PDA

View Full Version : Bush STUDDER



Sid_Vicious
06-29-2005, 05:37 AM
I admit that I plagarized this from another board, but it impressed me as to it's rhetoric and expressive nature. It concerns a speech recently made by Bush, basically saying we've learned absolutely nothing, and it should be an insult.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

During Bush's STUTTER tonight, Bush will:

1.) Find a way to agree with both Rumsfeld (12 years +) and Cheney (last throes). America will go to bed no knowing which is the truth.

2.) Speak of troop withdrawal, but will give excuses for no time table whatsoever. America will go to bed not knowing when or if ever we will leave.

3.) Attempt to close the credibility gap between Rumsfeld's admission that the U.S. will never defeat the insurgency, and the constant deception of the administration about how close we are to defeating them.

4.) Define our mission as this: Helping Iraq to become a free democracy capable of defending themselves. Americans realize this could take another 2000 years because we are dealing with religious law and differences, not just differences of governing opinion. For this reason, the insugency will never go away (see Israel/Palestine). Rumsfeld himself stated that the U.S. will NEVER defeat the insurgency.

The STUTTER will leave you wondering everything you are wondering now, and it futher solidify in you mind that this administration never had a plan, still doesn't have a plan, and they will continue to spin their absence of a plan into a ball of confusion and call it a plan. "

eg8r
06-29-2005, 09:46 AM
I know that you don't read my replies but to the others who might have open mind here is another view of Bush's speech... <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Neal Boortz:</font><hr> BUSH GETS IT RIGHT

Last night President Bush spoke for just under a half hour to the soldiers gathered at Fort Bragg, North Carolina and explained why the United States of America is not going to cut and run out of Iraq. Naturally, Democrats came unhinged at Bush's confident assessment of how things were going in Iraq. Among the points the president made:

<ul type="square"> The war in Iraq is a vital front in the war on terror that began on September 11, 2001. Any mention of 9/11 in the same sentence as Iraq sends Democrats into a state of hyperventilation. The facts are the facts: Saddam Hussein supported terrorism, sheltered terrorists, had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction and would have sold those weapons to terrorists.
We are not going to cut and run. The United States invaded Iraq, liberated that country and has promised to stay until the job is done. The left, in an attempt to relive their Vietnam war protest days, would like us to just pull out and Zarqawi and his boys take over Baghdad.
There will be no announced pull-out date. For some reason, Democrats and a few Republicans think we should leave Iraq on a date certain. This would be the worst possible strategy for the reasons Bush mentioned last night. The biggest reason is that the Islamic terrorists would just wait until we left, then take over. And take over they would. I think it's fair to say that any person who states that we should set a date for our withdrawal from Iraq is either (a) as dumb as a load of bricks; or, (b) actually desirous of seeing the U.S. suffer a defeat in Iraq. [/list]
The Poodle was on Larry King Live last night complaining that Bush said fighting terrorism was now the "third rationale" for invading Iraq. If he would put down his 'baby killers go home' sign from the 1960's long enough, he would realize that we're long past the point of talking about the invasion. That was over two years ago. What we're dealing with now is establishing a free and democratic Iraq (which we have done,) writing a new Constitution and democratically electing new leaders (we're almost there,) and training security forces so they can take over when we leave (a work in progress.) By any measure, we're succeeding in Iraq.

The job in Iraq takes as long as it takes. The Islamic killers won't let up, and neither should we. There is only one choice here and that is to stay the course and get it done.

<hr /></blockquote> Neal adresses point 2 in your quoted text quite nicely.

eg8r

Drop1
06-29-2005, 12:48 PM
Good to see two points of view. I'm tired of the red state blue state mentality that has polarized the citizens of this country,to the extent we can't talk to one another. I thank the news media and their shabby tactics in working for ratings,and not information. We have to look past Bush,and find the next leader,for the new world order. Will home land security free us,or imprison us? We need answers,and those are going to come out of the disagreements we have as to where America is going. I salute the two of you.

Gayle in MD
06-30-2005, 10:36 AM
Tap Tap Tap....
Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
06-30-2005, 11:26 AM
This is total BS. In order of points made;

Our occupation in Iraq has increased the number of terrorists, and spread terrorist cells globally.

9/11 had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq, or S.H.

S.H. was at the time, and is still to this day, the least potential threat to the United States, both in terms of terrorist support, and Nuclear potential, among the countries which are likely candidates for nuclear attacks against the U.S.

The left, (many democrats) is on the news media constantly, admitting that now that we are in this mess, we have no choice but to see it through, but with some accountability from the administration which has started a war without a plan for peace.

Being aware of the extreme war profiteering by the right, AKA Dick Cheney and political friends of the Bush Administration, the left demands accountability, and the truth about the war, from Bush.

Due to a fortune missing in funds from American Taxpayers, for the war, the left demands accountability and the truth about the war, from Bush

Due to the lack of a plan for the peace, after the occupation, and the proper use of funds to re-build Iraq, the left demands accountability from Bush.

Due to the mis-use of funds to provide decent living conditions, which in turn would lead to a more civil circumstance in that country, the left demands accountability from Bush.

Due to increasing numbers of insurgents, and suicide bombings, and the failure to train the Iraqis to assume more responsibility for their freedom, by fighting for their own democracy, the left demands accountability from Bush.

Due to the obvious public contradictions of key Bush administration officials to the press, the left is demanding the truth, for once, from those who are responsible for this mess in the first place.

Due to the fact that more and more people from the right and the left are finally realizing that Bush and his administration lied to us from the start, the left and many from the right, are demanding that Bush provide a plan for gradual withdrawal by...

Closing the borders of Iraq to prevent more insurgents from entering.

Accounting for missing funds.

Training Iraqis in a reasonable amount of time.

Telling the truth about the munber of trained Iraqis.

Finding and capturing O.B.L.

Realizing that this mess in Iraq has done nothing but distract the U.S. from the realistic and true threats to, and attacks against our country.


Everything, absolutely everything that John Kerry said about this war has turned out to be true. A free Iraq, does absolutely nothing to protect us from another 9/11.

Those who continue to spread the lie that we are winning in Iraq, do our country a great diservice. The truth is the truth, and to say that we have established a free and democratci Iraq is an absolute LIE. A free country does not require a massive, miles wide, circular road block on voting day.

We are failing in Iraq by every factual, educated estimate. Read a few BOOKS!

The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over, and expect a different result...Ocupations don't work!

Gayle in Md.

nAz
06-30-2005, 01:32 PM
I found this intresting... and not for nothing a lot of Americans are starting to wake up and wonder how much truth there is in all this %90 or a %100.

Remembering bin Laden

Much has been made this week -- and rightfully so -- of the president's repeated references to 9/11 during his speech on Iraq Tuesday night. Less has been said about his invocation of Osama bin Laden's name, and we think it's time to rectify that.

Time was, George W. Bush didn't mention bin Laden much. In March 2002 -- just six months after saying he wanted bin Laden "dead or alive" -- the president said that he didn't know where bin Laden was and that he didn't really care. "You know, I just don't spend that much time on him," the president said at a March 13, 2002, press conference. "I truly am not that concerned about him." It showed. By Dan Froomkin's calculations, Bush mentioned bin Laden's name in public just 10 times between the beginning of 2003 and August 2004 -- all but four of them coming in response to direct questions about the al Qaida leader. (By contrast, Bush uttered the name of Saddam Hussein about 300 times during that same period.)

But by the time the presidential race rolled into the fall, bin Laden was back in heavy rotation -- even if the president sometimes got him mixed up with Saddam Hussein. "Of course we're after Saddam Hussein -- I mean bin Laden," the president said during his first debate with John Kerry. In that same debate, Kerry noted that bin Laden was using "the invasion of Iraq in order to go out to people and say that America has declared war on Islam." Bush took offense: "My opponent just said something amazing," Bush said. "He said Osama bin Laden uses the invasion of Iraq as an excuse to spread hatred for America. Osama bin Laden isn't going to determine how we defend ourselves. Osama bin Laden doesn't get to decide. The American people decide."

Fast forward to the president's speech Tuesday night, and what do we have here? George W. Bush, justifying the war in Iraq by quoting Osama bin Laden. Addressing those who "wonder whether Iraq is a central front on the war on terror," Bush said: "Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama bin Laden: 'This Third World War is raging' in Iraq. 'The whole world is watching this war.' He says it will end in 'victory and glory, or misery and humiliation.'"

And that's not all the president had to say about bin Laden. A few minutes after suggesting that bin Laden does, in fact, have something to say about how Americans defend themselves, the president said that "the only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September the 11th, if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi, and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like Bin Laden. For the sake of our nation's security, this will not happen on my watch."

The problem is, it sort of already did. Before the Iraq war began, the Bush administration had "several chances" to wipe out Zarqawi's terrorist operation "and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself," NBC News reported last March. Bush "never pulled the trigger. Why not? Because, NBC said, the administration feared that destroying a terrorist camp in Iraq would "undercut its case for war against Saddam." As for bin Laden, the story has been told often: The U.S. had a shot at capturing bin Laden in Tora Bora in late 2001, but he slipped away when Afghan warlords rather than American troops were given the job of sealing off escape routes.

Bush said back in 2002 that he was "not that concerned" about bin Laden anymore because the U.S. had "shoved him out more and more on the margins" and because he "has no place to train his al Qaida killers anymore." That's not true anymore, of course. Even if Bush wants to treat victory in Afghanistan as a fait accompli -- and with 17 U.S. troops presumed dead there this week, it may be a little early for that -- his own CIA will tell him that, since the U.S. invasion in 2003, Iraq has taken on the role Afghanistan once played as a training ground for al Qaida and other Islamic extremists.

So Zarqawi? Bin Laden? Yeah, we remember them. Thanks to the president's work so far, they're pretty hard to forget.

-- Tim Grieve

eg8r
06-30-2005, 01:58 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Our occupation in Iraq has increased the number of terrorists, and spread terrorist cells globally.
<hr /></blockquote> This is complete B.S. You have no way of ever proving it and it is merely unfounded speculation.

[ QUOTE ]
9/11 had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq, or S.H.
<hr /></blockquote> Take a deep breath and read it again, he never said 9/11 had anything to do with Iraq or sh. To help clarify things, Boortz is referring to the war on terror. This is explained in the first sentence of his first bullet. Tough to miss.

[ QUOTE ]
S.H. was at the time, and is still to this day, the least potential threat to the United States, both in terms of terrorist support, and Nuclear potential, among the countries which are likely candidates for nuclear attacks against the U.S.
<hr /></blockquote> Strawman argument.

[ QUOTE ]
The left, (many democrats) is on the news media constantly, admitting that now that we are in this mess, we have no choice but to see it through, but with some accountability from the administration which has started a war without a plan for peace.

Being aware of the extreme war profiteering by the right, AKA Dick Cheney and political friends of the Bush Administration, the left demands accountability, and the truth about the war, from Bush.

Due to a fortune missing in funds from American Taxpayers, for the war, the left demands accountability and the truth about the war, from Bush

Due to the lack of a plan for the peace, after the occupation, and the proper use of funds to re-build Iraq, the left demands accountability from Bush.

Due to the mis-use of funds to provide decent living conditions, which in turn would lead to a more civil circumstance in that country, the left demands accountability from Bush.

Due to increasing numbers of insurgents, and suicide bombings, and the failure to train the Iraqis to assume more responsibility for their freedom, by fighting for their own democracy, the left demands accountability from Bush.

Due to the obvious public contradictions of key Bush administration officials to the press, the left is demanding the truth, for once, from those who are responsible for this mess in the first place.

Due to the fact that more and more people from the right and the left are finally realizing that Bush and his administration lied to us from the start, the left and many from the right, are demanding that Bush provide a plan for gradual withdrawal by...

Closing the borders of Iraq to prevent more insurgents from entering.

Accounting for missing funds.

Training Iraqis in a reasonable amount of time.

Telling the truth about the munber of trained Iraqis.

Finding and capturing O.B.L.

Realizing that this mess in Iraq has done nothing but distract the U.S. from the realistic and true threats to, and attacks against our country.


Everything, absolutely everything that John Kerry said about this war has turned out to be true. A free Iraq, does absolutely nothing to protect us from another 9/11.

Those who continue to spread the lie that we are winning in Iraq, do our country a great diservice. The truth is the truth, and to say that we have established a free and democratci Iraq is an absolute LIE. A free country does not require a massive, miles wide, circular road block on voting day.

We are failing in Iraq by every factual, educated estimate. Read a few BOOKS!

The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over, and expect a different result...Ocupations don't work!
<hr /></blockquote> Any chance you could point out where in this you are referring directly to either of the last two bullets from Boortz. I don't have time to continually reading the same rant over and over, looking for that one sentence that had anything to do with the subject. If you point out the bullets that specifically address the quote then I would be happy to discuss.

The second bullet talks about us finishing the job (the left does not want us to do that). They want us to cut out and run.

The third bullet is no announced pull-out date. This is critical and makes perfect sense. These terrorists are very patient and will sit and wait it out.

eg8r

eg8r
06-30-2005, 02:09 PM
[ QUOTE ]
9/11 had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq, or S.H.
<hr /></blockquote> Well, I guess Boortz was reading your mind. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Boortz:</font><hr> NO CONNECTION ... MY A$$

More thoughts about the president's speech at Ft. Bragg on Tuesday evening. Amazingly, the left now seems to have developed a new rule. The president is not allowed to mention the terrorist attacks of 9/11 when talking about the war in Iraq.

OK .. here's what's at work here. The left knows that the American people still harbor harsh feelings toward the Islamic terrorists who killed 3000 of their countrymen on 9/11. The left also knows that the American people will not have any kind feelings toward anyone with any connection, no matter how tenuos, with the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. Since the left is placing its hopes on any possible electoral gains in 2006 to discrediting Bush's actions in Iraq, they know that they must stand steadfast in their battle to use whatever means necessary, even lies, to make sure that nobody -- and certainly not the president -- is allowed to connect Iraq and Saddam Hussein with Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda.

The truth is that there is no shortage of evidence that there were contacts between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. We'll detail some of those associations on the air today ... but if you can't listen to the program here's one source you might want to take a look at. It's an excellent article appearing on the online edition of National Review Andrew McCarthy makes the case that " It's All About 9/11 (http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200506290912.asp) " Yes, there's a link there .. but I would not recommend this article to any of you leftists out there who can't handle the truth about this matter. There's also an excellent editorial on the National Review website, " The Day that Binds (http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200506291143.asp) " which puts forth the premise that you simply cannot make the case for the removal of Saddam without reference to 9/11.

The troubling question here is in light of all of the documented evidence that there were contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda .. and the evidence that some of Saddam's henchmen might have participated in the early planning of the 9/11 attacks, why do so-called "journalists" will actually write or state things like "everybody knows that there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda" or "It's been proven that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11? These people have access to the same information that I do or that you do .. information that shows those connections. They can't plead stupidity. The information is out there. It's in the report from David Kay. It's in the 9/11 Commission report ... it's there, yet it's existence is continuously denied by so many in the mainstream media. <font color="red"> And apparently our own Gayle. She holds some heavy hitting company. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif </font color> Why?

Well ... let's try to answer the "why." As I said, it can't be ignorance. So what's at work here? How about bias? Could it be that these "journalists" are consciously practicing the "big lie" technique? Even though they know better, do they constantly make absolute statements such as "Everybody knows that there's no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda" in an attempt to convince the American people of something that they know full well isn't true? And why would they do that? To carry forth an anti-Bush Administration agenda?

You figure it out .. .then let me know.

<hr /></blockquote> I have not read the two linked pieces just yet, but I don't think there is anything new in there. Just another perspective than your own.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-30-2005, 02:36 PM
Hey Ed, get off the internet, Turn off the TV, and read some BOOKS!

BTW, ever noticed how when Bush lies, he always follows the lie with a chuckle?

And ever noticed how when Laura swears to his lies, she continuously shakes her head no, the whole time she is talking and lieing, LMAO!

I'm so happy God is still talking to Bush, it's gonna save a lot of lives, NOT.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
06-30-2005, 02:42 PM
Hi Naz,
I've seen a number of documentaries which show the actual footage of Bush's lies and contradictions, taken directly from the footage of his interviews and public addresses. Very revealing, and deniable.

Gayle in Md.

Qtec
06-30-2005, 09:39 PM
[ QUOTE ]
It's in the report from David Kay. It's in the 9/11 Commission report ... it's there, yet it's existence is continuously denied by so many in the mainstream media. <font color="blue"> And apparently our own Gayle. She holds some heavy hitting company.</font color> Why?
<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="brown">Maybe because its not true!</font color>


[ QUOTE ]
9/11 Panel Denies Al-Qaeda-Iraq Linksb - By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - In a direct challenge to recent assertions by both
President George W Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, the
special bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001
terrorist attacks against New York and the Pentagon has found <font color="blue"> "no
credible evidence" of any operational link between Iraq and
al-Qaeda.</font color>

While the commission, which has had access to highly classified
U.S. intelligence, said that al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden had
sought contacts with and support from former Iraqi President
Saddam Hussein after his expulsion from Sudan in 1994, those
appeals were ignored.

Contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda after bin Laden moved to
Afghanistan "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative
relationship," according to the commission's report, which was
released Wednesday morning. It added that two senior al-Qaeda
officials now in U.S. custody "have adamantly denied that any
ties existed between al-Qaeda and Iraq." <hr /></blockquote>


Q

theinel
07-01-2005, 01:15 AM
Do you care to discuss the original question which is the impossibly different positions expressed by Cheney/Bush and Rumsfeld on the state of the insurgency?

No one is arguing that 2. we wont cut and run or that 3. announcing a pullout is irresponsible (some politicians are asking for timetables because they have the responsibility of making legitimate budget projections) but that 1. Iraq and SH are 911 related has been soundly refuted by all including Republican led inquiries.

eg8r
07-01-2005, 04:19 AM
[ QUOTE ]
but that 1. Iraq and SH are 911 related has been soundly refuted by all including Republican led inquiries. <hr /></blockquote> Your post is no more than a strawman argument. You are referring to the first bullet and no where in the first bullet does the author say Saddam and 9/11 are related. Until everyone (usually the Left) actually reads what is said and comments on that specifically there is no point in continuing this discussion.

To put it in my own words...Boortz stated that we are in a war on TERROR. This war began because of 9/11. We destroyed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and now we are moving forward with the next person who creates TERROR. NOT THE NEXT PERSON WHO WAS INVOLVED WITH 9/11. This is a war on terror, not a war on just the people involved with 9/11.

I am hoping you might read the caps section, not as yelling, but with emphasis. Your strawman argument of no SH-9/11 relation is moot because that was not what the bullet was saying.

eg8r

eg8r
07-01-2005, 04:24 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Hey Ed, get off the internet, Turn off the TV, and read some BOOKS!
<hr /></blockquote> Hey Gayle, get your head out of the mud. Your BOOKS are not telling the whole truth and are BIASED beyond belief.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, ever noticed how when Bush lies, he always follows the lie with a chuckle?
<hr /></blockquote> I guess you basing this statement on your loose interpretation of a lie.

[ QUOTE ]
And ever noticed how when Laura swears to his lies, she continuously shakes her head no, the whole time she is talking and lieing, LMAO!
<hr /></blockquote> Have you ever stood by your man, or do you leave him out to dry?

Another entire post of yours in which you choose not to address the subject matter. Thumbs up for keeping to you guns.

eg8r

eg8r
07-01-2005, 04:29 AM
[ QUOTE ]
9/11 Panel Denies Al-Qaeda-Iraq Linksb - By Jim Lobe..."no
credible evidence" of any operational link between Iraq and
al-Qaeda.

<hr /></blockquote> What is your, never mind you won't answer the question anyways. So do you think this link was the point of the whole post? Or did you choose to mention only this specific portion. I seem to remember you being unable to comprehend this sort of thing in another thread, thought I might point out your activity is along the same lines.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
07-01-2005, 04:49 AM
Obviously meant to say, undeniable...Wolfdancers post about aging was right on for me, LOL.

Gayle in MD
07-01-2005, 04:56 AM
Hey Ed, I guess you don't think the Little Bushy told us that S.H. and B.L. were allies? Guess you don't think Little Bushy distorted the facts of 9/11 to connect B.L. to S.H. and 9/11. Man, I'm beginning to worry about you. You're way too young to be suffering from short term memory loss.



Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
07-01-2005, 05:16 AM
LMAO...Ed, since you don't have my book list, don't you think you are being a bit closed minded, and biased? I know you don't read any books written by those people who are actually involved in the controversial issues surrounding Bush and Bush's War, because you are always on here disputing things that have been proven and accepted as fact by the rest of the world.

If Bush wanted to invade and occupy any place on the globe, you'd be on here justifying whatever he did, and yet you're always accusing everyone else on here of being closed minded.

If you would read a few books by authors who were on the inside at the time of 9/11 and the following years up until today, you'd see how foolish you appear to those of us who have done the reading.

You are the one famous for not addressing the subject matter. The subject matter is, what's the deal when the top three figures in the Bush administration don't agree about the current facts regarding the circumstances of the enemy. You argue over things that ARE facts. As for lies, if they come out of republican mouths, you won't take off your blinders for a moment.

Stand by you man? Now to what man are you referring? If you're talking about blindly following anyone who I know to be a liar, hell no, and who has a record of inefficiency and stupid decision making, namely, Little Bushy, hell no.

Haven't you noticed, our young folks don't want to follow him either, that's why they can't get them to sign up to go fight in this stupid war.

Unlike you, when I see that things are getting worse, and the powers that be are denying reality, and contradicting one another, I get mad. Now, do you deny that they contradicted one another, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush? Even John McCain didn't back Cheney up on his most recent lie that the Insurgents are in their last throes? Now tell me Ed, How the hell do you account for that?

BTW, you're in Naz's most recent cartoon with me, LMAO.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
07-01-2005, 05:30 AM
Our Occupation in Iraq has increased the number of terrorists and spread terrorist cells globally.
Gayle
This is total BS. You have no way of ever proving it and it is merely unfounded speculation.
Ed

Ed, if you deny this fact, which has been proven and agreed upon by every study, spoken of and acknowledged around the world, literally shown day to day in the news media, referred to by the right, and the left, and discussed almost every sunday on both Meet The Press, and Face The Nation, written about in all the Newspapers, and both Time and Newsweek magazine, you have a real serious reading and listening comprehension problem.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
07-01-2005, 05:37 AM
The war didn't begin because of 911. The war began because Bush had plans to invade Iraq before he took office, and I do mean "Took"

Al Qaeda has not been destroyed. Its leader hasn't even been captured, FYI.

Iraq wasn't overun with terrorists until we invaded. Our invasion of Iraq was the creation of the "Hot bed of terrorism" which your man Bush referred to in his own speach, while of course failing to take responsibility for creating the situation in the first place.

Read Some Books Ed.

Gayle in Md.

Qtec
07-01-2005, 05:42 AM
<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;
9/11 Panel Denies Al-Qaeda-Iraq Linksb - By Jim Lobe..."no
credible evidence" of any operational link between Iraq and
al-Qaeda.

<hr /></blockquote> What is your, never mind you won't answer the question anyways. So do you think this link was the point of the whole post? Or did you choose to mention only this specific portion. I seem to remember you being unable to comprehend this sort of thing in another thread, thought I might point out your activity is along the same lines.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>



In your initial post;
[ QUOTE ]
The facts are the facts: Saddam Hussein supported terrorism, sheltered terrorists, had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction and would have sold those weapons to terrorists.

<hr /></blockquote>

This guy thinks assumptions are facts?

What these propagandists never offer is a MOTIVE.
ie,
Why would Saddam risk EVERYTHING on a bunch of Religious Fanatics[ BTW his enemy ]living in caves in Afgahistan ??? What would Saddam gain by giving the US an excuse[ a real excuse] to invade Iraq and topple him from power???
If the US had even the smallest shred of concrete proof, it would have been on every channel for a month.



Q

Gayle in MD
07-01-2005, 05:56 AM
Tap Tap Tap!

All good and true facts. The right is so used to accepting the propagandist lies of this administration, unfortunately, they no long recognize facts as facts.

Saddam hated bin Laden. Saddam is an egomaniac, who resented the power of bin Laden. This has been spoken of and written about by every terrorist expert. The right just doesn't want to admit that they've been manipulated and lied to from the start by this administration.

Fighting a war with Iraq does absolutely nothing to keep us safe, or destroy terrorism around the world. NOTHING.

The whole Bush premise is a joke. All that he has done is make everything worse than it already was, the statistics prove that.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
07-01-2005, 05:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Hey Ed, I guess you don't think the Little Bushy told us that S.H. and B.L. were allies? Guess you don't think Little Bushy distorted the facts of 9/11 to connect B.L. to S.H. and 9/11. <hr /></blockquote> I think the biggest distortion has been the left and their ability to comprehend what they read. This is evident in this thread alone. You guys have screwed up what Boortz said so badly you don't even remember what he was talking about.

eg8r

eg8r
07-01-2005, 06:05 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The war didn't begin because of 911. The war began because Bush had plans to invade Iraq before he took office, and I do mean "Took"
<hr /></blockquote> You are so misguided about the truth, and frankly this post is insulting to those who lost their lives in 9/11.

[ QUOTE ]
Al Qaeda has not been destroyed. <hr /></blockquote> In Afghanistan, it has. That is what my post said. This is one of the comprehension issues I mentioned in my last post. This is the distortion that the left continues to do to lie to the public.

[ QUOTE ]
Iraq wasn't overun with terrorists until we invaded. <hr /></blockquote> This is ignorance and I believe it is best you stop, before you invite me over to have coffee with you and Saddam. Iraq was completely overrun by a terrorist. The only reason why you did not see any car bombs then was because the terrorist ALREADY HAD CONTROL! We have dug up hundreds of thousands of bodies in mass graves that would all tell you that you are perpetuating a lie, had they had the chance to continue their life instead of being killed by the terrorist running their country.

eg8r

eg8r
07-01-2005, 06:17 AM
So Q, you continue in the same vein, thinking this one small minute section is what the post was about. You don't continue to amaze me, as this has been your pattern from a long time ago.

[ QUOTE ]
What these propagandists never offer is a MOTIVE. <font color="red"> I think you are playing dumb and stringing along your lefty buddies here on the board. Only someone fostering ignorance would not already know the motive was the defeat of the US. Quit playing these games. </font color>

<hr /></blockquote> Once again, you are still only using one talking point which is not what the post was completely about.

eg8r

eg8r
07-01-2005, 06:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Q:</font><hr> This guy thinks assumptions are facts?
...What these propagandists never offer is a MOTIVE. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle:</font><hr> Tap Tap Tap!

All good and true facts. <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> That is what you call facts, and even give him a tap tap tap? I cannot even begin to wonder how excited you get when a real fact comes across. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif The first statement of q's (quoted above) could loosely be construed as a fact, as best anyone knows since we don't know exactly where Boortz gathered his data for that piece. The second one is hardly a fact. Motive has been mention plenty of times, you guys just have your heads in the mud and can't see the forest for the trees. Now listen (read) closely, the motive was DEFEATING THE US!

eg8r

eg8r
07-01-2005, 06:27 AM
[ QUOTE ]
LMAO...Ed, since you don't have my book list, don't you think you are being a bit closed minded, and biased? <hr /></blockquote> No not really, you have plastered it all over this forum one time or another? Or are you secretively reading Coulter and not telling anyone? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
07-01-2005, 06:31 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Ed, if you deny this fact, which has been proven and agreed upon by every study, spoken of and acknowledged around the world, <hr /></blockquote> Well if they are this well known, please list the studies. I don't want to hear about Meet the Press, Face the Nation, or anything else, the politicians are the not the people doing these studies. I don't figure you have read these studies but if so, please enlighten me to the actual study and not your, or any other politicians, interpretation.

eg8r

Qtec
07-01-2005, 06:35 AM
Whatever.

Here is a fact for you.
1 out of every 3 homeless people in the US is a veteran!

Q....... /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif..it seems hero,s are quickly forgotten.

eg8r
07-01-2005, 06:42 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Here is a fact for you.
1 out of every 3 homeless people in the US is a veteran! <hr /></blockquote> What does that have to do with the price of wheat?

eg8r

Sid_Vicious
07-01-2005, 06:45 AM
"Fighting a war with Iraq does absolutely nothing to keep us safe, or destroy terrorism around the world. NOTHING.

The whole Bush premise is a joke. All that he has done is make everything worse than it already was, the statistics prove that."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anyone with just a glimmer of a crack in their usual closed minded status can see that this situation, engineered and promoted my Bush, has created a breeding ground for new terrorists, some of whom may never have gone to that decision. What this war has done is just the opposite, we now have a bigger group of terrorists than before, AND THAT MAKES US MORE UNSAFE, certainly not safer...sid

Qtec
07-01-2005, 06:46 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The second one is hardly a fact. Motive has been mention plenty of times, you guys just have your heads in the mud and can't see the forest for the trees. Now listen (read) closely, the motive was DEFEATING THE US!
<hr /></blockquote>

Another assumption without ANY basis in fact or logic.

eg, The US claims that Saddam was doing his best to get sanctions lifted. How would supporting a bunch of fanatics that he would have TOTALLY no control over, help him in that cause?

Truth is eg8r, you cant think of one logical reason that S would support terrorism against the US.

.......cos if he did, and got found out, he would be in the position he is in now.

Q

Qtec
07-01-2005, 06:59 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a fact for you.
1 out of every 3 homeless people in the US is a veteran!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does that have to do with the price of wheat?

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Nothing, but it does have something to do with the length of the war.
Q

eg8r
07-01-2005, 07:46 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Another assumption without ANY basis in fact or logic. <hr /></blockquote> No basis in fact that Saddam would want to defeat the US. As far as this subject is concerned you are being foolish.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
07-07-2005, 06:06 AM
FYI, the individual who has insulted the victims of 9/11, is your man George Bush, the same George Bush who tried to stop the 9/11 investigation, and even went so far as to cut off funds for the investigation. There is nothing in my post which insulting to those poor people.

Since al Qaeda was destroyed in Afghanistan, wonder how they pulled off their most recent terrorist attack this morning in London?

Most insulting statement regarding the victims of 9/11...

Subject, bin Laden....

"I don't know where he is, /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gifI don't think about him." /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Gayle in Md.