


Using your logic, you'd think that Clinton absolutely without a doubt did NOTHING to thwart terrorism. Maybe what Clinton did wasn't 100% effective, but he did some something.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but since Al Quida was behind the first WTC bombing, when did Clinton catch Osama?

BigFinFan
07-24-2004, 10:13 PM
DolFan31 - you really let me down on this one. Your source of information is Wikipedia - an open-content encyclopedia.

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that is being written collaboratively by its readers.

:shakeno:

DolFan31
07-25-2004, 02:06 PM
DolFan31 - you really let me down on this one. Your source of information is Wikipedia - an open-content encyclopedia.

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that is being written collaboratively by its readers.

:shakeno:

Its not my only source..