Do you think that the Bush Administration manipulated...

[tsluver247]

Do you think that the Bush Administration manipulated intelligence to go to war with Iraq?

[McRen]

What? No, Saddam had WMD, and harboured and trained terrorists. He was the man behind it all!

in all seriousness tho, thats not a worthy question, the answer is yes.

Anyone who answers no only has 'but our government said so' as a response, which kind of like arguing religion, one side says 'but all the facts point to this', and the other says 'but the bible says so'. And of course GW used the bible to help his cause.

And of course now there are reports of the USA using chemical weapons on fallujah.

[InHouston]

No he didn't. Of course, that's not gonna go down well on this forum, because most members are anti-Bush. The U.N., Europe, republicans and democrats down the line to Ted Kennedy and John Kerry in 2002 all sat up on television and said that Saddam's regime needs to be removed due to his WMD program. Now that we didn't find them, and who the hell knows where they went or if Saddam was just bluffing which is probably true, of course, all the democrats back off and start crying foul when they were in on the intelligence info just as much the republicans.

I know you guys are gonna whine and bitch about this, but those are the facts. If you don't believe me, Google and watch videos from 2002 of your most prominent democrats, and they give the same rhetoric that Bush is currently giving. And don't try the line that Bush gave everyone faulty intelligence and that's what the democrats went on. That intelligence was established long before George Bush came into office. Regime change in Iraq was being considered even by Bill Clinton. He chose to simply bomb Iraq here and there, which frankly I'm all for. But it's good that Saddam is gone, and unfortunately we had to step up, get him out of power, and now have to clean up the mess. Well, nothing I say or do is going to change that verdict. It has to be done now.

Geez ... what's the point? I'm gonna get flamed for this. This has little to do with Iraq. Just hatred for Bush, so I'm steppin down from this thread.

Yeah I know, Bush was AWOL, ruined the economy and our reputation around the world, and yada yada yada. All I remember is when Clinton and the other democrats were in power, they sure had no qualms about taking a big friggin bite out of my paycheck while they had the country in a recession.

Like I said, what's the point? You people don't get it and don't want to. I hear more criticism of our president, and very little of the likes of Saddam, Osama, and the other real problem people of this world.

Sucks

[McRen]

Yep, thats why i said 'The Government', its not a Red State / Blue State thing. The US government had an agenda that they had the opportunity to persue.

By the way, do they EVER even mention Osama anymore, the original target?

[GroobySteven]

Yeah I know, Bush was AWOL, ruined the economy and our reputation around the world, and yada yada yada. All I remember is when Clinton and the other democrats were in power, they sure had no qualms about taking a big friggin bite out of my paycheck while they had the country in a recession.

Like I said, what's the point? You people don't get it and don't want to. I hear more criticism of our president, and very little of the likes of Saddam, Osama, and the other real problem people of this world.

Sucks

Oh so you're happier paying less tax then to see people go and die in a pointless war? That's mighty white of you.
We get it, I get it - just for one little moment think, maybe you're the one not getting it.
You never answered my statement about blindly following a leader, just because he is a leader or having respect for people in uniform but I guess when it boils down to the fact, you're more concerned about your bottom dollar, then Bush is probably doing right by you.
seanchai

[InHouston]

And of course now there are reports of the USA using chemical weapons on fallujah.

And your proof of that comes from ... where?????????

Dumbass.

[GroobySteven]

BTW - that's a pointless poll question to put up here. The board knows how most people on here think so it's going to be loaded. The few republicans and the one or two Nazi's are bound to respond (actually look at the republicans who are jumping of the good ship Bush - Ann Coulter et al) and we'll get into the normal Bush is an asshole, no he's not liberalism is blind rhetoric.
How about a better poll...who will be the next republican canditate or something where new opinions can be mentioned.
seanchai

[tsluver247]

I voted no. Only because I believe the Bush Administration cherry picked intelligence to support his motives. I think there is a difference between manipulating intelligence and cherry picking intelligence. With his cherry picked intelligence Bush and his Administration went on a PR campaign to gather Americans to back him in going to war with Iraq. We know now that the intelligence faulty, this is why I believe they cherry picked intelligence. Do not get me wrong, I believe Bush misled Americans for war in Iraq knowing the intelligence he was using may not be strong or backed by multiply sources. That is just my two cents on the issue.

Iraq and 9/11 myths (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/11/12.html)

Ken Mehlman uses false intelligence claims (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/11/13.html)

[chefmike]

And because the pussies that pass for dems now signed on, that means the neo-cons were right? Fuck no!! At least John Edwards had the balls to do an op-ed in NYT's admitting he was wrong...and now...I love it... Rove and his gang of war criminals are so desperate they are quoting those evil democrats to bolster their cause....no one has had approval ratings this low since "tricky dick" nixon...and look what happened to him...

[InHouston]

Yeah I know, Bush was AWOL, ruined the economy and our reputation around the world, and yada yada yada. All I remember is when Clinton and the other democrats were in power, they sure had no qualms about taking a big friggin bite out of my paycheck while they had the country in a recession.

Like I said, what's the point? You people don't get it and don't want to. I hear more criticism of our president, and very little of the likes of Saddam, Osama, and the other real problem people of this world.

Sucks

Oh so you're happier paying less tax then to see people go and die in a pointless war? That's mighty white of you.
We get it, I get it - just for one little moment think, maybe you're the one not getting it.
You never answered my statement about blindly following a leader, just because he is a leader or having respect for people in uniform but I guess when it boils down to the fact, you're more concerned about your bottom dollar, then Bush is probably doing right by you.
seanchai

Okay, my bad. I didn't realize that I left a question of yours unanswered. No I don't blindly follow a leader. In fact, Bush was quoted while he was running for governer of Texas that he didn't think atheists should be considered citizens of this country. Well I ripped a three page email to the White House, with no response of course, reminding him that myself and other atheists in my circles were behind him on our national security policy, and put in my two cents on what I don't like about him. He doesn't believe in pro-choice, I do. He believes in a supreme being, and I don't. He doesn't believe in stem cell research, and I believe that kind of research is worth pursuing. Look Seanchai, I've always been a big fan of your work with Grooby, so it's not my aim to be your adversary here. I just don't like seeing innocent people being victimized by overly-zealous religious pigs like they did on 9/11. I can't imagine what it must have been like to go ripping through the skies at 400 knots as a passenger on a plane only to be slammed into a building by a group of knuckleheads who learned to fly in our simulators, simply because they thought it would please God and avail them 70 virgins in heaven. That is friggin insane! Now, I've seen your posts about religion, and you can't tell me that doesn't get under your skin.

What sold me on Bush for president was his position with the terrorists. Kerry just told people what he felt they should hear to win the White House, and Bush said exactly what he felt. Now Seanchai, in my book, that kind of integrity and inner fortitude goes a long way, even if he's not the most elegant talking person on the planet. Neither are any of us. And I personally believe that most people, if put in the same position he was in when chaos broke out around the nation on 9/11, would have done the same thing Bush is doing today. It's time we started knocking some heads around the Middle East out there, because they're getting too big for their britches with their zealous Islamist horshit.

With all respect Seanchai, that's how I feel about it. I sank in my seat when I saw what was unfolding on 9/11, and religion has been a major problem on this planet since they nailed Jesus to the cross. For all I know, Mary's mother probably lied to everyone about a divine pregnancy by her daughter to keep her from getting stoned to death. Mary fucked someone. A virgin birth is absolutely impossible. It amazes me that people even believe that oxymoron. Think about that.

And that's just the way it is.

[chefmike]

No he didn't. Of course, that's not gonna go down well on this forum, because most members are anti-Bush. The U.N., Europe, republicans and democrats down the line to Ted Kennedy and John Kerry in 2002 all sat up on television and said that Saddam's regime needs to be removed due to his WMD program. Now that we didn't find them, and who the hell knows where they went or if Saddam was just bluffing which is probably true, of course, all the democrats back off and start crying foul when they were in on the intelligence info just as much the republicans.

I know you guys are gonna whine and bitch about this, but those are the facts. If you don't believe me, Google and watch videos from 2002 of your most prominent democrats, and they give the same rhetoric that Bush is currently giving. And don't try the line that Bush gave everyone faulty intelligence and that's what the democrats went on. That intelligence was established long before George Bush came into office. Regime change in Iraq was being considered even by Bill Clinton. He chose to simply bomb Iraq here and there, which frankly I'm all for. But it's good that Saddam is gone, and unfortunately we had to step up, get him out of power, and now have to clean up the mess. Well, nothing I say or do is going to change that verdict. It has to be done now.

Geez ... what's the point? I'm gonna get flamed for this. This has little to do with Iraq. Just hatred for Bush, so I'm steppin down from this thread.

Yeah I know, Bush was AWOL, ruined the economy and our reputation around the world, and yada yada yada. All I remember is when Clinton and the other democrats were in power, they sure had no qualms about taking a big friggin bite out of my paycheck while they had the country in a recession.

Like I said, what's the point? You people don't get it and don't want to. I hear more criticism of our president, and very little of the likes of Saddam, Osama, and the other real problem people of this world.

Sucks

Clinton left this country with a budget surplus!! WTF?? Why do you think fiscal cons are abandoning shrubya!!

[tsluver247]

Senators Roberts and Rockefeller Debate (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/11/13.html)

[chefmike]

And you've got the nerve to bring up Osama? Yes, why is he still loose? And no doubt living off opium profits (rush must love that, being a junkie)...

[kennbo]

Cherry picking is manipulating intelligence. How is it not? An objective analysis of the data, weighing it all and coming up with a calculus to form an educated decision is not done by cherry picking data. Cherry picking data is done to get a desired result, not to ascertain the truth. Scientific realism is our best means of determinig the truth and it can be done with any data, not just weights and measures in a lab, but with intelligence data as well. If a scientist cherry picks data in a lab to get a desired result he is comiting fraud by cooking the books. That is exactly what the administration did. Don't you see the nexus between this and the anti evolution crap that's going on? These guys are the same guys you knew in college who took gut business courses and avoided the "hard" science stuff because they were using school as a means to an end, namely making money to fulfill their ego driven desires. Objective reality and the truths it reveals are a problem for these guys because it gets in the way of their subjective desires. Thats why they are all a bunch of Bible thumpers, because religious truth is by definition highly subjective.

[GroobySteven]

InHouston (are you sure you're not shooting photos for me under a different name?)

I agree with you on a strong stance on terrorism, totally. I'm from the UK and lived in London throughout the IRA campaigns (when much of the money came from the US to fund them!). We're on the same mind on many things, including religion and such.
I just cannot see how someone as obviously intelligent, informed and well-read can honestly believe this guy is doing the right thing? We know that Saudi Arabia had more to do with the 9-11's than Iraq so really, you must know that the reasons for being in Iraq are much more than terrorism or fear of attack. Why not take out N.Korea which is much more terrible in terms of potential to attack the US and allies and try to manipulate the balance of power?
Forget how bad Kerry might have been or how many screw ups Clinton might have made. It's not an argument who was better - them or Bush. With this much smoke, there must be some fire on the issues that Bush manipulated the war and therefore had reasons other than mentioned for doing so?
My issues aren't with Republicans, well they are with the new Republicans who have taken over the party with their religion zealousness and rightwing policies but with Bush and this administration only.
Even if you agree with the policies Bush is taken during this war - how can you vote for him when everything else he states goes against how you feel about your country : freedom of speach, abortion issues, church into education, etc etc.
The reason Bush got in was on one issues - just lots of them, he was the one who knew what to say on gun control, abortion and religion to get people who may have been opposed to most of his policies to vote based on the one issue which they were passionate about.
When working in a democracy which only really has two parties - are we really a democracy? Sun Tzu proclaims, give your enemy choices even when they don't have a any choice. I feel that's really what the US two party system is about.
seanchai

[InHouston]

Seanchai, in case you're referring to me as one of the Nazis on this forum, I would recommend you back up and reconsider what you're saying. The holacaust horrifies me in that man can reap such cruelty and inhumanity on a group of people over a label and their beliefs, and industrialize the extermination of those people (men, women, and children) with great efficiency like Hitler did. He gathered a mass following by his own people simply because he spoke eloquently about exterminating the jewish race. I could put a bullet right between the eyes of Hitler, impale his head on a stake, and wouldn't lose a nights' sleep over it. We are the only species on the planet that reaps that level of cruelty on one another; the only species.

You use the label 'Nazi' quite loosely there. It's not right.

[chefmike]

Yeah I know, Bush was AWOL, ruined the economy and our reputation around the world, and yada yada yada. All I remember is when Clinton and the other democrats were in power, they sure had no qualms about taking a big friggin bite out of my paycheck while they had the country in a recession.

Like I said, what's the point? You people don't get it and don't want to. I hear more criticism of our president, and very little of the likes of Saddam, Osama, and the other real problem people of this world.

Sucks

Oh so you're happier paying less tax then to see people go and die in a pointless war? That's mighty white of you.
We get it, I get it - just for one little moment think, maybe you're the one not getting it.
You never answered my statement about blindly following a leader, just because he is a leader or having respect for people in uniform but I guess when it boils down to the fact, you're more concerned about your bottom dollar, then Bush is probably doing right by you.
seanchai

Okay, my bad. I didn't realize that I left a question of yours unanswered. No I don't blindly follow a leader. In fact, Bush was quoted while he was running for governer of Texas that he didn't think atheists should be considered citizens of this country. Well I ripped a three page email to the White House, with no response of course, reminding him that myself and other atheists in my circles were behind him on our national security policy, and put in my two cents on what I don't like about him. He doesn't believe in pro-choice, I do. He believes in a supreme being, and I don't. He doesn't believe in stem cell research, and I believe that kind of research is worth pursuing. Look Seanchai, I've always been a big fan of your work with Grooby, so it's not my aim to be your adversary here. I just don't like seeing innocent people being victimized by overly-zealous religious pigs like they did on 9/11. I can't imagine what it must have been like to go ripping through the skies at 400 knots as a passenger on a plane only to be slammed into a building by a group of knuckleheads who learned to fly in our simulators, simply because they thought it would please God and avail them 70 virgins in heaven. That is friggin insane! Now, I've seen your posts about religion, and you can't tell me that doesn't get under your skin.

What sold me on Bush for president was his position with the terrorists. Kerry just told people what he felt they should hear to win the White House, and Bush said exactly what he felt. Now Seanchai, in my book, that kind of integrity and inner fortitude goes a long way, even if he's not the most elegant talking person on the planet. Neither are any of us. And I personally believe that most people, if put in the same position he was in when chaos broke out around the nation on 9/11, would have done the same thing Bush is doing today. It's time we started knocking some heads around the Middle East out there, because they're getting too big for their britches with their zealous Islamist horshit.

With all respect Seanchai, that's how I feel about it. I sank in my seat when I saw what was unfolding on 9/11, and religion has been a major problem on this planet since they nailed Jesus to the cross. For all I know, Mary's mother probably lied to everyone about a divine pregnancy by her daughter to keep her from getting stoned to death. Mary fucked someone. A virgin birth is absolutely impossible. It amazes me that people even believe that oxymoron. Think about that.

And that's just the way it is.

You say you believe in stem-cell research...obviously there is no one in your family who you feel would benefit from it, seeing how you cast your vote against it...I guess you better hope your luck holds out...so basically you voted for the chimp because he's a badass on terrorism...I guess you didn't see him pissin his pants for seven minutes while we were being attacked...by Saudi's...who own the shrub family

[GroobySteven]

Seanchai, in case you're referring to me as one of the Nazis on this forum, I would recommend you back up and reconsider what you're saying. The holacaust horrifies me in that man can reap such cruelty and inhumanity on a group of people over a label and their beliefs, and industrialize the extermination of those people (men, women, and children) with great efficiency like Hitler did. He gathered a mass following by his own people simply because he spoke eloquently about exterminating the jewish race. I could put a bullet right between the eyes of Hitler, impale his head on a stake, and wouldn't lose a nights' sleep over it. We are the only species on the planet that reaps that level of cruelty on one another; the only species.

You use the label 'Nazi' quite loosely there. It's not right.

You might be the soup nazi?
I was talking with the wife about this recently, the theory of going back in time and shooting Hitler - then Stalin would have taken over Europe and more people would have died.
seanchai

[tsluver247]

Cherry picking is manipulating intelligence. How is it not?

Cherry picking is selecting certain intelligence that supports your predetermined conclusion. Manipulating intelligence is changing the data or conclusion to support your predetermined conclusion. If I had 100 reports with 15 agreeing with my predetermined conclusion and 85 disagreeing with my predetermined conclusion, cherry picking is using the 15 agreeing and showing the 15 reports while I withhold the other 85 reports that contradict my conclusion and manipulating is asking the authors of the reports to change their conclusion or data in the report to retrofit my conclusion.

[kennbo]

InHouston, do you not see the inherent contradiction in what you wrote? You are a self avowed atheist and have a clear bead on how religion has been used to fuck the world up by manipulating people with psychological tricks based on faith instead of reason and you support Bush? Do you not see how Bush has used religion in as twisted a way as Osama and the towel heads? How can you correctly blame Islamic extremists but turn a blind eye on Christian extremists when they use their twisted beliefs to justify bullshit actions? Critisizing Bush and the boys for their actions is not the same as saying we should do nothing in response to 9/11.

[kennbo]

I stand by my statement that cherry picking is manipulative, subtle manipulation, yes, but manipulation none the less. One does not just disregard data unless that data can be shown to be a function of flawed data collection. To disregard data just because it doesn't fit is intellectually dishonest and will distort the final analysis. In that 100 report analogy, where 15 are positive and 85 negative, an intellectually honest person would see the overwhelming trend in the data and formulate a plan based on that truth. To do otherwise is to court disaster. Suppose those reports were from clinical drug trials. Suppose 15 said the drug worked and 85 said it killed people. Would it be o.k. for a drug company to present just the 15 reports to the FDA and bury the 85? If the 15 were presented to the FDA wouldn't the drug company be manipulating the FDA into approving a deadly drug?

[InHouston]

InHouston (are you sure you're not shooting photos for me under a different name?)


Ha ha. No. But I'll tell you this. I was a member on Shemale Yum, and I was the one who got on your case about the anti-Bush banners on your website that one time. I did offer to do photography work, and even sent you a local sample of a TG I photographed here. But, I kind of got cold feet on the idea, when i realized that I would have to hold down a day job, and photograph late at night. You and I briefly exchanged some political discourse, and we both backed off because we didn't have time to keep up the correspondence. That's why I don't really directly attack you too hard, because honestly I like you.

I'll tell you this. I'm not a republican and I'm not a democrat. I agree more with the liberal mindset, but don't agree with just dismissing the other side. I believe in balance. I don't see a glass as half empty or half full ... it's both, and comes down to a decision of needing air or water. Or shake it up and get a mix of the two. That's just my nature.

As far as Bush goes ... I'm all for his tough stance with the terrorists around the world ... other than that he's simple-minded. I don't believe for one minute he was AWOL. His career path was known, and he was given administrative passes here and there on his duty, but who cares. The guy was trying to become a career politician and they just opened up his slot for other pilots in the end. No big deal.

As far as Iraq. Okay, Saddam's a threat? If I was president, kaboom boom boom. I would have bombed the shit out of his military machine and ripped it to shreads, rinsed my hands of him and told the American people, "There you go, he's no longer a threat." So what if he remains in power? Can't do much without a formidible military so what the hell. Just pull his fangs and he's harmless as a heel hound.

As far as his other policies? I'm all for lower taxes. It has helped the economy, and all they do with higher taxes is waste my money and yours. Might as well pump it back into the economy. Other than that, there's nothing else he's really done that I can see has made a difference. I embrace and court all people. Black, white, gay, lesbian, hetero, bi, doesn't matter. We're all strands in the same tapestry of this universe that is just a consequence of complex carbon chemistry, so how about working together. I think diveristy in ideas is healthy from all sides. Republicans would be tyrants if they were solely in charge, and democrats would probably let things stagnate a bit too much for my taste. But when you mix the two, there is an equilibrium that is achieved in this country that keeps both sides in check, and is a testiment to the genious of our forefathers. With the exeption of slavery, they knew what they were doing much more than Bush and Kerry combined and in many respects have thwarted what would otherwise be capable of any man who is given sole power over a nation of people. Democracy works for the most part. I have no problem with liberals standing up against the conservatives, and have no problem with conservatives standing up against the liberals. What you get is compromise. Both sides don't neccessarily get what they want, but both sides can at least, in the words of Clint Eastwood in Outlaw Josey Wales as he stood before the indian chief Ten Bears, "Men can live together without butchering one another." If that's all we can do, then isn't that best Seanchai?

I mentioned before in an earlier thread that I wasn't interested in politics before 9/11. I always told people, "When artists, philosophers, scientists, teachers, clergy, etc, can occupy the seats in congress, and not a bunch of lawyers, it is then that I will take an interest in politics." That was unrealistic of me. I don't embrace either party. I embrace the half empty glass that holds both air and water, and decide which half is best and when.

God, that was taxing. Now I need to fuck a tranny.

[chefmike]

I stand by my statement that cherry picking is manipulative, subtle manipulation, yes, but manipulation none the less. One does not just disregard data unless that data can be shown to be a function of flawed data collection. To disregard data just because it doesn't fit is intellectually dishonest and will distort the final analysis. In that 100 report analogy, where 15 are positive and 85 negative, an intellectually honest person would see the overwhelming trend in the data and formulate a plan based on that truth. To do otherwise is to court disaster. Suppose those reports were from clinical drug trials. Suppose 15 said the drug worked and 85 said it killed people. Would it be o.k. for a drug company to present just the 15 reports to the FDA and bury the 85? If the 15 were presented to the FDA wouldn't the drug company be manipulating the FDA into approving a deadly drug?

co-sign, although I couldn't have said it that well :claps

[InHouston]

And you've got the nerve to bring up Osama? Yes, why is he still loose? And no doubt living off opium profits (rush must love that, being a junkie)...

Osama ain't free. He's a man on the run and will be for the rest of his life.

[InHouston]

I guess you didn't see him pissin his pants for seven minutes while we were being attacked...by Saudi's...who own the shrub family

That's a bunch of Michael Moore horseshit and you know it. I saw that video too, and unlike you, watched the whole thing. Bush's security detail was trying to convince him to leave the school and get on Air Force I until they could figure out what the hell was going on. He just sat there and remained calm and let the kids finish reading. He was obviously unsettled by what was going on. But a reporter asked him about what he intends to do about the attacks on the twin towers as he was about to leave the classroom. He motioned his hands at the reporters and asked them to wait a few minutes until he could make a public comment about the attacks. He told the reporters he didn't want to upset the kids. Guess you didn't bother watching that part of the video did you? No, because Michael Moore sliced that out of his movie you nimrod. Like I said, listen to both sides and be a fair judge. Bush's security detail were the ones who were shitting in their pants because he wouldnt' leave the school and just stood there with great steadfastness to demonstrate to the terrorists that they don't scare him. He also argued with his secret service agents on Air Force I to return him immediately to the White House, because they were making him look like a coward. They told him no, and rushed him and his administration down into a bunker.

Guess you didn't see that video either did you? I don't know about you, but that's a man with great conviction in the face of a violent attack. Bush is one of those people, and I know the kind from experience, they're at the best when things are at their worst. They throw themselves out in front of everyone, and to the mans' credit he hasn't bitched and complained very much in spite of all the bitching and complaining people are throwing at him. To me, that's a guy I don't mind having in my corner, even if he is a simple sum bitch.

[Felicia Katt]

All I remember is when Clinton and the other democrats were in power, they sure had no qualms about taking a big friggin bite out of my paycheck while they had the country in a recession.


Forget about manipulating intelligence, how about actually demonstrating some?

The U.S. economy did not go into recession until Bush's presidency, according to both of the most accepted definitions. One definition of recession is two consecutive quarters with a declining gross domestic product. By this measure, the economy was explicitly not in recession when Bush took the oath of office on Jan. 20.

The other definition provides that a recession begins just after the economy reaches a peak of activity and ends as the economy reaches its trough." In other words, a recession begins as soon as the economy starts shrinking. And according to NBER, the economy peaked and started shrinking in March 2001, two months after the Bush presidency began.
http://www.slate.com/id/2076134/

The country enjoyed phenomenal growth and prosperity under Clinton. Among other things he eliminated the deficit and generated the first budget surplus in a generation -- the largest dollar surplus on record, created 17.7 million new jobs, with the lowest unemployment rate in 29 years.
http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/econrecord.html

FK
ps, yes, they manipulated the intelligence. Talking incessantly about weapons of mass destruction implied always that Saddam had nuclear weapons that could be launched against us in a moments notice. They used a fake yellow cake memo and some pretty generic aluminum tubes to suggest this, when all the rest of the evidence was to the contrary. When the facts don't fit the theory, you are supposed to change the theory, not the facts. And you aren't supposed to rely on faulty facts and ignore reliable ones.

FK

[InHouston]

All I remember is when Clinton and the other democrats were in power, they sure had no qualms about taking a big friggin bite out of my paycheck while they had the country in a recession.


Forget about manipulating intelligence, how about actually demonstrating some?

The U.S. economy did not go into recession until Bush's presidency, according to both of the most accepted definitions. One definition of recession is two consecutive quarters with a declining gross domestic product. By this measure, the economy was explicitly not in recession when Bush took the oath of office on Jan. 20.

The other definition provides that a recession begins just after the economy reaches a peak of activity and ends as the economy reaches its trough." In other words, a recession begins as soon as the economy starts shrinking. And according to NBER, the economy peaked and started shrinking in March 2001, two months after the Bush presidency began.
http://www.slate.com/id/2076134/

The country enjoyed phenomenal growth and prosperity under Clinton. Among other things he eliminated the deficit and generated the first budget surplus in a generation -- the largest dollar surplus on record, created 17.7 million new jobs, with the lowest unemployment rate in 29 years.
http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/econrecord.html

FK
ps, yes, they manipulated the intelligence. Talking incessantly about weapons of mass destruction implied always that Saddam had nuclear weapons that could be launched against us in a moments notice. They used a fake yellow cake memo and some pretty generic aluminum tubes to suggest this, when all the rest of the evidence was to the contrary. When the facts don't fit the theory, you are supposed to change the theory, not the facts. And you aren't supposed to rely on faulty facts and ignore reliable ones.

FK

Jesus Fucking Christ man!!! Why don't you run for fucking president then if you're such a born-again expert. God damn. He's not freaking Hitler you know, and America is not what's wrong with the world.

I have ocean front property in Arizona. Wanna buy that too?

Shit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You people friggin amaze me man. Blah blah blah ...

God!

[InHouston]

I'm getting out of this thread. You people raise my blood pressure too much.

[InHouston]

Here, suck on that and shut up.

[InHouston]

If there is a god, when I die and stand before him, I'm gonna kick his son right in the balls for starting all this shit to begin with, and slap that slut Mary for lying about her extra-marital sex.

What does the Easter bunny have to do with a dead heretic Jew anyway? You just can't tell your children what it's really about. The Easter bunny is much more pleasant and easier to understand. Same thing with Santa.

We need to get off this planet, start exploring the stars and distant galaxies, and seek life and intelligence elsewhere for the further pursuit of scientific knowledge, and not arguing about some conflict in a shithole called the Holy Land. God damn, even Mexico behaves better than they do, and they call everyone else infidels. At least in Mexico they kill each other over drugs and money and not some fictitious god who doesn't even exist. Wish Mexico had oil like Saudi. We could get along much better with them. They just want to party, and I've always gotten along better with people who like to drink and dance and have a festive attitude about themselves.

I'm outta here.

[Felicia Katt]

Jesus Fucking Christ man!!! Why don't you run for fucking president then if you're such a born-again expert. God damn. He's not freaking Hitler you know, and America is not what's wrong with the world.

I have ocean front property in Arizona. Wanna buy that too?

Shit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You people friggin amaze me man. Blah blah blah ...

God!
When you have the facts, argue the facts. When you don't, attack those who do?

I never claimed to be an expert and I never claimed Bush was Hitler. I just posted some simple facts. But if you buy all the Rush Oreilly Republican crap that Bush walks on water and Clinton walked all over the American people I don't doubt that you would have bought that ocean front property in Arizona you are now trying to unload LOL


We need to get off this planet, start exploring the stars and distant galaxies, and seek life and intelligence elsewhere for the further pursuit of scientific knowledge

I agree with you here. But NASA funding is only 1.4 billion per year and we are spending 4 times that each month over in that shithole with no end in sight. We need intelligent life in Washington before we will ever find it elsewhere.

FK
ps. take your meds, try a low salt diet and come back soon :)

[Realgirls4me]

No he didn't. Of course, that's not gonna go down well on this forum, because most members are anti-Bush. The U.N., Europe, republicans and democrats down the line to Ted Kennedy and John Kerry in 2002 all sat up on television and said that Saddam's regime needs to be removed due to his WMD program. Now that we didn't find them, and who the hell knows where they went or if Saddam was just bluffing which is probably true, of course, all the democrats back off and start crying foul when they were in on the intelligence info just as much the republicans.

Yes he did. Yes he did. His administration, during the build up to commencing the war, sought to link any intelligence it could get its hands on that would link it to Iraq, no matter how weak. Representing information in order to make a false case for war IS manipulating intelligence. None of the Democrats you listed talked about war as a foregone conclusion. Not one. We didn't find them (weapons) because there weren't any, as the inspectors were finding out before they were pulled out by the Bush administration. Most Democrats also weren't privy to the same high level intelligence. That is a bald face lie.


I know you guys are gonna whine and bitch about this, but those are the facts. If you don't believe me, Google and watch videos from 2002 of your most prominent democrats, and they give the same rhetoric that Bush is currently giving. And don't try the line that Bush gave everyone faulty intelligence and that's what the democrats went on. That intelligence was established long before George Bush came into office. Regime change in Iraq was being considered even by Bill Clinton. He chose to simply bomb Iraq here and there, which frankly I'm all for. But it's good that Saddam is gone, and unfortunately we had to step up, get him out of power, and now have to clean up the mess. Well, nothing I say or do is going to change that verdict. It has to be done now.

Those aren't the facts. Regime change does not automatically entail illegally bombing a third world -- which had not attacked us -- country inside out. Whatever intelligence you claim the Democrats also had in the previous administration certainly was not a mandate for war. As the leader of this country, it was up to Bush to make a case for or against going to war, so don't pawn this colosal blunder off on some Democrat House or Senate member. Yeah, Saddam's gone all right, and look what we have his place: Chaos, more attacks worldwide, over 2000 American personel dead, and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis are dead, and no exit strategy. None.


Geez ... what's the point? I'm gonna get flamed for this. This has little to do with Iraq. Just hatred for Bush, so I'm steppin down from this thread.

Yeah I know, Bush was AWOL, ruined the economy and our reputation around the world, and yada yada yada. All I remember is when Clinton and the other democrats were in power, they sure had no qualms about taking a big friggin bite out of my paycheck while they had the country in a recession.

Of course that's all your pea brain is likely to remember -- equating sloganeering ("Tax and Spend Democrats" right ?)with those on the Left. Granted, some of it was done with smoke and mirrors, but Clinton did get this country back in the black. Prosperity ? Twenty-million new jobs ? Ring a bell ?


Like I said, what's the point? You people don't get it and don't want to. I hear more criticism of our president, and very little of the likes of Saddam, Osama, and the other real problem people of this world.

I noticed you conveniently left out how this country -- your country -- sponsored, trained, and supplied weapons with both of the aforementioned for years, mostly under Republican administrations at that ... Is the United States not complicit with the thousands buried in mass graves while Reagan was sending Hussein gold stirrups for his show horses, or when Rumsfeld, as a Reagan envoy, was trading bear hugs with him ?


... I just don't like seeing innocent people being victimized by overly-zealous religious pigs like they did on 9/11. I can't imagine what it must have been like to go ripping through the skies at 400 knots as a passenger on a plane only to be slammed into a building by a group of knuckleheads who learned to fly in our simulators, simply because they thought it would please God and avail them 70 virgins in heaven. ...

I can't imagine my country being under some no-fly zone and being bombed whenever it was "violated", and seeing my citizens die by the thousands due to a cruel sanction policy which took the lives of many thousands of innocent Iraqi infants and elderly. Anywhere from 30 to 100,000 Iraqis may have died in this latest campaign against that country, so my questio to you is simple: How many more Americans and Iraqis must die in this war in order to satisfy your thirst for retribution ? Retribution for something they aren't at fault for.


You use the label 'Nazi' quite loosely there. It's not right.

Nor is it right to illegally and unjustly attack a country and kill thousands of people. I love how clowns like you live in a world bereft of their hypocrisy and stupidity. The term Nazi disrupts your stomach, but you think nothing of the thousands getting killed for no reason, or the millions of our progeny who will have less goverment services and pay higher taxes thanks to the dunce in office breaking the treasury, or worst, becoming bulls-eyes for future generations of anti-American protagonists because of our policies in the mideast.


I mentioned before in an earlier thread that I wasn't interested in politics before 9/11. I always told people, "When artists, philosophers, scientists, teachers, clergy, etc, can occupy the seats in congress, and not a bunch of lawyers, it is then that I will take an interest in politics." That was unrealistic of me. I don't embrace either party. I embrace the half empty glass that holds both air and water, and decide which half is best and when.

Of course you wouldn't. Since when would a mind like yours ever be interested in a blip buried in the back pages of your local paper about an American F-15 bombing a part of Iraq prior to 9/11 ? Funny how 9/11 clarrified so much to so many such as yourself.


... Guess you didn't see that video either did you? I don't know about you, but that's a man with great conviction in the face of a violent attack. Bush is one of those people, and I know the kind from experience, they're at the best when things are at their worst. They throw themselves out in front of everyone, and to the mans' credit he hasn't bitched and complained very much in spite of all the bitching and complaining people are throwing at him. To me, that's a guy I don't mind having in my corner, even if he is a simple sum bitch.

ROTFLMAO !!! No comment (Is this fruitcake kidding ?) needed.

... This morning I got word from a close friend that she just received word this morning that her nephew was killed in Iraq. He didn't reach the age of 20. I'm not sorry I had to take it out on one prick who supports this insane policy.

[InHouston]

And according to NBER, the economy peaked and started shrinking in March 2001, two months after the Bush presidency began.
http://www.slate.com/id/2076134/


Yes, and that was when technology stocks all sank when everyone and God was trying to become a millionaire Internet tycoon. I know, because I'm in the business. I'm a software engineer. That's when the Internet bubble popped ... rather exploded egg all over the faces of ka-billionaire investors. Then computer jobs all started getting shipped over seas in a mad panic to make up the lost investments, and in the end it didn't work. Then other ESTABLISHED companies caught on to that trend, and started shipping their jobs overseas and actually started making more money. About 6 months after the Internet bubble popped; 9/11, and stocks dropped across the board. Here and now, the stock market is back up, and technology stocks are back where they were, and I'm getting paid well, and so are my colleagues. Bush had nothing to do with that. You can thank all those little punk macaroni and cheese eating kids who picked up an HTML book back then, sat in there little coffee shops and apartments, thought they could start a legit company, and wasted millions and millions of dollars of investors money. Your facts are dealing with the 'when' something happened and not neccessarily addressing the root cause as to 'why' something has happened. Bush or Clinton had nothing to do with the economy slump at this time. There were many other factors, but technology was a major factor in that.



The country enjoyed phenomenal growth and prosperity under Clinton. Among other things he eliminated the deficit and generated the first budget surplus in a generation -- the largest dollar surplus on record, created 17.7 million new jobs, with the lowest unemployment rate in 29 years.
http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/econrecord.html


Sure. Its easy to eliminate a deficit when you tax the hell out of people. Hell I could do that too. You need a deficit as well. Cash needs to be reinvested. And a deficit depends on a certain line of money you're targeting. If you're spending more than you make, then you have a spending deficit. If you're spending half of what you make, but would rather your expenses take up only a quarter of what you make, then you have a budget deficit of 25%. But if you make $30,000 a year, you still have an income surplus of 50%. All depends on what bottom line you're looking at, and for the most part America's deficit is a budget deficit. Companies all over America break their budgets all the time, but it doesn't mean they're going broke. America is a multi-trillion dollar economy.

Trying to keep this simple. Take a credit card for example:

* Democrats would rather not run the card's balance up too high, and keep the balance paid down or completely off. In doing that, your purchasing options are more limited.

* Republicans run the card's balance up higher, and exercise more options in purchasing. Down side, takes longer to pay it off, but you have lots of nice stuff.

Its all accounting and moving cash around, but we're by no means going broke just because a political party is ringing alarm bells. The word 'deficit' is a loose term with many gray accounting areas thats thrown around alot by the opposing political party to alarm the public. We're quite a wealthy nation and can well afford the spending.

[InHouston]

No he didn't. Of course, that's not gonna go down well on this forum, because most members are anti-Bush. The U.N., Europe, republicans and democrats down the line to Ted Kennedy and John Kerry in 2002 all sat up on television and said that Saddam's regime needs to be removed due to his WMD program. Now that we didn't find them, and who the hell knows where they went or if Saddam was just bluffing which is probably true, of course, all the democrats back off and start crying foul when they were in on the intelligence info just as much the republicans.

Yes he did. Yes he did. His administration, during the build up to commencing the war, sought to link any intelligence it could get its hands on that would link it to Iraq, no matter how weak. Representing information in order to make a false case for war IS manipulating intelligence. None of the Democrats you listed talked about war as a foregone conclusion. Not one. We didn't find them (weapons) because there weren't any, as the inspectors were finding out before they were pulled out by the Bush administration. Most Democrats also weren't privy to the same high level intelligence. That is a bald face lie.


I know you guys are gonna whine and bitch about this, but those are the facts. If you don't believe me, Google and watch videos from 2002 of your most prominent democrats, and they give the same rhetoric that Bush is currently giving. And don't try the line that Bush gave everyone faulty intelligence and that's what the democrats went on. That intelligence was established long before George Bush came into office. Regime change in Iraq was being considered even by Bill Clinton. He chose to simply bomb Iraq here and there, which frankly I'm all for. But it's good that Saddam is gone, and unfortunately we had to step up, get him out of power, and now have to clean up the mess. Well, nothing I say or do is going to change that verdict. It has to be done now.

Those aren't the facts. Regime change does not automatically entail illegally bombing a third world -- which had not attacked us -- country inside out. Whatever intelligence you claim the Democrats also had in the previous administration certainly was not a mandate for war. As the leader of this country, it was up to Bush to make a case for or against going to war, so don't pawn this colosal blunder off on some Democrat House or Senate member. Yeah, Saddam's gone all right, and look what we have his place: Chaos, more attacks worldwide, over 2000 American personel dead, and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis are dead, and no exit strategy. None.


Geez ... what's the point? I'm gonna get flamed for this. This has little to do with Iraq. Just hatred for Bush, so I'm steppin down from this thread.

Yeah I know, Bush was AWOL, ruined the economy and our reputation around the world, and yada yada yada. All I remember is when Clinton and the other democrats were in power, they sure had no qualms about taking a big friggin bite out of my paycheck while they had the country in a recession.

Of course that's all your pea brain is likely to remember -- equating sloganeering ("Tax and Spend Democrats" right ?)with those on the Left. Granted, some of it was done with smoke and mirrors, but Clinton did get this country back in the black. Prosperity ? Twenty-million new jobs ? Ring a bell ?


Like I said, what's the point? You people don't get it and don't want to. I hear more criticism of our president, and very little of the likes of Saddam, Osama, and the other real problem people of this world.

I noticed you conveniently left out how this country -- your country -- sponsored, trained, and supplied weapons with both of the aforementioned for years, mostly under Republican administrations at that ... Is the United States not complicit with the thousands buried in mass graves while Reagan was sending Hussein gold stirrups for his show horses, or when Rumsfeld, as a Reagan envoy, was trading bear hugs with him ?


... I just don't like seeing innocent people being victimized by overly-zealous religious pigs like they did on 9/11. I can't imagine what it must have been like to go ripping through the skies at 400 knots as a passenger on a plane only to be slammed into a building by a group of knuckleheads who learned to fly in our simulators, simply because they thought it would please God and avail them 70 virgins in heaven. ...

I can't imagine my country being under some no-fly zone and being bombed whenever it was "violated", and seeing my citizens die by the thousands due to a cruel sanction policy which took the lives of many thousands of innocent Iraqi infants and elderly. Anywhere from 30 to 100,000 Iraqis may have died in this latest campaign against that country, so my questio to you is simple: How many more Americans and Iraqis must die in this war in order to satisfy your thirst for retribution ? Retribution for something they aren't at fault for.


You use the label 'Nazi' quite loosely there. It's not right.

Nor is it right to illegally and unjustly attack a country and kill thousands of people. I love how clowns like you live in a world bereft of their hypocrisy and stupidity. The term Nazi disrupts your stomach, but you think nothing of the thousands getting killed for no reason, or the millions of our progeny who will have less goverment services and pay higher taxes thanks to the dunce in office breaking the treasury, or worst, becoming bulls-eyes for future generations of anti-American protagonists because of our policies in the mideast.


I mentioned before in an earlier thread that I wasn't interested in politics before 9/11. I always told people, "When artists, philosophers, scientists, teachers, clergy, etc, can occupy the seats in congress, and not a bunch of lawyers, it is then that I will take an interest in politics." That was unrealistic of me. I don't embrace either party. I embrace the half empty glass that holds both air and water, and decide which half is best and when.

Of course you wouldn't. Since when would a mind like yours ever be interested in a blip buried in the back pages of your local paper about an American F-15 bombing a part of Iraq prior to 9/11 ? Funny how 9/11 clarrified so much to so many such as yourself.


... Guess you didn't see that video either did you? I don't know about you, but that's a man with great conviction in the face of a violent attack. Bush is one of those people, and I know the kind from experience, they're at the best when things are at their worst. They throw themselves out in front of everyone, and to the mans' credit he hasn't bitched and complained very much in spite of all the bitching and complaining people are throwing at him. To me, that's a guy I don't mind having in my corner, even if he is a simple sum bitch.

ROTFLMAO !!! No comment (Is this fruitcake kidding ?) needed.

... This morning I got word from a close friend that she just received word this morning that her nephew was killed in Iraq. He didn't reach the age of 20. I'm not sorry I had to take it out on one prick who supports this insane policy.

Well, your friends' nephew did volunteer for the military did he not? That's not the Boys Scouts you know. What happens in the first few months of basic training? You're trained to kill, and there is no democracy in the military. When you sign that contract, you are 100% bona fied government property with a rank and number until your tour ends. Don't lay that on me either. If you don't want to get killed in combat, don't sign up for the military. You know, its not called the Armed Services for no reason. If you don't want to get killed fighting crime, then don't sign up to be a police officer.

All anti-war and anti-Bush useless talking points that are constantly being purported by the left in the media. Germany never attacked us. We attacked them. If we didn't, you and I would be speaking german right now.

Illegal war? According to what legal entity? The U.N.? They have no legal power over anyone, and is filled with corrupt dictators who wouldn't think twice about stringing us up by the neck for even looking at a forum like this. Countries go to war and there's nothing legal or illegal about that. It transcends laws, because laws are local to countries, and there is no global law that is enforcable.

Just sit in your little coffee shop and keep bad mouthing your country. We'll keep the bad guys off your back.

[Felicia Katt]

Flip

Bush or Clinton had nothing to do with the economy slump at this time. There were many other factors, but technology was a major factor in that.
Flop

All I remember is when Clinton and the other democrats were in power, they sure had no qualms about taking a big friggin bite out of my paycheck while they had the country in a recession.

welcome back

FK

[chefmike]

Flip

Bush or Clinton had nothing to do with the economy slump at this time. There were many other factors, but technology was a major factor in that.
Flop

All I remember is when Clinton and the other democrats were in power, they sure had no qualms about taking a big friggin bite out of my paycheck while they had the country in a recession.

welcome back

FK


:claps :claps :claps :claps :claps

[BlackAdder]

InHoustons full of nothing but hot air....All i know is that my taxes are higher now, then when Clinton was in office. I have the tax stubs from 98 to prove it.

[InHouston]

Flip

Bush or Clinton had nothing to do with the economy slump at this time. There were many other factors, but technology was a major factor in that.
Flop

All I remember is when Clinton and the other democrats were in power, they sure had no qualms about taking a big friggin bite out of my paycheck while they had the country in a recession.

welcome back

FK

:shock: Whoopsy!

[fishman33]

InHoustons full of nothing but hot air....All i know is that my taxes are higher now, then when Clinton was in office. I have the tax stubs from 98 to prove it.

Well, I'd hope you are making more income now than you were 7 years ago, which means you would be in a higher tax bracket. Ergo- higher taxes.....

I'm not gonna weigh in on this, because President's have as much impact on the economy as you or I do. I just wanna say this:

As a former Marine, my brothers were dying during the Clinton Administration(Africa, Eastern Europe, on board the USS Cole and even in Iraq), and where was the out-cry? Osama Bin Laden was blowing things up(the first attack on the towers), Sadam was still being a right bastard to every non-Sunni he coudl get his hands on. And everyone else in the world still hated us.

Do I think Dubs is an idiot? Absolutely! But he did the right thing. The towers were bombed twice in a 3 year period, and we have been terror free on our home soil for 4 years now. I've been in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the majority of those people are much better off- and they will tell you that themselves. Do they want us out? Again, absolutely, but they know we are still needed. The 'insurgents' they love to show on the news are a small sect(compared to the whole of the country) of people who just want the power back they had win Sadam was in charge. But showing all the new schools being built, the resurgence of Iraqi soccer and all the other good things the war has brought don't sell papers and don't grab headlines the same way as "5 Dead in Rebel Attack!" do. But you people can go ahead and believe what you want....

[McRen]

Probly not a good idea to voice my opinion on this, but what the hell

Those 'Terrorists' as you guys call them are nothing more than the smaller, poorer army. They were created, and are responding to a war that was waged on them and their people by your country. Is what they did to those innocent people wrong? Of course. But its no more wrong that what USA is doing in Iraq right now, which actually had nothing to do with 9/11.

Every young child in Iraq that see's people being killed around him is going to grow up to want revenge. You are not helping stop terrorism, you are furthering its cause, fanning the fire. The only way to not be attacked by terrorists is to not interfere with their cultures. The reason Canada didnt go into Iraq is also the reason we dont get attacked by terrorists. Of course pro bush people will tell me its because we are a useless, small country that doesnt matter.

[GroobySteven]

InHoustons full of nothing but hot air....All i know is that my taxes are higher now, then when Clinton was in office. I have the tax stubs from 98 to prove it.

Well, I'd hope you are making more income now than you were 7 years ago, which means you would be in a higher tax bracket. Ergo- higher taxes.....

I'm not gonna weigh in on this, because President's have as much impact on the economy as you or I do. I just wanna say this:

As a former Marine, my brothers were dying during the Clinton Administration(Africa, Eastern Europe, on board the USS Cole and even in Iraq), and where was the out-cry? Osama Bin Laden was blowing things up(the first attack on the towers), Sadam was still being a right bastard to every non-Sunni he coudl get his hands on. And everyone else in the world still hated us.

Do I think Dubs is an idiot? Absolutely! But he did the right thing. The towers were bombed twice in a 3 year period, and we have been terror free on our home soil for 4 years now. I've been in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the majority of those people are much better off- and they will tell you that themselves. Do they want us out? Again, absolutely, but they know we are still needed. The 'insurgents' they love to show on the news are a small sect(compared to the whole of the country) of people who just want the power back they had win Sadam was in charge. But showing all the new schools being built, the resurgence of Iraqi soccer and all the other good things the war has brought don't sell papers and don't grab headlines the same way as "5 Dead in Rebel Attack!" do. But you people can go ahead and believe what you want....

Thankyou for one of the most balanced and sensible posts in a long time.
seanchai

[fishman33]

Thankyou for one of the most balanced and sensible posts in a long time.
seanchai

Well, I'm pretty sure that's sarcasm, comming from you, but that's o.k. People have the right to differing opinions. Plus, I like your sites and don't wanna get banned....


ps- if you weren't being sarcastic, then you're welcome!

[chefmike]

and on a lighter (?) note...the (unelected) chimp-in-chief...

[chefmike]

...

[BlackAdder]

I would have and did fully support going after Al Qaida and Bin Laden in Afghanistan and SAUDI ARABIA, but going after Saddam was sheer lunacy!

[Realgirls4me]

You were kidding upstream, right Seanchai ?


I would have and did fully support going after Al Qaida and Bin Laden in Afghanistan and SAUDI ARABIA, but going after Saddam was sheer lunacy!

Lunacy doesn't begin to address it.

How about also addressing the reasons they hate us. There are reasons why they hate us, and it's not because we have freedom as Dubya would like one to believe. Bombing them will not rid us of them, only create MORE generations of them to come after us.


Well, your friends' nephew did volunteer for the military did he not? That's not the Boys Scouts you know. What happens in the first few months of basic training? You're trained to kill, and there is no democracy in the military. When you sign that contract, you are 100% bona fied government property with a rank and number until your tour ends. Don't lay that on me either. If you don't want to get killed in combat, don't sign up for the military. You know, its not called the Armed Services for no reason. If you don't want to get killed fighting crime, then don't sign up to be a police officer.

You can can the condescending slop. Did he sign a contract to fight illegal, unwarranted wars such as this one in Iraq? I would argue that he didn't. Did he sign up to fight ill equipt, unprepared, and/or short handed by tens of thousands of his peers ? Did he sign up for extended duty as many have because of manpower shortages ? Did he sign up for Abul Grab, and Gitmo, post war syndrome, et all ? I don't know this kid's case for enlisting, but my first assumption is that like many young men and women today who are not cut out for college for whatever their reason(s), the military offered him the only opportunity to learn a trade or skill which he could later utilize in the private sector. If just a few of those billions of dollars spent on our bloated military budget -- this country's military budget is almost as great as the world's combined military spending -- could see their way into job training programs, maybe the kid would have more options than working at a Wal-Mart, flipping burgers at a diner, or being sent to fight illegal wars in far off lands. Not one American life should have been sacrificed for this misguided, unwarranted, unnecessary, illegal and costly blunder by the dunce-in-charge.



All anti-war and anti-Bush useless talking points that are constantly being purported by the left in the media. Germany never attacked us. We attacked them. If we didn't, you and I would be speaking german right now.

There it is again, comparisons between what happened in WWII, and what is currently going on tin the mideast. Comparing a world power on the march, to a toothless lion whose weak roar and stupidity was only trumped by its roar is laughable.


Illegal war? According to what legal entity? The U.N.? They have no legal power over anyone, and is filled with corrupt dictators who wouldn't think twice about stringing us up by the neck for even looking at a forum like this. Countries go to war and there's nothing legal or illegal about that. It transcends laws, because laws are local to countries, and there is no global law that is enforcable.

You really need to stop parroting Rightwing hate radio. You're so incredibly ignorant and transparent. Rather than try to teach you what you should have learned in high school or college (Did you attend college, by the way ?), I've provided the following link. You might want to concentrate on the section on the UN Charter, which the United States supposedly agreed to abide by when it was established in 1945. I realize it won't conform to what Savage or Rush tells you, but hey, they're not in radio for money making reasons, right ? By the way, it's the same U.N. that Colin Powell revisited with his tail between his legs after this country found out it was in over its head in Iraq. That UN.

http://www.un.org/Overview/brief.html


Just sit in your little coffee shop and keep bad mouthing your country. We'll keep the bad guys off your back.

Go fuck yourself. Define "bad guys" for me, will you ? Could the bad guys possibly be the ones who have treated that region as if it were their back yard (Read the history of the west in that region sometime, huh) for almost a century ? Unlike you, I don't suscribe to the "might makes right", or "My country right or wrong" simplistic and cowardly line of reasoning. Because of clowns like yourself and dumbfuck Bush, generations of Americans will not only be worse off domestically due to higher taxes and less goverment services because of our debt, but more significantly, become targets on a global scale, as anyone or anything with American markings will be fodder for terrorist acts. Tell me: How can our military watch over every single American passenger jet worldwide ? One more time: How are the events which took place on 9/11 linked to this war in Iraq ? How is creating petri-dishes (Imagine how many of their citizens who had no hatred for this country before, now can't stand us?) of hatred toward our country protecting us, dumb ass ?
I've traveled a little bit, and from those travels I've come to love and respect this country more than you'll ever know, and that is precisely why I don't want to see it attacked again as it was on 9/11. Your line of thinking basically assures we will. You, keep guys off my back ???

[willib]

IMPEACH BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[GroobySteven]

Thankyou for one of the most balanced and sensible posts in a long time.
seanchai

Well, I'm pretty sure that's sarcasm, comming from you, but that's o.k. People have the right to differing opinions. Plus, I like your sites and don't wanna get banned....


ps- if you weren't being sarcastic, then you're welcome!

No it wasn't sarcasm at all, if it was I would have followed it with a retort.
This seems like a post from someone who obviously has been there and has a view on it. Someone who probably signed for the military in good faith.
Your statement shows that you've given objective thought to it and not just the "party line" that some people would give.
seanchai

[chefmike]

shrubya speaking to America..."the truth?...YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"

[fishman33]

lol, chef. Even I cracked up at that one.

[chefmike]

lol, chef. Even I cracked up at that one.

Cool... were you a jarhead or a grunt?...I myself spent four years on the "shitty kitty" CV-63 (flight deck)...so I respect all my fellow vets, regardless of opinions or branch of service...even tho the jarheads (and my Dad served as one in Korea), don't wanna admit that they're just another branch of the Navy... :wink:

[fishman33]

lol, chef. Even I cracked up at that one.

Cool... were you a jarhead or a grunt?...I myself spent four years on the "shitty kitty" CV-63 (flight deck)...so I respect all my fellow vets, regardless of opinions or branch of service...even tho the jarheads (and my Dad served as one in Korea), don't wanna admit that they're just another branch of the Navy... :wink:

hey, with out you guys, how the hell would we get where we were going?

I was a jarhead, Cpt. Jarhead, to you swabbie......did six years myself. I was more or less indentured after they paid for some of my school.