Hate to say I told ya so...

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Sir Evil


Face the fact's you are king of cut and paste, prove to us once more that you are human waste. One thousand three hundred thirty five post's, how many are original maybe 2 at the most. You act the fool just like before, your so boring why not use the door!

Get a life Bully!

Why don't you just wake up and smell the coffee...Dubbyuh lied to America, he lied to the world. His lies resulted in tens of thousands of lives needlessly lost, and the threat of terrorism looming larger than ever. He is a failure, his policies are a failure, and no amount of wishful thinking is ever going to change that.

Have a nice day.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
proved me right King of cut and paste!

Then address the issue, but you can't. Dubbyuh's moral bankruptcy has been exposed for all the world to see. And no matter how you slice it or dice it, lying about the justification for war is NOT the moral equivalent of lying about consensual sex in the Oval Office.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
The biggest failure Bully is your momma for giving birth to a moron!

Who's the moron...? Who resorts to name calling rather than addressing the issue? Hmmmm?

Have a nice day

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
<center><h2><a href=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-cheney-terrorism,1,3411931,print.story>Cheney Claims al-Qaida Linked to Saddam</a></h2></center>

<blockquote>By MIKE SCHNEIDER
Associated Press Writer

June 15, 2004, 10:19 AM CDT

ORLANDO, Fla. -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Saddam Hussein had "long-established ties" with al Qaida, an assertion that has been repeatedly challenged by some policy experts and lawmakers.</blockquote>

Time changes all things...And such a short time indeed. It seems like only yesterday that Dubbyuh and that jolly band of neocons were gleefully chortling about how tight Saddam and Osama were.

But wait, it was only yesterday...And the tissue of Administration lies has vanished in a puff of smoke.

[SPIN ALERT]: It says there is no connection between Iraq and 9/11 but not "no connection between Al-qaida and Iraq". [/SPIN ALERT]

What is is?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
we have? so those are just pranksters with firecrackers over there now?

So you admit there's a link?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
So you admit there's a link?

thats not an admission theres a link, thats a rebuttal to the statement from avatar that we've severed those links when in fact, we've only increased terrorism in the country.

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
<center><h1><a href=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20040616/pl_nm/security_commission_dc_7>Panel Says No Signs Iraq Aided Qaeda Plots on US</a></h1></center>


<blockquote>By Deborah Charles

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Contrary to the Bush administration's prewar rhetoric, investigators have found no evidence Iraq (news - web sites) aided al Qaeda attempts to strike the United States, a commission probing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks said on Wednesday.</blockquote>

...But I told ya so. The last tenuous shreds of credibilty possessed by the administration have just vanished like the morning mist before the rising sun.

Bush lied...Thousands died, and for no good reason.

Some died for a great reason----they wanted to kill Americans. Others died to protect Americans and other innocents.

On the home front thousands died because they chose to drink and drive. Now THATS a great sacrifice for us all to admire!

No Direct Link---Who gives a damn?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Dubbyuh's continued insistence that Al Qaida and Iraq were joined at the hip rings hollow in light of the findings of the 9/11 commission. It also sounds pathetic. But he will not apologize for his deliberate misleading of America and the world into the war of choice that Iraq was. But that is typical of the dry-drunk Dubbyuh is...Don't take responsibility for anything, deny everthing.

So, no matter how hard he wishes it were otherwise, wishing will not change the simple fact that there is no credible evidence linking Al Quaida and Saddam Hussein. He lied to start a war...And that is truly monstrous, Saddam Hussein's crimes not withstanding. He embarked on a war of choice based upon lies. And for that, he must be removed from office. He has violated the Constitution he has sworn to uphold...He has violated international treaties which the US is signatory to...He has violated US and international law in pursuit of a war of aggression. It's impeachment time.

 

[eric]

Tell us boy genius; why would he have lied to start this war ? How did it benefit him in any way ?

 

[brneyedgrl80]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/terror/20040617-0837-sept11-bush.html

Bush takes issue with finding that 'no credible evidence' exists of link between Iraq and al-Qaeda




By Deb Riechmann
ASSOCIATED PRESS
8:37 a.m. June 17, 2004



Associated Press
President Bush speaks to reporters as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld looks on at the end of a Cabinet meeting at the White House Thursday.

WASHINGTON – President Bush on Thursday disputed the Sept. 11 commission's finding that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda terrorist network responsible for the attacks.

"There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda," Bush insisted following a meeting with his Cabinet at the White House.

"This administration never said that the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaeda," he said.

"We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, for example, Iraqi intelligence agents met with (Osama) bin Laden, the head of al-Qaeda in Sudan."

The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said Wednesday that no evidence exists that al-Qaeda had strong ties to Saddam Hussein – a central justification the Bush administration had for toppling the former Iraqi regime. Bush also argued that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, which have not been found, and that he ruled his country by with an iron fist and tortured political opponents.

Although bin Laden asked for help from Iraq in the mid-1990s, Saddam's government never responded, according to a report by the commission staff based on interviews with government intelligence and law enforcement officials. The report asserted that "no credible evidence" has emerged that Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 strikes.

Bush said Saddam was a threat because he had not only ties to al-Qaeda, but to other terrorist networks as well.

"He was a threat because he provided safe haven for a terrorist like al-Zarqawi who is still killing innocents inside Iraq," he said, referring to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who is considered the most dangerous foreign fighter in Iraq and one of the world's top terrorists.

Attention on al-Zarqawi has increased in recent months as he became a more vocal terror figure, due in part to three recordings released on the Internet, including the video showing the beheading of American businessman Nicholas Berg. The State Department and other agencies that handle counterterrorism are considering raising the reward for al-Zarqawi from $10 million to $25 million, putting him on par with two al-Qaeda leaders and Saddam, now jailed.

"The world is better off and America is more secure without Saddam Hussein in power," Bush told reporters in the Cabinet Room where he met with his advisers to discuss Iraq and the economy.

It was Bush's 25th meeting with the Cabinet since the start of his presidency in January 2001.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Dubbyuh's continued insistence that Al Qaida and Iraq were joined at the hip rings hollow in light of the findings of the 9/11 commission. It also sounds pathetic. But he will not apologize for his deliberate misleading of America and the world into the war of choice that Iraq was. But that is typical of the dry-drunk Dubbyuh is...Don't take responsibility for anything, deny everthing.

So, no matter how hard he wishes it were otherwise, wishing will not change the simple fact that there is no credible evidence linking Al Quaida and Saddam Hussein. He lied to start a war...And that is truly monstrous, Saddam Hussein's crimes not withstanding. He embarked on a war of choice based upon lies. And for that, he must be removed from office. He has violated the Constitution he has sworn to uphold...He has violated international treaties which the US is signatory to...He has violated US and international law in pursuit of a war of aggression. It's impeachment time.

Impeachment- wish in 1 hand and shit in the other and see which fills up first.

God bless George Bush and godspeed our victory over the enemy in Iraq.

The links between Sadaam and terrorists are already proven. Your reliance on a partisan political commission and witch hunt reveals a lack of education on your part.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by eric
Tell us boy genius; why would he have lied to start this war ? How did it benefit him in any way ?

I would suggest reading "<b>Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century</b>" from <i>The Project for a New American Century</i> to start with. And given Dubbyuh's general mental instability he really might not have a reason.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by OCA
Impeachment- wish in 1 hand and shit in the other and see which fills up first.

God bless George Bush and godspeed our victory over the enemy in Iraq.

The links between Sadaam and terrorists are already proven. Your reliance on a partisan political commission and witch hunt reveals a lack of education on your part.

You seem to be as disconnected from reality as our president. Get help...soon.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
I would suggest reading "<b>Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century</b>" from <i>The Project for a New American Century</i> to start with. And given Dubbyuh's general mental instability he really might not have a reason.

LOL Bully is the sucker born every minute that P.T. Barnum talked about. He laps up every left wing piece of propoganda like a dog in the Mojave who hasn't had water for two days and actually takes that crap as gospel.

Hey Bully whats the catch phrase of the day from DU for today. What were your marching orders today?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
You seem to be as disconnected from reality as our president. Get help...soon.

bully, unfortunately he is correct. Unless there is a seriously blatant criminal act there will be no impeachment of Bush, or any of his administration, with a GOP majority. Its just not going to happen.

 

[wecanhaveoursay]

Bush lied...Thousands died, and for no good reason.

no good reason
How about the liberation of a country from a insane dictator that killed thousands of its people

also

you liberals call this a war
what like 3000 people have died
WW2 had casualties over 10 million

there is no way that iraq is not better off now than it was before we came to there aid

 

[wecanhaveoursay]

haha bully

you think that buch needs to be impeached yet
clinton is a saint


please dont get me started on that

all the evil the man conducted

bombing an asprin factory just to redirect attention from his trial is one of the most evil things anyone can do
that man was the lleader of our country, at least he cant run again

he also was a rapist drug addict and a liar
theres no way he could bwe called better than bush

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Originally posted by wecanhaveoursay
no good reason
How about the liberation of a country from a insane dictator that killed thousands of its people

also

you liberals call this a war
what like 3000 people have died
WW2 had casualties over 10 million

there is no way that iraq is not better off now than it was before we came to there aid

I hate to burst your bubble, but Conservatives call this a war also, namely our President.

Plus, you can not decide what is war simply by counting how many casualties there have been. War is war regardless of how many people have died. Are some wars worse than others? Yes. Is this the worst war that this country has been in? No. Don't downplay this war though.

Your numbers are a bit wrong in fact. It's estimated that there are about 10,000 Iraqi civilians alone that have died since the beginning of the war, not to mention the 4,895 to 6,370 Iraqi military that have died and the 837 of American soldiers that have died as well.

And if anyone is interested, here are the real numbers to WWII casualty numbers:

http://www.valourandhorror.com/DB/BACK/Casualties.htm

And a link for Desert Storm and Cold War casualty numbers:
http://www.3ad.org/honor_roll/bulletin_board/casualty_bb.htm

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
I hate to burst your bubble, but Conservatives call this a war also, namely our President.

Plus, you can not decide what is war simply by counting how many casualties there have been. War is war regardless of how many people have died. Are some wars worse than others? Yes. Is this the worst war that this country has been in? No. Don't downplay this war though.

Your numbers are a bit wrong in fact. It's estimated that there are about 10,000 Iraqi civilians alone that have died since the beginning of the war, not to mention the 4,895 to 6,370 Iraqi military that have died and the 837 of American soldiers that have died as well.

And if anyone is interested, here are the real numbers to WWII casualty numbers:

http://www.valourandhorror.com/DB/BACK/Casualties.htm

And a link for Desert Storm and Cold War casualty numbers:
http://www.3ad.org/honor_roll/bulletin_board/casualty_bb.htm

The point is that Iraq is not a "separate" war. It is a "battle" in the War on Terrorism. Technically, it is a war. Just as during WWII you had the "war" in the Pacific and the "war" in Europe. But combined, they were just part of all the "wars" (the wars in the Pacific, in Indo China, Europe, North Africa, Russia, China, etc.)that made up WWII.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
The point is that Iraq is not a "separate" war. It is a "battle" in the War on Terrorism. Technically, it is a war. Just as during WWII you had the "war" in the Pacific and the "war" in Europe. But combined, they were just part of all the "wars" (the wars in the Pacific, in Indo China, Europe, North Africa, Russia, China, etc.)that made up WWII.

No, I think the point was that wecanhaveoursay thinks that this is not a war solely based on the number of casualties and I think that that is an incorrect assumption, especially if you don't even have the numbers right. Nobody wecanhaveoursay never mentioned, nor did I, that this war was seperate or combined.

I agree with what you said above.