REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Bush = Dumb Ass

POSTED BY: SUCCATASH
UPDATED: Thursday, August 19, 2004 18:20
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 11698
PAGE 1 of 3

Thursday, August 5, 2004 11:22 AM

SUCCATASH


"President Bush offered up a new entry for his catalog of "Bushisms" on Thursday, declaring that his administration will "never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people."

Bush misspoke as he delivered a speech at the signing ceremony for a $417 billion defense spending bill."


Nice one, Bush. Dumb ass!
Thu Aug 5, 2004

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040805/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bu
shism


"President Bush offered up a new entry for his catalog of "Bushisms" on Thursday, declaring that his administration will "never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people."

Bush misspoke as he delivered a speech at the signing ceremony for a $417 billion defense spending bill.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we," Bush said. "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

No one in Bush's audience of military brass or Pentagon chiefs reacted.

The president was working his way toward a larger point. "We must never stop thinking about how best to defend our country. We must always be forward-thinking," he said.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush's misstatement "just shows even the most straightforward and plain-spoken people misspeak."

"But the American people know this president speaks with clarity and conviction, and the terrorists know by his actions he means it," McClellan said."



"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 5, 2004 11:36 AM

SPOOKYJESUS


Are you sure he mis-spoke and didn't just have a brief moment of honesty?

Maybe he watched "Liar Liar" and was inspired by Jim Carey's antics!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 5, 2004 2:35 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


And then there was the time he vowed to foster Iraq's economic dependence....

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 5, 2004 2:43 PM

KNIBBLET


Personally, I think calling Bush a dumb-ass is an insult to the dumbass community.

Moronic, murdering, war mongering, butt sucking puppet is more accurate.

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 5, 2004 3:27 PM

HKCAVALIER


A friend of mine is a journalist and had the chance to ride on George's bus back when he was running for President (my friend's a total way out liberal). He would observe on a daily basis, how in person, Bush was very sharp and clever and even funny a lot of the time, but when he was asked to make an official statement he'd immediately plunge into malapropisms and error. My friend's theory was that Bush was perfectly lucid and intelligent except when he was asked to lie. When he had to lie, it would never stick in his mind or hang together as a whole idea, so it just came out all garbled because it wasn't real to him. It was garbled in his head, so it came out garbled in his mouth. Some people just aren't very skillful liars. I can totally see his latest remark about harming the U.S. as a Freudian slip.

Bush's speaking is one of the most uncanny phenomena of the past four years. Even before 9/11 most people I knew could NOT bring themselves to listen to him for five minutes. There was something about the mere sound of his voice that was so disquieting that nearly everyone I knew at the time tried to tune him out. No one I knew was listening to his speeches. He creeped them out. His simple presence was appalling. Even after 9/11 when people had a vested interest in hearing what he was saying, people still "couldn't" listen to him. And it wasn't an intellectual thing either, "Oh, he lies all the time." No, it was a GUT thing, an aversion, a shudder. Anybody else have that experience?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 5, 2004 4:16 PM

TOMTBA2004


What I can't Get is why do people think that Kerry is going to be different..or is he just the only other choice for a dumbass president.

"lets go to work"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 5, 2004 4:59 PM

QUICKSAND


Some people just aren't good public speakers. Put them in front of a large group of people, and they fold like a card table. Which is not to say he's not lying. I think maybe he just doesn't understand what the he's saying, be it half-truth or no-truth.

I don't, like, think Kerry is the greatest candidate in the world or anything, but at least he's done something with his life.

During the debates, Kerry should just do what Al Gore shoulda done: look over at Bush, and calmly say, "Look, you were an alcoholic until you were 40, and then your dad bought you a baseball team. Go away."


___\_o_/___
--------------- (Qs)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 5, 2004 5:25 PM

RICKKER


We4ll time for another rant. Well I'll try noto to. First off what has the man done right in his first term to even give anyone an understanding that he should get a second term. Second recently on the campain trail I thought I heard sound bites of him saying that if reelected he would do his best to create 100,000 new jobs.What?? Wasn't he suppose to do that last time. What is wrong with this country? If he did this good in a fast food industry he would be out of a job, hell in most bussiness' he would be out of a job. He has wholeheartedly been about making the rich richer, why is he 50/50 with Kerry? If only @ 9% of the country are rich where is all the other support coming from?
I have a few acquaintences that will vote for Bush because he is openly anti gay. One of them just isn't a smart guy the other is a pretty regular Jo. I understand that a lot of the religious folks vote republican for the anti-abortion thing. I have often wondered if they also want to get rid of all the firearms in the US and hell why not get rid of those pesky nukelear weapons. The bad things are out of the box quit trying to put them back in. Lets try something like educating people give them choices. There is a revolution coming. My grandfather saw it coming. I see it clear as day.
There are pretty much three types of people in this country. The rich that beleive they are the countries leaders born and bred above the comon rabble that want us to do their bidding. The willnots that won't work because its well to much work they think they need to get "whats theres" even if someone else bought and paid for it. social security and unemployment are their way to get by.
Then there's most of us. we work hard play hard and try to do whats right we defend this country with our lives. We were taught right and wrong as kids.
someday... maybe soon if Bush keeps up his way most of us are going to get real tired of the other two.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 5, 2004 5:38 PM

RICKKER


until he was 40? I didn't know it was that long.

Plus my .02 on Kerry. The flip-flopping thing has me a little worried. I really can't stand the republicans slamming him for being a Vietnam vet who is so outspoken against war. Give me a break I would much rather have someone who's been through it be against war, than say someone who's never been starting as many as he can. Hell they can't even prove Bush was a competent national guardsman. There will probably never be someone who can come along and fix all the messes. But I'm confident that Kerry unlike Bush will fix more than he breaks.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 5, 2004 6:27 PM

PROFESSOR


OK, I found this and thought it was just way too amusing

http://www.jibjab.com

it's a great version of "This land is my land"...

and it fits with the topic title.

Just a bit of humor to brighten everyone's day until we can get this dumbass out of office.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 5, 2004 6:39 PM

WADDLEDOODLE



Dose of reality about the "hero"

http://www.geocities.com/teddy_bitner/Kerry_Korner

Open your mind and set it free....

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 5, 2004 7:32 PM

SUCCATASH



What a great pic, now I admire John Kerry even more. Look at all those smart people.





"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 5, 2004 9:57 PM

RAY53208


im really terrified. i think that there are definitely evil people whove given themselves over wholey to greed in our government.

im also horribly afraid that this statement will be recorded and filed away in a little room by people who one day will look for someone to eliminate as a threat to security.

its been this way for a long time. those in power have a pretty firm grip on it. sometimes it feels like the whole system is a sham designed to make you think you have a choice, that you are secure and free.

i just want to believe we are in the right, that we are a good people. that there are no evil men and women in our leadership. but i cant. i want to feel as if there were something that could be done, but there probably isnt.

the rich get richer and the poor get deader. thats the way of things. we see it and do nothing. whats more evil? being a part of the meat grinding machine or standing by and doing nothing?

almost forty years ago our parents and grandparents sang about revolution, but they sold out in favor of new cars and khakis.

im voting for nader. if my vote counts for anything anymore. if anyones does. if hes not just a part of the scam too.

cynical ray


“With the first link the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, changes us all irrevokably. The first time any man’s freedom is trodden on, we are all damaged."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 3:27 AM

MRSMACK


I'm not really pro Bush at all, but I have a problem with you calling him a dumbass. I don't know every single particular of the job, but I do realize that it is the toughest job in the world. Look how they age, all presidents and not just Bush.

If you think that sending young men and women to war to die is easy for them, and comes without consequence, then you obviously have not looked at him. The creases in his face, the worry lines, it's definatly not a job that I want.

I figure that America is running about par for the course. Our richest few run the country while most of us just putter along in oblivian. Not that it is a bad thing as that's the way it always has been. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were all wealthy land owners and our richest president in real dollars was George Washington, the father of our country.

I thought Bush did well through the whole 9/11 ordeal and when you look at it, no president since F.D.R. has had a bad a deal as that. I personally don't believe that there was any way to predict or stop it from happening. It has always been the way that a few determined people are able with sacrifice to do things like that.

I don't know the entire story behind Iraq, but I've put a great deal of thought, and research behind figuring it out. But, we are there, and we have paid a great price to get there, and now we have to deal with the problems we created and hope for the best, as we have always done.

Iraq is free, at least for the time being, and as such is better off if only for today. But hell, that's all we are promised and most of the time not even that. Of both candidates, I tend to believe that Bush will do better than Kerry, and as such, will probably vote for him. That isn't saying that I want Bush so much, because if there was a viable choice then I might just jump to it. Don't even bring up Nader because that is a joke in and of itself.

It's been said to never judge a man till you walk a mile in his shoes. You're entitled to your opinion of course, but there is no reason to be personally insulting and derogatory, especially about a man whom you should respect, for his office if not for himself.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 3:54 AM

WADDLEDOODLE


Nader may have been an advocate one time, but what's his salary now? Does he wear the same old suit jackets? Does he shop at Sears? Where do you think he gets his lunch every day....brownbag from home?

I don't blame the Hippies of yore waking up and realizing a different road. It's not a "cop out." Is it possible the values they held forty years ago weren't really all they were cracked up to be and they figured that out?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 4:07 AM

KNIBBLET


Sitting several rows behind her and to the side does NOT justify saying "Kerry with Fonda".

They were celebs at an event, someone ushered them to the little photo op area.

I have issues with Fonda's idiotic stunt of sitting in an anti-aircraft gun; however, I have no issue with people who protest war.

And don't pull up any of those old urban legends about her turning over letters to NV officials. Never happened and the man who has been cited as the source has said it never happened.

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 5:16 AM

WADDLEDOODLE


MRSMACK has done something rare, something I try to do in day to day encounters with BUSH haters.

It's called "discussion"

It's easy to scream "BUSH SUCKS!" But I have yet to meet someone does so who can explain why. And before you jump on me, I mean REAL reasonable discussion about why he's terrible. Not the bogus Michael Moore reasons. Disagreeing with policy and articulating why is one thing, but hating for no reason is, well, hypocritical of those who consider themselves peace activists. I'm not saying the President is perfect, but he's ours...during a time of war....who according to dozens of very prominent newspapers working several months in Florida (as well as the electorate and the Supreme Court) is THE winner of the 2000 election. Of course, if Al Gore's own home state constituants would have voted for him, then their would have been no need for a recount, he would have one. Frankly, with the following speeches, I don't think Gore would have been the right man for the job, and John Kerry's statements of yesterday "...I will fight a more sensative, more thoughtful war on terror.." By that statement alone I'm certain he's the wrong man for the job. While sitting on the Intelligence committee Kerry Missed 38 of 49 public hearings over 8 years. He's simply an insider. After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing Senator Kerry introduced a number of measures that were to reduce funding for the intelligence community by $7.5 billion. The largest mark against him is that he's not the man that the Democrates really wanted, he was the second choice. The fact that 95% of the deligates at the Democrate Convention were against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. That flys in the face of Kerry's yet to be revealed War Plan. He says he would stay the course. But he would get the French and Germans involved, which doesn't seem credible since it's not in their interests (The bureucrats in the EU) for the US to succeed. Furthermore, why didn't Kerry mention his 18 years in the senate during his speech??? Is it because there is nothing to mention?

Kerry has a jelly spine that is molded by whomever he's trying to woo for votes.

Atleast I know that George Bush goes to bed late every night thinking about killing terrorists, not making amends with the French (who according to the Oil For Food investigation combined with millions of pages captured in Iraq) who with the United Nations officals and the Russians, in that order, were profiteering and giving cold hard cash to a dictator who lops hands and heads off, straped explosives and blew up, shot, tossed from rooftops or simply beat or raped to death hundreds of thousands of human beings and then dumped them into mass graves.

As far as the cost to our military in blood...you ask the soldiers, sailors and airmen deployed, they'll tell you a different story. Otherwise, how is it that reenlistment and recruitment is up? Not because of poverty, but because of a desire to serve. It's always sad to lose troops in combat...but the fact is, it's better that they face the fire, armed with the best weapons (that Kerry voted against, and the 87 billion he voted FOR and then AGAINST) rather than some innocent civilian on our shores. The 9/11 commission, in it's text, supports the Iraq/Al Qieda connection long before the war, it also totally discredits the Wilson mission to Niger and the claims he made that no yellow cake uranium was being sought by Iraq.

You can hate George Bush all you want, but be prepared to discuss the specifics.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 5:18 AM

BUZZARD


I'm here just to urge everyone to vote and to not loose hope.

If you want Bush to keep his job, vote for him.

If you want to throw the bum out, vote to help remove him.

If you like another candidate better, vote for that person.

The important thing is that you vote. Citizens on all sides of an issue can, and should, fight for the solutions they want. It's a free country, as they say.

A couple of days ago I read Federalist Paper #10 and it cheered me up a lot. I think everybody should read it if they haven't already. (I haven't read any of the others, so if anyone has another they could recommend, I'd like to know what it is.)

You can find it at: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed10.htm

Oh, and by the way, throw the bum out.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 5:56 AM

RAY53208


mrs smack, i respect you and your right to your opinions. i simply feel a bit hopeless about the whole situation. maybe tomorrow will bring a brighter day, but i dont believe so. it will probably be a very long time before everything is all right again; and not without lots of struggle.

if youre okay with the way things are then i have no response. just dont know what to say... if theres a god may he keep you and bless you.

i just know that in my heart i cannot condone whats going on. i just cant. i cant stand idly by and go "oh its been this way forever." i cant watch what i perceive to be injustice and evil take place and do nothing.

waddle, i dont blame the hippies. i feel bad for them. it seems to me that the core ideals of what they stood for are good things and ring true: freedom, accountability for our leaders, love, peace. maybe im speaking out of ignorance, not being old enough to have been there. maybe i was making generalizations about a generation of people. but i cant say as i really like what we as a generation are about nowadays. were about nothing. we respect greed, and fleeting fame, and spectacle. maybe its not new, maybe its been this way since the circuses of ancient rome. but i really am not content with bread and circuses anymore.

ray




“With the first link the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, changes us all irrevokably. The first time any man’s freedom is trodden on, we are all damaged."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 7:08 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


OK, I know you're trying to pack in every argument into one sentence that you can think of, but you made a number of assumptions and mis-statments:

Quote:

Not the bogus Michael Moore reasons. Disagreeing with policy and articulating why is one thing, but hating for no reason is, well, hypocritical of those who consider themselves peace activists. I'm not saying the President is perfect, but he's ours...during a time of war....who according to dozens of very prominent newspapers working several months in Florida (as well as the electorate and the Supreme Court) is THE winner of the 2000 election.


"Bogus?" I disagree with your assessment. During the second attack on the WTC, Bush just plain froze. You could see the indecision on his face: If I bolt out of the room will I scare the little kids? It is more "Presidential" to act as if nothing is wrong? Or should I get up and start giving orders? What orders? What about the cameras? WHAT DO I DO ??? It wasn't until the Secret Service came in the hustle him away that the spell was broken.


"hating for no reason": I think everyone who "hates" Bush has at least ONE reason and I have six that I can think of right off the bat that make him a dangerous and untrustworthy President. Just because they aren't YOUR reasons doesn't mean it's baseless. But I actually don't hate Bush.

"Hating for no reason is hypocritical of those who consider themselves peace activtists":

First-you ASSUME there is no reason, second-you equate "peace activtists" with "pacifists". I'm a peace activtist not a pacifist- I disagree with THIS war, not ALL wars.

"He's ours... during time of war..."
A war that he started, based on a lie. NOT a good reason to follow this leader!

"... is THE winner of the 2000 election."
The six (not dozens) newspapers who funded their own recount made a point of NOT declaring a "winner". I actually read the report, went to the statistical tables and evaluated how the votes would have tallied under various recount criteria. (They considered optically-scanned and electronic votes as well as hanging chads.) Out of 24 recount scenarios, Gore would have been the winner in 13... the critical factor was actually electronic ballots.

"the electorate" is the body of enfranchised voters, in other words, the popular vote. According to popular vote, GORE was the winner. Perhaps you mean "electoral college".

"At least I know that George Bush goes to bed late every night thinking about killing terrorists"
You KNOW that? How?

"...rather than some innocent civilian on our shores. The 9/11 commission, in it's text, supports the Iraq/Al Qieda connection long before the war, it also totally discredits the Wilson mission to Niger and the claims he made that no yellow cake uranium was being sought by Iraq."
It does not support any collaberative relationship between Iraq and al Qaida, just a few 'contacts".

I have not read the entire report, would you please quote here what it says about yellow cake and Wilson? As I recall Wilson't report, what HE said was that there were too many people (especially foreigners) in Niger..I think it was voer 2000 in all.. with control over the production, shipping and sales to make "secret" deals impossible. Since you are apparnetly prepared to be specific, please be specific.

Oh, and BTW_ as far as the pics of Kerry against the war... that is a GREAT reason to vote for Kerry! That was a cruel, stupid, and utterly baseless military adventure, goaded on by Lyndon Johnson's lie (Gulf of Tonkin). It threw thousands of Americans and millions of Vietnamese into a meat grinder, the survivors of which may never fully recover. Every single Vietnam vet that I know who had combat experience was scarred by the war, most deeply shamed that they killed for nothing, many who buried their horror in alcohol or drugs. To refuse to follow the President into a horrible mistake is the most patriotic thing you can do.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 7:33 AM

REALCOWBOY


Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax
burden on Americans, and then calculates the "Tax Freedom Day". This is
the
day after which the money you earn goes to you, not the government.
This year, tax freedom day was April 11th. That's the earliest it has
been
since 1991. It's latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in 2000.
Notice anything special about those dates?
Today John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are
actually
paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave no
explanation
and provided no data for this claim.

Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy
men.
Bush own! s only one home, his ranch in Crawford, Texas.
Kerry owns 4 mansions, all worth several million dollars. (His ski
resort
home in Idaho is an old barn brought over from Europe in pieces. Not
your
average A-frame.)
Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does that
sound
right? The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has figured out
a way to avoid paying his own.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 7:54 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


You are obviously a libertarian who believes that government has no function whatsoever, that "the market" can supply all needs and that all taxes are bad. Shall we discuss?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 8:18 AM

REALCOWBOY


That's quite a quantum leap you've made there, and in more ways than one.

First of all because I support tax cuts does not mean that I'm anti-government and anti-tax. I am for reduction of both, but I also understand that both are necessary.

Your second leap was in attacking me instead of the article I posted. All I did was post an article and instead of going after the article and the merits of it you resort to name calling. I've noticed that when people run out of or don't have any valid arguments they usually start name calling, labeling or slamming with nothing to back it up.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 8:28 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Is calling someone a "Libertarian" name-calling? If you think so, then I apologize.

And you're right- I DID make a quantum leap. My mistake was in assuming that you think ALL taxes are bad, and that government has NO function and your position is not that extreme. But I'm still curious- what function(s) do you think is (are) necessarily governmental, and what do you think are suitable for market forces?


Also, I DID asume that since you posted the article you agreed with it. If not- what parts do you disagree with?

I'm not interested in discussing what the article says because I cannot get in touch with the author. Since you presented it, I want to find out what YOU think about it.

One point about the article, which may be misleading - I don't know whether the article refers to Federal income taxes or all taxes paid by Kerry/ Bush. If it refers just to Federal income taxes, since ownership of assests isn't taxed at the Federal level then obviously Bush's income is higher than Kerry's. Kerry may in fact be paying a boatload in local real estate taxes. Also, Bush's assets may not be as visible as a mansions- but he DID own a baseball team and apparently dodged taxes on that quite nicely.

Quote:

According to IRS Revenue Procedure 93-27, “…The receipt of a partnership capital interest for services provided to or for the benefit of the partnership is taxable as compensation.” As most people know, compensation is taxed as ordinary income, subject to the highest tax rates; in this case 39.6%. Mr. Bush treated the incentive portion of his proceeds as long term capital gain, and accordingly reduced his tax liability by at least $2.4 million.

(emphasis mine)

.
http://www.makethemaccountable.com/tax/SaleOfBaseballTeam.htm

One final PS: Since you didn't post the link and didn't indicate that it's a quote, it's impossible to tell the provenance of the article. Is is ALL a quote?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 9:19 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Okay, everyone who has ever misspoke raise your hands. You're all dumbasses, I guess. At least you have company in high places.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 9:36 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


It's not that Bush mis-speaks, it's that he mis-speaks in one direction. I noticed he's very fluid when he talks about hurting people- he did a great sendup of a woman on death row pleading for her life (until he saw the shocked look on the reporter's face). Get him going on "dead or alive" and he never makes a mistake.

But when it comes to things like justice or mercy, his tongue just trips all over itself and it doesn't seem to matter whether he's speaking in public or private.

Maybe I'm the only one who noticed this, but I think it says something... disturbing... about Bush.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 9:54 AM

WADDLEDOODLE


At the time of the attacks, the Presidents aid and staff did not have confirmation that the first plane was a jet liner and that it was an attack. Like most people that day, even those who live in NYC, it was first thought to be a small single engine craft. The second plane was when we all knew the truth.

Furthermore, the 9/11 commission didn't lay any blame on the several minutes you're describing.

Finally, as the leader of the freeworld, who hasn't had to deal with a potential attack on American soil in 60 years, I think I'd rather have my President take his time and think.

So in the first few minutes of an attack you'd rather the President "rush to war" HOWEVER, 14 months of dealing with the United Nations on holding Iraq accountable for breaching 19 United Nation resolutions was the bad way to "rush to war" You can't have it both ways....

Fact is, if John Kerry were C-in-C, he would NOT have invaded anyone, he would have turned to the French,Russians and the United Nations to "do something" despite the fact that they had up till then already pocketed several BILLION....

B-I-L-L-I-O-N

Dollars.

The man has shown ZERO leadership.

On that note, please list why you believe John Kerry is a better choice. Be specific and accurate. I won't tolerate that "4 months in Vietnam" notion as being the only reason.


and Al-Qaueda and their safe harbors would be intact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 10:02 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


The seven minutes was after the SECOND attack, not the first. By then, I assume that George was clued in.

No, I did not want him rushing off to war. And furthermore, invading a country (Iraq) that had ZERO to do with 9-11 was not, and is not, a particularly productive thing to do when it comes to fighting terrorism. It's amazing how people still conflate those issues.

Just looking at the film (you DID see it, didn't you?) I would have a hard time characterizing Bush's activity as "thinking".

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 10:05 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

Iraq is free

Not free, it was a very expensive acquisition in terms of lives, money, opportunities lost.
If you don't think it was bought as a present for the corporations with US blood and your health care and Socials Security,
read here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-juhasz5aug05,1,
3665796.story

The Hand-Over That Wasn't
By Antonia Juhasz
(excerpts)
Not only do 138,000 troops remain to control the streets, but the "100 Orders" of L. Paul Bremer III remain to control the economy.
The Bremer orders control every aspect of Iraqi life — from the use of car horns to the privatization of state-owned enterprises. Order No. 39 alone does no less than "transition (Iraq) from a … centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat.

Although many thought that the "end" of the occupation would also mean the end of the orders, on his last day in Iraq Bremer simply transferred authority for the orders to Prime Minister Iyad Allawi — a 30-year exile with close ties to the CIA and British intelligence.

Further, the interim constitution of Iraq, written by the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, solidifies the orders by making them virtually impossible to overturn.
A sampling of the most important orders demonstrates the economic imprint left by the Bush administration: Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses.
Orders No. 57 and No. 77 ensure the implementation of the orders by placing U.S.-appointed auditors and inspector generals in every government ministry, with five-year terms and with sweeping authority over contracts, programs, employees and regulations.


Order No. 17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq's laws. Even if they, say, kill someone or cause an environmental disaster, the injured party cannot turn to the Iraqi legal system. Rather, the charges must be brought to U.S. courts.

Order No. 40 allows foreign banks to purchase up to 50% of Iraqi banks.

Order No. 49 drops the tax rate on corporations from a high of 40% to a flat 15%. The income tax rate is also capped at 15%.

Order No. 12 (renewed on Feb. 24) suspends "all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq." This led to an immediate and dramatic inflow of cheap foreign consumer products — devastating local producers and sellers who were thoroughly unprepared to meet the challenge of their mammoth global competitors.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 10:36 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

Further, the interim constitution of Iraq, written by the U.S.- appointed Iraqi Governing Council, solidifies the orders by making them virtually impossible to overturn.

And I'd like to highlight this. How free are the Iraqis? (as in freedom, not beer)
Their government is not elected. The appointed Prime Minister (the guy with the real power) was a CIA hanger-on like Chalabi, and a close ally of Bremer. The government has no control over the country's economy, and so is without real authority.
Assuming Iraq hangs together as a country, when (or if) they do get to vote on a government, it will still be hamstrung by Bremer's orders.

Are they free? Or are they a colony of US corporate interests? Will they ever be free?

Now I realize most US'ers (read USers)don't give a rat's *ss about Iraq anymore. Even though last month was the fourth most deadly for US troops since the invasion, and 90% of US field troops are in Iraq indefinitely, most people in the US are so over Iraq. In lock-step with the Admin - drop WMD as an item (embarassing, that), pick up the slogan that puts 'free' and 'Iraq' in the same sentence, 'hand over' the government, and ... it disappears the whole war - poof! like that! It's just not an item anymore.
And people who claim Bush is doing a good job follow along with the program. Don't look behind the curtain. Don't dwell on the past. Don't question the necessity of it. Don't regret the lost lives. Just pick up your appointed sacrifices and soldier on doing your best. Trust, trust in big brother.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 10:38 AM

WADDLEDOODLE


see below.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 10:45 AM

WADDLEDOODLE


OK, I know you're trying to pack in every argument into one sentence that you can think of, but you made a number of assumptions and mis-statments:

ALL OF MY RESPONSES ARE IN BOLD...NO, I'M NOT YELLING...LOL :)

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not the bogus Michael Moore reasons. Disagreeing with policy and articulating why is one thing, but hating for no reason is, well, hypocritical of those who consider themselves peace activists. I'm not saying the President is perfect, but he's ours...during a time of war....who according to dozens of very prominent newspapers working several months in Florida (as well as the electorate and the Supreme Court) is THE winner of the 2000 election.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Bogus?" I disagree with your assessment. During the second attack on the WTC, Bush just plain froze. PLEASE SEE MY PREVIOUS POSTYou could see the indecision on his face: If I bolt out of the room will I scare the little kids? It is more "Presidential" to act as if nothing is wrong? Or should I get up and start giving orders? LIKE WHAT, FIRE ALL WEAPONS!!! lolWhat orders? What about the cameras? WHAT DO I DO ??? It wasn't until the Secret Service came in the hustle him away that the spell was broken.


"hating for no reason": I think everyone who "hates" Bush has at least ONE reason and I have six that I can think of right off the bat that make him a dangerous and untrustworthy President. Just because they aren't YOUR reasons doesn't mean it's baseless. But I actually don't hate Bush. YOU STILL DIDN'T LIST 1 OR 6. AND IF YOU DO, BACK THEM UP WITH MORE THAN WEEPY "FEELINGS"

"Hating for no reason is hypocritical of those who consider themselves peace activtists":

First-you ASSUME there is no reason, second-you equate "peace activtists" with "pacifists". I'm a peace activtist not a pacifist- I disagree with THIS war, not ALL wars. FALSE. FURTHERMORE, IN MORAL TERMS, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY LIBERATING IRAQ, DEPRIVING AL-QUAIDA A BASE OF OPERATIONS(READ THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT, IT'S IN THERE) WAS A BAS THING. MILITARY OFFICERS ARE OBLIGATED TO DISOBEY ILLEGAL ORDERS (EXCEPT JOHN KERRY WHO WHILE COMMITTING ATROCITIES CLAIMED HE DIDN'T KNOW OF GENEVA OR THE HAGUE) AND THE CURRENT CROP OF OFFICERS IN ALL BRANCHES ARE SERVING AND REENLISTING

"He's ours... during time of war..."
A war that he started, FALSE. SADDAM IGNORED 19 UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTIONS THAT THE SECURITY COUNCIL VOTED TO UPHOLD WITH FORCE.THE REASON FOR THE LATER BALKING WAS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE UN, FRENCH AND RUSSIANS WERE AFFRAID THE WORLD WOULD DISCOVER THE TRUTH BEHIND THE "OIL FOR FOOD" PROGRAM

based on a lie. A LIE THAT JOHN KERRY SUPPORTED. In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President’s Action In Iraq. KERRY: “George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.” (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03)

HOWEVER.....

Now, Kerry Says He Is Anti-War Candidate. CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it’s been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?” KERRY: “I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 1/6/04)

NOT a good reason to follow this leader!IT SEEMS KERRY WOULD HAVE FOLLOED THE SAME COURSE AS GEORGE W. BUSH. SINCE HE'S GIVEN NO DETAILS, WE'RE STILL NOT SURE WHAT HE WOULD HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY

"... is THE winner of the 2000 election."
The six (not dozens)OH WOW, CHECK MATE! YOU SURE DID GET ME!! LOL newspapers who funded their own recount made a point of NOT declaring a "winner". I actually read the report, went to the statistical tables and evaluated how the votes would have tallied under various recount criteria. (They considered optically-scanned and electronic votes as well as hanging chads.) Out of 24 recount scenarios, Gore would have been the winner in 13... the critical factor was actually electronic ballots. WHAT ABOUT THE VOTERS IN THE PAN HANDLE, OF WHICH A GREAT MAJORITY ARE REPUBLICANS, WHO DIDN'T VOTE BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THE ELECTION OVER? WEREN'T THEY DISENFRANCHISED? i BET THEY DON'T COUNT.

"the electorate" is the body of enfranchised voters, in other words, the popular vote. According to popular vote, GORE was the winner. Perhaps you mean "electoral college".

BEFORE THE ELECTION, BUSH WAS UP 2-3% IN THE POPULAR VOTE POLLS. WHEN THE DIRTY TRICK MACHINE FIRED OFF THE 1970'S D.U.I. CHARGE AGAINST BUSH RIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION, IT CERTAINLY SWUNG A FEW PEOPLE TO NOT VOTE FOR HIM. EVEN IF IT AFFECTED ONLY 10-15 VOTERS IN PRECEINCTS ACCROSS THE COUNTRY, THE ELECTION WAS SO CLOSE IN SO MANY AREAS THAT THIS TINY SWING MARGIN PROMPTED BY THE DISGUSTING POLITICS WAS ENOUGH TO GIVE GORE THE POPULAR VOTE. HEY, I'M SORRY THAT THE SYSTEM DIDN'T WORK THEY WAY YOU WANTED IT TO, BUT PLEASE, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON TO SOME ISSUES. YOU'RE SOOOOO FOUR YEARS AGO.

"At least I know that George Bush goes to bed late every night thinking about killing terrorists"
You KNOW that? How? LOL...BECAUSE HE'S SAID IT....INTERVIEWS POINT TO IT....HE HAS A TERRORIST "HIT LIST" IN HIS DESK, HE CARRY'S THE BADGE OF A SLAIN TRANSIT COP FROM 9/11. HE'S AGED 10 YEARS...IF YOU DON'T THINK HIS CENTRAL MISSION IS OUR DEFENSE, YOU'RE FAR TOO PARTISAN TO BE REASONABLE

"...rather than some innocent civilian on our shores. The 9/11 commission, in it's text, supports the Iraq/Al Qieda connection long before the war, it also totally discredits the Wilson mission to Niger and the claims he made that no yellow cake uranium was being sought by Iraq."
It does not support any collaberative relationship between Iraq and al Qaida, just a few 'contacts".

I have not read the entire report, would you please quote here what it says about yellow cake and Wilson? As I recall Wilson't report, what HE said was that there were too many people (especially foreigners) in Niger..I think it was voer 2000 in all.. with control over the production, shipping and sales to make "secret" deals impossible. Since you are apparnetly prepared to be specific, please be specific.

http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp

Oh, and BTW_ as far as the pics of Kerry against the war... that is a GREAT reason to vote for Kerry! That was a cruel, stupid, and utterly baseless military adventure, goaded on by Lyndon Johnson's lie (Gulf of Tonkin). It threw thousands of Americans and millions of Vietnamese into a meat grinder, the survivors of which may never fully recover. Every single Vietnam vet that I know who had combat experience was scarred by the war, most deeply shamed

DESPITE YOUR GENERALALITIES, IT WAS JOHN F. KENNEDY WHO TOOK US TO VIETNAM, AND IT WAS THE DEMOCRAT LYNDON JOHNS WHO TOOK US DEEPER, AND THE REPUBLICAN, RICHARD NIXON WHO GOT US OUT. AS TO THE MERITS OF THE WAR, THAT'S A DIFFERENT DEBATE. FRANKLY, KERRY'S WEIRD "I TOSSED THE MEDALS", THEN LATER CLAIMING "NO, I TOSSED MY RIBBONS" AND HIS STAGING AND FILMIMG OF HIMSELF IN SUPER 8MM IS A LITTLE CREEPY.that they killed for nothing, many NOT THE MAJORITY. YOU SEEM TO BE ON THIS SAME TRACK AS KERRY WHO WHEN HE TESTIFIED PAINTED A PICTURE OF ALL AMERICANS AS BUTCHERS.who buried their horror in alcohol or drugsMINORITY, NOT MAJORITY. YOU NEED TO BE CAREFUL WHEN PAINTING WITH A BROAD BRUSH WHEN TALKING ABOUT VIETNAM VETS, UNLESS YOU ARE ONE, THEN YOU CAN SAY ANYTHING YOU LIKE BECAUSE YOU EARNED THE RIGHT, LIKE THE SWIFTBOAT VETS WHO KNOW THE REAL JOHN KERRY. To refuse to follow the President DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTinto a horrible mistake is the most patriotic thing you can do.
FIRSTLY, YOUR PASSION ABOUT VIETNAM SEEMS TO HAVE CAUSED YOU TO THINK THAT IRAQ IS VIETNAM. LIKE JOHN MCCAIN SAID, "WE WERE LOSING 2,500 SOLDIERS A WEEK IN VIETNAM, TO COMPARE IRAQ TO VIETNAME IS FALSE AND INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST" WE'VE LOST LESS THAN 1,000, MAY GOD BLESS THEM, AND THEIR COMRADES ARE STILL FIGHTING AND REENLISTING AND NOT GETTING HIGH AND SHOOTING OFFICERS. SO LETS GET OUT OF THE 1960'S AND MOVE TO THIS CENTURY, SHALL WE?
******************
HERE ARE A FEW HIGHLIGHTS ON KERRY'S VOTING RECORD.

Kerry Voted For Authorization To Use Force In Iraq. (H.J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted Yea.)

Kerry Later Claimed He Voted “To Threaten” Use Of Force In Iraq. “I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Announcement Of Presidential Candidacy, Mount Pleasant, SC, 9/2/03)





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 10:47 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Quote:

Iraq is free

Not free, it was a very expensive acquisition in terms of lives, money, opportunities lost.
If you don't think it was bought as a present for the corporations with US blood and your health care and Socials Security,
read here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-juhasz5aug05,1,
3665796.story

The Hand-Over That Wasn't
By Antonia Juhasz
(excerpts)
Not only do 138,000 troops remain to control the streets, but the "100 Orders" of L. Paul Bremer III remain to control the economy.
The Bremer orders control every aspect of Iraqi life — from the use of car horns to the privatization of state-owned enterprises. Order No. 39 alone does no less than "transition (Iraq) from a … centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat.

Although many thought that the "end" of the occupation would also mean the end of the orders, on his last day in Iraq Bremer simply transferred authority for the orders to Prime Minister Iyad Allawi — a 30-year exile with close ties to the CIA and British intelligence.

Further, the interim constitution of Iraq, written by the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, solidifies the orders by making them virtually impossible to overturn.
A sampling of the most important orders demonstrates the economic imprint left by the Bush administration: Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses.
Orders No. 57 and No. 77 ensure the implementation of the orders by placing U.S.-appointed auditors and inspector generals in every government ministry, with five-year terms and with sweeping authority over contracts, programs, employees and regulations.


Order No. 17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq's laws. Even if they, say, kill someone or cause an environmental disaster, the injured party cannot turn to the Iraqi legal system. Rather, the charges must be brought to U.S. courts.

Order No. 40 allows foreign banks to purchase up to 50% of Iraqi banks.

Order No. 49 drops the tax rate on corporations from a high of 40% to a flat 15%. The income tax rate is also capped at 15%.

Order No. 12 (renewed on Feb. 24) suspends "all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq." This led to an immediate and dramatic inflow of cheap foreign consumer products — devastating local producers and sellers who were thoroughly unprepared to meet the challenge of their mammoth global competitors.




We need to keep things in perspective here.

World War II
-------------
Facts: Over 425,000 Allied and German troops were killed, wounded or went missing during the Battle of Normandy. This figure includes over 209,000 Allied casualties, with nearly 37,000 dead amongst the ground forces and a further 16,714 deaths amongst the Allied air forces. Of the Allied casualties, 83,045 were from 21st Army Group (British, Canadian and Polish ground forces), 125,847 from the US ground forces. The losses of the German forces during the Battle of Normandy can only be estimated. Roughly 200,000 German troops were killed or wounded. The Allies also captured 200,000 prisoners of war (not included in the 425,000 total, above). During the fighting around the Falaise Pocket (August 1944) alone, the Germans suffered losses of around 90,000, including prisoners.

Today, twenty-seven war cemeteries hold the remains of over 110,000 dead from both sides: 77,866 German, 9386 American, 17,769 British, 5002 Canadian and 650 Poles.

Between 15,000 and 20,000 French civilians were killed, mainly as a result of Allied bombing. Thousands more fled their homes to escape the fighting.

Vietnam War
------------
Facts: American Casualties -Total Casualties: 58, 156 (included men who were formerly classified as MIA and Mayaguez casualties). 27 other men have died of wounds, bringing the total to 58,183.


Current War in Iraq
--------------------
Since the War in Iraq began in March 2003 and as of June 2004 there have been Approximately 950 American AND Allied casualties.

Number of people freed from Saddam Hussein's rule 24,001,816 give or take a few ;)
950 to free 25 million.

Number of French citizens freed in 1944? Approximately 41,907,000.
200,000 to free 40 million.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 10:51 AM

WADDLEDOODLE


Thanks CONNORFLYNN

That was my next post...well done.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 10:53 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Ummm.. did I not point to Lyndon Johnson in my post as using the (misrepresnted/ faked) Gulf of Tonkin incidents to "goad" Congress further into military action?

I wasn't trying to make the point that all Democrats are good and all Republicans are bad.

If you read my post, you will see that I said all Vietnam vets THAT I KNOW... and I meant personally.

The link your provided is NOT to the 9-11 Commision Report, which you refer to, but to a newspaper article.
Later.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 11:02 AM

CREVANREAVER


IMHO, President Bush no more a dumbass than your average politician these days. I didn't even vote for him and I actually rather like the way he talks, it makes him seem more human. At least compared to a lot of the Democratic drones in the House and Senate.

Anyway, if anyone wants to learn something about a man smarter and more in touch with true American values than either Senator Kerry or President Bush, then go to this website.

http://www.badnarik.org/

And remember a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil!


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 11:03 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


The 9/11 Commission had no references to 'yellowcake' 'yellow cake' or 'Wilson'.
The link was to an article (in a seriously right-wing publication BTW) about the Senate Report, not the 9/11 Report.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 11:07 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


The numbers don't take into account Iraqi dead.
HOWEVER, does it not bother you that people died for a lie? That Iraq is not 'free'? Or are you so propagandized that things like that don't matter anymore?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 11:10 AM

WADDLEDOODLE


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
The 9/11 Commission had no references to 'yellowcake' 'yellow cake' or 'Wilson'.
The link was to an article (in a seriously right-wing publication BTW) about the Senate Report, not the 9/11 Report.



Sorry, but I thought I'd point you to an article that has several facts that are backed up by sources. Their is a Yellow Cake connection between Iraq and Niger. Read the article and rip it down on IT'S MERITS...don't rip it down simply because you've proclaimed it's RIGHT WING. I've got work to do, I can't spend EVERY second trying to point you in new directions.

So tell me RUE, did you read the article? Can you please explain how the BRITSH were wrong??? Please explain how Wilson's 8 day mission to Niger that his wife lobbied to get him, despite the deniles, was so fact filled that he didn't even write a report???

I ALMOST FORGOT...ALL OF YOU M.MOORE FANS, DID YOU READ RICHARD CLARKE'S STATEMENTS ABOUT F/9/11? INTERESTING HOW THE FILM FALLS APART WHEN IT'S CENTRAL HERO COMES OUT AND RIPS IT UP. SORRY TO LET THE FACTS GET IN THE WAY.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 11:26 AM

WADDLEDOODLE


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
The numbers don't take into account Iraqi dead.
HOWEVER, does it not bother you that people died for a lie? That Iraq is not 'free'? Or are you so propagandized that things like that don't matter anymore?



It didn't "bother" John Kerry until a short while ago.

How is it a lie when:

1) The United States
2) United Nations
3) Great Britain
4) Russia
5) NATO

Basically, the entire world, said Saddam had WMD's? Why is only Kerry allowed a pass? Didn't he lie too??? An Iraq without Saddam is free. We're not the enemy...we're the good guys. I know that's a weird thought for the hate America tin foil hat club out there, but we're working towards a goal.

Furthermore, by you're logic GERMANY isn't free now! We do have a HUGE military presence there, troops who have "occupied" since 1945. Is Germany free despite the evil American occupation???

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 11:54 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Yo are overstating the UN's case. What they said was that they could not confirm the destruction of WMD from the 90's, but that three or four months of work would allow them to reach a conclusion.

The operative word is HAD (past tense) WMD. IF you had looked at all into WMD you'd see that they are all unstable (except mustard gas) in the form that Iraq produced them.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 12:06 PM

WADDLEDOODLE


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Yo are overstating the UN's case. What they said was that they could not confirm the destruction of WMD from the 90's, but that three or four months of work would allow them to reach a conclusion.

The operative word is HAD (past tense) WMD. IF you had looked at all into WMD you'd see that they are all unstable (except mustard gas) in the form that Iraq produced them.



"you had looked at all into WMD"

Keep a civil tone and don't assume you know anything about what I know other than what I write. The WMD points are as follows:

1) WMDs were found in 1991.

2) Saddam kicked out the inspectors and risked war...why? To "appear" to be tough, or actually get the time and spec to acquire those weapons that would in fact make him tough.

3) They're still finding Mustard Gas AND Sarin nerve agent in Iraq.

4) The case by the UN was that Iraq was NOT in compliance with its resolutions, period. That was the trigger for military action.

5) The Bush administration spent 14 months working with the UN and other allies to get the Iraq worked out. War WAS the last resort, waiting for something to happen wasn't an option.

6) The policy of the United States, as signed by Executive Order by Bill Clinton in 1998 was the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.

7) What if we didn't go and topple Saddam....where would Iraq be?




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 12:41 PM

HASLINGER


I am sorry for everyone who has been "hurt" by Bush. I am sorry for everyone that will be hurt by Kerry. What hurts me more is that we have moved away from "politics" and turned our political ecosystem, if you will, into an enormous mud slinging spectacle. Personally, I'd love nothing more than to see Us as a nation move towards management, not the obtuse, phlegmatic control of insecure men in power.


Bush did this...I DON"T CARE
Kerry did, then didn't do this....I STILL DON'T CARE

LET'S JUST MOVE FOWARD

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 2:50 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


"The WMD points are as follows:

1) WMDs were found in 1991."

Yes, I know- we sent them the materials to make them. And we also destroyed a number of them at the time.

2) Saddam kicked out the inspectors and risked war...why? To "appear" to be tough, or actually get the time and spec to acquire those weapons that would in fact make him tough.

Saddam did not "kick out" the UN inspectors, they withdrew because of anticipated bombing by UK and USA. Why do people keep repeating this? It's just not the case.

3) They're still finding Mustard Gas AND Sarin nerve agent in Iraq.

They are NOT finding mustard gas and sarin. If you think that they are, please post the links to the info because all of the links I have found so far pretty much come up with a lot of false alarms that ended up being retracted.

http://cshink.com/no_chemicals_on_mortar_shells.htm

4) The case by the UN was that Iraq was NOT in compliance with its resolutions, period. That was the trigger for military action.

The UN also did not request our "help" in getting Iraq to comply and according to Blix was within a few months of completing their inpsection, despite lack of cooperation from Iraq.

5) The Bush administration spent 14 months working with the UN and other allies to get the Iraq worked out. War WAS the last resort, waiting for something to happen wasn't an option.

But what was so terribly urgent that it couldn't wait until Blix completed the inpsection? Was Bush afraid that he might actually lose his excuse for invading if he waited that long?

6) The policy of the United States, as signed by Executive Order by Bill Clinton in 1998 was the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.

By what means....?

7) What if we didn't go and topple Saddam
....where would Iraq be?

It would have been cleared by the UN and sanctions would have been lifted. It would have signed contracts with Russia, France and Germany for oil production and oil production equipment. More goods and services would probably have started flowing to the population since they would no longer be "black market" items.
In any case, it would not be harboring al Qaida terrorists... just as it was not before. And it would not have WMD, just as before.


"Keep a civil tone and don't assume you know anything about what I know other than what I write. "

I already know a lot about what you think you know from what you've written. You assert many things that would be more interesting if you would only back them up with links.

And if you HAD looked up anything about chemical and biological weapons and you KNEW they had a shelf life, then you conveniently ommitted that fact. So either you didn't know, or...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 2:50 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:

The Bremer orders control every aspect of Iraqi life — from the use of car horns to the privatization of state-owned enterprises. Order No. 39 alone does no less than "transition (Iraq) from a … centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat.



and why is a market economy a bad thing?

Quote:

Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises;


again, whay is this bad? What do you have against free enterprise?

Quote:

(2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses;


who owns Honda in the USA? Toyota? Nissan? Sony? ad infinitum.


Quote:

(3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses;


like no portective tarrifs? Why is this bad?


Quote:

Order No. 40 allows foreign banks to purchase up to 50% of Iraqi banks.


Foreign banks own 50%+ of banks in the USA. Is this a bad thing?

Quote:

Order No. 49 drops the tax rate on corporations from a high of 40% to a flat 15%. The income tax rate is also capped at 15%.


Can we get this in the USA? I'd love it.

Quote:

Order No. 12 (renewed on Feb. 24) suspends "all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq."


No free trade, then?

Come on. Do you expect that Iraq could have held national elections the day after Bagdad fell? You have to have some sort of basic political infrastructure before you can hold even local elections, let alone determine national policy. Check how long we ran Japan and Germany after WWII. Do you expect that Iraq could have put in place a stable and functioning government, let alone a democratic version, within a year?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 5:28 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

Our Man in Niger
Exposed and discredited, Joe Wilson might consider going back.

Joe Wilson's cover has been blown. For the past year, he has claimed to be a truth-teller, a whistleblower, the victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy — and most of the media have lapped it up and cheered him on.

After a whirl of TV and radio appearances during which he received high-fives and hearty hugs from producers and hosts (I was in some green rooms with him so this is eyewitness reporting), and a wet-kiss profile in Vanity Fair, he gave birth to a quickie book sporting his dapper self on the cover, and verbosely entitled The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity: A Diplomat's Memoir.

The book jacket talks of his "fearless insight" (whatever that's supposed to mean) and "disarming candor" (which does not extend to telling readers for whom he has been working since retiring early from the Foreign Service).

The biographical blurb describes him as a "political centrist" who received a prize for "Truth-Telling," though a careful reader might notice that the award came in part from a group associated with The Nation magazine — which only Michael Moore would consider a centrist publication.

But now Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV — he of the Hermes ties and Jaguar convertibles — has been thoroughly discredited. Last week's bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report concluded that it is he who has been telling lies.


This is a full five paragraphs of personal attack. I'M supposed to respond to the point, but this author is not held to ANY standard.
Quote:

For starters, he has insisted that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, was not the one who came up with the brilliant idea that the agency send him to Niger to investigate whether Saddam Hussein had been attempting to acquire uranium. "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson says in his book. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." In fact, the Senate panel found, she was the one who got him that assignment. The panel even found a memo by her. (She should have thought to use disappearing ink.)

Not having read the book I can't address the quotes. But the Senate panel did not find she 'got' him the assignment. "CPD (CIA Counter Proliferation Division) concluded that with no other options, sending the former ambassador to Niger was worth a try." (Quotes are directly from the Senate Report.)
Quote:

Wilson spent a total of eight days in Niger "drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people," as he put it. On the basis of this "investigation" he confidently concluded that there was no way Saddam sought uranium from Africa. Oddly, Wilson didn't bother to write a report saying this. Instead he gave an oral briefing to a CIA official.

"On February 20 2002, CPD provided the former ambassador with talking points for use with his contacts in Niger. The talking points were general, asking officials if Niger had been approached, conducted discussion, or entered into any agreements concerning uranium transfers with 'any countries of concern.' The talking points also focused on whether any uranium might be missing from Niger or might have been transfer and asked how Niger accounts for all its uranium each year. The talking point did not refer to the specific reporting on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal, did not mention names or dates from the reporting, and did not mention that there was any deal been reported in intelligence channels. ... On February 26, 2002 the former ambassador arrived in Niger. He told Committee staff that he first met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick to discuss his upcoming meetings. Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick asked him not to meet with current Nigerian officials because she believed it might complicate her continuing diplomatic efforts with them on the uranium issue. The former ambassador agreed to restrict his meetings to former officials and the private sector.
The former ambassador told Committee staff that he met with the former Nigerian Prime Minister, the former Minister of Mines and Energy, and other business contacts. At the end of his visit, he debriefed Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick redacted .. Chad. He told Committee staff that he had told both US officials he thought there was 'nothing to the story.' ...
..two CIA DO officers debriefed the former ambassador ... based on information provided verbally, the DO case officer wrote a draft intelligence report and sent it to the DO reports officer.
(Later)On March 1, 2002, INR (State Department) published an intelligence assessment, 'Niger: Sale of Uranium to Iraq is Unlikely'."
Quote:

Oddly, too, as an investigator on assignment for the CIA he was not required to keep his mission and its conclusions confidential.

"DO officials told Committee staff that they promised the former ambassador that they would keep his relationship with CIA confidential, but did not ask the former ambassador to do the same and did not ask him to sign a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement."
Quote:

And for the New York Times, he was happy to put pen to paper, to write an op-ed charging the Bush administration with "twisting," "manipulating" and "exaggerating" intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs "to justify an invasion."

ipso facto
Quote:

In particular he said that President Bush was lying when, in his 2003 State of the Union address, he pronounced these words: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

We now know for certain that Wilson was wrong and that Bush's statement was entirely accurate.

The British have consistently stood by that conclusion. In September 2003, an independent British parliamentary committee looked into the matter and determined that the claim made by British intelligence was "reasonable" (the media forgot to cover that one too). Indeed, Britain's spies stand by their claim to this day. Interestingly, French intelligence also reported an Iraqi attempt to procure uranium from Niger.


Oddly enough the US does NOT stand by the British claims:
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=2114
" the recent Senate Intelligence Committee report in the US quoted widespread scepticism about the British information on Niger. One agency said 'the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are highly dubious'. Asked by the committee to comment on Britain's WMD dossier, the deputy director of central intelligence, John McLaughlin, said 'they stretched a little bit beyond where we would stretch' on the African uranium question, adding: 'I think they reached a little bit on that one point.'"
Quote:

Yes, there were fake documents relating to Niger-Iraq sales. But no, those forgeries were not the evidence that convinced British intelligence that Saddam may have been shopping for "yellowcake" uranium. On the contrary, according to some intelligence sources (unnamed even by agency), the forgery was planted in order to be discovered — as a ruse to discredit the story of a Niger-Iraq link, to persuade people there were no grounds for the charge. If that was the plan, it worked like a charm.

But that's not all. The Butler report, yet another British government inquiry, also is expected to conclude this week that British intelligence was correct to say that Saddam sought uranium from Niger.


IBID, and
"Senator John Kyl asked the Deputy DCI whether he had read the British white paper and whether he disagreed with anything in the report. The Deputy DCI testified that 'the one thing I think they stretched beyond where we would stretch is on the point about Iraq seeking uranium from various African locations. We've looked at those reports and we don't think they are very credible.'
When asked by Senator Fred Thompson if there was disagreement with the British white paper, the NIO said 'They put more emphasis on the uranium acquisition than we would. ...there's a question about some of those attempts because of the control on those countries. In one case the mine incompletely flooded and how would they get the material." And on in that vein.

Quote:

And in recent days, the Financial Times has reported that illicit sales of uranium from Niger were indeed being negotiated with Iraq, as well as with four other states.

According to the FT: "European intelligence officers have now revealed that three years before the fake documents became public, human and electronic intelligence sources from a number of countries picked up repeated discussion of an illicit trade in uranium from Niger. One of the customers discussed by the traders was Iraq."


And the source of the intelligence is ....
Quote:

There's still more: As Susan Schmidt reported — back on page A9 of Saturday's Washington Post: "Contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence."

" ... on October 6, 2002 the CIA sent a second fax to the White House which said: 'more on why we recommend removing the sentence about procuring uranium oxide from Africa: Three points 1) The evidence is weak. One of the two mines cited by the source as the location of the uranium oxide is flooded. The other mine cited by the source is under control of the French authorities. 2) The procurement is not particularly significant to Iraq's nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already have a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory. And (3) we have shared points one and two with Congress, telling them that the Africa story is overblown and telling them this is one of the two issues where we differed with the British.'"
Quote:

The Senate report says fairly bluntly that Wilson lied to the media. Schmidt notes that the panel found that, "Wilson provided misleading information to the Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on a document that had clearly been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'"

The problem is Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel discovered. Schmidt notes: "The documents — purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq — were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger."

Ironically, Senate investigators found that at least some of what Wilson told his CIA briefer not only failed to persuade the agency that there was nothing to reports of Niger-Iraq link — his information actually created additional suspicion.


Nowhere in the report did I find a conclusion that Wilson provided misleading information. The CIA judged the information he provided to be 'good' which meant useful, but not new.

And on and on in the same vein. Don't expect me to spend any more time cleaning up your poop which you so inconsiderately shit all over the board.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 5:39 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer: What's wrong with free markets??

Well, if you're trying to create a democracy... which requires a stable society... which requires a middle class... which requires rebuilding the economy... then all you have to do is look at Russia and Argentina as examples of how NOT to do it. If you recall, Russia took the "shock therapy" (Jeff Sachs') approach of instantaneous privatization. It turned into an immediate basket case of mafiosi who made off with national assests as fast as possible while output plunged 70% and the lifespan decreased by five years or more. With Putin in charge, can anyone really say that Russia has successfully transitioned to a democracy?

Another example of how NOT to do it is Argentina, which had a couple of years of boom before the bust, where again the oligarchs made off with the national assests as fast as they could run, and the country suffered a (so far) decline that has simply made the population committed to avoiding the capitalist route.

And before anyone points to China, I must remind you that (1) they are NOT a fully capitalist economy (2) the transition is under government control (3) China remians in control of it's banks, assets, currency, economic policy and adjudication.

(BTW, Taiwan is also not a capitalist economy- 50% of industry is owned by government.)

Man... what I would LOVE to say right now....
I'm counting to ten. I better sign off now...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 5:44 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Geezer,
Do you also claim that Iraq is FREE and DEMOCRATIC when the basics of national policy were shoved down their throats by Bremer and the CPA? Whether YOU or I think these are good things is beside the point - it supposed to be Iraq's decision.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 5:45 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Rue- YOU GO GIRL/ GUY!!!!

Yes, there is a lot of poop all over the board, isn't there??




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 5:50 PM

WADDLEDOODLE


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
"The WMD points are as follows:

1) WMDs were found in 1991."

Yes, I know- we sent them the materials to make them. And we also destroyed a number of them at the time.

2) Saddam kicked out the inspectors and risked war...why? To "appear" to be tough, or actually get the time and spec to acquire those weapons that would in fact make him tough.

Saddam did not "kick out" the UN inspectors, they withdrew because of anticipated bombing by UK and USA. Why do people keep repeating this? It's just not the case.

3) They're still finding Mustard Gas AND Sarin nerve agent in Iraq.

They are NOT finding mustard gas and sarin. If you think that they are, please post the links to the info because all of the links I have found so far pretty much come up with a lot of false alarms that ended up being retracted.

http://cshink.com/no_chemicals_on_mortar_shells.htm

4) The case by the UN was that Iraq was NOT in compliance with its resolutions, period. That was the trigger for military action.

The UN also did not request our "help" in getting Iraq to comply and according to Blix was within a few months of completing their inpsection, despite lack of cooperation from Iraq.

5) The Bush administration spent 14 months working with the UN and other allies to get the Iraq worked out. War WAS the last resort, waiting for something to happen wasn't an option.

But what was so terribly urgent that it couldn't wait until Blix completed the inpsection? Was Bush afraid that he might actually lose his excuse for invading if he waited that long?

6) The policy of the United States, as signed by Executive Order by Bill Clinton in 1998 was the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.

By what means....?

7) What if we didn't go and topple Saddam
....where would Iraq be?

It would have been cleared by the UN and sanctions would have been lifted. It would have signed contracts with Russia, France and Germany for oil production and oil production equipment. More goods and services would probably have started flowing to the population since they would no longer be "black market" items.
In any case, it would not be harboring al Qaida terrorists... just as it was not before. And it would not have WMD, just as before.


"Keep a civil tone and don't assume you know anything about what I know other than what I write. "

I already know a lot about what you think you know from what you've written. You assert many things that would be more interesting if you would only back them up with links.

And if you HAD looked up anything about chemical and biological weapons and you KNEW they had a shelf life, then you conveniently ommitted that fact. So either you didn't know, or...



"Yes, I know- we sent them the materials to make them. And we also destroyed a number of them at the time."

I figure, like the other links, you won't read it and just discredit it with a wave of the hand. So here it is:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/17/123424.shtml

Who Armed Iraq?
Charles R. Smith
Monday, March 17, 2003
Myth vs. Fact


Name one weapon in the Iraqi arsenal that was made in the United States.

I have offered that challenge to dozens of so-called anti-war activists who claim that the U.S. armed Iraq. According to these protesters for "peace," George Bush Sr. and Ronald Reagan supplied Iraq with tons of weapons.

None have been able to name the specific weapon – missile, bomb, fighter, tank or shell – that is U.S.-made or has U.S. equipment installed in it. None have been able to name any specific weapon system.

All of them have failed the challenge, providing no more than allegations that U.S. parts are in Iraqi missiles or U.S. electronics are being used by the Iraqi military. One protester even claimed that Iraq was armed with U.S.-made trucks.

Since when is a truck a weapon? Are the Iraqis going to drive backwards, fuel tank first, into the U.S. Army?

Time to separate the myth from the reality. The propaganda spun by the far left is false. The facts show that Iraq is armed with a wide range of weapons – none of which came from the U.S.

Iraqi Air Force

The Iraqi air force does not fly Falcons or Eagles. The majority of the Iraqi air force is made in Russia. The Russian MiG and Sukhoi design bureaus supplied Iraq with hundreds of advanced strike-fighters and the Mach 3 Foxbat interceptor.

Saddam could field a force of advanced MiG-29 Fulcrum fighters if they had not chickened out of combat during the Gulf War, flying to Iran for asylum. The Iranians, who love Saddam even less than we do, never returned the MiGs.

The remainder of the Iraqi air force comes from France and China. The Chinese supplied Saddam with the Chengdu F-7, a copy of the Russian MiG-21. The F-7 can fly from unimproved runways and is known to be a vicious in-close dog fighter.

However, the French Mirage F-1 is reportedly the best jet fighter in Iraqi hands. You can view an Iraqi F-1 in action on the State Department Web site, testing a chemical spraying system.

If you still believe that the Iraqis have no chemical weapons, think again. Iraq did not modify its best multimillion-dollar fighter jet to spray for fruit flies.

Anyone with half of a brain knows that you cannot keep a modern jet fighter in the air without spare parts. Thus the Russian, Chinese and French jets should be museum pieces after 12 years of a so-called U.N. ban on weapons sales to Iraq. Yet somehow Saddam has his air force flying over 1,000 sorties a month.

Thanks to excellent reporting by Bill Gertz we now know that France has been supplying spare parts for Saddam's Mirage fighters. The French spare parts arrived in Baghdad not 20 years ago during the Cold War but last year, just in time to face our forces today.

Merci! With friends like, that who needs enemies?

Iraqi Missiles

Perhaps the Iraqi missile force has some U.S.-made weapons? Not. The primary Iraqi missile is the Russian-made Scud. Other missiles include the FROG-7 from Russia, the Exocet from France and the Silkworm from China.

The Iraqi air defense has plenty of missiles ... from Russia, China and France. The SA-2 Guideline, SA-3 Goa and SA-6 Gainful SAM missiles are all of Russian or Chinese manufacture. The French also supplied Baghdad with a number of Roland air defense missile systems.

Even the missile parts are from Chinese, German and French sources. Israeli authorities know full well what is inside Iraqi-made Scud missiles since many of them fell on Tel Aviv during the Gulf War. The Israelis found that the Scud warhead electronics were made in Germany – not the U.S.A.

In addition, William Safire recently wrote a column noting that a Chinese chemical company had supplied rocket fuel to Iraq through a French front company. Safire identified the fuel, the companies and the Iraqi missile facility where it was mixed into new Iraqi rockets. Again, the missile fuel sale was made within the last year, just in time to make new Iraqi missiles pointed at Kuwait, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Saddam sends his love to Paris and Beijing. Without your help he certainly could not threaten his neighbors with nerve gas and anthrax.

Iraqi Army

Okay, if not jet fighters and missiles, then how about tanks? Certainly the biggest weapons seller in the world, the U.S.A., sold tanks to Iraq.

The Iraqi armor force is made up of Chinese and Russian models familiar to any "cold" warrior. The Iraqi T-72 and T-55 tanks are all of Russian manufacture. The Iraqis also have a large number of Type-59 Chinese tanks and Russian-made BMP armored troop carriers. No M-1 Abrams here.

How about attack helicopters? The Iraqis have a number of choppers they used against the Kurds and Shiites.

So sorry, the Iraqi attack chopper force is Russian and French. The Russians supplied Iraq with a large number of the Mil-24 Hind attack helicopters, armed to the teeth with cannon, missiles and even chemical weapon sprayers.

The French supplied Saddam with a large number of Gazelle attack helicopters. The same French also managed to keep Saddam's attack helicopter force flying today with spare parts.

Guns, then? Surely the U.S. supplied Saddam with guns?

Nope. The main Iraqi artillery is the French 155mm howitzer. The remainder of Iraq's artillery is 122mm Russian-made cannons and Russian-made short-range rocket launchers. Even the Iraqi foot soldier is armed with the venerable AK-47 of Russian and Chinese make.

Iran-Iraq War

The facts are that during the Iran-Iraq war the U.S. supplied Iraq with something much more valuable than guns: satellite information on when and where the Iranians were going to attack.

Of course, current anti-war activists seize this piece of information without putting it into historical context. The information was supplied during the height of the Cold War. The main threat to America was the Soviet Union and the biggest fear in the Gulf was the Ayatollah Khomeini.

You remember the chant "death to America"? It almost seems that the ayatollah invented it. Ironically, the Ayatollah made his way to Tehran from his home in exile – Paris.

The Reagan administration, aware that the Iranian ayatollah had threatened to turn the Gulf into a sea of fire, assisted Saddam so that he would not lose the war. The assistance stopped short of helping Saddam win the war.

In fact, when it appeared the Iraqis were on the verge of victory, the Reagan administration transferred real weapons to the Iranians. The infamous Iran-Contra scandal involved a large number of badly needed U.S. TOW anti-tank missiles that were sold to Iran.

The U.S. missiles proved to be critical to the Iranian defense against Iraq's superior Russian tank force. The result was a stalemate and the war ended.

France/Russia/China

The fact is that Saddam owes billions to France, Russia and China for weapons purchases. Clearly, Iraq is buying more weapons from Paris and Beijing despite a U.N. arms embargo. Perhaps one reason why Paris, Moscow and Beijing oppose a war in Iraq is because they would lose their best customer.

The propaganda spun by the far left that the U.S. armed Iraq is false and backed by no facts. The so-called anti-war types are more interested in slamming Bush than stopping a war. None have been able to name one American-made weapon in the Iraqi arsenal.

More importantly, none of them can give one good reason why Saddam should stay in power.


***************************



Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
By Liza Porteus

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html

You wrote:
"It would have been cleared by the UN and sanctions would have been lifted. It would have signed contracts with Russia, France and Germany for oil production and oil production equipment. More goods and services would probably have started flowing to the population since they would no longer be "black market" items.
In any case, it would not be harboring al Qaida terrorists... just as it was not before. And it would not have WMD, just as before."

Really? That was the only reason sanctions were placed on Iraq? WMD? What about the other 19 resolutions Saddam didn't comply with? French, Germans, Russians and UN WANTED THE SANCTIONS TO REMAIN. That way the "Oil for food" program remained and the pocketing of billions could continue. http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040321-101405-2593r.htm

As to Iraq NOT harboring Al-Qaida-

"There was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," said 9/11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/357l
nryy.asp



Do you deny that the world's various intelligence services supported the claim that Iraq had chemical weapons AKA WMD? Do I need to link you to articles to support the pre-war intel claims that George Bush, John Kerry and Bill Clinton believed to be true? Why did the President go to the UN for another resolution? Why did he wait 14 months? According to you he had NO reason to invade Iraq, despite all of the evidence to the contrary. Apparently John Kerry thought the Intel was credible, and as a member of the Intelligence committee, wouldn't he have first glance at such intelligence? Or did he miss that meeting?


Kerry Voted For Authorization To Use Force In Iraq. (H.J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted Yea.)

In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President’s Action In Iraq. KERRY: “George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.” (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03)

What always surprises me is that some people argue that Iraq would be better off with Saddam still in power. You painted some weird misplaced rosie picture that Saddam was just waiting to comply with the UN so the sanctions would be dropped and he could help his people. The Oil for Food scandle proves he had HARD CASH and chose NOT to help his people. He was a dictator, he didn't care about his people, that's why he gassed them, murdered them, performed all manner of atrocities upon them. I have provided links to back up my claims...I'll guess, like before, you'll simply change the argument by making some redirecting statement - like the "we supplied Iraq the weapons" crack, which caused me to post the entire article to dispell that notion that we were giving him all sorts of war material, all in the hopes to get us back on track. You may accuse me of deliberatly concealing knowledge of chemical weapon shelf life and such, but frankly, the fact remains that traces have been found.

You can argue somantics of pre and post war intel,
the fact remains the Iraqis are better off without the the dictator.....Do I need to post a link with evidence of Saddams crimes? Or do you dispute his Resume as some US fabrication?


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 09:39 - 2070 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL