Why do you like Bush ?

[Bonnie]

Originally posted by softwaremama
From Bonnie:
"One of my best childhood friends was one of those 250 marines killed that horrible day. I remember getting the phone call like it was yesterday."


Bonnie,
So sorry for your loss. No emoticon for terrorism or I'd click on it.
As if...

Thanks ironic thing about that is no one seems to remember that incident as a declaration of war on us but in a way it sure was, in my opinion the war on terror should have started then, but better late than never I suppose........

 

[spillmind]

hey mulletman! nice to see you're still not above playground insults!

Go ahead, Spilly. Answer the man. Keep it simple, without your typical smokescreen to hide your retreat.

what's to hide? on one hand, you've got cheney saying we've got saddam 'bottled up':

http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20010916.html

VICE PRES. CHENEY: There is--in the past, there have been some activities related to terrorism by Saddam Hussein. But at this stage, you know, the focus is over here on al-Qaida and the most recent events in New York. Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned.

you've got powell saying 'we've got him contained'

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/931.htm

now, when you've got someone 'bottled up', and then less than a year later, he is guilty of:

'In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and is capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, and VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September 11.

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it has used to produce chemical and biological weapons. '

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/bush.transcript/index.html

...very little to NONE of which have been found... now, you don't need to be as stupid is as stupid does, or dubya, for that matter- to connect the fiction into fact dots here.

pretend all you want.

 

[Annie]

NT was here a bit ago, if true to form, he'll probably be along shortly.

 

[NightTrain]

hey mulletman! nice to see you're still not above playground insults!

LOL

I still don't get where you think I sport a mullet, little fella, but that's okay. As far as the insults go, what can I say? Your bizzaro world that you live in brings out the best in me.

Don't try and sell me, I'm confident that Zhukov is more than capable of spanking you. I've pummelled you enough. If I were you, I'd get to work on that response to Zhukov, it's weak and you know it.

I'll enjoy the show.

 

[spillmind]

:happy2:

wow, that's it?

if you go back and re-read the thread, i ANSWERED what he asked me to answer. if you consider a non-reply a spanking, you are even more biased and out of touch than previously thought.

and kathianne: i sure hope your kids in the classroom aren't cheering on that death from above movie like you were. *shudder*

APPLAUDING: they were doing their job. killing the enemy before the enemy has a chance to kill them. yes, it is quite brave and noble and I thank God every day that they are killing those sons of bitches over there instead of us having to fight them here. you idiots can't seem to get that simple truth through your thick, arrogant heads.

disturbing.

 

[Annie]

:happy2:

wow, that's it?

if you go back and re-read the thread, i ANSWERED what he asked me to answer. if you consider a non-reply a spanking, you are even more biased and out of touch than previously thought.

and kathianne: i sure hope your kids in the classroom aren't cheering on that death from above movie like you were. *shudder*

Spilly, last time I'm responding to this. I would not show that in a classroom, anymore than a beheading. Your high opinion of yourself makes OCA look modest!

 

[spillmind]

Spilly, last time I'm responding to this. I would not show that in a classroom, anymore than a beheading. Your high opinion of yourself makes OCA look modest!

my high opinion of myself? lady, what are you smoking? how many times do i have to say i don't myself superior to ANYONE???

and you did clap to it. don't pawn your guilt off on me.

 

[Avatar4321]

my high opinion of myself? lady, what are you smoking? how many times do i have to say i don't myself superior to ANYONE???

Well the day many of us will believe you is the day liberals start believing what they say.

 

[Zhukov]

i ANSWERED what he asked me to answer.

No you didn't.

I asked you to explain how the Bush administration overstated the threat. You've yet to directly respond.

You've given quotes from administration officials that in no way provide evidence that anyone lied, exaggerated, or in any other way attempted to 'overstate the threat' in the face of the intelligence that they had access to, as you have accused.

If you can, call the papers, and write a book, because you'll make millions.

'In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and is capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, and VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September 11.

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it has used to produce chemical and biological weapons. '

Point to a single part of any of this that isn't true.



You're defense of your statement is that five days after 9/11 the VP was more concerned with al Qaeda and events in NYC, but still saying, "we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned."

....or even less relevant, a quote from Sec. Powell 7 months before 9/11 describing how Saddam has been unable to reconstitute his conventional forces, and threaten his neighbors.....

And then over a year later (over a year and a half in the case of Sec. Powell's comments) they start making a legitimate case for action against Saddam Hussein?

That's your defense?


So, as for your response, as Night Train said, "it's weak and you know it."

 

[Bonnie]

I see Spilly is still winning friends and influencing people :baby4:

 

[spillmind]

I asked you to explain how the Bush administration overstated the threat. You've yet to directly respond.

ok, OK!!! bush never hyped up ANYTHING, and he never used the word 'NUCLEAR' once, now did he? oh wait, he wasn't under oath, so it doesn't count, right? so you really believe that he was being a unbiased straight shooter and calling it like he saw it? or how he was told it? you've *got* to be kidding me

when you try to rally YOUR country- the OVERWHELMING FORCE in question, and then make an ABOUT FACE, and blame the mistake for the official premise of the invasion on our only other substantial ally- NOW *THAT* IS WEAK! next you'll be trying to say WMD's weren't even the reason we invaded, right? and i thought *i* had a short attention span!

If you can, call the papers, and write a book, because you'll make millions.

too bad MM already beat me to it. let me know, and i'll pay your way to the movie. i feel that strongly about this.

Point to a single part of any of this that isn't true.

the burden of proof is not on me! i am not the one standing on the podium telling our nation to send our people to kill their people FOR A FLAWED INTELLIGENCE REPORT?!!! WHERE IS THAT '30,000 liters of anthrax'???

as a matter of fact, YOU would be the one raking it in with this kind of info. heck, bush would make you his honary huntin pardner for a day if yer lucky.

That's your defense?

dude. it's not the context (which will continue to you push away until it doesn't apply at all in your mind), but the TIMING of the statements. you try explaining to me how 'we have him bottled up' is just political speak for 'he's got nuclear capabilty and the biggest threat to the united states.

...now before you answer that, ask youself if YOU YOURSELF KNEW he didn't have nuclear capability or was much of an immediate threat to the US (at least #2 to our enemies who killed our citizens on 9/11)-

was it ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO INVADE IRAQ? and if it wasn't, you want to explain to me why i just sat by and watched the largest single WORST investment of blood and resources of my generation by our nation?! ...and why the fack i should vote for more of that??!!

 

[spillmind]

Well the day many of us will believe you is the day liberals start believing what they say.

you don't have to believe me. but why would i waste any time posting here if i didn't care about the response? go right ahead and think me a liar. it's much easier than trying to understand.

 

[007]

What should a President do do when terrorists attack the country?

Reagan, RIP, did nothing when 250 U.S. Marines were murdered in Lebanon.

Bull shit. We did more than you'll ever know. Wanna know how I know? Because I was in the military when that happened, and we deployed our 474th Tactical Fighter Wing over there. Know why you never knew about it? Because it was classified "need to know". I couldn't even tell my FAMILY where I had been for three months.

So, ah, you're dead wrong softmama. We went over there and kicked some ass, but no one knew about it.

 

[Annie]

Bull shit. We did more than you'll ever know. Wanna know how I know? Because I was in the military when that happened, and we deployed our 474th Tactical Fighter Wing over there. Know why you never knew about it? Because it was classified "need to know". I couldn't even tell my FAMILY where I had been for three months.

So, ah, you're dead wrong softmama. We went over there and kicked some ass, but no one knew about it.

That is good to know Pale Rider. Why do you think they haven't gotten the word out then? I too thought Reagan had dropped the ball on this.

 

[007]

That is good to know Pale Rider. Why do you think they haven't gotten the word out then? I too thought Reagan had dropped the ball on this.

I don't know if it's been DEclassified yet to this day. I just figure it's been over twenty years ago, and I feel it's high time I can talk about it.

 

[Annie]

I don't know if it's been DEclassified yet to this day. I just figure it's been over twenty years ago, and I feel it's high time I can talk about it.

Just seems to me that it would be in our interests to know what has and hasn't been done to protect us and our service people since at least the Iranian hostage fiasco. Truth to tell, since that time there hasn't been an administration until 9/11 that appeared will or perhaps able to attend to the problem.

We know of Clinton's feeble attempts, that have given cause to those with blinders to say that he 'did his best' to retaliate. I found those attempts pathetic and perhaps a cause for bin Laden thinking he could get away with 9/11. Just my take.

 

[jimnyc]

ok, OK!!! bush never hyped up ANYTHING, and he never used the word 'NUCLEAR' once, now did he? oh wait, he wasn't under oath, so it doesn't count, right? so you really believe that he was being a unbiased straight shooter and calling it like he saw it? or how he was told it? you've *got* to be kidding me

I believe GWB stated that Saddam had nuclear intentions and that he was trying to build them up. I believe the 9/11 commission, inspectors & international regulators have backed up those statements.

when you try to rally YOUR country- the OVERWHELMING FORCE in question, and then make an ABOUT FACE, and blame the mistake for the official premise of the invasion on our only other substantial ally- NOW *THAT* IS WEAK! next you'll be trying to say WMD's weren't even the reason we invaded, right? and i thought *i* had a short attention span!

I thought we've been down this road before. WMD's were by far not the onlt reason for invasion, nor the primary reason. It may very well have been the best evidence to present for support though. There were ALWAYS a myriad of reasons, 12 years of failed resolutions and negotiations being the primary reason.

the burden of proof is not on me! i am not the one standing on the podium telling our nation to send our people to kill their people FOR A FLAWED INTELLIGENCE REPORT?!!! WHERE IS THAT '30,000 liters of anthrax'???

I'm glad you brought up the missing anthrax. The very same missing anthrax that was accounted for in 1998 and mysteriously disappeared by the time inspectors returned years later. Although asked repeatedly for the chemicals whereabouts or proof of destruction, Iraq never presented evidence of either.I believe the resolutions clearly stated that THEY were responsible for providing this data. They failed to do so, we decided to forcibly do the work for them.

dude. it's not the context (which will continue to you push away until it doesn't apply at all in your mind), but the TIMING of the statements. you try explaining to me how 'we have him bottled up' is just political speak for 'he's got nuclear capabilty and the biggest threat to the united states.

...now before you answer that, ask youself if YOU YOURSELF KNEW he didn't have nuclear capability or was much of an immediate threat to the US (at least #2 to our enemies who killed our citizens on 9/11)-

Must we rehash the 'imminent threat' wording again? It was NEVER stated by GWB that Iraq was an imminent threat to the USA.

was it ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO INVADE IRAQ? and if it wasn't, you want to explain to me why i just sat by and watched the largest single WORST investment of blood and resources of my generation by our nation?! ...and why the fack i should vote for more of that??!!

I think the freedom of millions of people, removal of a murdering dictator, democracy in a land that is used to being dictated and going after the threat of terrorism is an investment that our leaders and soldiers should be quite proud of. I honor those that have fallen, salute those engaging the enemy and give my full support to George Bush.

 

[Bonnie]

Might I add to that excellent response by Jim in NYC that having Iraq as a democratic ally now is extremely important to our continuing efforts to stop terrorism WHEREVER it is, but especially in that region where it is constantly being cultivated.........

For just a minute try to think how horrble things would be if Hussein were still in power??

 

[spillmind]

a lot of questions STILL UNANSWERED. but go ahead and say how *i* beat around the bush and *i* don't give straight answers!

I believe GWB stated that Saddam had nuclear intentions and that he was trying to build them up. I believe the 9/11 commission, inspectors & international regulators have backed up those statements.

i'm afraid i don't believe everything he says. a little PROOF would be nice. not hearsay, not speculation, PROOF!

I thought we've been down this road before. WMD's were by far not the onlt reason for invasion, nor the primary reason. It may very well have been the best evidence to present for support though. There were ALWAYS a myriad of reasons, 12 years of failed resolutions and negotiations being the primary reason.

ummm then what the hell was powell doing at the UN trying to rally support and win votes for invasion? how did bush get congress to OK the invasion? by talking about his atrocities against citizens from a decade ago ALONE? something key is missing from that puzzle, and unless you count wanting to install a puppet government *and* get to all those natural resources, this new paint is not sticking to the old barn.

besides, what was the main reason? he gassed the kurds?

http://hnn.us/articles/1242.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/helms.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/THO209A.html

spare us your PROPAGNDA. we're all wise to it by now. tell us then, why on earth should we invade iraq based on UN violations, when we were in violation invading? and when israel is is in violation everyday? and after we called the UN 'irrelevant' for not letting us invade? picking and choosing resolutions while other allies and ourselves violate others all the time is supposed to convince me of something? your anamolies are a farce, and so is this war!!!

I'm glad you brought up the missing anthrax. The very same missing anthrax that was accounted for in 1998 and mysteriously disappeared by the time inspectors returned years later. Although asked repeatedly for the chemicals whereabouts or proof of destruction, Iraq never presented evidence of either.I believe the resolutions clearly stated that THEY were responsible for providing this data. They failed to do so, we decided to forcibly do the work for them.

propaganda, propaganda!!!! WHERE IS IT??? SHOW US WHERE IT IS? IF IT ISN'T THERE, MAYBE IT WASN'T THERE??? it's like trying to convict someone of murder with no weapon, and no hard proof. all on intention!!! Hell, we should be invading HALF THE PLANET ON INTENTION!!!!

Must we rehash the 'imminent threat' wording again? It was NEVER stated by GWB that Iraq was an imminent threat to the USA.

ok, they weren't then why the rush to invade? let me guess, NOW we weren't in a rush, RIGHT??! stop lying to us and yourself already.

just do a google search for 'rush to invade iraq' and tell us why there are thousands of hits. all these people aren't legit news netrworks and incredibly paranoid? PLEASE!

I think the freedom of millions of people, removal of a murdering dictator, democracy in a land that is used to being dictated and going after the threat of terrorism is an investment that our leaders and soldiers should be quite proud of. I honor those that have fallen, salute those engaging the enemy and give my full support to George Bush.

please answer my question, and spare me the usual spin. it's getting old.
i really want you to answer it in full.

address if it was ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.

if it wasn't, WHY ON EARTH WOULD WE DARE SEND OUR TROOPS TO DIE?!

and why i should support the WORST investment of blood and resources of my generation all blaming faulty intelligence from another country??!!! LET ME KNOW WHEN I'M OFF!

i'll assume i'm right on, since you have conveniently refused to address these points.

oh... but wait. dubya is a good honest christian. it's all good. VOTE BUSH! :sheesh:

 

[spillmind]

Might I add to that excellent response by Jim in NYC that having Iraq as a democratic ally now is extremely important to our continuing efforts to stop terrorism WHEREVER it is, but especially in that region where it is constantly being cultivated.........