posted on October 6, 2004 09:09:58 PM new
helen - You're revising history again.
kerry's quoted reasons for voting against funding the troops was 1) he wanted it to be a loan...not just free and clear and
2) he wanted the tax cuts given what he called the rich to pay for the war.
And he was one of only 11 in the Senate to vote against funding our troops. He and edwards and one Independent. All the rest of the dems who agreed with kerry's way of doing things still voted to fund our troops while make a verbal protest.
Kerry and edwards COULD have done the same thing. They didn't.
Keep history as it happened NOT as you'd like to revise it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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 09:17:59 PM new
rusty - You're kidding right? If not what arrogance. Who made you king.
How about you do the work yourself...you should be capable of getting the two different bill numbers and checking for yourself on the US Senate site.
I can't believe you even made such a demand.
Or...you just ... ROFHMHO.
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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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 09:21:13 PM new
If rogue countries don't have WOMD's yet, they will in the future. I think we should invade a rogue country every 2-3 years until there aren't any left. Next on the list should be Iran.
posted on October 6, 2004 09:34:36 PM new
Linda, I don't accept your quotes as factual without a link. You can't even correctly restate a quote here...so I will have to ask you for a link. Otherwise, I'll believe the situation during the 87 billion dollar vote as both Kerry and Kennedy stated it.
"Until the Administration genuinely changes course, I cannot in good conscience vote to fund a failed policy that endangers our troops in the field and our strategic objectives in the world instead of protecting them. The greatest mistake we can make in Congress as the people's elected representatives is to support and finance a go-it-alone, do-it-because-I-say-so policy that leaves young Americans increasingly at risk in Iraq."
"So when the roll is called on this $87 billion legislation, which provides no effective conditions for genuine international participation and a clear change in policy in Iraq, I intend to vote no. A no vote is not a vote against supporting our troops. It is a vote to send the Administration back to the drawing board. It is a vote for a new policy – a policy worthy of the sacrifice our soldiers are making, a policy that restores America as a respected member of the family of nations, a policy that will make it easier, not far more difficult, to win the war against terrorism."
posted on October 6, 2004 09:53:33 PM new
EbayAuctionGuy - I personally don't think that will be necessary...although I do think we might have a problem with Iran. But I think that's the main reason Lybia decided to come clean about their nuclear weapon program...because they saw what we did in Iraqi...and they believe THIS President meant what he said. He didn't just continue with the constant threats...he took action. He was believed. I think many smaller rogue states may follow suit.
President Bush is working to continue having Europe be involved in talks with Iran...hoping that IF they put pressure on them that would be better than coming from us. Just as he's doing in NK with several of the countries in that area being the ones, along with us to put pressure on NK.
-------------------
helen - THE queen of googling wants me to get it for her? I'm sure if you want to you could easily find it yourself. I've read it several times and have no intention of finding anything for you or rusty. You're both adults who supposedly know how to 'get informed'. LOL
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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 10:10:49 PM new
Oh boy....gotta love that. Now helen gives us a quote from TED KENNEDY to prove something that KERRY supposedly said. That's funny. you're losing it helen....BIG time.
----------------
neroter and other reasonable dems. Here is the link that kerry sponsored and is my proof that the amendment said what I said they did about kerry not voting for th $87 Billion UNLESS THE TAX CUTS were reversed.
I will next provide the link for the initial bill the one MOST REASONABLE dems DID vote for...because THEY CARED about our troops having what they needed...unlike KERRY AND EDWARDS who not want to lead them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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
[ edited by Linda_K on Oct 6, 2004 10:43 PM ]
posted on October 6, 2004 10:13:47 PM new
In that case, I certainly have no intention of believing you. I've posted Kennedy's explanation of his vote above. I've read many accounts of that vote including Kerrys...all consistent and in agreement with Kennedy's explanation.
posted on October 6, 2004 10:19:52 PM new
LOL while getting the url for my other proof I ran upon this:
kerry wasn't ONLY changing his positions on the Iraq war....but also was giving all different answers when asked why he voted against the $87B. figures....typical for kerry....take all sides of every issue. That way everyone will be happy with what you say. LOL
But this is the one I came across accidently but it does address the 'not having what they need issue VERY well:
[talking about campaign ads]
"Bush campaign aides say their ad is in part a reaction to Kerry's recent criticisms of Bush on that very point.
"In a radio address on March 7, for example, Kerry said Bush sent troops "into harm's way without enough firepower and support," and the the Pentagon had only recently started making armored door kits to protect Humvee occupants from roadside ambushes.
"Kerry: Even more shocking, tens of thousands of other troops arrived in Iraq to find that - with danger around every corner - there wasn't enough body armor
In a telephone conference call with reporters March 16, a Bush aide said Kerry is living in a "parallel universe," criticizing the President for failing to provide enough body armor while voting against a bill to provide money to buy more.
[i shall return ]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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
"Kerry: I actually did vote for the 87 billion dollars before I voted against it."
The final quote is the one in which the Bush ad takes its best shot. Kerry not only said it, he did it. He voted for an alternative resolution that would have approved $87 billion in emergency funds for troops and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it was conditioned on repealing much of Bush's tax cuts, and it failed 57-42. On the key, up-or-down vote on the $87 billion itself Kerry was only one of 12 senators in opposition, along with the man who later become his running mate, Sen. John Edwards.
But aside from the $87 billion matter, this Bush ad is a textbook example of how to mislead voters through selective editing.
posted on October 6, 2004 10:50:50 PM new
Saddam Told Interrogators of Iran Fixation
Saddam Hussein was obsessed with his status in the Arab world, dreaming of weapons of mass destruction to pump up his prestige. And even as the United States fixated on him, he was fixated on his neighboring enemy, Iran.
That is the picture that emerges from interrogations of the former Iraqi leader since his capture last December, according to the final report of the chief U.S. arms inspector, which gives a first glimpse into what the United States has gleaned about Saddam's hopes, dreams and insecurities.
The report suggests that Saddam tried to improve relations with the United States in the 1990s, yet basked in his standing as the only leader to stand up to the world's superpower.
It says Saddam was determined that if Iran was to acquire nuclear weapons, so was Iraq.
And it says he was a narcissist who cared deeply about his legacy, making sure bricks were molded with his name in hopes people would admire them for centuries to come.
Weapons hunter Charles Duelfer had access to information from U.S. interrogations of Saddam over several months. The former Iraqi dictator apparently talked not because he wanted to help the United States, but because he was concerned with his legacy, the report says.
Much of his motivation in the quest for weapons of mass destruction came from neighboring Iran and the two countries' "long-standing rivalry over the centuries," including the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.
"From Saddam's viewpoint, the Persian menace loomed large and was a challenge to his place in history," the report says.
"This was an important motivation in his views on WMD _ especially as it became obvious that Iran was pursuing the very capabilities he was denied," said the report, which found no evidence that Iraq had produced any such weapons after 1991.
Saddam has been out of sight since his capture from a spider hole near Tikrit last December, except for an appearance in July at a preliminary hearing in Baghdad. Then, he defiantly scoffed at charges of war crimes and mass killings and said the charges had been engineered by President Bush "to help him with his campaign."
Officials have said that interrogations of Saddam, first by the CIA and then by the FBI, have yielded little helpful information about weapons programs and the insurgency in Iraq. But Tuesday's report shows they have provided new insight into his thinking.
Saddam was angry that other Persian Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia, enjoyed good standing in the West.
"His regime views the Gulf Arabs as undeserving," the report said. "They did not earn respect; the West simply wanted their oil."
Iran, as much if not more than the United States, motivated his interest in nuclear weapons.
"Nuclear programs were seen by Saddam as both a powerful lever and symbol of prestige," the report. "He also did not want to be second to the Persians."
Despite years of hostility with the United States, Saddam had mixed feelings about the Americans and through the 1990s tested U.S. willingness to open a dialogue, the report said. He sent "very senior Iraqis" to make various proposals, such as assistance with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, working through intermediaries including Duelfer _ the report's author.
At the same time, Saddam got a boost from America's hostility.
"He accrued power and prestige far beyond his inherent weight by positioning himself as the only leader to stand up to the last superpower," the report said.
At a Senate hearing, Duelfer was asked why _ if Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction before the 2003 invasion _ he did not simply comply with U.S. and U.N. demands in an attempt to avert the war. Duelfer said Saddam's instincts were always to negotiate _ to seek something in return before giving something up.
"He had not realized the nature of the ground shift in the international community," after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Duelfer said.
Until the end, Saddam saw himself as a great leader of a great nation, the report says. With an eye to history, he had bricks made for use in the historic city of Babylon molded with the phrase, "Made in the era of Saddam Hussein," mimicking the ancient bricks there.
"This narcissism characterizes his actions," the report says. "And while it is not always visible, it is always there."
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The person who has nothing for which he is willing
to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
posted on October 6, 2004 10:53:45 PM new
Helen....somethings very wrong with you. What in the he1l are you talking about?
The link I gave is the amendment to the $87B funding kerry voted against. kerry co-sponsored it....and it would have taxed those who make more than a certain amount of money to pay for the funds. You then repeat everything I've already said...and now say what I posted was selective editing? You're lost it woman. Oh...and by the way, kerry is MUCH MORE LIBERAL than Ted kennedy is. Their voting records prove that. But it still strikes me as funny that to prove a statement kerry made you quoted Ted kennedy. Bet you wouldn't let me get away with such nonsense.
------------
And you can search for the rest yourself.
"Bush wanted to give money to Iraq rather than loan it
"[i]Key senators reversed course yesterday and voted to make an $18.4 billion reconstruction package for Iraq entirely in the form of grants rather than loans, as House-Senate negotiators worked their way through President Bush's $87 billion request for military and rebuilding operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The 16 to 13 vote represented a significant victory for Bush, who had threatened to veto the bill if Congress insisted on making Iraq repay some of the money." [Wash Post, 10/30/03]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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 11:32:52 PM new
No, I won't let you get away with such nonsense. I give as much attention to your links and to your articles as I do to Bear's c&p. I question every word that you write, every twist and turn, and actually believe nothing that you write. Since I have no respect for your opinion, your silly insults mean nothing to me. SO, sweet pea...I'll continue to post here but avoid you if I can. Your posts are fanatical, exaggerated and acerbic to the point that no one wants to discuss anything with you. Have you noticed that?
Twelvepole and Bear are always here. But your respected two or three posters -- when they are here, avoid butting heads with you..I've noticed that...have you?
One good option may be to avoid political threads for awhile and have some fun discussing other topics or perhaps you might enjoy a cruise around the world.
Helen
posted on October 6, 2004 11:59:26 PM new
The astoundingly stupid linduh says,"How in the world would we have known UNTIL we got in there?"
Gee, maybe through RELIABLE intelligence.....maybe through weapons inspectors who , NOW that they were GIVEN TIME, found NO WMDs.
Ok, let's go to war with everyone we think, suspect, hope, may have , might have, want, wish for, could've had, or may have in thirty years, WMD's.
Yup, for the blood thirsty, violence prone, who don't give a damn about human life, like linduh, that's the way to go.
Let's just go to war at the drop of a hat. BUT, HEY, guess what stupid, WE have weapons of mass destruction so what's to prevent another country, or countries, from attacking us.....they have every right, too.....because , stupid, the U.S., contrary to what YOU think , does NOT rule the world.
Your war worship is sickening and disgusting and people like YOU have made the world a very unsafe place. YES. like YOU. The terrorists and YOU are all blood thirsty socio-paths who have done your best to make this world worse than it was.
I'm sure you'll be very happy when bush buys another election in November so the wars can just go on and on with NO effort made towards peace......wars are fun, aren't they linda.....so many LOLs and smiley faces whenever you discuss it....get off on bloodshed and suffering of others don't you.
Maybe if it was in YOUR backyard things might be different,,,,naw, you'd just LOL it!!!!
[ edited by crowfarm on Oct 7, 2004 12:02 AM ]
posted on October 7, 2004 05:14:11 AM new
BUSH AND CHENEY ARE STILL LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT THE BAD IRAQ WAR EVEN TODAY.
OVER 1050 DEAD AMERICAN TROOPS WITH OVER 7,000 WOUNDED AMERICAN TROOPS AND STILL COUNTING. WITH BUSH AND CHENEY ARE STILL LYING TO THE PEOPLE.
[ edited by bigpeepa on Oct 7, 2004 05:14 AM ]
posted on October 7, 2004 05:54:50 AM new
helen - you STILL aren't making any sense. I posted two reasons why kerry said he didn't vote for the $87B dollars and have provided proof of both.
Whatever else you're talking about....is gibberish to me.
This link goes with the Senate bill above that WAS passed by our Senate allocating the funds for our military, etc. It is the amendment kerry co-sponsored and tried to get passed instead. You know the one that's included in the 'I voted for it before I voted against it' claim.
It's amendment S. 1796 which goes with the link provided above and here's what kerry tried to get passed and what he voted for....just as I stated.
"Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 1796 to S. 1689 (Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act, 2004 )
Statement of Purpose: To provide funds for the security and stabilization of Iraq by suspending a portion of the reductions in the highest income tax rate for individual taxpayers."
As I said before....kerry voted to send our troops to war and then voted NOT TO FUND THEIR NEEDS....even after making a claim one, that NO Senator would ever not give the troops what they need. And then he did JUST that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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 06:47:04 AM newFurthermore in February 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.
Look at my last post in the thread above it will give you two different links.
So what long range nuclear weapons did Saddam posses that could hit the US from Iraq?
You still did not answer my question. What long range missiles did he have that posed a threat to the U.S. (The U.S. itself not it's allies). That was the statement you made. He was a threat to the U.S.
Do you thing Saddam wouldn't have LOVED to have help the terrorists out...as he WAS doing...
And do you have proof he was helping the terrorists or is this just another one of your assumptions.
And do you honestly think that IF Israel was attacked the US wouldn't be helping them?
Despite what you want to think, if Isreal was attacked by another country, I would have no problem with the US responding with military force. Just like the US did when Kuwait was invaded by Iraq in the First Gulf War. I do have problems with the US attacking other countries without first being attacked. If Bush used as much force and manpower in Afghanistan looking for Bin Laden as he has used in Iraq, I feel Bin Laden would have already been captured.
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 7, 2004 07:03:37 AM newbut 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.
You want to keep talking about how Clinton had chances to get rid of Saddam while in office...well Bush Sr. had the chance to get rid of him when the US was already at war with Iraq. If Saddam was such the great threat that every one is making him out to be, Bush Sr. should have done it in 1991 while already engaged in war.
Bush had a "plan" to go into Iraq 10 days after his inauguration. Now tell me how he could have came up with a plan within 10 days after being sworn into office if he was not already planning something before he was sworn in.
Now what will your reasoning be for dismissing the above links?
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 7, 2004 07:16:29 AM new
Iran???? If we can not even control a smaller country like Iraq just how are we going to deal with a larger one like Iran?
By now Iran has learned from Iraq how to deal with a invasion by the west. Guerrilla warfare works wonders.
As long as we have a incompetent fool like Rummy in defense we are screwed big time.The man is living in La La land.IMO this guy is clueless.
Has no idea what he is doing or what he is dealing with.
posted on October 7, 2004 08:20:33 AM new
Poor pathetic linduh still trying desperately to be right just once in her life about some stupid little obscure fact that has nothing to do with the reality of today..
She still has the mentality of a terrorist even if she chooses to ignore my posts.
And the war still could hit close to home(although I do believe she's lying about having a son in the military, she'd say anything to make a "point".
But even if this alleged son were to be killed I'm sure linduh would be in here LOLing away...ain't war grand! .
posted on October 7, 2004 08:30:39 AM new
trai - Rather than only offer criticism maybe you'd like to share just what YOU think we should do. Or what you think kerry will do to solve the problem in Iran?
Did you agree with kerry offering the fuel to Iran...which would help them BUILD their nuclear weapon capability?
No pro-kerry person ever wants to answer any questions about this subject. Maybe you will?
-------------
logansdad- well Bush Sr. had the chance to get rid of him when the US was already at war with Iraq. If Saddam was such the great threat that every one is making him out to be, Bush Sr. should have done it in 1991 while already engaged in war.
Read your own words....yes all those democrats in Congress who ALSO believed he had them...like kerry, both clinton's...many dems. All have been previously quoted as saying so. Does that mean nothing to you? You're only choosing to put the focus on this President...but are avoiding the FACT that many dems stated he was a threat too.
And on the first Iraqi war...IF you'd read the UN resolution, allowing us to go in to save the lives that saddam was murdering...and trying to take their land... it DIDN'T ALLOW for either an invasion NOR removal of saddam. That's why it didn't happen. And for that saddam tried to have Bush1 killled. But it doesn't appear to me that that assination attempt matters to the dems....after all he's a Republican. But it would be looked on different if it had happened against a dem president...I have NO doubt.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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 08:35:45 AM new
Linda, I have done the research. You just can't produce the facts to back up your claims. You want to continue to cover up your lies and deception. This is nothing new for you. I have yet to see you or one of your cohorts produce one shred of documentation regarding Kerry's voting record that shows the truth. Ironically, we see that the GW continues to lie about his military history, about those WMDs, but you continue to defend him. It's ok Linda. The majority of us on the RT know the truth, and on November 2, we will cast our vote for those who tell the truth, not some renegade cowboy who has always wanted to play cowboys and indians on someone else's dime.
posted on October 7, 2004 08:52:19 AM newAnd on the first Iraqi war...IF you'd read the UN resolution, allowing us to go in to save the lives that Saddam was murdering...and trying to take their land... it DIDN'T ALLOW for either an invasion NOR removal of Saddam. That's why it didn't happen.
I am aware of the the UN resolution said in 1991. And I am aware of what the UN wanted in 2002....more time for the weapons inspections...The UN did not favor an INVASION in 2002 either, but that did not stop Bush JR with his plan.
So it is OK to do what the UN wanted in 1991, but not what the UN wanted in 2004? You can't have it both ways. If Iraq and Saddam was the threat everyone claimed he was in 1991, why not take him out anyway despite what the UN resolution mandated?
I am sure the US could have developed a plan to do this despite what the UN resolution mandated.
I even heard an interview with Colonel Schwartzkopf wished they would have taken Saddam out in 1991 when the had the chance.
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 7, 2004 09:03:07 AM newI just can't believe anyone would take HIS side against their own government's intelligence and his past history.
You can say that if you like, but remember there were many European nations that did not believe Powell's claims that Iraq posed a threat and had WMD when he made his claim to the UN in 2002.
As you can see all of our intelligence about the war has proved to be wrong.
There was no immenent threat, but we were taking action BEFORE it came to that. Removing a very long term threat.
What was this so-called "long term threat"?
Are you now flip flopping Linda? Before you kept saying Bush chose to invade because of the immenent threat (implying short term) now you are saying because of the long term threat..which is it?
I still would like to know how much of a threat Iraq was to the US mainland when the didn't even have weapons that could reach the U.S.
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 7, 2004 09:04:54 AM new
Well...rusty...what can I say if by posting two links that prove how kerry voted, both on the original bill and on an amendment he co-sponsored...then that totally explains why you are supporting kerry.
That's pretty darn sad.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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
Criticism, no its simply my assessment of everything Rumsfeld has said and done. In my opinion he is the wrong man for the job as he simply refuses to understand what he's dealing with in the Middle East. Everything that could go wrong has gone wrong.
Just another one of those people who will not listen to the ground commanders and run the war from his office.
Now what I think Kerry or Bush should do is gain control. This is important since the insurgents can run where they want. If this means putting more troops in temporarily to gain control it should be done.
I can't believe you even made such a demand.
