PDA

View Full Version : Kerry Criticizes Election Outcome



PQQLK9
01-17-2005, 02:23 PM
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/10666330.htm

Posted on Mon, Jan. 17, 2005

Kerry Criticizes Election Outcome

Associated Press

BOSTON - Sen. John Kerry, in some of his most pointed public comments yet about the presidential election, invoked Martin Luther King Jr.'s legacy on Monday as he criticized President Bush and decried reports of voter disenfranchisement.

The Massachusetts Democrat, Bush's challenger in November, spoke at Boston's annual Martin Luther King Day Breakfast. He reiterated that he decided not to challenge the election results, but "thousands of people were suppressed in the effort to vote."

"Voting machines were distributed in uneven ways. In Democratic districts, it took people four, five, eleven hours to vote, while Republicans (went) through in 10 minutes - same voting machines, same process, our America," he said.

In his comments, Kerry also compared the democracy-building efforts in Iraq with voting in the U.S., saying that Americans had their names purged from voting lists and were kept from casting ballots.

"In a nation which is willing to spend several hundred million dollars in Iraq to bring them democracy, we cannot tolerate that too many people here in America were denied that democracy," Kerry said.

Voting irregularities in Ohio drove primarily Democratic challenges to the Nov. 2 election, but Congress eventually affirmed President Bush the winner by a slim electoral vote count of 286-251 - plus a single vote cast by a Minnesota elector for Kerry's running mate, former Sen. John Edwards.

sack316
01-17-2005, 10:46 PM
who?

eg8r
01-18-2005, 08:41 AM
I guess we gave Kerry too much credit.

eg8r

PQQLK9
01-18-2005, 12:31 PM
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/homepage/hp1-18-05d.jpg

catscradle
01-18-2005, 01:01 PM
Another whiner from my home state. Sometimes I'm just flat out embarrassed by who gets elected in MA.

Gayle in MD
01-19-2005, 07:54 AM
You don't have to be embarrassed by John Kerry. His criticisms were right on target. 57% of us now agree with him "Wrong War, wrong place, wrong time"

"How Can Fifty Million Americans Be So Dumb?"

Gayle in Md. Beautiful BLUE state

BTW, I will be changing my affiliation from Independent to Democratic in order to take a more active part in helping to clean out this Republican bunch of liars in the future.

catscradle
01-19-2005, 09:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> ... 57% of us now agree with him "Wrong War, wrong place, wrong time"
<hr /></blockquote>

I don't understand what bearing that has on my critisism of his being another whiner about lossing the election. Whether you like Bush or don't like Bush, he did win.

BTW, the democrats are liars also, and Kerry is about as phony as they get. If you can't recognize that in his behaviour you are indeed naive.

cheesemouse
01-19-2005, 09:57 AM
Cat,

[ QUOTE ]
and Kerry is about as phony as they get. <hr /></blockquote>

Let's say your correct and let's say that Kerry is now history and he can no longer hurt your President...YOUR GUYS NOW HAVE THE BALL, THEY HAVE EVERYTHING COVERED...I am glad this is the case because I'm so sick of your side blaming every failure on the BOGGIE man. Every obstical has been eliminate. Your guys should now produce...Now that all the excuses for Bushes failed policys are gone we will see what the results are in the next years...We will have no doubt where the blame should be place if everything turns to poopy pie.....


...Now that bully Bush is lame duck there are a bunch of name brand Republicans who have rediscover their nut sacks and are separating themselves from the wack jobs on the extreme right, which includes the President and Vice President.

The Cheese would give 10/1 odds that Bush can't name everyone in his cabinet...I'll try and use my CBS new contacts to get some journalist with a nut sack to ask him the question....no...wait just a minute here...Bush never appears in any forum other than peep rallys so he never has to answer any questions...how silly of me to forget that.......I guess I'll just have be patient and let time tell the tale...hell, I've got the time.

Wally_in_Cincy
01-19-2005, 10:54 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Every obstical has been eliminate. Your guys should now produce.. <hr /></blockquote>

As long as your side does not practice obstructionism.

See "Social Security reform" and

"filibustering judicial nominees" (something that was never done previously in history BTW)

SPetty
01-19-2005, 10:56 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> ...We will have no doubt where the blame should be place if everything turns to poopy pie.....<hr /></blockquote>C'mon, we already know that... Clinton, duh! /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Gayle in MD
01-19-2005, 11:08 AM
LMAO, that's too funny, good one S. Petty!
How's it going anyway friend?

Gayle in Md.

cheesemouse
01-19-2005, 11:08 AM
Wally,

[ QUOTE ]
obstructionism.
<hr /></blockquote>

Ewwwwwwwwwhhhhhhh now there is a BIG BAD BOGGIE MAN...Geezussssss...is there anything you'zzz guys won't resort to to avoid taking responsibity???

Wally Wally get a grip, pay attention. I'm pitching you soft balls here..... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gayle in MD
01-19-2005, 11:27 AM
He won? That's up for debate, many think he stole this one too, just like the last one.

Naive, that's a good one, those who bought the Rove/Bush BS in this last election were the naive ones.

"Have you made any mistakes Mr. President?"
"I can't think of any" Duh?

Freedom on the march, what a joke. He was warned that if he went in there Iraq would be swamped with terrorists and insurgents, now they're there by the droves, and killing the Iraqi's who would fight for freedom faster than we can find them and train them. This is the biggest, most poorly planned mess that our country has ever been involved in, and it's only going to get worse.

Now we have to look at Rice up there for four more years, while she lies between those two big front teeth of hers. The least she could do is jam a chicklet between those fangs.

Gayle in Md., Sick of them all. Four more years, YUKKIE Fooey Louie! /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
01-19-2005, 12:22 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> He won? That's up for debate, many think he stole this one too, just like the last one.

<hr /></blockquote>

Only somebody who is gullible enough to believe in wacko conspiracies believes that. Do you believe it?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>

Now we have to look at Rice up there for four more years, while she lies between those two big front teeth of hers. The least she could do is jam a chicklet between those fangs.
<hr /></blockquote>

Way to defend your position with lucid arguments Gayle.

She's still smarter than you.

Wally_in_Cincy
01-19-2005, 12:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> Wally,

obstructionism.
<hr /></blockquote>

Ewwwwwwwwwhhhhhhh now there is a BIG BAD BOGGIE MAN...<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Are you denying that obstructionism exists? </font color>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> Wally Wally get a grip, pay attention. I'm pitching you soft balls here..... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> It's difficult to argue with something that makes no sense. </font color>

catscradle
01-19-2005, 12:45 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> Cat,
...YOUR GUYS NOW HAVE THE BALL, THEY HAVE EVERYTHING COVERED...
<hr /></blockquote>

You're inferring an awful lot about my polital leanings and who "my guy" is from a critisism I made of Kerry. I don't think Bush is great, I was just expressing my opinion of Kerry, nobody else. I think both parties are basically full of what makes the grass grow green. What irks me most is when people make the rediculous (sp?) assertion that Democrat (liberal) politicians are better than Republican (conservative) politicians. They're all snakes with some rare exceptions. I am not a conservative, I'm not a liberal. My fellow bay staters would probably paint me as a conservative, a large portion of the country would consider me a liberal; but in truth I'm very apolitical.
So please don't refer to Bush being my guy. I didn't vote for him or Kerry, partially because I didn't see one as better than the other and partially because in MA the Democrat will ALWAYS win and there is no point in voting (in presidential elections at any rate). If I thought my vote would have been meaningful, I would have decided who to vote for even though I liked neither of them.

So, PLEEEEASE don't label me as any political-ism.

cheesemouse
01-19-2005, 01:43 PM
[ QUOTE ]
It's difficult to argue with something that makes no sense. <hr /></blockquote>

It's frustrating isn't it Wally. How do you think I feel? I've been dealing with it since Bush got elected the first time and now I have to suck it up for four more god awful years of 'this makes no sense' crap....your the lucky one...some how you think everything is cool...geez

cheesemouse
01-19-2005, 01:45 PM
Sorry Cat,

I didn't really vote for Kerry either....I VOTE AGAINST BUSH....lol

highsea
01-19-2005, 02:02 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> I didn't really vote for Kerry either....I VOTE AGAINST BUSH....lol <hr /></blockquote>So why is it that your party can't come up with a candidate that you can support? It seems that most Dems were voting as you, not for Kerry, but against Bush. That's a hell of a way to run for President.

So now Kerry is decrying the results of the election. Boo hoo. Does this mean that we are going to have to listen to 4 more years of "Bush didn't really win"?

Why is it that all of the supposed "disenfranchised voters" were in Democratic run precincts? Are Republicans the only ones who know how to hold an election? Don't you guys know how to set up a voting booth, or to figure out how many you need in each polling location?

John Kerry= Al Gore (The sequel)

meh. Dems better come up with a new slogan.
____________________________________

SPetty
01-19-2005, 02:05 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote catscradle:</font><hr> I think both parties are basically full of what makes the grass grow green. <hr /></blockquote> chlorophyll? (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem99/chem99284.htm) /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

photosynthesis? (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99087.htm) /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

cheesemouse
01-19-2005, 02:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
It seems that most Dems were voting as you, not for Kerry, but against Bush. <hr /></blockquote>

Scary huh.....can you imagine how easily Bush would have been defeat had a better candidate been put up. Bush being such a good uniter and all. So close and yet so far......sigh...

Hey, Kerry is history. You better worry about your boy and crew. If they don't straight out some of mess they made you'll be crying in your great Seattle fish stew... /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it that all of the supposed "disenfranchised voters" were in Democratic run precincts? <hr /></blockquote>

I can't answer that question. Whay don't you do some google searches and cut/paste about 50,000 words about it.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
01-19-2005, 02:41 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr>It's frustrating isn't it Wally. How do you think I feel? I've been dealing with it since Bush got elected the first time and now I have to suck it up for four more god awful years of 'this makes no sense' crap....your the lucky one...some how you think everything is cool...geez <hr /></blockquote>

You did not answer my question, not that you are obligated to.

Are you denying that obstructionism exists?

cheesemouse
01-19-2005, 02:53 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You did not answer my question, not that you are obligated to.

Are you denying that obstructionism exists? <hr /></blockquote>

No, silly Wally, of course obstructionism exists that's what the party out of office does. You remember the Clinton years don't you? Good Ole Billy didn't let it get him down though, he still created jobs and balanced the budget inspite of the Republican obstructionist...I'm starting to worry about your short term memory Wally... /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

highsea
01-19-2005, 03:11 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>
Why is it that all of the supposed "disenfranchised voters" were in Democratic run precincts? <hr /></blockquote>

I can't answer that question. Whay don't you do some google searches and cut/paste about 50,000 words about it.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote>Saucer of milk for table four, garcon.

Actually, the Dems have proven themselves quite capable of stuffing the ballot box, given the opportunity. Witness the Washington Governor race. 3,500 more votes in King County than voters, and 500+ homeless people living at the courthouse. Lol. Bottle of Mad Dog, sir?

Wally_in_Cincy
01-19-2005, 03:22 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> No, silly Wally, of course obstructionism exists that's what the party out of office does. <hr /></blockquote>

So why did you call it a boogey man, as if it was something that Bush really did not have to contend with in pursuing his agenda. And you call me silly.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> You remember the Clinton years don't you? Good Ole Billy didn't let it get him down though, he still created jobs and balanced the budget inspite of the Republican obstructionist...I'm starting to worry about your short term memory Wally... /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif <hr /></blockquote>

You could say the Republicans obstructed Hillary-Care but actually I think it was the American people that stopped that. Thank goodness.

I would give the Republican Congress and a strong economy more credit for the balanced budget than I would Clinton. But we will never agree on that so there's not much point in discussing it.

cheesemouse
01-19-2005, 04:32 PM
[ QUOTE ]
So why did you call it a boogey man, as if it was something that Bush really did not have to contend with in pursuing his agenda. And you call me silly.
<hr /></blockquote>

Silly goose, because you were trying to make it sound like it was something unique in politics...now that I think of it the Republicans did start it and I suppose you own creation could turn on you and become a boggie man type thingee....

[ QUOTE ]
You could say the Republicans obstructed Hillary-Care but actually I think it was the American people that stopped that. Thank goodness.

<hr /></blockquote>

Just saw a program on the tube where this contract carpenter discovered he had a heart valve problem. He had no medical insurance but he went to the local chop shop rip off local hospital and got an estimate....yikes...$200,000....well now that made him scratch his head. While scratching he had an idea. He made a few phone calls, jumped on a plane to India, had a successful heart valve repair kit put in, flew back to America all fixed up for a grand total of $10,000. Hell, he brought his whole family along on the flight and it still came in at 10 grand......do you smell something fishy here...???

[ QUOTE ]
I would give the Republican Congress and a strong economy more credit for the balanced budget than I would Clinton. But we will never agree on that so there's not much point in discussing it. <hr /></blockquote>

Your correct so lets agree to agree that no president has ever had control of the economy. The economy is just this fickle party kind of guy who occasionally gets depressed.

cheesemouse
01-19-2005, 04:44 PM
Highseas,

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, the Dems have proven themselves quite capable of stuffing the ballot box, given the opportunity. Witness the Washington Governor race. 3,500 more votes in King County than voters, and 500+ homeless people living at the courthouse. Lol. Bottle of Mad Dog, sir? <hr /></blockquote>

That was so cool. I even watched both sides making their arguents before the Washingtom State Supreme Court on C-Span. From what I remember of it the Republicans got trapped in the final case with the magnicant legal logic they use to win the first case....it was sweet....... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gayle in MD
01-19-2005, 05:51 PM
Aw come on Walley, get off my bones, can't I have a little fun? Really though, wouldn't you think a woman in the public eye like she is would do something about those teeth? Pahleeze!

No question, she is smarter than I, in fact she is brilliant, but she's still a liar, with bad teeth. Lucid arguements? I've already posted proof of her lies, guess you didn't read them. Did you watch the hearings? she's disgusting, stone waller, and a liar.

Gayle

Gayle in MD
01-19-2005, 06:03 PM
That's about it HC, but don't forget, the repubs can't come up with a guy worth voting for either. In the beginning, I was voting against Bush, but by voting time, Kerry actually was making more sense to me, and I was liking him, and the things he was saying were atleast true. Bush lied his way all the way through, the man can't put three sentenses together without lieing. It's all BS.

My gripe is with the mess Bush is making on so many fronts, not just the war, and the BS they propagated to seel the war, but the BS they have spread to justify the war. They have put together a whole new set of reasons for going to war now. That is what Senator Boxer was trying to point out today and yesterday. Nobody can get Rice to put into words what her exact standard is, for future reference, for going to war again. That was pretty obvious today, and she just did what she always does, double talk, lies, and BS.

Gayle

Gayle in MD
01-19-2005, 06:06 PM
AH HA HA HA HA!@ Hey Cheese, good idea, just send him off for a good long google! Too funny!
Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
01-19-2005, 06:14 PM
Oh wow, that's a good one Walley, he Cheese, see they are now beginning to see what a mess this is turning into, so now they are going to start setting up their excuses for this failing administration, so they'll just blame it on the three Democrats left in the Senate, lol, obstructionism, too funny.

Walley can't debate without spewing his lingering hatred for the Clintons, hell, the bushyites still think 9/11 happened on Clinton's watch although Bush had been in office for eight months, and didn't listen to the warnings. He was already focused on Iraq, even before 9/11, hell he isn't even thinking about bin Laden anymore, so he says.

Gayle in Md.

nAz
01-19-2005, 07:25 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> ...YOUR GUYS NOW HAVE THE BALL, THEY HAVE EVERYTHING COVERED...I am glad this is the case because I'm so sick of your side blaming every failure on the BOGGIE man. Every obstical has been eliminate. Your guys should now produce...Now that all the excuses for Bushes failed policys are gone we will see what the results are in the next years...We will have no doubt where the blame should be place if everything turns to poopy pie.....
<hr /></blockquote>

excerpt from a "leberal point of view" but het i think he maybe on to something...

"For the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win . . . "

That phrase is a gun, and it's smoking. Written by Karl Rove deputy Peter Wehner in a leaked memo, it establishes as intention what administration officials have heretofore been most eager to cover up. What the Republican Party failed to do 60 years ago is to stop any federal program of guaranteed old-age insurance from existing. Social Security established a principle unacceptable to many Republicans: that government economic programs help people, and can become wildly popular. Now, however, Wehner writes, "We have it within our grasp to move away from dependency on government. . . . We can help transform the political and philosophical landscape of our country."

The smoking gun isn't pointed just at your grandmother.

When Americans have at a minimum almost a third of their retirement contribution in corporate investments&amp;#8212;we now send 6.2 percent of our income to Social Security, and Bush's plan would have us putting four of those 6.2 points into the stock market&amp;#8212;we will all be part of, in the apparently benign coinage of Republican propagandist Grover Norquist, the "investor class."

Blogger Nick Stoller describes the consequences thus:

"When someone like Eliot Spitzer uncovers a major corporate scandal, a Republican will be able to say, 'He's attacking your retirement fund.'

"When the employees of a company try to unionize, a Republican will be able to say, 'They are attacking your retirement fund.' " (He will also be able to say they are attacking their own retirement fund.)

"When a community refuses to let a Wal-Mart build in their neighborhood, a Republican will be able to say, 'They're attacking your retirement fund.' "

Environmental regulations will be framed as an attack on your retirement fund. Liability law, too. Corporate taxes, certainly. Maybe even, someday, child labor laws (that's the brazenness: Conservatives never shy from putting forth agendas that seemed unimaginable a year ago). People will presume it is in their interest for the companies in which they hold a temporary position to goose their stock no matter the long-term cost to the corporation, to our institutions, to society as a whole&amp;#8212;no matter the long-term cost for all the other classes we belong to, as consumers, as workers, as citizens. All but a tiny group of big-ticket investors would benefit far more on a net basis, as they do now, from the maintenance of a strong welfare state. No matter: The propaganda may prove irresistible.

Breaking Social Security is central to passing Bush's "tax reforms," which will remove taxes on investment income and shift the tax burden to wage earners who can't afford to save any money&amp;#8212;thereby creating newly outraged tax-hating constituencies bent on decimating government's legitimacy yet further. Absent unrelenting Democratic resistance, in fact, the next four years will establish the leverage to fulfill another of Grover Norquist's coinages: to get the federal government "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

full story/Good read (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0503,perlstein,60130,6.html)

Wally_in_Cincy
01-20-2005, 06:36 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr>


"When the employees of a company try to unionize, a Republican will be able to say, 'They are attacking your retirement fund.' " (He will also be able to say they are attacking their own retirement fund.)

"When a community refuses to let a Wal-Mart build in their neighborhood, a Republican will be able to say, 'They're attacking your retirement fund.' "

<hr /></blockquote>

How Chile privatized their pension system. (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=npr&amp;Number=174254&amp;Foru m=npr&amp;Words=chile&amp;Match=Entire%20Phrase&amp;Searchpage =0&amp;Limit=25&amp;Old=3weeks&amp;Main=174254&amp;Search=true#Pos t174254)

It has worked in Chile.

Believe it or don't believe it, I don't care. Just try to look at it with an open mind.

If not privatization, which do you prefer to extend the life of SS, higher taxes, reduced benefits, or a higher retirement age?

eg8r
01-20-2005, 06:46 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Scary huh.....can you imagine how easily Bush would have been defeat had a better candidate been put up. <hr /></blockquote> What is scary is the Dems were to freaking stupid to try. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

eg8r

eg8r
01-20-2005, 06:51 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Oh wow, that's a good one Walley, he Cheese, see they are now beginning to see what a mess this is turning into, so now they are going to start setting up their excuses for this failing administration, <hr /></blockquote> Hey Gayle, since your eyes are wide open and you have caught on to this, I was wondering if you were sooo wide-eyed when you saw the Dem manual that told Dem voters to lie to the media after the election was finished. It said something to the effect that if there is no proof of voter disenfranchisement to still go to the media and say there was.

eg8r

Chopstick
01-20-2005, 06:51 AM
What Boxer was doing had nothing to do with that hearing or Condi Rice. She was showing off for the TV and thinking she was important enough to waste everybody's time doing it.

<font color="red"> Free SF! </font color>

Wally_in_Cincy
01-20-2005, 06:59 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Chopstick:</font><hr> What Boxer was doing had nothing to do with that hearing or Condi Rice. She was showing off for the TV and thinking she was important enough to waste everybody's time doing it.

<font color="red"> Free SF! </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

What I want to know is why did she show up dressed as a bag lady?

cheesemouse
01-20-2005, 08:02 AM
[ QUOTE ]
What I want to know is why did she show up dressed as a bag lady?<hr /></blockquote>

Wally,

Pick me!!! Pick me!!! I know the answer to this one.....

Wally picks the Cheese&lt; " She was looking for a free lunch"......bota boooooom.....Heheheheheheheeeeeee.....god, I crack myself up........ /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
01-20-2005, 08:39 AM
[ QUOTE ]
What Boxer was doing had nothing to do with that hearing or Condi Rice. She was showing off for the TV and thinking she was important enough to waste everybody's time doing it.

<hr /></blockquote> While I don't disagree with anything you said, I also do not believe the hearing should be a walk in the park. There is nothing wrong with the Democrats asking the tough questions, I think big problem was that Boxer was going about her questioning in a way that questioned CR's integrity. I think CR handled it perfectly well, and in a manner I don't think Boxer would have been able to duplicate had she been in the CR's position.

eg8r

Chopstick
01-20-2005, 09:55 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I think CR handled it perfectly well, and in a manner I don't think Boxer would have been able to duplicate had she been in the CR's position.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Exactly what I was thinking when she was doing it.

Gayle in MD
01-20-2005, 12:40 PM
No I didn't see that, but heard something said about it, that it was a fake and had been printed up by republicans to make the Democrats look bad.
BTY Did you watch the confirmation hearings. Did you hear Senator Biden (SP) trying to persuade Rice to stop lieing about how many Iraqi troops were trained, about how her administration, and also she, have lied and said they had 121 thousand Iraqis trained, when they in fact they only had 5 thousand? How she lied about the aluminumn tubes, and how sae had said they could ONLY be for Nuclear weapons of mass destruction, when she knew damn well that many weapons experts did not think that was so, and there was at that time a big debate, disagreement going on among the various departments about what those tubes could be used for. Did you hear them asking her why the hell they, (She, Chenney and Bush) were referring to Mushroom clouds, even after they knew there was no evidence of WMD,s?

Biden, Boxer, Kerry, all begging her to stop leaving out the full facts, stop Lieing to the American people.
Biden was in Iraq, talking to the general, who told him, "We only have five thousand Iraqis trained, while she is on TV here, along with Bush and Rumsfeld telling all of us there are 121 thousand.

If you folks on here can't deal with the fact that this administration is FULL if liars, that's your problem, but don't go around telling everyone else us we are the Naive ones, you're the ones who bought the whole Chicken Little Mushroom cloud BS that Bush Cheney and Rice used to sell this stupid war.


Gayle in Md. Sick of lieing republicans

eg8r
01-21-2005, 06:31 AM
Like I said before. I have no problem with anyone asking tough questions, it was a hearing. However, I am pleased to see you were not there, as your etiquette proves you would not be up to the task of acting like a professional. Apparently you and Boxer come from the line of thought.

[ QUOTE ]
Gayle in Md. Sick of lieing republicans <hr /></blockquote> LOL, and we are entertaining (meaning we get at chuckle at their expense) the clouded-biased-antiBush-agenda viewpoints of wannabe-Democrat Independents. So when will you be switching your voting card to Democrat? /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

eg8r

Gayle in MD
01-21-2005, 06:53 AM
IMO Ed, Senator Boxer behaved as any member of our Senate or Congress should behave given that it is now obvious to those of us who are unbiased enough to search for and accept the truth, that Bush, Cheney, Powell, and Rice, have lied and lied and lied regarding the felonious statements they all made while building a case to go to war in Iraq. The many books and interviews made by career professionals within our intelligence organizations have provgen beyond any doubt that they each lied over and over. And, it is a federal felony to lie or mislead the Congress of the United States, or any other federal government institution.
Therefore, I think that Senator Boxer was within her rights to make every effort to plead with this proven liar to stop lieing, either by statement, or omission, as did Senator Biden, and Senator Kerry.

As regards my own choice of words, I am furious that we as a nation have been lied to by this administration, and think that Bush should be impeached for breaking the federal law.

Gayle in Md. /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif

stickman
01-21-2005, 08:47 AM
Kerry Criticizes Election Outcome

He would have been fine with the outcome if he had won, don't you think? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

DickLeonard
01-21-2005, 09:23 AM
People blame the Ohio Company Diebold for the voting failure
in the future they want push screen machines to print a ticket to prove the man you voted for is on that ticket.

I just hope that all our aide gets to the country of Tsuamii.####

eg8r
01-21-2005, 09:59 AM
[ QUOTE ]
IMO Ed, Senator Boxer behaved as any member of our Senate or Congress should behave given that it is now obvious to those of us who are unbiased enough to search for and accept the truth <hr /></blockquote> Before you go any further, I would like to remove your biased viewpoint from the word "us". There is no way on earth you can lie enough to get anyone here to believe you are unbiased. I don't care how many times you say it.

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, I think that Senator Boxer was within her rights to make every effort to plead with this proven liar to stop lieing, ... <hr /></blockquote> I dropped off the end because we all know Kerry has lied plenty in the past year, and I really don't know all that much about Biden. Anyways, here is a quote from an editorial in the WSJ. Care to comment? [ QUOTE ]
In an unpleasant exchange yesterday, Boxer confronted Rice with the usual Angry Left line, that BUSH LIED!!!! about Iraq. But it turns out Boxer is the one taking liberties with the truth:

Rice: It wasn't just weapons of mass destruction. He was also a place--- his territory was a place where terrorists were welcomed, where he paid suicide bombers to bomb Israel, where he had used Scuds against Israel in the past.

And so we knew what his intentions were in the region; where he had attacked his neighbors before and, in fact, tried to annex Kuwait; where we had gone to war against him twice in the past. It was the total picture, Senator, not just weapons of mass destruction, that caused us to decide that, post-September 11th, it was finally time to deal with Saddam Hussein.

Boxer: Well, you should read what we voted on when we voted to support the war, which I did not, but most of my colleagues did. It was WMD, period. That was the reason and the causation for that, you know, particular vote.

Presumably when Boxer says "I did not," she means that she didn't vote to liberate Iraq, not that she didn't read the resolution. But the the resolution itself (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&amp;docid=f:pub l243.107) <font color="red"> makes clear that Rice was right:</font color>

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait; . . .

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Ignorance is actually the more charitable explanation for Boxer's misrepresentation of the resolution's contents. If in fact she did read it, her own integrity is a matter of question.

And here's another apparent Boxer falsehood:

You never even mention indirectly the 1,366 American troops that have died. . . . And 25 percent of those dead are from my home state.

According to Casualties.org, the number of California servicemen who've died is 157, which is about 11.5% of the total, less than half the proportion Boxer claimed.

<hr /></blockquote> Everytime the liberals say the war was unfounded and they don't agree with the war, they should look to see who actually DID vote for the war, and maybe take a second to read the link to see what we went to war for. It seems most of your "proof" is simply crap you have read in a news article. Go to the source and read it. You seem to be doing all this reading but I have yet to hear about your opinions on the actual resolutions that were written.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
01-21-2005, 10:42 AM
Look Ed, you and I can debate forever as far as I am concerned, but don't call me a liar. I supported Bush, (as you proved when you brought up an old post of mine) in the beginning, just as many in the Senate and Congress did, until we all learned about the lies we were told by his administration about WMD's. Other investigations on my own part, since that time, have proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we were in fact lied to, knowingly, but Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell, they all lied, period.

Lieing before a Congressional hearing is a felony. He should be impeached, and the rest of his bunch should be thrown in jail, as far as I am concerned.

As I have stated before, the books I have read were written by many frustrated career individuals who were in place at the CIA, FBI, NSC and other Government Agencys charged with National Security, and Intelligence who were outraged over the lies told by this bunch of trigger happy idiots.

The truth is what it is, there were no wespons of mass destruction, which was his stated reason for going to war, there were none, had been none, and no sight of any in the future.

Now if you are so biased you don't care if the President of the United States lies to you, and it ends up that 2.6 US soldiers are dieing per day, that is your look out, and your business, but don't come on here quoting a bunch of BS from neocon sources and calling me a liar.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
01-21-2005, 11:35 AM
You are right, I should not use the word lie, liar, etc. I believe it would only be prudent for you to try and do the same thing (however we both know, you probably will not accept such reasoning). I also don't think you should group yourself in the "unbiased" group. It simply is not true.

[ QUOTE ]
I supported Bush, (as you proved when you brought up an old post of mine) in the beginning, just as many in the Senate and Congress did, until we all learned about the lies we were told by his administration about WMD's. <hr /></blockquote> I don't know if you are ignoring the truth, don't know the truth, just don't care about the truth, but let's see if the rain will seep through the concrete...All the "lies" you refer to have been circulating LOOOOOOONNNNGGGG before Bush ever took office.

[ QUOTE ]
As I have stated before, the books I have read were written by many frustrated career individuals who were in place at the CIA, FBI, NSC and other Government Agencys charged with National Security, and Intelligence who were outraged over the lies told by this bunch of trigger happy idiots.

<hr /></blockquote> I am not sure if anyone has said this to you, but no one cares about the "books" you have read. Go read the real documents. I thought it would help by giving you a link, apparently you ignored it. For some reason you continue to perpetuate the lie that we went to Iraq only for WMDs. I don't care how you splice it, that is a lie. You are calling Bush, Cheney, etc liars for doing the same thing, so to you, if the shoe fits...

[ QUOTE ]
Now if you are so biased you don't care if the President of the United States lies to you, and it ends up that 2.6 US soldiers are dieing per day, that is your look out, and your business, but don't come on here quoting a bunch of BS from neocon sources and calling me a liar.
<hr /></blockquote> LOL, more of the same mentality. You like to twist things. No matter what I think, it has nothing to do about you perpetuating lies. Take some responsibility for you own actions, and quit worrying about me. I will come on the board and post how I feel, and you will find a way to get over it. If you continue to call them liars for doing the same thing you do, don't be so fragile to not believe you will be group alongside them. As you said so yourself, the truth is what it is.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
01-21-2005, 02:34 PM
Yes, the truth is what it is, Ed, and the truth is that I gave him the benefit of the doubt, until I did some research and found out that he lied. They all lied. His stated reason for going into Iraq was Weapons of Mass Destruction. It was the threat of Mushroom clouds, and smoking guns which was used to garner support from the American people and the Senate and Congress. Thas was all we heard about for months. Meanwhile the Weapons inspectors were asking for more time to look, but Bush didn't want them to have it because he made up his mind to go to Iraq before 911 ever happened, then used 911 as a reason for going, inspite of the fact that Bin Ladden hated Saddam.

The career people in our intelligenct organizations knew he lied to the American people, and that Bush, Cheney, rice and Rumsfeld all built a false case for going to war over there. This is the reason why Democrats are up there begging this woman to stop lieing to them. She had a nerve yapping about her integrity being impinged, what integrity? She a liar, period.

Really, the amount of evidence out there which proves what I am saying is massive. But, you tell me, where are the weapons of mass destruction?

BTW, Did you watch the hearings Ed? I'd be willing to bet that you didn't. Do some reading, Ed, check out "Uncovered, the Truth About the War In Iraq" or are you too biased to do such a thing?

Now Cheney's already out there gearing up for Iran. This administration has already destroyed our credibility around the world, and driven away our allies, we are under-represented in Iraq right now for the mess he's made over there, and what does he do at the Innauguration? Send out a message to the world that there's more where this came from. The man is going to destroy us. He's an egotistical maniac, just like the despots in other countries whom we abhor. He's pushing Europe right into China's hands, they will end up allies against us if he doesn't watch out. So now what's he going to do if the Iranians want to rise up, jeeze, how many wars are we going to have to fight for people around the world? He's out there telling the world that... we'll be there to do your dirty work if you want us to.

We don't need a president out there threatening other countries with more pre-emptive strikes. He's beginning to remind me of Hitler with his freedom on the march BS. Yet our own borders are open, our chipping crates are not secure, terrorists are in THIS country, and moreover, we can't even settle Iraq long enough for those people to vote even if they wanted to, which remains to be seen. Your the one who needs to open your eyes up if you ask me. Aren't you the one who's always yapping about taking care of America first?

Gayle in Md.

DickLeonard
01-23-2005, 11:00 AM
When we found no weapons of mass destruction, we should have pack up, put Saddam back in power said I am sorry. When a foreign power kills G.W. Bush for killing innocent prisoners in Texas,innocents in Iraq and we have weapons of mass destruction. Their actions will be legitimate.

This man is starting to think like Hitler.####

SPetty
01-23-2005, 11:36 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> ...kills G.W. Bush for killing innocent prisoners in Texas...<hr /></blockquote>Huh? I must have missed something. I thought Texas killed convicted murderers. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif I don't recall any issues with any death row inmates being innocent and being put to death as directed by a jury of their peers in a legal trial...

DickLeonard
01-23-2005, 12:23 PM
Read last weeks New Yorker about the prosecutor in Tuscon that was disbarred for sending innocent people to Jail for murder. Barry Scheck in his Innocent Prisoner Crusade has freed 170 people from Death Row.

But George had no qualms about saying no tomorrow is the Day. Us Northerners know George should have been in Jail for using insider information to sell stock. The only difference between him and Martha Stewart was he was never asked the Question that Martha Lied to.####

There are so many Innocent people on Death Row that the high court thinks a moratorium on executions is the only answer.####

nAz
01-23-2005, 02:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> weapons of mass destruction. Their actions will be legitimate.

This man is starting to think like Hitler.#### <hr /></blockquote>

How is that possible? A.H. was said to have a higher IQ then GWB (that is not saying much i know) /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Dude I'm sure many innocent people have been wrongly executed in this country but it will never be stopped there are too many blood thirsty people out there.

Qtec
01-23-2005, 08:22 PM
Note the dates.
CLAIM: “We found the weapons of mass destruction.”

– President Bush, 5/29/03

CLAIM: "We know where the WMDs are.”

– Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/30/03

CLAIM: “The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.”

– President Bush, 3/19/03



[ QUOTE ]
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm
2/24/01

SECRETARY POWELL: I received a very warm welcome from the leaders and I know there is some unhappiness as expressed in the Egyptian press. I understand that, but at the same time, with respect to the no-fly zones and the air strikes that we from time to time must conduct to defend our pilots, I just want to remind everybody that the purpose of those no-fly zones and the purpose of those occasional strikes to protect our pilots, is not to pursue an aggressive stance toward Iraq, but to defend the people that the no-fly zones are put in to defend. The people in the southern part of Iraq and the people in the northern part of Iraq, and these zones have a purpose, and their purpose is to protect people -- protect Arabs -- not to affect anything else in the region. And we have to defend ourselves.

We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. <font color="blue"> He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.</font color> He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.
<hr /></blockquote>

Before 9/11 the US was SURE Saddam didnt have any WMDsand after 9/11 they are suddenly SURE he did have them?????...........and now they are sure again he doesnt.
Mistake or deliberate deception?

Q

Oh, BTW. From the same interview.

[ QUOTE ]
QUESTION: (summarized) Are you aware of the sale of oil outside Iraq?

SECRETARY POWELL: Yes, we are aware of the extent to which Iraq is selling oil outside of the oil-for-food constraints. It probably represents ten per cent of their total income and it is troubling to us. But the bulk of the oil still comes out of the oil-for-food program and I will be talking to our friends in the region about how we can do a better job of tightening up the leakage in the oil-for-food system.


<hr /></blockquote>
Do you detect a pattern here?

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

Wally_in_Cincy
01-24-2005, 08:41 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> ...he lied. They all lied. His stated reason for going into Iraq was Weapons of Mass Destruction....

<hr /></blockquote>

If you really think he knew that there was no WMD don't you think he would have had the CIA plant some there?

Do you really think he would have gone to war knowing there was no WMD and knowing how bad it would look on him when none were found?

Gayle in MD
01-24-2005, 09:52 AM
Well, Walley, since you have said that you only read two books a year you wouldn't know about this, but most in the CIA, were upset with Bush because he was pressuring all of them to support his determination to go to war with Iraq after 911. Actually sending memos back to them and telling them to "RE-Think, and re-write" This is why so many career intelligence experts have written books telling the truth about Bush refusing to focus on the al Qaeda intelligence, and instead set about distorting information about Iraq &amp; alQeada to fit his Iraq war agenda. The CIA would have been the last folks willing to help him plant WMD's. They would have exposed a plan like that immediately.

Many knew that Saddam wanted his enemies to think he had them, and the experts also knew that none had been created since the early nineties. They also knew that, for example, the plants that had manufactured nerve gas and such, had long been vacant. Also, the shelf life of such biological weapons is three months, so even if any were left, it would not have been a threat.

Those NSC and CIA investigative departments who knew the truth, and who had been rebuffed by Bush when their intelligence didn't not support his agenda were said to have a total morale devastation when they saw Powell hold up that vile in the U.N. with Tenet perched behind him like a potted plant, misleading everyone there.

The truth is that the sanctions were working, and had the investigators been allowed to continue their search there, this war would never have happened. At any rate, most well advised people in the intelligence arena do not consider intelligence a worthy instrument for determining whether or not to occupy a country and start a war. The public statements made by Bush during his Address To The Nation, were absolute lies and exaggerations, and yes, he knew it, and should be impeached.

It has been proven that occupations don't work, many many times. For more proof, just tune into your local new show this evening.
Do I really think he would have gone to war knowing the no WMD's would be found? I think he WENT to war knowing that none would be found, but he didn't care about that, he wanted over there one way or another, and Cheney and Rumsfeld knew that before 911, and used 911 through their distortions of the facts, to their own means.

Let us not forget, Saddam threatened to assinate Bush Senior, and Halliburton has made more money off this war than any. They all had a history of sucking up to the OIL dictators long before 911, and were part of the errors by the US in the middle east from way back. Kerry was absolutely right when he said that going to war should be a last resort, and if you go, you better damned well be prepared and have a thorough plan. And you better make damn sure that the rest of the world understands beyond a shadow of a doubt, why you went, and that you can prove that you went for the right reasons.
Gayle in Md.

Wally_in_Cincy
01-24-2005, 10:01 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Well, Walley, since you have said that you only read two books a year you wouldn't know about this,... <hr /></blockquote>

Yeah you're right Gayle. I don't know sh*t. You're the freaking genius around here.

Gayle in MD
01-24-2005, 10:11 AM
Nice try Walley, but I don't claim to be a genius. I am simply stating that this is the kind of information you don't generally come accross unless you read books written by those who were involved at the time. Sorry if I ofended you, that wasn't my intention. I happen to think of you as being intelligent. I think all those who post here are intelligent.

Gayle in Md. The Purpose of conversatin is now agreement.

eg8r
01-24-2005, 11:27 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Do you detect a pattern here?
<hr /></blockquote> Do you have the guts the hear the answer? /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

It is apparent that you have no desire to read the truth, since it was linked, and I mentioned it. So, what do you do, you go on a little google hunt to ONLY search out what YOU view to be the truth and quote that. Fine, so be it. Maybe one day, when you would like your opinion to matter you will at least take a look at the information provided and comment on it.

eg8r

eg8r
01-24-2005, 11:37 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, the truth is what it is, Ed, and the truth is that I gave him the benefit of the doubt, until I did some research and found out that he lied. They all lied. <hr /></blockquote> This is funny, is your "research" the paraphrased stuff you have read from these books? Regurgitating someone's "viewpoint" from a tell-all book, which was written in a way to cast blame on others and not take any responsibility, is hardly considered research. Whatever else is included in your research is unknown to us, so no need to bring it up.

Anyways, I find it quite comical that you give these "authors" a free ride on their testimony. You have yet to question anything they have said. Because they wrote a book and it had an anti-Bush agenda you accepted it for face value. Did any of your research back up some of these claims in which these authors say to be true? A lot of this stuff also happens behind closed doors, and I don't care how much research you do you will never have the full answer.

[ QUOTE ]
His stated reason for going into Iraq was Weapons of Mass Destruction. <hr /></blockquote> If you believe WMDs were the ONLY reason (which is what you have insinuated) then you must be deaf, and/or blind. I have given you a link, and it is apparent you are ignoring it.

Since you refuse to acknowledge the real portion of my post, I really don't see any point in reading your post any further.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
01-24-2005, 01:05 PM
As usual Ed, you take things out of context and put your own twist on them. The resolution, as far as I am concerned, is not the issue. The issue is, did Senator Boxer have a right to press Rice on her failure to stand before the Senate and Congress and tell the whole truth about the reasons for going to war. IMO, she had every right, along with Biden and Kerry, as that is the whole reason for her to be there, to answer the questions of those who will vote yea or nay.

Did they have a right to question he honesty? Everyone who goes before that body goes for that purpose, to have their integrity questioned, and to have their past performance questioned.

You ask if I think that WMD's was the only reason that Bush went to war with Iraq. I have never said that that was his reason, I have said that was not his reason. It was the reason he gave, and the emotional tool he used, he used it to promote his desire, which existed before 911 occured.

Senator Boxer is just a Senator, she will not be a gathering point for intelligence, and decision making, in terms of decisions regarding war. She will not be advising the president along those lines. Rice will have that job. It is Rice's honesty and intentions which are the issue here.

Rice backed up his plan, which was concieved in confusion and arrogance and carried out in Kaos. If she did it once, she'll do it again.

Bush is an arrogant, dangerous man who squandered the support of the world after 911, destroyed our credibility in the world with his Mushroom Cloud BS, occupied a country which represented no immediate threat to our nation, ignores the organization who does pose an immediate threat, ("I never think about bin Laden" GWBUSH)places the burden of the deficit on the backs of those who can least afford it, changes the meaning of the scriptures in the bible to fit his policies, and claims a mandate to do more of the same, when he only recieved a 2.7 margin of the popular vote, the lowest ever by an incumbent president (And in Wartime) I don't hae to read ANY boks to figure that out!

Gayle in Md. Funny how a man who is supposed to be so religeous makes not one mention of poverty in this country or in the world, in his inaugural speach, when the bible has tow to three thousand references to poverty.

hondo
01-24-2005, 01:25 PM
Mouse, don't you think it's dangerous arguing with a cat?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> Sorry Cat,

I didn't really vote for Kerry either....I VOTE AGAINST BUSH....lol <hr /></blockquote>

Deeman2
01-24-2005, 01:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Read last weeks New Yorker about the prosecutor in Tuscon <font color="blue"> Is this in Texas?</font color> that was disbarred for sending innocent people to Jail for murder. Barry Scheck in his Innocent Prisoner Crusade has freed 170 people from Death Row.

But George had no qualms about saying no tomorrow is the Day. Us Northerners know George should have been in Jail for using insider information to sell stock. <font color="blue"> </font color> Like Hillary did? The only difference between him and Martha Stewart was he was never asked the Question that Martha Lied to.####

There are so many Innocent people on Death Row that the high court thinks a moratorium on executions is the only answer.#### <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> Why not? You're much more likely to die of old age than be executed in the U.S. unless you are sentenced in your early twenties or in Texas. </font color>

eg8r
01-25-2005, 10:12 AM
[ QUOTE ]
As usual Ed, you take things out of context and put your own twist on them. The resolution, as far as I am concerned, is not the issue. The issue is, did Senator Boxer have a right to press Rice on her failure to stand before the Senate and Congress and tell the whole truth about the reasons for going to war. <hr /></blockquote> Nothing was taken out of context. You chose to dwell on the lie that we went to war strictly because of WMDs. If you are willing to step down from that insurmountable lie, that is fine. If not, reference the link.

I have said it already twice I believe, Boxer had every right to question Rice, IT WAS A HEARING!!!! No one is questioning this, the problem was that she was unable to act professionally. Condi handled it like a pro, so much, that I doubt Boxer could duplicate the same reaction put in the same position. Condi was the professional up there, Boxer was the childhood bully.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
01-25-2005, 10:47 AM
Since you don't even know which books I have read, it is interesting that you are so sure of not only the content, but the context, and surely no matter what my sources would be, you would shoot them down.

I do not think that WMD's were the ONLY reason for going into Iraq. I do think that WMD's were the emotional trigger used by Bush, Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Powell.

I do think that they exaggerated the threat posed by Sadam.

I do think that failure to abide by sanctions was the other main issue.

I do think that something eventually had to be done about Iraq.

I do not think that Bush handled the issue in the best way.

I do think that he failed to plan for the aftermath of the occupation, and that historically, ocupations are not successful.

I do think that Bush has damaged our credibility in the world.

I do think that it is wrong to go to war unless it is the last resort, and that he did not go as a last resort.

I Know that Rice lied about the Aluminumm Tubes.

I do think that Boxer had every right to question her vigorously about that and other misinformation this administration used to justify going to Iraq.

I do think that Boxer had a right to expect a truthful answer from Rice, which she did not get.

I do not think that Boxer failed to handle herself according to traditional behavior acceptable for the arena in which she was operating, and under the conditions prevailing, and that Rice refused to be honest, and used the whole "Impune my integrity" BS as a way to deflect the fact that she wouldn't get off he stonewalling, and that the republican party will now play the race card as further distraction.

I do hope for all our sakes, that we succeed in bringing peace to the middle east, since we are already there, and that there are certain recent events over there which are to our benefit at this time in that regard, but I wouldn't bet the farm on success, given the history of the area, and the complexities involved.

I do not think that it is wise for us to portray to the world that we intend to occupy other countries as a new policy in order to use military force to promote our form of government, ie, freedom and liberty.

I do think that we have other more pressing issues ( China, Russia, the deficit, illegal aliens, energy independence, and the environment, to name a few) which are being left by the wayside because this president was hankering for war with Iraq before he was even elected, and that he and his administration used 911 as a vehicle to do what they already had decided to do before they "Won" the 2000 election.

I do think that a patriot, which I consider myself to be, owes their country support at all times, and their government support when it deserves it, to quote Mark Twain...

I think, Ed, that probably both of us would back up the two women questioned as regards their behavior and delivery according to which one portrayed the opinion which represented our own point of view.

Also, I think it is silly to argue about these things, and that accusing other people of being emotional because they have a different point of view is silly. We are all biased according to what we believe in, it's a given, no need to argue about it IMO. "the purpose of conversation is not agreement"

Gayle,

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
01-25-2005, 12:26 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Since you don't even know which books I have read, it is interesting that you are so sure of not only the content, but the context, and surely no matter what my sources would be, you would shoot them down.
<hr /></blockquote> How could anyone have so much time to read any more books than the library you have mentioned here already. I really don't care about which books they are. Since I am unclear as to vastness of your research/recollection could you identify some of the books you have read in which the author's intent was to show Bush in a negative light, while also taking personal blame for the matters at hand. Are all these authors perfectly vindicated from all short-comings?

What you seem to IGNORE is that all these people were in office prior to W and they never got anything done. WAKE AND SMELL THE COFFEE!!!!!!!

eg8r

Gayle in MD
01-25-2005, 11:08 PM
I suggest you access the Senate Link and read the eloquent statement of Senator Byrd, or try to catch it on C-span. In it, he lists clearly the whole history of this deceitful administration, as regards this war. It is full of documentation which is proof of everything which I have posted here about Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld and Cheney. An actual step by step recounting of how we as a nation were deceived and our Constitution compromised by Bush, and, BTW, almost word for word to my own posts on here during these last months

I don't "Owe" it to you or to anyone to list my reading material. It is one thing to disagree with my opinions, to call me a liar is something else. Apparently, by reading or by just being a part of the Senate, and observing this admisistration, Senator Byrd has come to exactly the same conclusions as I, Senator Boxer, and several other Senators whose names escape me at the moment, but whose testimony is also avaiable on C-Span, and on the Senate Web site.

You, being so very un-biased and non partisan, should consider watching the hearings, instead of apparently just taking the word of Bill O'Reilly, the biggest hypocrite on television.

Gayle in Md. I'm done with this debate.

eg8r
01-26-2005, 06:45 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I suggest you access the Senate Link and read the eloquent statement of Senator Byrd, or try to catch it on C-span. In it, he lists clearly the whole history of this deceitful administration, as regards this war. <hr /></blockquote> Once again, quit looking for someone elses interpretation, go to the facts, the real document in which was voted on. Bush might be able to bowl over the American public because they are not privy to certain information, however, this same information is provided to Congress and to previous administrations. Nothing in there is new and all of these informed Congressmen voted in favor. The document is there for you to read, and one day when you are willing to have an open mind you might read it.

eg8r

PQQLK9
01-26-2005, 03:45 PM
Hey Susan and all ... This program is airing on Court TV Thursday 1/26/05 at 9 PM eastern time.
http://www.courttv.com/movie/
http://www.courttv.com/graphics/movie/exonerated/new_splash/characters.jpg
"The Exonerated" tells the griping story of six death row inmates who, in the face of new evidence, are exonerated before their execution.