Let the crusades begin!

[01WhiteCobra]

Oh my.

God put Bush in charge, says the general hunting bin Laden
By David Rennie
(Filed: 17/10/2003)

The general leading the hunt for Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein has publicly declared that the Christian God is "bigger" than Allah, who is a false "idol", and believes the war on terrorism is a fight with Satan, it emerged yesterday.

Investigative reporters from the Los Angeles Times and NBC television have dug up two years' worth of seemingly incendiary comments from Lt Gen William "Jerry" Boykin, the newly promoted deputy undersecretary of state of defence for intelligence.

Gen Boykin has repeatedly told Christian groups and prayer meetings that President George W Bush was chosen by God to lead the global fight against Satan.

He told one gathering: "Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. He's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this."

In January, he told Baptists in Florida about a victory over a Muslim warlord in Somalia, who had boasted that Allah would protect him from American capture. "I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real god and his was an idol," Gen Boykin said.

He also emerged from the conflict with a photograph of the Somalian capital Mogadishu bearing a strange dark mark. He has said this showed "the principalities of darkness. . . a demonic presence in that city that God revealed to me as the enemy".

On the Middle East, Gen Boykin told an Oregon church in June that America could not ignore its Judaeo-Christian roots. "Our religion came from Judaism and therefore [Islamic] radicals will hate us forever."

In the same month, Gen Boykin told an Oklahoma congregation that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were not the enemy.

"Our enemy is a spiritual enemy because we are a nation of believers. . . His name is Satan."

The disclosures will doubtless be seized on by Muslim critics as proof that the US-led war on terrorism is a crusade against Islam. It is a charge that Mr Bush has worked hard to refute.

Though careful to respect minority religions within its ranks, the US military is strikingly devout from top to bottom. Mr Bush and several key figures in his administration are staunch Christian conservatives.

Few outside the Pentagon noticed when Gen Boykin, a 13-year member of Delta Force, the top-secret commando unit modelled on the SAS, was promoted this summer, with responsibility for speeding the flow of top-secret intelligence to commandos hunting bin Laden and other high-value targets.

At a routine press conference yesterday, Donald Rumsfeld, the normally confident defence secretary, appeared wrong-footed by the controversy. He hailed the general's "outstanding record" and said his comments were made "in his private capacity".

However, Mr Rumsfeld was careful to cite Mr Bush's injunctions against viewing Islam as the enemy.

Gen Boykin told NBC that he would be curtailing his speeches to religious groups. "I don't want to come across as a Right-wing radical," he said.

[Fobra]

http://www.westsidemustangs.com/forums/images/smiles/rock.gif

[Phillip]

I could see how that could be true.

[black01gt]

Originally posted by Phillip
I could see how that could be true.


That what could be true? That he's a right-wing radical? Yes that is true.

[Phillip]

Originally posted by black01gt
That what could be true? That he's a right-wing radical? Yes that is true.

You can't judge a whole political party by one person. I mean hell look at Ted Kennedy!! Gen Boykin is kind of out there, but that doesn't mean he may not have a couple of good points. And I think we are fighting evil. And Satan is the "evil" of the world.

[black01gt]

Originally posted by Phillip
You can't judge a whole political party by one person. I mean hell look at Ted Kennedy!! Gen Boykin is kind of out there, but that doesn't mean he may not have a couple of good points. And I think we are fighting evil. And Satan is the "evil" of the world.
I hate to use this generlized language, because I've never really been this way, but judging a whole party by one person is exactly what the repub's have been doing for years now! Because Clinton got a BJ, now the whole Democratic Party is a bunch of unmoralistic nuts.It doesn't matter that the country was in much better shape under Clinton (deny that!). He got a BJ! If 9/11 happened on Clinton's watch, I'm plenty confident that he would "postpone" Iraq and spend troops and $billions finding and dealing with Bin Laden (remember him?) and Al Queda. That is what would make me sleep better at nite. Not the fact that the ppl of Iraq are liberated (or is it WMD, or is it terrorist support, or is it oil, or is it blahblahblah) Smoke and mirrors for gullable people is what allows what is going on now. I'll say this again. While Dubya is busy thumping his chest and focusing on how he and his cronies can make a buck off of all this, the terrorist are going to fly more of their (already stolen and in their possesion) planes into us again. Then we can go jump on someone else and make "mo money" for us .001% of the nation.
Evil comes in many shapes and colors, and doesn't always have a label on it!!! Same is true with good.

[Phillip]

Originally posted by black01gt
I hate to use this generlized language, because I've never really been this way, but judging a whole party by one person is exactly what the repub's have been doing for years now! Because Clinton got a BJ, now the whole Democratic Party is a bunch of unmoralistic nuts.It doesn't matter that the country was in much better shape under Clinton (deny that!). He got a BJ! If 9/11 happened on Clinton's watch, I'm plenty confident that he would "postpone" Iraq and spend troops and $billions finding and dealing with Bin Laden (remember him?) and Al Queda. That is what would make me sleep better at nite. Not the fact that the ppl of Iraq are liberated (or is it WMD, or is it terrorist support, or is it oil, or is it blahblahblah) Smoke and mirrors for gullable people is what allows what is going on now. I'll say this again. While Dubya is busy thumping his chest and focusing on how he and his cronies can make a buck off of all this, the terrorist are going to fly more of their (already stolen and in their possesion) planes into us again. Then we can go jump on someone else and make "mo money" for us .001% of the nation.
Evil comes in many shapes and colors, and doesn't always have a label on it!!! Same is true with good.

Nobody thinks democrats are unmoralistic. Who cares if clinton got a BJ. Bush got a BJ also... from Mrs. Bush;) From what is leaking now in the media, dealing with Saddam is dealing with Bin Laden, since they worked together and Iraq was funding Al Queda. Saying that all we are looking for is a buck is very presumptious. To say that we aren't going to see benefits financially from this would be ignorant. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that we are over there for many good reasons, and we will take advantage of benefits. As far as lining pockets. Come on now. Have we had a major terrorist attack since 9/11. No. I've got to give Bush at least some of the credit.

Howard Dean for President:D

[black01gt]

Originally posted by Phillip


Howard Dean for President:D

Now you're making some good sense! But you'll be called a pinkounpatrioticcommunistleftist for that remark. I would really like see a Howard Dean/Wesley Clark ticket. Honor is not dead yet!:cool:

[Phillip]

If howard dean gets the presidency, I'll sell my car

better yet vote Hillary!!

[black01gt]

Originally posted by Phillip
If howard dean gets the presidency, I'll sell my car


:confused: Do what you gotta do! If dubya gets re-elcted I'll probably HAVE TO sell my car, but then anything I can do for the Iraqis.:mad:

[Phillip]

Originally posted by black01gt
:confused: Do what you gotta do! If dubya gets re-elcted I'll probably HAVE TO sell my car, but then anything I can do for the Iraqis.:mad:

How much? I'll give you a crisp George Washingon!!
I'm pretty sure he'll be in for another 4. What do you think?

[01WhiteCobra]

Originally posted by Phillip
How much? I'll give you a crisp George Washingon!!
I'm pretty sure he'll be in for another 4. What do you think?

Oh yea. GWB will do it again.

[black01gt]

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
Oh yea. GWB will do it again.
Couldn't tell ya! Everything anymore is 50/50. I guess it all depends on the smoke and mirrors. :eek:

[Phillip]

it's not that bush is overwhelmingly strong, although I think he is a good president, but its how weak all the democratic canidates are. I mean look at them, the only think they can agree on is that they hate GWB. They havn't raised how they will solve issues yet except to raise my taxes and bush has cut ours 4 times, and the economy is recovering. Look at the stock market, unemployment, consumer confidence. up, up, up. Did anyone notice how the liberals have layed off the economy lately? But a couple of months ago, its all they could talk about. They are scrammbling for something.

[AL P]

Thats right, assmeble the squires and someone bring me my armor and my holy mace so I can crack the teeth of the wicked Muslims!!!

[black01gt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fox466
[B]black01, so you are saying that:


2. engaging in no. 1 while speaking with foreign heads of state is presidential?


No, taking a piss while speaking with foreign heads (of state) is not be very presidential, but may sometimes may be necessary. Does this answer your query Fox466, or do you have more questions of wisdom?

[OC]

Originally posted by black01gt
If 9/11 happened on Clinton's watch, I'm plenty confident that he would "postpone" Iraq and spend troops and $billions finding and dealing with Bin Laden (remember him?) and Al Queda. That is what would make me sleep better at nite. Not the fact that the ppl of Iraq are liberated (or is it WMD, or is it terrorist support, or is it oil, or is it blahblahblah)

These things happened during Clinton's presidency
1) Somalia - American Soldiers drug through the streets on International TV - Nothing Happened
2) Kobar Towers Kuwait - American Air Force Soldiers killed - Clinton vows justice - nothing happens
3) USS Cole - Navy personnel die - Clinton vows justice - nothing happens
4) Operation Desert Fox - Clinton declares an attack on Iraq the day Monica Lewinsky is due to testify - result - 2 Brigades of 3rd Infantry Division go from a training mission(one was due to rotate back) to a War status
5) Bosnia - Clinton declares we will be there 18 months ---we have been there since Dec 95

Here you have a president who was too much of a coward to join the Military who deploys the military everywhere, but does not take up for them when they are attacked, and does not keep his word on when they will return from missions he sent them on, and uses them to divert attention from himself when his girlfriend is due to testify.

If this is your type of President then you can have him.

[black01gt]

Originally posted by reef93gt
These things happened during Clinton's presidency
1) Somalia - American Soldiers drug through the streets on International TV - Nothing Happened
2) Kobar Towers Kuwait - American Air Force Soldiers killed - Clinton vows justice - nothing happens
3) USS Cole - Navy personnel die - Clinton vows justice - nothing happens
4) Operation Desert Fox - Clinton declares an attack on Iraq the day Monica Lewinsky is due to testify - result - 2 Brigades of 3rd Infantry Division go from a training mission(one was due to rotate back) to a War status
5) Bosnia - Clinton declares we will be there 18 months ---we have been there since Dec 95

Here you have a president who was too much of a coward to join the Military who deploys the military everywhere, but does not take up for them when they are attacked, and does not keep his word on when they will return from missions he sent them on, and uses them to divert attention from himself when his girlfriend is due to testify.

If this is your type of President then you can have him.
1)I didn't join the military and I'm not a coward. I was in collage like Clinton and millions of others.(and don't bother calling me one because you don't know me, and you would be talking out of you ass)
2)Dubya joined the military (reserves to stay out of Viet Nam) but stayed AWOL most of the time. (look it up)
3)Sept.11 terrotist attacked American soil for the first time ever, led by bin Laden and Al Queda. What has been done? (you can spare me details of the TRAGIC buttshow in Iraq because that has nothing to do with security for American soil). Afganistan was in the right direction but for some reason...we turned "right"! Why was that reef, you seem pretty smart.
4)Clinton was my kind of Prez.(I'm not rich), but his term has expired. But you knew that, didn't you?

[black01gt]

Originally posted by Phillip
it's not that bush is overwhelmingly strong, although I think he is a good president, but its how weak all the democratic canidates are. I mean look at them, the only think they can agree on is that they hate GWB. They havn't raised how they will solve issues yet except to raise my taxes and bush has cut ours 4 times, and the economy is recovering. Look at the stock market, unemployment, consumer confidence. up, up, up. Did anyone notice how the liberals have layed off the economy lately? But a couple of months ago, its all they could talk about. They are scrammbling for something.

Sell that shit to the 48,000,000.00 people without healthcare, or people that eat catfood so they can afford their prescription meds to live, or the Fathers of families that are wondering how they're going to continue to feed their kids or keep their home without JOBS!!!!!Yea, the economy is in great shape! Lets have a party on Daddy's money. :mad:

[Phillip]

black01gt, you answer a question with another question or comment that has nothing to do with the comment before, sound like left wing debate to me!! Try commenting on 93reefs comments because they are true, or will you try to dispute them with other random comments? I was in the military for 3 years during Clinton, and 3 years Bush. Neither were bad, but I was way more proud of my commander and chief with Bush in office. I am sure it had a lot to do with the war.

I have a lot of christian values, and when the president[Clinton] lies to all of our faces, what does that say? Can he still be trusted? I think that the WMD is biting Bush in the ass right now, but hey he is definately trying. And seeing that. I'll stay behind him until he gives me a reason not too.

I'm not to sure, but didn't Bush just put in a new perscription drug plan ect. At least he did follow thru with his '00 campaigning as promised.

Unemployment is down. What else are you going to do. Why not get the father off his lazy ass, and get a less then perfect job. We've all been there. Sometimes you have to do what you have to do.

Is the ecomomy recovering? Yes. It is just taking 3 years to phase out the recession that Clinton put us in. Bush believes in putting money back in the hands of the people, and letting them decide what to do with the money by cutting taxes 4 times. Where Clinton raise taxes to get more money because you and me didn't know how to spend it correctly.

P.S comment on what reef93gt said about the clinton wars, especially the Cole, because I was in the Navy on a Submarine at the time, and I saw increases in our personall security, but nothing offensive. What gives???

[OC]

Originally posted by black01gt
1)I didn't join the military and I'm not a coward. I was in collage like Clinton and millions of others.(and don't bother calling me one because you don't know me, and you would be talking out of you ass)
2)Dubya joined the military (reserves to stay out of Viet Nam) but stayed AWOL most of the time. (look it up)
3)Sept.11 terrotist attacked American soil for the first time ever, led by bin Laden and Al Queda. What has been done? (you can spare me details of the TRAGIC buttshow in Iraq because that has nothing to do with security for American soil). Afganistan was in the right direction but for some reason...we turned "right"! Why was that reef, you seem pretty smart.
4)Clinton was my kind of Prez.(I'm not rich), but his term has expired. But you knew that, didn't you?

1) When Clinton avoided the draft he did so when his Draft Number was pulled, he used political connections to get an appointment at a Military Academy which caused his draft number to be passed over....he then did not show up at the Academy when he was supposed to...he was then issued a brand new number which was so high in the sequence that he would not be picked again.
1a) Your right I don't know you, and I do not resort to name calling like many on this board. I prefer a mature conversation, as I don't know you and you do not know me, therefore we cannot judge one another.

2) I never said GW was perfect I was answering a point you made about Clinton.

3) We are still in Afghanistan, the reason we turned right is because the CIA has established a link between Sadam and Al Queda

4) Clinton may have been your kind of president, but it seems funny to me that a man who couldn't remember anything his entire time in office made so much money writing his memoirs...guess it was selective amnesia.

[01WhiteCobra]

Originally posted by reef93gt

3) We are still in Afghanistan, the reason we turned right is because the CIA has established a link between Sadam and Al Queda


This misinformation still floating around.

Say it with me...The CIA/Pentagon/Bush Administration have not established a link between Al-Queda and Saddam.

[OC]

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
This misinformation still floating around.

Say it with me...The CIA/Pentagon/Bush Administration have not established a link between Al-Queda and Saddam.


Aren't you the one who posted the case closed thread?

[Fobra]

01whitecobra..."Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their mind cannot change anything."

maybe you should tell the democrat strategist this on how to win the election since the only way they see fit in winning is through Bush bashing. http://www.westsidemustangs.com/site/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

[black01gt]

Originally posted by x_redhotcobra_x
01whitecobra..."Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their mind cannot change anything."

maybe you should tell the democrat strategist this on how to win the election since the only way they see fit in winning is through Bush bashing. http://www.westsidemustangs.com/site/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

It seems to work tho. Wasn't Clinton bashing what ALMOST got Bush elected, and made a "blind follower" out of you? :D

[Fobra]

Originally posted by black01gt
It seems to work tho. Wasn't Clinton bashing what ALMOST got Bush elected, and made a "blind follower" out of you? :D

clinton bashing did not get bush elected, thats for sure, nobody had to really bash clinton because the facts of his presidency did it to himself. http://www.htownracing.com/forums/html/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[01WhiteCobra]

Originally posted by x_redhotcobra_x
01whitecobra..."Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their mind cannot change anything."

maybe you should tell the democrat strategist this on how to win the election since the only way they see fit in winning is through Bush bashing. http://www.westsidemustangs.com/site/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

Don't know any democratic strategists!

[AL P]

Clinton was definitely an idiot and much worse for the economy than Bush.

He sat back and did nothing while the stock market inflated to dizzying levels via hyped up internet companies that couldn't even turn a profit. He did nothing. While the other politicians also did nothing, in the LIBERAL opinion the president is always to blame for the shitty economy (at least that is how it goes until there is a Democrat in office).

I am sure that him and his friends were too busy stuffing their pockets with the big loads of cash just like everyone else was. That was the American way back then. But the fact that he was in a position of power and had the capability to motivate the SEC to regulate change and sat there and did nothing is worse than anything Bush has done.

Everyone is paying for his lack of action and lack of vision.

[black01gt]

Originally posted by AL P
Clinton was definitely an idiot and much worse for the economy than Bush.


I am sure that him and his friends were too busy stuffing their pockets with the big loads of cash just like everyone else was. That was the American way back then.

Everyone is paying for his lack of action and lack of vision.
Since our leader and his cronies stuffing their pockets with cash is a thing of the past, and just not possible now...I guess I'll jump on the "blind follower" bandwagon, and become a mega ditto, back slappin, "conservative" republican knowing our leadership is so trustworthy now, and you're telling me that they wouldn't sell us out to stuff their pockets. Boy, do I feel better now that I know that all this shit is Clinton's fault!
Let's just go ahead a say that whatever is going on in 2008 (if it's bad) is Clinton's fault too. This makes it pretty simple and convenient.
Thanks Al P.:rolleyes:

[black01gt]

Originally posted by x_redhotcobra_x
clinton bashing did not get bush elected, thats for sure, nobody had to really bash clinton because the facts of his presidency did it to himself.
Most effective BJ and stained dress in a plastic bag this world will most likely ever see. Wonder how much she made?
And these are facts well paid for. $13,000,000.00 spent to investigate a $150,000.00 Whitewater scandel. Suddenly every "self-rightous conservative", like that $150 million a year CEO or his $30 thousand a year forklift driver that is preaching now wouldn't take the BJ, or the $150K!
We're a country of 1% rich, and 49% "rich wannabe" hypocrits. The other half have it figured out, and Ralph Nader won't be around next time!:cool:

[Fobra]

Originally posted by black01gt
Most effective BJ and stained dress in a plastic bag this world will most likely ever see. Wonder how much she made?
And these are facts well paid for. $13,000,000.00 spent to investigate a $150,000.00 Whitewater scandel. Suddenly every "self-rightous conservative", like that $150 million a year CEO or his $30 thousand a year forklift driver that is preaching now wouldn't take the BJ, or the $150K!
We're a country of 1% rich, and 49% "rich wannabe" hypocrits. The other half have it figured out, and Ralph Nader won't be around next time!:cool:

so...whats your point? http://www.htownracing.com/forums/html/emoticons/violen.gif

[AL P]

Originally posted by black01gt
Since our leader and his cronies stuffing their pockets with cash is a thing of the past, and just not possible now...I guess I'll jump on the "blind follower" bandwagon, and become a mega ditto, back slappin, "conservative" republican knowing our leadership is so trustworthy now, and you're telling me that they wouldn't sell us out to stuff their pockets. Boy, do I feel better now that I know that all this shit is Clinton's fault!
Let's just go ahead a say that whatever is going on in 2008 (if it's bad) is Clinton's fault too. This makes it pretty simple and convenient.
Thanks Al P.:rolleyes:

It would certainly be better than being a finger pointing liberal dipshit with no idea how the economy or anything else works.

I love you liberal idiots with the "Bush is bad....just because I say so.." attitude. Don't let facts stop you. Don't let knowledge stop you. Don't worry about common sense. Just blurt it out like a fucking parrot.

[Fobra]

Originally posted by AL P
It would certainly be better than being a finger pointing liberal dipshit with no idea how the economy or anything else works.

I love you liberal idiots with the "Bush is bad....just because I say so.." attitude. Don't let facts stop you. Don't let knowledge stop you. Don't worry about common sense. Just blurt it out like a fucking parrot.

dont you know that ignorance is the way to go these days? ;) :cool:

[black01gt]

Originally posted by AL P
It would certainly be better than being a finger pointing liberal dipshit with no idea how the economy or anything else works.

I love you liberal idiots with the "Bush is bad....just because I say so.." attitude. Don't let facts stop you. Don't let knowledge stop you. Don't worry about common sense. Just blurt it out like a fucking parrot.

I love you conservative assholes with the "Bush is good....just because I say so.." attitude. Don't let facts stop you. Don't let knowledge stop you. Don't worry about COMMON SENSE. Just blurt it out like a fucking ditto-head.
Make any sense you economic genious?

[Fobra]

Originally posted by black01gt
I love you conservative assholes with the "Bush is good....just because I say so.." attitude. Don't let facts stop you. Don't let knowledge stop you. Don't worry about COMMON SENSE. Just blurt it out like a fucking ditto-head.
Make any sense you economic genious?

here is the funny ironic part of your statement...stereotypically speaking, the liberal democrats are the ones that don’t worry about common sense and in many cases from listening to debates on television or talking to liberals in general, they don’t support their "anti-Bush" views with facts, only generalizations of what other peoples opinions are, therefore they repeat what they here. now i'm not one to go around looking for political debates with others because it takes too long to discuss politics and it can be a big waste of time, but from listening to many liberals, not only do they say "i hate Bush," but they don’t know why they hate the man, they just say what they are told by other liberals. keep in mind, i do not mean this about ALL liberals, just many that i have listened to.

"dont let the facts stop you." here you go "fucking ditto-head."
Ex 1: A few days ago i was listening to sean hannities talk radio show on AM 8:20 (3pm-6pm) and he interviewed a model for a new calendar that is coming out called "BabesAgainstBush." this calendar is a way the democrats are trying to get people to vote against Bush, it is a strategy of the liberals, not one i particularly like but nonetheless, it is strategy. Sean asked the girl, "well what exactly is it you don’t like about president bush?" she then replies with a signature answer of: "well, there was a guy in boot camp not too long ago that was killed with a bullet during shooting practice and i dont think they should use bullets." sean's reply: "well how does president bush have any affect on what goes on in boot camp? wouldn't it be better if the soldiers were properly trained with using real bullets so they are better prepared for combat?" the girl just replies: "well i just think bush should do a better job." sean then asked: "do you even know who the vice president of the united states is?" she then had about a 10 second pause and started talking to someone in the background, then got mad at sean and hung up.

this example does not totally justify my statement about liberals doing what they are told and don’t know the facts, this is just a stereotypical example. there are quite a few more examples i could explain but i don’t have time for that.

And do you know where many liberals get their stunning :rolleyes: opinions from? Your parties LEADERS.
here are some intelligent :rolleyes: qoutes from some of your leading democrats:
Ted Kennedy- "this war was concocted in Texas." Ted kennedy's actions speak for himself on a continuos basis.

Howard Dean-"I have no proof of this and quite frankly, i dont think it is true, but i have heard a theory president Bush might have known about 9/11 before it happend." this is typical dialoge from the democrats to try to advance a theory to make people hate Bush with no facts.

One person that typifies the majority of liberal democrats is Al Franken who is A.K.A. Franken-Fraud.

as far as America can see, the presidential candidates for the democratic party look like a fledgeling 60's band which would be named Al Sharpton and the 8 bafoons.:cool:

[Phillip]

ditto!!!!:D

[AL P]

Originally posted by black01gt
I love you conservative assholes with the "Bush is good....just because I say so.." attitude. Don't let facts stop you. Don't let knowledge stop you. Don't worry about COMMON SENSE. Just blurt it out like a fucking ditto-head.
Make any sense you economic genious?

LMAO pea brain! You can't even come up with an intelligent post can you? I'll forget more about economics than you will ever learn. But I suppose that is why you might have to sell that 01GT of yours if Bush gets re-elected. Like that GT is a fucking ferrari or something!! I bet you work at Taco Bell and its all Bush's fault isn't it, Einstein??

[AL P]

Originally posted by x_redhotcobra_x
here is the funny ironic part of your statement...stereotypically speaking, the liberal democrats are the ones that don’t worry about common sense and in many cases from listening to debates on television or talking to liberals in general, they don’t support their "anti-Bush" views with facts, only generalizations of what other peoples opinions are, therefore they repeat what they here. now i'm not one to go around looking for political debates with others because it takes too long to discuss politics and it can be a big waste of time, but from listening to many liberals, not only do they say "i hate Bush," but they don’t know why they hate the man, they just say what they are told by other liberals. keep in mind, i do not mean this about ALL liberals, just many that i have listened to.

"dont let the facts stop you." here you go "fucking ditto-head."
Ex 1: A few days ago i was listening to sean hannities talk radio show on AM 8:20 (3pm-6pm) and he interviewed a model for a new calendar that is coming out called "BabesAgainstBush." this calendar is a way the democrats are trying to get people to vote against Bush, it is a strategy of the liberals, not one i particularly like but nonetheless, it is strategy. Sean asked the girl, "well what exactly is it you don’t like about president bush?" she then replies with a signature answer of: "well, there was a guy in boot camp not too long ago that was killed with a bullet during shooting practice and i dont think they should use bullets." sean's reply: "well how does president bush have any affect on what goes on in boot camp? wouldn't it be better if the soldiers were properly trained with using real bullets so they are better prepared for combat?" the girl just replies: "well i just think bush should do a better job." sean then asked: "do you even know who the vice president of the united states is?" she then had about a 10 second pause and started talking to someone in the background, then got mad at sean and hung up.

this example does not totally justify my statement about liberals doing what they are told and don’t know the facts, this is just a stereotypical example. there are quite a few more examples i could explain but i don’t have time for that.

And do you know where many liberals get their stunning :rolleyes: opinions from? Your parties LEADERS.
here are some intelligent :rolleyes: qoutes from some of your leading democrats:
Ted Kennedy- "this war was concocted in Texas." Ted kennedy's actions speak for himself on a continuos basis.

Howard Dean-"I have no proof of this and quite frankly, i dont think it is true, but i have heard a theory president Bush might have known about 9/11 before it happend." this is typical dialoge from the democrats to try to advance a theory to make people hate Bush with no facts.

One person that typifies the majority of liberal democrats is Al Franken who is A.K.A. Franken-Fraud.

as far as America can see, the presidential candidates for the democratic party look like a fledgeling 60's band which would be named Al Sharpton and the 8 bafoons.:cool:

You've figured out the secret to being a modern liberal....this thread alone proves your theory. Black01dumbfuck has no response to any intelligent point, all he can do is attempt to divert attention from his single digit IQ.

[Fobra]

Originally posted by AL P
You've figured out the secret to being a modern liberal....this thread alone proves your theory. Black01dumbfuck has no response to any intelligent point, all he can do is attempt to divert attention from his single digit IQ.

well...i dont think its a matter of figuring anything out, its just common sense i guess;) :D

[Phillip]

Originally posted by AL P
You've figured out the secret to being a modern liberal....this thread alone proves your theory. Black01dumbfuck has no response to any intelligent point, all he can do is attempt to divert attention from his single digit IQ.

I've been trying to get 01blkgt to comment on things too, and all I get is blah, blah, blah. Nothing to do with what I said. :confused:

[AL P]

Originally posted by Phillip
I've been trying to get 01blkgt to comment on things too, and all I get is blah, blah, blah. Nothing to do with what I said. :confused:

That is what happens when you attempt to debate with a liberal. They don't think, they FEEL.

[Fobra]

Originally posted by AL P
That is what happens when you attempt to debate with a liberal. They don't think, they FEEL.

time is ticking and i'm waiting for his intelligent:rolleyes: response because i've got plenty more facts to prove his dumb ass wrong.:D

[black01gt]

Originally posted by x_redhotcobra_x
so...whats your point?
Fakesnake says..."so whats your point? I'm going to UNT, but I can't read.":confused:

[Fobra]

Originally posted by black01gt
Fakesnake says..."so whats your point? I'm going to UNT, but I can't read.":confused:

and you are using my sig name because...:confused: http://www.westsidemustangs.com/site/images/smiles/suspicious.gif the only reason i said, "so whats your point," is because it seems like you attempted to make a point or state something out of no where. if there is one thing i have observed from your posts and profile that says you were born in the 50's, its that i am suprised that you are almost 3 times my age and you post like some 17 year old that cant even debate intelligently. sure me and 01whitecobra (a democrat) have different views politically, but from reading his posts, he raises some interesting points that i like to sometimes look into to see how credible they are. the point is, the posts i have seen of his seem intelligent and i dont see him falling in the sterotypical liberal making generalizations of other liberal opinions without facts, category, like you black01gt.

01whitecobrahttp://www.westsidemustangs.com/site/images/smiles/thumb.gif http://www.westsidemustangs.com/site/images/smiles/thumb.gif

black01gthttp://www.westsidemustangs.com/site/images/smiles/thumbsdown.gif http://www.westsidemustangs.com/site/images/smiles/thumbsdown.gif

[01WhiteCobra]

Originally posted by x_redhotcobra_x
[B]sure me and 01whitecobra (a democrat)

I ain't no democrat.

I ain't no republican.

I'm a political atheist. I believe no higher intelligent life exists in the power of either party.

Until they make a political party based on a centrist point of view, I will claim allegiance to no party.

But, I'll bring up some discussion points, for the "All Hail The Chief" crowd. I haven't had a decent political discussion in awhile.

- Why is lying about sex an impeachable offense, but lying about the reasons to send our youth to war not?

- Do tax cuts, the largest government in history (which is presided over by the Bush administration), spending billions on wars have anything to do with the deficit?

- Why is it wasteful spending to build schools in the US, but ok to build them in Afghanland and Iraq?

- Why is spending $40 billion on Education in the US is too much, but $87 billion to rebuild Iraq (which we just spent billions bombing) not enough?

If you don't like those topics, I'll give you some more.


One thing thing that Bush does have over any other President in US history is the dubious distinction of being the first President elected with a criminal record.

[Fobra]

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
I ain't no democrat.

I ain't no republican.

I'm a political atheist. I believe no higher intelligent life exists in the power of either party.

Until they make a political party based on a centrist point of view, I will claim allegiance to no party.

But, I'll bring up some discussion points, for the "All Hail The Chief" crowd. I haven't had a decent political discussion in awhile.

- Why is lying about sex an impeachable offense, but lying about the reasons to send our youth to war not?

- Do tax cuts, the largest government in history (which is presided over by the Bush administration), spending billions on wars have anything to do with the deficit?

- Why is it wasteful spending to build schools in the US, but ok to build them in Afghanland and Iraq?

- Why is spending $40 billion on Education in the US is too much, but $87 billion to rebuild Iraq (which we just spent billions bombing) not enough?

If you don't like those topics, I'll give you some more.


One thing thing that Bush does have over any other President in US history is the dubious distinction of being the first President elected with a criminal record.

:o oops, my fault, i was under the impression that you were a democrat:D let me look into that stuff and i'll see what i can come up with, as of now, i have few answers/opinions, but i dont want say them just yet. :)

[Fobra]

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra


- Why is lying about sex an impeachable offense, but lying about the reasons to send our youth to war not?

- Do tax cuts, the largest government in history (which is presided over by the Bush administration), spending billions on wars have anything to do with the deficit?

- Why is it wasteful spending to build schools in the US, but ok to build them in Afghanland and Iraq?

- Why is spending $40 billion on Education in the US is too much, but $87 billion to rebuild Iraq (which we just spent billions bombing) not enough?

If you don't like those topics, I'll give you some more.


One thing thing that Bush does have over any other President in US history is the dubious distinction of being the first President elected with a criminal record.

1)when you talk about the lying about sex vs. war, you must be talking about Clinton vs. bush. only part about what Clinton lied about under oath was about sex. the rest of it had to do with how he intentionally tampered with a grand jury and was caught. as you are probably aware, this is an offense that not only lead to impeachment, but also got him disbarred in the state of Arkansas and by a panel of liberal lawyers.

George Bush has never been found to of lied about the intelligence to which Bill Clinton was agreed was accurate, Tony Blair said it was accurate, and not only our intelligence agencies but other international intelligence agencies contributed information to the bush administration indicating programs that WMD's were in Iraq.

there is a substantial difference between perjury under oath and acting on what may be determined as misinformation by intelligence agencies. keep in mind, the British still stand fully behind their information which said WMD's are in Iraq. they have never backed off this statement. as a matter of fact, if you recall, Tony Blair came to the U.S. a couple of months ago and repeated this.

please research this information I am giving you thoroughly and perhaps you will agree.

2)absolutely, the war will contribute to the deficit. however, when the economy takes off, and people start paying taxes on capital gains off of increased stock values, high dividends, and corporate profits, you will see a rapid deflection downward of the deficit. keep in mind, what a lot of people dont realize, is unfortunately the Clinton administration did nothing to offset the huge lack of disposable income that the American public had when the dot com bubble was going to burst. some of the best economist in 95/96 clearly indicated this burst was going to happen in the next 4-6 years.

3)if we are concerned about the future in a very sensitive area of the world, we have to establish a presence in a significant ally to us. if history is any indicator of the future as we rebuilt Japan and Germany after WW2, the same sort of thing can occur in the middle east if we do it properly. certainly focusing on schools has to be a part of this rebuilding as one can see rebuilding Iraq properly is in our long term interest.

4)if you look at the contributions that state taxes fund towards education, it dwarfs what the federal government contributes. base on this contribution ratio, states will continue to supply the major amount of money going into their respective educational systems. keep in mind the federal governments prime constitutional obligation is to protect the country.

5)true, Bush did a have DUI, but that was a long time ago, as of now, he doesn't drink.:)

[01WhiteCobra]

1) I disagree.

a. The American public was lead to believe that Iraq was a part of 9/11. This was shown in polls leading up to the war, during the war and after the war. The fact remains, until proven otherwise, that Iraq had no part of 9/11.

b. The American public was lead to believe that Iraq would use their WMDs against the US or Iraq's neighbors. He didn't in the first war, he wouldn't have done it in the second one. He wouldn't have done it regardless of if we attack Iraq. If you have evidence of this, lay it out.

c. We were told it was also because he wouldn't let inspectors in there. The fact remains that Scott Ritter, a US Citizen and part of UNSCOM stated that all Iraq's WMD were dismantled or fundementally destroyed as early as 1996. Something everyone else (except for the US and Britian) have agreed upon.

d. Saddam gassed his own people. Yep, he sure did. Ever hear of Waco? Attacking Saddam for the same is hypocritcal at best. Yea, he was a dumb fuck, no questioning that. But there are a shitload of other dumbfucks running countries out there as well.

e. We were told we had a "plan" for reconstruction. Bullshit.

f. Forgetting the bullshit Blair laid out with his "45 minutes until the end of the world", we heard about the unmanned drones from Iraq that were going to fly over the Atlantic ocean to drop WMD all over the US.

Forget about the fact that the Justice Deparment, for over 2 years now, has yet to convict ONE person of charges of domestic terrorism they have brought to trial.

If you want to believe the war was about terrorism, sobeit. There was much, much more to it. The 9/11 incident just gave them something to hang their hat on.

2) LOL. Forgot about defense spending. Totally. Bush has yet to veto ONE spending bill. He has increased the non-defense discrentionary spending of this Government at a pace not seen for quite a few decades. You now pay more per household to fund the government than at anytime since World War II. $3,000 per household is now part of the federal credit card, this year ALONE. $300 billion dollars will be floated by this Government this year into the bond market, crowding out money that could have been used by private enterprise. And we all known how efficient the government is at spending money!

3). The Middle East is no Germany. It never will be. Unless you kill of 1000s of years of history, you will not change these people's attitudes. While they hate Saddam, I'll bet money they hate the west even more.

4) If the Federal government cuts education grants/funds to the states (which they do make), how does the state make up the difference? That is right sports fans, they tax their constituency. While you get a little break on your federal taxes, they are made up on local taxes. My property taxes went up this year. If you rent, expect a rent increase.

5) You don't think? http://www.thesmokinggun.com/bush/bush.html

You think that is water in his glass?

[blownragtop]

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra

a. The American public was lead to believe that Iraq was a part of 9/11. This was shown in polls leading up to the war, during the war and after the war. The fact remains, until proven otherwise, that Iraq had no part of 9/11.

The Bush administration never said that Iraq was responsible for, or in any way involved with, 9/11. Did the administration capitalize on the public’s misperception? Certainly.

“Democrats point to polls showing that large numbers of Americans believe there was a link between Saddam and the attacks on 9/11. Now, how could people come to that belief? Perhaps because they’ve heard the uncontradicted reports that Saddam did have ties with Al Qaeda. Or perhaps they were thinking of the fact that he permitted Baghdad to become a haven for terrorists like Abu Nidal and others who lived out a comfortable retirement on his generosity. Or perhaps they were considering that Saddam Hussein paid the family of each suicide bomber who killed innocent Israelis the handsome sum of $25,000. Or maybe they had heard about the 707 Saddam maintained at Salman Pak for terrorists to practice hijackings on?”

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/mc20030919.shtml

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3070241/

Iraq was a terrorist sate… and as such was a suitable target for the war on terrorism.

1. A senior al Qaida terrorist, now detained, who had been responsible for al Qaida training camps in Afghanistan, reports that al Qaida was intent on obtaining WMD assistance from Iraq. According to a credible, high-level al Qaida source, Usama Bin Laden and deceased al Qaida leader Muhammad Atif did not believe that al Qaida labs in Afghanistan were capable of manufacturing chemical and biological weapons, so they turned to Iraq for assistance. Iraq agreed to provide chemical and biological weapons training for two al Qaida associates starting in December 2000.

2. Senior al Qaida associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi came to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical treatment along with approximately two dozen al Qaida terrorist associates. This group stayed in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq and plotted terrorist attacks around the world.

3. A safe haven in Iraq belonging to Ansar al-Islam -- a terrorist group closely associated with Zarqawi and al Qaida -- was destroyed during Operation Iraqi Freedom. In March 2003, during a raid on the compound controlled by the terrorists in northeastern Iraq, a cache of documents was discovered, including computer discs and foreign passports belonging to fighters from various Middle East nationalities.

4. Abu Musa Zarqawi, the al Qaida associate with direct links to Iraq, oversaw those responsible for the assassination of USAID officer Laurence Foley in Amman, Jordan last October.

5. Saddam Hussein's Iraq provided material assistance to Palestinian terrorist groups, including the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, HAMAS, and the Palestine Islamic Jihad, according to a State Department report. This included paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, according to testimonials from Palestinians and cancelled checks. Also, according to State Department reports, terrorist groups the Iranian Mujahedin-e-Khalq and the Abu Nidal organization were protected by the Iraqi regime protected by the Iraqi regime.

http://usembassy.state.gov/islamabad/wwwh03080901.html


b. The American public was lead to believe that Iraq would use their WMDs against the US or Iraq's neighbors. He didn't in the first war, he wouldn't have done it in the second one. He wouldn't have done it regardless of if we attack Iraq. If you have evidence of this, lay it out.

The American people were told that it was a possibility that Iraq might use chemical weapons. How real was that possibility? We don’t know… yet.

c. We were told it was also because he wouldn't let inspectors in there. The fact remains that Scott Ritter, a US Citizen and part of UNSCOM stated that all Iraq's WMD were dismantled or fundementally destroyed as early as 1996. Something everyone else (except for the US and Britian) have agreed upon.

Scott Ritter??? One of two things is showing here… your ignorance or your bias.

Scott Ritter said this in 1998:

RITTER: To me it is just glaringly obvious. What I will say is this. It's not my job to dictate national policy to any country. But I can be diagnostic. What we have in Iraq is a situation that sanctions aren't working, Iraq is getting away literally with murder, they're going to keep these weapons and they're going to get sanctions lifted eventually. Sooner than anybody believes. The Security Council is fractured and there is no unanimity for decisive action against Iraq. The resolution was created under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. This means that Iraq has foregone aspects of its sovereignty; Iraq presents a clear and present danger to international peace and security. Iraq must disarm in order to stop presenting this capability and if they don't disarm they can be compelled. This means the Security Council has the authorization to either act as a council and do military action or have a member nation on its own undertake military action. The United States is the country behind all of this. We built the coalition that went to war to liberate Kuwait, we pushed for the creation for this resolution at the end of the war to disarm Iraq and the United States pushed the special commission to carryout these very difficult inspections which resulted in guns being pointed at the heads of inspectors."

Then two short years later he’s saying this:

June 2000

RITTER: One serious obstacle to the reformulation of Iraq's disarmament obligation by the Security Council is the current U.S. policy of removing Saddam Hussein from power, codified in the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998. That law has so far failed to threaten Saddam Hussein in any meaningful way, but it has succeeded in precluding any significant diplomatic initiative by locking the United States into a unilateral policy that makes cooperation with Iraq impossible. If the United States is serious about disarming Iraq, it should repeal the Iraqi Liberation Act and work within the framework of the Security Council to formulate a policy that results in the rapid reintroduction of meaningful, monitoring-based weapons inspections into Iraq.

That will require the lifting, not simply the suspension, of sanctions. While it is true that the sanctions have retarded Iraq's ability to acquire technology that could aid any WMD reconstitution effort, Resolution 687 stated that a finding of compliance would trigger the lifting of sanctions. Sanctions are thus not an open-ended option. At some point, they will need to be lifted, and if a finding of qualitative disarmament, backed with the implementation of viable monitoring-based inspections, can be achieved, then there is no reason to keep sanctions in place.

The Security Council must also follow through on the promise it made in paragraph 14 of Resolution 687, which speaks of regional disarmament. While monitoring-based inspections in Iraq must be expected to last indefinitely, they cannot be expected to last in a vacuum. Unless arrangements are made to address WMD programs in Iran and Israel, as well as the regional proliferation of advanced conventional weaponry, Iraq will never accept perpetual disarmament.
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2000_06/iraqjun.asp

Quite a switch… from calling for military action to remove a “clear and present danger” - to arguing for the repeal of the Iraqi Liberation Act, the lifting of sanctions and the nuclear disarmament of Israel.

What could have facilitated such a radical change in Mr. Ritter’s view? Maybe it was money?

ASMAN: That's why people, when they see you in Iraq with these Iraqi government officials, they wonder what the heck is going on.

RITTER: I went to Iraq on my own initiative. I made the decision to approach and say I think it is time for me to deliver a message to the Iraqi government that if they don't allow ...

ASMAN: Paid for out of your own pocket?

RITTER: Hell, yes. Or by an anti-sanctions group in the case of South Africa, they didn't spend a single damn penny. I wouldn't accept their money, it is against the law.

ASMAN: Some people say that some of this money has come from Iraqi-Americans, there's one Iraqi-American in particular, who is perhaps not pro-Saddam but at least people say he's against the U.S. position towards Iraq, that that in itself kind ... of [proves that] Iraq is giving people money to do their bidding.

RITTER: ... He's a Detroit-based American businessman. An American citizen. He has family in Iraq. People have to put this in perspective. They are looking death and destruction in the face. You can't blame a guy that is trying to prevent a war.

ASMAN: He has no contact whatsoever with anybody in the Iraqi government?

RITTER: I didn't say that. How do you think I got the government with him? He can get me the audience. I take advantage. ... I am waging peace in the same way other people wage war -- I am trying to stop a war that doesn't need to be fought. This is not anti-American.

[Unintelligible] ... put my life on the line for my country. And I would do so again if the cause is just, if the cause is founded. If there is a threat worth dying for, make the case, Mr. Bush. And I will support your war with Iraq to the hilt. But until you make that case, all we have is speculative rhetoric and that is not justification.

ASMAN: We have clear rhetoric coming from Iraq. Arabs have the duty to attack and kill Americans even on U.S. soil. They are saying that. The vice president said it this week. Don't you think they are the enemy?

RITTER: The situation that's evolving there's definitely an atmosphere of conflict between us and -- United States and Iraq. I'm not going to defend a damn word they say.

ASMAN: You're taking money from a guy affiliated from the foreign minister/deputy prime minister.

RITTER: I'm not taking any money. It's not going into my pocket.

ASMAN: They paid for the trip to Iraq.

RITTER: It was paid for by the Public Institute of Accuracy.

Ritter accepted $400,000 (that we know about) to film a pro-Saddam documentary. Anything for a buck. But I understand… it’s hard for a pedophilic piece of shit to earn an honest dollar.

“More details are emerging on the arrest of former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter. The Delmar resident was arrested by Colonie police in June of 2001 on a misdemeanor charge. And Channel 6 News has learned that Ritter had been issued a warning after being caught by police once before. Colonie police will not confirm any of this, but Channel 6 News learned that Ritter was caught in a sex sting early in 2001. He was issued a warning then, but eventually arrested for the same thing three months later. Ritter, who has made national headlines for speaking out against going to war with Iraq is keeping silent on this issue. He has been unavailable for comment since details of his arrest were made public. In June of 2001, Ritter was accused of engaging in a sexual discussion, on the Internet with a person who he thought, was a 14 year old girl. It was actually an undercover investigator who agreed to meet with Ritter. When Ritter arrived at the location, expecting to meet the girl, police warned him that he had been set up. Three months later Ritter allegedly fell into the same trap, only this time he was arrested.”

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/rittrdoc.htm

Maybe Ritter is a qualified weapons inspector – when he’s not beating off to kiddie porn or taking money from Saddam loyalists?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30570

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30634

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=5347


d. Saddam gassed his own people. Yep, he sure did. Ever hear of Waco? Attacking Saddam for the same is hypocritcal at best. Yea, he was a dumb fuck, no questioning that. But there are a shitload of other dumbfucks running countries out there as well.

This is my favorite argument.

“I reckon I can’t say nuthin cuz I done it too.”

Not that there is any semblance of logic with comparing Janet Reno’s Waco to the extermination of 400,000+ people.


e. We were told we had a "plan" for reconstruction. Bullshit.

I’m not sure what people expected to happen in the months immediately following the war. Are the liberals disappointed that there is no Disneyland in Baghdad yet? The occupation of Germany lasted 5 years – Japan 7 years. It’s far too early to make blanket assessments of the reconstruction effort. I would think that given the condition of Iraq – dilapidated infrastructure and the forced suppression of the Shiite majority – that we are fortunate that the country has not devolved into total anarchy. Indeed we have accomplished a great deal… but the liberal media has chosen to ignore the positives.

The first battalion of the new Iraqi Army has graduated and is on active duty… over 60,000 Iraqis now provide security to their fellow citizens.

The Iraqi judiciary is fully independent… with nearly all of Iraq’s 400 courts functioning.

On Monday, October 6, power generation hit 4,518 megawatts—exceeding the pre-war average.

All 22 universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges are open, as are nearly all primary and secondary schools. By October 1, Coalition forces had rehabbed over 1,500 schools - 500 more than their target. Teachers earn from 12 to 25 times their former salaries.

All 240 hospitals and more than 1200 clinics are open. Doctors’ salaries are at least eight times what they were under Saddam. Today we have increased public health spending to over 26 times what it was under Saddam. Pharmaceutical distribution has gone from essentially nothing to 700 tons in May to a current total of 12,000 tons. The Coalition has helped administer over 22 million vaccination doses to Iraq’s children.

We have restored over two-thirds of the potable water production. A Coalition program has cleared over 14,000 kilometers of Iraq's 27,000 kilometers of weed-choked canals. They now irrigate tens of thousands of farms. This project has created jobs for more than 100,000 Iraqi men and women.

We have restored over three-quarters of pre-war telephone services. There are 4,900 full-service internet connections. We expect 50,000 by January first.

95 percent of all pre-war bank customers have service and first-time customers are opening accounts daily. Iraqi banks are making loans to finance businesses. The central bank is fully independent. Iraq has a single, unified currency for the first time in 15 years.

There is no Ministry of Information. Foreign journalists aren't on 10-day visas paying mandatory and extortionate fees to the Ministry of Information for “minders” and other government spies. There are more than 170 newspapers. Satellite dishes are legal.

Shia religious festivals that were all but banned, aren't. For the first time in 35 years, in Karbala thousands of Shiites celebrate the pilgrimage of the 12th Imam.

A nation that had not one single element—legislative, judicial or executive-- of a representative government, does. Today in Iraq - chambers of commerce, business, school and professional organizations are electing their leaders all over the country. 25 ministers, selected by the most representative governing body in Iraq’s history, run the day-to-day business of government. In Baghdad alone residents have selected 88 advisory councils. Baghdad’s first democratic transfer of power in 35 years happened when the city council elected its new chairman.

The Iraqi government now regularly participates in international events. Since July the Iraqi government has been represented in over two dozen international meetings, including those of the UN General Assembly, the Arab League, the World Bank and IMF and, today, the Islamic Conference Summit. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that it is reopening over 30 Iraqi embassies around the world.

The Coalition has completed over 13,000 reconstruction projects, large and small, as part of a strategic plan for the reconstruction of Iraq.

http://www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/20031009_Oct-09Bremerpresscon.htm

To put the cost of the Iraqi war and reconstruction into perspective consider that:

During World War I the United States paid a total (in modern dollars) of $577 billion for only 18 months of conflict in Europe. And during our four years of involvement in the Second World War, the United States government (again, in terms of modern dollars) spent nearly $5 trillion in the fight against the Axis powers.

An $87 billion supplemental appropriations request has recently been submitted to Congress by President Bush. Critics feel that we've spent too much money and accomplished too little during our first eight months in Iraq. We have to consider, though, whether there is any cost too great in the pursuit of a world free from terror and despotism.

f. Forgetting the bullshit Blair laid out with his "45 minutes until the end of the world", we heard about the unmanned drones from Iraq that were going to fly over the Atlantic ocean to drop WMD all over the US.

Forget about the fact that the Justice Deparment, for over 2 years now, has yet to convict ONE person of charges of domestic terrorism they have brought to trial.

If you want to believe the war was about terrorism, sobeit. There was much, much more to it. The 9/11 incident just gave them something to hang their hat on.

I assume that you are referring to this…

"Revealed: the Iraqi colonel who told MI6 that Saddam could launch WMD within 45 minutes"

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/07/wirq07.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/12/07/ixnewstop.html/news/2003/12/07/wirq07.xml

Who knows? I never heard any stories about drones flying across the Atlantic.

The root cause of international terrorism is the totalitarian forms of governments prevalent in the Middle East - that oppress their people, robs their freedoms, and corrupts their minds with a distorted form of Islam that incites them, from cradle to grave, to hate Jews, to hate America, and to hate the West. These terrorist states use the schools, mosques and the state controlled media to perpetuate this hatred.

As I wrote in an earlier post:

"Ultimately many Americans, tired of living in a world that accepts the inevitability of terrorism, are ready to try a new tack. One that recognizes that the evil that emanates from the Mid-East is not predicated on religion but government. If the (forcible) introduction of new institutions and methodologies provides an opportunity, however slim, to fundamentally change the culture of intolerance that is so pervasive to Arab orthodoxy; then that is a risk worth taking. To do otherwise is to consign an entire region to a continuation of totalitarianism - and introduce to the world a new generation of hate."

But why war in Iraq? Because it strategically borders the three biggest state sponsors of international terrorism in the world – Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran, and because the war on terrorism cannot be won unless all three are forced to clean up their acts. Let the remainder of the world believe what they want to believe, we have a war to win.

[Fobra]

Blownragtop whoa:eek:, any chance you got cliff notes for that piece? :cool: :)

[black01gt]

Originally posted by x_redhotcobra_x


01whitecobrahttp://www.westsidemustangs.com/site/images/smiles/thumb.gif http://www.westsidemustangs.com/site/images/smiles/thumb.gif

black01gthttp://www.westsidemustangs.com/site/images/smiles/thumbsdown.gif http://www.westsidemustangs.com/site/images/smiles/thumbsdown.gif [/B]
Well now that really hurts my feelings. Particularly when it is coming from a political genius such as yourself but...we can all relax now that the mission is accomplished. Things should start getting better real quick here at home, right, or is that just more lefty talk?!
Tell the truth now, wouldn't you feel better if it were bin Laden that they pulled out of that hole, or have you felt more threatened by Hussain?
Now...i'm not doing a "research paper" with quotes and all here, so you may not want to consider my questions, and you can kiss my ass if it's not "intellegent" enough for you.:rolleyes:

[Fobra]

Originally posted by black01gt
Things should start getting better real quick here at home, right, or is that just more lefty talk?!
Tell the truth now, wouldn't you feel better if it were bin Laden that they pulled out of that hole, or have you felt more threatened by Hussain?



1)I wouldn't say " real quick" because it takes time for things to change in our country.

2)thats a good question now that you have brought that to my attention. the way i see it, since the left side has considerably criticized the right for not finding sadam, osama, or WMD's, and now that we have captured sadam, that just means 1 down and 2 to go to prove to the left that our actions in the middle east are justified.
:)

[01WhiteCobra]

blownragtop, I'll answer you, but I don't have the 30 minutes it will take to answer properly at the moment. But, I will.

I will leave you with this, which is in reference of your "I've never heard of unmanned drones..".

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas," Bush said in preparation for a congressional vote authorizing the use of force against Iraq. "We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States."


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79450,00.html

[blownragtop]

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra

I will leave you with this, which is in reference of your "I've never heard of unmanned drones..".

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79450,00.html

…we heard about the unmanned drones from Iraq that were going to fly over the Atlantic ocean to drop WMD all over the US.

Your original quote implied that there were drones capable of crossing the Atlantic to deliver biological or chemical agents. 'That' is what I had never heard of. The article that you linked to explains that these drones are smuggled into the country disassembled.


"This isn't brain surgery," Air National Guard Chief Paul Weaver told Fox News in reference to how easy it would be to assemble a UAV. "The key is getting it into the country."

[01WhiteCobra]

1. The administration capitalizing on the public's mispercection.

Do you think this is ok? Really? Instead of clearing up such a fabricated truth, the administration (bent on attacking Iraq) would capitalize on it? As in, "We think the bulk of the American public are a bunch of retards, let's use this."

As far as payments to suicide bombers, this directly effected the US, how?

2. Abu Musab Zarqawi is not affiliated with Al Qaeda. Zarqawi is now leading Al Qaeda's charge in Iraq. LOL. Actually he is a high ranking official of Ansar al Islam was/is actually supported by Iran, not Iraq (hmmm... didn't Iraq have a war against Iran, supported by the US?). Oh yea, maybe since Iran is currently holding Abu, and the US wants him, we'll go ahead and make him a leader in al-Queda. Yea, that's the ticket.

Abu spent most of his time in Iraq in the terrorist training camps in Northern Iraq. You know, in the no-fly zone, patrolled and protected by ? Hmmm... I seem to have forgotten. Help me out.

Is he a bad man? Hell yea.

Abu Musab has become the new poster boy of the most active terrorist commanders fighting America, at least in the Bush Administration's view. European intelligence and even (gasp) Israel intelligence are all casting doubt on the headlining of Abu. It's like saying that, since there are al-Queda members in the US (which I have no doubt there are), our Governmnet is a State sponsoring terrorism because they are here. Attack America!

A murky connection at best. Sort of like all the reasons for going to war.

Btw, Abu was in Baghdad with members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which, interestingly, the US *thinks* has merged with Al Qaeda. Got to prove that connection some how!

3. Abu was actually a part of Ansar al-Islam, not al-Qaida. Abu wasn't closely associated with them, he WAS them. Where were the hiding out? Northern Iraq, controlled by the Kurds and the no-fly zone. No-fly zone? Who patrols that region? Ah, that is right, the US. Who makes up the bulk of the Ansar al-Islam? Ethnic Kurds. You know, the ones protected by the no-fly zone in the north.

4. i.e. the Waco comment. Sorry there wasn't 400,000 Americans in the compound. Would that of made you feel better?

5. Scott Ritter
Lets see, on the eve of war, one of the largest critics of said war is found out to have been convicted of trying to lure a 16-year old out of an internet chat room. But, wait a minute, the records are sealed (including, suposedly the arrest record). How in the heck did that get out?

Look at that, the assistant district attorney of the case got fired right after that case. Wonder why?

Look at that he was given not more than a traffic ticket, the case was sealed to no prying eyes. How in the hell do you go being charged with being a pedophile to receiving the equivalent of a traffic ticket? He must have really high friends in high places!

Oh yea, Ritter's case was dismissed. Unlike Bush's DWI conviction.


As far as his revisionism goes, you got me. One statement was made during his official capacity (towing the company line?) and another was made independently.

So, should I believe George Bush is a crack snorting alcholic, or Commander In Chief of this country? Hmmm... I guess people can change.

A few hundred grand for making a movie supporting his position? I guess FoxNews anchors are doing it for free?

6. There was no post war plan for Iraq. Reconstruction amounted to contracts to a limited few contractors. Amazingly, large supporters of the Bush Administration. Reconstruction is bring stability the country, something the Pentagon has admitted not having a clue about.


The officials didn't develop any real postwar plans because they believed that Iraqis would welcome U.S. troops with open arms and Washington could install a favored Iraqi exile leader as the country's leader.



"There was no real planning for postwar Iraq," said a former senior U.S. official who left government recently


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1991285

[01WhiteCobra]

Originally posted by blownragtop
…we heard about the unmanned drones from Iraq that were going to fly over the Atlantic ocean to drop WMD all over the US.

Your original quote implied that there were drones capable of crossing the Atlantic to deliver biological or chemical agents. 'That' is what I had never heard of. The article that you linked to explains that these drones are smuggled into the country disassembled.


"This isn't brain surgery," Air National Guard Chief Paul Weaver told Fox News in reference to how easy it would be to assemble a UAV. "The key is getting it into the country."

From a Bush speech


A UAV launched from a vessel off the American coast could reach hundreds of miles inland.



Nothing about dismantling them and sneaking them into the country. Although that would add an air of 007 to it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2735107.stm

[blownragtop]

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
1. The administration capitalizing on the public's mispercection.

Do you think this is ok? Really? Instead of clearing up such a fabricated truth, the administration (bent on attacking Iraq) would capitalize on it? As in, "We think the bulk of the American public are a bunch of retards, let's use this."

“Fabricated truth” “misled” These terms imply that the administration deliberately spread misinformation. That’s not true. They capitalized on the prevailing attitude of the public to garner support for an action that they considered to be in the best interest of the country. I guess that I’m not surprised when politicians engage in politics. I suspect that your disapproval is rooted more in a holistic disapproval of Bush and his policies rather than this singular event

In any event, history has taught us that in events of unique circumstances that Presidents sometimes have to employ tactics that are ‘questionable.’

Thomas Jefferson, ever the strict constructionist, puzzled over how to make the Louisiana Purchase. The power to purchase territory was not provided for in the Constitution. At first Jefferson thought to resolve the matter by amendment, but harried by advisors not to delay lest Napoleon change his mind, he settled upon the power to make treaties as ‘suitable.’ He reasoned “that the good sense of our country will correct the evil of loose construction when it shall produce ill effects.” Despite his belief that what he was doing was not ‘legal’ – Jefferson felt that he was acting in the best interest of America.

Kennedy’s act of blockading Cuba during the Missile Crisis was, under international law, an act of war. Cuba, as a sovereign nation, was well within its rights to arm itself – especially in light of the botched Bay of Pigs invasion just a year earlier. Kennedy brought the world to the brink of war to prevent the emplacement of nuclear missiles just 90 miles from the coast of America. Yet Kennedy felt that this nuclear brinkmanship was is the best interest of America.

How about McKinley and the Spanish/American war? Teddy Roosevelt and the Panama Canal? Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation? President Bush has a stronger legal basis (for his actions in Iraq) than any of these previous Presidents.


As far as payments to suicide bombers, this directly effected the US, how?


The promotion of terrorism is a direct violation of the cease fire agreement.

“Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism…”

http://www.themoderntribune.com/un_resolution_687_1991_cease_fire_conditions_gulf_ war_full_text_un_united_nation_resolution_871_-_iraq_wmd.htm

Material non-compliance with the cease fire agreement is justification for military action.

I’m going to ignore 2 & 3 because the organizational flow charts of terrorist groups is both “murky” and incredibly BORING.


4. i.e. the Waco comment. Sorry there wasn't 400,000 Americans in the compound. Would that of made you feel better?


Only if it was 400,000 delusional leftists… Ha Ha.

The argument is invalid because it effectively annuls ANY AND ALL American moral indignation. How dare we condemn South Africa’s apartheid given our history of slavery and segregation? How dare we condemn Castro’s Cuba for human rights violation given our history of internment camps for Japanese Americans? How dare we condemn the atrocities of Hitler’s Germany given our genocidal acts against Native Americans? This moral relativism is a common ploy of the (neo)liberal agenda – as personified in (amongst other methods) historical revisionism and ‘whiteness’ studies. Sorry, but I don’t buy in to that line of thinking.


5. Scott Ritter
Lets see, on the eve of war, one of the largest critics of said war is found out to have been convicted of trying to lure a 16-year old out of an internet chat room. But, wait a minute, the records are sealed (including, suposedly the arrest record). How in the heck did that get out?

Look at that, the assistant district attorney of the case got fired right after that case. Wonder why?

Look at that he was given not more than a traffic ticket, the case was sealed to no prying eyes. How in the hell do you go being charged with being a pedophile to receiving the equivalent of a traffic ticket? He must have really high friends in high places!

Oh yea, Ritter's case was dismissed. Unlike Bush's DWI conviction.


As far as his revisionism goes, you got me. One statement was made during his official capacity (towing the company line?) and another was made independently.


Actually Ritter was dumb enough to be caught twice in a 2 month period soliciting underage girls on the internet. As part of his adjudication he had to undergo court ordered sex-offender counseling. I suppose he’s all better now.


So, should I believe George Bush is a crack snorting alcholic, or Commander In Chief of this country? Hmmm... I guess people can change.


The ‘Bush is a coke-head’ - ‘Bush is an alcoholic’ stuff really doesn’t matter to me. There are precious few people that don’t have unsavory aspects of their past that they would rather forget. Bush had a DUI – that’s unfortunate – but it’s not like he killed anybody (Ted Kennedy and Chappaquiddick). Maybe Bush did use cocaine. At least his addictions haven’t followed him into the White House (JFK’s abuse of painkillers). And to my knowledge he doesn’t cheat on his wife (JFK had the balls to bang an East German spy. The Secret Service had her quickly spirited out of the country. If he hadn’t been assassinated – his dick may have got him impeached).


6. There was no post war plan for Iraq. Reconstruction amounted to contracts to a limited few contractors. Amazingly, large supporters of the Bush Administration. Reconstruction is bring stability the country, something the Pentagon has admitted not having a clue about.


I think that even you would admit that some progress is being made. History will be the ultimate arbiter of both the war and the peace in Iraq. I’m willing to wait.

[01WhiteCobra]

No, I don't hate Bush. He has done some good things and I think he was a better choice than Gore. But it doesn't mean I have to agree with everything he does. He wants himself portrayed as a straight-shooter, but he is nothing but a polictician. His daddy (and his daddy) taught him well.

Please tell me how Bush had ANY legal basis for the War on Iraq. If you want to start talking about violating UN sanctions, you must first talk Israel, which violated them first and with violations far more spread, for many more years. We reward them with billions upon billions a year. The UN resolutions you cite did not authorize the use of force against Iraq. Richard Perle, a member of the Defense Policy Board that advises Rumsfeld has been quoted as saying international law would have required us to leave Saddam alone.

The alledged threat posed by Iraq (actually by Sadam) was related to his WMD. The US now believes that Iraq didn't reconstitute its nuclear program after 1991. No chemical or bio weapons have been found. The administration is now left to saying Iraq might have restarted programs because they knew how. But, that was not the pre-war debate. It was that Iraq had these weapons and the only way to to avert an imminent attack was by attacking Iraq. The administration has been proven wrong.

Progress being made? Well of course it is. You bomb a country with a few billion dollars worth or arsenal, putting up a building is progress. The administration loves to harp on the electrical power being back up to "pre-war" levels. A level that included 12 years of hard core sanctions against the company. Electricity was for shit 9 months ago. It is shit now.

As far as comparing Bush to other Presidents, it is a non-issue. We are talking Bush here. You know disserter in chief? The same one who flies onto an air craft carrier but refuses to attend one furneral of a US soldier killed in Iraq.

Sorry, the contrieved link between Iraq and al-Queda (or any terrorism effecting Americans) is flimsy at best. There are some highly intelligent people in the Bush Administration and I highly doubt would start a major war because of it.

Why did this administration seem so unconcerned about the exit strategy once Saddam was gone? Unless you can give me another reason, I'm left with the idea that we aren't leaving. Iraq will be our country in which we control the Middle East from. Plain and simple. Smack dab in the middle of the Middle East with the second largest oil reserve in the world. We'll be staying for my lifetime at least.

Nothing to do with the war on terror (but damn if they war on terror didn't give us a good excuse!), but about domination of the region.

[Vertnut]

I hate to tap into this "love-fest", but I think this saga is far from over. There is talk of a direct link between Iraq and al Queda, found in the form of memo's sent around Iraq from the summer of '01. I can tell by '01 Cobra's personal attacks on Dubya, that he may be a little nervous about the REAL problem. That's OK, cuz that may be all Dean and the rest of the Democrats can base their campaigns on when this is over....:)

[01WhiteCobra]

Originally posted by Vertnut
I hate to tap into this "love-fest", but I think this saga is far from over. There is talk of a direct link between Iraq and al Queda, found in the form of memo's sent around Iraq from the summer of '01. I can tell by '01 Cobra's personal attacks on Dubya, that he may be a little nervous about the REAL problem. That's OK, cuz that may be all Dean and the rest of the Democrats can base their campaigns on when this is over....:)

LMAO.

I'm not nervous one bit. I haven't decided who to vote for at the moment.

Never voted Democrat one time, but there is always a first.

And as we'll shortly find, the infamous "memo" will be just like the rest of the fabricated evidence. To be placed in the same file with the aluminum tube evidence and the uranium evidence and the nuclear program evidence and the...

[Vertnut]

As it stands, there may not be anyone else TO vote for. The Liberals can only pray that the economy does NOT make a recovery, for if it does, we will see an ass-whipping that could rival the Reagan/Carter election results. Though the current front-runner appears to be Dean, I'm sure that will change as the Democratic Party comes to its senses.

[01WhiteCobra]

Originally posted by Vertnut
As it stands, there may not be anyone else TO vote for. The Liberals can only pray that the economy does NOT make a recovery, for if it does, we will see an ass-whipping that could rival the Reagan/Carter election results. Though the current front-runner appears to be Dean, I'm sure that will change as the Democratic Party comes to its senses.

Nothing in the Democratic party impresses me (especially now).

The only reason you want to vote for any of those morons is to get Bush out. Which, at least to me, is not a valid reason.

Every month they have something new to try out, economy, no the war in Iraq, no unemployment, no Bin Laden, no Saddam.

There is no cognizant platform, except to oust Bush.

As such, I'm much more for keeping status quo, at least you know what to expect.

Plus, whether I agree with it or not, fact is I'm enjoying the tax cuts. :D

[blownragtop]

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
No, I don't hate Bush. He has done some good things and I think he was a better choice than Gore. But it doesn't mean I have to agree with everything he does. He wants himself portrayed as a straight-shooter, but he is nothing but a polictician. His daddy (and his daddy) taught him well.

It’s an unfortunate reality that non-politicians do not make good presidents. (Jimmy Carter and U.S. Grant quickly come to mind.) I am not a Bush apologist… and as a fiscal conservative the ever expanding budget/deficit/debt is a tremendous concern to me (this year we’ll spend 398 billion on defense AND 318 billion on debt service!!!)… but it’s my belief that the War on Terrorism is a just cause.

Please tell me how Bush had ANY legal basis for the War on Iraq. If you want to start talking about violating UN sanctions, you must first talk Israel, which violated them first and with violations far more spread, for many more years. We reward them with billions upon billions a year. The UN resolutions you cite did not authorize the use of force against Iraq. Richard Perle, a member of the Defense Policy Board that advises Rumsfeld has been quoted as saying international law would have required us to leave Saddam alone.

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm

Resolution 1441 was carefully worded in such a manner so that it could be read to permit the use of force. It was adopted under Chapter VII which allows the council to adopt actions to deal with threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression.

The resolution says that Iraq remains "in breach of its material obligations" under previous Chapter VII resolutions, has a "final opportunity to comply" and failing compliance will "face serious consequences". It unambiguously evokes Resolution 678 (1990), which authorized "all necessary means" to restore peace and security in the region and Resolution 687 (1991) which established the conditions for the cease-fire.

By its terms, Resolution 1441 clearly viewed the use of force against Iraq not in isolation - but rather as a continuation of the first Gulf War.

Saddam’s regime was saved by a cease-fire; granted on the condition that Hussein would account for and destroy every one of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, that he would cease repressing his people and that he would discontinue his support for international terrorism.

Yet, after 12 years of economic sanctions and the "final opportunity" provided by Resolution 1441, Iraq continued to be in "breach of its material obligations". The "serious consequences" were understood to include the possibility of military force.

Excepting Resolution 1441- military action could be additionally justified on the basis of the UN Charter and the right of self-defense.

The charter maintains that the Security Council would have "primary responsibility" for maintaining international peace and security. But it does not prohibit a state's inherent right to self defense against actual or imminent attacks. It is both reasonable and necessary, in the aftermath of September 11, to interpret these terms in the light of changing conditions and dangers; especially given the recent explosion of terrorist violence supported by rogue states. Defensive action is not predicated on the actual occurrence of hostility.

The alledged threat posed by Iraq (actually by Sadam) was related to his WMD. The US now believes that Iraq didn't reconstitute its nuclear program after 1991. No chemical or bio weapons have been found. The administration is now left to saying Iraq might have restarted programs because they knew how. But, that was not the pre-war debate. It was that Iraq had these weapons and the only way to to avert an imminent attack was by attacking Iraq. The administration has been proven wrong.
They haven’t been proven wrong… yet. At any rate, the political reality is that WMD’s have been relegated to secondary status. Even if they’re found the naysayers would claim that they were planted.

Progress being made? Well of course it is. You bomb a country with a few billion dollars worth or arsenal, putting up a building is progress. The administration loves to harp on the electrical power being back up to "pre-war" levels. A level that included 12 years of hard core sanctions against the company. Electricity was for shit 9 months ago. It is shit now.

Precisely… 12 years of sanctions achieved nothing in so far as forcing Saddam into compliance with the conditions of the cease fire is concerned. The sole result of the sanctions was the imposition of hardship on the Iraqi people. By the UN’s own admission 50,000+ Iraqis died each year as a result of the sanctions (lack of food/medicine). 2/3‘s of those were children under 5. At least a half million civilians dead - without war. The juxtaposition of the Iraqi infrastructure with the opulent lifestyle of Hussein gives testimony to the fact that the sanctions were never going to work. I know the humanitarian justification is exceedingly unpopular with the anti-war crowd. But the human benefits of this war are very real.

As far as comparing Bush to other Presidents, it is a non-issue. We are talking Bush here. You know disserter in chief? The same one who flies onto an air craft carrier but refuses to attend one furneral of a US soldier killed in Iraq.

Bush wasn't AWOL. National Guard magazine said it best in its Jan. 2001 edition:

http://www.ngaus.org/ngmagazine/main101.asp

“(P)robably the most comprehensive media review of Bush's military records concluded that while he, "served irregularly after the spring of 1972 and got an expedited discharge, he did accumulate the days of service required for him for his ultimate honorable discharge." The review was done by Georgemag.com, the online version of the magazine founded by the late John F. Kennedy Jr. Guardsmen say Bush's service record is not unusual.

"In any six-year time frame you probably can find some problems," says retired Rep. G.V. 'Sonny' Montgomery, D-Miss., founder of the House Guard and Reserve Caucus. "Just learning to fly the F-102 and not getting hurt and not hurting anybody is an accomplishment."

Montgomery called Bush's election, "nothing but a plus for the Guard."

The retired Mississippi National Guard major general supported Bush so strongly for president that he served as co-chair of the Veterans for Bush campaign, even though he is a Democrat. He said that the Guard will improve under Bush's leadership because he understands the life of Guardsmen and he's proud of his service.”

The New York Times also looked into the charge and found it lacked substance:

“Two Democratic senators today called on Gov. George W. Bush to release his full military record to resolve doubts raised by a newspaper about whether he reported for required drills when he was in the Air National Guard in 1972 and 1973. But a review of records by The New York Times indicated that some of those concerns may be unfounded. The Times examined the record in response to a previous Boston Globe story."

Documents reviewed by The Times showed that Mr. Bush served in at least 9 of the 17 months in question...”

"On Sept. 5, 1972, Mr. Bush asked his Texas Air National Guard superiors for assignment to the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery "for the months of September, October and November." Capt. Kenneth K. Lott, chief of the personnel branch of the 187th Tactical Recon Group, told the Texas commanders that training in September had already occurred but that more training was scheduled for Oct. 7 and 8 and Nov. 4 and 5.
But Mr. Bartlett said Mr. Bush did not serve on those dates because he was involved in the Senate campaign, but he made up those dates later.

Colonel Turnipseed said in an interview that regulations allowed Guard members to miss duty as long as it was made up within the same quarter. Mr. Bartlett pointed to a document in Mr. Bush's military records that showed credit for four days of duty ending Nov. 29 and for eight days ending Dec. 14, 1972, and, after he moved back to Houston, on dates in January, April and May. The May dates correlated with orders sent to Mr. Bush at his Houston apartment on April 23, 1973, in which Sgt. Billy B. Lamar told Mr. Bush to report for active duty on May 1-3 and May 8-10. Another document showed that Mr. Bush served at various times from May 29, 1973, through July 30, 1973, a period of time questioned by The Globe."

Even the Boston Globe's story admits Bush served more than the minimum time, and was a fine pilot:

"Those who trained and flew with Bush, until he gave up flying in April 1972, said he was among the best pilots in the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron. In the 22-month period between the end of his flight training and his move to Alabama, Bush logged numerous hours of duty, well above the minimum requirements for so-called ''weekend warriors.''

Indeed, in the first four years of his six-year commitment, Bush spent the equivalent of 21 months on active duty, including 18 months in flight school."

Incidentally, Bush flew with the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron, which was attached to the 147th Fighter Wing, based in Houston, Texas. While Bush's unit never got called to Vietnam, the 147th was. From 1968 through 1970, pilots from the 147th participated in operation "Palace Alert" and served in Southeast Asia during the height of the Vietnam War. The 147th came off runway alert on Jan. 1, 1970 to start a new mission of training all F-102 pilots in the United States for the Air National Guard.

Bush enlisted as an Airman Basic in the 147th Fighter-Interceptor Group at Ellington Air Force Base, Houston, on May 28, 1968 - at a time when the 147th was actively participating in combat in Vietnam. However, one can not train overnight to be a pilot. Bush completed basic flight training and then, from December 1969 through June 27, 1970, he was training full-time at Ellington to be an F-102 pilot.

Bush volunteered to serve in a unit at the very moment it was seeing combat in Vietnam, and only a restructuring of the unit's mission before he completed his flight training made it unlikely he would fly in combat. And he was never AWOL - he completed his required service and even served beyond the minimum.

[01WhiteCobra]

Blownragtop, next time please just include the links and your interpretation of the links. Makes for a much more compact and readable thread. I know how to click on links.

1. Take out the war on terrorism. The government has been expanding at a rate not seen in decades. I'm talking non-defense discretionary spending. Nothing defense related. Has nothing to do with the *War On Terrorism*. The Bush Administration has been making the Clinton Administration look like fiscal conservatives.

2. You do realize the the UN opposed any military action against Iraq, no? You do realize this? Yes, the same UN that drafted and approved 1441 decided that military action was not correct for the situation and if America went outside the council they were going against its charter. Your interpretation is a non-issue.

3. Again, you have proven my point. It was never about WMD. They are now, in your words, relegated to second class status. Lol. Wasn't this the reason, that Iraq was in non-compliance with destroying its weapons program? Or was, that is right it was the link between Iraq and al-Queda. No wait, we can prove that either. Liberate them!

4. Here is a lovely diddy from the defense department's own website on how Iraq was set up to fail on its sanctions. I mean, I guess I can understand, water isn't really that important anyway.

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_511rept_91.html


5. What is the definition of AWOL? absent for 30 days or less?

There is a one year gap in his record from 1972-1973. No one has stepped up and accounted for it.


Blownragtop, you are going to have to do a little better than some googling here and there. At least add some intelligent expansion of the ideas you are linking to. Just don't link because you think it proves your point.

[vbr pete]

I know 98% of you guys really hate Michael Moore,but have you read his new book?Just finished reading it-he recounts alot of what you guys are saying here.Just for shits and giggles I decide to check up on some of his facts by going to sites that he quotes.Real out there wacko sites like the New york Times,Washington Post,and about 300 others.Seems like it checks out.Very interesting about the history of the US and Iraq,going back mucho years with your ex-buddy Saddam.Outlines the deals in Afghanistan to put pipelines in and run them throughout the area from the old USSR to various points where boats could go like India,etc.Anyhoo,it all leads up to the present and what's being done to secure a non-interrupted source of cheap oil.BTW-see the forecasts for oil for the new year?Going up!!!!How the heck...

Even though you don't like the guy why not take out the book at the local library(if yours hasn't been closed due to budget cuts) and read it with an open mind.Alone,so noone sees you do it.Then check the facts yourself.

And in response to comments in other threads about my being just a stupid Canadian,blow me.I come to this site to hear "the American side of things" from real people.Not from news networks.Much more interesting than NBC or Fox.Go ahead and insult Canucks all you want,we can take it.

[Fobra]

Originally posted by vbr pete


And in response to comments in other threads about my being just a stupid Canadian,blow me.I come to this site to hear "the American side of things" from real people.Not from news networks.Much more interesting than NBC or Fox.Go ahead and insult Canucks all you want,we can take it.

who called you a stupid canadian?:eek: