posted on October 5, 2004 11:38:09 AM new
Linda_k what you don't seem to get is that the war was based on lies. Innocent people have been killed. For what?
But then I wasn't the one that sat here roflmao when the bombs fell and when the looting started. I wasn't the one posting the LOLs and laughing faces throughout the threads about the US troops that were being killed and maimed or when the empty boots were shown on display. I didn't say "sh!t happens". Nor was I the one making excuses for the prison torture or all the abused and dead children.
And I don't have to scream and fill my posts with phony laughter to cover my ass or defend a failed incompetent leader. Is that clear?
posted on October 5, 2004 11:41:15 AM new
logansdad - To hopefully make more clear.....from using YOUR own article..
[i]the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was ``no credible evidence´´ that Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaida target the United States.
This points out the links between the two men. And what part of the initial 9-11 commission had stated. Remember your article was written BEFORE we got the FULL 9-11 commission report. Which does make the saddam-binladen connections.
But what I'm trying to say, and obviously not very well, is that saddam and the threat of womd from Iraq was an issue 13 years before the Iraq war. That had NO CONNECTION, that we're aware of, to binladen.
-----
kiara - That's why I don't really wish to communicate with you any more. You take my words and twist them all around. Like you honestly think someone who's son is serving our Nation that I'm going to laugh at their deaths? If so...that's really sick.
AND our 9-11 commission reported this President HAD NOT LIED...he went on the intelligence he was given from our intelligence community...you know the one kerry voted on to reduce funding for immediately following the bombing of the twin towers the FIRST time.
-------
And yes, kiara, I will now call you the liar I think you are. Because there's not one statement you made that is true. You're sounding more and more like cf everyday. Hysterical....
"But then I wasn't the one that sat here roflmao when the bombs fell and when the looting started. I wasn't the one posting the LOLs and laughing faces throughout the threads about the US troops that were being killed and maimed or when the empty boots were shown on display. I didn't say "sh!t happens". Nor was I the one making excuses for the prison torture or all the abused and dead children."
[ edited by Linda_K on Oct 5, 2004 12:03 PM ]
posted on October 5, 2004 12:04:11 PM new
My point is that your laughter in those threads was inappropriate. Why put a in threads showing concern and respect for killed troops? Why splatter your posts with and LOLs if they don't mean laughter? You said you use the because you laugh lots. Looks very strange, that's all because you use it in situations where normal, caring people would never laugh.
posted on October 5, 2004 12:06:20 PM newLinda_k what you don't seem to get is that the war was based on lies. Innocent people have been killed. For what?
But then I wasn't the one that sat here roflmao when the bombs fell and when the looting started. I wasn't the one posting the LOLs and laughing faces throughout the threads about the US troops that were being killed and maimed or when the empty boots were shown on display. I didn't say "sh!t happens". Nor was I the one making excuses for the prison torture or all the abused and dead children.
And I don't have to scream and fill my posts with phony laughter to cover my ass or defend a failed incompetent leader. Is that clear?
That's exactly the way I saw linda's posts it too, Kiara. Inappropriate laughter, sh!t happens attitude toward threads with mention of soldiers killed...you got it exactly right...every word right on target.
posted on October 5, 2004 12:29:54 PM new
The way I remember it Linda, was the one issue of capturing Bin Laden. The Taliban offered Bin Laden to Bush in exchange for proof he had connections with 911. Bush refused and invaded Afghanistan. The second issue was never the connection between Bin Laden and Hussein, but the fact that Iraq had womd pointed at the U.S. supposedly in retaliation for the Afghanistan invasion. The connection between them was an after-thought (one of many) to justify the invasion(s) which has always been about oil.
posted on October 5, 2004 12:44:34 PM new
To clear this up for anyone else that thinks I may have laughed at the deaths, injuries of our soldiers beside helen and kiara, who have proven they both have trouble comprehending anything I post...twist it all around to the way THEIR minds take it.....
I laughed at the stupid, and sometimes ludicris statements they made in those threads. NOT at the what our brave soldiers have gone through. As EVEYONE here, with the exception apparently of helen and kiara...I always support our military and our troops. They appear to be the ONLY ones who haven't noticed that from my posts.
posted on October 5, 2004 12:58:24 PM new
KD - The way I remember it Linda, was the one issue of capturing Bin Laden.
Yes, we wanted to capture bin laden. But we, as a nation, had been dealing with saddam since the 1991 agreements he made. All three administrations felt he presented a threat to our nation. That's what I've tried to say...these are really two separate issues...than then some tried to also connect by implying or saying outright that the two leaders were working together in the 9-11 plot.
The Taliban offered Bin Laden to Bush in exchange for proof he had connections with 911.
Again...first off I don't remember Bush being offer bin laden...if you have proof of that I'd like to see it though. I do remember clinton twice turning down offers of the same...but not by Bush.
I'm saying that after 9-11 and the tole it took here in the US...that this President decided he could no longer allow the long term threat to our nation, that three administrations felt he posed along with the UN, and since saddam wouldn't abide by any of his 'last chances' Bush took action to remove that threat. Separate from the threat of AQ/bin laden
Bush refused and invaded Afghanistan. Again, I know we invaded....but don't remember Bush refusing the offer. WHO made the offer and to whom?
The second issue was never the connection between Bin Laden and Hussein, but the fact that Iraq had womd pointed at the U.S. supposedly in retaliation for the Afghanistan invasion.
That's a new one on me. lol I didn't hear it that way either.
The connection between them was an after-thought (one of many) to justify the invasion(s) which has always been about oil.
Oil again...like America only needs oil when a republican is president. Not. Especially when the left fights all the time for us not to use our own oil.....because of the animals and invironment.
We justified our invasion of Iraq because the UN and most of the world had told saddam he needed to prove he no longer had womd. He didn't. And President Bush NEVER stated the threat from womd was imminent. He said it was necessary to avoid waiting UNTIL it became imminent.
posted on October 5, 2004 01:06:49 PM newI laughed at the stupid, and sometimes ludicris statements they made in those threads. NOT at the what our brave soldiers have gone through. As EVEYONE here, with the exception apparently of helen and kiara...I always support our military and our troops. They appear to be the ONLY ones who haven't noticed that from my posts
Linda, you are making a lot of misspelled assumptions about the thoughts of "everyone" other than helen and kiara.
posted on October 5, 2004 01:44:00 PM new
Well..helen, this time it was directed at you and your tag-a-long...one making the false statements and the other one saying she too see's it the same way. That would be you hellen. You and kiara are like Mutt and Jeff.
posted on October 5, 2004 01:44:03 PM new
Linda if you look at the article you provide it is an editorial written by Stephen Hadley
Stephen J. Hadley is deputy national security adviser to President Bush.
I feel that article is a little biased don't you think. I would believe what the 9/11 commission originally reported more than I would believe an editorial posted by somebody from Bush's staff.
DICK CHENEY SUPPORTS MY RELATIONSHIP: People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
posted on October 5, 2004 01:50:03 PM new
logansdad - To see the truth you will have to read the JULY 9-11 commission report. THERE you will see what conclusion they came to themselves. Again - there was no connection between THAT THEY COULD PROVE, between saddam and binladen. That doesn't mean there weren't any contacts between the two because that part was prove as stated on the 9-11 commission report.
And you obviously don't believe the commissioners public statements either, I guess.
posted on October 5, 2004 02:05:09 PM new
Linda_K, I am not Helen's tag-along. In fact, I posted to this thread before she did. I realize you are in desperate need of a constant lapdog but some of us can wade through here all alone and take care of ourselves. Just because Helen and I see you as you really are and understand how you paraphrase and twist and turn our statements and use your smilies and LOLs as bullets, please don't hold it against us.
And I am not a liar because I disagree with you about the war in Iraq. That would make me and almost the rest of the entire world liars and only you and Bush and some others the truthsayers. Scary thought!
Minister makes secret trip to offer trial in third country
Rory McCarthy in Islamabad
Wednesday October 17, 2001
The Guardian
A senior Taliban minister has offered a last-minute deal to hand over Osama bin Laden during a secret visit to Islamabad, senior sources in Pakistan told the Guardian last night.
For the first time, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US without asking to see evidence first in return for a halt to the bombing, a source close to Pakistan's military leadership said.
But US officials appear to have dismissed the proposal and are instead hoping to engineer a split within the Taliban leadership.
The offer was brought by Mullah Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, the Taliban foreign minister and a man who is often regarded as a more moderate figure in the regime.
posted on October 5, 2004 02:43:19 PM new
kiara - I'm not going to continue down this road again. All it ever leads to is more untruths you state. I refuse to play your game.
you said:
I am not a liar because I disagree with you about the war in Iraq.
Maybe you need to show yourself where I said that. I didn't. I said about the lies you posted that I copied and pasted to my own post.
That would make me and almost the rest of the entire world liars..
You're left out all the leaders whose countries ARE currently our allies in Iraq. You and kerry can discount them if YOU wish to but 25,000 troops from different nations IS important.
posted on October 5, 2004 02:49:35 PM new
KD - Sometimes I just would swear your blond.
[teasing with affection]
ONE YEAR BEFORE 9-11 would have been under the clinton administration, dear one.
And yes, that's one of the two times I was referring to that clinton was offered binladen...and he didn't take it. He also didn't bomb their AQ training fields when we knew where they were.
That's one of the reasons I don't want kerry to be CIC...he'll be worse than clinton as clinton was more moderate compared to kerry being a full blown ultra-liberal. The MOST liberal Senator in our Senate.
posted on October 5, 2004 03:00:41 PM new
Linda_K, you C&P so much it's hard to keep up with you and since you've been calling me a liar for days now it's difficult to know which post you are referring to.
You were the one that came into this thread and said my statements were wrong. And I still don't know who xx is. So who is playing the games here.
The statement by kiara and xx are wrong also.
Just because you disagree with what I say about the war, it doesn't necessarily make my statements wrong or yours right for that matter.
posted on October 5, 2004 03:13:31 PM new
Kiara - What part don't you understand that is about the lies you just posted above. Saying I was laughing at the deaths, injuries,etc. all the crap you lied about.
Those are out-and-out lies and you know it. But part of your little game is to keep 'floating' the subject of discussion around.
You just lied about my feelings/actions/statements about our soldiers.....there's no denying that. I copied your words to my post. They're ALL LIES.
posted on October 5, 2004 10:15:51 PM new
Linda, if you read the links, it explained how it was within the year. Bush turned down the offer that could have avoided the war.
posted on October 6, 2004 06:43:51 AM newAgain - there was no connection between THAT THEY COULD PROVE, between saddam and binladen. That doesn't mean there weren't any contacts
Well the 9/11 commission report certainly doesn't back Bush's claim that Bin Laden was in bed with Iraq. I would tend to believe an independent commission more than I would believe Bush who has lied to the American since 9/11.
DICK CHENEY SUPPORTS MY RELATIONSHIP: People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
posted on October 6, 2004 07:51:25 AM new
To ignore or pretend there were no connections between binladen and his followers and saddam is to invite another 9-11 tragedy ...just like what happened when the clinton administration ignored the real threat.
President Bush acted in this Nations best interests...and did what his job requires him to do....protect this Nation.
Here are some of the connections with several links included:
KD - ABC News Australia is reporting that the Taliban offered to give Osama bin Laden to the U.S. a year before the 9/11 attacks. That would have been 9-11-00....again, under the previous administration. President Bush took office 1-20-01.
And your first link is a left-leaning chat board. No where in the second link is a date offered of when this occured.
posted on October 6, 2004 08:46:52 AM new
More proof the war was based on lies. Too bad Bush and his henchmen didn't wait until they had more facts before killing and injuring so many innocent people, ruining so many lives and making such a mess.
*********************************************
The government's most definitive account of Iraq arms programs, to be released today, will show that Saddam Hussein posed a diminishing threat at the time the United States invaded and did not possess, or have concrete plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, U.S. officials said yesterday.
The officials said that the 1,000-page report by Charles A. Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, concluded that Hussein had the desire but not the means to produce unconventional weapons that could threaten his neighbors or the West. President Bush has continued to assert in his campaign stump speech that Iraq had posed "a gathering threat."
The officials said Duelfer, an experienced former United Nations weapons inspector, found that the state of Hussein's weapons-development programs and knowledge base was less advanced in 2003, when the war began, than it was in 1998, when international inspectors left Iraq.
"They have not found anything yet," said one U.S. official who had been briefed on the report.
posted on October 6, 2004 09:09:22 AM new
To ignore or pretend there were no connections between binladen and his followers and saddam is to invite another 9-11 tragedy ...just like what happened when the clinton administration ignored the real threat.
President Bush acted in this Nations best interests...and did what his job requires him to do....protect this Nation.
Bush did the same thing that Clinton tried to. Both Clinton and Bush tried through diplomatic means to get Osama. Bush repeated the same methods as Clinton during his first 5 months in office. This was pointed out in the 9/11 commission report.
If anyone ignore what was going to happen it was Bush. In August 2001 Bush received the Daily Brief "Osama to use planes to attack the US" or something to that effect and completely ignored the brief. Why? Because he was on vacation during the entire month of August 2001. How much more of a notice did he need? I guess Bush wouldn't have acted unless he received a phone call from Osama personally saying he was going to attack the White House.
DICK CHENEY SUPPORTS MY RELATIONSHIP: People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
This coupled with the final report of the chief U.S. arms inspector shows Saddam did not vigorously pursue a program to develop weapons of mass destruction
posted on October 7, 2004 07:49:14 AM new
logansdad - I think where we disagree is that you're using statements from a point in time where President Bush had only been in office 6 months. And Condi Rice did state HIS position:
"Well, the president has made very clear that he considers Saddam Hussein to be a threat to his neighbors, a threat to security in the region, in fact a threat to international security more broadly."
That had not changed from when clinton LEFT office on 1-20-01....he too felt saddam presented the same threat.
But much more importantly than what clinton said is that kerry said the same thing about saddam...saw him as the same threat with womd. And you have read the many quotes of him saying just that have been posted here. If kerry had been president would he have taken us to war with Iraq....probably not. Just like clinton didn't declare war on the AQ terrorists....and look at the result of that lack of taking action... 9-11.
The threats they BOTH felt saddam presented were not ONLY womd. They were the fact that saddam was paying terrorists families to bomb Israel. They believed and found out he had a secret oil pipeline to Syria....that wasn't allowed under the UN resolution. There were several issue he was in violation of.
I believe you need to remember that a lot changes in just one week....and we're talking about YEARS from when these statements from Powell and Rice were made. More intelligence became available in that time period. And I'm sure you did see Powell at the UN stating our reasons for removing saddam. And I'm sure you did read 'later' articles, quotes from Condi Rice that stated the threat saddam DID present. Again, not only with womd.
Then your article mentions the UN sanctions....in 7-01 you're reading both Powell and Rice saying the sanctions were keeping saddam away from accomplishing his goal....but what you aren't remembering is that there were several countries and lefties here in our own country who were arguing the sanctions should be removed. Had they been removed saddam would have been even freer to pursue his goals. The position of the US was they shouldn't be removed.
But people like helen were acting as true bleeding heart liberals and feeling sorry for the 'poor' Iraqi's that the sanctions were hurting. Again, NEVER blaming saddam for his part in his own people's suffering while he build more and more palaces.
Also please remember that in 1990-91 [before the first Iraq war] the UN inspectors were just about ready to release their report stating saddam had no weapons....when those weapons WERE found which is basically what started the first UN resolution in the first place....to disarm him of the womd he did have then. So it's not like the inspectors FOUND the womd he did have then....they didn't. They didn't think it had them then either.
The bottom line really is why saddam would not cooperate with the UN resolution. He didn't ...the war could have been avoided. It was his unwillingness to comply with the UN resolutions that took us to war. Because, like I said...after 9-11 the threats coming from Iraq could not be ignored.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I will never submit America's national security to an international test. The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France. The President's job is not to take an international poll -- the President's job is to defend America." --President George W. Bush
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Re-elect President Bush
posted on October 7, 2004 08:02:51 AM new "But people like helen were acting as true bleeding heart liberals and feeling sorry for the 'poor' Iraqi's that the sanctions were hurting. Again, NEVER blaming saddam for his part in his own people's suffering while he build more and more palaces."
Yes, you callous old fool. I did feel so sorry for the poor children who were dying because needed drugs could not be imported because of the sanctions. Leave me out of your ignorant statements, Please.
posted on October 7, 2004 08:34:00 AM new
Linda: And Condi Rice did state HIS position:
"Well, the president has made very clear that he considers Saddam Hussein to be a threat to his neighbors, a threat to security in the region, in fact a threat to international security more broadly."
Yes, that may have been Bush's position but both Rice and Powell said THEY felt Saddam was not a threat in Feb. 2001. Bush has his own opinion and so does his staff. Just because Rice stated Bush's opinion does not mean she agrees with it.
You want to keep claiming Saddam was a threat since Clinton was in office, but in Febuary 2001 both Powell and Rice agreed he was not a threat. He was contained according to Powell. What was said prior to this by Clinton and everyone did not matter. This was based on their latest intelligence (MAY 15, 2001) and it came after Bush had a plan for war against Iraq (Jan, 2001).
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
----------------------------------
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declares: "the area… that coalition forces control… happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
------------------------------
in threads showing concern and respect for killed troops? Why splatter your posts with 
