posted on October 6, 2004 05:40:15 PM new
I can't speak for everyone else. but I just don't care that they haven't found any...
I knew in '91 we would have to go back and finish the job that was started... Clinton just couldn't keep his balls out some intern's mouth long enough to do anything about it.
President Bush used the information available at the time, all you armchair traitor lovers can piss and moan all you want...doesn't change the fact we invaded Iraq, took out Saddam, have freed those people for a better life and has put the world on notice, we do what we say.
We have the best military in the world, the traitor and his lackey have mentioned Iran in both debates now...how long do you think it will be before we liberate Tehran?
I do not trust the traitor and know that if anyone was running against President Bush, that would be the favorite... after seeing his lackey in action last night, I was not impressed, the VP wooped that young'uns ass...
It's good that people are voting for their choice, however the negativity right now as has been said many many times before... gives motivation to the enemy... their thinking is one more kidnapping or one more bomb and the Americans will break... well true Amercicans will never break...
posted on October 6, 2004 05:44:23 PM new
I don't know what debate you were watching Twelve, but Cheney didn't come close to kicking anyone's @ss, but his own.
You have proven once again your lack of intelligence when it comes to International Relations. Your mentality of military brute force and persuasion is asinine. It reaks of Hitler and the Nazis. You call yourself an American, and then you spew nothing but lies.
Grow up and realize there is more to America than being the bully of the world.
posted on October 6, 2004 05:51:51 PM newI can't speak for everyone else. but I just don't care that they haven't found any...
Well that explains why the Republicans just blindly follow the idiot in chief. So what if we went to war under false pretences. I (Bush) am the WAR president. I will do whatever I want. I could care less if I invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, a country that I claimed to have lots of WMD and was ready to use them. So what if I made a mistake and upset the rest of the world.
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
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
posted on October 6, 2004 06:03:46 PM new
I find it funny how twelve doesn't care that we haven't found WMDs, but seems to care that Clinton got some oral.
War mongers like twelve make voting against Bush feel just that much sweeter. He would rather kill Americans based on a lie than find out the truth and save those very same lives, all to capture a guy who didn't attack America, and wasn't close to being a threat to our country.
posted on October 6, 2004 06:06:55 PM new
Who cares if the entire basis for going to war was the WMD issue. All the intelligence said they were there....so what happened to them.
It makes you wonder what the real reason was for going to war. Could it really have been to make Saddam pay for threatening to kill Bush's dada.
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."
------------------------------
posted on October 6, 2004 06:09:29 PM newwe went to war under false pretences.
No, we went to war because we had just suffered through 9-11 and saddam wouldn't comply with the last UN resolution that stated their would be consequences if he didn't THIS time. Couldn't take a chance because he'd been a threat for years.
I (Bush) am the WAR president. I will do whatever I want.
I (Bush) am the war President with a backbone who will always do what I believe is necessary to protect this nation from any threat to our land or our people.
I could care less if I invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11
Iraq and saddam presented a separate threat and I felt they needed to be dealt with once and for all. I gave him two 'last chances' to comply and he wouldn't. I could not take a chance after 9-11.
a country that I claimed to have lots of WMD and was ready to use them.
A country that our intelligence told us had womd....since 1991 and I felt it necessary to deal with it before he became an imminent threat.
So what if I made a mistake and upset the rest of the world.
I will NEVER seek approval from other countries to defend this nation.
[I like my answers better than yours. ]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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 6, 2004 06:44:17 PM new
Again....because we only found small amounts of weapons, a few warheads with traces of Sarin and a missile or two does NOT mean he didn't have them. We just didn't find the large quanities THERE...
They could have been shipped to Iran, Syria or anywhere else in the ME.
Why is it no leftie wants to hold saddam accountable for not living up to the UN Security Councils last resolution?
Why is it no leftie wants to explain where these womd went....after clinton bomb what he thought to be womd in 12-98? There was no accounting given to the UN for just WHERE they went. Did they just disappear into thin air? Poof?
Why is it no leftie objected when kerry was saying he wanted to sends 20,000 more troops into Iraq, especially since the dems have been claiming they need more troops?
Why is it no leftie objects to kerry changing his positions constantly on what he'll do in Iraq? Now, rather than sending more, he says he's going to withdraw our troops in four years, in one year, in six months, and now back to 4 years. Which was immediately following him saying he was going to send in more troops.
I cannot believe the dems here can vote for a man who is so indecisive it's absolutely sad.
Why is it that the lefties don't mention/comment on kerry's [idea] offer to Iran, which would have enabled them to continue developing their nuclear weapons program? Thank God THEY rejected kerry's offer. They believe they can do this themselves in 4 months. And the dems want kerry as CIC IF this does come about when he can't decide which position he holds on Iraq? That's absolutely crazy.
Why is it the lefties here can read ALL of kerry's womd statements and how HE, himself said saddam had womb....and then believe his complete reversal?
----------------
This is one of the biggest reasons I refuse to believe American's would EVER elect a man like kerry.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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 6, 2004 06:48:47 PM new
What is really funny is that no one on the left will mention that Saddam had a chance to resign before we invaded and refused.
gumby, maybe if clinton hadn't been distracted he would of made the right decision and captured bin laden... but nope he had other things in mind.
posted on October 6, 2004 06:55:45 PM new
That's right...I'd forgotten about that. The other surrounding courtries WERE talking to him about resigning....but no....he decide all those people that might die in a war...weren't worth anything to him. Which was normal as he'd used innocent women and children as body shields in the past. So more citizens deaths certainly weren't of any concern to HIM.
And I've yet to see a dem here hold saddam responsible for anything....it's ALL this President's fault.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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 6, 2004 07:14:15 PM new
Unlike Cheney, I do know where to begin.
Linda, "Couldn't take a chance because he'd been a threat for years."
Now that all of the proof is on the table that Saddam didn't have WMD's, how can you continue this lie? What threat was he to the USA? Please tell me, because saying it doesn't make it so.
"I (Bush) am the war President with a backbone who will always do what I believe is necessary to protect this nation from any threat to our land or our people."
Unless you are one of those 1000+ American soldiers who lost their lives over the lie you and the Bush Administration keep telling. Keep in mind, every lefty has disclaimed this lie and has had numerous experts disclaim. I suppose the lefties are in cahoots with those experts, some which were appointed and work for the Bush Admin.
Twelve- "What is really funny is that no one on the left will mention that Saddam had a chance to resign before we invaded and refused."
He kept telling the UN that there were no WMD's, and the UN had inspectors on the ground before Bush decided to attack. They found nothing, repeatedly, just like Bush has found since the occupation of Iraq. Why would someone resign if all signs pointed to no WMDs? Could you imagine a US President resigning just because another country said we were lying? Sanctions were working, and Powell and Rice both said so in 2001. This was nothing more than a distraction that has cost America 20 billion dollars, 1000+ lives, and the murder of another 10000 innocent civilians.
Iran? Well now... Do I smell Iran Contra scandal? Come on now. Do you really want to go there?
Linda-your attacks on indecisiveness is just plain wrong. You know his platform, you just want to discredit is because it is better than your candidates platform of no plan, except letting our kids die brutally without the necessary protection and equipment that Bush sent them without. You know he sent them in without it, and only after the fact did they try to fund it improperly.
posted on October 6, 2004 07:33:40 PM new without the necessary protection and equipment that Bush sent them without.
Rusty, that statement is incorrect, yet you continue to parrot it as if it were true. They all had equipment. What they didnt have was the 'newer' body armour, that senator Kerry voted against funding.
posted on October 6, 2004 07:38:26 PM newI could care less if I invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11
Iraq and saddam presented a separate threat and I felt they needed to be dealt with once and for all. I gave him two 'last chances' to comply and he wouldn't. I could not take a chance after 9-11.
So what long range nuclear weapons did Saddam posess that could hit the US from Iraq?
One report suggest Saddam MIGHT have a weapon that could fly 650 km to 900 km.
Now tell me the U.S. is less than 900km from Iraq and I might believe Saddam was a threat.
a country that I claimed to have lots of WMD and was ready to use them.
A country that our intelligence told us had womd....since 1991 and I felt it necessary to deal with it before he became an imminent threat.
Inspectors where there in Iraq trying to see if Saddam had any WMD. We dealt with Saddam how many years in between the 1st Gulf War. Why could we as a country wait a little bit longer before deciciding to go to war? We could have let the UN inspectors do there job, but no Bush had a plan before he got into office and he had to follow and finish what his father would not do.
Furthermore in Febuary 2001 both Powell and Rice said Saddam WAS NOT a threat.
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."
------------------------------
[ edited by logansdad on Oct 6, 2004 07:39 PM ]
posted on October 6, 2004 07:54:53 PM new
twelvetoes, the problem is that Dick Head and Bubba were lying then and are still lying to the American people today. You just don't get it.
posted on October 6, 2004 07:55:45 PM new
::No, we went to war because we had just suffered through 9-11 and saddam wouldn't comply with the last UN resolution that stated their would be consequences if he didn't THIS time. Couldn't take a chance because he'd been a threat for years. ::
But Linda I think you are ignoring the fact that we have found no evidence that he was ignoring the resolution. He said that he did not have weapons to turn over. We said that he did and was therefore violating the resolution. Problem is that we have had a year and a half to find those things that our representatives swore to us and the world that we had absolute proof of the existance of, and in some cases even swore we knew the location of, and NOTHING has been found. With this is mind, how can you continue to use the non-compliance arguement?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on October 6, 2004 08:00:12 PM new"Rusty, that statement is incorrect, yet you continue to parrot it as if it were true. They all had equipment. What they didnt have was the 'newer' body armour, that senator Kerry voted against funding."
neroter....There was no question that the troops would get the equipment if needed. Kerry and other senators were making an effort to protect the soldiers from an unplanned war such as we are seeing right now. They believed that the bill represented a failed policy and would endanger the troops rather than protect them. They believed that a go-it alone action in Iraq would put the soldiers at extreem risk. There were no effective conditions in the bill for international participation making the war difficult to win....as we see today.
He wanted to rewrite the bill rather than veto the funding for troops... NO senator would send troops into war without funding.
About the failure to plan for needed equipment....Armored Humvees were not planned for and neither were bullet proof vests. Apparently nothing but the shock and awe was planned. The following story illustrates the total lack of planning involved in the Iraq War.
But even that will not be enough, said Robert F. Mecredy, president of the defense group at Armor Holdings. As the two-front uprising in Iraq began taking its toll last month, the company's O'Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Co. subsidiary cranked up its Ohio defense plant, turning out 214 heavily armored Humvees in March, revving up for 220 this month, even building its own bulletproof-glass operation to augment faltering suppliers.
The military already has identified unmet funding needs, including initiatives aimed at providing equipment and weapons for troops in Iraq. The Army has publicly identified nearly $6 billion in funding requests that did not make Bush's $402 billion defense budget for 2005, including $132 million for bolt-on vehicle armor; $879 million for combat helmets, silk-weight underwear, boots and other clothing; $21.5 million for M249 squad automatic weapons; and $27 million for ammunition magazines, night sights and ammo packs. Also unfunded: $956 million for repairing desert-damaged equipment and $102 million to replace equipment lost in combat.
The Marine Corps' unfunded budget requests include $40 million for body armor, lightweight helmets and other equipment for "Marines engaged in the global war on terrorism," Marine Corps documents state. The Marines are also seeking 1,800 squad automatic weapons and 5,400 M4 carbine rifles.
The vests were not ordered in a timely manner resulting in a lot of troops without bullet proof vests. It was not a lack of funds that caused this problem but lack of *planning*.. That problem was not related to the 87 billion bill.
posted on October 6, 2004 08:00:50 PM new
Can anyone here really prove to me that John Kerry voted against providing our troops with the proper necessities to fight a war? What I want is a link to a website that gives word for word the bill which Kerry voted against, and the bill that Kerry voted for that the Republicans voted against. I don't want a cut and paste analysis from a website that spews biased opinions from the right or from the left. I want to see hard facts that clearly show Kerry's voting record and the voting record of the Republicans on the bill that Kerry actually voted for. Only then can we have a discussion on this topic that proves or disproves the claims from either side.
posted on October 6, 2004 08:01:59 PM newUnlike Cheney, I do know where to begin.
And you didn't address each question asked either. LOL Just as 30 seconds to answer ALL the mistatements edwards made wasn't enough time to correct them ALL...edwards made too many.
"Couldn't take a chance because he'd been a threat for years."
Now that all of the proof is on the table that Saddam didn't have WMD's, how can you continue this lie?
What don't you get about that report coming out NOW rather than BEFORE we went to war. We weren't able to get in there to verify it and saddam wasn't cooperating with the UN. AND just because they haven't been found YET...doesn't mean they weren't there...or that saddam didn't move them to another country. What don't you get about that?
Plus....as most are aware, but the dems ignore, womd was NOT the only reason given for invading. During the clinton administration the Congress passed a bill called 'The Liberation of Iraq Bill'....which spoke specifically of Iraq regime change and removal of saddam. What don't YOU get about that being our policy towards Iraq?
What threat was he to the USA? Please tell me, because saying it doesn't make it so.
Again, I'd be MORE than happen to answer your questions after you answer MINE. Remember you don't get to be the only one asking questions.
"I (Bush) am the war President with a backbone who will always do what I believe is necessary to protect this nation from any threat to our land or our people."
Unless you are one of those 1000+ American soldiers who lost their lives over the lie you and the Bush Administration keep telling.
Again saddam HAD womd, USED womd, and during the clinton administration we BOMBED them to try and destroy their WOMD. Want to show me proof of where the womd went?
Keep in mind, every lefty has disclaimed this lie and has had numerous experts disclaim.
The ultra-liberals and progressives I don't believe on one thing they say. I don't think their minds have the capability to see anything other than 'peace - at all costs'. And of course, remembering that our intelligence agencies did believe he still had them. We had tons of people his son-in-laws, others who had escaped from Iraq, other countries intelligence saying the same thing...he did.
Again....no proof he had destroyed them as required by the UN.
I suppose the lefties are in cahoots with those experts, some which were appointed and work for the Bush Admin. Maybe you'd like to give a list of names rather than just make claims and expect them to be taken as gospel. Lefties in cahoots with the experts? Maybe...but more likely leftie experts.
-----------------------
Even though you didn't answer MY questions...you usually avoid answering them....at least answer how you justify in your own mind that many democrats, including kerry, h clinton [who should know for sure - since we was married to a president who said saddam needed removing...and regime change was HIS administrations directive...just how you justify what they said about saddam having womd.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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 6, 2004 08:05:48 PM new
And just to clarify....that I have read there has NEVER been a report on womd that says he never had them. They always said they haven't been or weren't found. No guarantees - no proof he didn't pass them off to another country.
Could be that's why Iran is feeling so confident right now about going ahead with their nuclear weapons program....even though the world and your precious US has said they need to stop going forward with their plans.
Iran is thumbing it's nose to the world.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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 6, 2004 08:12:55 PM new
neroter, By not voting for the funding bill, Kerry and other senators were attempting to send Bush and his team back to the planning table. In exchange for 87 billion dollars was a request to see a workable plan too much to ask in return?
As far as lack of equipment, the need for armored humvees was not anticipated and bullet proof vests were not ordered in time.
posted on October 6, 2004 08:14:14 PM new
Oh come on rusty -
Linda-your attacks on indecisiveness is just plain wrong. You know his platform, you just want to discredit is because it is better than your candidates platform of no plan, except letting our kids die brutally without the necessary protection and equipment that Bush sent them without.
That's the best laugh I'd had all evening. I know his most recent position but I/we have absolutely NO WAY of knowing if he'll change back to any of the positions on Iraq he's taken before. I believe we're on # 9 currently. He's now taken all positions on the war just to hopefull snag a few votes from each level of dems. That is sooo funny.
You know he sent them in without it, and only after the fact did they try to fund it improperly. When a President decides we need to send our troops to war...they go with what they have. But I do find it hysterical that the dems and you, a progressive, who normally want all military funding reduced would use that as an argument....when you [collectively] like kerry did...would vote against funding for our military. They had what they needed....they just didn't have the 'lastest' version.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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 6, 2004 08:21:41 PM newI (Bush) am the war President with a backbone who will always do what I believe is necessary to protect this nation from any threat to our land or our people.
That is why Bush originally voted against the Department of Homeland Security.
That is why Bush resisted having the 9/11 commission.
That is why Bush did not want to testify before the 9/11 commission.
That is why Bush did not want Rice to testify before the 9/11 commission.
It was only AFTER pressure from the American people that he "flip-flopped". So much for protecting the American people.
If the American people do not protect themselves against Bush no one will.
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."
------------------------------
posted on October 6, 2004 08:22:43 PM new
And since it was clinton's administration that reduced funding to our military by 40% and cut our troops by almost half - 50% and as our equipment/tanks/airplanes/etc deterioriate....he didn't replace them....heck they didn't even have money to repair them because of him, I don't believe any dem has the right to complain our troops didn't have what they needed.
President Bush has increased our military funding by 58% in his administration and it's going to take another 4 years to continue building it back up where it should have been. Thank clinton for our troops being as thin as they are. He reduced their numbers and THEN sent more troops all over the world for so called 'peace keeping missions'. THAT's what has caused the troop level problems.
The democrat party is not capable of doing what it takes to protect this nation, especially when we're at war....a war most liberals don't even support - by a military most liberals don't even support. The only time their mentioned is when their deaths can be used by them for political gain...to convince American's this isn't worth fighting a war on their ground....not ours.
No they'd rather see innocent American civilians die and be injured like they were on 9-11.
These terrorist AREN'T going away. kerry's not going to sweet talk them out of wanting to do just as they promise.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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 6, 2004 08:24:43 PM new
Helen : ....were attempting to send Bush and his team back to the planning table...
okay, but wasn't that too, bad timing for senators to be playing 'politics' with a military already at war?
edit to add: and as far as the 'anticipated' goes: well then that was a military logistics error. How do you get to blame that on Bush? Is he in control of the daily purchasing supplies for the military, too?
[ edited by neroter12 on Oct 6, 2004 08:30 PM ]
posted on October 6, 2004 08:34:51 PM new
I suppose all the money Saddam was putting in banks in other countries was for a party. Surely he would not have spend any money to do harm to anyone. Maybe thats why France has no love for the U.S. they aren't receiving money from Saddam anymore.
posted on October 6, 2004 08:48:19 PM newSo what long range nuclear weapons did Saddam posess that could hit the US from Iraq?
See, this is what you dems don't EVER get. saddam was in VIOLATION of many of the called for requirements. NOT President Bush. What don't YOU get about that. And it's really a very, very silly question. How in the world would we have known UNTIL we got in there? He did have missiles that were over the limits set by the UN. And logansdad what don't you get about all the Arab nations wanting Israel out of the ME? Do you thing saddam wouldn't have LOVED to have help the terrorists out...as he WAS doing...but even more? Do you think those over-limit missiles were there just to collect dust or might he have had plans to use them?
And do you honestly think that IF Israel was attacked the US wouldn't be helping them?
A country that our intelligence told us had womd....since 1991 and I felt it necessary to deal with it before he became an imminent threat.
Inspectors where there in Iraq trying to see if Saddam had any WMD. We dealt with Saddam how many years in between the 1st Gulf War. Why could we as a country wait a little bit longer before deciciding to go to war?
saddam was once again playing games with the inspectors. If you would EVER read anything clinton said on the subject of saddam you'll learn that he for years had been 'playing' with the inspectors...and that to continue playing those games...really was't at all necessary...because SADDAM was in violation of the resolution. He was given time to comply and all the things twelve and I have mentioned. He had a million chances....but thought he could once again keep the game going on and on. Wrong President to mess with especially following 9-11. It was an excellent call that President Bush made....he removed a VERY LONG TERM THREAT.
but no Bush had a plan before he got into office and he had to follow and finish what his father would not do. He's NOT his father. Shall I start blaming you for everything your father did or didn't do? Think about things before you say them. A plan BEFORE he got into office. Want to show us some proof.....because as all Presidents do when seeking election or already being in one position and campaigning for another....they already know what's been happening and can talk out their own strategies for what they would do if elected. Just as rusty says LOL kerry is doing now...planning how he'll handle Iraq and Iran should we be elected. [praying not]
Furthermore in Febuary 2001 both Powell and Rice said Saddam WAS NOT a threat. Proof? I always like to read things myself...and not take a dems conclusion from a report...I've found many are taken in the wrong pretext.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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 6, 2004 08:52:20 PM new
neroter....There was no question that the troops would get the equipment if needed. Kerry and other senators were making an effort to protect the soldiers from an unplanned war such as we are seeing right now. They believed that the bill represented a failed policy and would endanger the troops rather than protect them. They believed that a go-it alone action in Iraq would put the soldiers at extreme risk. There were no effective conditions in the bill for international participation making the war difficult or impossible to win....as we see today.
posted on October 6, 2004 09:03:41 PM new
fenix - But Linda I think you are ignoring the fact that we have found no evidence that he was ignoring the resolution. He said that he did not have weapons to turn over. We said that he did and was therefore violating the resolution.
I don't believe I'm ignoring that. This is how I see what went down prior to our invasion. If you remember correctly he wasn't living up to the UN resolution. It wasn't UNTIL we had our warships on their way over there that he decided he'd remove the restrictions he kept placing on the inspectors. He was given PLENTY of opportunity to fulfill the resolution requiremenets.
But, fenix I have to say it just KILLS me to continue to read 'he said he didn't have them'. HE SAID???? Like you [collectively] believe anything saddam would say after all he had done....after he was still firing at our and the UKs airplaces that were protecting both the southern and northern borders to keep HIM out. After all the deceptions he'd accomplished...like when clinton said saddam had become an expert at fooling the inspectors? I just can't believe anyone would take HIS side against their own government's intelligence and his past history. It just floors me.
Then when saddam's renewed game playing begain it was very clear to everyone who was paying any attention at all to what was going on when President Bush was working to convince other countries we needed to invade. FRANCE made it QUITE clear...that they would NEVER vote approval for a war. There was one other country that said the same but I can't remember if it was Germany or Russia.
So with a UN resolution just not going to happen and saddam not complying with the many, many resolutions...what was the point of having more years of inspections and game playing....immediately following our attacks on 9-11 and our government knew saddam was sponcoring terrorists...and are intelligence was saying, like they did during the clinton admin. that he had womd. There was no immenent threat, but we were taking action BEFORE it came to that. Removing a very long term threat.
Problem is that we have had a year and a half to find those things that our representatives swore to us and the world that we had absolute proof of the existance of, and in some cases even swore we knew the location of, and NOTHING has been found.
A little has been found - not the quanities we thought, agree. But not being found...doesn't mean he didn't have them. And in all fairness, fenix, we [our intelligence] wasn't alone in thinking that.
But saddam has been found to have been in other violations of the resolution also. And we have no way of knowing, which his history, if he would have sold plans for his chem/bio weapons to the highest bidder. And he was attempting to get what he needed to build NW from N. Korea.
With this is mind, how can you continue to use the non-compliance arguement? Because he was in non-compliance.
Now please. Would you answer why you believe hillary, bill, kerry and many other dems have been quoted as saying and thinking the same thing President Bush did? Or do you too just think only HE lied to all of us?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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
]