mhmmm ok grand sheeba... now back to the subject at hand bush and his stupidity.....not someones personal beliefs
Originally posted by: Deudalus
Personally, its the war in Iraq that keeps me in Bush's corner.
I dislike the Christian agenda. I dislike how he won the last election, though I can't really blame him for that. I do like the tax cutting policy.
The war in Iraq is what keeps me on board. Many people don't understand why we are there. They don't understand significance of any of it, and thats fine.
I just get irritated when people who don't really know what is going on are the most outspoken critics.
Originally posted by: Tab
Wow, somone is feeling happy today! Who gave him the C and why?
Originally posted by: wirelessenabled
Originally posted by: Deudalus
Personally, its the war in Iraq that keeps me in Bush's corner.
I dislike the Christian agenda. I dislike how he won the last election, though I can't really blame him for that. I do like the tax cutting policy.
The war in Iraq is what keeps me on board. Many people don't understand why we are there. They don't understand significance of any of it, and thats fine.
I just get irritated when people who don't really know what is going on are the most outspoken critics.
So why are we there?
Sure. To list a few things:Originally posted by: juice22
Can someone who vote A post why. I quite curious.
Originally posted by: Deudalus
The war in Iraq is what keeps me on board. Many people don't understand why we are there. They don't understand significance of any of it, and thats fine.
I just get irritated when people who don't really know what is going on are the most outspoken critics.
Originally posted by: zendari
Sure. To list a few things:Originally posted by: juice22
Can someone who vote A post why. I quite curious.
Strong stance against terror right, first he says dead or alive, now it's I don't think about osama
Patriot Act bad, just bad, potentially stripping first amendment rights
Federal marraige amendment is this the anti-gay stance, if so, it's bigotry
PBA Ban ok, but aren't there more important things?
bankruptcy changes making it harder for middle and lower class people to find a way out, while allowing United Airlines to go back on their pension agreements, makes sense, right?:roll:
SS privatization not yet sparky, this one's dying and everyone knows it
cafta Outsourcing! It's good for America :roll:
Originally posted by: zendari
Sure. To list a few things:Originally posted by: juice22
Can someone who vote A post why. I quite curious.
Strong stance against terror
Patriot Act
Federal marraige amendment
PBA Ban
bankruptcy changes
SS privatization
cafta
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I'll make it a "D"- and that's just because he hasn't succeeded in bringing on armageddon. With a little more effort in the current direction, he could arrive at his goal, however...
Originally posted by: zendari
Sure. To list a few things:Originally posted by: juice22
Can someone who vote A post why. I quite curious.
Strong stance against terror
Patriot Act
Federal marraige amendment
PBA Ban
bankruptcy changes
SS privatization
cafta
Originally posted by: zendari
Sure. To list a few things:Originally posted by: juice22
Can someone who vote A post why. I quite curious.
Strong stance against terror
The people of the bombing of the USS Cole are found ????
Patriot Act
What was that quote by one of the founding father Ben Franklin ??? Oh yea "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. "
Federal marraige amendment
Homophob
PBA Ban
What he does not like the POWER BOAT ASSOCATION ??? :Q
bankruptcy changes
Do you even know who pushed for this ?? The lenders aka Visa.. But yet a corporation can crap on you
SS privatization
Get a 401k and watch it go down the crapper then tell me that is a great idea
cafta
Yea more outsourcing !!!
Not likely. The 60s are over, liberalism is dead, replaced by petty jealousy and hatred for church and family. Even Hillary is selling you out.Originally posted by: Tommunist
Originally posted by: zendari
Sure. To list a few things:Originally posted by: juice22
Can someone who vote A post why. I quite curious.
Strong stance against terror
Patriot Act
Federal marraige amendment
PBA Ban
bankruptcy changes
SS privatization
cafta
i honestly hope you are in the minority for future generations - i can't think of a single president in my lifetime that deserves an A so I have to wonder how blinded you are as to give potentially one of the worst presidents of all time this mark...
Originally posted by: zendari
Not likely. The 60s are over, liberalism is dead, replaced by petty jealousy and hatred for church and family. Even Hillary is selling you out.Originally posted by: Tommunist
Originally posted by: zendari
Sure. To list a few things:Originally posted by: juice22
Can someone who vote A post why. I quite curious.
Strong stance against terror
Patriot Act
Federal marraige amendment
PBA Ban
bankruptcy changes
SS privatization
cafta
i honestly hope you are in the minority for future generations - i can't think of a single president in my lifetime that deserves an A so I have to wonder how blinded you are as to give potentially one of the worst presidents of all time this mark...
Originally posted by: zendari
Not likely. The 60s are over, liberalism is dead, replaced by petty jealousy and hatred for church and family. Even Hillary is selling you out.Originally posted by: Tommunist
Originally posted by: zendari
Sure. To list a few things:Originally posted by: juice22
Can someone who vote A post why. I quite curious.
Strong stance against terror
Patriot Act
Federal marraige amendment
PBA Ban
bankruptcy changes
SS privatization
cafta
i honestly hope you are in the minority for future generations - i can't think of a single president in my lifetime that deserves an A so I have to wonder how blinded you are as to give potentially one of the worst presidents of all time this mark...
Originally posted by: tss4
Originally posted by: zendari
Not likely. The 60s are over, liberalism is dead, replaced by petty jealousy and hatred for church and family. Even Hillary is selling you out.Originally posted by: Tommunist
Originally posted by: zendari
Sure. To list a few things:Originally posted by: juice22
Can someone who vote A post why. I quite curious.
Strong stance against terror
Patriot Act
Federal marraige amendment
PBA Ban
bankruptcy changes
SS privatization
cafta
i honestly hope you are in the minority for future generations - i can't think of a single president in my lifetime that deserves an A so I have to wonder how blinded you are as to give potentially one of the worst presidents of all time this mark...
Its no more dead than conservatism was dead when the democrats held control of the government for so long.
And yes, there are "bad" democrats, but are you telling me that there isn't a single republican out there that's sold out on some position?
Originally posted by: TheLiberalTruth
Originally posted by: zendari
Sure. To list a few things:Originally posted by: juice22
Can someone who vote A post why. I quite curious.
Strong stance against terror
Patriot Act
Federal marraige amendment
PBA Ban
bankruptcy changes
SS privatization
cafta
terror? where? Iraq? Are you still stuck hoping they'll make up some new reasons why they're there?
patriot act...HAVE YOU READ IT?
Federal marriage amendment...because ignorance, hatred, and discrimination are good things, eh?
bankruptcy changes...as in bankrupting the entire united states? or do you mean making it easier for corporations to cop out on their retirement funds while average wages plummet then making it impossible for the average citizen to ever dig themselves out?
SS privatization...piling on more debt while decreasing benefits...GREAT IDEA
cafta, because greedy corporations should have an easier time moving jobs out of the united states to places they can pay their workers cents on the dollar
I'm glad you have your head on straight!
Originally posted by: Deudalus
Terror: Iraq while not responsible for 9/11 clearly had links to terrorism. Everyone recognizes this.
Originally posted by: Tommunist
Originally posted by: Deudalus
Terror: Iraq while not responsible for 9/11 clearly had links to terrorism. Everyone recognizes this.
this is far from the case - i happen to be one of the exceptions to your rule.
* Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.
* Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam's mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003.
* Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum, according to Mr. Powell.
* An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid-1990s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddam's men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.
* In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq's mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported.
* In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according to Jane's Foreign Report, a respected international newsletter. Jane's reported that Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, now al Qaeda's No. 2 man.
(Why are all of those meetings significant? The London Observer reports that FBI investigators cite a captured al Qaeda field manual in Afghanistan, which "emphasizes the value of conducting discussions about pending terrorist attacks face to face, rather than by electronic means.")
* As recently as 2001, Iraq's embassy in Pakistan was used as a "liaison" between the Iraqi dictator and al Qaeda, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.
* Spanish investigators have uncovered documents seized from Yusuf Galan -- who is charged by a Spanish court with being "directly involved with the preparation and planning" of the Sept. 11 attacks -- that show the terrorist was invited to a party at the Iraqi embassy in Madrid. The invitation used his "al Qaeda nom de guerre," London's Independent reports.
* An Iraqi defector to Turkey, known by his cover name as "Abu Mohammed," told Gwynne Roberts of the Sunday Times of London that he saw bin Laden's fighters in camps in Iraq in 1997. At the time, Mohammed was a colonel in Saddam's Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak, the training facility southeast of Baghdad. At that vast compound run by Iraqi intelligence, Muslim militants trained to hijack planes with knives -- on a full-size Boeing 707. Col. Mohammed recalls his first visit to Salman Pak this way: "We were met by Colonel Jamil Kamil, the camp manager, and Major Ali Hawas. I noticed that a lot of people were queuing for food. (The major) said to me: 'You'll have nothing to do with these people. They are Osama bin Laden's group and the PKK and Mojahedin-e Khalq.'"
* In 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, a longtime aide to Saddam's son Uday, defected to the West. At the time, he repeatedly told reporters that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.
*The Sunday Times found a Saddam loyalist in a Kurdish prison who claims to have been Dr. Zawahiri's bodyguard during his 1992 visit with Saddam in Baghdad. Dr. Zawahiri was a close associate of bin Laden at the time and was present at the founding of al Qaeda in 1989.
* Following the defeat of the Taliban, almost two dozen bin Laden associates "converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there," Mr. Powell told the United Nations in February 2003. From their Baghdad base, the secretary said, they supervised the movement of men, materiel and money for al Qaeda's global network.
* In 2001, an al Qaeda member "bragged that the situation in Iraq was 'good,'" according to intelligence made public by Mr. Powell.
* That same year, Saudi Arabian border guards arrested two al Qaeda members entering the kingdom from Iraq.
* Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi oversaw an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, Mr. Powell told the United Nations. His specialty was poisons. Wounded in fighting with U.S. forces, he sought medical treatment in Baghdad in May 2002. When Zarqawi recovered, he restarted a training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi's Iraq cell was later tied to the October 2002 murder of Lawrence Foley, an official of the U.S. Agency for International Development, in Amman, Jordan. The captured assassin confessed that he received orders and funds from Zarqawi's cell in Iraq, Mr. Powell said. His accomplice escaped to Iraq.
*Zarqawi met with military chief of al Qaeda, Mohammed Ibrahim Makwai (aka Saif al-Adel) in Iran in February 2003, according to intelligence sources cited by the Washington Post.
* Mohammad Atef, the head of al Qaeda's military wing until the U.S. killed him in Afghanistan in November 2001, told a senior al Qaeda member now in U.S. custody that the terror network needed labs outside of Afghanistan to manufacture chemical weapons, Mr. Powell said. "Where did they go, where did they look?" said the secretary. "They went to Iraq."
* Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi was sent to Iraq by bin Laden to purchase poison gases several times between 1997 and 2000. He called his relationship with Saddam's regime "successful," Mr. Powell told the United Nations.
* Mohamed Mansour Shahab, a smuggler hired by Iraq to transport weapons to bin Laden in Afghanistan, was arrested by anti-Hussein Kurdish forces in May, 2000. He later told his story to American intelligence and a reporter for the New Yorker magazine.
* Documents found among the debris of the Iraqi Intelligence Center show that Baghdad funded the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan terror group led by an Islamist cleric linked to bin Laden. According to a London's Daily Telegraph, the organization offered to recruit "youth to train for the jihad" at a "headquarters for international holy warrior network" to be established in Baghdad.
* Mullah Melan Krekar, ran a terror group (the Ansar al-Islam) linked to both bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Mr. Krekar admitted to a Kurdish newspaper that he met bin Laden in Afghanistan and other senior al Qaeda officials. His acknowledged meetings with bin Laden go back to 1988. When he organized Ansar al Islam in 2001 to conduct suicide attacks on Americans, "three bin Laden operatives showed up with a gift of $300,000 'to undertake jihad,'" Newsday reported. Mr. Krekar is now in custody in the Netherlands. His group operated in portion of northern Iraq loyal to Saddam Hussein -- and attacked independent Kurdish groups hostile to Saddam. A spokesman for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan told a United Press International correspondent that Mr. Krekar's group was funded by "Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad."
* After October 2001, hundreds of al Qaeda fighters are believed to have holed up in the Ansar al-Islam's strongholds inside northern Iraq.
"The Clinton administration, in a sealed indictment of Osama bin Laden in the spring of 1998, included very prominently, in the fourth paragraph, a discussion of this agreement," Hayes told WABC Radio's Monica Crowley.
"They called it an understanding between Iraq and al-Qaida, whereby al-Qaida agreed not to agitate against the Iraqi regime," Hayes said. "In exchange the Iraqi regime agreed to supply assistance on weapons development."
Since the outbreak of the Iraq war, numerous Clinton administration officials have argued there was no link between Iraq and al-Qaida.
But in his book "The Connection," Hayes details the portion of the Clinton administration's bin Laden indictment that contradicts those claims, then notes:
"The fact remains that six senior Clinton administration national security officials are on the record defending [the Aug. 20, 1998 strike against Sudan], citing an Iraqi connection."
Originally posted by: Deudalus
I know thats not enough for some people, but then again some people go beyond "can't see the forest for the trees" and well into refusing to look at the forest or the trees all together.
I know you also probably won't bother to check the links because it might question your pre-formulated and unsubstantiated party line opinion on the matter. But just in case, I provided you plenty anyways, and there is far more evidence out there than what I have provided. This is just a sample.
Originally posted by: syzygy
Originally posted by: Deudalus
I know thats not enough for some people, but then again some people go beyond "can't see the forest for the trees" and well into refusing to look at the forest or the trees all together.
I know you also probably won't bother to check the links because it might question your pre-formulated and unsubstantiated party line opinion on the matter. But just in case, I provided you plenty anyways, and there is far more evidence out there than what I have provided. This is just a sample.
these are good points, all valid, and they have been rehashed countless times. diplomacy has been exhausted, hussein had mastered the inspection regime and UN backroom politicking, and, as dr. kay stated, hussein lied again in failing to meet the truth standards as they were defined in 1441.
as you say, for 'some people' this isn't enough. more would not be enough - and there is so much more. they simply want to chase their boogymen, invent lies (or fudge the definition of the word), and demonize the administration for partisan reasons.
Originally posted by: Tab
No, diplomacy hadn't been exhuasted. Did the United States ever listen to France's plea to tripple inspectors? Or Iraq dismantling there missle that exceeded the banned range.
Originally posted by: Deudalus
But France said all that and then added "But no matter what happens we will not support a war in Iraq." Thus, we stopped discussions with them.