transfer from Rumors Board - Stevie and Lindsey for Kerry

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
As it is, the only "terrorist" he's managed to capture is one who wasn't even a pressing threat to our country. While the true threat is still free, and his cronies are still making plans to terrorize the USA. Coming up on three years since 9/11

Point of Order

While I agree it would have been nice if OBL had been caught and we should have caught him, your statement "the only 'terrorist' he's managed to capture is one who wasn't even a pressing threat to our country" is incorrect.

First, nothwithstanding the whole WMD bruhaha which I readily admit was wrong, SH was a known terrorist. If you don't believe me, ask the Kurds he gassed, just about aby Iraqi (he killed or tortured thousands), and the citizens of Kuwait (he invaded their country in an attemot to annex it.).

Moreover, the US and her allies have caught and/or killed 100's of members of Al-Q, a known terrorist group. Also, Moammar Gadhafi of Libya (a known terrorist) is disarming basically because he apparently is scared that what we did to Iraq, we will do to him.

So, the current administration has had a pretty successful record on catching terrorists, just not OBL, which I agree they need to do

[Johnny Stew]

I over-simplified, and that was wrong.
But the fact of the matter is, the entire "War On Terrorism" has been done under the banner of making the USA safe from the ongoing threat of terrorism... they've been playing on this country's fears and concerns since 9/11... and I'm sorry, but there has been absolutely nothing to prove that Saddam Hussein presented a current, realistic threat to the safety of the USA.

Yes, he is a despicable man, who has done a lot of evil and murderous things, but he was NOT a current threat.
Osama Bin Ladin and his Al-Queda were, and ARE, the biggest threat we face in regards to terrorism on US soil.

Meanwhile, the Bush family has a personal grudge against Hussein, and lo and behold, he's the only one of the "big-wig" evil leaders to have been captured.

If the Bush administration honestly thought they had a good reason to hunt down Hussein, they never would have felt the need to LIE about him possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Think of all the other avenues they could have been pursuing in order to make this country (and the WORLD) safer, during the time they spent pursuing this personal vendetta.

I completely agree that SOMETHING needed to be done in order to protect this country and the rest of the world, but I do not take kindly to being lied to when it comes to matters of life and death for innocent citizens.
Someone else could easily do just as good of a job... if not better... in regards to the "War On Terrorism."

Yet another reason I wouldn't vote for Bush if someone held a gun to my head.

[gldstwmn]

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/...ewID=news_view

Legal Watch Dog Group CREW Alleges Cheney Leaked Classified Information, Breaking Federal Law

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I over-simplified, and that was wrong.
But the fact of the matter is, the entire "War On Terrorism" has been done under the banner of making the USA safe from the ongoing threat of terrorism... they've been playing on this country's fears and concerns since 9/11... and I'm sorry, but there has been absolutely nothing to prove that Saddam Hussein presented a current, realistic threat to the safety of the USA.

Yes, he is a despicable man, who has done a lot of evil and murderous things, but he was NOT a current threat.
Osama Bin Ladin and his Al-Queda were, and ARE, the biggest threat we face in regards to terrorism on US soil.

Meanwhile, the Bush family has a personal grudge against Hussein, and lo and behold, he's the only one of the "big-wig" evil leaders to have been captured.

If the Bush administration honestly thought they had a good reason to hunt down Hussein, they never would have felt the need to LIE about him possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Think of all the other avenues they could have been pursuing in order to make this country (and the WORLD) safer, during the time they spent pursuing this personal vendetta.

I completely agree that SOMETHING needed to be done in order to protect this country and the rest of the world, but I do not take kindly to being lied to when it comes to matters of life and death for innocent citizens.
Someone else could easily do just as good of a job... if not better... in regards to the "War On Terrorism."

Yet another reason I wouldn't vote for Bush if someone held a gun to my head.

I agree with you, but the Bush Administration did not lie about SH having WMD. If they did, then the UN lied as did the Clinton Administration, because they all said he had them as well based on essentially the same evidence.

What they lied about IMO was the nuclear stuff. They flat out knew that was false and said it anyway in an attempt to make their case more compelling. For that, W should be impeached in my book because if he and/or the people around him will lie about that, they will lie about anything.

To quote Bill O'Reilly "there's no question the White House was not skeptical enough when it came to Iraq. Bush wanted Saddam's head. And any information that led to that end was encouraged. That is not the way to conduct foreign policy in this very dangerous world. Any and all mistakes will come back to haunt."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109613,00.html

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I agree with you, but the Bush Administration did not lie about SH having WMD. If they did, then the UN lied as did the Clinton Administration, because they all said he had them as well based on essentially the same evidence.

What they lied about IMO was the nuclear stuff. They flat out knew that was false and said it anyway in an attempt to make their case more compelling. For that, W should be impeached in my book because if he and/or the people around him will lie about that, they will lie about anything.

They had the same intelligence but if you read O'Neill's book, he says that the problem was how this administration chose to portray it. Their agenda was to go into Iraq the entire time-before 9/11 and after. They lied. People should also be holding *'s feet to the fire on 9/11.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
They had the same intelligence but if you read O'Neill's book, he says that the problem was how this administration chose to portray it. Their agenda was to go into Iraq the entire time-before 9/11 and after. They lied. People should also be holding *'s feet to the fire on 9/11.

Oops- Sorry - I edited as you posted. I think the Bill O'Reilly quote sums up what you're saying and I agree with you. I say impeach him.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...l=chi-news-hed

Sources say military is mapping operation to strike inside Pakistan

By Christine Spolar
Tribune foreign correspondent
Published January 28, 2004

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration, deeply concerned about recent assassination attempts against Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf and a resurgence of Taliban forces in neighboring Afghanistan, is preparing a U.S. military offensive that would reach inside Pakistan with the goal of destroying Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network, military sources said.

U.S. Central Command is assembling a team of military intelligence officers that would be posted in Pakistan ahead of the operation, according to sources familiar with details of the plan and internal military communications. The sources spoke on the condition they not be identified.

As now envisioned, the offensive would involve Special Operations forces, Army Rangers and Army ground troops, sources said. A Navy aircraft carrier would be deployed in the Arabian Sea.

Referred to in internal Pentagon messages as the "spring offensive," the operation would be driven by certain undisclosed events in Pakistan and across the region, sources said. A source familiar with details of the plan said this is "not like a contingency plan for North Korea, something that sits on a shelf. This planning is like planning for Iraq. They want this plan to be executable, now."

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I agree with you, but the Bush Administration did not lie about SH having WMD. If they did, then the UN lied as did the Clinton Administration, because they all said he had them as well based on essentially the same evidence.

What they lied about IMO was the nuclear stuff. They flat out knew that was false and said it anyway in an attempt to make their case more compelling. For that, W should be impeached in my book because if he and/or the people around him will lie about that, they will lie about anything.

I do think they intentionally lied about the WMDs too.
I believe all the info they had, pointed to the fact that Iraq was no longer in possession of WMDs.

Don't forget all the many, many months they spent searching Iraq for WMDs before... and even then, they didn't find anything. And I don't believe they really thought they would... they were just looking for an excuse to go after Hussein, and they used it. Lying to the American people in the process.

Bush does not deserve to be re-elected. God only knows how much more damage he can do to us with another four years in the office.

[GypsySorcerer]

I just want to make a quick comment on OBL. I agree that he was and is a bigger threat to the US than Saddam ever was. (I do, however, think that the Iraqi people are much better off without him, and that they will see that in the long run.) But it really bothers me to see people blaming Bush for not capturing OBL. I mean, he was offered to Clinton (albeit under shady circumstances) and Clinton declined. But still, we could have had him. And no, I don't blame Clinton for 9/11.

I believe we are still looking for OBL. We have captured several Al-Qaeda members, including some top ranking officials.

Finally, I do believe the WMD debacle of the Bush Administration will probably be the end of his presidency.

[jwd]

As much as liberal America hates W., it's got me thinking, he has to be doing something right.


Joe

[gldstwmn]

http://www.bushdraft.com/proof.html

"the nation must be prepared to conduct a draft"

--Lewis C. Brodsky, director of public and congressional affairs with the Selective Service System

Many people have been wondering if our President has secret plans to reinstate the draft. This website will provide absolute proof that Bush is making plans to reinstate the draft by the middle of 2005.

In the last few months Bush has launched a recruiting drive for people to work on the draft boards around the country, the DefendAmerica government site posted an advert looking for volunteers, but when someone brought this to the attention of the press it was promptly removed, fueling rumours about the possibility of a draft.

There are also CURRENTLY bills in the Senate and in the house that, if passed, will make military service a requirement for all men, women (including college students) between the age of 18 and 25.

This site also has excellent links to document their position.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
http://www.bushdraft.com/proof.html

"the nation must be prepared to conduct a draft"

--Lewis C. Brodsky, director of public and congressional affairs with the Selective Service System

Many people have been wondering if our President has secret plans to reinstate the draft. This website will provide absolute proof that Bush is making plans to reinstate the draft by the middle of 2005.

In the last few months Bush has launched a recruiting drive for people to work on the draft boards around the country, the DefendAmerica government site posted an advert looking for volunteers, but when someone brought this to the attention of the press it was promptly removed, fueling rumours about the possibility of a draft.

There are also CURRENTLY bills in the Senate and in the house that, if passed, will make military service a requirement for all men, women (including college students) between the age of 18 and 25.

This site also has excellent links to document their position.

That website needs to get their facts straight.

Many Democrats have talked about reinstating the draft, citing a disproportionate representation of minorities and under class in the military. Most, if not all, of the sponsors/co-sponsors of those Senate and House bills are Democrats.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
That website needs to get their facts straight.

Many Democrats have talked about reinstating the draft, citing a disproportionate representation of minorities and under class in the military. Most, if not all, of the sponsors/co-sponsors of those Senate and House bills are Democrats.

Rangel supports the draft. However, he is not the one thinking of "liberating" Syria, Pakistan or God knows where else.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Rangel supports the draft. However, he is not the one thinking of "liberating" Syria, Pakistan or God knows where else.

Rangel isn't the only Democrat supporting this. And I know Rangel and co. aren't in charge of hte military.

However, it annoys me when people are posting "Bush wants to reinstate the draft" when the sponsors of the legislation are Democrats.

[DeeGeMe]

I'm not going to deny for one minute that Saddam Hussein wasn't a bad man. But here's the thing--the United States supports dicatators in at least a dozen other countries in the world who make SH look like a rank amateur. Why aren't we invading them? Could it be because their countries aren't the oil rich mecca that Iraq is?