PDA

View Full Version : No WMD's in Iraq, Huh? Bush is a liar, huh?



Fran Crimi
06-21-2006, 08:50 PM
Interesting...go to fox news web page for the latest headlines and the story is WMD's found in Iraq.

But go to CNN's headline web page and there's no mention of the WMD's. Their headline is Marines File Murder Charges.

Fran

Cueless Joey
06-21-2006, 09:20 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
Conspiracy? /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

SnakebyteXX
06-21-2006, 09:25 PM
Fox News trumpets Iraq weapons discovery
North Korea Times
Wednesday 21st June, 2006

The powerful U.S.-based Fox News Channel is saturating its news coverage Wednesday with reports weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq.

Two Republican senators have obtained declassified documents which show 500 shells containing degraded sarin and mustard gas were found three years ago.

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) said Wednesday, 'Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.'

'That means in addition to the 500, there are filled and unfilled munitions still believed to exist within the country,' he added.

Despite the shells being at least fifteen years old, Santorum said, 'Pre-Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons could be sold on the Black Market. Use of these weapons by terrorist or insurgent groups would have implications for coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside of Iraq cannot be ruled out. The most likely munitions remaining are sarin- and mustard-filled projectiles. And I underscore filled.'

While conceding the gases 'degrade over time,' the document said that the chemicals 'remain hazardous and potentially lethal,' said Santorum, who was supported by Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.).

The senators say the 'discovery' lays to rest the notion there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the main reason for the March 2003 invasion.

'The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction is in fact false,' Santorum said. 'We have found over 500 weapons of mass destruction and in fact have found that there are additional chemical weapons still in the country,' said Santorum.

Despite the senators conceding the munitions pre-date 1991, Fox News Channel was devoting the majority of its program to press the claims. Fox News was an ardent supporter of the Iraq invasion and is largely credited with having persuaded a significant proportion of Americans of the need to wage war.

Fox's John Gibson described the weapons report as 'startling,' Brit Hulme said it was 'remarkable,' while Fred Barnes said, 'This is significant.'

The Duelfer report, commissioned by the Bush administration, named for its author, Charles Duelfer, concluded there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

<font color="blue">Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."</font color>

From 'The North Korea Times" (http://story.northkoreatimes.com/p.x/ct/9/cid/b8de8e630faf3631/id/63e563afa6216254/)

Snake &lt;-- fears Fran will not like the web page that this links to... (ducking and running for cover)

nAz
06-21-2006, 10:47 PM
hmm perhaps CNN decided to wait and see rather then jump the gun on the story and follow the true fair and balance reporting that fOXS has done... i think they still remember what happen to Dan Rather... funny thingn is if this story turns out to be wrong or rather more hype to justify the war people who follow foXS news will still believe anything they broadcast, err well maybe that is not funny just plain old sad.


Defense Department Disavows Santorums WMD Claims Today, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) held a press conference and announced we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Santorum and Hoekstra are hyping a document that describes degraded, pre-1991 munitions that were already acknowledged by the White Houses Iraq Survey Group and dismissed.

"Fox News Jim Angle contacted the Defense Department who quickly disavowed Santorum and Hoekstras claims. A Defense Department official told Angle flatly that the munitions hyped by Santorum and Hoekstra are not the WMDs for which this country went to war. Foxs Alan Colmes broke the news to Santorum.

Transcript:

COMBS: Congressman, Senator, its Alan Colmes. Senator, the Iraq Survey Group let me go to the Duelfer Report says that Iraq did not have the weapons our intelligence believed were there. And Jim Angle reported this for Fox News quotes a defense official who says these were pre-1991 weapons that could not have been fired as designed because they already been degraded. And the official went on to say these are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had and not the WMDs for which this country went to war. So the chest beating at this Republicans are doing tonight thinking this is a justification is not confirmed by the defense department. SANTORUM: Id like to know who that is. The fact of the matter is, Ill wait and see what the actual Defense Department formally says or more important what the administration formally says."

Naz~~ hope they do find WMDs i really don't want to believe that we got suckered into this whole mess.

now lets get some accurate facts from Gayle on this breaking news /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Qtec
06-22-2006, 02:13 AM
[ QUOTE ]
hmm perhaps CNN decided to wait and see rather then jump the gun on the story <hr /></blockquote>

What story? That the US found some pre-1991 artillery shells [ possibly forgotten about] buried in a desert ammo dump?


[ QUOTE ]
"This says weapons have been discovered, more weapons exist and they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. <font color="blue"> Whoever claimed the Iraq was 'WMD free'????? </font color>

The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s.
<hr /></blockquote>

And this is exactly the point. The WH claimed S was actively persuing an atomic bomb program.
He wasn't.
They claimed he had an active Chemical weapons program.
He didn't.
They claimed he might give these weapons that he didn't have to Al Q.
He had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Q.

Like the guy say"s,
"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."


Q

pooltchr
06-22-2006, 03:52 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."


Q <hr /></blockquote>

This is a great argument! Our military finds bombs loaded with chemicals, but they are the wrong ones! LMAO! I don't really care when they were manufactured. The fact that they even exist creates the potential for their use. I guess if we hadn't gone over there, they would have just let them sit around and rot!
A leopard doesn't change his spots. Saddam had them, he had used them in the past against his own people, and there is no reason to think he wouldn't have used them again.
Steve

Qtec
06-22-2006, 04:55 AM
web page (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/22.html#a8810)

Q

Qtec
06-22-2006, 05:00 AM
He never used them in the Gulf war and he never used them when the US invaded Iraq!

This is old news. Santorum will get creamed for this story.

Q

Deeman3
06-22-2006, 05:40 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Interesting...go to fox news web page for the latest headlines and the story is WMD's found in Iraq.

But go to CNN's headline web page and there's no mention of the WMD's. Their headline is Marines File Murder Charges.

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Fran,

Has Gayle approved this story? LOL </font color>

Deeman
They were not WMD unless Al Jezera runs the story....

Gayle in MD
06-22-2006, 05:44 AM
LMAO! What a joke. Whose the biggest dummie on this one, Santora, or Fox? How long will the right continue to try to glue together some argument for the mess Bush has created in the Middle East?

What do they not understand about NO WMD's have been found. What do they not get about, NO connection between Sh and bL or alQ? Why don't they understand a simple word...DEGRADED...

A simple statement...

These are not the WMD's that were reported to have been in Iraq by the Bush Administration....

More Republican/FauxNews/BS/fantasy,,,,does it ever end???

Gayle in Md.

Fran Crimi
06-22-2006, 06:06 AM
LOL! North Korea Times??? Nah...perfectly legit. I read them every day. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Fran Crimi
06-22-2006, 06:09 AM
See...this is exactly why the admin. had decided not to announce it. If it isn't something catastrophic, like nukes, well, then it's simply not good enough for the left. The left wants there to be failure and will twist everything possible as failure unless it's back is forced against the wall...even then, they'll try to wiggle their way out of it.

"Nukes? Well, yeah, there were nukes but the bombs weren't actually ticking so they weren't a threat."

Gimme a break.

Fran

Fran Crimi
06-22-2006, 06:10 AM
Believe it or not, I post for me. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Sid_Vicious
06-22-2006, 06:13 AM
It's pretty funny ain't it Gayle. Time rocks along with all of the obvious ineptness and dishonesty from Bushy, and this is hailed by the rights. Grasping at teeny-tiny straws, HAWHAWHAW...SID

pooltchr
06-22-2006, 07:18 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> The left wants there to be failure and will twist everything possible as failure unless it's back is forced against the wall...even then, they'll try to wiggle their way out of it.

<hr /></blockquote>
Not only does the left want to see us fail, they want to be able to gloat over it when it happens. I'm so sick of these left wing idiots claiming to be patriots, when all they really want to do is support the enemy, and find every possible reason to run down the present administration.
No, GW isn't perfect! But try to remember who the bad guys are. I haven't heard too many critics complain about our soldiers who were recently tortured and killes....but let the American troops kill Iraquis, and they raise all kinds of stink. Some of them actually seem to believe that WE are the bad guys in this whole thing, and the poor people of Iraq are the victims of the Bush administration.

They make me sick!
Steve

Gayle in MD
06-22-2006, 07:29 AM
Hi Q,
Regardless of where you got this info, it is most certainly correct, and matches statements made by American Intelligence agencies.

The Pentagon released a statement immediately after Santora's statement which clearly states, these weapons were degraded, of no threat, had not been manufactured after 91, and the existance of them did not support the administration's reports that SH was re-constituting his weapons program, as Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld had stated previous to their trumped up war in Iraq.

In the Frontline Documentary, Defence &amp; NSA officials state that within minutes of the 9/11 WTC attack, Rumsfled stated that the administration should try to create a link to Iraq, and use that link to launch war in Iraq.

I find it amazing that this issue about WMD's is still being exaggerated by the right. The amount of evidence to the contrary, and the proof of the administration's lies, and their extreme efforts to force intelligence agents to fix intel, is overwhelming. Only people who go by headlines, and GOP talking points, and never read books, or watch documentaries, could still be wasting their time trying to prove otherwise. And all those of us who think a president should tell the truth before our troops die due to lies, and false, trumped up threats, and the personal agendas of five to seven men, who ran rough shod over every national security agency in this country, are attacked, our patriotism questioned, when it is they themselves who fail to value the missing integrity, and lack of clear truthful statements of reason which should accompany the decision to launch pre-emptive War, the very action of which has been against American policy.

First Cheney and Bush blocked any National Security Estimate, and when the Senate and Congress, shocked that this estimate had never been launched, demanded one, Cheney used the C.I.A. as their own personal Public Relations tool to support their lies, and created one in three weeks, unheard of, hence they had to try to block the 9/11 investigation into their actions leading up to the war. If Republicans had not been in majority power, and leading the investigations, Bush and Cheney could have NEVER gotten away with what they did.

For a president to stand in front of Congress, the Senate, the American people, and the world, and tell such outrageous lies, knowing the he himself has been involved in concocting them, is the worst act of treason imaginable! And, it is a felony.

Regardless of how much anyone might wish for peace in Iraq, and in the rest of the world, realistic decision making should be the basis for action. The predicted, violent civil war presently raging in Iraq, and the recent resurgence of violence in Afghanistan, which the Pentagon now calls "All out war" are direct results of incompetence, lack of planning, refusal to heed advice, and an unrealistic Bush foreign policy. The continuation of this failed policy turns the prosecution of this war into a faith based initiative, devoid of the realistic facts on the ground, and devoid of any pre-war understanding of the Middle East, alQaeda, the Taliban, or what predicted results would surely follow, and have followed such a stupid decision as launching a war in Iraq through pre-emptive attacks and occupation.

Any suggestion that those of us who can acknowledge a virtual library of facts, [documented in official Government studies, and by private individuals who had been career intelligence experts, and Generals, who were willing to resign in order that the truth would be told, and which prove beyond any doubt that the intel was fixed by Bush's administration] must have wishes of failure for any positive result, surely smacks of an effort to kill ALL messengers of truth, and to slander all those who sought to discover what the truth actually was. Anything for the Party, and to hell with America, long live the King!

Gayle in Md.


Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
06-22-2006, 07:33 AM
They claim ownership of being loyal Americans and cheer at our every problem. It is true that dissent is not unpatriotic but pulling for the enemy certainly is. Are they just outraged at losing elections or do they really hate us so much?

The left is the left, the same as it always was. They try to put on a new patriotic coat but it is the same old America bashing it has always been, just dressed up in liberal media screaming at everything our country tries to do.

They are appaled at the 2500 killed in a war for freedom but never utter a work about 2500 africans a day dying in Somalia and the rest of Africa as that would mean a critique of a liberal UN leader Kofi Anon. If an American UN General Secretary was in charge ans the same thing was happening, what do you think you would hear from the left, "Bush's man is killing all these African kids! Where is your Christian values now, republicans? John Murtha, a brave anti-kid killer, was in Africa and says, he'd do it differently."

Same stuff, different day....

Deeman

Rich R.
06-22-2006, 08:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> I haven't heard too many critics complain about our soldiers who were recently tortured and killes....<hr /></blockquote>You are right Steve, some of us complain that our troops are there in the first place. They should be home and still alive.

Drop1
06-22-2006, 09:05 AM
I don't care about Iraq,Bush is still a liar,and he is stupid. Screw Fox,and CNN.

pooltchr
06-22-2006, 09:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> I haven't heard too many critics complain about our soldiers who were recently tortured and killes....<hr /></blockquote>You are right Steve, some of us complain that our troops are there in the first place. They should be home and still alive. <hr /></blockquote>

Rich, this is exactly what I am talking about. Instead of being outraged at the people who do this kind of thing to our people, you are pi$$ed off at the guy who is trying to do something about it. Oh, we can bring our troops home and huddle in our nice cozy homes and pretend nothing important happens outside our boarders, but it's nothing more than denial. You can circle the wagons if you want to, but the indians are still coming after you...it's just that inside that circle, you don't see them.

It's just like I said...that mentality is only saying that the bad guys are really ok, and we are the bad guys for provoking them. BULLS--T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(nothing personal) /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Steve

Gayle in MD
06-22-2006, 09:53 AM
Fran, the left didn't make this mess, or circulate the lies that led to this war, so they don't have to wiggle out of anything. The left was the party which knew what the majority of Americans now believe, that going into Iraq, was a mistake. There was no reconstitution of WMD's in Iraq, no attempt to get yellow cake, and no connection between Saddam and bin Laden. It has been stated over and over again, and documented. These weapons were old, degraded, and no longer a threat. The average shelf life of biolocigal weapons, is three months.

Oh, and also, I have no desire to see this unrealistic attempt to make Iraq a safe, civilized country, operating on principles of democracy, and devoid of violence, fail. I, along with most Americans, simply do not think that that will be the likely result. That doesn't mean that I like to see people die, or suffer. I'm just sick and tired of all the lies that are put forth by republicans, and their supporters. This ridiculous right wing BS that people who do not think going to Iraq was the correct decision, or that it will create a positive result in fighting terrorism, are for the cause of the Islamic terrorists, or approve of them in any way, is nothing but more dicisive hatred akin to the Ann Coulter vile slander that the right uses to vail their party's stupidity and incompetence, and a way of trying to defend their poor voting judgement. Such suggestions are completely outrageous, IMO, and are among the most un-American, insulting, and unrealistic accusations of any of the slanderous republican propaganda "Talking points" used to distract from the massive failures of this administration, and the increasing violence in the Middle East which has resulted. Concern for the plight of our troops who were lied to by George Bush and his treasonist neocons, is a far cry from supporting terrorists. On the contrary, speaking up against their treason and incompetence, is to speak up for our troops and our country.

Gayle in Md.

Rich R.
06-22-2006, 10:40 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>Rich, this is exactly what I am talking about. Instead of being outraged at the people who do this kind of thing to our people, you are pi$$ed off at the guy who is trying to do something about it. Oh, we can bring our troops home and huddle in our nice cozy homes and pretend nothing important happens outside our boarders, but it's nothing more than denial. You can circle the wagons if you want to, but the indians are still coming after you...it's just that inside that circle, you don't see them.

It's just like I said...that mentality is only saying that the bad guys are really ok, and we are the bad guys for provoking them. BULLS--T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(nothing personal) /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Steve <hr /></blockquote>Steve, I didn't mention GWB in my post on purpose. He is not the only one who has put our troops in harms way for no good reason.

The groups in the Iraq have been fighting many years and they will continue fighting long after the U.S. withdraws our troops. Our occupation of that country is doing nothing but wasting U.S. lives. Let them kill each other, not our troops.

The same was done in Korea and the same was done in Vietnam. We changed nothing.

Whether a Rep. or a Dem. is in the Oval Office, I don't care. I don't want to see the lives of our troops wasted.

If you choose to continue to believe that choosing sides and putting our troops between waring factions is going to save the world, I feel sorry for you.

(no offense taken; no offense meant)

Gayle in MD
06-22-2006, 10:55 AM
OK, Deeman, find us one example of anyone on this forum who has written a statement that supports the terrorists, or cheers their mutilations and be-headings.

You righties can't mask Bush's mistakes and lies by trying to label people who can prove them, as terrorist supporters.
It is, after all, a fact, that Bush'e policies have increased the number of terrorists, and emboldened their cause, and violence is esculating in Iraq and Afghanistan, just as the experts he refused to listen to, predicted. IOW, he, and all of you, were wrong. Unless and until the outcome changes drastically, I suggest you dummie down a bit on the outrageous accusations. AND, I was one who said at the time he invaded Iraq, that instead, we sould be doing something to stop the horror that is to this day still going on in Darfur, and other African localities. Pahleze, spare us having to swallow the idea of war mongering neocons as humanitarrians!

Gayle in Md.
Have the courage to speak truth to power, and you're a traitor, according to the GOP.

DickLeonard
06-22-2006, 11:07 AM
Deeman Please don't give us that the left is the left because we took us to World War 11 if it was up to the right Hitler would be controlling the World. History twisters is what the Right is.

If the right is so right why are so many serviceman having their tours extended. They can't get out of the Army even though their enlistment is up. All the right has to do is join the Army but they have better things to do.

That is the Phony of the Phonies.####

Gayle in MD
06-22-2006, 11:13 AM
Tap Tap Tap...no question!

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
06-22-2006, 11:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> OK, Deeman, find us one example of anyone on this forum who has written a statement that supports the terrorists, or cheers their mutilations and be-headings. <font color="purple"> Here is what I said, Where does it say anything about what you are saying above? As you read so much, maybe you should try retaining this stuff a little better. Do you deny that you squawk at everything we put here about GWB, no matter the subject? </font color> <font color="blue"> They claim ownership of being loyal Americans and cheer at our every problem. It is true that dissent is not unpatriotic but pulling for the enemy certainly is. Are they just outraged at losing elections or do they really hate us so much?

The left is the left, the same as it always was. They try to put on a new patriotic coat but it is the same old America bashing it has always been, just dressed up in liberal media screaming at everything our country tries to do.

They are appaled at the 2500 killed in a war for freedom but never utter a work about 2500 africans a day dying in Somalia and the rest of Africa as that would mean a critique of a liberal UN leader Kofi Anon. If an American UN General Secretary was in charge ans the same thing was happening, what do you think you would hear from the left, "Bush's man is killing all these African kids! Where is your Christian values now, republicans? John Murtha, a brave anti-kid killer, was in Africa and says, he'd do it differently."

Same stuff, different day....

</font color>

You righties can't mask Bush's mistakes and lies by trying to label people who can prove them, as terrorist supporters. <font color="blue"> Wow, the Senate apparently just defeated the bill to withdraw from Iraq by about 68-13 or so. Does that mean we have that many more Senators than the democrats or that, maybe people still don't trust Kerry? even those he is leading in his own party?</font color>
It is, after all, a fact, that Bush'e policies have increased the number of terrorists, and emboldened their cause, and violence is esculating in Iraq and Afghanistan, just as the experts he refused to listen to, predicted. IOW, he, and all of you, were wrong. Unless and until the outcome changes drastically, I suggest you dummie down a bit on the outrageous accusations. AND, I was one who said at the time he invaded Iraq, that instead, we sould be doing something to stop the horror that is to this day still going on in Darfur, <font color="blue"> We must have missed that day on the CCB. </font color> and other African localities. Pahleze, spare us having to swallow the idea of war mongering neocons as humanitarrians! <font color="blue"> I am not playing us as humanitariuans, just pointing out your selective humanitarian political leanings. Hey, if they don't discover oil in Niger, I vote we cut and run with you guys.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif</font color>


Deeman
just can't recall those multipage tirades by Gayle of her outrage at Dafur. Unless....she was targeting Bush and giving the UN a pass....

Gayle in Md.
Have the courage to speak truth to power, and you're a traitor, according to the GOP. <hr /></blockquote>

DickLeonard
06-22-2006, 11:17 AM
Gayle this is Herman Goering all over again, the people who speak out against the war are Unpatriotic. It is so easy to lead the herd just say we are going to be attacked by a foreign country and they will come along.####

Gayle in MD
06-22-2006, 11:23 AM
LOL, and if they can't get a deferment, (cheney took six or seven) their Daddy's will hide them out down south until all is quiet once again, and they can fill their little noses with cocaine and booze. Bush refused to answer any questions about his drug use!

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
06-22-2006, 11:24 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Deeman Please don't give us that the left is the left because we took us to World War 11 if it was up to the right Hitler would be controlling the World. History twisters is what the Right is. <font color="blue"> Respectfully, the left never took any of us into WWII. The democrats were not wild eyed leftist back then. They were further right than the republicans are now. </font color>

If the right is so right why are so many serviceman having their tours extended. They can't get out of the Army even though their enlistment is up. All the right has to do is join the Army but they have better things to do. <font color="blue"> I think you will find plenty of right wing people in the service. I don't understand what the right being right has to do with extended service of the soldiers. I would answer but sincerely don't understand. It may be a southern vs, northern thing.</font color>

That is the Phony of the Phonies.#### <font color="blue"> </font color> I don't even mean to say pacifists were not around have have not been here always. They wouold probably have been more listened to after the wars have endured and people have become disenchanted with each war. They have, historically never weilded any large influence until late in wars. There were large contingents of anti-war people in WWI &amp; WWII but most were not main stream democrats but fringe political groups. <hr /></blockquote>


Deeman

Gayle in MD
06-22-2006, 11:43 AM
Again, show me one damn post where anyone on this forum has spoken out in support of terrorists.

To say one "pulls for the enemy," is the same as saying they support terrorists.

You can't remember much of anything when you suffer from selective reading. I have made that statement about Darfur, many times.

Yes, republicans proved today, once again, that they don't know that sane people don't keep doing the same thing over and over when situations grow increasingly worse every day. When it isn't working, sensible intelligent people change course. That's just how damn dumb republicans are. The worse things get, the more they say,"Stay the Course."

Once more, How many years, and how many lives, and how many more billions are you willing to sacrifice so that Iraqis can have a better life? Our people dying in Iraq sure as hell isn't squelching terrorism, it is increasing it. You surely don't believe that we will have the opportunity to kill every terrorist in the world, in Iraq, that they will all get together and run into Iraq to fight the war there, so how the hell can you buy into some pseudo philosophy that fighting in Iraq, keeps us safer here? That is surely absurd.

Gayle in Md.

Sid_Vicious
06-22-2006, 12:10 PM
"Our people dying in Iraq sure as hell isn't squelching terrorism, it is increasing it."

Exactly! VN had a north enemy, but this hell hole is surrounded by wanna-be terrorists wishing to pop an American in Iraq for a trophy. The does not even begin to be close to V-Nam, it's exponentiated 5 fold. I once asked a small group of Bush defenders(friends) whether they would, given the opportunity with a time machine, stopped the V-Nam war if given a time machine and popped back at the level of lost lives we see now in Iraq, and damn if they each resisted to admit that they would have saved 56 THOUSAND lives knowing what they knew today. I'm hopefull they were putting a defense for Bush into that dumba$$ dodge, but I lost a ton of respect for each and everyone of them right there on the spot for not honoring all of the Vets who needlessly died in the unwinnable VM war. We ain't got no chance in this country with such goofballs as those who would again have 56K needlessly perish, and Iraq is gonna be much, much uglier until it gets bad enough that the pullout HAS to occur. A God given brain means you study and discern the direction you are taking, and redirect, just like a pool game. Funny(sad really) that some Americans have given into one man's demented agenda and forgotten they have an individual duty to THINK! sid

Gayle in MD
06-22-2006, 12:18 PM
Well said, Martin. Maybe they and Bush can pray us out of this mess!


I don't understand how they can support a president who doesn't give a good $**T about how many troops have died, and will continue to die, or even whether they have decent helmets. The man is insane. Too much cocaine, must have fired his brain, if he has one.

Gayle in Md.

Fran Crimi
06-22-2006, 12:33 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The left is the left, the same as it always was. They try to put on a new patriotic coat but it is the same old America bashing it has always been, just dressed up in liberal media screaming at everything our country tries to do.
<hr /></blockquote>

I've gotta laugh at what Rush calls them: "The Drive-By Media." /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif Drive-by, take a pot-shot and then cut and run for the hills. Sheesh.

pooltchr
06-22-2006, 01:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Yes, republicans proved today, once again, that they don't know that sane people don't keep doing the same thing over and over when situations grow increasingly worse every day.
Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

The vote was 68-13. How is that "The Republicans"? Or have the republicans now stolen some seats from the democrats in congress?
Steve

Gayle in MD
06-22-2006, 01:01 PM
I thought it was so funny when Rove, said, of the Dems, "They'll be there for the first shots, but they won't be there for the last shots."

Hell, Cheney, Rove, Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice,....None of them were ever even there for the FIRST shots! AH HA HA HA....

Gayle in Md....

pooltchr
06-22-2006, 01:08 PM
Sid,
I was there in VN, and I can tell you we could have won that war if we had been allowed to fight an all out war. The reason we couldn't win was because our military had their hands tied by politics. There are two options in war...cut and run, or fight all out with everything you have to win. Which way do you think we should handle this situation?
Steve

DickLeonard
06-22-2006, 05:22 PM
Pooltchr I am left of GWB but I am not in favor of cutting Veterans benefits like this ADM has. Keeping soldiers beyond their enlistment time that is forced slavery.

What Idiot would spend 2 trillion to fight terriorism when the terriorist spent less than 100 thousand. It will only take 1 million terriorist dollars to Bankrupt this country.

We have to go to the IRA and have them show us how kick the Terriorists ass. Remember this saying 3 Westies could take care of 150 Mafia men.####

pooltchr
06-22-2006, 05:42 PM
Dick,
I don't agree with cutting Vets benefits either. The point I was making was that when politics dictates how you fight a war (what you can and can't do), you are asking for trouble. We are fighting them on their turf, but we aren't fighting the same way they are.

Go back in your history books. How did this little country manage to win the revolutionary war? While the Brits marched through the land in formation wearing red coats, we sat in the trees and picked them off. Now we are trying to fight terrorists like they are an army. They aren't! They are small groups of people who don't come out in the open and fight. They use decoys, road side bombs, and other tactics designed to pick us off. We may outnumber them, but they are outsmarting us.

We need to take off the gloves, and fight the kind of fight they are fighting. Only problem is the Genova Convention says that's against the rules. And if we step over the line, our own media blows the whistle and calls foul! Some people right here got all bent out of shape screaming "torture" when our troops got carried away. Those same people don't get anywhere near as upset that these people are doing the same thing to our troops.
We need to take off the gloves and fight fire with fire. And that includes targeting the terrorist leaders for assasination, blowing up their camps, intercepting their phone calls, and whatever else it takes to win. If we aren't going to do that, then we are in for a long struggle.

We need to let these people who would crash passenger airliners into our cities know that whatever they do to us will be returned ten-fold. That is the only way to win. It's the only thing they understand.
Steve

Drop1
06-22-2006, 07:21 PM
There is evidence that two instrutors were killed by the troops they were training. The people of Iraq don't want us there,and they will go right back to fighting their religious war,as soon as we leave.

Qtec
06-22-2006, 08:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> See...this is exactly why the admin. had decided not to announce it. If it isn't something catastrophic, like nukes, well, then it's simply not good enough for the left. The left wants there to be failure and will twist everything possible as failure unless it's back is forced against the wall...even then, they'll try to wiggle their way out of it.

"Nukes? Well, yeah, there were nukes but the bombs weren't actually ticking so they weren't a threat."

Gimme a break.

Fran <hr /></blockquote>


[ QUOTE ]
Transcript: Bush Responds to WMD Report


FDCH E-Media
Thursday, October 7, 2004; 2:02 PM


President Bush gives a statement to reporters on the findings issued yesterday by the Iraq Survey Group led by Charles A. Duelfer. Here is a transcript of Bush’s comments.

BUSH: The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there.

The Duelfer report also raises important new information about Saddam Hussein's defiance of the world, and his intent and capability to develop weapons.

The Duelfer report showed that Saddam was systematically gaming the system, using the U.N. oil-for-food program to try to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions.

He was doing so with the intent of restarting his weapons program once the world looked away.

Based on all the information we have to date, I believe we were right to take action, and America is safer today with Saddam Hussein in prison. He retained the knowledge, the materials, the means and the intent to produce weapons of mass destruction, and he could have passed that knowledge on to our terrorist enemies.

Saddam Hussein was a unique threata sworn enemy of our country, a state sponsor of terror, operating in the world's most volatile region.

BUSHIn the world after September the 11th, he was a threat we had to confront. And America and the world are safer for our actions.

The Duelfer report makes clear that much of the accumulated body of 12 years of our intelligence and that of our allies was wrong. And we must find out why and correct the flaws.

The Silberman-Robb commission is now at work to do just that. And its work is important and essential.

At a time of many threats in the world, the intelligence on which the president and members of Congress base their decisions must be better, and it will be.

I look forward to the Intelligence Reform Commission's recommendations, and we will act on them to improve our intelligence, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction.

Thank you all very much.

END

<hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.'


The scale of the Iraqi conventional munitions stockpile, among other factors, precluded an examination of the entire stockpile; however, ISG inspected sites judged most likely associated with possible storage or deployment of chemical weapons.

Iraq’sCW program was crippled by the Gulf war and the legitimate chemical industry, which suffered under sanctions, only began to recover in the mid-1990s.
<hr /></blockquote>

web page (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol3_cw_key-findings.htm )

This is a non-story Fran.

Q

Qtec
06-22-2006, 09:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr> They claim ownership of being loyal Americans<font color="blue"> 'A vote for Kerry is a vote for Al Q!'.' /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
If you don't support the war you are a traitor' etc, is the chant coming from Reps, not Dems. </font color> and cheer at our every problem. <font color="blue"> It may sound like that because of the 100,s of mistakes made by this Admin, that have come to light. </font color> It is true that dissent is not unpatriotic but pulling for the enemy certainly is. <font color="blue"> wingnut logic; anti-war = anti-troops = supporting the enemy! </font color> Are they just outraged at losing elections or do they really hate us so much? <font color="blue"> I don't hate you D. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color>

The left is the left, the same as it always was. They try to put on a new patriotic coat but it is the same old America bashing it has always been, just dressed up in liberal media screaming at everything our country tries to do. <font color="blue"> Why do you equate opposition to Bush as America bashing? Did the GOP support Pres Clinton or did they do everything in their power to attack him? Were they America bashing? </font color>

They are appaled at the 2500 killed in a war for freedom but never utter a work about 2500 africans a day dying in Somalia and the rest of Africa as that would mean a critique of a liberal UN leader Kofi Anon. If an American UN General Secretary was in charge ans the same thing was happening, what do you think you would hear from the left, "Bush's man is killing all these African kids! Where is your Christian values now, republicans? John Murtha, a brave anti-kid killer, was in Africa and says, he'd do it differently." <font color="blue"> </font color>

Same stuff, different day....

Deeman <hr /></blockquote>

For the Right its seems, the truth is too unbearable to accept- they lied.

GW was against a 9/11 commission investigation into what went wrong! Would you call that Patriotic?
ie, He was more interested in covering his own a$$ than protecting the US from another attack.
Q

Sid_Vicious
06-22-2006, 10:01 PM
"Did the GOP support Pres Clinton or did they do everything in their power to attack him? Were they America bashing?"

Amen Q...sid

Qtec
06-22-2006, 10:45 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Martini Republic Rick Santorum’s phony WMD extravaganza
June 21st, 2006
*Update: (see below) Pentagon officials confirm farcical nature of WMD claim

Right Blogostan is going nuts over Santorum’s grandstanding and disingenuous declaration, citing a recently declassified document forwarded to several senators by John Negroponte, that we actually did find WMDs in Iraq, only the Bush administration forgot to tell us.

ThinkProgress, among other sites, says the cover to the report cited states:

Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.

Appearing on Hugh Hewitt, Sanctorum omitted the word “degraded.” Which is rather critical. It is clear that we’re talking about pre-91 munitions here, which have degraded to the point of near uselessness as a weapon.

The Iraqi Survey Group noted the collection of old chemical shells in its final report, which read:

• While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.

The report’s addendum described further the condition of the vintage chemical weapons, and the circumstances under which they were found, and would continue to be found:

ISG assesses that Iraq and Coalition Forces will continue to discover small numbers of degraded chemical weapons, which the former Regime mislaid or improperly destroyed prior to 1991. ISG believes the bulk of these weapons were likely abandoned, forgotten and lost during the Iran-Iraq war because tens of thousands of CW munitions were forward deployed along frequently and rapidly shifting battlefronts.

As the Coalition destroys the thousands of conventional munitions at depots around the country the possibility exists that pre-1991 vintage chemical rounds could be found mixed in with conventional munitions at these locations.

Got that? Most of the weapons were lost or abandoned during the Iran-Iraq war which ended in 1988. Moreover, because the battlefronts were in Shia Southern Iraq, where the no-fly zone existed, most of the WMDs were found in areas where Saddam’s control was shaky at best.

Now, here is the money shot:

However, ISG believes that any remaining chemical munitions in Iraq do not pose a militarily significant threat to Coalition Forces because the agent and munitions are degraded and there are not enough extant weapons to cause mass casualties.

Note: The bold and italics are in the original. Again, the ISG concludes that:

. . .any remaining chemical munitions in Iraq do not pose a militarily significant threat to Coalition Forces. . .
<hr /></blockquote>


A non-story.

Q

Qtec
06-22-2006, 11:23 PM
On October 7, 2002, George W. Bush, said... "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

CHENEY: Well, I think I've just given it, Tim, in terms of the combination of his development and use of chemical weapons, his development of biological weapons, his pursuit of nuclear weapons.---We know that based on intelligence that he has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.



24 Jun 2003 At a press briefing, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declares: "I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons." /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Q

Fran Crimi
06-23-2006, 03:29 AM
You guys are a joke. First you accuse the president of lying and now you're only too happy to point out that the information he received from the intelligence community was wrong. Make up your mind. Was he lying or did he get bad information?

The weapons that were found are still lethal. Are they weapons of mass destruction? You bet they are! Did Hussein lie when he said there were none left? You bet he did!

Get over it.

DickLeonard
06-23-2006, 04:48 AM
Deeman what I mean that no war supporters are going the service to replace the soldiers fighting over there. If your so gung ho join up. I see man dying over there over age 50+. So there is no excuse for the Right not signing and giving the soldiers their release. The truth is their Chicken [censored] they will send but they won't go.

When we have people at the top who never venture forward it is hard to expect anyone with a brain to join.####

DickLeonard
06-23-2006, 04:54 AM
Snakebytexx the only thing I have to say about these shells is how dumb are we.

Saddam used these weapons to keep his people in line and were going to bring them Democrazy.

I will now have to say that won't happen in our lifetime. So just remember twenty years from now I told you so.####

Gayle in MD
06-23-2006, 09:56 AM
Fran,
I'm sorry that you refuse to acknowledge the massive evidence and testimony that has accumulated about the way Dick Cheney hammered those intelligence people into the ground until they gave him what he wanted. Yes, the intelligence was wrong, because he insisted, beat those people into the ground until they pick out what he wanted, and eliminated what he didn't want. Dozens have resigned over the situation, and yes, written books, because they knew that what Cheney and Bush were up to was wrong, and actually illegal. I can't believe that you think it is OK for an administration to trump up a case for war, and send our people to die on LIES.


There have been a slew of intelligence officers and agents, including the chief inspections guy, David Kaye, who have made clear through interviews, documentaries, and books, that Cheney went to the CIA almost everyday to pressure people there, and to the special CIA terrorist agency location also, to pressure them to glue together the slant the administration wanted to project. Many people were so put off by such obvious dishonst fixing of intel, they retired from career positions.

David Kaye has stated, within the last two days, in regard to these recent political attempts by republicans to once again skew reality, that their statements are completely absurd. That the tubes they found were left over from the Iran-Iraq war, &amp; were compoletely degraded. Why would he lie? It was also stated way back when they were first found, that they were of no threat, degraded, and not considered to be weapons of mass destruction.

I really can't understand why you guys don't want to accept the truth about Bush, and what they did. They lied, plain and simple, and there is proof that they lied. People don't walk out on their retirement money, for nothing.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
06-23-2006, 10:04 AM
Q,
there was also another interview when Cheney said, "There is NO doubt, that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction."

Now here's a man who said that to the world, while knowing damn well that he had been brow beating the entire intelligence community, including inspectors, to help him to concoct his lies, and then he gets on national televisions and says...NO DOUBT....

This has got to be the most pervasive evidence of people (Bush supporters) refusing to see the truth that I have ever witnessed in my life,.... and then they say we're a joke? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
06-23-2006, 10:18 AM
Hi Drop,
Hey, anyone who thinks we could have ever won in Vietnam, isn't someone whose opinion of what is possible in a war, would carry much weight with me. Even McNamarra has stated that we could Never have won that war because it was in fact a civil war, and that the enemy would have fought until the last man dropped. There were too damn many of them, and no matter how many were bombed, there were thousands more willing to die. The longer we stay in Iraq, the angrier they will get, and the more of them will join the fight.

You can't win when you are caught in a civil war between sectarian groups. Occupations don't work. Murtha knows that. Kerry knows that. The generals who retired in order to be able to speak up for our troops, know that. We are up against an administration which manages to just say a lie over and over until their supporters begin to carry the tune for them. I've never seen anything like this in my life. And when you hit them with the truth, they get mad and start with the slander, just like their party does. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Gayle in Md.

Sid_Vicious
06-23-2006, 10:26 AM
"and then they say we're a joke?"

Consider the source Gayle. There is no reason, acceptance nor truth in selective ignorance...sid

Drop1
06-23-2006, 10:38 AM
I can accept being a joke,if that means seeking a transparent government,that represents the will of the peopele and I want the people who think our troops should stay in Iraq,to accept them selves as tragic dupes of a President that does not believe in giving truthful answers to specific questions. Question 1. Why are we there? We have had four versions. How does being in Iraq uphold the Constitution,of the United States. List the "coalition of the willing" Japan is pulling its troops out. I think England,and Tonga will hang in there. Are we going to have an Iraqi wall attached to the Viet Nam wall? What more does it take, than the people of a country,killing our troops,and these are everyday citizens,not just the bomb nuts. You see Mr.President the people of Iraq want us to leave,and you want the geo political position,for the oil.

pooltchr
06-23-2006, 10:40 AM
Fran,
Their minds are already made up. Don's confuse them with facts! They only hear what they want to hear.
Steve

DickLeonard
06-23-2006, 12:30 PM
Pooltchr this is the facts we went to Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction and were going to attack us. End of Story. Now were bringing them Democrazy.

When there was no Weapons we were finished end of story. Everything after that is nothing but lies and BS. When GWB declared the war over we had lost 149 men now it's 2500 + and everyday we have a new pot to boil.
LIES,LIES,LIES,LIES, BUNGLING IDIOTS THAT'S NO LIE. ####

Stretch
06-23-2006, 12:40 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> Dick,
I don't agree with cutting Vets benefits either. The point I was making was that when politics dictates how you fight a war (what you can and can't do), you are asking for trouble. We are fighting them on their turf, but we aren't fighting the same way they are.

Go back in your history books. How did this little country manage to win the revolutionary war? While the Brits marched through the land in formation wearing red coats, we sat in the trees and picked them off. Now we are trying to fight terrorists like they are an army. They aren't! They are small groups of people who don't come out in the open and fight. They use decoys, road side bombs, and other tactics designed to pick us off. We may outnumber them, but they are outsmarting us.

We need to take off the gloves, and fight the kind of fight they are fighting. Only problem is the Genova Convention says that's against the rules. And if we step over the line, our own media blows the whistle and calls foul! Some people right here got all bent out of shape screaming "torture" when our troops got carried away. Those same people don't get anywhere near as upset that these people are doing the same thing to our troops.
We need to take off the gloves and fight fire with fire. And that includes targeting the terrorist leaders for assasination, blowing up their camps, intercepting their phone calls, and whatever else it takes to win. If we aren't going to do that, then we are in for a long struggle.

We need to let these people who would crash passenger airliners into our cities know that whatever they do to us will be returned ten-fold. That is the only way to win. It's the only thing they understand.
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

That's the way the Jews do it, and they know them best. St.

Fran Crimi
06-23-2006, 03:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> Fran,
Their minds are already made up. Don's confuse them with facts! They only hear what they want to hear.
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

Yup. You know, I've always tried to see both sides of the coin on things....ALWAYS...until I started reading the venomous and hateful stuff being posted here by the administration haters. It's downright frightful. Kind of reminds me of a mob of protesters gone violent. Somewhere along the line the issues get left behind and the hatred prevails.

Fran

Drop1
06-23-2006, 06:06 PM
Fran,you have made alot of helpfull suggestions on improving my pool game. But I don't know what you would tell the parents of the two men killed by the troops they were training,and afterwords it turns out the people of Iraq don't even want us there,and have their own civil war going. I have voted for many Republican administrations. I would not vote for this one. I would vote for Juliani over Ms Clinton,or any of the Democrats that are playing politics. We cannot be against ourselves,as a Nation,and survive. We cannot be respected by creating truth. Truth is,and always will be independent of creativity.

nAz
06-23-2006, 07:10 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> Fran,
Their minds are already made up. Don's confuse them with facts! They only hear what they want to hear.
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

Steve i gotta ask you Fran and anyone else who cares to answer this... when The president and his staff started this who campaign on invading Iraq because of the WMDs and the "whole about to attack us thing" and "to prevent the proliferation of WMDs" is this Santorum report what you thought he meant by WMDs?

Did you think like a lot of Americans who listen to the machine (me included) that he had nukes or about to aquire them?

Qtec
06-23-2006, 10:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> Fran,
Their minds are already made up. Don's confuse them with facts! They only hear what they want to hear.
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

Steve, this whole story is BS and I can PROVE it to you. Here is a link to the CIA website! Iraqs WMDs (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxF.html)

From 2004!
[ QUOTE ]
Under UN Security Resolution 687, Iraq should have destroyed or rendered harmless all CW munitions, but we cannot determine without additional information whether the rounds we have recovered were declared or if their destruction was attempted.


An Iraqi source indicated that when weapons were forward-deployed in anticipation of a conflict, the CW weapons often became mixed in with the regular munitions, and were never accounted for again. Another source stated that several hundred munitions moved forward for the Gulf war, and never used, were never recovered by retreating Iraqi troops. A thorough post-OIF search of forward depots turned up nothing—if the weapons were indeed left behind, they were looted over the 12 years between the wars.

Iraq’s unilateral destruction of weapons in 1991 was far from perfect—a February 2003 UNMOVIC inspection at the Al Azziziyah Firing Range to attempt to account for 157 R-400 bombs by inspecting the debris turned up 8 bombs that had survived the 1991 explosions. So it is possible that Iraqi—or even UN—explosion pits could have been looted of a few surviving munitions.

<hr /></blockquote>

If the discovery of these weaons justfies attacking Iraq, why didn't the Govt release this story at the time?
Has the Govt changed its admission that they were wrong?



These are NOT the weapons that GW spoke about that would have posed a threat to the US and thats a fact.

Q

pooltchr
06-24-2006, 04:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Under UN Security Resolution 687, Iraq should have destroyed or rendered harmless all CW munitions, but we cannot determine without additional information whether the rounds we have recovered were declared or if their destruction was attempted. <font color="red"> This seems to be a pretty big problem...we knew they existed, but there was no accounting for their condition, or location. </font color>


An Iraqi source indicated that when weapons were forward-deployed in anticipation of a conflict, the CW weapons often became mixed in with the regular munitions, and were never accounted for again. <font color="red"> Again, what happened to them? Nobody seems to know! </font color> Another source stated that several hundred munitions moved forward for the Gulf war, and never used, were never recovered by retreating Iraqi troops. <font color="red"> Never recovered? I wonder where they are and who has control of them. </font color> A thorough post-OIF search of forward depots turned up nothing—if the weapons were indeed left behind, they were looted over the 12 years between the wars. <font color="red"> Great! They were looted! Who took them and what was done with them? </font color>

Iraq’s unilateral destruction of weapons in 1991 was far from perfect <font color="red"> In other words, we don't know where many of these weapons ended up. </font color> —a February 2003 UNMOVIC inspection at the Al Azziziyah Firing Range to attempt to account for 157 R-400 bombs by inspecting the debris turned up 8 bombs that had survived the 1991 explosions. So it is possible that Iraqi—or even UN—explosion pits could have been looted of a few surviving munitions. <font color="red"> I wonder where they ended up. </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

If the discovery of these weaons justfies attacking Iraq, why didn't the Govt release this story at the time?
Has the Govt changed its admission that they were wrong?
<font color="red"> Under the circumstances, maybe they felt that releasing everything they knew might not be a good idea. The enemy also watches CNN. Maybe we didn't want them to know everything we had learned. </font color>



These are NOT the weapons that GW spoke about that would have posed a threat to the US and thats a fact. <font color="red"> Maybe not, but they still pose a threat. And if these are still around, what else is still out there that we don't know about? </font color>

Q <hr /></blockquote>

Qtec
06-25-2006, 05:47 AM
Steve, these weapons DO NOT pose a threat. Thats the point! They are useless! They are only harmfull is you touch them!
Would you pick up a 18 year rusty old shell filled with chemicals?
There is only 1 instance where one one these shells were used by insurgents, and the Army confirmed they didn't know what it was. It didn't kill or harm anybody.



When the US invaded, Saddam had only control in a 1/3 of the country. Where were these shells found? They didn't say!

This story is a precursor to the next election and there are others like it. This story has been pushed on Fox , Limbaugh etc for a week until its properly debunked and then there will be some other farce presented as fact. 'Murther hates the troops'?
We have the freaky whacko Coulter, the darling of the GOPs LOL, squaking crap and she still gets airtime!
The end result will be that in the election, Dems will be portrayed as loonies for not recognising the fact 'that we found WMDs in Iraq'. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[ QUOTE ]
But, of course, the Santorum/Hoekstra assertion was initiated by the White House.

Say what?

Actually, it's quite easy to explain. This is Rovian cynicism and mass media manipulation at its essence. Put a false claim out there through any means possible, then quietly debunk the assertion. The false claim gets picked up and conveyed with alarm by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, FOX News and even the rest of the mainstream press. Meanwhile, the disproof of the false assertion gets left behind in the crowd, like a milk carton that is trampled in a feverish rush of people who are running from the boogeyman <hr /></blockquote>

Q

Qtec
06-25-2006, 11:08 PM
Rush L on the subject!

[ QUOTE ]
RUSH: If you're like me you have a mixture of anger and frustration at a whole lot of people over the discovered news of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and you're very frustrated over what some of the reaction to this has been. Here's the timeline on this: (story) "Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) announced Wednesday the discovery of more than 500 munitions or weapons of mass destruction, specifically 'sarin- and mustard-filled projectiles,' in Iraq. Reading from unclassified portions of a document developed by the U.S. intelligence community, Santorum said, 'Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.

"Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.' According to Santorum, 'That means in addition to the 500, there are filled and unfilled munitions still believed to exist within the country.' Reading from the document, Santorum added, 'Pre-Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons could be sold on the Black Market. Use of these weapons by terrorist or insurgent groups would have implications for coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside of Iraq cannot be ruled out." Now, obviously, folks, these are facts. There's a lot more on these documents that has not been unclassified. There's no interest in this. There's hardly any interest in this from any quarter. <font color="blue">I'm sure Rush has a theory. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif </font color>

The White House doesn't seem all that interested in this. Certainly the Drive-By Media is not interested in this. The Democrats don't want to hear a thing about this, because it totally compromises their whole template of "Bush lied, there were no weapons of mass destruction," despite all of the talk from Clinton and the Democrats in the Senate in 1998, which we've documented here, and so it's puzzling. It's very frustrating. Why in the world is there such a reluctance, even on the part of some Republicans and some Republican conservative media members, to downplay this? <font color="blue"> A reluctance to downplay? LOL </font color> I have a theory about this, multiple theories in fact. <font color="blue"> /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color>

We've had a three-year propaganda program on "No weapons of mass destruction. None have been found." This is just settled in now as fact. It is not "fact." It is propaganda. <font color="blue"> No Rush. Every seach by the US and the IAEC found nothing. </font color> The facts are coming out and there's probably a lot more to be unclassified if somebody will just do it. Now, there are other problems that exist here in addition to people not wanting to stick their necks out like Santorum has and Pete Hookstra has -- and Hookstra, by the way, is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. He's not a minor player here, not a minor figure. But you watch, the Democrats and the media are going to try to taint both of these guys as kooks.


"Come on! They won't let it go. Look at these people. They're just a bunch of conspiracy theorists. <font color="blue"> In this case its Rush who has a conspiracy theory. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif How ironic! </font color> It's already been established there were no weapons of mass destruction." Well, here are the facts. "Well, but these were prior to 1990! This is from the Gulf War. This has nothing to do with what we went into Iraq for." <font color="blue">Correct. </font color> It's another refrain you may be hearing. They were there! They were found there, ladies and gentlemen. The whole notion that there were no weapons of mass destruction is absurd. The Drive-By Media wants no part of it. <font color="blue">Rush personifies the 'Drive-By Media'. </font color> Republicans, they're a little scared because of the propaganda for the past three years that has got everybody a little frightened to go out on a limb about this -- and some people, because the propaganda has been so successful, some people are trying to say, "This is not a big issue!" <font color="blue"> </font color>


In the administration there's a guy named John Negroponte. Negroponte has done his best to... You remember the 36,000 boxes of documents that we found a long time ago? It took a long time to get those translated and released and it was elements in the administration that were trying to prevent that. <font color="blue"> Conspiracy theory #1. LOL </font color>

I don't know why. I can't tell you, but it took a direct intervention on the part of President Bush to get those documents translated <font color="blue">Anyone hear of this? </font color> and released which illustrates the connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein long before 9/11. They don't establish a connection with 9/11, but the whole notion that Iraq had no connection with terrorists or Al-Qaeda prior to 9/11 is foolish because it's in those documents. <font color="blue"> LMAO. A classic non-sensical statement by Rush. </font color> There's also, I'm going to tell you something else, folks, and I've said this before, I've just never said it in this strong a fashion. There's a shadow government operating here. You've got Clintonoids held over at state, at CIA, and at the Pentagon. <font color="blue">RAOTF. Conspiracy theory #2! </font color>


<hr /></blockquote>

Here is how the Admin raated the threat from Iraq before 9/11, in Condi's case just 2 months before 9/11.

web page (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6456.htm)

One year later.

[ QUOTE ]

BLITZER: Based on what you know right now, how close is Saddam Hussein's government -- how close is that government to developing a nuclear capability?

RICE: You will get different estimates about precisely how close he is. We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. We do know that there have been shipments going into Iran, for instance -- into Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to -- high-quality aluminum tools that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.

We know that he has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon. And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought, maybe six months from a crude nuclear device.

The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't what the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. <hr /></blockquote>

Q

DickLeonard
06-26-2006, 04:56 AM
Drop1 Juliani used Gestapo tactics to clean up the crime in NYC, he didn't solve the problem he just drove the criminals upstate where their police forces weren't prepared to handle the rise in crime. He might look good after 911 but his total disregard for the Law would make George Bush look like a schoolboy####

Fran Crimi
06-26-2006, 07:09 AM
I'm curious....What laws did Giuliani disregard? What crimes did he commit?

Fran

pooltchr
06-26-2006, 08:34 AM
Fran,
I'm surprised at you! Asking for facts to back up a statement like that! Don't you know it's enough to just call someone a crook or a liar? Why would you want actual facts?
Steve

Deeman3
06-26-2006, 08:58 AM
Yes, why start now? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

wolfdancer
06-26-2006, 09:39 AM
Dick, not to worry...as John Lindsey noted ...being Mayor of NYC is a dead end job...Rudy won't be elected President.
It's really not that they haven't had good Mayors...just that they city is unmanageable. ( except for the weather, and the people born there that have a total disregard for the normal societal conventions, it would be a great place to live)
As I remember only Chicago thinks that the NYC crime-busting D.A, Tom Dewey became our 33rd President.
(In a program I watched the ohter nite, about Cuba and the mob....there were allegations of a $250K "donation" for Tom's campaign....in exchange for freeing Lucky Luciano from prison)
Corruption, bribery...in NYC ????

wolfdancer
06-26-2006, 10:18 AM
in fact it's super Bull........

"Project Babylon Supergun / PC-2

Early in the war with Iran, the Iraqi government engaged world- renowned artillery expert Gerald V. Bull, whose lifetime obsession was a the construction of a "Supergun," a huge howitzer able to fire satellites into space or launch artillery shells thousands of miles into enemy territory. While he did not accomplish that dream, Bull did manage to design some of the most effective artillery pieces in the world.

A Canadian-born astro-physicist, Bull had earlier research contracts with with the United States Army, the Canadian Department of Defense and McGill University. While working on the Canadian Velvet Glove missile project, he realized that scientific instruments could also be fired from a gun and survive if put in a proper casing. In 1962 Bull obtained US military support for the joint U.S./Canadian High Altitude Research Program [HARP]. Initially working from a facility on the island of Barbados, a small 5-inch gun was used to fire projectiles to an altitude of over 70 km, and a 7-inch guns fired projectiles to nearly 100 km. Subsequently, in Arizona a larger HARP gun was fabricated by welding together a pair of 16-inch battleship guns, forming a barrel some 30 meters long. The gun was used to fire light-weight sub-caliber discarding-sabot projectiles called Martletts. On 19 November 1966 the gun fired a 185-lb Martlet to an altitude of 180 km. The 16 inch HARP gun was intended to launch a small three stage rocket carrying a 10 kg payload into space. However, the Canadian and US governments terminated HARP funding in 1967.

Bull severed his association with the Pentagon in the 1970's and set up companies and agreements to sell improved versions of technology he developed to a number of foreign governments, including Iran, Chile, Taiwan and China. Working through his own Quebec firm, Space Research Corporation, and a Belgium subsidiary, European Poudreries Reunies de Belgique, Bull was able to produce his most formidable battlefield artillery piece, the GC-45 gun, known to fire a shell 25 miles with a throw weight twice that of guns used by Western armies. He was sentenced and jailed for one year in 1980 for illegally selling weapons to South Africa, despite the US arms embargo.

Shortly after the Iran-Iraq War began, the Iraqi government dispatched a private aircraft to Geneva to take Bull to Baghdad. So began a long association between Bull and the government of Iraq, and its then-defense minister, Saddam Hussein. Bull dealt with Iraq for almost 10 years. Iraq was one of many states with guns developed by Bull. His clients are known to include his native Canada, the United States, South Africa, Iran, Chile, Taiwan, China, and Libya.

Most worrisome in Iraq's arsenal of guns developed by Gerald Bull from mid-1981 until he was assassinated on 22 March 1990, were its 300 155 millimeter howitzers, all versions of the GC-45 gun that Bull developed in the 1970's. Two hundred of these guns, termed GH-N-45 and manufactured in Austria, were shipped to Iraq via Jordan in 1985 for use in the Iran-Iraq war. The remaining 100 were manufactured in South Africa, where they are marketed under the name G-5. The G-5 can deliver a tactical nuclear warhead, chemical shells or any NATO standard 155mm shell.

Bull also designed two advanced self-propelled artillery systems for the Iraqis: the 210-millimeter Al Fao and the 155 millimeter Majnoon. The Al Fao, which weighs 48 tons, can fire four 109 kilogram rounds a minute for 35 miles from its 11-meter barrel. The Iraqis claim that the Al Fao and Majnoon can attain a top speed of 72-88 kilometers an hour on the road.

Also worrisome were Bull-modified missile warheads, which increased the range of Iraq's Scud missiles.

Under Project Babylon, Bull extended his HARP gun design to build the barrel in segments, with a total length of 512 feet. The gun would be able to fire 600 kg projectile to a range of 1,000 kilometers, or a 2,000 kg rocket-assisted projectile into orbit.

As a component of Project Babylon, Bull built a smaller gun, nick-named Baby Babylon, as a prototype for the larger gun. This 40 meter long gun was first constructed for horizontal testing in the summer of 1989, and installed at Jabal Hamrayn, ninety miles north of Baghdad, in central Iraq [Jabal Hamrin MTS 34°30'N 44°30'E]. The gun was positioned along a mountainside at an agle of about 45 degrees.

In documents filed with the UN Special Commission 18 July 1991, Iraq admitted possessing a gun with a barrel 350 millimeters wide and 45 meters long and that it was building a second one. The commission noted that the gun would have been inaccurate for conventional armaments, and that it was trying to determine if the weapon was intended for chemical, biological, or nuclear use. The superguns were potentially capable of firing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons to a range of up to 1,000 km.

The high-ranking Iraqi defector Gen. Hussein Kamel al-Majeed said Iraq was working on a space weapon launched from the supergun.

"It was meant for long-range attack and also to blind spy satellites. Our scientists were seriously working on that. It was designed to explode a shell in space that would have sprayed a sticky material on the satellite and blinded it."

He also said the supergun could have delivered a nuclear device.

Following the Gulf War UN teams destroyed one 350 mm. supergun, components of a 1000 mm. supergun, and supergun propellant.

Iraq used the petrochemical complex two (PC-2) project as a front to purchase components for Gerald Bull's super gun. Matrix Churchill was a long established Midlands based machine tool manufacturer which was purchased in 1987 by an Iraqi controlled company, TMG Engineering Ltd, which was in turn controlled by another Iraqi controlled company, Technology and Development Group Ltd (TDG). The military uses of Matrix-Churchill machines are the prime reason Iraq was interested in purchasing the company. Acquiring Matrix-Churchill gave Iraq access, not only to the machine tools, but also the computer programming, tooling, and other components needed to make a wide variety of munitions as well as other applications in aerospace and nuclear industries. The Iraqi NASSR Establishment for Mechanical Industries contracted with the company for the supply of machine tools for a project, code named "ABA", to manufacture parts for multi launcher rocket systems. In addition, supergun components were fabricated in separate parts by factories in England, Spain, Holland and Switzerland. Acting on an anonymous tip, British Customs seized the final eight sections of the Super Gun in November 1990. The work skirted the law but remained legal, as illustrated by Britain's unsuccessful prosecution of the case, following the joint British-American sting operation that uncovered key supergun equipment transfers."
web page (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/other/supergun.htm)

Gayle in MD
06-26-2006, 12:31 PM
Hi Drop,
I wholeheartedly agree, and experience the same feelings.
Funny you mention England, I've been reading lately about how the English are as fed up with their own loss of privacy protections, and their right to demonstrate in certain places, and a number of other assaults on their privacy and legal civil protections.

In case you're interested, this months Vanity Fair has several articles which outline the Bush administrations creation of false facts on Iraq. One article, in particular
is an in depth outline of the Italian connection to the phoney Yellowcake document. It seems the Niger Embassy was burglerized just a few months before Bush barged his way into the White House with his secret plan for a war in Iraq. Nothing of value was taken, except the official Stamp and pad, and the official stationary, the same stationary on which the phoney document about SH and the Yellowcake was written.

The article goes on to describe a group in Italy known to be in the business of selling an intelligence service to other nations, the service of creating false documents, and false intelligence. There are several involved, names are named, and the trail leads right back to the White House. It is a very compelling story.

Given that Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush, went into the White House still seething because Bush SR. refused to occupy Iraq, as they wanted, and Bush/Cheney gave warning to all Intelligence Agencies that their administration would not be centered around terrorism, or alQaeda, but that they only wanted info on Iraq, and then eight months later 9/11 devastated our country, it is no mystery to me that Bush did everything he could do, including cut off the funding, to stop the investigation into 9/11.

9/11 happened because George Bush and Dick cheney were ten years behind in their thinking, and took their eye off the ball, al Qaeda. They had two months notice, and could have prevented 9/11, but they refused to listen to our intelligence people who tried with all their might to warn them, and to corral their attention onto bin Laden, and his threats. They failed in the same ways when they took their eye off Afghanistan, in order to invade Iraq, and let bin Laden get away in the process.

There is no one in this country more responsible for 9/11, than George Bush, and Dick Cheney, period. When next we are attacked, there will be no one in this country more responsible than George Bush and Dick Cheney. As time goes by, and more people speak out, this fact will become undeniably accepted. Regardless of the fact that there have been atleast four documentaries, which I have watched, each including many interviews with the very intelligence people of which I speak, and each supporting the same identical facts which people like you and I are so angry about, not to mention countless books authored by people in Special Forces, in our Armed Services, and the highest levels of National Security, all telling the same grim story of the dishonesty and incompetence of George Bush and Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice, the right in this country is so fanatical by nature, and stuck in denial, they still will not open their eyes to the truth. Even though we have none other than David Kaye, laughing over this last republican farce about finding WMD's in Iraq, and as Mr. Kaye stated, the only way that this stuff could hurt you would be if you spilled some of it on your skin, you could get a bit of a burn, still they deny such frivolity

As for the righties on here, they have a double standard, obviously. Some of them actually would like to see our country use the same barbaric methods used by radical Muslims, disregard all the humanitarrian rules of war, treatment of prisoners, and the international agreements that America has traditionally embraced, and they would have our own country become as radical and barbaric as the worst of the worst. They rail against the barbaric methods of terrorists, and at the same time, they say that we should do the same as the terrorists, be just as cut throat, and just as inhumane. How very sad. Christians, yet.


Those of us who write about truth, its importance in our government, and particularly regarding war, our laws, and the Constitutional protections which we Americans cherish, and which make us a civilized nation, are painted as being hateful and traitors. The hateful traitors are those who do not stand for our country's Constitution, and who would willingly give up every law of civilized democratic principles, just to protect their party, and avoid the accountability which has been derailed by the Republican Party since Bush took office.

The fact that we can write our thoughts on an internet forum, and buy a newspaper which tells the true story of what our troops face in Iraq, day by day, may seem disgusting and outrageous to George Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Karl Rove, ...and hateful to those people who support the philosophy of no criticism, no oversight, and no accountability, ... but in truth, it is what makes us Americans, and what makes our country great, and separate from most other nations. The tragedy lies in the fact that many Americans today, would much prefer to silence our concerns, demonize our free press, trivialize our earnest search for truth, and have us strung up, rather than show humility in on-going relvelations where they are exposed to factual information, regardless of its accuracy, content, or credibility of the author, since it exposes their on-going poor judgement.


No one has pleased bin Laden, North Korea, and Iran, as much as George Bush. This bunch was blatantly ignorant of modern National Security issues, ten years behind in their thinking, and worst of all, sure, beyond any doubt, that they had all the answers. Their failed policies, and grossly inaccurate predictions, are there for all to see. No wonder the right becomes insulting when we discuss them. They have lost face, right along with Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
06-26-2006, 01:02 PM
I wonder, have you read both the Republican and Democrat resolutions? Are you aware that Iraqis' want to give amnesty to any Iraqis who killed our troops? Are you aware that the top man in Iraq wants a time-line for our withdrawel, exactly what some brave Democrats have been calling for and legislating for all along. Kind of blows away the Reublican BS about cut and run, and how a time line would help the enemy, and how Bush promised this same guy that we wouldn't leave or give a time line for withdrawel, huh?

The truth is, exactly what Murtha has said all along...they want us out of there. He also said, just wait, before the elections, the president will see that he can't win this on the ground, and that we HAVE to get our guys out of there, and you'll see him drawing down our troop levels. Now, Gen. Casey is saying the same thing.

Bush had been saying thqat the next president would have to decide when to leave....guess he finally realized, after three and a half years, and over 2500 dead, and three trillion in debt to China, and now oil paying for the war, no flowers in the streets, just a incredible demand that we pay reparations to any civilian families who lost someone while we were fighting for their freedom, and amnesty for any of them who killed our people. Wonder what Bush had to pay this guy to get him to ask us to leave???

Murtha was right all along, we're making it worse, we can't win it, and the Iraqis want us out of there....80% of them...Murtha said this long long ago, while the Republicans were accusing him of being a coward and a traitor, and calling the Democratic cry for re-deployment, "Cut and run"....so tell me, is General Casey a cut and run coward? This proves Murtha's and Feingold's cause better than anything else could.

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
06-26-2006, 04:17 PM
Gayle,we are over there fighting a war because we believed (sic) that they had weapons of mass destructions. Now some folks think GWB was right because we have now found them.....Turns out that they are pre 1991...or before the first Bush war. So we sent our troops over there but didn't know they had those weapons then, that could have been used against our guys? Who's running the intelligence show...the Mad Hatter?
Since we armed the Iraqis to fight against the Iranians...we might have even paid for the WMD's in the first place.
Well, I'm really sorry that minigeorge didn't get the acclaim, that his father, a real military man, did for the original Gulf War. Maybe he should have read a few books on warfare first....it's really different then in the John Wayne movies...another American Hero, like GWB...that never was in a war.
I think the whole Middle East is a no win situation.They don't like their neighboring countries, and they all hate Israel

pooltchr
06-26-2006, 04:24 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> 9/11 happened because George Bush and Dick cheney were ten years behind in their thinking, <font color="red"> Yeah, it's all GW's fault. OBL probably didn't even think of something like this until GW got ELECTED. I'm sure it was all because of GW. /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif </font color> They had two months notice, and could have prevented 9/11, There is no one in this country more responsible for 9/11, than George Bush, and Dick Cheney, period. When next we are attacked, there will be no one in this country more responsible than George Bush and Dick Cheney. <font color="red"> I'm sure that anything that happens for the rest of your life that you don't like will be blamed on GW. </font color> As for the righties on here, they have a double standard, obviously. Some of them actually would like to see our country use the same barbaric methods used by radical Muslims, disregard all the humanitarrian rules of war, treatment of prisoners, and the international agreements that America has traditionally embraced, and they would have our own country become as radical and barbaric as the worst of the worst. They rail against the barbaric methods of terrorists, and at the same time, they say that we should do the same as the terrorists, be just as cut throat, and just as inhumane.
<font color="red"> How is that a double standard? The double standard is that these animals have no respect for human life whatsoever, yet we are supposed to fight by the "rules"????????????? The rules say you shouldn't kick a dog, but if a Pit Bull is chewing on your leg, what would you do to stop him? These radicals don't give a damn about the rules of war. We should be fighting them on their terms. I know you and your liberal friends think this whole war on terror is our fault, and if we would just back off, so would they. Guess again! Their goal is the destruction of our society. If we play by the rules, they will win. Is that what you want???????????? </font color>


Those of us who write about truth, <font color="red"> Hah! </font color> its importance in our government, and particularly regarding war, our laws, and the Constitutional protections which we Americans cherish, and which make us a civilized nation, are painted as being hateful and traitors. <font color="red"> Nope! Just misguided. </font color> Gayle in Md.



<hr /></blockquote>

wolfdancer
06-26-2006, 04:58 PM
Steve, I don't think anyone believes the war on terror is our fault. Terror is a real threat, and we can only hope to prevent it from happening here.
Perhaps by Bush having free rein to monitor Americans is preventing attacks. We might even end up with the old Bob Hope joke becoming a truism:
"The difference between TV in amercia and Russia, is that in Russia, TV watches you" We don't even need TV, now that our computers record every word we type, and forwards them to 1600 Penn....
I would not be surprised if sometime before the next election, Bush declares Martial Law, suspends the elections, and like "Papa Doc" Duvalier..declares himself President for life
I believe that Saddam was a threat, just not the imminent threat that GWB would have us believe.I also don't like the way Bush's team sold 9/11 &amp; Iraq as a package deal to the public. Iran, N.Korea, are also threats, to a lesser extent Syria, Pakistan...they all hate us...Even the French hate us, but hate to fight even more.
Don't you think it was a terrible mistake to begin the first gulf war, and not remove Saddam as their leader....and just quietly withdraw, and give him another dozen years to plan to extract revenge?.
Maybe even a mistake to aide him in his war with Iran?

wolfdancer
06-26-2006, 05:00 PM
Steve, I don't think anyone believes the war on terror is our fault. Terror is a real threat, and we can only hope to prevent it from happening here.
Perhaps by Bush having free rein to monitor Americans is preventing attacks. We might even end up with the old Bob Hope joke becoming a truism:
"The difference between TV in amercia and Russia, is that in Russia, TV watches you" We don't even need TV, now that our computers record every word we type, and forwards them to 1600 Penn....
I would not be surprised if sometime before the next election, Bush declares Martial Law, suspends the elections, and like "Papa Doc" Duvalier..declares himself President for life
I believe that Saddam was a threat, just not the imminent threat that GWB would have us believe.I also don't like the way Bush's team sold 9/11 &amp; Iraq as a package deal to the public. Iran, N.Korea, are also threats, to a lesser extent, Syria, Pakistan...they all hate us...Even the French hate us, but hate to fight even more.
Don't you think it was a terrible mistake to begin the first gulf war, and not remove Saddam as their leader....and just quietly withdraw, and give him another dozen years to plan to extract revenge?.
Maybe even a mistake to aide him in his war with Iran?

pooltchr
06-26-2006, 06:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Steve, I don't think anyone believes the war on terror is our fault. <font color="red"> There are those who would have you think that if we just give up in Iraq, that all these terrorists would leave us alone. I can't buy into that line of thinking. </font color> Terror is a real threat, and we can only hope to prevent it from happening here. <font color="red"> I fully agree. And we need to fight it with everything we have, whatever means necessary. </font color>
Perhaps by Bush having free rein to monitor Americans is preventing attacks. <font color="red"> I don't have anything to hide from GW...and if the monitoring of phone records (not phone calls, phone RECORDS) can prevent another attack, it seems like a pretty good idea to me. </font color> We might even end up with the old Bob Hope joke becoming a truism:
"The difference between TV in amercia and Russia, is that in Russia, TV watches you" We don't even need TV, now that our computers record every word we type, and forwards them to 1600 Penn.... <font color="red"> Have you ever written anything on your PC that you wouldn't or couldn't explain? I would hate to think that the government is concerned about my e-mails...they are probably pretty boring. But if they find a terrorist plot by reading through e-mails, well, I guess they are going to know that I haven't responded to anyone offering to help me give more pleasure to my partner, or help the wife of the former president of Nigeria funnel money, or even that much of my e-mail is related to teaching pool. It's all pretty harmless, so I don't worry about it. I do worry about people in my city plotting some crazy attack against this country. </font color>
I would not be surprised if sometime before the next election, Bush declares Martial Law, suspends the elections, and like "Papa Doc" Duvalier..declares himself President for life <font color="red"> I'm not much on gambling, but I would probably take that bet. </font color>
I believe that Saddam was a threat, just not the imminent threat that GWB would have us believe. <font color="red">He needed to be removed. I'm glad someone did it. </font color> I also don't like the way Bush's team sold 9/11 &amp; Iraq as a package deal to the public. <font color="red"> If the public believed that the two were tied together, they are pretty easy marks. I guess P.T. Barnam was right. I always knew 9/11 and Iraq were two separate issues, didn't you? </font color> Iran, N.Korea, are also threats, to a lesser extent, Syria, Pakistan...they all hate us... <font color="red">So do you think it's our fault they hate us, or are they just a crazy bunch of lunatics? </font color> Even the French hate us, <font color="red"> Yeah, but who really cares what the French think? </font color> but hate to fight even more.
Don't you think it was a terrible mistake to begin the first gulf war, and not remove Saddam as their leader....and just quietly withdraw, and give him another dozen years to plan to extract revenge?. <font color="red"> Yes, I never understood why that job wasn't finished. But we can't really blame GW for that one. Had we done it right the first time, we probably wouldn't even be discussing Iraq today. </font color>
Maybe even a mistake to aide him in his war with Iran? <font color="red"> I don't think you need to include the word "maybe" in that statement. Selling arms to any middle eastern country is probably not a good idea. With such unstability in that region, you never know who is going to end up with their hands on them. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

Qtec
06-26-2006, 07:33 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Iran, N.Korea, are also threats, to a lesser extent, Syria, Pakistan...they all hate us... <font color="blue"> So do you think it's our fault they hate us, or are they just a crazy bunch of lunatics? </font color><hr /></blockquote>

Imagine you are an Iraqi living under the oppression of a ruthless Saddam. Saddam attacks Iran and what do the Americans do! They side with Saddam! He starts an illegal war and the US helps him!
How do you think the Iranians would view this. How would you view it if you were an Iranian. Would you see the US as friend or foe.


[ QUOTE ]
I also don't like the way Bush's team sold 9/11 &amp; Iraq as a package deal to the public. <font color="blue"> If the public believed that the two were tied together, they are pretty easy marks. I guess P.T. Barnam was right. I always knew 9/11 and Iraq were two separate issues, didn't you? </font color><hr /></blockquote>

OMG, not that crap again. Did you read my posts above.

Logic.
Saddam was a paranoid sociopath who executed ANTONE who he thought was or could be a threat to him. If he gave an atomic bomb to Al Q, how could he be sure that they wouldn´t use it on him.
The Admin quickly forgot about OBL and switched the puplic´s attention to Saddam. Check out the speeches from the NY RNC convention. It was all 9-11 and Saddam.



Q...

Sid_Vicious
06-26-2006, 08:05 PM
"I would not be surprised if sometime before the next election, Bush declares Martial Law, suspends the elections, and like "Papa Doc" Duvalier..declares himself President for life"

Sounds serene, and yet Bush-able. I pondered on this idea a long time ago...would even the solid right go with it???sid

pooltchr
06-27-2006, 04:45 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;
Iran, N.Korea, are also threats, to a lesser extent, Syria, Pakistan...they all hate us... <font color="blue"> So do you think it's our fault they hate us, or are they just a crazy bunch of lunatics? </font color><hr /></blockquote>

Imagine you are an Iraqi living under the oppression of a ruthless Saddam. Saddam attacks Iran and what do the Americans do! They side with Saddam! He starts an illegal war and the US helps him!
How do you think the Iranians would view this. How would you view it if you were an Iranian. Would you see the US as friend or foe.



Q... <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red"> I take it from your answer that you believe it is our fault that so many in the middle east hate us. Thanks for taking a stand on the issue.
Steve </font color>

Gayle in MD
06-27-2006, 05:31 AM
LMAO, yeah, we all know the massive Mushroom Cloud's that Bush, Cheney and Rice used to dupe everyone with were all about these little tubes, lol.

Gayle in Md.

Qtec
06-27-2006, 06:08 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I take it from your answer that you believe it is our fault that so many in the middle east hate us. Thanks for taking a stand on the issue.
Steve

<hr /></blockquote>

Once again I ask you a simple question but you decline to reply! Dont you have any response other than'shoot the messenger'. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Isn't the first requirement of winning a war "know thy enemy'?

Knowing your enemy requires one to see the world thru THEIR eyes and under THEIR reality.
The bottom line isthis, if you want to stop terrorism you have to stop people from becoming terrorists!
If there is an endless supply of terrorists you will have an endless war because you can't kill them all. Treat the disease not the symptom.
The US, UK, France , Belgium etc have all had 'colonies'. Basically they plundered other countries and condemned the majority there to poverty. In Iran, the West backed the Shah. We kept him in power while he tortured and oppressed the population. We overlooked this treatment of his citizens - just like we did with Saddam. The US dumped Saddam because he continued to use chemical weapons. As soon as he became uncontrolable, the policy changed from support to regime change. These are facts. Its public knowledge because the memos have been released.
These people have good reason to hate us or at least be distrusting of our intentions.


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg

The Russian, French ,Americam revolutions were a result of people being repressed. America got freedom, Russia got Lenin and the Irainians got the Ayatollah! You can never be sure how revolutions will turn out! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

If you are going to have the attitude that they are all bad and we are all good, this will continue forever.
Q

Gayle in MD
06-27-2006, 06:10 AM
Steve writes...
Yeah, it's all GW's fault. OBL probably didn't even think of something like this until GW got ELECTED. I'm sure it was all because of GW. I'm sure that anything that happens for the rest of your life that you don't like will be blamed on GW.
Unlike you, I hold him accountable for what he does as President, and what he fails to do to protect us. They had two months, and didn't even circulate a pictured "Head's Up" to our airports. Is that what you call paying attention? Is that what you call protecting our country. At that time, they were already pooh poohing the warnings from CIA, and insisting on no attention to anything but Saddam, who was no threat at all. Ia that what you call good policy? I thought so!

Gayle writes...
As for the righties on here, they have a double standard, obviously. Some of them actually would like to see our country use the same barbaric methods used by radical Muslims, disregard all the humanitarrian rules of war, treatment of prisoners, and the international agreements that America has traditionally embraced, and they would have our own country become as radical and barbaric as the worst of the worst. They rail against the barbaric methods of terrorists, and at the same time, they say that we should do the same as the terrorists, be just as cut throat, and just as inhumane.
Steve writes...
How is that a double standard? The double standard is that these animals have no respect for human life whatsoever, yet we are supposed to fight by the "rules"????????????? The rules say you shouldn't kick a dog, but if a Pit Bull is chewing on your leg, what would you do to stop him? These radicals don't give a damn about the rules of war. We should be fighting them on their terms. I know you and your liberal friends think this whole war on terror is our fault, What War On Terror? There were no terrorists in Iraq, until we went in there. By going in, we have thrown gas on the fire. and if we would just back off, so would they. Guess again! Their goal is the destruction of our society. If we play by the rules, they will win. Is that what you want???????????? What I want is for our country to put all of its efforts into catching and exposing terrorist cells, none existed in Iraq, and in Cobra II there is proof that bin Laden got away because of this administrations insistence to focuss on Iraq, which was not an imminent threat, except in the fantasy stories created by Bush Cheney and Rice. Also, unlike you, I have no desire to see our country become just one more in the axis of evil, based on lies, and operated on immoral, cut-throat, inhumane doctrine.

Gayle writes
Those of us who write about truth,
Steve writes
Hah!
Gayle writes
its importance in our government, and particularly regarding war, our laws, and the Constitutional protections which we Americans cherish, and which make us a civilized nation, are painted as being hateful and traitors.

Nope! Just misguided.

Since you're the one who sucked up the lies, and still won't acknowledge them, and is still sucking them up, (WMD's found at last) I venture to say, you are among the mis-guided, not I.

Gayle in Md.

Sid_Vicious
06-27-2006, 06:30 AM
Since you're the one who sucked up the lies, and still won't acknowledge them, and is still sucking them up, (WMD's found at last) I venture to say, you are among the mis-guided , not I."


Exact term for this whole friggin' mess, mis-guided! sid

DickLeonard
06-27-2006, 06:31 AM
Wolfdancer I don't know if you read my post on 88 caddies can't be wrong. When Tom Dewey was leading Harry Truman in the 1948 Presidential election, and the consensus was how could that Pompous Ass fool the American Voters.

As for Lucky Luciano my cousin had Dewey's bodyguard pull a gun on him for reaching under his windbreaker for a cigarette. So he was worried about something.

We all had lasting memories of Gov Dewey and we rejoiced the next spring when we started back caddying and Gov Dewey was still an Honorary Club member.####

DickLeonard
06-27-2006, 06:35 AM
Sid he made mention of that at the REP National Convention in NYC. FRan and Pooltchr that is easly researched.####

DickLeonard
06-27-2006, 06:46 AM
Sid Vicious, George Bush proposed this at the 2004 Republican National Convention that he might have to assume the presidency because he was the only one that could lead the War against Terriorists. ####

Gayle in MD
06-27-2006, 07:02 AM
No question, this failed policy in iraq will go down as the most self destructive, mismanaged and unintelligable foreign policy in history. When people like George Will, Andrew Sullivan and Gore Vidal, all neocons, speak out about the Bush lies and incompetence, there is little doubt of a lasting black eye for American foreign policy. Bush has rendered our foreign policy impotent and suspect, and our country has paid a heavy price for their dishonesty and incompetence. Anyone who would vote for the republicans who protected their illegal activities, and prevented legitimate investigations into their law breaking, can not be motivated by patriotism.

Gayle in Md.

DickLeonard
06-27-2006, 07:06 AM
Pooltchr who said anything about playing by the Rules. It is obvious that won't work. I have pointed out that Osama spent less than 100 thousand to bring down the World Trade Centers and we have spent 2+ trillion and still haven't come close to capturing Osama.

When 15 of 18 Saudis attacked us on 911 we should have attached the 900 billion dollars of Saudi money in our banks throwing the Saudis in to total panic by destroying the oil industry that only takes US dollars for payment. We will only take Osama before your money is released. He would have been here within a week. It is Saudi money that supports his terriorism.

But we pack up Osamas relatives and send a plane loaded with them and other Saudis back to Saudia Arabia. The FBI could only ask them each three Questions. That is what stinks about 911.####

Gayle in MD
06-27-2006, 07:47 AM
Steve writes...
Sid
I was there in VN, and I can tell you we could have won that war if we had been allowed to fight an all out war. The reason we couldn't win was because our military had their hands tied by politics. This is the most ridiculous statement you have ever made, atleast so far. The only thing more outlandish is the title of this thread! The US got out of Vietnam for the same reasons that we will have to get out of Iraq, occupations fail, and being in the middle of civil war as an occupying country accomplishes nothing but the loss of life and limb for no purpose. Even Robert McNamara, who was Secretary at the time, has stated that we could never have won the Vietnam War.
Steve writes....

There are two options in war...cut and run, or fight all out with everything you have to win. Which way do you think we should handle this situation?
Steve
Only two options in war? How about the option of not going to war pre-emptively with a country that is not an immediate threat, which has no Nuclear weapons, and no means of acquiring them? You obviously don't listen to what the General who is running this war is saying...."This War in Iraq cannot be won militarily" Please tell us, for once, how many more years, how many more billions, and how many more of our people are you willing to see dead and maimed in a civil war between Iraqis who want amnesty for those who are murdering our people?

Also, since when is the intelligent thing to do, when faced with a losing battle, to continue on the same track? Stay the course? We have no option of winning, so you say stay the course? But then, you think we should have continued in Vietnam after over 58 thousand dead??

Typical neocon thinking.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice are burning the midnight oils trying to come up with a way to get out the worst mistake this country has ever made, and you think we should fight on? What say you to the fact that there were no viable WMD's, and no terrorists in Iraq when we went in there, and now under 5% of those who fight us in Iraq are from outside the country, but experts all agree that the terrorists have capitalized on our occupation to expand their numbers all over the world?

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
06-27-2006, 09:38 AM
just crawl back under your rock. I wasn't addressing you.

Sid_Vicious
06-27-2006, 09:58 AM
"Anyone who would vote for the republicans who protected their illegal activities, and prevented legitimate investigations into their law breaking, can not be motivated by patriotism."

IMMHSO, you nailed this to the "t" with that single statement...sid

DickLeonard
06-27-2006, 10:08 AM
Pooltchr has it come to this. I still love you Gayle and I will stand by you as you burn the Flag.####

eg8r
06-27-2006, 10:57 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Dems will be portrayed as loonies for not recognising the fact 'that we found WMDs in Iraq'. <hr /></blockquote> No one has earned it more than them.

eg8r

pooltchr
06-27-2006, 11:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Pooltchr has it come to this. I still love you Gayle and I will stand by you as you burn the Flag.#### <hr /></blockquote>

Dick,
If you notice, the first word in the post I made was "Sid". It was not "Gayle". Yet she chose to quote it and use it as a platform for her endless ramblings and rantings. Gayle has shown me she is not capable of listening to others, or trying to understand anything. She just continues to spew the same tired old rants over and over again. I have nothing to say to her, and have no desire to continue wasting my time reading her hateful bush bashing garbage. Everyone else on this forum at least has the ability to carry on an intelligent debate, whether we agree or not. I'm sure Sid is quite capable of answering the post I addressed specifically toward him.
Steve

Gayle in MD
06-27-2006, 01:04 PM
Then Stop Posting To Me !!! Pahleze ! You say you have no desire to to discuss anything with me, but you continue to post to me. Make up your mind. You have a post to me in every thread.

Yeah, like you don't jump into things that I post to others?
You're problem is that you get bent out of shape when you don't like the facts. It's a republican thing.... Buy our BS or you're a traitor!

Here's a good example of one of your intelligent debates...

Poolteacher writes...
"When a woman spreads her legs, she loses her defence."

You go crawl under a rock, LMAO!

Gayle in MD
06-27-2006, 01:16 PM
My oh my, I didn't say that to you when you jumped into my answer to Deeman, You're SOOOOOOOOOOOO well spoken, such a master of debate and logic. I'm sooooooooo impressed, LMAO!!

Oh, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, Saddam has WMD's, (twenty five years old and degraded, but...) Saddam has WMD's...I think I see a Mushroom Cloud, help help !!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Gayle in Md.
There's no fantasy, like a republican fantasy... /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Gayle in MD
06-27-2006, 01:21 PM
Thanks kiddo, glad ya liked it! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Love,
Gayle

Gayle in MD
06-27-2006, 01:37 PM
LMAO...I love you too! Wouldn't think of burning the flag though! BTW, Did you hear that Specter is still questioning Bush's abuse of power? AOL has a poll going today, and overwhelmingly, people are voting against Bush.
Meanwhile, the new Iraqi Prime Minister is releasing all those supposed terrorists from the prison.

I said to Jim when I saw Bush seated next to the new Iraqi Prime Minister in Iraq, "Hey, they can't even look one another in the eye." I don't think this trip of Bush's is going too well. These two guys can't stand each other."

So now that Bush went over there in person, this new guy has realized what a total jerk he is, and everything he has done since then, is against Bush's policy, amnesty for the killers of troops, releasing prisoners, demanding reparation money for Iraqi civilian families, Demanding a withdrawel date for our re-deployment. I can't figure out if Bush paid him off to do this stuff, so he can get out of there in time for the elections, or if this new guy is just on to Bush, and ready to put the screws to him.

It seems to me that I recall saying three years ago, "What's the point in our people dying to get rid of one despot in Iraq so that the Iraqis can vote in another one in his place?"

Wonder what's going to happen to the billions and billions Bush spent over there building a facility the size of the Vatican?

Hey, this administration has no limits when it comes to screwing up! They're the tops in that, anyway!

Love,

Gayle /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Qtec
06-28-2006, 09:13 AM
Oh yeah? Do you want me to show you a list of all the Reps who have been indicted or are under investigation for corruption? Its a very long list!

Q

Drop1
06-28-2006, 08:16 PM
They never found what Bush was looking for,and what they did find is as dangerous as Black Flag. Why didn't we leave,when no WMD was found by any search group. Iran has much greater potential to harm the United States than Iraq ever had,but they also have bigger friends,so they will continue with a nuclear build up,and North Korea will fire missles. It was wrong of Bush to push the war in Iraq,when he knew no weapons of mass destruction existed.

Drop1
06-28-2006, 08:20 PM
Right God gave men brains to kill each other.

eg8r
06-29-2006, 03:39 AM
Show whatever list you want. It still does not take away from the fact that the Dems are a huge bunch of loonies. They earned it and I am not going to allow your whining, "hey we are not the only ones" 4th grade attitude, diminish it.

eg8r

Qtec
06-29-2006, 04:20 AM
[ QUOTE ]
It still does not take away from the fact that the Dems are a huge bunch of loonies <hr /></blockquote>

This is just one of your delusions eg8r!:D
The fact is, you hate the Dems so much you are willing to overlook any excesses of this Admin despite the evidence.

This Admin manufactures front page news at will. [ Remember the 'Dirty-Bomber' Padilla who has never been charged with having or going to have a 'dirty-bomb'?
The WMD story is old hat. The new one is the 'capture' of the 7 terrorists/Sears tower escapade in Fl. LOL [ only one of the 7 had actually ever been to Chicago! /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, Newsweek's Mark Hosenball says some are wondering if the feds can get charges to stick on these boys. "Some civil-liberties activists complained that the informant's prodding may have helped create a plot that otherwise wouldn't have existed," he writes. In other words, the band warn't even creative enough to think of blowing up the Sears Tower on their own?

They certainly had a flair for the dramatic. Outside the warehouse HQ the seven would-be terrorists called "The Temple," the men "took turns standing guard outside the door, dressed up in makeshift military uniforms and combat boots. Sometimes they covered their faces with ski masks," reports Hosenball.

Because nothing hides a sleeper cell better than a uniformed guard wearing a ski mask and combat boots in sweltering Florida heat. <font color="blue">LMAO </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

Its all a smoke-screen.

Q

Fran Crimi
06-29-2006, 04:51 AM
See, I have a problem taking Q's opinions seriously. In his country, people smoke dope with their morning coffee at the local coffee house. Then they go off to work....Or not.

Their legalized prostitution has turned out to be a real problem, as the slave-trade market has now met a new resurgence in the country, and their government can't get a handle on it. Young girls are being trafficked into the country and sold to the highest bidder. Nice, huh?

So, at best, you've got a country filled with dope-smoking pimps who are acting perfectly within the law. Nice place to raise children, dontcha think?

And at worst...Well, we don't want to go there because it's too horrendous to imagine.

<font color="blue"> The Netherlands is a destination and transit country for the trafficking of women and girls for the purpose of sexual exploitation; some trafficking for labor exploitation occurs. Victims continued to be trafficked from Central and Eastern Europe, Nigeria and Brazil. Reportedly, a significant percentage of the 25,000 individuals engaged in prostitution are trafficking victims. Internal trafficking of young, mostly foreign girls by Moroccan and Turkish pimps into sexual exploitation continued. The Netherlands Antilles, where the Netherlands exercises responsibility over visa issuance according to guidelines issued by the Netherlands Antilles, continued to be a concern as a transit region and destination for illegal migrants, some of whom may have been trafficked.

The Government of the Netherlands fully complies with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking. In 2005, the government significantly stepped up its law enforcement and prevention efforts to address trafficking in persons. The Dutch government investigated, prosecuted, and convicted more traffickers, and increased its outreach efforts to potential trafficking victims in regulated prostitution sectors. The Dutch government continued to provide comprehensive protection and assistance to victims and increased resources and tools available to NGOs. International scrutiny continued to focus on the legalized commercial sex industry in the Netherlands. The government should ensure its assessment of trafficking in the legalized sector includes a systematic and sensitive screening of all potential trafficking victims, including in the red light district. - U.S. State Dept Trafficking in Persons Report, June, 2006
</font color>

Gayle in MD
06-29-2006, 06:45 AM
Cm'on Fran...What, we're very advanced compared to Q's country...right, in our country, we put the drug addicts on the radio, (Limpbaugh) and atleast one party, takes what he says as fact /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif, and our prostitutes are delivered by limo's to the Watergate for Republican poke-her games /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif while our child sex slaves are divied up from one Mormon God fearing leader to another, and what laws we have are ignored by none other than the President of the United States. If national corruption is your standard for a citizen's credibility, the opinions of Americans wouldn't hold much weight either. /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Gayle in Md.

Fran Crimi
06-29-2006, 07:16 AM
My POINT is, which you didn't get... that Q never talks about his country's problems here. He only addresses what he sees as our problems, as if he isn't facing anything at all on his end. This isn't an ABOUT AMERICA ONLY NON POOL RELATED website. When he steps up to the plate to honestly talk about his own country for a change, then maybe he's entitled to an opinion about our country. Until then, nope. He doesn't rate an opinion.

He's mocking us. Read my lips... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif...HE DOESN'T GIVE A RATS ASS ABOUT US. He's just egging everyone on. And the more serious and passionate you get about his posts, the more he laughs his fool head off behind that computer. He's sharking you, Gayle! He's hustling you!

Talk about your own country, Q, and maybe I'll take you seriously for a change. But the way I figure it is you have about 5 years worth of posts about your country to catch up on. Are you up to it?

Fran

DickLeonard
06-29-2006, 07:26 AM
Deeman If the right joined the service in droves they could relieve the trapped soldiers in Irag. They are not joining and the recruitment among blacks have hit an all time low. The poor aren't going so it's time for the Right to step up to the plate. Which of course won't happen.

Accoring to what I've read the Republicans were Isolationists during World War 11.####

Deeman3
06-29-2006, 08:56 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>He's sharking you, Gayle! He's hustling you!

Talk about your own country, Q, and maybe I'll take you seriously for a change. But the way I figure it is you have about 5 years worth of posts about your country to catch up on. Are you up to it?

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Fran,

You may also notice how Gayle, who says she does not hate America, jumps to his defense trying to make America look worse than Holland to the point of spewing anything she can think of negative about the U.S.

How can you claim to love America and continue to bash it even at the defense of a socialist country.

Never heard her come to the defense of America, did you?

Deeman </font color>

Sid_Vicious
06-29-2006, 09:33 AM
"If national corruption is your standard for a citizen's credibility, the opinions of Americans wouldn't hold much weight either."

Which has become the case since 2000...sid

pooltchr
06-29-2006, 10:10 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> "If national corruption is your standard for a citizen's credibility, the opinions of Americans wouldn't hold much weight either."

Which has become the case since 2000...sid
<hr /></blockquote>

Yeah, before 2000 we were squeaky-clean!!!! This was a perfect country until GW came along to mess it all up!

This country sucks. We should all just give up because GW has ruined it for all of us. Any place would be better than being here.

Personally, I think this is the best damn country in the world, and I really get fed up with people who do nothing but knock the administration, the society, and everything else American. If there are problems, let's try to find constructive solutions. Those who just go on and on about how bad everything is aren't part of the solution, they are part of the problem.

Here's a news flash. GW did not single handedly create every problem this country faces. Neither did Clinton. We the people did when we started depending on the government for things the government was never intended to provide. When the people start accepting responsibility for their own actions, and stop looking to the government for a handout, or to pass laws that make no sense, we just might get back on track. It would also help if we elected some people to congress who are more concerned about doing the right thing rather than just getting re-elected. Morons who vote along party lines rather than taking time to actually learn about candidates and issues should be banned from voting! Right now, based on what kind of representatives we are sending to Washington, our citizens really DON'T have much credibility!!!
Steve

nAz
06-29-2006, 10:12 AM
hmm I don't mind Q posting his disagreements (not that i agree with all he says) with our country he has a right to stick his knows in our business since this country sticks it's nose in the rest of the worlds business... what i mean to say is simple American national and international policies effect the whole world, and that leaves this country open to criticism whether we like it or not that is the way it will always be, untill we stop being "the police men of the world" or the "leaders of the free world"

Maybe if we listen a little more (and we don't need to bend over backwards to do it)to other nations, other peoples we wouldn't have so many conflicts around the world or for that matter right here at home.

As for Gayle I have NEVER heard her say anything negative against our country... Bush yes but that is the leadership not the country as a whole... very dangerous game to play saying someone hates their country cause they don't agree with the policies of the current administration. if we all really thought this way well then the "terrorest are winning".

Fran Crimi
06-29-2006, 11:16 AM
I'm not getting into any discussions about Gayle. If you guys want to battle it out, be my guest. I'm not getting on that train.

But now, if you want to talk about my buddy 'Q'...Well, let's get it on.... LOL

He's a bit of a joker and loves to egg people on. I think his politics stink, but he's a lot of fun hang out with in a bar. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif 'Specially when the beers are on him.

Fran

eg8r
06-29-2006, 11:16 AM
Nice post Naz. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I pretty much agree. I don't really listen to Q because he never says anything. 99% of his participation is merely a cut and paste junkie with nothing important to say.

The board is open for anyone to post whatever they want. It is up to the reader to decide just how much of it they are willing to read. When I see a post of Q's and it has a copy/paste of some article he thinks means anything, I usually just skip right over it. I don't remember an intelligent thought of his own being posted on the board. He has shown a great ability at CTRL-C, CTRL-V and I really don't care. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
06-29-2006, 11:20 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The fact is, you hate the Dems so much you are willing to overlook any excesses of this Admin despite the evidence.
<hr /></blockquote> Well Q, your memory fails you once again. Still, even if you continue to try and change the subject (don't you feel childish doing this), it does not change the fact that the Dems are loonies. They have earned it and no matter what playground games you want to play, it is still the same.

eg8r

Fran Crimi
06-29-2006, 11:29 AM
Sure, he can say whatever he wants, but I for one would like to hear what he really thinks of his own country and how it's being run. Maybe he can answer a few questions like, what's it like to walk down a street in Rotterdam late at night? Is it safe? Why do tourists go out of their way to try not to have to change planes at Amsterdam for fear that their luggage will mysteriously disappear...Why is that?

Why is the unemployment rate so high? Are they still having problems with diseased chickens? Does the government charge a dope tax? Or maybe a dopey tax?

Fran~~ so much to ask, so little time.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gayle in MD
06-29-2006, 11:54 AM
I got your point, Fran, you said that you don't take someone's (Q's) opinions seriously due to certain circumstances in his country. By that criteria, we shouldn't have taken Ghandi's opinions seriously, either. How about the Pope? The circumstances you listed, are also present right here in our country, people smoke dope, pimp for prostitutes, (One U.S. Senator wants to collect taxes from pimps, lol) sex slaves are brought into America and sold, lots of them right in New York! While none of this is right, or good, I don't see how ones credibility can be judged by what their country does. Who among us has any real control over what our country does?

I think that Q has as much right to air his opinions here as anyone else. It isn't the American internet, it's the world wide web.

Personally, I'm really fed up with people who think that because you do not approve of a given administration, or a given war, or policy, that that is proof that you hate your country. On the contrary, there are many Americans who speak out against this administration because they love their country, cherish their Constitution, think our laws should be respected, international rules of law abided by, and our separation of church and state, preserved.

I don't think that because we were attacked on 9/11, it made any sense at all to launch pre-emptive war on a country that had nothing to do with it! I'm patriot enough, that I wanted the man who was behind that attack, to be our president's number one priority, not some other plan he had before he ever got into office.

I also think that when people accuse an American of hating their country because they are against policies of the present administration, which they believe are damaging to our country, such people have not a clue about what it means to be a patriot. It is ones right to voice dissenting opinion which is the cornerstone of a democratic nation, and those who label such people as America haters, are simply ignorant. Is it more patriotic to deny reality? To lash out angrily over the truth? The reason why so many people do not support this war is because of the fact that they were lied to about the reasons for going to war, and because some of us think that launching war in the Middle East, was just plain stupid, in the first place.

When a president consistently over-reaches his power, ignores our laws, intimidates scientist for the sake of his oil friends, breaks international agreements, supports torture, lets oil companies set our energy policy, displays an above the law attitude, and wraps it all in a cloak of protectionism, claiming to be above our laws, is it any wonder that people, not only Americans, but people around the world, begin to question his motives, and his mental stability?

Any American who loves their country, and thinks that a president is destroying it, should and must speak up at every opportunity. To do less, would be treason, IMO. Being American does not include the right to dictate what people from other nations may say or do. It is far more constructive to listen and judge for oneself whether what they are saying is valid, and deserves some investigation. No president should ever be trusted on faith alone.

Gayle in Md., who loves her country, not George Bush.

Gayle in MD
06-29-2006, 12:07 PM
FYI, I defend my country when it does the right thing, for the right reasons. I don't defend policies which resemble those of countries which are led by despots who believe in inhumane actions, lie to their people, and try to silence their dissenters through intimidation and worse. I don't bash America, only the man and the administration which is destroying it, and putting it at great peril. I don't support presidents who act against our Constitution, and over-reach their constitutional power, Such policy is against the best interest of America. Apparently the Supreme Court, by your criteria, hates America too, since they ruled today that George Bush is over stepping his authority. This is, btw, the second time they have made such a ruling.

I defend a persons right to speak what they wish, unlike you, without being attacked by those who are apparently so insecure that they must slander those with a different point of view.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
06-29-2006, 12:25 PM
Naz writes:

As for Gayle I have NEVER heard her say anything negative against our country... Bush yes but that is the leadership not the country as a whole... very dangerous game to play saying someone hates their country cause they don't agree with the policies of the current administration. if we all really thought this way well then the "terrorest are winning".

Thank you, Naz, and you are so right. When it comes to the typical neocon behavior, the terrorists have won.

Deeman and Poolteacher have been harping on that for five years, Gayle hates America, means nothing, considering that they refuse to protect our country from anti-American policy. If they love this country so much, why don't they see past their partisan noses? Why don't they defend our Constitution, our foreign agreements, our laws, our separation of church and state, our checks and balances, our Bill of Rights, the second and forth amendment? I haven't heard one patriotic thing come from them in five years, only blind partisanship. Consider the source...you either agree with them about George Bush, or you hate America...real intelligent... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Gayle in Md.

Sid_Vicious
06-29-2006, 12:36 PM
Does seem idiotic to occupy one country out of suspect, find delapidated material at the very best analysis, while their neighbors and NK touts their nuclear function. So much for axis' of Evil and "you're against us" as mr chimp was so adamantly spewing to the world. What a pitiful representative of our country...sid

Sid_Vicious
06-29-2006, 12:43 PM
That was an outstanding reply Gayle. Kudos...sid

wolfdancer
06-29-2006, 01:12 PM
Q, do you think this idea has a chance of catching on here?

web page (http://www.adelphia.net/news/read.php?ps=1012&amp;id=12908991&amp;_LT=HOME_LARSDCCLM_UN EWS)

pooltchr
06-29-2006, 04:50 PM
Hey, Dee.
The Supreme Court ruled today that the terrorist suspects being held in Gitmo are not subject to a military tribunal, but are entitled to the same protection under the law as American citizens. I wonder how many people are celebrating this decision as a defeat for Bush, and don't even realize that the ones really celebrating are the terrorist suspects who will probably end up free and able to plot against our country again! I think the idiots that made the ruling should face charges of aiding and abetting the enemy! I'm still trying to understand....these people declare war on America, attack us and kill our citizens, vow "Death to America", but we can't treat them like war criminals????? The fact that every President since GW (The first one, not the present one!) have had the ability to deal with war criminals under separate rules doesn't mean anything. The liberal whack-o extremists are going to be the death of this country.
But, Hey! As long as GWBush gets beat down, it must be good!
Whatcha think?
Steve

Drop1
06-29-2006, 05:44 PM
How did the vote break down? Was Long Dong,for or against?

wolfdancer
06-29-2006, 05:57 PM
I just don't know why all the extra words in the thread title
Wouldn't:
"No WMD's in Iraq? Bush is a liar?"
have worked just as well?
Or maybe "Huh" is an NYC colloquialism, for "ain't that the truth?"

wolfdancer
06-29-2006, 06:04 PM
I'm thinking that it was the Republicans that stacked the Supreme Court.....
As a ruling on Constitutional rights????...what do I know?
But we are at war, and war criminals shouldn't be under that blanket of protection...since they want to destroy it in the first place.

Drop1
06-29-2006, 06:04 PM
Of the nine sitting Judges,including the Chief Justice,seven were appointed by Republican Presidents. Two were appointed by a Democrat President. Maybe they know something about the Law you don't /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Drop1
06-29-2006, 06:10 PM
What can I say just more dirty tricks by liberal Republicans. Those two poor Democrats on the Court didn't have a chance. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Qtec
06-29-2006, 09:37 PM
When did this turn into a bash Q thread! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif I must have missed something. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
I never mock. Its a sin to mock the afflicted Fran! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif Just because someone supports GW doesn´t make them a bad person, thats my motto!
In this thread I only disputed a claim about WMDs, I never attacked anyone personally. I never do.
IMO, everyone is entitled to their opinion and to voice it, but not to their own facts. Just because I point out absurdities and false claims by this Admin doesn´t make me anti/American or that I hate the USA. In fact, it shows that I DO care! The fact is, what the US does has an effect on the whole world!
The Netherlands is roughly less than twice the size of New Jersey, pop 16 million. Nobody is interested in what goes on here! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I,m too softhearted to be a hustler Fran. /ccboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

Q

Qtec
06-29-2006, 09:45 PM
Just because , in parrot like fashion, you continue to squawk, ´that the Dems are loonies.´does not make it a FACT! Prove your point with an example.

Q..........if you can /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Qtec
06-29-2006, 10:07 PM
For the whole story web page (http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?q=Hirsi+Ali+&amp;edition=i&amp;go.x=36&amp;go.y=13)

Q

Drop1
06-29-2006, 10:30 PM
Right!Quote [Just because I point out absurdities and false claims by this Admin doesn´t make me anti/American or that I hate the USA.] I agree with what you are trying to say,but I don't think the USA.can be called liked in the Netherlands,even when Clinton was President. If I'm wrong tell me. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Gayle in MD
06-30-2006, 04:58 AM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Deeman3
06-30-2006, 05:48 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> Hey, Dee.
The Supreme Court ruled today that the terrorist suspects being held in Gitmo are not subject to a military tribunal, but are entitled to the same protection under the law as American citizens. I wonder how many people are celebrating this decision as a defeat for Bush, and don't even realize that the ones really celebrating are the terrorist suspects who will probably end up free and able to plot against our country again! I think the idiots that made the ruling should face charges of aiding and abetting the enemy! I'm still trying to understand....these people declare war on America, attack us and kill our citizens, vow "Death to America", but we can't treat them like war criminals????? The fact that every President since GW (The first one, not the present one!) have had the ability to deal with war criminals under separate rules doesn't mean anything. The liberal whack-o extremists are going to be the death of this country.
But, Hey! As long as GWBush gets beat down, it must be good!
Whatcha think?
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> I am thinking all these poor mistreated Muslims ought to be released in Maryland and Washington, D.C. Let the people who defend them deal with them.

The very same people who are rejoicing in this ruling will be the same ones who complain when these very same terrorists attack later. </font color>

Gayle in MD
06-30-2006, 05:53 AM
Sid,
Bush proved what an idiot he was when he got up there and said, "Bring it on" as a response to terrorist attacks. He scowled his way through every pre-election debate, but consistantly smiles while he tries to justify his war, which isn't a war on terror, but an exercise in futility, which will soon have taken the lives of more Americans than 9/11, and countless innocent children, and civilian Iraqis.

Regime change, is not a constitutionally supported justification for launching war, particularly when masked, through intentional lies, as a pay back for an attack on our shores, by some entirely different entity.

The greatest threat to America, or any other civilized country, regardless of party affiliation, is blind partisanship, always has been, always will be, and it surely is alive and well among the dirt slinging radical neocons. Abuse of power, by any of our three branches of government, and particularly by the President, devoid of constituionally required oversight and absent of any application of checks, (legitimate investigations) is the greatest threat to America. The executive efforts to silence our free press, ignore our laws, and punish those who speak up against their illegal actions, and the Congress which refuses to take the appropriate stand against such a blatant attack on democracy, by George Bush's administration, is the single most damaging threat to this country's survival. Some of us see how Bush is helping the terrorists win, others, only see cause to celebrate their party's power. It is they who lack patriotism.

Gayle...

pooltchr
06-30-2006, 05:56 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr>
<font color="blue"> I am thinking all these poor mistreated Muslims ought to be released in Maryland </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

I don't think someone on here would like that. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
Yeah, it's tough to fight terrorism with one hand tied behind your back.

As to the other post about justices appointed by Rep or Dem presidents...it just goes to show that party affiliation has very little to do with political beliefs. IMO, the Republicans are often just as liberal as the Democrats.
Steve

Gayle in MD
06-30-2006, 06:57 AM
Steve writes....

We need to let these people who would crash passenger airliners into our cities know that whatever they do to us will be returned ten-fold. That is the only way to win. It's the only thing they understand.
Steve

Who is "These people" supposed to be, Saddam? Iraqi women and children?

Steve writes...We are fighting them on their turf, but we aren't fighting the same way they are.

Iraqis did not attack us on 9/11. Now, because we went in there, Iraqis, innocent women and children, are also being murdered every day. Is this appropriate retaliation for 9/11? We don't fight as they do, because we are supposed to be a civilized people, but you would wish that we would become just like them?


We need to take off the gloves, and fight the kind of fight they are fighting. Only problem is the Genova Convention says that's against the rules. And if we step over the line, our own media blows the whistle and calls foul! Some people right here got all bent out of shape screaming "torture" when our troops got carried away. Those same people don't get anywhere near as upset that these people are doing the same thing to our troops.

Really, how the hell do you know what "Those same people" feel about what happens to our troops. You're the one who doesn't care what happens to our troops, if you think they should sacrifice their lives for the sake of Iraqi democracy, when 48% of Iraqis think it correct to kill our troops, and their infant government is already planning to give amnesty to those who killed our troops, but you think our troops should stay the course? For WHAT? So that George Bush can try to look good in the history books? FYI, the Geneva Convention was an effort of Nations to endeavor to settle their issues at the conference table, instead of with bombs, and to try to implement some humane standards when nations are at war. You are against that? How are you so far apart from the mentality of terrorists?


And that includes targeting the terrorist leaders for assasination, blowing up their camps, intercepting their phone calls, and whatever else it takes to win. If we aren't going to do that, then we are in for a long struggle.

Precisely what we should have been doing the last five years, instead of dying for Iraqi democracy!

Now we are trying to fight terrorists like they are an army. They aren't!

exactly why going into Iraq, was not the appropriate response to 9/11. Also, exactly why bin Laden got away when we had him cornered at the Afghan border.

Is there any way that you could wrap your mind around the fact that there are still people in this country who are still raving mad over 9/11, and what America to zone in completely on doing the very things you list here? And, that those same people who want the worst kind of retaliation imaginable for bin Laden and his followers, are angry with George Bush for getting side tracked away from that with Iraq? Do you really think that building bases the size of the Vatican in the middle of the most volital, uncivilized part of the world, amongst a circle of nations who would all like to blow us up is the correct course of action? Ronald Reagan was right about one thing, the only protection against nuclear attack is through weapons technology which can shoot down every kind of missile and war head they can come up with.


FYI, I celebrate every terrorist death we can bring about. They are vile evil people, and should be wiped from the fact of the earth. That should be our number one goal! Not regime change, not Iraqi democracy, and not bulding bases that will surely be blown to smitherines in short order. And further, IMO, because of 9/11, Mosques should NOT be allowed in our country, in spite of our traditional acceptance of all organized religions, Muslims, who by and large have failed to condemn the radical elements in their religion, should go back from wence they came if they want to build mosques, and continue their muslim faith, unless they show that they are going to go all out to generate action and outrage over what the radical segment of their religion is doing to the rest of the world, and to us.

Gayle in Md...I'm not expecting any reasonable responses, so fire away....

Drop1
06-30-2006, 08:12 AM
Gayle you are one hundred percent right. We should be fighting terrorists,and when no weapons of mass destruction were found,we should have left. Its pathetic the extremes this administration will go to,to find a reason to be in Iraq,and how clouded the arguments of the Flunkies serving "big Bush". Of course the Supreme Court would vote as it did,because the decision was based in law,and not emotion. It was intresting to note this was the second response from Clarence Thomas,in fifteen years.

Qtec
06-30-2006, 09:26 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> Hey, Dee.
The Supreme Court ruled today that the terrorist suspects being held in Gitmo are not subject to a military tribunal, but are entitled to the same protection under the law as American citizens. I wonder how many people are celebrating this decision as a defeat for Bush,<font color="blue"> I wonder how many see this as an afirmation of the principals of the Constitution! </font color> and don't even realize that the ones really celebrating are the terrorist suspects who will probably end up free and able to plot against our country again! I think the idiots that made the ruling should face charges of aiding and abetting the enemy! I'm still trying to understand....these people declare war on America, attack us and kill our citizens, vow "Death to America", but we can't treat them like war criminals????? The fact that every President since GW (The first one, not the present one!) have had the ability to deal with war criminals under separate rules doesn't mean anything. The liberal whack-o extremists are going to be the death of this country.
But, Hey! As long as GWBush gets beat down, it must be good!
Whatcha think?
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
When Justice Breyer wrote in his separate decision that "nothing prevents the President from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary," he did not mean that Bush and his compliant Red-State yokels in Congress can collaborate to draft an unconstitutional law.

[F]or now, at least, the White House has found its crucial sound-bite incantation: "Congressional authorization." We will be hearing nothing else from the right-wing punditry until a popular myth is established to the effect that the Republican-controlled Congress need only ram through a bill legitimizing the existing system, to which the President can even append "signing statements" indicating his determination to ignore any language he dislikes.

It's clear that the Bush Administration reads the Constitution of the United States with a contemptuous and very selective eye. It finds within it a plethora of concomitant rights for itself, such as the right to deny trials to so-called "enemy combatants," to torture foreign captives, and to spy on innocent US citizens without a warrant.

All of these activities are expressly forbidden by the Constitution.

Denying trials is forbidden by the Fifth Amendment: "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Note the key phrase "no person," as opposed to "no citizen."

Torture is forbidden by the Eighth Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The restriction is unconditional.

Warrantless spying is forbidden by the Fourth Amendment: "...no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."

The Constitution is paramount to all other laws. And [today], the Court said it: the President does not have the power to violate the Constitution. And, we will add, Congress does not have the power to authorize the President to violate the Constitution. <hr /></blockquote>

`Like it or not, human rights apply to everyone. You are either for that principal or you are not. Are you for the Constitution or not?

Q

Qtec
06-30-2006, 09:50 PM
Clinton vas very popular over here. While the GOPs and the right wing media were having orgasims over Bill's BJ, we were like, "whats the big deal"?
The real scandal was the behaviour of of the Rep party who did everything they could to attack a President in office. Something they now call un-American!

Q...........how quickly they forget.

Drop1
06-30-2006, 10:40 PM
You see,its very seldom a Republican gets a BJ,and I think the fact a Democrat did,kind of upset them.

eg8r
06-30-2006, 10:58 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Just because , in parrot like fashion, you continue to squawk, ´that the Dems are loonies.´does not make it a FACT! Prove your point with an example.
<hr /></blockquote> History is filled with examples take your pick. Just because you don't agree does not change the fact they are loonies. Your loonie buddy Gore appreciates your defense.

eg8r

Sid_Vicious
07-01-2006, 07:05 AM
"The real scandal was the behaviour of of the Rep party who did everything they could to attack a President in office. Something they now call un-American!"


Ain't that the pitiful and pathetic truth!? This prez now ranks up there with a treasonist compared to Bill's escapade, yet Mr. Clinton is still so hated among the rep righties. It's pretty funny in a way, some of these rights need to get a life, or at least a bj to relieve the pressure on their paranoia and/or self esteem, and CHILL ON BILL...sid

ceebee
07-01-2006, 10:04 AM
and the REAL Scandal goes on

I ask myself questions like;

How much was gasoline before the Iraqi War started?

How can the oil companies make a statement about supply &amp; demand is creating the high costs of fuel, when this country has several billion barrels of oil on reserve?

How much was the Federal Deficit, before the Iraqi War?

How much is the Federal Deficit today?

How much do munitions, supplies &amp; equipment cost American Taxpayers everyday?

How much U.S Fed Tax is being paid by the wealthy &amp; the politicians?

The game called "the Democrats versus the Republicans" is a smoke screen that has robbed America. If there were some where else to go, that was SAFE &amp; NICE to live, the wealthy &amp; the politicians would be gone, leaving the rest of us to suffer our plight.

In Tulsa, they are building a new Convention Center/Sports Complex with 43 million taxpayer dollars. The people that get in free, are the wealthy &amp; the politicians. The people that paid for the building to be built, have to pay $20+ bucks each to enter... something is wrong with this picture &amp; the picture could be one of thousands across America.

They actually printed the new state budget for Oklahoma in the Tulsa World newspaper. They are actually proud of their scandalous ways &amp; they are flaunting it publically. The incumbent politicians would actually like glad to be voted out of office, because they would still get paid a rediculous pension for no sevice at all. Those guys &amp; gals are laughing their asses off...

Gayle in MD
07-01-2006, 11:18 AM
The decision was certainly a win for our Constitution, our system of checks and balances, and, also for human rights, especially because the court states that the congress does not have the power to allow the President to over-ride the Constitution, the Geneva conventions, or the FISA law, And also because there were people detained and tortured who were proven to be completely innocent of any connection to terrorists, and that Bush does not have a Blank Check, to do as he wishes without lawful authority from the courts, and the appropriate oversight required by the Constitution.

I would think that this judgement puts Bush and Rumsfeld at risk of being prosecuted for war crimes, and I don't think there is any statute of limitations involved. Also, this decision proves impeachable offenses, which he cannot deny, given he acknowledged that he was breaking the FISA law, and intended to continue doing so. It wouldn't take much to blow away any BS story he will come up with about how he was only trying to protect the country, lol, after they uncover how many journalists from the left were wire tapped, LMAO!

I think the court's decision certainly proves that Bush has broken the laws of our country, FISA among them, and this would include the illegal wire taps, spying on Americans, and torture as an accepted course of action by the United States. His many signing statements may end up being proof of his refusal to abide by the law. Bush cannot wipe out the Geneva Convention simply by conjuring up a new label for Prisoners Of War, and declaring himself above the law and the Constitutional Process. This is a big win for our country. and a big loss for the terrorists who would love to prove to the world that America is without honor and dignity.

I suspect that when the entire truth about who they spied on, the broad methods they used, and the truth about those who were selected for close scrutiny finally gets out, we will see an even more evil picture of Bush and Cheney than we have already seen. I just wonder what the republican Congress will pull to try to flip the bad press over onto Democrats! Some very partisan, carefully worded BS vote, I'm sure, one of their Rovian style, either or, no win semantical traps. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I keep thinking about something I read about the tremendous increase in what our intelligence people call "Chatter" coming from alQaeda in the months just before and for long after Bush took office. How hard they tried to get this administration to heed what they were sure would be an attack by flying jets into buildings. Funny how he can try to justify spying on Americans now, when he ignored all the warnings our people had sent his way previous to the attack on 9/11, which just shows you, how long alQaeda has known that we spy on them every way possible, but what good is spying, if the "Decider" recipient of the intel doesn't have enough sense to heed it, and try to do anything about it? And this is supposed to be the party that we Americans are supposed to think is tough on terror? AH HA HA HA. Intel now is that alQ have been on to this banking deal for ages, and have already gone around it, but Bush is still spying anyway, and trying to focuss attention off his many failures and law breaking, and get the country distracted with a boatload of BS about the New York Times!

Gayle in Md.

DickLeonard
07-01-2006, 04:46 PM
Pooltchr that is the same bunch of Idiots that elected George W. Bush. They have already proven to us that They Don't Have a Brain in Their Head.####

Gayle in MD
07-02-2006, 06:05 AM
True, and while the republicans had our country bogged down with impeachment proceedures over personal behavior, that 97% in this country didn't care about, and that were ultimately deemed as not rising to the level of an impeachable offense, bin Laden was plotting his attack, happy that the republicans were helping him to succeed through their usual partisan BS, and screwed up priorities! Then, we find out that McCain and Gingrich had their mistresses too, along with the illustrios Mayor of New York!

The Republicans who are in power at the present, have done more damage to this country than any political party has ever done. Fortunately, Americans now see that. Thankfully, we're not all blinded by partisanship here in America, as even Bush's base has begun to speak out against him.

Gayle in Md...thinks Q. offers a lot of factual information, and without the bashing, unlike our insulting right wing radicals!

Gayle in MD
07-02-2006, 06:25 AM
Dee writes:

I am thinking all these poor mistreated Muslims ought to be released in Maryland and Washington, D.C. Let the people who defend them deal with them.

Hey, aren't you the one who is always defending organized religion?

The very same people who are rejoicing in this ruling will be the same ones who complain when these very same terrorists attack later.

I haven't head anyone defending Muslims, only our Constitution. Some Americans think it patriotic to do so, unlike the radical right, which has set about to destroy it, and/or ignore and dilute its system of checks and balances, like your boy Goerge. When the terrorists attack us again, the same people who defend our Constitution, happen to be the same ones who knew that Bush was feeding the world a crock of $**t, and the same ones who are mad that he has failed to accomplish the implementation of those Homeland Security precautions which were suggested by the 9/11 commissions, and the same ones who knew that launching a pre-emptive war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, made absolutely no sense at all, unlike those who practice blind partisanship, and therefore do not cherish our Constitution, but believe in torture, and support Presidents who lie and break our laws.

Gayle in Md.

Qtec
07-02-2006, 09:55 AM
[ QUOTE ]

Israel women trafficking soars

Between 3,000 and 5,000 women have been smuggled into Israel in the past four years to work as prostitutes, according to a parliamentary inquiry.
The report described how the women are sold at public auctions for as much as $10,000 and forced to work up to 18 hours a day.

On average the women receive only three percent of the money they earn from prostitution, the report said.

Most of the women are from the former Soviet Union.

Many are raped and beaten as they are smuggled into Israel over the Egyptian border, the inquiry found.

Attitudes

Zehava Galon, of the opposition Yahad Party, presented the report to the speaker of the Knesset on Wednesday.

"We began this inquiry to investigate the extent of this phenomenon and raise political awareness of their plight and the brutal nature of the trafficking of women in this time of globalisation," said Ms Galon.

She said the biggest challenge in addressing the plight of women in the sex trade was changing the attitudes of the Israeli public and police.

The inquiry also criticised judges for passing light sentences, sometimes only community service, for men running prostitution rings.

The report called for minimum jail terms of 16 years for those convicted. London-based rights group Amnesty International and the US State Department have also reported an alarming increase in prostitution rings in Israel.



Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/4380067.stm

Published: 2005/03/24 17:07:06 GMT

© BBC MMVI
<hr /></blockquote>

Aren't these Israelis supposed to be Religious? I guess their principals stop short of human slavery!
Rush L stopped off for a 'wild weekend' in the Dom Rep with a pocketful of Viagra! What more is there to know?
Its a disturbing thought but I can picture Rush on his back with some 16 year old on top, that he bought for the price of a meal, saying, "Have you ever thought about Abstinence".
Or, "I hope you are on the Pill".!
Hypocritical B@$^@*D!!!

Did you know that in Israel a woman can't get a divorce unless the husband agrees?
Usually they have to pay money for their freedom.They have to pay the husband to let them go!

All countries have the same problems Fran.
In Holland if 2 students want to get high they head for the nearest Koffieshop. They sit in the sun outside, drink their koffie and smoke their joint. End result- 2 students that think EVERYTHING is funny!
In the US , they go to a dealer on the corner and come back with some bud and a freebee rock of crack! Maybe a pre-rolled weed-heroine combo- who knows what! Some pills to try out?
At least over here, there is some control instead of no control.
Fact- when soft-drugs were legalised here, consumption went DOWN! It wasn't illegal anymore, so for some, the BUZZ was gone. It wasn't the drugs but the thrill of doing something that was 'illegal'. You know, something to tell your friends about! "Guess what I did."

If you are a prostitute in a window you are making a lot of money! They are all legal and they pay tax. They have medical Insurance etc, etc. The Pros you are talking about work on the street. Most are addicts and the illegals come from the East Bloc- Moldovia etc. Once they are inside the EU, they can travel freely. You can drive from Holland to Germany to Luxemburg to Belgium and on to France and never have your passport checked!
The Dutch do their best but its a never-ending wave of immigrants/ people.

Prostitution and drug abuse are a fact. The Dutch try to work with this instead of sticking their head in the sand.
Q