More National Guard records

[tim_duncan2000]

But there is such a thing as using diplomacy and tact, especially, when dealing with foreign leaders and international affairs.

Yeah, we wouldn't want to offend Saddam, Kim Jong-il, or the oppressive assholes ruling Iran.

I don't know how old you are, but, if you were old enough, you probably also said the same thing about Reagan's "evil empire" comments about the USSR.

The president misled the people when he made his case for going to war with Iraq. There were no weapons WMDs.

If it was so obvious that he was misleading them about the "non-existant" WMD (in quotes because they were there at one time), then why did the Democrats vote for war? Also, what do you have to say about the fact that many Democrats had been saying that Iraq had them since 1998? Were they lying too? I doubt you'll say yes because, in the liberals' world, Republicans can be liars and the Democrats can't even when they say the same thing.

Iraq was not an imminent threat.

Bush never said Iraq was.

When WMDs were not found, we were told that the war was to liberate the Iraqi people from a horrible dictator. "Operation Iraqi Freedon". The war was not about WMDs or liberating the Iraqi people.

Multiple reasons for war were always given.

We all know what it was about. It was about the OIL.

If that was the case, then why didn't we just invade Venezuela, Kuwait, etc?

Liberating people - what a joke! What about Sudan? What are we doing for those people? Tens of thousands of people in Sudan are being killed, tortured, and raped. Compassionate conservative, right!

So, in other words, if the US gets involved in a situation in one country, they must also get involved in situations in every country? What a crock of shit.

First of all, not even the US has the resources to do that. Second, why does it always have to be the US? Why don't other countries or the UN (the favorite organization for liberals) do something. Third, were you saying this when Clinton intervened in Kosovo because of ethnic cleansing but did nothing in Rwanda when that was many times worse? If so, then at least you are consistent even if I still disagree with you and if not, then we see that's just a partisan thing.

 

[liberal4now]

You people are shallow. You believe anything the "administration" tells you.
You speak of the "eurolibs" and their interest in Iraq, but you avoid responding to the question raised about the "Bush" interest in Iraq. You know, if you all were wealthy, I could understand why you would stoop to vote for bush. But I would be willing to bet that most of you are just getting by. Do you think Bush is for you? Are you moral people? Let me guess. you are against abortion but you are for capital punishment. It is a sin to take the life of a fetus but it is not a sin to take the life of a grown human being.

 

[insein]

You people are shallow. You believe anything the "administration" tells you.
You speak of the "eurolibs" and their interest in Iraq, but you avoid responding to the question raised about the "Bush" interest in Iraq. You know, if you all were wealthy, I could understand why you would stoop to vote for bush. But I would be willing to bet that most of you are just getting by. Do you think Bush is for you? Are you moral people? Let me guess. you are against abortion but you are for capital punishment. It is a sin to take the life of a fetus but it is not a sin to take the life of a grown human being.

Grown human beings have control over their own actions. Fetuses dont.

As for the rest, where have i heard this before. hmmm...oh i remmeber from about every other lib that stumbles onto these boards thinking they are god's gift to the human race.

So lets decipher.

What is Bush's interest in Iraq?

Define just getting by vs being wealthy.

Are we moral people? I would have to say yes we are. There are some among us (liberals) who i could argue tend to be devoid of morals but they must have some sense of morality at their core.

 

[MtnBiker]

Wow this thread as gone from the topic of National Guard records to shallow republicans, people just getting by, abortion and capital punishment.


Let's stay focused here folks.

 

[Avatar4321]

You people are shallow. You believe anything the "administration" tells you.
You speak of the "eurolibs" and their interest in Iraq, but you avoid responding to the question raised about the "Bush" interest in Iraq. You know, if you all were wealthy, I could understand why you would stoop to vote for bush. But I would be willing to bet that most of you are just getting by. Do you think Bush is for you? Are you moral people? Let me guess. you are against abortion but you are for capital punishment. It is a sin to take the life of a fetus but it is not a sin to take the life of a grown human being.

Im sorry you cant deal with the facts. we can.

You libs are so backwards. you think the conservatives are somehow immoral for being against abortion and for capital punishment? WTF????? What the heck is immoral about being in favor of innocent children living and guilty murderers dying?!?! Whats immoral is thinking it somehow alright to kill children yet we somehow protect murderers from being killed. You have it backwards on so many levels.

So are you willing to deal with the facts or are you just going to continue deflecting onto other topics? Just to let you know it doesnt matter what topic you deflect to Republicans arent going to come out bad.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

You people are shallow. You believe anything the "administration" tells you.

Interesting. If you bothered to read some of the other threads before jumping in ass first, you would see plenty of criticism of Bush. Oh sorry, we're those shallow sheeple, the other board members are going to spank me for speaking out of line

You speak of the "eurolibs" and their interest in Iraq, but you avoid responding to the question raised about the "Bush" interest in Iraq.

So enlighten us, what's Bush's interest? Oh that's right somehting about Halliburton (can't believe you forgot to get that one in on your previous post)

You know, if you all were wealthy, I could understand why you would stoop to vote for bush. But I would be willing to bet that most of you are just getting by.

What's wealth? John Kerry wealth? John Edwards wealth? Bush's wealth? what's that got to do with anything?

Do you think Bush is for you?

No politician is "for" me, nor are they for you. (Unless of course you're connected)

Are you moral people? Let me guess. you are against abortion but you are for capital punishment. It is a sin to take the life of a fetus but it is not a sin to take the life of a grown human being.

Assumptions:
We're all Christians
We're all pro-life.

Define morality.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You people are shallow. You believe anything the "administration" tells you.
You speak of the "eurolibs" and their interest in Iraq, but you avoid responding to the question raised about the "Bush" interest in Iraq. You know, if you all were wealthy, I could understand why you would stoop to vote for bush. But I would be willing to bet that most of you are just getting by. Do you think Bush is for you? Are you moral people? Let me guess. you are against abortion but you are for capital punishment. It is a sin to take the life of a fetus but it is not a sin to take the life of a grown human being.

You're a mindnumbed liberal robot. Out of arguments you resort to personal attacks.

Socialist economies eventually fail. Check out germany and france's economies. They're actually in trouble and all you do is bitch about our clearly superior one.

You want to kill innocent babies and give killers another chance, right?

 

[liberal4now]

OK, I should have elaborated about grown human beings being responsible for their actions. It is NOT ok to abort a fetus (unless it is your daughter that is raped), but is ok to excute an adult because "they KNOW what they do".
I'm sure Jesus would approve this.


"He who is without sin cast the first stone" ~ Jesus

 

[rtwngAvngr]

OK, I should have elaborated about grown human beings being responsible for their actions. It is NOT ok to abort a fetus (unless it is your daughter that is raped), but is ok to excute an adult because "they KNOW what they do".
I'm sure Jesus would approve this.


"He who is without sin cast the first stone" ~ Jesus

Whatever.

 

[liberal4now]

Where were you when the president made his case against Iraq? What excuse do you think the president gave for going to war with Iraq. WMDs...links to terrorism... He lied! Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi women and children dead. Over a 1000 US soliders dear. How could anyone praise Bush as being wonderful? He is horrible. I have republicans and even they don't like him. How can you praise this man?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Where were you when the president made his case against Iraq? What excuse do you think the president gave for going to war with Iraq. WMDs...links to terrorism... He lied! Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi women and children dead. Over a 1000 US soliders dear. How could anyone praise Bush as being wonderful? He is horrible. I have republicans and even they don't like him. How can you praise this man?

No. chemical weapons have been found. Some may have been moved. The 9/11 report actually said there were clear connections between Saddam's regime and al quaeda, despite lies reported in the mainstream media. Go read it. The liberal media lie, just like cbs is lying about forged documents. get your head out of your patootie.

 

[Avatar4321]

Where were you when the president made his case against Iraq? What excuse do you think the president gave for going to war with Iraq. WMDs...links to terrorism... He lied! Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi women and children dead. Over a 1000 US soliders dear. How could anyone praise Bush as being wonderful? He is horrible. I have republicans and even they don't like him. How can you praise this man?

Um theyve found chemical wapons. sarin and mustard gas. They found Weapons programs to make them. They have Syrian terrorists sneaking into Jordan planning attacks with probable Iraqi weapons. What the heck do you want?

The 911 commission stated that Saddam offered Osama Bin Laden refuge before he took up the Talibans offer.

British still confirm that they had sources saying that saddam was trying to acquire yellow cake for nuclear weapons. Italians last week exposed French attempts to create phoney documents to discredit those reports.

Where did Bush lie?

hundreds of thousands who had to live in fear of being tortured, raped, and bruttally murdered if they no longer have to live in fear anymore. They can speak their mind, protest, they dont have to worry about ending up in a mass grave.

3000 Americans died on 911. Bush has promised to take the war to the terrorists and the regimes that support them. He has. Because of his actions two nations are now free and one hostile nation is disarming of their own accord. Bush deserves all the praise he gets. He isnt going to accept it though. he is going to give it to the American people.

 

[liberal4now]

There are no valid links between 911 and Iraq. You are wrong! IF there were links, The Bush admin would be gloating. Instead, they are avoiding, and downplaying, the mess in Iraq.

 

[liberal4now]

I was responding to another post. If you had read the message posted to my initial post, you would have known that some uninformed person claimed that there was a link between 911 and Iraq. Get with the program!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

There are no valid links between 911 and Iraq. You are wrong! IF there were links, The Bush admin would be gloating. Instead, they are avoiding, and downplaying, the mess in Iraq.

The 9/11 commission report says there were connections between saddam and alquaeda. And alquaeda was connected to 9/11, ergo... connect the dots. Or is that profiling?

 

[Avatar4321]

There are no valid links between 911 and Iraq. You are wrong! IF there were links, The Bush admin would be gloating. Instead, they are avoiding, and downplaying, the mess in Iraq.

this guy cant be serious can he?

Lets spell this out:

911 was done by terrorists.

because of 911 we have declared war on terror and all those who support terror.

Saddam supports terrorism.

Do you understand the link now?

 

[liberal4now]

I will piss on your castle, and if I feel like it, I will step on it too.

 

[Avatar4321]

I will piss on your castle, and if I feel like it, I will step on it too.

\\

 

[Annie]

Where were you when the president made his case against Iraq? What excuse do you think the president gave for going to war with Iraq. WMDs...links to terrorism... He lied! Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi women and children dead. Over a 1000 US soliders dear. How could anyone praise Bush as being wonderful? He is horrible. I have republicans and even they don't like him. How can you praise this man?

OK, jerko, let's deal with,

December 31, 2002

President's Remarks

President Discusses Iraq and North Korea with Reporters
The Coffee Station
Crawford, Texas

12:50 P.M. CST

THE PRESIDENT: Hi, guys. Happy New Year to everybody. Laura and I wish all our fellow Americans a prosperous and peaceful and a happy new year. We are really happy to be spending New Year here in Crawford, Texas. We'll be having our New Year's hamburger here in a minute. (Laughter.)

I'll be glad to answer a few questions -- Ron and Patsy and Mike.

Q Sir, I'd like to ask you if I could, why are you not considering military action against a defiant, unstable, unpredictable, nuclear-armed North Korea?

THE PRESIDENT: I view the North Korean situation as one that can be resolved peacefully, through diplomacy. The international community -- particularly those countries close to North Korea -- understand the stakes involved. I had a very good visit with President-elect Roh of South Korea. I've obviously talked to Jiang Zemin right here in Crawford about a nuclear weapons-free Peninsula.

There is strong consensus, not only amongst the nations in the neighborhood and our friends, but also with international organizations, such as the IAEA, that North Korea ought to comply with international regulations. I believe this can be done peacefully, through diplomacy, and we will continue to work that way. I take -- all options, of course, are always on the table for any President, but by working with these countries we can resolve this.

Q So you're not currently contemplating military action?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Ron, I believe this is not a military showdown; this is a diplomatic showdown. And we can resolve this peacefully.

Q Sir, you --

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on a second, please.

Q Sorry, excuse me.

THE PRESIDENT: And intend to work to resolve it peacefully. We've got good progress in talking to our friends. And I look forward to the fact that President-elect Roh is sending some people over here and then he, himself, will come after he's been inaugurated.

Patsy, then John.

Q Sir, why should we be more worried about Saddam Hussein, who has no nuclear weapons, than Kim Chong-il, who is unstable and does have nuclear weapons?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, I think it's important to remember that Saddam Hussein was close to having a nuclear weapon. We don't know whether or not he has a nuclear weapon. We do expect him to disarm his weapons of mass destruction, that's what we expect.

Secondly, the international community has been trying to resolve the situation in Iraq through diplomacy for 11 years. And for 11 years, Saddam Hussein has defied the international community. And now we've brought the world together to send a clear signal: we expect him to disarm, to get rid of his weapons of mass destruction. The first step in determining whether or not he will do that was discouraging. His declaration was short. And the international community recognized that, that he wasn't forthcoming.

Again, I hope this Iraq situation will be resolved peacefully. One of my New Year's resolutions is to work to deal with these situations in a way so that they're resolved peacefully. But thus far, it appears that, first look, that Saddam Hussein hasn't heard the message.

 

[liberal4now]

"The President didnt mislead us at all. He never claimed that Iraq was an imminent threat. Why is it you liberals have such a hard time grasping that. He was very clear in the state of the union address before the war that we cant wait for the threats to become imminent. "

So tell me, why did Bush go after Iraq, when Osama bin Laden was not there, AND we had North Korea saying, look at me, I am capable of hitting the west coast with a nuclear missle! I do not buy that Iraq was an imminent threat. Iraq is the 2nd largest producer of OIL, and OIL is what is all about. Why can't you Repubs see that???