PDA

View Full Version : Something missing?????



pooltchr
06-08-2006, 03:18 PM
I shouldn't be surprised that no one has had anything to say about the killing of al-Zarqwi. It's hard to put any spin on the story that would make GW look bad, so it's probably best left alone. Wouldn't want to talk about anything good that happened on GW's watch, cause we might have to admit to a major accomplishment in the war on terror.
First Sadam, now al-Zarqwi, you don't suppose OBL might be next do you?
Steve

wolfdancer
06-08-2006, 04:01 PM
Steve, I only caught part of the news....did George shoot him down himself? hope he was wearing that snazzy pilot's jacket....
Well, it is good news.....but there's probably another 10 ready to take his place, and prove themselves with even greater terror attacks.

pooltchr
06-08-2006, 04:47 PM
Come on, Wolf. This guy was the leader in Iraq...he personally beheaded two hostages in front of a tv camera.
If it had been OBL, would you have said the same thing..."No big deal, there are 10 others ready to take his place."? Maybe some of those were in the same building at the time of the attack. Maybe we got one, along with a couple of potential future killers. Is it really that difficult to actually be positive about something that happens under this administration?
A wise man told me that the way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time. Well, the way to fight terrorism is one terrorist at a time. I think we took a pretty big bite today.
And no, GW did not push the button. But if he is held responsible for all of our dead servicemen, as some on this board keep saying over and over, well then, he is also responsible for today's victory. You can't have it both ways.
Steve

wolfdancer
06-08-2006, 06:01 PM
Steve, I was just needling you. It is good news, and it does set them back.....

pooltchr
06-08-2006, 06:42 PM
We're good, Wolf. I just find it odd that some of the more outspoken members of this board have been so silent on this major news story. (Well, not really, I guess I'm just needling them a little bit)
Steve

Qtec
06-08-2006, 07:14 PM
Why didn't they try to take him alive? They knew where he was but they didn't even try.

Q?

Drop1
06-08-2006, 07:50 PM
What if you tried and failed?

Cueless Joey
06-08-2006, 09:03 PM
We'd rather talk about Gay marriages. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
I hope the ahole rots in hell with his co-fellow pigs.
Waste of oxygen.

nAz
06-08-2006, 09:52 PM
Steve Like you i believe in giving credit where credit is due... not sure how much of this i will give to W BWTF he can have it all,(probably won't help his pols # much) Im just happy that the SOB is out of circulation.

You know in many ways he is a bigger target then OBL... but like most people I hope that this will make things better in Iraq for out troops and for those poor innocent poeple there.

BTW just remember to give blame where blame is due. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

errr i just thought maybe this is not big news after all... the stock market didn't respond... ahh maybe Iran and Afganastan will come around /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Gayle in MD
06-09-2006, 02:59 AM
I wonder how many terrorists there are, all told, around the world. I've never read any estimates, have you? I'm glad that W. got the bad guy. Now, if he would just zero in on getting bin Laden, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld, I'd really be impressed, LOL.

Gayle in Md.
One down, ???,000,000 to go.

Sid_Vicious
06-09-2006, 03:54 AM
"BTW just remember to give blame where blame is due."

And a lot of it...this latest event has to be taken in proper relationship to the blame...sid

Deeman3
06-09-2006, 05:29 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Why didn't they try to take him alive? They knew where he was but they didn't even try.

Q? <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Q,

Why would we ever want to take this animal alive? So you could defend him and tell us he is really not as bad as GWB!

He beheaded many people personally. If he had been caught alive, you would have demanded he have military prisoner status and be given an Islamic diet, a Koran and made comfy. We just saved a bunch of time and money with two five hundred pound bombs.

Now, you can morn him in yoiur own quiet way. </font color>

Deeman

DickLeonard
06-09-2006, 05:33 AM
Pooltchr I won't believe it till I put my hands is his wounds. This Administration has Made Me the Ultimate Doubting Thomas.####

pooltchr
06-09-2006, 06:10 AM
Yeah, and you probably think that Armstrong never really walked on the moon either. You don't seem to have a problem believing anything bad that the opposition has to say about the administration. If you want to pick and choose what you want to believe, that's fine.
Steve

Gayle in MD
06-09-2006, 06:37 AM
BWA HA HA HA HA...YOU, talking about picking and choosing, HA HA HA HA, Pahleze, my sides are hurting!

I really don't know why the right, obviously, if one reads this thread, wants to project that those of us who are greatly disappointed with obvious incompetence of the worst and most crooked administration in history, are not thrilled with news that one of the Islamist pigs have gone to their maker. It reminds me of the republican BS about Democrats wanting to give the terrorists therapy, total BS spread around by Rove, and other righty pundits. One thing is for sure, when it comes to slinging around total BS, and painting a completely false picture of reality, and of Democrats, the right wing neocons have got it down to a science!

I'm glad they got Zarqawi,... will it end this war? No. Will it bring our troops home, and get them out of the mess George Bush has put them in the middle of....NO. Did Bush have him in jail once already, and let him escape, YES.

Now, if we could only get the man responsible for 9/11, it will be years too late, but it will be a good thing. We had him also, atleast once, maybe twice, but this administration's fixation on Iraq, and Saddam, allowed him to escape. For once, tell it like it is.


Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
06-09-2006, 07:34 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>
I really don't know why the right, obviously, if one reads this thread, wants to project that those of us who are greatly disappointed with obvious incompetence of the worst and most crooked administration in history, are not thrilled with news that one of the Islamist pigs have gone to their maker.
<font color="blue"> Well, it might be the fact that you didn't post a rant about this event but had a bit of obscure news about GWB's high school photo come out, you would have posted a whole page on it. </font color>
For once, tell it like it is. <font color="blue"> O.K This is a small vistory in a long conflict that will not be over until there is freedom in Iraq or a democrat in the white house who can slither away and leave the poor people of Iraq to their own devices. Most of us don't mind your repeated ad naseum regurtation of the same old accusations but you could simply accept that some things go right and not blog every thread with the same drivel, time after time, after time. You define any faith as bad and vilify all Christians as the far right radical evangelicals when most are simply beleivers in something you do not, not wild eyed savages. You actually denounce the American Christians while never critizing the Islamic radicals. None of us on here every held up Jerry Falwell as a beacon but you tag us with his every act. Most go to small quiet churces and struggle with our own conviction of faith but none I know every even remotely considered bombing a birth control clinic. You would deny any of us a minor celebration of one good piece of news if you believed it furthered your hatred of all things Christian, male and anit-Bush. and That's like it is.</font color>

Deeman

pooltchr
06-09-2006, 08:13 AM
Dee3,
Very well stated!
Steve

wolfdancer
06-09-2006, 12:32 PM
Interesting bio
web page (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200607/zarqawi)

Qtec
06-09-2006, 08:16 PM
Whatever gave you the idea that I would defend Z? Or Saddam or any other terrorist who uses indiscriminate violence.
Just because I think that the Iraq war was unneccessary doesn't mean that 'I love Saddam'? This is how ridiculous political debate has become since GW became President. This is classic Coulter/Limbaugh trash. If you are against the war you hate the troops,etc etc. "A vote for Kerry is a vote for Al Q!" I dont swallow that crap. It doesn't wash. Its a strawman to avoid discussing the issue.

If Z is the leader of the insurgency then he should have a lot of valuable info that would help the US. Capturing him alive is far better than killing him because now he is a martyr and someone else will just take his place.The fact is, they didn't even try to capture him.

Will his death stop the killing or accelerate it?

Revenge is not a foriegn policy, its a desire that arises from an emotion.
Z might have had info on 9/11!
He might have had info on the posible link between Saddam and Al Q.
He might have known where OBL is at!

In capturing Z, GW has the chance to get real info on the insurgency in Iraq and to show the world that he was not wrong in invading Iraq because Z could confirm the link to Al Q.
If you were in GW's shoes, wouldn't you want the guy alive?
You would do if you believed you had been telling the truth!
Q.......... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif.

Drop1
06-10-2006, 05:31 PM
Americans love trash,always have,and always will. I think there might be a trash gene,that exists only in America. Now if I were Bushie,and faced with killing Z,or capturing him alive,I would ask former President Carter. He has some experience in choices of this nature. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Deeman3
06-12-2006, 07:07 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> .

If Z is the leader of the insurgency then he should have a lot of valuable info that would help the US. Capturing him alive is far better than killing him because now he is a martyr and someone else will just take his place.The fact is, they didn't even try to capture him. <font color="blue">

Q, Why would capturing him be better? You would not have us torture him for information. Do you think he would "come around" under the duress of a luxury prison and a right to a criminal trial. </font color>

Will his death stop the killing or accelerate it? <font color="blue"> It does asssure me that he will no longer kill anyone. </font color>

Revenge is not a foriegn policy, its a desire that arises from an emotion. <font color="blue"> He was killed by a bomb, not a squad requesting his surrender. It was not revenge, it was a tactical bombing of a terrorist leader who has killed many. </font color>
Z might have had info on 9/11! <font color="blue">Would you care to tickle his toes (perhaps an approved form of interrogation) to find out? These people are not going to roll over for anything less than 72 virgins. </font color>
He might have had info on the posible link between Saddam and Al Q. <font color="blue">At least you are acknoledging that possibility. </font color>
He might have known where OBL is at! <font color="blue"> I doubt ti. But again, I don't think he would have surrendered that info under normal interrogation rules. </font color>

In capturing Z, GW has the chance to get real info on the insurgency in Iraq and to show the world that he was not wrong in invading Iraq because Z could confirm the link to Al Q. <font color="blue">I am glad you are comng around to GWB's beliefs but proving that is only political, not a stregic importance. </font color>
If you were in GW's shoes, wouldn't you want the guy alive? <font color="blue"> Naw, I'd sleep better with him dead. </font color>
You would do if you believed you had been telling the truth! <font color="blue"> Remember, GWB does not care what the popular political opinion is, that's why he is staying in power despite the mis-information being spread about him. If it was true, he'd be indicted, impeached and hung. All presidents are unpopular in the middle of a war. GWB is almost as bad off as a few but not as bad off as some, Lincoln, Truman....

I do beleive you would like to have Z alive and then you could say we were mistreating him. </font color>


Deeman
Q.......... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif. <hr /></blockquote>

wolfdancer
06-12-2006, 08:17 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I am glad you are comng around to GWB's beliefs but proving that is only political, not a stregic importance. Remember, GWB does not care what the popular political opinion is, that's why he is staying in power despite the mis-information being spread about him. If it was true, he'd be indicted, impeached and hung. All presidents are unpopular in the middle of a war. GWB is almost as bad off as a few but not as bad off as some, Lincoln, Truman.... <hr /></blockquote>

Let's assume that you are right on in your assessment here that the war is justified and ole George is doing a fine job and in the best interests of the country........
Then it makes me wonder about our goals in the original Gulf War...we bombed the crap out of Iraq, supposedly to stop the Kuwait invasion....then we just walked away, and gave them another 10 yrs to plot/plan/ against us...or, were they just supposed to buy some Diebold machines and hold free, Fla. type elections?
Either George the first was wrong back (and our entire intelligence system) then, never dreampt that Saddam would attack NYC.....or his Satan's Spawn is wrong now.
As I remember George Bush...in the 90's claimed it would be a bad move to occupy Iraq.
Personally, I see it as a pi**ing contest...you can't wait to beat your daddy at golf, growing up. I also believe that GWB sees himself as a great man, some kind of heroic world leader, and this war would be his benchmark.
I also believe that in reality....the things that drive the man are oil,money,power....control the oil...and the other 2 fall in line.
And finally....GWB couldn't carry FDR's or HST's "jockstrap"
Those two men could give Mr. B the "5 out" in ethics, morals, honesty, leadership......
Of course neither one offered a tax cut to get elected.......
[ QUOTE ]
If it was true, he'd be indicted, impeached and hung. <hr /></blockquote>
Actually, he should be blindfolded, lined up against a wall, and....

Gayle in MD
06-12-2006, 09:51 AM
As usual, in the true republican tradition, facts are blown into unrecognizable accusations. You have never heard me degrade Christians, only the Christian Coalition for their political efforts to dictate how all others in this country may live their lives.

Deeman writes...
Well, it might be the fact that you didn't post a rant about this event but had a bit of obscure news about GWB's high school photo come out, you would have posted a whole page on it.
Nice try Deeman, but if you check, you'll find that I actually post few posts myself. More often than not, I am responding to posts, not originating them. And also, last I checked, I have a right to not approve of the president, and his policies, free will it's called, something that the republican party, and the right wing religious nuts would like to do away with, you included.

O.K This is a small vistory in a long conflict that will not be over until there is freedom in Iraq or a democrat in the white house who can slither away and leave the poor people of Iraq to their own devices.
Democrats do have enough sense to get out of unwinnable wars, and avoid pre-emptive attacks on countries which have never attacked America. IIRC, Eisenhower got us into Vietnam, Bush got us into Iraq, two stupid mistakes, both by republicans. There are few people, comparatively speaking, in this country who haven't awakened to the fact that this mess in Iraq was a huge mistake, and has been completely mishandled by Bush and Company. They get one bad guy, and you righties are ready to claim mission accomplished? HMMM...why does that sound familiar? There are thousands more to take his place, and while anytime our troops get on of them it is a good thing, that doesn't change the fact that going into Iraq was a huge mistake in the first place.

Most of us don't mind your repeated ad naseum regurtation of the same old accusations but you could simply accept that some things go right and not blog every thread with the same drivel, time after time, after time.

Very good description of the posts on this forum by the right, same old accusations against democrats, and the same old republican overblown story of success. I am as tired of the right wing drivel as you are of the democratic ideology, the difference is that 69% of the people in this country agree with my views on this war, while you and a few other righties on here have the distinction of falling into the definate KOOL AID INDUCED FAR RIGHT WING VIEW, your problem, not mine


You define any faith as bad and vilify all Christians as the far right radical evangelicals when most are simply beleivers in something you do not, not wild eyed savages.

Now, that statement is just a total lie. You do not know my religious or spiritual beliefs, nor will you ever, so don't pretend you do. My anti organized religion views do not mix "Wild eyed savages" with reasonable believers, only the believers who do not respect our countries tradition of separation of church and state, and those far right wing nuts who think they have a right to dictate to the rest of us, as I have stated many times. The fact is, and it is a fact, 45% of the religious right believes in the bible, LITERALLY, which is a good reason why there are still some misguided people, few, but some, who still believe what comes out of George Bush's mouth. I believe in religious freedom, just not religious dictatorship. There is a big difference.


You actually denounce the American Christians while never critizing the Islamic radicals.
Your SAME OL' SAME OL' republican diatribe, when one has a different opinion, you folks parlay that into support of the enemy, and distort the original point in the process. Tell me, if organized religion is so great, why is it always so prevalent in wrong doing, death and destruction? I suppose you'll deny that too. I have never denounced American Christians, just the Christian coalition which denounces human rights, and science, which is the core of the divide in this country.


None of us on here every held up Jerry Falwell as a beacon but you tag us with his every act.

Another huge false statement. Apparently you must take any and every statement I make about the right wing Christian nuts, personally. But, I and the others who do not support Bush, or this war, are not supposed to care when you accuse us non stop of supporting Islamic Terrorists?

Most go to small quiet churces and struggle with our own conviction of faith but none I know every even remotely considered bombing a birth control clinic.

I never said you did. Once again, you twist my writing into something it isn't, simply because you have a tendency to become so inflamed over anyone who doesn't support your Boy George, and his STUPID Mistakes, and I do mean STUPID!


You would deny any of us a minor celebration of one good piece of news if you believed it furthered your hatred of all things Christian, male and anit-Bush. and That's like it is.
Obviously, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. What truly is tiring is the way you continuously accuse me of hatred. As I have stated many times, hatred is not part of my personal philosophy, nor do I endeavor to dictate to others how they should live their lives. You again distort feminism, which is a woman's refusal to be dictated to by men, into hatred of men. Doesn't surprise me at all that a man like yourself might view it that way. That doesn't make it true, however. I LOVE men, have a wonderful husband, had a wonderful father, and most of my close friends ARE men, so don't talk about things of which you have absolutely no knowledge or familiarity. You and Steve both target me for NOT posting about Zarqawi's death, and then assume that I'm not happy he's dead? After three years we finally killed the worst guy in Iraq. You seem to only be aware of the fantasy and glory of war. My experience is quite different than any one on this forum, I see the results of this war. There is no glory in war, hence, I have no desire to celebrate, but you go right ahead, and obviously anyone who doesn't think that two or three dead alQaeda is the end of the war, or cause for huge celebrations, must be a terrorist. But you go right on ahead and continue to distort reality. What else could be expected from a right wing republican? Distortion and exaggeration, after all, both the heart of both Biblical and Republican doctrine. Not surprising that the right would like to parlay this accomplishment into another Mission Accomplished fanfare! I'm glad they got him. But, I'm sure that isn't enough. I'm not chanting Long Live King George Bush, so I must be a male bashing, anti Christian, Islamist terrorist. Typical republican thinking...just about an exact Karl Rove, Ann coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh reaction, in fact.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
06-12-2006, 10:15 AM
Tap Tap Tap...not to mention, if we hadn't had a republican majority, which has been much more interested in cushy free golf trips, and bribes, than in uncovering the truth about the election fraud, and also Bush's failure to address the impending attack on 9/11, which he had a month advance to address, he probably would have been impeached by now. This is why Rove is already trying to create anti Democrat sentimate linked to investigations. It is as though preventing investigations in the number one goal of republicans, and particularly George Bush. What are they hiding? This is the most overt covert bunch ever!

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
06-12-2006, 10:22 AM
Tap Tap Tap...\
Hey Q., had I read your post first, I wouldn't have bothered responding to Deeman's ridiculous premises and accusations.

Well written response, but don't expect righties to react positively to your honest truthful reasonable straight thinking, (I'm sure you don't) it isn't their way! They are, remember, the same people who glorify people like Ann Coulter.

Gayle in Md....is there some connection between Bush supporters, and those who love war?

Deeman3
06-12-2006, 11:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> As usual, in the true republican tradition, facts are blown into unrecognizable accusations. You have never heard me degrade Christians, only the Christian Coalition for their political efforts to dictate how all others in this country may live their lives. <font color="blue">Yes, you have stated that religeon is the root of all our wars, mistreatment of women, etc. You may have forgotten. </font color>

Deeman writes...
Well, it might be the fact that you didn't post a rant about this event but had a bit of obscure news about GWB's high school photo come out, you would have posted a whole page on it.
Nice try Deeman, but if you check, you'll find that I catually post few posts myself. More often than not, I am responding to posts, not originating them. <font color="blue"> Bull, you post a tirade of anti Bush no matter the subject matter that is being discussed. </font color> And also, last I checked, I have a right to not approve of the president, and his policies, free will it's called, something that the republican party, and the right wing religious nuts would like to do away with, you included. <font color="blue"> Yes, you have every right to "not approve" the president. It is that we all know you have told us 10,000 times. </font color>

O.K This is a small vistory in a long conflict that will not be over until there is freedom in Iraq or a democrat in the white house who can slither away and leave the poor people of Iraq to their own devices.
Democrats do have enough sense to get out of unwinnable wars, and avoid pre-epmtive attacks on countries which have never attacked America. <font color="blue"> Really, who got us out of Viet Nam? Nixon. Who got us out of WWII? </font color> IIRC, Eisenhower got us into Vietnam, Bush got us into Iraq, two stupid mistakes, both by republicans. <font color="blue">Eisenhower (R.) did not get us into Viet Nam. he sent a few military intellegence officers, The French were deeply entrenched, then Kennedy (D.) started military deployment, followed up by the biggest cold war deployment ever by Johnson (D.). </font color> There are few people, comparatively speaking, in this country who haven't awakened to the fact that this mess in Iraq was a huge mistake, and has been completely mishandled by Bush and Company. They get one bad guy, and you righties are ready to claim mission accomplished? <font color="blue">Please tell me how your little mind can turn my words of "a little victory" into the lie you are proposing "mission accomplished". Same old distortion of the facts and words you always serve up. </font color> HMMM...why does that sound familiar? There are thousands more to take his place, and while anytime our troops get on of them it is a good thing, that doesn't change the fact that going into Iraq was a huge mistake in the first place. <font color="blue"> Your opinion. </font color>

Most of us don't mind your repeated ad naseum regurtation of the same old accusations but you could simply accept that some things go right and not blog every thread with the same drivel, time after time, after time.

Very good description of the posts on this forum by the right, same old accusations against democrats, and the same old republican overblown story of success. I am as tired of the right wing drivel as you are of the democratic ideology, the difference is that 69% of the people in this country agree with my views on this war, while you and a few other righties on here have the distinction of falling into the definate KOOL AID INDICED FAR RIGHT WING VIEW, your problem, not mine <font color="blue">If you are totally guided by the polls, as you seem to be, the next ime you back a candidate, the polls should reflect your opinion, unlike it has for the past two elections. I know, I know, the elections were stolen in the night. Ha, ha, ha.... </font color>


You define any faith as bad and vilify all Christians as the far right radical evangelicals when most are simply beleivers in something you do not, not wild eyed savages.

Now, that statement is just a total lie. You do not know my religious or spiritual beliefs, nor will you ever, so don't pretend you do. My anti organized religion views do not mix "Wild eyed savages" with reasonable believers, only the believers who do not respect our countries tradition of separation of church and state, and those far right wing nuts who think they have a right to dictate to the rest of us, as I have stated many times. The fact is, and it is a fact, 45% of the religious right believes in the bible, LITERALLY, which is a good reason why there are still some misguided people, few, but some, who still believe what comes out of George Bush's mouth. I believe in religious freedom, just not religious dictatorship&gt; The is a big difference. <font color="blue"> Yes, and if a left wing person expresses any profession of faith, you would be lauding them for it. You see signs of dictatorship, every where in everything GWB does. You have no idea of anything outside the beltway and judge the 45% of Christians you say interpret the Bible as literal as less intellegent than you while your entire judgement is based on left wing "books" you read. </font color>


You actually denounce the American Christians while never critizing the Islamic radicals.
Your SAME OL' SAME OL' republican diatribe, when one has a different opinion, you folks parlay that into support of the enemy, and distort the original point in the process. Tell me, if organized religion is so great, why is it always so prevalent in wrong doing, death and destruction? <font color="blue"> See, the real Gayle is peeking through. </font color> I suppose you'll deny that too. <font color="blue"> I deny that most Christian activity is bad but know there is always some coruption in every activity or grouop. </font color> I have never denounced American Christians, just the Christian coalition which denounces human rights, and science, which is the core of the divide in this country. <font color="blue"> Then why denounce them? They have their opinion and they are not setting policy. There is no way if they only represent a small part of the electorate they will be able to change policy to any real extent. Your majority of liberals will oversome them and shue them out of office and power. </font color>


None of us on here every held up Jerry Falwell as a beacon but you tag us with his every act.

Another huge false statement. Apparently you must take any and every statement I make about the right wing Christian nuts, personally. But, I and the others who do not support Bush, or this war, are not supposed to care when you accuse us non stop of supporting Islamic Terrorists? <font color="blue"> I don't say you support them only that you give them much less criticism and scrutiny than you do your own people, soldiers and government. </font color>

Most go to small quiet churces and struggle with our own conviction of faith but none I know every even remotely considered bombing a birth control clinic.

I never said you did. Once again, you twist my writing into something it isn't, simply because you have a tendency to become so inflamed over anyone who doesn't support your Boy George, and his STUPID Mistakes, and I do mean STUPID! <font color="blue"> Then it might be wise to raise the I.Q. level of those you send up against him. </font color>


You would deny any of us a minor celebration of one good piece of news if you believed it furthered your hatred of all things Christian, male and anit-Bush. and That's like it is.
Obviously, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. What truly is tiring is the way you continuously accuse me of hatred. As I have stated many times, hatred is not part of my personal philosophy, nor do I endeavor to dictate to others how they should live their lives. <font color="blue">Hatered may not be a part of your vocabulary but you sure spout a lot of it here. </font color> You again distort feminism, which is a woman's refusal to be dictated to by men, into hatred of men. Doesn't surprise me at all that a man like yourself might view it that way. <font color="blue"> See, now you know what a "man like yourself" is and believe I am evil. </font color> That doesn't make it true, however. I LOVE men, have a wonderful husband, had a wonderful father, and most of my close friends ARE men, so don't talk about things of which you have absolutely no knoewledge or familiarity. You and Steve both target me for NOT posting about Zarqawi's death, and then assume that I'm not happy he's dead? After three years we finally killed the worst guy in Iraq. <font color="blue"> Yes, but as I said, if GWB had made any type of mistep, you would have posted several paragraphs on it. </font color> You seem to only be aware of the fantasy and glory of war. My experience is quite different than any one on this forum, I see the results of this war. <font color="blue"> A lot of us see the horrible results of this war. We see wounded in person, we see families that have lost sons and loved ones. Do you have special insite as you claim in being closer to our government then the rest of us? </font color> There is no glory in war, hence, I have no desire to celebrate, but you go right ahead, and obviously anyone who doesn't think that two or three dead alQaeda is the end of the war, or cause for huge celebrations, must be a terrorist. <font color="blue"> Never said that, you are again distorting what I have said. </font color> But you go right on ahead and continue to distort reality. What else could be expected from a right wing republican? Distortion and exaggeration, after all, both the heart of both Biblical and Republican doctrine. Not surprising that the right would like to parlay this accomplishment into another Mission Accomplished fanfare! I'm glad they got him. <font color="blue"> Oh. Now you are glad we got him, great. You have really stepped up there.</font color> But, I'm sure that isn't enough. I'm not chanting Long Live King George Bush, so I must be a male bashing, anti Christian, Islamist terrorist. <font color="blue"> No one has asked you to worship Bush, not even to agree or like him. It would just seem one post could go without blaming the entire ills of the civilized worold on him. </font color> Typical republican thinking...just about an exact Karl Rove, Ann coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh reaction, in fact. <font color="blue"> .</font color>


Deeman

Gayle in Md.


<hr /></blockquote>

Deeman3
06-12-2006, 12:24 PM
Ah! Forget it. As a frined once said,

"Trust me, dear Yorick, this unwary pleasantry of thine will sooner or later bring thee into scrapes ......."

So you liberals are all right and we are all wrong (left). /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif


Deeman

Gayle in MD
06-12-2006, 12:43 PM
Organized Religion IS the root of the Islamist Extremists philosophies and justification for killing, Deeman, and also organized religion and the bible, DID lay the groundwork for misogyny, and discrimination against women, and homosexuals. You southern boys should do a bit of reading occasionally, other than the bible, that is, and you could learn how misogyny was launched through the teachings of the bible and organized religion, from historians and sociologists who have written about it for decades. Speaking of which, I see you totally avoided answering my question,.... If Organized religion is so wonderful, why is it always so prevalent in wrongdoing?

Morman men in Utah, an organized religion, using children for their sex slaves, and opressing and dictating to their multiple wives,.....Catholic priests, molesting our children,..... terrorists launching religious Jiihad, religious nuts,.... bombing abortion clinics, history tells a dreary story of opression and war linked to organized religion. These are facts. And today, we have George Bush trying to write intolerance into the Constitution of our country, against the gay community, and supported by those loving spiritual religious folks like yourself, whom you defend.

As for the rest of your diatribe, it's full of personal insults as usual, you sweet Christian, you, and denials about what you originally posted. Your insults don't matter to me, in fact, I'm going to hire an illegal alien to do the job that this American doesn't want to do, answer your hateful, ignorant, insulting posts.

You can't defend your stupid decision to vote for this idiot, so you attack others who had the foresight to see through him from the start. Well, you only have about 30% of the people in this country who approve of him. 69% say they don't believe anything he says, and I am one of those. You admire Bush and Coulter, that's enough for me, why the hell would I give a damn about your opinions of me? And, your right about one thing, if not for the bible thumping right wing in the fly over states, we'd have enough people in this country sophisticated enough, and informed enough, that an idiot like George Bush would never have had a ghost of a chance to be president, even with Karl Rove behind the scenes, falsifying the elections results for him.

I will continue to post whatever I wish about George Bush, and this crooked bunch of repubicans, and disgusting religious fanatics that have hurt my country, and are so obviously on the take, and you will continue to attack me personally. The difference is that I write what I write because I love my country. You write what you write because you hate women, and liberal women in particular. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if you weren't the kind of controling man who would forbade his wife to work outside the home, or have a career. Both you and Steve display severe cases of misogyny, and homophobia. I'm quite sure I'm not the only poster who sees that.

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
06-12-2006, 02:41 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Both you and Steve display severe cases of misogyny, and homophobia. I'm quite sure I'm not the only poster who sees that.

Gayle in Md.
<hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue">

This is your logic. I never say anything about a homosexual and you find and suspect along with other posters that I am homophobic. You are not very rational are you? Just more liberal name calling.</font color>

Deeman

pooltchr
06-12-2006, 05:33 PM
Dee,

As a rather thoughtful poster had on a signature line here...some good advice:

Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

I try to limit my discussions to those who have more to offer than irrational rantings, paranoid observations, and name calling. Not mentioning any names, mind you. I suspect someone will take offense at this comment, but they would have to recognize those traits in themselves in order to be offended. Let's see what happens. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Steve

DickLeonard
06-13-2006, 05:10 AM
Gayle If Bush supporters loved war the Army would be overflowing with Recruits. They love sending others to War. "I have other more Important Things to Do".

Now with these lower Tax Rates I must hoard my money. Let the Poor go to War.####

DickLeonard
06-13-2006, 05:18 AM
Gayle according to my Sources George Bush was the best thing to happened to Terriorism. Enlistment is up tenfold. My sources also said Bin Laden outed al-Zar, he was giving the Muslims a bad name with his butchering.####

Gayle in MD
06-13-2006, 06:47 AM
Dick,
What I find most interesting about the death of Zarqawi, is that it was accomplished by a drone, launched and directed from right here in the good ol' USA, which is a huge commentary to John Murtha's stated policies, RE-DEPLOY TO THE PERRIFERRAL....how many lives, and how many billions could have been saved, had Bush listened to the ONE man in Wishington D.C. who had the courage to stand up and tell us the truth.

If we can get Zarqawi in the manner used, there is no reason for our troops to be in Iraq, other than oil, and more money for Cheney's Halliburton, and a few other of their corporate cronies. Bush says the press dosen't give us the good news, pretty funny, considering Iraq is in such complete kaos that the press can't leave their hotel rooms. Even when Congressmen and Senators go to Iraq, they still don't know what the hell is going on over there, since they can't leave the green zone, it's too dangerous.

Murtha has said all along, only the Iraqis can settle Iraq, and build their own democracy, and his predictions all along have been that Bush would have no choice, finally, but to see that he MUST DRAW DOWN OUR TROOP LEVELS...he said that we would see, that he was right. That we would see the administration lower their standards for exit, and begin to negotiate with the Iraqi Parliament to give us an out. Camp David is the beginning of that prediction coming true.

Now, for the first time since Bush made the HUGE and momentous mistake of going into Iraq, there is talk of drawing down troop levels, just as Murtha said all along. Unfortunately we paid for Bush's and Cheney's stupid policies, with the lives of nearly 2500 troops, and over eight thousand permenantly injured, Iraq is the most dangerous place on the globe, the top one tenth of the richest in our country have greatly increased their wealth, the poor and middle class have lost their shot at the American Dream, Bush has paid for the war and the tax cuts by borrowing money from China, while Bush and Cheney's wealth has trippled, along with their corporate fascists friends, while the average middle class and poor have gone deeper and deeper in debt, trying to make ends meet.

Ronald Reagan and George Bush have destroyed fifty years of American Industrial Progress, and the Contract With Americans, is no more. Our present Contract, as Americans, is to support the children of uneducated illegal aliens, so that corporations can continue to build false economic reports, as they rack up profits on back of cheap froeign labor, which will cost the rest of us, along with our children, massive debt and loss of industry and jobs, as we relinquish our sociaol security benefits to the out of wedlock children, and parents, of illegal aliens working the system.

Bush is selling us out with his secret Oil deals, and war profiteering, instead of addressing the pressing energy problems we face. Now, our airlines are at risk of being taken over by our enemies. But, republilcans are still lining up for more Kool Aid.

The true question is, will there still be enough stupid kool aide drenched bigots around to slurp up more of the Karl Rove mud slinging lies and distractions from this nation's pressing, urgent problems, to maintain the Repiglican policies which have led the United States into a THREE AND ONE HALF TRILLION DOLLAR FOREIGN DEBT TO CHINA???

Our ONLY hope of saving our country lies in destroying the republican majority on the hill. We can only hope that the majority of Americans are finally ON TO ROVE, and that they will vote against every republican on the hill, and every Amnesty favoring Democrat, and that this next election will not be thrown by Rove and his anti-american Republican partners in the destruction of American Democracy with yet another election fraud attack on our system.

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
06-13-2006, 07:02 AM
Steve,

Good advice. I'll try to heed it. Hey, did you see where they are not going after Karl Rove? I guess some convicted him just a little too early. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Deeman

Qtec
06-13-2006, 07:11 AM
People will admit to anything under torture. Thats the problem. During the Spanish Inquisition, thousands confessed to being witches and were burned at the stake. This same phenomenon also happened in America!

By taking out the 'house of cards' the Admin is not eliminating terrorism, its covering its tracks!
Q

Qtec
06-13-2006, 07:16 AM
This is a real boost for the GOPs. Somebody DIDN'T get indicted! LOL Well done guys. LOL

I,m sure sweet Karl is totally innocent.

Q... K is too much of a sneak to get caught holding the babay!

pooltchr
06-13-2006, 07:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> This is a real boost for the GOPs. Somebody DIDN'T get indicted! LOL Well done guys. LOL

I,m sure sweet Karl is totally innocent.

Q... K is too much of a sneak to get caught holding the babay! <hr /></blockquote>

Well, they certainly spent enough time investigating him. I think the fact that they didn't find anything worthy of an indictment in all that time says something. Maybe it was just a big fishing expedition in the wrong lake.
Steve

Gayle in MD
06-13-2006, 07:50 AM
You didn't say that marriage should be between a man and a woman? You haven't written that gays should not be allowed to marry? I think you might want to check the Acrhives...

Gayle in MD
06-13-2006, 08:03 AM
Vivaca Novak saved his ass when she went to his lawyer with her warnings about what her fellow reporters were going to testify, that Rove, in fact, did tell them about Plame.

What a shame, he has managed once again to avoid his due. Slick, all he had to do is follow Reagan's example, "I can't remember." Loss of short term memory, seems to be a republican Phenomena, guess all those drugs and alcohol are finally taking their toll???

The rep. spin for the day..."If we had listened to John Murtha, we wouldn't have gotten Zarqawi." LMAO...we got him with a drone, troops weren't even involved, Murtha's plan would have been to use the same method.

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

Deeman3
06-13-2006, 08:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> You didn't say that marriage should be between a man and a woman? You haven't written that gays should not be allowed to marry? I think you might want to check the Acrhives... <hr /></blockquote>

What I have said is that if marriage is allowed between same sex couples, then you should allow multiple wives, etc. This would them be equal protection under the law. To say you will change the law to allow gays to marry and then prevent polygomy, would be unfair, discriminatory and unconstitutional. This is not homophobia.

Just because I believe in a society that identifies with traditional legal marriage, does not mean I do not favor Gay unions or that same sex activities frighten me.

While I do believe men and women are intended, from a physical and even scientific bais to have sex to procreate, I also believe that activity is a legitimate recreational activity as well. If inserting your penis into the waste discharge area of another man is what makes you tick, then, by all means, do so. I just don't think it is a proper platform for a marriage. If civil unions did not give basic rights to Gays, we might have to adjust that as well. Again, just because me and Hillary both call for civil unions, doesn't make us haters of Gay people.

It is just more of anything that does not lend itself to your view allows you to throw out names that cause dissent. A typical response.

Tell me, why Brokeback Mountain is seen as artistic while two women performing sex in a strip club is exploitative?

I think both are wrong but would have the same view of a hetrosexual couple performing for an audience.


Deeman

Gayle in MD
06-13-2006, 09:30 AM
I think you support a party which is trying to use religious and biblical teachings to throw a bad light on the gay community, homosexual relationships, and homosexuals in general, and label them as unworthy of making a legal, sanctioned commitment to one another.

I think you support a president who has made the attempt to legislate through a Constitutional Ammendment, an attitude of intolerance toward homosexuals, an issue about which Americans had developed tolerance for, and which is being dismantled by the Christian Coalition. Also, I think you fail to address the fact that religious teachings traditionally, and historically, have laid the groundwork for discrimination against homosexuals, blacks, and women, and have more often than not, been the underlying cause of War.

Also, I think that your premise, that gay marriage rights, must also include a right to polygamy, is not reasonable.

Civil unions do not include all the rights to homosexual couples that marriage insures. I do not think that homosexuality is a choice, and therefore I have nothing but compassion, tolerance and understanding for the difficulties which gay people must face, and live with, in a society which seeks to place guilt and shame upon them, and that to judge them as though they are some vast threat to heterosexual marriage is not only ignorant, but cruel.

Also, I think ones private sexual life, even that of a president, should be kept private, no one elses business, just as their religious beliefs, should be kept private, and not used for political exploitation, or the denial of human rights, such as birth control, and the right to choose how one lives ones life, and which choices are available to them in regard to planned parenthood. I also think that the federal government should be stopped from wasting millions of dollars teaching abstinence, when it has been proven that not only does it not work, but leads to greater numbers of young people with sexually transmitted diseases, and greater instances of teenaged pregnancy.


Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
06-13-2006, 11:07 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> I think you support a party which is trying to use religious and biblical teachings to throw a bad light on the gay community, homosexual relationships, and homosexuals in general, and label them as unworthy of making a legal, sanctioned commitment to one another. <font color="blue"> No, a civil union will give protection both legal and sanctioned to gays. </font color>

I think you support a president who has made the attempt to legislate through a Constitutional Ammendment, an attitude of intolerance toward homosexuals, an issue about which Americans had developed tolerance for, and which is being dismantled by the Christian Coalition. <font color="blue"> The Christian Coalition cannot dismantle the tolerence that is being developed for gays. </font color> Also, I think you fail to address the fact that religious teachings traditionally, and historically, have laid the groundwork for discrimination against homosexuals, blacks, and women, and have more often than not, been the underlying cause of War. <font color="blue"> As has ethnic differences, Godless monarchies as well as quite a few other belief systems. Do you think Stalin killing millions was the result of religeon? How about Chairman Mao? These were empires without any religous belief...Didn't stop them, did it? Your hapless attempt to lay all woes at Religeon's feet is as laughable as your brayings about GWB. Sure organized religeon has caused wars, but you don't mention the millions they have fed and administered health care to. How many in your liberal family are spending their lives nurturing the needy? Who gives the most for charity? Atheists? NOPE!</font color>

Also, I think that your premise, that gay marriage rights, must also include a right to polygamy, is not reasonable. <font color="blue"> Then answer my question! Why would it not be equal protection under the law to deny marriage rights to a gay couple and not to a polygomous group? Then you would still have to define marriage constitutionaly to protect it (even if it were for gays too)!</font color>

Civil unions do not include all the rights to homosexual couples that marriage insures. I do not think that homosexuality is a choice, and therefore I have nothing but compassion, tolerance and understanding for the difficulties which gay people must face, and live with, in a society which seeks to place guilt and shame upon them, and that to judge them as though they are some vast threat to heterosexual marriage is not only ignorant, but cruel. <font color="blue">You certainbly have a very overblown sense (maybe just high school drama class) of how gays are treated in our society. You must not spend as much time around them as the rest of us do. They don't hide in the shadows, they have TV shows, there is almost no stigma left to them. Where have you been for the last few years. YOU HAVE NOTHING BUT COMPASSION, UNDERSTANDING AND TOLERANCE FOR THEM???? You sound just like a homophobic person defending themselves.... It's so good Gayle is so tolerant of homosexuals and you know, she's so understanding too. Gayle, listen to yourself!!! </font color>

Also, I think ones private sexual life, even that of a president, should be kept private, no one elses business, just as their religious beliefs, should be kept private, and not used for political exploitation, or the denial of human rights, such as birth control, and the right to choose how one lives ones life, and which choices are available to them in regard to planned parenthood. I also think that the federal government should be stopped from wasting millions of dollars teaching abstinence, when it has been proven that not only does it not work, but leads to greater numbers of young people with sexually transmitted diseases, and greater instances of teenaged pregnancy. <font color="blue"> i think I agre with most of this but I always have. The difference is I don't think GWB is trying to get into the bedrooms. You do. Foolishly so. If GWB was found in bed with another woman you'd be hitting the ceiling tomorrow! Come-on admit it. I will admit that the next time Bill gets in the news for trying to force a woman into an uncomfortable position, I'll point it out or even hit the ceiling. It's just if it's a republican or democrat to you. Admit it. It won't hurt.

Gayle, it's obvious you have annointed youself the queen of underdog causes even to the point of describing this superwoman you are with perfect attitudes and openness on every front. I don't buy it. But I sure wish you luck in selling it to others. Dick will buy it.</font color>


Deeman
Gayle is so tolerant of gays.....

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

Deeman3
06-13-2006, 01:51 PM
Of Course, there are a few acts that the religeon of peace have been associated with. Of course, I'm sure GWB's decision to invade Iraq had the implication of creating all this, even back in the 1070's.

1968 Robert Kennedy assassinated
1972 Munich Olympics Sep-5, 1972 (Black September)
1976 Entebbe Hostage Crisis, June 27, 1976
1979 Iran Hostage Crisis, Nov. 4, 1979 444 days
1979 Grand Mosque Seizure, Nov 20,1979
1981 Assassination of Egyptian President, Oct 6,1981
1982 Assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister, Sept 14, 1982
1983 Bombing of US Embassy in Beirut, April 18,1983
1983 Bombing of Marine Barracks, Beirut, Oct 23,1983 (Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.)
1984 Hezbollah Restaurant Bombing, April 12,1984
1984 Kuwait Airlines 221 hijacked and American passengers murdered
1985 Egyptian Airliner Hijacking, Nov 23,1985
1985 Madrid Spain - Restaurant frequented by US servicemen bombed
1985 Rome Airport murders
1985 TWA Flight 847 hijacked, U.S. Navy diver murdered
1985 Achille Lauro hijacking, Homicidal maniac lived in Saddam’s Iraq
1986 Aircraft Bombing in Greece, March 30, 1986
1988 Pan Am 747 Flight 103 Bombing, Lockerbie, 100's murdered
A bomb destroys Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. (All 259 people aboard the Boeing 747 are killed including 189 Americans, as are 11 people on the ground. Dec. 21, 1988)
1988 Berlin Discothèque Bombing, Dec 21,1988 –disco was full of US servicemen
1992 Bombing in Israeli Embassy in Argentina, March 17,1992
1992 Hotel that housed US troops bombed in Yemen
1993 Attempted Assassination of Pres. Bush Sr., April 14,1993
1993 First World Trade Center bombing, February 26th, 7 Killed, Hundreds injured, bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.
1993 "Black Hawk Down" incident in Mogadishu
1994 Air France Hijacking, Dec 24,1994
1995 Attack on US Diplomats in Pakistan, Mar 8,1995
1995 Military Installation Attack, Nov 13, 1995 (A car bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills seven people, five of them American military and civilian advisers for National Guard training. The "Tigers of the Gulf," "Islamist Movement for Change," and "Fighting Advocates of God" claim responsibility.)
1995 "Operation Bojinka" plot to hijack 12 US airplanes is foiled
1995 Unsuccessful assassination attempt on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak
1995 US servicemen killed in bombing in Saudi Arabia
1995 Kashmiri Hostage taking, July 4,1995
1996 Khobar Towers attack (June 25, 1996 - A bomb aboard a fuel truck explodes outside a U.S. air force installation in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 19 U.S. military personnel are killed in the Khubar Towers housing facility, and 515 are wounded, including 240 Americans.)
1996 Sudanese Missionary’s Kidnapping, Aug 17,1996
1996 US Embassy in Athens takes rocket fire.
1996 Paris Subway Explosion, Dec 3,1996
1997 Israeli Shopping Mall Bombing, Sept 4, 1997
1997 Yemeni Kidnappings, Oct 30,1997
1997 Palestinian gunman shoots tourists at Empire State Building observation deck
1998 Somali Hostage taking crisis, April 15,1998
1998 U.S. Embassy Bombing in Peru, Jan 15, 1998
1998 U.S. Kenya Embassy blown up, 100's murdered (Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In Nairobi, 12 Americans are among the 291 killed, and over 5,000 are wounded, including 6 Americans. In Dar es Salaam, one U.S. citizen is wounded among the 10 killed and 77 injured.)
1998 Americans murdered in Karachi
1998 U.S. Tanzania Embassy blown up, 100's murdered
1999 Plot to blow up Space Needle (thwarted)
1999 Jordan- Terrorists arrested in millennium bombing plot
1999 Millennium bomber arrested in Washington state
2000 Americans kidnapped in Uzbekistan
2000 USS Cole attacked, many U.S. Navy sailors murdered (in Aden, Yemen, a small dinghy carrying explosives rammed the destroyer USS Cole, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39 others)
2000 Terrorists arrested attempting to bomb Strasbourg Cathedral in Germany
2000-2003 Intifada against Israel - 100's dead and injured
2000 Manila Bombing, Dec 30,2000
2001 Plot to bomb US Embassy and Eagle Base airfield is stopped
2001 Plots to bomb NATO headquarters and US Embassy in Paris are foiled
2001 4 Commercial airliners hijacked, 250+ murdered
2001 World Trade Center attacked, 2800+ murdered
2001 Flight 93 murders
2001 Pentagon attacked, 180+ murdered
2002 Tampa, FL., Fifteen year-old flies plane into an office building in Tampa. Suicide note reveals his admiration for Osama Bin Laden and desire to commit a terrorist attack.
2002 Pakistan - 2 American women killed in church grenade attack
2002 Reporter Daniel Pearl, kidnapped and murdered
2002 Los Angeles, CA., Muslim gunman kills two people waiting at the El Al counter in the LAX airport.
2002 Philippines American missionary, Filipino nurse killed
2002 July 4, El Al attack Los Angeles LAX, several murdered
2002 Bali bombing - 200 dead, 300 injured
2002 Yemen, French Oil Tanker attacked
2002 Marines attacked / murdered in Kuwait
2002 Washington D.C. sniper
2002 Baton Rouge, Muslim sniper shoots a Korean mother in the back
2002 Montgomery, AL, Muslim sniper kills one woman and injures another
2002 US consulate in Indonesia is bombed
2002 Philippines - Bus depot attacked
2002 Russian Theater attacked, 100+ dead
2002 Philippines - restaurant full of US troops is nail bombed
2002 Nigerian riots against Miss World Pageant, 200 dead, dozens injured
2002 Mombasa Hotel Attacked, 12 dead, dozens injured

2002 Falls Church, VA , Muslim sniper kills 47-year-old woman
2002 October, Fredericksburg, VA, Muslim sniper kills 53-year-old man.
2002 October, Maryland, Muslim sniper kills three men and two women in five separate attacks
2002 October, Wheaton, MD, Muslim sniper kills 55-year-old man.
2002 Jordan, October 28, 1 killed, American diplomat shot dead by two al-Qaeda terrorists while sitting in his car.
2002 Israeli Boeing 757 attacked by missiles, fortunately no one injured
2002 August Hotel bombing in Jakarta, Indonesia. 12 dead, dozens injured.

2002 December 30, Yemen, Muslim gunman posing as a father carrying a child kills three American humanitarian workers at a missionary hospital and wounds one other.
2003 Russian concert bombing
2003 Philippines airport and market bombing
2003 Foiled SAM plot in the USA
2003 Neveh Shalom Synagogue Bombing in Istanbul, Turkey
2003 UN Baghdad HQ Bombing
2003 Ticrit Mosque Bombing
2003 (August) Houston, TX, 1 killed , After undergoing a religious revival, a Saudi college student slashes the throat of a Jewish student with a 4" butterfly knife, nearly decapitating the young man
2004 Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.( May 29–31)
2004 Jakarta , ( Sept.) Car bomb outside the Australian embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia killed 9.
2004 Madrid , Spain, ( March 11 ) Simultaneous terrorist bombs exploded during rush hour traffic in packed commuter trains. Killing somewhere between 190 to 202 and 1500 wounded.
2004 Pakistan has arrested 10 al-Qaeda suspects, including two Egyptians, suspected of planning suicide attacks against government buildings and the US embassy. ( August 23) The plots bore the hallmarks of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network PLOT thwarted.
2004 Russia, (August) two airliners that crashed within minutes of each other after taking off from the same
airport, kills a total of 90 people. The announcement followed a claim by an Islamic group that supports
Chechen rebels saying it was responsible for both crashes.
2004 Baghdad (Sept.) - Insurgents detonated three car bombs near a U.S. military convoy in Baghdad on Thursday, killing 41 people, 34 of them children who were rushing to collect sweets from American troops.
2004 Baghdad, (Sept.) In two other attacks, a suicide bomber blew up his vehicle near a U.S. checkpoint outside the capital, killing two policemen and a U.S. soldier, and a car bomb killed four people in the restive northern Iraq town of Tal Afar.
2004 Russia ( Sept.) Terrorists, Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev claimed responsibility for the Russian school siege at the school in North Ossetia’s city of Beslan . The terrorists killed 340 Including 155 Children. The Hamas identifies with and supports Chechen and international Islamic terrorism.
2004 Iraq (October 4) Baghdad Car bomb kills 24 and wounds over 100Insurgents unleashed a
pair of powerful car bombs Monday near the symbol of U.S. authority in Iraq - the Green Zone, where the
U.S. Embassy and key government offices are located, and hotels occupied by hundreds of foreigners.
2004 Iraq (October 7) Rockets hit Baghdad Sheraton hotel Two rockets ripped through Baghdad Sheraton hotel, which houses foreign contractors and journalists late Thursday. Outside Baghdad, roadside bomb
exploded killing two American soldiers.

2004 Iraq, Baghdad, 9/21/04, Two American civilians are beheaded on videotape by an al-Qaeda group called 'Jihad and Unification.'

2004 December, Saudi Arabia, Jedda, 5 killed and 2 injured, al-Qaeda members attack the U.S. consulate in Saudi Arabia with grenades, killing at least five international contractors and injuring several Americans.

2005 London (July) During morning rush hour, explosions ripped through three subway trains and blasted the roof off a crowded red double-decker bus. Police said there had been no warning and that the blasts at three subway stations went off within 26 minutes, starting at 8:51 a.m. in an Underground train just outside the financial district. There is an Internet claim by a little-known group calling itself The Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe that it staged the attacks. The blasts killed at least 50 people and at least 700 injured.

2005 (August) Al Queda fired on two U.S. warships docked at the Red Sea port of Aqaba, Jordan , missiles that were launched inside of Jordan. The missiles missed the U.S. ships but had they hit their target it would have been deadly.

2005 ( October 1 ) Indonesia ,Islamic suicide bombers murder nineteen people, mostly tourists, at two cafes and a restaurant in three coordinated attacks. Over one-hundred are injured.

2005 ( October 2 ) American Jihadi straps explosives to his body and heads to a crowded stadium. He changes his mind at the last moment and only kills himself.

2006 ( January 7,2006) Baghdad, Iraq, 1 killed and 1 injured, An American journalist is taken hostage, and her Iraqi translator murdered

2006 ( January 18) Basra, Iraq, 2 killed and 1 injured, Two American civilians are killed in a roadside terrorist bombing

2006 (March 3) Chapel Hill, NC Iranian immigrant plows his SUV into a crowd of students as 'retribution' for American policy overseas., 9 injured.

Now, you can list the Crusades and a few other instances where the Christians have invoked violence and war. So defend the Muslims as a peaceful movement and critize GWB's defense of the nation. Overlook the links between Bin Laden and Hussain, it is certainly your right.


Deeman

pooltchr
06-13-2006, 07:10 PM
Deeman3.
Surely you understand that the only reason these groups are out to get America is because the Republicans stole the election in 2000 and then those same darn rascals did it again 4 years later. All the ills of the world would be gone had we just let the Democrats take the office that was rightfully theirs. You know, they are ENTITLED to it because they are Democrats! Just like their constituants are entitled to government handouts. It's how the system is supposed to work. Problem is the Republicans just wouldn't go along with it! It's all their fault!!!!
/ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Steve

Qtec
06-13-2006, 09:33 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Overlook the links between Bin Laden and Hussain, <hr /></blockquote>

What links?

Q

nAz
06-13-2006, 10:06 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Overlook the links between Bin Laden and Hussain, <hr /></blockquote>

What links?

Q <hr /></blockquote>

hehe i was thinking the same thing.

whoooppie!!
happy days are here again bUSH approval ratings have climbed to a whopping %38... eg8r should now be able to show his face around here again. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

DickLeonard
06-14-2006, 06:44 AM
Pooltchr all it shows me is that we are pretty f?$@%^g dumb. Everyone is always sleeping at the helm. Four airplanes go off course and no one sends the fighter planes into the air. The Gov was notified that Osama was planning to attack with hijacked airplanes and the Boob was fumbling in the classroom. If he was an officer in the service he would have been court marshalled but because he was the Commander-in-Chief he gets a Skate.

Name one thing he did to make us safer that wasn't jobs for political Hacks.####

DickLeonard
06-14-2006, 06:49 AM
Pooltchr If George Bush was President then I wouldn't believe it. He is a Pathological Liar. If anyone in my administration outed Valerie Plame I will fire them and Karl Rove is still there. His word means squat diddley.####

pooltchr
06-14-2006, 08:44 AM
Dick,
Deeman3's list shows what has been going on for the past 35 years, and no one has done anything about it. I don't agree with everything GW has done, but the one thing he has done is bring the war against terrorists to the forefront. People are talking about it, people are aware of it, and just maybe someone will actually come along with a valid plan to work on it. GW has at least made a concerted effort. While some may question his motives, there is active opposition to these terrorist groups, and they are finding it a little more difficult to attack at will. It ain't perfect, but it's a bigger step in the right direction than we have had in 35 years.
Steve

Deeman3
06-14-2006, 09:19 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Overlook the links between Bin Laden and Hussain, <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden
By Inigo Gilmore
(Filed: 27/04/2003)



Iraqi intelligence documents discovered in Baghdad by The Telegraph have provided the first evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime.

Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998.

The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad.


The papers will be seized on by Washington as the first proof of what the United States has long alleged - that, despite denials by both sides, Saddam's regime had a close relationship with al-Qa'eda.

The Telegraph found the file on bin Laden inside a folder lying in the rubble of one of the rooms of the destroyed intelligence HQ. There are three pages, stapled together; two are on paper headed with the insignia and lettering of the Mukhabarat.

They show correspondence between Mukhabarat agencies over preparations for the visit of al-Qa'eda's envoy, who travelled to Iraq from Sudan, where bin Laden had been based until 1996. They disclose what Baghdad hopes to achieve from the meeting, which took place less than five months before bin Laden was placed at the top of America's most wanted list following the bombing of two US embassies in east Africa.

Perhaps aware of the sensitivities of the subject matter, Iraqi agents at some point clumsily attempted to mask out all references to bin Laden, using white correcting fluid. The dried fluid was removed to reveal the clearly legible name three times in the documents.

One paper is marked "Top Secret and Urgent". It is signed "MDA", a codename believed to be the director of one of the intelligence sections within the Mukhabarat, and dated February 19, 1998. It refers to the planned trip from Sudan by bin Laden's unnamed envoy and refers to the arrangements for his visit.

A letter with this document says the envoy is a trusted confidant of bin Laden. It adds: "According to the above, we suggest permission to call the Khartoum station [Iraq's intelligence office in Sudan] to facilitate the travel arrangements for the above-mentioned person to Iraq. And that our body carry all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden."

The letter refers to al-Qa'eda's leader as an opponent of the Saudi Arabian regime and says that the message to convey to him through the envoy "would relate to the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him."

According to handwritten notes at the bottom of the page, the letter was passed on through another director in the Mukhabarat and on to the deputy director general of the intelligence service.

It recommends that "the deputy director general bring the envoy to Iraq because we may find in this envoy a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden". The deputy director general has signed the document. All of the signatories use codenames.

The other documents then confirm that the envoy travelled from Khartoum to Baghdad in March 1998, staying at al-Mansour Melia, a first-class hotel. It mentions that his visit was extended by a week. In the notes in a margin, a name "Mohammed F. Mohammed Ahmed" is mentioned, but it is not clear whether this is the the envoy or an agent.

Intriguingly, the Iraqis talk about sending back an oral message to bin Laden, perhaps aware of the risk of a written message being intercepted. However, the documents do not mention if any meeting took place between bin Laden and Iraqi officials.

The file contradicts the claims of Baghdad, bin Laden and many critics of the coalition that there was no link between the Iraqi regime and al-Qa'eda. One Western intelligence official contacted last night described the file as "sensational", adding: "Baghdad clearly sought out the meeting. The regime would have wanted it to happen in the capital as it's only there they would feel safe from surveillance by Western intelligence."

Over the past three weeks, The Telegraph has discovered various other intelligence files in the wrecked Mukhabarat building, including documents revealing how Russia passed on to Iraq details of private conversations between Tony Blair and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, and how Germany held clandestine meetings with the regime.

A Downing Street spokesman said last night: "Since Saddam's fall a series of documents have come to light which will have to be fully assessed by the proper authorities over a period of time. We will certainly want to study these documents as part of that process to see if they shed new light on the relationship between Saddam's regime and al-Qa'eda.

</font color>
What links?

Q <hr /></blockquote>

DickLeonard
06-14-2006, 09:30 AM
Pooltchr I find 58 episodes on GWB's watch it doesn't look as if we safer under him but just the opposite. I have read that he was the best thing for recruitment for Holy Warriors.####

Deeman3
06-14-2006, 10:19 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Pooltchr I find 58 episodes on GWB's watch it doesn't look as if we safer under him but just the opposite. I have read that he was the best thing for recruitment for Holy Warriors.#### <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Dick fails to notice that almost all the episodes under Bush's watch occurred outside our country after 9/11. He may right that Bush has increased the recruitment of Jehadists. However, there have always been an abundant supply in recent history and they may be more focused on the U.S. than they were when the enablers were in office. However, in time, they would have gotten around to us as a single focus anyway. Under the appeasement plans of the Democrats, we would still be the effective targets. Now, they are killing many more of themselves than they are of our citizens on our soil. Much because of Bush pushing the war over there and because of our soldier's sacrifices.

Yes, 2500 soldiers is a large price but we lost that many civilians in a single day. It is the military's job to defend us and despite the fears and misgivings of an uncertain and doubting public, they will do their jobs. When the democrats get back in and we withdraw all our troops and we apologise for the war, there will be plenty of time for the terrorists to show us how they view our weaknesses.

As I said many times, they will come after the pseudo-intellectuals and liberals first as they never offer resistance. Theyll get o us enventually but we will be around long enough to say, "I told you so." </font color>


Deeman

Gayle in MD
06-14-2006, 10:53 AM
Thanks for proving my point, Deeman, since most of the horrors on your list, are linked to religious fanatics, al Qaeda mostly, a FANATICAL RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION, guess you didn't know that?

While I understand your method to avoid reasonable debate is usually to take matters to the ridiculous, here are some facts for you to address, unlikely as it is that you will be able to manage any civil respons, void of personal attacks.

Under 5% of those we fight in Iraq are terrorists from outside Iraq, and the rest, are Iraqis, killing each other, and our troops.

THERE IS, AND WAS, NO LINK BETWEEN SADDAM AND bIN LADEN. The claim of a link, was just part of the fixed intelligence created by the Bush Administration, along with the myth of WMD's in Iraq, and their claim of an attempt by SH to purchase yellowcake, also a false claim.

Zarqawi, has already been replaced by a new al Qaeda leader.


Your calim that Bush deserves credit for doing SOMETHING about al qaeda, and that no one else did anything, is republican BULL$***, bin Laden's ability to escape death or capture has haunted the Bush administration, just as it did previous administrations.

GW BUSH is the ONLY president who had concrete warning of an impending al Qaeda attack in this country, and had it a month in advance. HE FAILED TO ADDRESS IT. Those experts who resigned sout of frustration over the administration's refusal to heed their warnings, all wrote the same thing, that Bush and Cheney only wanted to review intel on Iraq, ONLY IRAQ.

Over three thousand people died on 9/11, and nearly two thousand five hundred American troops have lost their lives since he decided against the advice of the CIA, and our most expert middle east advisors, to occupy Iraq. As many as twelve thousand of our troops have endured permanent injuries. IOW, this CIVIL WAR IN IRAQ has produced more devastation to American citizens than 9/11.

This war is costing 8 to 9 BILLION DOLLARS a MONTH.

The majority opinion in this country, and even among republican journalists, is that this war is unwinnable militarily, that our presence in Iraq is the root cause of the death and the fighting, and the continuing increase in the number of insurgents, and that results would be as effective, and less antagonistic if we re-deploy our troops to the periphery, sending them back in when necessary, while maintaining a small presence of groups of covert special forces (Like the three or four of our men who found Zarqawi by following his RELIGIOUS ADVISOR) inside the borders. BUSH and RUMSFELD will not listen.

Doing something isn't very valuable, when the thing you decide to do makes everything worse than it already was in the first place. Allowing our troops to remain in hell, in an unwinnable war, being slaughtered every day by uncivilized insurgents, who have hated each other for thousands of years, who increase in numbers every week, who infiltrate every law and military unit we build, and who are not identifiable, is absolutely stupid.

Terrorism, is not about Iraq, never was about Iraq, and never will be about Iraq. The occupation of Iraq, was exactly what bin Laden wanted. George Bush, gave him his wish. The Bush administration has done nothing but distract our country and our military and foreign advisors from the work of searching out terrorist cells, here, and in other countries, by being focussed on the war in Iraq, which is not a WAR ON TERROR, but a CIVIL WAR, BETWEEN IRAQIS.

civil war n: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country.

When next, we, or another country, is attacked, I gaurantee you, the attackers will not be Iraqis. On 9/11, our attackers, were NOT Iraqis. The majority of them were from Saudi Arabia, where Bush, and his father, have many business associates, and whose prince, is welcomed with kisses and hand holding when greeted by George Bush.

Gayle in Md.





There were NO al Qaeda, or Taliban, in Iraq, until we went there. Iraq, and the rest of the world, have become more dangerous since. Terror attacks have increased worldwide, since. Many many more people hate America since George Bush got into office. Our presence in Iraq, is the cause of the daily death and destruction in Iraq. Rumsfeld and Bush are completely responsible for the birth of the insurgency because they would not listen to military experts who told them that their plan did not include enough troops, nor did they have a plan to prevent the predicted insurgency, and they have admitted they did not anticipate it, in spite of the fact that they were told.

The military has been saying for over a decade that any occupation of Iraq, would lead to instability throughout the Middle East, and civil war among Iraqis, exactly what we have now.

More people were killed in May, than in any other month since we went into Iraq, and there has been a steady increase in deaths and destruction throughout our occupancy.

Taliban Insurgency is growing in Afghanistan, and it is becomming more and more unstable.

Gayle in MD
06-14-2006, 11:05 AM
These have never been documented. The meeting never took place. bin Laden never met with Saddam. There is vast evidence, from Saddam's side, and from bin Laden's side, that they were at odds with each other. Saddam, in particular, has been deemed by experts on his views, that he was not in favor of bin Laden, and saw him as a threat to his own power.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
06-14-2006, 11:16 AM
You're right of course, the pseudo-intellectual,cowardly, Vichy Democrats will undermine and negate the bravery of the intellectually superior of God's chosen party.
However, when they invite Al-Quada over here to man the ports, and occupy some southern states as appeasement....wouldn't it be smarter for them to go after the dissidents....the eg8r's and Deeman's, then to roundup the liberals, who are throwing rose petals under their feet?
Wouldn't 58 acts of terrorism, worldwide, indicate that the terrorism is increasing, despite the war on terror?
And, off the subject....what's it going to take to secure our southern borders....reports of men riding camels across it?
Free borders, Texas Mosques....I see a connection.....

Qtec
06-14-2006, 11:18 AM
LOL. Is that it?

[ QUOTE ]
The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. <hr /></blockquote>

What a joke.

q

wolfdancer
06-14-2006, 11:39 AM
It's only my uninformed quess...but I doubt if a power-crazed madman, like Bu...I mean, Saddam would, could trust OBL enough to form an alliance, when in fact, he didn't trust his own family

Deeman3
06-14-2006, 11:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Thanks for proving my point, Deeman, since most of the horrors on your list, are linked to religious fanatics, al Qaeda mostly, a FANATICAL RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION, guess you didn't know that? <font color="blue"> Yes, I just made a statement of how one religeon is certainly doing it's part to destroy civilization. This should not indict all belief systems.</font color>

While I understand your method to avoid reasonable debate is usually to take matters to the ridiculous, here are some facts for you to address, unlikely as it is that you will be able to manage any civil respons, void of personal attacks.

Under 5% of those we fight in Iraq are terrorists from outside Iraq, and the rest, are Iraqis, killing each other, and our troops.

THERE IS, AND WAS, NO LINK BETWEEN SADDAM AND bIN LADEN. The claim of a link, was just part of the fixed intelligence created by the Bush Administration, along with the myth of WMD's in Iraq, and their claim of an attempt by SH to purchase yellowcake, also a false claim. <font color="blue"> This is only the opinion of you and many liberal news sources. </font color>

Zarqawi, has already been replaced by a new al Qaeda leader. <font color="blue"> This seems to make you very happy. All organizations will replace their leader when he/she is killed. Why is that surprising? You are saying that you expected them not to? That does not mean the new person will be as effective and that a blow to them has not been done. Just a note, to many of us, this is a good thing. Why do you keep trying to make even the good news seem bad?</font color>


Your calim that Bush deserves credit for doing SOMETHING about al qaeda, and that no one else did anything, is republican BULL$***, bin Laden's ability to escape death or capture has haunted the Bush administration, just as it did previous administrations. <font color="blue">BIn Laden has not been captured. Wow, and what would your response be if he was? I can tell you. Well, he was replaced so Bush has accomplished nothing....you never cheer anything we do, just complain about everything. </font color>

GW BUSH is the ONLY president who had concrete warning of an impending al Qaeda attack in this country, and had it a month in advance. HE FAILED TO ADDRESS IT. Those experts who resigned sout of frustration over the administration's refusal to heed their warnings, all wrote the same thing, that Bush and Cheney only wanted to review intel on Iraq, ONLY IRAQ. <font color="blue"> Clinton had the Libians offering to deliver him to us but did nothing. I don't really blame Clinton any more than I blame Bush's people for not recognising a threat among thousands. </font color>

Over three thousand people died on 9/11, and nearly two thousand five hundred American troops have lost their lives since he decided against the advice of the CIA, and our most expert middle east advisors, to occupy Iraq. As many as twelve thousand of our troops have endured permanent injuries. IOW, this CIVIL WAR IN IRAQ has produced more devastation to American citizens than 9/11.

This war is costing 8 to 9 BILLION DOLLARS a MONTH.

The majority opinion in this country, and even among republican journalists, is that this war is unwinnable militarily, that our presence in Iraq is the root cause of the death and the fighting, and the continuing increase in the number of insurgents, and that results would be as effective, and less antagonistic if we re-deploy our troops to the periphery, sending them back in when necessary, while maintaining a small presence of groups of covert special forces (Like the three or four of our men who found Zarqawi by following his RELIGIOUS ADVISOR) inside the borders. BUSH and RUMSFELD will not listen. <font color="blue"> You and the others are not in charge. MOST of the advisors are not calling for this leave the country to it's own and sit on the border. This is pure fabrication on your part. Heck, even most democrats are not calling for such a foolish move. Your own party can't even decide on an exit date. </font color>

Doing something isn't very valuable, when the thing you decide to do makes everything worse than it already was in the first place. Allowing our troops to remain in hell, in an unwinnable war, being slaughtered every day by uncivilized insurgents, who have hated each other for thousands of years, who increase in numbers every week, who infiltrate every law and military unit we build, and who are not identifiable, is absolutely stupid. <font color="blue"> Then your position is clear, pull everyone out now, we hear that. It's just not going to happen as even in your party there are some responsible adults who won't let that happen even for short term political gain. Again, you want the run the country by opinion poll. A republic does not operate that way. </font color>

Terrorism, is not about Iraq, never was about Iraq, and never will be about Iraq. The occupation of Iraq, was exactly what bin Laden wanted. George Bush, gave him his wish. The Bush administration has done nothing but distract our country and our military and foreign advisors from the work of searching out terrorist cells, here, and in other countries, by being focussed on the war in Iraq, which is not a WAR ON TERROR, but a CIVIL WAR, BETWEEN IRAQIS. <font color="blue"> To bring the full war against terror to the U.S. would make this what you claim to not want, a police state. Bush should be lauded for making the fight over there and not here. </font color>

civil war n: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country.

When next, we, or another country, is attacked, I gaurantee you, the attackers will not be Iraqis. <font color="blue"> As you said, we are not fighting Iraqis, we are fighting insurgents in Iraq. </font color> On 9/11, our attackers, were NOT Iraqis. The majority of them were from Saudi Arabia, where Bush, and his father, have many business associates, and whose prince, is welcomed with kisses and hand holding when greeted by George Bush. <font color="blue"> As was every American President has done. Name a President who has not sucked up to the Saudis over the last 30 years! However, GWB's doing it is "different", right? </font color>

Gayle in Md.




The military has been saying for over a decade that any occupation of Iraq, would lead to instability throughout the Middle East, and civil war among Iraqis, exactly what we have now. <font color="blue"> Any occupation of any Arabic country would have a similar effect. It is a necessary evil to fight the terrorists/insurgents on a battlefield not in this country. As I have said, let the democrats have it and we can exchange the fighting in Iraq for fighting in the U.S. You must know that if the terrorists could make the fight here, they would. </font color>

Deeman

<hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
06-14-2006, 11:50 AM
We had one terrorist attack in eight years in our country during Clinton's administration.

We've had one attack on our soil in five years during Bush. Clinton's ahead, unless you use republican style math.

You just tried to say in another post that Kennedy was responsible for increasing troop levels in Vietnam, now you're saying that Democrats are too weak and apologetic to fight in wars. Make up your mind, or will you just continue to adjust what you're trying to say according to what you think sounds good for Bush and republicans?

Dick fails to notice that almost all the episodes under Bush's watch occurred outside our country after 9/11.

Oh, so you can blame Clinton for attacks outside our country, but you change your standard if the subject is Bush?

He may right that Bush has increased the recruitment of Jehadists.
NO, not may be right, he is right, and he is right because Bush has made evrything worse than ever when it comes to terrorism, you just can't bring yourself to admit that.

However, there have always been an abundant supply in recent history and they may be more focused on the U.S. than they were when the enablers were in office.

More republican excuses for failed Bush policies? Bush is the enabler, obviously, the attacks have increased Worldwide, with the DECIDER, making the decisions for our country. Clinton has a much better record than Bush, count how many died by terrorist attacks in America during Clinton's whole eight years, Bush is already way over that number, in only five.


However, in time, they would have gotten around to us as a single focus anyway. Blah Blah Blah, more republican presumptive rhetoric. Under the appeasement plans of the Democrats, we would still be the effective targets. More Americans have died and been permanently injured by terrorists during Bush's term, than in Clinton's entire tenure. Now, they are killing many more of themselves than they are of our citizens on our soil. When during Clinton's administration were terrorists and insurgents killing our troops everyday? I give you the answer, never. Much because of Bush pushing the war over there and because of our soldier's sacrifices. Our trooops are dying everyday because Bush pushed the war overthere. I dare say, since his plan is to leave Iraq to the next president to figure out, HIS WORDS, in the long run many many more will die before he has enough sense to give up on his cherished legacy that our kids are dying for.

Yes, 2500 soldiers is a large price but we lost that many civilians in a single day.
That's why we should be fighting terrorists cells around the world, instead of fighting in an Iraqi civil war.

It is the military's job to defend us and despite the fears and misgivings of an uncertain and doubting public, they will do their jobs.

They have no choice but to do as the decider forces them to do, while he sneaks in and out under stealth conditions, they lose their lives every day.

When the democrats get back in and we withdraw all our troops and we apologise for the war, there will be plenty of time for the terrorists to show us how they view our weaknesses.

They already did that on 9/11, under Bush's watch, and the perpetrator has goteen away with it scott free for over five years.

As I said many times, they will come after the pseudo-intellectuals and liberals first as they never offer resistance. Theyll get o us enventually but we will be around long enough to say, "I told you so."

If you think Bill Clinton would have sat in a chair reading to children while this country was under the worst attack ever you are surely the most partisan and illogical unobservant person around. Neither Groe, Kerry or Clinton would have been that stupid. All one has to do is listen to your boy George to know he isn't the brightest bulb on the tree.


Deeman

Deeman3
06-14-2006, 11:59 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> You're right of course, the pseudo-intellectual,cowardly, Vichy Democrats will undermine and negate the bravery of the intellectually superior of God's chosen party. <font color="blue"> I'm glad you are finally seeing things my way.</font color>
However, when they invite Al-Quada over here to man the ports, <font color="blue"> Al Quada was offered the manning of our ports? I remember an Arabic company being offered operational control over ports but never Al Quada! I must have missed that.</font color> and occupy some southern states as appeasement....wouldn't it be smarter for them to go after the dissidents....the eg8r's and Deeman's, then to roundup the liberals, who are throwing rose petals under their feet? <font color="blue"> That's exactly what the appeasers in germany and Italy thought but they were the easier targets. Go figure, it happens every time, Stalin took out the liberals first as did the Chinese. Not my slant, this is history.</font color>
Wouldn't 58 acts of terrorism, worldwide, indicate that the terrorism is increasing, despite the war on terror? <font color="blue"> Yes, but that's world wide terror, not based in the U.S. Terror itself probably remains fairly stable but we concentrate on the Middle East while Africa has subsided a little in the last few years, not as many people left to kill? </font color>
And, off the subject....what's it going to take to secure our southern borders....reports of men riding camels across it? <font color="blue"> Scientists have long been working on the Bird Flu Viral strain to turn it into Camel Flu and thusly infect all those unteathered beasts before they cross over to Pettyland. </font color>
Free borders, Texas Mosques....I see a connection..... <font color="blue"> You may be onto somethng. However, this time the south is prepared, we didn't give our guns up this time. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif </font color>

Deeman
<hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
06-14-2006, 01:04 PM
Yes, I just made a statement of how one religeon is certainly doing it's part to destroy civilization. This should not indict all belief systems.

Nor do I, you only twist what I say into an indictment of all.


This is only the opinion of you and many liberal news sources.

You are quite wrong, there are many conservative journalists and generals who are calling for an exit plan. Even the neocons who launched the neocon movement, are against his failed policies, and his economic policies included.

This is only the opinion of you and many liberal news sources.

This seems to make you very happy.
How do you arrive at that conclusion?


All organizations will replace their leader when he/she is killed. Why is that surprising? You are saying that you expected them not to? That does not mean the new person will be as effective and that a blow to them has not been done. Just a note, to many of us, this is a good thing. Why do you keep trying to make even the good news seem bad?
Why do you continually try to paint my feelings in an unflattering light? ONE MORE TIME...I AM GLAD HE IS DEAD!


I am not in the habbit of cheering failed policies that kill our troops, and fail to address the real enemy. Again, only under 5% of those we fight in Iraq, are from outside the country, the rest, are Iraqis. Bush has not accomplished any reduction in terrorist attacks, only increased them, so I have a reason to complain about his failed policies.

You and the others are not in charge. MOST of the advisors are not calling for this leave the country to it's own and sit on the border. This is pure fabrication on your part.

Quite wrong again. Most of the advisors said, Don't occupy Iraq, it will end up in civil war, just as it has, now Generals are retiring for the sole purpose of being able to speak out against Bush's failed policies, and to try to save our troops from trying to succeed in an unwinnable war. Since George didn't listen, getting out isn't an easy thing to accomplish, requires planning, it's called an exit plan, something George Bush refuses to articulate beyond his rhetorical "Stay the Course" translation...you troops keep dying for Iraqis who hate you, and for my legacy, because there sure aren't many terrorist here!

Heck, even most democrats are not calling for such a foolish move. Your own party can't even decide on an exit date.

Stay tuned, you will soon see how much agreement there is about re-deploying our troops. Democrats are much more in agreement than you seem to think, but you sure as hell won't hear about that on Fox News, or read it in one of your right wing rags.

Then your position is clear, pull everyone out now, we hear that. It's just not going to happen as even in your party there are some responsible adults who won't let that happen even for short term political gain. Again, you want the run the country by opinion poll. A republic does not operate that way.



Wrong, the country should be operated in a way which includes the opinions of experts with experience, something Bush fails to do over and over again. EVERYONE is calling for an exit plan, Democrats, Republicans, Generals, conservative journalists, troops, Senators from both parties, Bush just refuses to articulate one, using only rhetorical statements for staying the course, when the course is wrong, and it is NOT a war on terror, but a civil war between Iraqis. You want to run the country by Bush's dictatorship, a republic doesn't work that way, in a republic, there is accountability, there has been little of that, since republicans refuse to investigate anything Bush does, and he has operated under cloak and dagger policies.

To bring the full war against terror to the U.S. would make this what you claim to not want, a police state. Bush should be lauded for making the fight over there and not here.

One does nothing to insure the other. Fighting in an Iraqi civil war, does nothing to protect our country from attack. Even if we were fighting overthere with 10 or 15 % terrorists present, it would still be no gaurantee of safety here, just ask those people in England, Spain, etc.

As you said, we are not fighting Iraqis, we are fighting insurgents in Iraq.

Not what I said at all, I said we are fighting in an Iraqi civil war, not a war on terror. That term, created by Bush's team, is completely false. Tell me, do you deny that the number of those we fight in Iraq who are actually terrorist, are less than 5%, because this is the estimate from the DOD.

As was every American President has done. Name a President who has not sucked up to the Saudis over the last 30 years! However, GWB's doing it is "different", right?

How bout you name one whose father, and half of his cabinet has been pictured kissing a Saudi Arabian Prince, or kissing one himself, or tried to sell our port operations to an arab country, who was tight with bin Laden, and transported arms to our enemies. MAN OH MAN, I can just hear you righties if Clinton had done all that!

Any occupation of any Arabic country would have a similar effect. Correct, that's why nobody else was dumb enough to do so until your genius egomaniac came along.


It is a necessary evil to fight the terrorists/insurgents on a battlefield not in this country.
Again, only 5% of those in Iraq are terrorists. The insurgency, is Iraqi people, fighting each other. The war in Iraq, does not protect us from terrorist bombing us here, infact, it increases those odds.

As I have said, let the democrats have it and we can exchange the fighting in Iraq for fighting in the U.S. You must know that if the terrorists could make the fight here, they would.
That's right, they are right here, and we are fighting just a few of them overthere, while they are here in this country, planning their next attack. Democrats have enough sense to know that this war is completely bogus, was part of the Cheney/Bush agenda before they ever got into office, and is a loosing battle. That is why career generals are retiring, so that they can speak out against the failed policies of the Bush Administration.


Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
06-14-2006, 02:59 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Al Quada was offered the manning of our ports? I remember an Arabic company being offered operational control over ports but never Al Quada! I must have missed that. <hr /></blockquote>
This is in the future, when the Democrats(The French Connection) offer a conditional surrender to OSL
Well it doesn't matter, since the middle-easteners already control...yellow cab, 7/11, and most corner delis.Once they threaten to stop picking up fares, cut off our Slurpees, and no more $.99 hot dogs....we'll capitulate.
In the meantime as our brave Republican leaders send off to war.......

pooltchr
06-14-2006, 08:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr> Why do you keep trying to make even the good news seem bad?</font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

Dee,
This is typical of the liberal left in this country. If the news is good, that is bad for the Dems. It means that the majority party is doing something right. Since the Dems can't come up with anything to promote for their agenda, the only recourse is to hope that nothing good happens on GW's watch.
As hard as it might be to believe, there are Dems who actually are hoping we fail in this task. It's the only way they will be able to say "I told you so!" They sit around hoping for something to go wrong so they can attack the administration. If the Rep majority is successful, what hope would the Dems have of winning back the majority? By putting a negative spin on everything, their hope is to convince the voters that Republicans are failures, and they are the salvation. And some people have fallen into that trap. They will put their loyalty to their party, or their hatred of the other party ahead of what is best for the country. They were ready to give over all the authority to the UN, France, Germany, and who knows who else.
But be nice. We have to understand other people. We need to learn what it is we have done to make those nasty terrorists hate us so much. We are the bad guys, and the terrorists are just freedom fighters. You should be ashamed of our country. We are the ugly Americans. It's not their fault, it's ours!
Our only hope is that the liberals will get control and we can get back to the important things like health care and education, and forget what is going on in the rest of the world.
/ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
Steve

DickLeonard
06-15-2006, 05:24 AM
Deeman from what I saw on Hardball Karl Rove got to skate on outing Valerie because the stupidity of the law. To be guilty of that crime you have to know before hand that your committing a crime when you out a CIA agent. Making that law a waste of time and money.

Yes I did it but I didn't know it was a crime. ####

Deeman3
06-15-2006, 05:55 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Deeman from what I saw on Hardball Karl Rove got to skate on outing Valerie because the stupidity of the law. To be guilty of that crime you have to know before hand that your committing a crime when you out a CIA agent. Making that law a waste of time and money.

Yes I did it but I didn't know it was a crime. #### <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> It seems now that everyone in Washington except Karl Rove knew she was a CIA agent as she "shared" this info with many on the Washington Party scene as she knew her covert days of sleeping around with spies was over.

However, the ones that did out her should be punished if they knew and let it out. I'll wait for the trial on the others.</font color>

Deeman

DickLeonard
06-15-2006, 06:07 AM
Deeman Scooters crime was Martha Stewarts crime he lied. He gave false Information. Where Karl was warned and corrected his testimony.####

eg8r
06-15-2006, 06:35 AM
[ QUOTE ]
First Sadam, now al-Zarqwi, you don't suppose OBL might be next do you? <hr /></blockquote> Too bad OBL could not have been first. You are correct though, if the news does not support their "bush is the anti-christ" agenda then they will keep quiet.

eg8r

eg8r
06-15-2006, 06:38 AM
In a nutshell that was "perfect". /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Gayle cannot take it like it is, she probably still feebly states she does not "hate" anyone, yet she comes to this board every day to post her hated of this administration and all Christians. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-15-2006, 06:53 AM
FYI, Democrats don't have to hope for things to go wrong under the republican majority, things couldn't get much worse.

Republicans have clearly demonstrated their inability to address the devastating consequneces which they themselves have created.

They have failed to solve the problems that America faces, that's why such a huge majority in this country is completely disgusted with representatives on the hill, majority republicans, and under republican control.

That's why only 27% approve the results of your republican control on the Hill.

Republicans have nothing to brag about. Our nation is in the worst circumstances it has ever faced, three and a half trillion dollars in debt to China, and pure kaos in the Middle East.

No health plan, and no feasible solutions for our foreign energy dependence, or to address the ecology and safety of our planet.

A Great Big F on National Security precautions.

Unprecedented illegal alien entry, resulting from Republican presidential invitations and amnesty programs, (Reagan and Bush) and the growth of government programs and spending beyond anything ever seen before.

Numbers which prove that only the rich are enjoying unprecedented wealth growth, while the poor and middle class are denied even a raise for Minimum wage, while your MAJORITY votes in yeat another pay raise for themselves, 7 total raises during their majority, while minimum wage has not been increased during your entire majority tenure.

Hence, all your side has left to do is sling mud, but then, that is all your party has ever excelled in accomplishing.

The republican method of labeling as cowards and non-patriots all those who deplore the unprecedented corruption, incompetence, war profiteering, cronyism, dishonesty, extravagance and waste with our tax dollars, questionable alliances with foreign investors, failure to address national security issues here in America, over-reaching of executive power, assults on our Constitution, and the resulting republican method of blocking investigations into those same infractions against our country, shines like a boil for all to see.

One and a half Billion dollars squandered through corruption and incompetence in mishandling Katrina, unused trailors sinking into the ground, no safety for New Orleans to this day, 9 Billion dollars missing in Iraq, while your republican majority gives itself a pay raise for doing absolutely nothing constructive, while the focuss on how much money they can get from bribes, and how many more extravagant trips they can get out of crooked lobbyists.

Your attempt to slander those of us who are against the open-ended Iraq policy, devoid of any feasible exit plan, and wreaking of the stench of profiteering, and the un-necessary loss of the lives and limbs of our troops, while failing to provide them with proper equipment to survive the hell and kaos created by Bush's War, and the resulting and predicted Pandora's box which his policies have opened, speaks for itself.

No amount of Rove style kool aid, slander, election fraud, or Christian styled unrelated distractions from our Nation's devastating circumstances resulting from Bush/Republican/neocon failed policy will suffice in your efforts to mask such incompetence and dishonesty by dragging up mud from the debths of history, and painting Democrats as the party where the buck should stop. Your guys have been pulling the strings and calling the shots for long enough that Metro Goldwyn Mayer couldn't create enough mythology to mask the mess you have created.

Nobody has to WORK to put a negative spin on ANYTHING, we're in a mess in Iraq, and George Bush put us there. All there is left for you and your party now, is more obnoxious mud slinging, denial, and distraction, and efforts to pass the buck along to someone else.

HEY....REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN IN CONTROL FOR OVER A DECADE, AND WE ARE THREE AND ONE HALF TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT! HAVE NO NATIONAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM. NO EXIT PLAN FOR IRAQ. 20 MILLION ILLEGAL ALIENS. NO SOLUTION TO SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY. AN UNPRECEDENTED DEFICIT. AN OVERGROWN GOVERNMENT. 2500 DEAD SOLDIERS. KAOS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND NO END TO IT IN SIGHT. bin LADEN IS HAPPY, NOT DEMOCRATS!


OBVIOUSLY, IT"S THE DEMOCRAT'S FAULT! BWA HA HA H HA HA!!!!

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
06-15-2006, 06:53 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle on strong meds:</font><hr> While I understand your method to avoid reasonable debate is usually to take matters to the ridiculous <hr /></blockquote> This is coming from the looney who posted... <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Desperate Gayle in dire need of meds:</font><hr> Both you and Steve display severe cases of misogyny, and homophobia. I'm quite sure I'm not the only poster who sees that.
...You didn't say that marriage should be between a man and a woman? You haven't written that gays should not be allowed to marry? I think you might want to check the Acrhives... <hr /></blockquote> LOL, we don't even have to go to the archives to see you are losing it.

eg8r

eg8r
06-15-2006, 06:57 AM
[ QUOTE ]
eg8r should now be able to show his face around here again <hr /></blockquote> Work has kept me away, not the lies of the left.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-15-2006, 06:58 AM
More slander. Is that all you republicans know how to do?

FYI, the special prosecutor investigated her circumstances. SHE WAS COVERT. NON OF HER FRIENDS OR NEIGHBORS KNEW THE TRUTH ABOUT HER JOB.

It's in the documents. Where is the proof of you slanderous statements?

eg8r
06-15-2006, 07:01 AM
[ QUOTE ]
We've had one attack on our soil in five years during Bush. Clinton's ahead, unless you use republican style math. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, 1 and 1, and Clinton is ahead. You might want to check the math again. They are dead even. I wonder what W's record would have been if your favorite adulterer had taken care of OBL when OBL was offered to him.

eg8r