PDA

View Full Version : BUSH 'S BRILLANT MOVE



cheesemouse
11-28-2003, 10:04 AM
Bush Brillant

Being a vet who spent fours years in the service during our dirty little war and in all that time never once having that feeling that my leaders were doing the right thing, at the right time, for the right reasons I have to commend this president for doing the right thing, at the right time and for the right reasons...43 has a set of balls and I like that...

Kato
11-28-2003, 10:06 AM
What's the move Cheese?

Kato

cheesemouse
11-28-2003, 10:08 AM
Kato,

His secret visit to Bagdad...

Kato
11-28-2003, 10:25 AM
Gotta link Cheese? Hadn't heard about this one. Hey, if it's such a big secret, how did you know about it?

Kato~~~thinks maybe the Cheese is a BIG CHEESE!!!!!!!!

cheesemouse
11-28-2003, 10:41 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17520-2003Nov27.html

Kato, you gotta start watching the news boy... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
11-28-2003, 10:52 AM
I was very surprised. That was pretty kewl.

eg8r

cheesemouse
11-28-2003, 11:19 AM
eg8r,

As the Commander in Chief any president has to earn the respect of his soldiers and sharing the risk resonates with the troops. Politics aside 43 did the right thing and he has my respect.

Kato
11-28-2003, 12:05 PM
Sorry Cheese, the news is far too depressing in my neck of the woods. Nothing but dead people, hit and runs, over turned tankers, and some idiot burning down his house/meth lab. No thanks.

Kato~~~should start reading the online newspaper though. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Kato
11-28-2003, 12:11 PM
Certainly seems like that's a great thing to do. Wish I could go there and say "thank you" as well.

Kato

Qtec
11-28-2003, 10:38 PM
I agree that it was 'brilliant move'.It is a great moraal boost for the troops and GW deserves respect for going there because he didnt have to do it.He did the right thing.
As for sharing the risk,lets keep things in proportion. He was only there for 2.5 hours. Inside an army base. As long as there was no leak the risk was minimal.He did say that he was prepared to turn around if the secret was out and quite rightly so.

I dont think he was really in any danger because.
" Along for the ride were wire service writers from The Associated Press, Reuters and Bloomberg, a newspaper pool reporter, photographers from Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France Presse, Time magazine and Newsweek magazine, and a correspondent, producer and two-person crew from Fox News. ".
That aside, I take my hat off to him.
Well done GW.

Q [ feeling very,very generous. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif]

#### leonard
11-29-2003, 02:32 PM
I would agree with you if when it was his turn, he went to Viet Nam instead of being the lone member of the Texas Air National Guard on loan to some ones Senate Campaign. If he had balls he wouldn't have snuck in and out. ####

eggbeater
11-29-2003, 03:05 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote #### leonard:</font><hr> I would agree with you if when it was his turn, he went to Viet Nam instead of being the lone member of the Texas Air National Guard on loan to some ones Senate Campaign. If he had balls he wouldn't have snuck in and out. #### <hr /></blockquote>


Did King George and Queen Elizabeth sneak out only at nights to comfort their subjects after Nazi air raids in WWII London? /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

~~~~~~~~~~~

And, was this highly contrived political stagecraft by Andy Card and Condi Rice designed to a) Make us forget GWB's triumphalist "Mission Accomplished" carrier landing on May 1st, 2003 - the one where he made a fool of his presidency? /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif and b) Perhaps upstage and minimize the 2-day, well-publicized official visit by Senators Clinton and Reed? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif


-------------------

David Frum says Bush "surrendered to the radicals" by hiding behind security in London.


By Mark Dingham
Associated Press

Nov. 26, 2003 (AP) | President Bush hid like a coward during his pivotal visit with Tony Blair in London last week, laments former Bush speechwriter, the Jewish-Canadian David Frum (http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/diary112303.asp#020135) in the National Review Online. Frum applauds Bush's major foreign policy speech on the Middle East last week as "important, splendid, and brave." But he says that the president, by hermetically sealing himself off from the British citizenry behind some of the most intense security ever seen, allowed his critics to win the day and failed to reach out to ordinary Britons.

"Despite my fears, there were no clashes between protesters and police: In fact, the anti-Bush protests were surprisingly small and unenergetic compared to the last British protests I witnessed, back in October 2002.

"But -- and here's the catch -- the reason for the comparative quiet was that Bush and Blair surrendered the streets of London to the radicals. The original plan for the visit contemplated that Bush would drive in a royal coach down the Mall from Buckingham Palace to Whitehall. It contemplated an address to Members of Parliament. Tens of thousands of cheering schoolchildren waving British and American flags would also have been nice ...

"By agreeing to let the President be bottled up inside the palace, the trip's planners reduced the risk of confrontations -- but only by broadcasting to the British public their tacit acknowledgment that the visit was unpopular and unwelcome.

"By eliminating from the president's schedule events with any touch of spontaneity or public contact, the trip planners made the president look as if he could not or would not engage with ordinary British people. Unless you see it, you can hardly believe the incredible feebleness of the American communication effort in the UK. The US ambassador is nowhere to be seen, and nobody else seems to have the mission to speak up for this administration and this president. The cocooning of the president has demoralized even those who ought to be America's friends."

Frum should tell it to his old colleague Karl Rove, whose election strategy clearly does not include TV footage of Bush confronting protesters in the streets.

TomBrooklyn
11-29-2003, 04:46 PM
If Bush really had gumption, he'd declare he'd made a big mistake, cut our losses, and get the heck out of Iraq. Now that would take balls and earn my admiration. When was the last time you heard a politician admit he'd screwed up big time? Your lucky if they quietly bail out instead of wasting more and more money and lives trying to justify their original mistake.

His politically enhancing sideshow trip to boost troop moral in the biggest American boondoggle since the Savings and Loan Debacle and Vietnam does little to appease my distaste for the latest American "Save-The-World" fiasco, although it was a nice gesture for the troops.

TomBrooklyn

eg8r
11-29-2003, 07:22 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If Bush really had gumption, he'd declare he'd made a big mistake, cut our losses, and get the heck out of Iraq. Now that would take balls and earn my admiration. <hr /></blockquote> And be also be absolutely stupid. There has been no mistake. Saddam is no longer in control and that was the job. There was no mistake therefore no reason to tell the public he made a mistake.

[ QUOTE ]
His politically enhancing sideshow trip to boost troop moral i <hr /></blockquote> Since you so boldly stated this, do you have any proof moral has dropped, or is this just your opinion?

eg8r

eg8r
11-29-2003, 07:24 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If he had balls he wouldn't have snuck in and out. <hr /></blockquote> I guess this will be like every other political post of yours, but we will see...In your opinion do you think it would have been wise to announce his visit????

eg8r &lt;~~~Holding my breath....

TomBrooklyn
11-30-2003, 01:59 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> There has been no mistake. Saddam is no longer in control and that was the job. <hr /></blockquote>That was 1/3 of the job and the least important and most controversial. There were no WMD, Strike 1; and no links to terrorism, Strike 2. We did get Saddam out of power by invading a sovereign nation primarily for reasons that turned out to be imaginary. Now we're up to our necks in a morass of our own creation that is costing us hundreds of billions of dollars and a considerable number of American lives.

The real purpose of this war for Bush is to divert media and public attention away from the fact that he didn't catch Osama Bin Laden. This war also helps the power mongers of big Government justify having a grossly oversized military. Without periodic invasions into foreign lands that we have no legitimate biziness in, the military would simply have little to do.

Also, Bush wants all the Americans with the short memories, now that that quagmire that was Vietnam is slipping into the foggy past, to join in patriotic fervor, yelling "Hoorah, Go America, Go Bush!" It's an age old formula that works almost every time.

Qtec
11-30-2003, 02:51 AM
Hillary did!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q

Sid_Vicious
11-30-2003, 09:24 AM
I applaud you loudly Sir, you stated my feeling very eloquently and with far less piss and vinegar than I'd likely have used. It is a pitiful stage Bush is dancing on, stubbornness for realizing that Iraq's war had developed into just what the resistance meant it to, an urban war, and will continue to whittle away at American soldiers plus some of the scattering solders and contractors from other countries. I'll state the same thing, "If Bush(or any future president) would admit making a big mistake, cutting losses and showing guts, he'll gain my admiration, even if I've always been totally against what the guy stands for." Otherwise I truly believe he is far more a danger to world peace by being stuck inside his house of stubbornness and arrogance. Let's put some of GW's grandchildren on the ground in Iraq and see how soon he rethinks this war effort. It's easier since this war is almost totally lower income American citizens.

I'd read months ago that returning solders for leave were announcing moral drops, and I doubt that it's gotten better, no matter how many good gesture trips GW wants to make.

This is all just one big damn mess, and that's all you can say about it...sid~~~wonders just how many solders will die between now and the next election, but mainly prays that the moms and pops, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, and every friend and friend of a friend of a solder over there remembers that number when they punch that ballot in November

eg8r
11-30-2003, 12:00 PM
[ QUOTE ]
and no links to terrorism, Strike 2. <hr /></blockquote> Maybe in your attempt to count to three you screwed this up, I don't know...but there has been plenty of evidence linking Saddam to terrorism. Now if you think for one second we were going into war to find links between Saddam and what happened on 9/11, then I wonder where you get your information. I do not remember that at all.

Do you remember hearing about the fighters the Iraqis had buried that we found? Well if they can bury a bunch of fighters out in the desert, I am sure they can bury some WMD's.

[ QUOTE ]
so Bush can divert media and public attention away from the fact that he didn't catch Osama Bin Laden <hr /></blockquote> Do you honestly believe this, or are you just fishing???? The media moves in its own direction and since they were not able to plant doubt in the US citizens with this, they have looked for other things to talk about and hopefully find something that will break Bush's stronghold on the American people.

Thank GOD Bush is our president in these times and we are not watching Gore.

eg8r

eg8r
11-30-2003, 12:04 PM
Yup, and where is the threat to the American people if Hillary is killed? Do you honestly think those people are going to kill shrillary????? Her husband is the one that looked the other way for 8 years. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif What a joke. You will probably also state that Hillary walked around without any protection at all, and carried her own luggage.

eg8r

cheesemouse
11-30-2003, 12:12 PM
Sid and others,

I agree that over all Bush could prove to be the biggest disaster that has ever been in the office of the president, when he is taken as a total package. In this one incident it was a good move with good timing. It helped the moral of our troops who are just following orders and trying to do a good job.

The stupid [censored] Bush/crew do here at home can probably be corrected over time with our election process of getting rid of the bozo's who manage to buy the highest office in the land but the set back he has fostered in world affairs is going to take a special person to right. Bush managed to take the most advantagous situation America has seen in world public opinion since we declared independence from England and completely piss it away. Bush and his cronies with their 'my way or the highway moralistic highstakes poker playing arrogance' managed to piss off the rest of the world in a few short weeks and completely blow that advantage the unbelievable 911 attacks handed America. If Elmer Fudd were president he couldn't have messed this up any worse.

They used to talk about the 'street' in the middle east, now it is the 'street' of the of the world and it is not on our side because of this president and his crews policies. The world governments know Bush screwed up in Iraq and they are going to let us twist in the wind until the citizens of this country take care of business here at home.

#### leonard
11-30-2003, 01:42 PM
Eg8r I ran a poolroom in the 60s. I don't want to count the guys I shook hands with that never returned. The draft was for the dumb,the stupid,the poor. The smart went to Canada. The President and the Vice President made Bill Clinton look Brave during the Viet Nam engagement.

As a Nation we were lied to then by Texas Democrats now were being lied to by Texas Republicans. War is our number one business and Texas is the biggest benificiary of War. All those Military bases protecting us from Mexico. ####

mickey2
11-30-2003, 03:07 PM
“but there has been plenty of evidence linking Saddam to terrorism”

Could you please explain this statement?

Even Bush himself stated it that there has been no evidence that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Of course he did not say this before the war....

Ansar al-Islam was the only proofed linkage to the al Qa’ida, as fare as I know. But there are dozens of countries, including the USA, with much stronger linkage, but they have not been as interesting as the Iraq, to go for war.
Ansar al-Islam was maybe a problem for PUK and KDP in the north of Iraq, where Husein was not in control, but not really a international threat. There have been always huge ideological differences between Islamic radicals and the clearly secular Hussein.

It is America's standard for foreign-policy decisions to act in their own interest. There is not much altruism in foreign policy, all countries act in their interest .

A quote you might find interesting:
"I dread our own power and our own ambition; I dread our being too much dreaded....We may say that we shall not abuse this astonishing and hitherto unheard-of-power. But every other nation will think we shall abuse it. It is impossible but that, sooner or later, this state of things must produce a combination against us which may end in our ruin." -- Edmund Burke, describing his fears for the former British Empire

wolfdancer
11-30-2003, 06:00 PM
Hear! Hear!...have to agree with you 100%...nothing more then a political ploy...another photo-op ..that even tops the carrier landing
BUT...considering the risk involved (one of our troops could have shot him)...gotta give him some credit

eg8r
11-30-2003, 07:30 PM
[ QUOTE ]
“but there has been plenty of evidence linking Saddam to terrorism”

Could you please explain this statement?

Even Bush himself stated it that there has been no evidence that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Of course he did not say this before the war....
<hr /></blockquote> It is very easy to explain...I did not say anything about linking Saddam to 9/11. Go back and read it again. Terrorism is quite a broad statement.

Maybe you decided to reply to me before reading the very next sentence...I will quote it for you again... [ QUOTE ]
Now if you think for one second we were going into war to find links between Saddam and what happened on 9/11, then I wonder where you get your information. I do not remember that at all.
<hr /></blockquote> That should help.

eg8r

eg8r
11-30-2003, 07:35 PM
####, thanks for your reply but it did nothing as far as answer the question. My post had nothing to do with any president in particular, or any political party. It also had nothing to do with the intelligence of those taken in the draft, and those that lost their life in Vietnam. I am having trouble understanding the reason behind your post except to show me that you are older and lived during those times, and maybe even had a positive opinion for those that fled our country during war.

Back to the subject, would it have been wise for the President of the United States to announce he would be travelling to a country in which we have just blew up and are still have troubles completely taking over? Would that be a wise decision?

eg8r

11-30-2003, 08:44 PM
[ QUOTE ]
thanks for your reply but it did nothing as far as answer the question. My post had nothing to do with any president in particular, or any political party. It also had nothing to do with the intelligence of those taken in the draft, and those that lost their life in Vietnam. I am ha <hr /></blockquote>

Here's some cheese for your whine.
http://www.nutrition.org.uk/images/teachercentre/cheese.jpg

Qtec
11-30-2003, 10:51 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe in your attempt to count to three you screwed this up, I don't know...but there has been plenty of evidence linking Saddam to terrorism <hr /></blockquote>

Where is your proof? What evidence?

Q

eg8r
12-01-2003, 08:12 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Where is your proof? What evidence? <hr /></blockquote> Here is a web page (http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html) you can peruse. I have not taken the time to verify each bullet or any of them, believe it if you want or not. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r &lt;~~~Can already hear Q's reply

Qtec
12-01-2003, 08:28 AM
BTW,
[ QUOTE ]
President To Drop Tariffs On Steel
Bush Seeks to Avoid A Trade War and Its Political Fallout
By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 1, 2003; Page A01


The Bush administration has decided to repeal most of its 20-month-old tariffs on imported steel to head off a trade war that would have included foreign retaliation against products exported from politically crucial states, administration and industry sources said yesterday.




The officials would not say when President Bush will announce the decision but said it is likely to be this week. The officials said they had to allow for the possibility that he would make some change in the plan, but a source close to the White House said it was "all but set in stone."

European countries had vowed to respond to the tariffs, which were ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization, by imposing sanctions on up to $2.2 billion in exports from the United States, beginning as soon as Dec. 15. Japan issued a similar threat Wednesday. The sources said Bush's aides concluded they could not run the risk that the European Union would carry out its threat to impose sanctions on orange juice and other citrus products from Florida, motorcycles, farm machinery, textiles, shoes, and other products.

Bush advisers said they were aware the reversal could produce a backlash against him in several steel-producing states of the Rust Belt -- including Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio. That arc of states has been hit severely by losses in manufacturing jobs and will be among the most closely contested in his reelection race.

[/Quote]

Told ya.

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Qtec
12-01-2003, 08:32 AM
You call that evidence? 'Mr Powell says...."'.

Dont make me laugh.

Q

eg8r
12-01-2003, 08:44 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Dont make me laugh.
<hr /></blockquote> Why? Will it make your head pop off? Will it cause your incessant anti-Bush posts to cease???

eg8r

eg8r
12-01-2003, 08:56 AM
Here is another article (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp) . Like before, believe it or not, does not matter to me.

eg8r

Nightstalker
12-01-2003, 09:35 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Here is another article (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp) . Like before, believe it or not, does not matter to me.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
Well you know that all of the articles Bush-backers like us post are hogwash while every one of theirs is the gospel truth right? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Qtec
12-01-2003, 10:06 AM
If you believe your own Govt.

[ QUOTE ]
Aug 19

U.S. considered hitting al Qaeda site in Iraq
From Barbara Starr
CNN Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (CNN) --U.S. officials Monday told CNN the Bush administration in recent weeks considered a covert CIA and military attack on a suspected al Qaeda chemical weapons test facility in northern Iraq -- an area not controlled by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

But the officials said no mission is imminent, and another senior U.S. official said any possible attack had been called off.

U.S. intelligence sources said al Qaeda operatives have recently been in northern Iraq in an area under the control of radical Kurds and that the two groups have been working together, the sources said.

Sources said intelligence shows the site was a place where tests were conducted on barnyard animals and possibly one human.

U.S. officials stressed that because the area is under Kurdish control, they have no reason to believe Saddam would have been aware of the activity. <hr /></blockquote>


[ QUOTE ]
September 27, 2002 Posted: 12:32 AM EDT (0432 GMT)
The White House may have found a link between the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the al Qaeda terrorist organization. Speaking at the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that the U.S. has what it considers "credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction capabilities."

Rumsfeld added that one report indicates that Iraq gave unspecified training to al Qaeda members relating to chemical and/or biological matters.

At a meeting with bipartisan lawmakers on Thursday, President Bush said that Iraq's leadership had continuous ties to terrorist groups. He said that the Iraqi government is "seeking a nuclear bomb and with fissile material could build one within a year."

So where are all of these details coming from? National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice says one al Qaeda prisoner has disclosed that members of his organization may have gotten training from Iraq in chemical or biological weapons. And the Bush Administration is pointing out that evidence to strengthen its case against the Gulf nation.

Intelligence officials are not suggesting that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein played a part in the September 11 attacks . They also say that al Qaeda members are believed to be in 60 countries around the world--including the United States.

<hr /></blockquote>

What really amazing that this whoie article is based on ONE [anonymous]PRISONER, who maybe thinks that something might have happened!!!!!!


Are we still confused?
There are hundreds of these insinuations and implications and they all amount to a hill of beans.

Its all BS , so dont buy it.

Q

eg8r
12-01-2003, 10:48 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If you believe your own Govt. (and then you begin to splice apart an article)
<hr /></blockquote> You gave me nothing to not believe my government, so I don't understand your point in posting it.

Oh yeah, what about the rest of my post in which this reply is stemming from? You completely ignored replying to my post, instead opting out to something else. Just thought it was funny and making some more assumptions about you (maybe to share later /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif ).

eg8r

eg8r
12-01-2003, 10:52 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Well you know that all of the articles Bush-backers like us post are hogwash while every one of theirs is the gospel truth right? <hr /></blockquote> I believe everyone is guilty. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Except for Q. No one in their sane mind would believe half the crap he posts here.

eg8r

Nightstalker
12-01-2003, 01:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Well you know that all of the articles Bush-backers like us post are hogwash while every one of theirs is the gospel truth right? <hr /></blockquote> I believe everyone is guilty. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Except for Q. No one in their sane mind would believe half the crap he posts here.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
I for one, do not believe it. I choose to check things out for myself and come to my own conclusions rather than buy into everything the stupid media spews forth from the boob-tube. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r
12-01-2003, 01:52 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I for one, do not believe it. I choose to check things out for myself and come to my own conclusions rather than buy into everything the stupid media spews forth from the boob-tube. <hr /></blockquote> I was not questioning the credibility of your content, merely the fact that we all post something and believe it to be correct (or as you put it, the gospel truth), unless otherwise stated.

Hey, whatever happened to Sparky? How did his dollar campaign finish?

eg8r

Nightstalker
12-01-2003, 01:56 PM
I know, and I understand your point. I am not sure, I believe nothing ever came of it as he is still in debt. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

eg8r
12-01-2003, 03:12 PM
I thought you guys were close friends. That is the only reason I asked.

eg8r

Nightstalker
12-01-2003, 03:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I thought you guys were close friends. That is the only reason I asked.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
We are, but he hasn't mentioned it to me for months so I don't think anything became of it.

mickey2
12-02-2003, 09:17 AM
The interesting thing is that persons who read the same text come to different conclusions.

The Islamic movement was always a threat for the old regime of Iraq. Bin Laden even offered to overthrow Hussein’s regime during the nineties. It is common practice that intelligence services keep in contact with various organisations. You won’t find a country on this planet where they have no contacts to various terror organisations.
It's simply a fact that the Iraq did not support terrorists substantially, like many other countries did and still do. Reality is fare more complex than the presented in the media. The truth is IMHO that WMD and support for terrorists have not been the reason for the war.

eg8r
12-02-2003, 10:16 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The truth is IMHO that WMD and support for terrorists have not been the reason for the war.
<hr /></blockquote> Nope, just the straw that broke the camels back.

eg8r

Qtec
12-02-2003, 11:14 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Nope, just the straw that broke the camels back. <hr /></blockquote>


Ever heard the expression,


"grasping at straws". /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Q

eg8r
12-02-2003, 11:19 AM
Nope, is that what you are doing right now?

eg8r

Qtec
12-02-2003, 11:21 AM
Again you demonstrate your inability to read. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
(and then you begin to splice apart an article)
<hr /></blockquote>

Its TWO different articles,on seperate dates, one on Aug 19, the other Sep 27!

Get it now?

Guess not. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Q

eg8r
12-02-2003, 11:32 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Q with foot in mouth:</font><hr> Again you demonstrate your inability to read. <hr /></blockquote> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> (and then you begin to splice apart an article)
<hr /></blockquote> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Q again:</font><hr> Its TWO different articles,on seperate dates, one on Aug 19, the other Sep 27!

Get it now?
<hr /></blockquote> Q, if you go to the first article (the only one I needed to look at to prove my point) you will see that you cut away some of the article. You posted only part of it. Without checking into the second article, it appears to me that you have spliced the article. No more than that and definitely no different than anything else you have ever done.

Here is part of the article you spliced... [ QUOTE ]
The official said it was the administration's view that even though the facility is not under Saddam's control, it is within Iraq's borders and covered by the cease-fire agreement signed at the end of the Gulf War prohibiting such facilities within Iraq.

<hr /></blockquote>

I don't need to "get it", you shovel it around enough for the rest of us. I figured you would get tired of the smell, I guess you are used to wallowing in it.

eg8r

Qtec
12-02-2003, 12:36 PM
I didnt splce anything. I showed you two excerpts from two articles.

You have proved my point,

[ QUOTE ]
facility is not under Saddam's control <hr /></blockquote>

So, its NOT under his control, he doesnt have anything to do with it. Even if he knew. Even if he objected it wouldnt make any difference because he had no influence there.
They were the ENEMY.

You remember the people he gassed?
Yeah, you got it. Same people.

Saddam was a Stalin. He didnt trust[ he shot half his own family] or share power with anybody. If anything, Al Quaeda were a danger to him.

Q

Cueless Joey
12-02-2003, 12:38 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> I didnt splce anything. I showed you two excerpts from two articles.

You have proved my point,

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
facility is not under Saddam's control <hr /></blockquote>

So, its NOT under his control, he doesnt have anything to do with it. Even if he knew. Even if he objected it wouldnt make any difference because he had no influence there.
They were the ENEMY.

You remember the people he gassed?
Yeah, you got it. Same people.

Saddam was a Stalin. He didnt trust[ he shot half his own family] or share power with anybody. If anything, Al Quaeda were a danger to him.

Q <hr /></blockquote>
So if you had your choice, you'd rather have him still in power huh?

eg8r
12-02-2003, 12:58 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I didnt splce anything. I showed you two excerpts from two articles.

You have proved my point,
<hr /></blockquote> I am not sure what the point was...You took two parts of one thing to try and make one single conclusion.

I find it funny that instead of arguing your point (as if you have had one since you came to the board) since it obviously made no sense, you decided to debate the definition of a the word "splice". /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Here is the quote in which you have continued to ignore.... [ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah, what about the rest of my post in which this reply is stemming from? You completely ignored replying to my post, instead opting out to something else. Just thought it was funny and making some more assumptions about you (maybe to share later ). <hr /></blockquote> Instead of facing the issue at hand, you think it wiser to try and defend your definition of the word "splice". Good job. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Qtec
12-02-2003, 01:07 PM
http://members.lycos.nl/agli2/hpbimg/churchsign%203.jpg

Q

eg8r
12-02-2003, 01:14 PM
Nice.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
12-02-2003, 01:25 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cueless Joey:</font><hr>
So if you had your choice, you'd rather have him still in power huh? <hr /></blockquote>

Don't confuse Q's opinion with facts /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q probably thinks Bill Clinton should rule Iraq, USA, and the world /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

eg8r
12-02-2003, 01:38 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Q probably thinks <hr /></blockquote> This is your first mistake...Q does not think. He posts a snippet from some article that will suit his purpose, and then he sits back and watches our replies. There is no thought process there at all. Once in a while, he might add a question, but the question is quite vague or general and never really asks anything.

Heck one of his replies here on this thread he states that Saddam was gassing the Kurds, and then on another thread he will tell you there were no WMD's in Iraq. One contradiction after another. You just have to sit back and wait on him and the rest of the liberals, sooner or later they will screw up.

eg8r

cheesemouse
12-02-2003, 02:59 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> http://members.lycos.nl/agli2/hpbimg/churchsign%203.jpg

Q <hr /></blockquote>

Q...that's funny... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

12-02-2003, 03:25 PM
[ QUOTE ]

Here is another article . Like before, believe it or not, does not matter to me.

eg8r
<hr /></blockquote>

In future posts, add in a disclaimer that you have no intention of verifying the data or even at least understanding what data you are looking at.

eg8r
12-02-2003, 03:57 PM
Come along little guy. You are like a little lost puppy that continues to follow me around.

eg8r

eg8r
12-02-2003, 04:07 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wall Street Journal:</font><hr> Even the U.N. acknowledges the possibility of a connection between the Iraqi Baathists and al Qaeda--which means that American politicians who keep repeating the mantra that there is no such connection are even more pro-Saddam than the U.N. <hr /></blockquote> Here is the article (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20031201-111537-6088r.htm) they are referring to. Here is the quote in particular from the article.... [ QUOTE ]
Secessionist or terrorist groups thought to have al Qaeda connections include Jemaah Islamiyah in Singapore, Indonesia and Thailand, and Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines and possibly the Ba'athists in Iraq, the report said.
<hr /></blockquote> Who here has more knowledge on the subject than the UN????? Sure it says possibly, which means there is more to it (Iraq and Al Qaeda) than those here want to believe.

eg8r

12-02-2003, 08:40 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Will it make your head pop off?<hr /></blockquote>

I crush your head.
http://www.newhouse.com/images/NNS%20GATOR%20PARTS.JPG

Qtec
12-02-2003, 09:42 PM
Chemical weapons are not WMDs. Thats GW talking.
Before GW was elected,chemical weapons were never considered to be WMDs.
The phrase,'Weapon of mass destruction'was always reserved for nuclear weapons.

Other Bushisms,
Anti-American; anyone who disargrees with GW.
Terrorist; any Arab or anyone who knows an Arab.
Member of Al Quaeda; Any Arab who has ever been to Afghanistan.

Q

JimS
12-02-2003, 10:32 PM
It's all very clear and simple. War is profitable. This war and all the wars/conflicts since WWII have been fought by peons at the behest of those who will reap great profits from the war. That's it. That's all. All the patriotism is just talk being put out by those that are profiting and want it to continue. I believe they started it all by bankrolling and even planning 911 so there would be a good excuse to go to war. They had to get the US people mad in order to justify war. They got the job done and are reaping the profits.

eg8r
12-03-2003, 07:02 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I believe they started it all by bankrolling and even planning 911 so there would be a good excuse to go to war. <hr /></blockquote> You think the Al Qaeda are profiting from this war?

eg8r

eg8r
12-03-2003, 07:53 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Q:</font><hr> Chemical weapons are not WMDs. Thats GW talking.
Before GW was elected,chemical weapons were never considered to be WMDs.
The phrase,'Weapon of mass destruction'was always reserved for nuclear weapons.
<hr /></blockquote>
Q, I don't think you even know what you are saying anymore. You disagree with every thing and now you are making up your own definitions and putting Bush's name down as the author. I guess it does not matter if you know the definition, because somehow you will feebly try and make it sound like W made it up. The following are a few examples of pre-W definitions of WMD, I hope you can follow along.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote CIA Electronic Reading Room, released by Mandatory Declassification Review:</font><hr> Written after the conclusion of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, this CIA survey examined Saddam Hussein's likely regional and international objectives and strategies - including his relations with other Arab states and the PLO, his desire to reduce Iraqi dependence on the USSR, and his goal of preventing closer ties between the US and USSR and Iran. With respect to weapons of mass destruction, the analysis briefly discusses Iraqi attitudes toward chemical and nuclear weapons. The first are considered a "short-term fix," while the latter represent "the long-term deterrent." <hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Pentagon, 1996:</font><hr> Countering the spread of weapons of mass destruction -- nuclear, chemical, and biological -- has become a new priority for the U.S. military. Is their approach on target? <hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote White House Press Release, 1994:</font><hr> I, William J. Clinton, President of the United States of
America, find that the proliferation of nuclear, biological,
and chemical weapons ("weapons of mass destruction") and of
the means of delivering such weapons, constitutes an unusual
and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy,
and economy of the United States, and hereby declare a national
emergency to deal with that threat.
<hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote COMBATTING PROLIFERATION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION ACT OF 1996 (Senate - April 17, 1996) :</font><hr> Testimony which was recently heard by the Senate Intelligence Committee, which I chair, disclosed that some 25 nations have weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and chemical weapons.

<hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote UK Ministry of Defense:</font><hr> 1991 - UN Security Council Resolution 687 requiring Iraq unconditionally to accept, under international supervision, destruction of its weapons of mass destruction and to declare its holdings within 15 days.
After initially denying any biological weapons programme, Iraq’s admission of "biological research for defensive military purposes".

<hr /></blockquote> I have mostly seen the words "Weapons of Mass Destruction" around or after 1990. Most of the stuff prior to that was just referred to as Chemical warfare, biological warfare, or Nuclear warfare. I am guessing W is not the man responsible for coining the phrase WMD.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote The Weapons of Mass Destruction Control Act of 1992:</font><hr> Title XV of the Defense Authorization Act of 1993, P.L. 102-484 (enacted October 23, 1992), relates "to the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons (weapons of mass destruction) and their related technology . . ."
<hr /></blockquote>
Well, there are more examples, but I am tired of copy/paste right now. The definition of WMD was here long before W became president, and at least since Iraq/Iran war, WMD has include Chemical and Biological weapons.

eg8r

nhp
12-03-2003, 08:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote JimS:</font><hr> It's all very clear and simple. War is profitable. This war and all the wars/conflicts since WWII have been fought by peons at the behest of those who will reap great profits from the war. That's it. That's all. All the patriotism is just talk being put out by those that are profiting and want it to continue. I believe they started it all by bankrolling and even planning 911 so there would be a good excuse to go to war. They had to get the US people mad in order to justify war. They got the job done and are reaping the profits. <hr /></blockquote>

Actually, in this day and age war is not profitable anymore. In WWII war was profitable because of the people at home all going to work in factories. That brought a huge boom in our economy, since everyone at home was working. Before Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt was waiting for a reason to join the war. In this day and age, war does not create jobs like it did more than half a century ago. We already have enough weaponry and supplies to take us into another world war. War costs us alot of money now.

I would never go so far as to think that our own government was behind 9/11, but I really don't think we belong in Iraq right now. I think Bush Jr. is more nuts than his father. Look at what Bush Sr. did in Panama, it's heartbreaking to know what really happened to the civilians over there. It was our country's fault too, we put former CIA agent Noriega there by staging a coup, a few years later we invaded to take the leader that we wanted in there out, at the costs of thousands of innocent civilians.

Qtec
12-03-2003, 09:16 AM
I think he was talking about the Arms Industry, who need an enemy to justify the Govt spending billions on weapons that they dont need.
BTW,if you are going to quote about WMD, try and find other sources than the coalition, the CIA or the Pentagon!

Q

Qtec
12-03-2003, 09:33 AM
I agree with everything Jim said except the bit about 9/11. I dont think they saw that coming. Maybe there was incompetence and hesitation but malice, I dont think so.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, in this day and age war is not profitable anymore <hr /></blockquote>

To whom?
I think weapons manufactures do ok.

[ QUOTE ]
Before Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt was waiting for a reason to join the war. <hr /></blockquote>

Why was he waiting? Could it be that there was a lot of opposition against the US joining the war?

[ QUOTE ]
would never go so far as to think that our own government was behind 9/11, but I really don't think we belong in Iraq right now. I think Bush Jr. is more nuts than his father. Look at what Bush Sr. did in Panama, it's heartbreaking to know what really happened to the civilians over there. It was our country's fault too, we put former CIA agent Noriega there by staging a coup, a few years later we invaded to take the leader that we wanted in there out, at the costs of thousands of innocent civilians <hr /></blockquote>

Obviously you havent read many of my posts. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Fact is, the US and the UK are in Iraq so lets make the best of it.If they had to withdraw it would be a disaster for the West.

Whether it is being done the right way, thats another question.

Q

nhp
12-03-2003, 09:53 AM
^ Nevermind, forget I said that. What I meant was that war does not boost our economy these days. There still are profits to be made, however.

Wally_in_Cincy
12-03-2003, 09:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
Fact is, the US and the UK are in Iraq so lets make the best of it.If they had to withdraw it would be a disaster for the West. <hr /></blockquote>

Finally, after all this time, Q says something that I can agree with /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

nhp
12-03-2003, 10:10 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> I agree with everything Jim said except the bit about 9/11. I dont think they saw that coming. Maybe there was incompetence and hesitation but malice, I dont think so.

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Actually, in this day and age war is not profitable anymore <hr /></blockquote>

To whom?
I think weapons manufactures do ok.

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Before Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt was waiting for a reason to join the war. <hr /></blockquote>

Why was he waiting? Could it be that there was a lot of opposition against the US joining the war?

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
would never go so far as to think that our own government was behind 9/11, but I really don't think we belong in Iraq right now. I think Bush Jr. is more nuts than his father. Look at what Bush Sr. did in Panama, it's heartbreaking to know what really happened to the civilians over there. It was our country's fault too, we put former CIA agent Noriega there by staging a coup, a few years later we invaded to take the leader that we wanted in there out, at the costs of thousands of innocent civilians <hr /></blockquote>

Obviously you havent read many of my posts. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Fact is, the US and the UK are in Iraq so lets make the best of it.If they had to withdraw it would be a disaster for the West.

Whether it is being done the right way, thats another question.

Q <hr /></blockquote>

If Roosevelt didn't want to wait, he would have joined the war in 1939 instead of 1941.

There is no "best of it" for whats going on in Iraq. This already is a disaster for the west. Bush is isolating our country. His statement that said "You're either with us or against us" intensifies that even more. The whole world expressed their opposition to the US invading Iraq, so now they are labeled anti-american. With all the frustration they have against our country, us calling them anti-american is probably not anything they are ashamed of. The only support Bush has from people is from A.-The politically-correct optimists, B.-The misinformed (via our lie-spewing media) and C.-The people who don't care (According to Bush, if you are not against us, you are with us).

Bush is pissing on everything the American Flag stands for. It was our brave soldiers who fought and died in WWII that actually gave tremendous meaning to the American Flag. Bush is destroying that, making our country look like an imperialistic tyrant instead of what it was in the hearts of men who actually fought in the name of good.

Qtec
12-03-2003, 10:45 AM
Hey Wally, your back already. I heard you got 30 days! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q

eg8r
12-03-2003, 10:47 AM
[ QUOTE ]
BTW,if you are going to quote about WMD, try and find other sources than the coalition, the CIA or the Pentagon! <hr /></blockquote> Obviously you did not get the point of the quotes. It was not to discredit what the real definition of WMD, but instead show you that Bush is not the one making the definition, it has been there before. Should I not quote Clinton now???? You blame Bush, because it is easy, you were wrong, admit it.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
12-03-2003, 10:59 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Hey Wally, your back already. I heard you got 30 days! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q <hr /></blockquote>

/ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif ??

Hillary has a contract out on me but other than that I don't know what you're talking about /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Qtec
12-03-2003, 11:02 AM
Ed, there is no hope for you.

You are incapable of seeing any other point of view than your own,and your own viewpoint is anything that GW tells you.

You see only what you want to see.

Try looking through the BS and read exactly what is said.

The two articles were supposed to show you that this Admin has fed propoganda[ eg; Pvte Lynch] and constantly droped things in the media, people like R.L propagate these misconceptions and before you know it, 75% of Americans think that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 when there is no proof.

Did Stalin share power? Would Saddam?
It doesnt make sense.

Q

eg8r
12-03-2003, 11:10 AM
Are you trying to be my savior or something. I am not asking for hope, and surely you would not be the one. You have not had an open mind about absolutely anything since you got here. You stated Bush made up some new definition of WMD and he is the reason chemical weapons are now included. I showed you plenty of proof that you were wrong. You still argue the point. Where is this hope you talk about. This is one of the most hypocritical posts you have made.

You showed two articles of where you felt the government dropped things in the media...are you so stupid to think there are not a million other reports of the left "dropping" things in the media. Give me a break.

I am not even sure why you think anyone is suggesting that Saddam is trying to share power. I was suggesting that he has helped, in some capacity, bin Laden, in an effort to destroy America. One would be an idiot in NOT seeing this as a good idea for Saddam. You blame me for having a granite like skull (glad to see you have learned some photo editing) when you in turn are doing the exact same thing. There is only one word...HYPOCRITE.

eg8r