Terrorists Said Planning Summer Attack [Archive]

Johnny Stew

05-26-2004, 03:03 AM

Terrorists Said Planning Summer Attack
By CURT ANDERSON, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Intelligence that has heightened concern throughout the government indicates that a group of terrorists already deployed inside the United States is preparing to launch a major attack this summer, U.S. counterterrorism and law enforcement officials say.

The intelligence was described Tuesday by a senior counterterrorism official on condition of anonymity as extremely credible and backed by an unusually high level of corroboration.

The intelligence does not include a time, place or method of attack but is among the most disturbing received by the government since the al-Qaida attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the official said.

"There is clearly a steady drumbeat of information that they are going to attack and hit us hard," the official said.

Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller scheduled a news conference Wednesday to outline an intensive effort by law enforcement, intelligence and homeland security officials to detect and disrupt any potential plots. And the FBI was dispatching a bulletin to some 18,000 state and local law enforcement agencies warning of the threat.

Beginning with Saturday's dedication of the new World War II Memorial in Washington, the summer presents a number of high-profile targets in the United States. They include the G-8 summit in Georgia next month that will attract top officials from some of America's closest allies, plus the Democratic National Convention in Boston in July and the Republican National Convention in August in New York City.

The FBI and Homeland Security Department also are concerned about so-called soft targets such as shopping malls anywhere in the United States that offer a far less protected environment than a political convention hall.

Of special concern, the counterterrorism official said, is the possibility that terrorists may possess and use a chemical, biological or radiological weapon that could cause much more damage and casualties than a conventional bomb.

Despite that, the official said there was no immediate plan to raise the nation's terrorism threat level from yellow, or elevated, to orange, or high. The threat level has been at yellow — midpoint on the five-color scale — since January.

Los Angeles police held a news conference Tuesday to reassure the public.

"We would be foolhardy to ignore those statements, but I think it would be irresponsible to panic," said John Miller, head of the LAPD counterterrorism bureau.

New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said city officials had not been advised that terrorists were plotting an attack there.

"We are receiving highly sensitive intelligence information on a regular basis, including today, and there is nothing in that reporting to indicate a specific threat or looming attack against New York City," Kelly said in a statement late Tuesday.

The FBI already has created a special task force that is focused solely on dealing with this summer's threat. The task force, whose existence until recently was classified, is intended to ensure that no valuable bits of information or intelligence fall through the cracks, as happened before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Other actions to be taken include new FBI interviews with people who may have provided valuable information in the past, distribution of photos of individuals sought for questioning and a fresh examination of older investigative leads to determine whether they might point to elements of the summer plot.

U.S. authorities have said repeatedly that al-Qaida is determined to mount an attack on U.S. soil, in part to announce to the world that it remains capable of doing so despite the money and effort that has gone into homeland security since the Sept. 11 attacks.

There also is concern terrorists might try to mount an attack to coincide with the November election. The political fallout from the March 11 train bombings in Spain taught al-Qaida that an attack timed to an election can have a major impact. Spain's former ruling party was ousted in the voting that followed the bombing, which killed 191 and injured more than 2,000.

The official did not say how many suspected al-Qaida or other terrorist operatives are believed in the country, whether they made their way into the United States recently or have been here for some time. The FBI has warned in the past that Islamic extremist groups may attempt to recruit non-Middle Easterners or women for attacks because they would be less likely to arouse suspicion.

Special security attention already is being focused to the nation's rail, subway and bus lines. The FBI last week sent out an intelligence bulletin to law enforcement agencies urging vigilance against suicide bombers, who have been used by terror groups worldwide to devastating effect but not so far in the United States.

dissention

05-26-2004, 08:51 AM

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 10:44 AM

Bull****. It's complete and utter ****.

Everytime his job approval rating goes down a few points, they spout this crap about there being another attack. Excuse me while I stick my finger down my throat and puke sooner than later.

Yup. It's just getting so see through now. What's worse is between this and the gas prices, our "recovering" economy takes a beating because of this crap.

CarneVaca

05-26-2004, 10:48 AM

DeeGeMe

05-26-2004, 11:55 AM

I won't even tell you how close I will be to that damn Repugnant Convention. It will be the safest place in the city, I'm sure. So safe that I might not be able to get in in the morning. Supposedly every single car of every single train will be searched. Just consider that for a few seconds.

I think the long and the short of it all is this: It's highly unlikely I'll get any work done that week (I could throw a stone to the Garden from where I am). But then again... most weeks I don't get much work done, anyway.

Plus, add in the fact that all sorts of groups are planning demonstrations and it's really going to be a mess there. But I'm sure you're probably right about it being one of the safest places to be that week with all the security. But can't you take vacation or something that week?

CarneVaca

05-26-2004, 01:56 PM

But can't you take vacation or something that week?

The day I start planning my vacation around the Repugnants' activities is the day I hang it all up.

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 01:59 PM

go to cnn.com - they are now calling it a "clear and present danger" -- this is bad.

dissention

05-26-2004, 02:01 PM

go to cnn.com - they are now calling it a "clear and present danger" -- this is bad.

Yeah, that Harrison Ford movie did suck.

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 02:06 PM

LOL

Seriously, I know the theory behind the polls drop so issue a warning, but they are citing specifics and naming names. That is a little different IMO. Hopefully, you are right :(

dissention

05-26-2004, 02:22 PM

LOL

Seriously, I know the theory behind the polls drop so issue a warning, but they are citing specifics and naming names. That is a little different IMO. Hopefully, you are right :(

Yeah, but they aren't even elevating the Sherwin-Williams paint chart, so it's nothing to worry about. It's a yellow day, Jason. :laugh:

CarneVaca

05-26-2004, 02:24 PM

Oh blast! Should I stay out of the city!?

dissention

05-26-2004, 02:29 PM

Oh blast! Should I stay out of the city!?

Only on an orange day. If your ass is darker than khaki, you're getting strip searched.

Johnny Stew

05-26-2004, 02:32 PM

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 02:46 PM

I actually had a different take on the news of the current threat, and the proliferation of the al-Qaida, because in my opinion, in just shows how inept the Bush Administration has been in yet another area.

I don't think it looks good for them at all, when you figure that billions of dollars and nearly three years later, the terrorist group that took the lives of thousands of Americans, is stronger than ever and actively planning another attack on US soil.

If they're hoping this news will bolster Bush's approval ratings, then they're dumber than I thought.

Again and not that I disagree with you, but what about Kerry makes you think he will do better? I mean perhaps he would have invaded Iraq only if the UN went along - and that is a big IF considering he voted to give W carte blanche (who did not know the result of that vote :shrug: ) regarding Iraq and Kerry consistently said and still says the intelligence was irrefutable that SH had WMD and should be removed to reduce his threat to the peaceful world. But any way, Iraq (right or wrong) is part of the terroroist equation now. So, what more could Kerry do than W? I certainly have not heard Kerry heralding and regaling us with any stellar new ideas :shrug: So, fault W all you want, but the D's can do no better according to their current rhetoric :cool:

AND - clearly Al-Q is weakened just by the not having a state in which to operate unfettered. Yet, the D's refuse to credit W for this. I mean I do not like W, but I can call a spade a spade :shrug:

dissention

05-26-2004, 02:51 PM

I just heard that Bush renamed the Nazi gulag in Iraq "Camp Redemption."

BWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHAAAAAA!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

DeeGeMe

05-26-2004, 02:52 PM

The day I start planning my vacation around the Repugnants' activities is the day I hang it all up.

Hey--I was just trying to get you away from any possible terror strike at the Repug convention specifically and away from all those Repugs in general!

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 02:55 PM

I just heard that Bush renamed the Nazi gulag in Iraq "Camp Redemption."

BWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHAAAAAA!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Then he knocked it down. :rolleyes:

CarneVaca

05-26-2004, 02:58 PM

Again and not that I disagree with you, but what about Kerry makes you think he will do better?

Jason, you're missing the point. Johnny Stew, who I know can speak for himself well enough, is pointing out that the dumbasses in the administration have spent billions and billions of dollars, started an unnecessary war, and the terror threat has only gotten worse. Now they're warning us that al Qaida is planning another attack on US soil. Johnny is right to say they are dumber than dumb.

That has nothing to do with what Kerry might or might not do. At all.

But as to what he might do: Not much different from Dubya. The man is to the right of Dubya on the Palestine issue, it seems. He wants to stay in Iraq and stick it out. Clearly he has his head stuck up his ass. Must be from all that thin air as he flies around in that new $26,000/hour 757-200!

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 02:58 PM

then he climbed a mountain and he turned around . . . ;) :laugh: :D

CarneVaca

05-26-2004, 02:59 PM

Hey--I was just trying to get you away from any possible terror strike at the Repug convention specifically and away from all those Repugs in general!

I know, and I appreciate the concern. But on some things, I stick to principle.

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 03:00 PM

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-gore,0,5260607.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines

Gore: Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet Should Resign

By SARA KUGLER
Associated Press Writer

May 26, 2004, 3:07 PM EDT

NEW YORK -- Al Gore issued a fiery denunciation Wednesday of Bush administration policy in Iraq and demanded the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, CIA director George Tenet and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

In a speech at New York University, the Democratic former vice president said the situation in Iraq is out of control.

"I am calling today for Republicans as well as Democrats to join me in asking for the immediate resignations of those immediately below George Bush and Dick Cheney, who are most responsible for creating the catastrophe we are facing in Iraq," Gore said, drawing strong applause from the partisan crowd.

"Donald Rumsfeld ought to resign immediately!" Gore bellowed. "Our nation is at risk every single day Rumsfeld remains as secretary of defense. We need someone with good judgment and common sense."

Rice "ought to resign immediately. She has badly mishandled the coordination of national security policy. This is a disaster for our country," he said.

The former presidential candidate was gentler on Tenet, describing him as a friend and "honorable man" who should still leave his position for intelligence failures.

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 03:01 PM

Jason, you're missing the point. Johnny Stew, who I know can speak for himself well enough, is pointing out that the dumbasses in the administration have spent billions and billions of dollars, started an unnecessary war, and the terror threat has only gotten worse. Now they're warning us that al Qaida is planning another attack on US soil. Johnny is right to say they are dumber than dumb.

That has nothing to do with what Kerry might or might not do. At all.

But as to what he might do: Not much different from Dubya. The man is to the right of Dubya on the Palestine issue, it seems. He wants to stay in Iraq and stick it out. Clearly he has his head stuck up his ass. Must be from all that thin air as he flies around in that new $26,000/hour 757-300!

No - I submit Kerry would have invaded Iraq just like W did. Again, he gave W the authority to do so and now he says "I did not know he was gonna do it" - I mean who here did not think W was going to invade Iraq with or without the UN on board :shrug: So, my point is blame W all you want, but just do not think Kerry would have done anything significantly different. Remember, polls rules these poeples' lives and America was solidly behind W's invasion of Iraq, which again Kerry allowed, believed in, and supported until it backfired on W. So, I submit, we would be in the same situation if Kerry was in office.

dissention

05-26-2004, 03:02 PM

Then he knocked it down. :rolleyes:

"And coming up on al-Jazeera television is the new family sitcom 'Gilligan's Gulag.'" :laugh:

dissention

05-26-2004, 03:05 PM

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-gore,0,5260607.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines

Gore: Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet Should Resign

Chris, we've been saying that since January of 2001! Now I can sleep at night knowing that Gore agrees with us. :laugh:

Minute Rice knowingly perjured herself when she testified in front of the 9/11 commission and she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. Rumsfeld authorized the abuse at the Nazi gulag and Tenet has his head so far up Wolfie's ass that he can't see straight.

CarneVaca

05-26-2004, 03:07 PM

No - I submit Kerry would have invaded Iraq just like W did. .

WWHHAAATTT!!!? I'm no fan of Kerry's but I must begin to question whether you've been riding with him in that stick-your-head-you-know-where aircraft. :laugh:

For Kerry to have gone into Iraq when Dubya did would mean that he would have had to stuff his cabinet with neocons like Wolfowitz and Perle and Rumsfeld. It would mean that somebody like Cheney would have been in a position of power influencing the president's actions.

You say a lot of stuff that makes sense. But this time you are so out there, that your sense has actually packed up and left the galaxy. Kerry invading Iraq would have been as likely as the Etruscans making a comeback after the fall of Rome.

Let's be real.

(with all due respect of course)

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 03:07 PM

Chris, we've been saying that since January of 2001! Now I can sleep at night knowing that Gore agrees with us. :laugh:

Minute Rice knowingly perjured herself when she testified in front of the 9/11 commission and she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. Rumsfeld authorized the abuse at the Nazi gulag and Tenet has his head so far up Wolfie's ass that he can't see straight.

How did Condi perjure herself? I did not get that. I mean I think she was evasive, but I did not get perjury.

CarneVaca

05-26-2004, 03:09 PM

Al Gore should shut the hell up.

His endorsement of Dean was the beginning of the end. Is he going to do the same to Kerry?

When is he going to realize that the public simply doesn't like him? Go home, Al! Oh, right, he can't. They hate him in Tennessee too, so much so that they gave the vote to Dubya in 2000.

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 03:10 PM

WWHHAAATTT!!!? I'm no fan of Kerry's but I must begin to question whether you've been riding with him in that stick-your-head-you-know-where aircraft. :laugh:

For Kerry to have gone into Iraq when Dubya did would mean that he would have had to stuff his cabinet with neocons like Wolfowitz and Perle and Rumsfeld. It would mean that somebody like Cheney would have been in a position of power influencing the president's actions.

You say a lot of stuff that makes sense. But this time you are so out there, that your sense has actually packed up and left the galaxy. Kerry invading Iraq would have been as likely as the Etruscans making a comeback after the fall of Rome.

Let's be real.

(with all due respect of course)

Then why did he repeatedly state for years that SH had WMD, was a threat, and should be removed. Then, he gives W the authority to do it knowing, despite what he now says, full well that W was hell bent on it. I think that means in a similar situation, Kerry would have done the same thing. I mean we will never really know because Kerry was not Pres. at the time, it was W's cabinet, etc. So, I look to how Kerry reacted to it and he not only was for it - he promoted it - no matter what he says now :shrug: AND - certainly big oil owns Kerry as well, because big oil one way or another owns almost all of them.

dissention

05-26-2004, 03:10 PM

How did Condi perjure herself? I did not get that. I mean I think she was evasive, but I did not get perjury.

Go read her transcript. If her perjury came across as just being evasive, my bull**** detector must be on the fritz. She lied over and over and over. And then she said that she had no knowledge that national security was in her job description. That alone should get her fired.

I design rooms, but I didn't know that included designing.

hayley

05-26-2004, 03:11 PM

When is he going to realize that the public simply doesn't like him? Go home, Al!

I LURVE him!!

Had to chime in as a member of the public!

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 03:13 PM

Go read her transcript. If her perjury came across as just being evasive, my bull**** detector must be on the fritz. She lied over and over and over. And then she said that she had no knowledge that national security was in her job description. That alone should get her fired.

I design rooms, but I didn't know that included designing.

Not only did I read it, I watched it :laugh: I mean if the case for perjury is so obvious, the press would still be on her. I thought she did okay or at least as okay as any other slimy politician, which they all (R and D) are IMO.

dissention

05-26-2004, 03:13 PM

So, I look to how Kerry reacted to it and he not only was for it - he promoted it - no matter what he says now :shrug:

I agree. :eek:

I still have his email from March of '03 where he outlined why he supported the war. My vote's going to Kerry and I think he'll be a decent president, but this is one thing he can't deny. He was Shrub's cheerleader when it came to Iraq.

Johnny Stew

05-26-2004, 03:14 PM

Again and not that I disagree with you, but what about Kerry makes you think he will do better? I mean perhaps he would have invaded Iraq only if the UN went along - and that is a big IF considering he voted to give W carte blanche (who did not know the result of that vote :shrug: ) regarding Iraq and Kerry consistently said and still says the intelligence was irrefutable that SH had WMD and should be removed to reduce his threat to the peaceful world. But any way, Iraq (right or wrong) is part of the terroroist equation now. So, what more could Kerry do than W? I certainly have not heard Kerry heralding and regaling us with any stellar new ideas :shrug: So, fault W all you want, but the D's can do no better according to their current rhetoric :cool:

AND - clearly Al-Q is weakened just by the not having a state in which to operate unfettered. Yet, the D's refuse to credit W for this. I mean I do not like W, but I can call a spade a spade :shrug:

I have no way of knowing if Kerry will do any better... although I have a strong suspicion that he couldn't possibly do any worse.
My hope is that after the November election, we'll get to see first-hand how effective (or ineffective) Kerry would prove to be. And if he blows it, I'll be the first to admit it.

But I strongly feel that if this War On Terrorism had been lead by anyone else, they wouldn't have allowed themselves to be so easily distracted by the opportunity to take down the guy who made a fool of their daddy.
I also believe that, if the Bush family didn't have such strong ties to the bin Laden family, Osama would have been captured or killed by now.

And as far as the al-Qaida being "weakened," and the Bush Administration deserving credit for that, I'll refer you to these passages from the other news article I posted this morning:

The report suggested that the two military centerpieces of the U.S.-led war on terror — the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — may have boosted al-Qaida.

Driving the terror network out of Afghanistan in late 2001 appears to have benefited the group, which dispersed to many countries, making it almost invisible and hard to combat, the story said.

And the Iraq conflict "has arguably focused the energies and resources of al-Qaida and its followers while diluting those of the global counterterrorism coalition that appeared so formidable" after the Afghan intervention, the survey said.

The U.S. occupation of Iraq brought al-Qaida recruits from across Islamic nations, the study said. Up to 1,000 foreign Islamic fighters have infiltrated Iraqi territory, where they are cooperating with Iraqi insurgents, the survey said.

The United States is al-Qaida's prime target in a war it sees as a death struggle between civilizations, the report said. An al-Qaida leader has said 4 million Americans will have to be killed "as a prerequisite to any Islamic victory," the survey said.

"Al-Qaida's complaints have been transformed into religious absolutes and cannot be satisfied through political compromise," the study said.

"Al-Qaida is the common ideological and logistical hub for disparate local affiliates, and bin Laden's charisma, presumed survival and elusiveness enhance the organization's iconic drawing power," it said.

It sounds to me like they only made matters worse, by half-heartedly going after bin Laden, leaving the job unfinished, and then changing their course to go after Hussein at the first possible opportunity.
I am bugged to no end by the fact that billions have dollars have been spent... and far more importantly, hundreds and hundreds of LIVES have been lost... and we still haven't stopped the man who orchestrated the events that spurred this War On Terrorism in the first place.

CarneVaca

05-26-2004, 03:15 PM

I mean we will never really know because Kerry was not Pres. at the time, it was W's cabinet, etc.

Duh... Why insist that he would then? How can you even consider that if Kerry had been president at the time the situation would have presented itself? It's outside the realm of possibilities, my friend.

Also, I agree with you that Kerry is not much different from Dubya as far as foreign policy and the war on terrorism goes. Which is why I won't vote for him. Will you join me in seeking a better, third alternative?

dissention

05-26-2004, 03:16 PM

Not only did I read it, I watched it :laugh: I mean if the case for perjury is so obvious, the press would still be on her. I thought she did okay or at least as okay as any other slimy politician, which they all (R and D) are IMO.

I told you yesterday to put down the bong, DO IT! :laugh: I suffered through all the hours of her testimony and she perjured herself a million and one times.

This media is so right-wing that it's scary. They kiss conservative ass so much that their lips are brown!

She still looks reptilian to me, too. ;)

CarneVaca

05-26-2004, 03:17 PM

I LURVE him!!

Had to chime in as a member of the public!

Well, even the devil has adherents. ;)

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 03:17 PM

I agree. :eek:

I still have his email from March of '03 where he outlined why he supported the war. My vote's going to Kerry and I think he'll be a decent president, but this is one thing he can't deny. He was Shrub's cheerleader when it came to Iraq.

I know - and again so there is no confusion - I will never vote for W. I just do not think Kerry is very different when it comes to the war on terror. I do think Kerry may have been able to figure out a way to make the French and Russians comply with us - perhaps hiding their, along with the head of the U.N., openly taking bribes from SH in the form of reduced price oil. So, that would have been a plus on the making America not so hated outside of the Middle East front. But, the end result is the same in that we would have invaded Iraq :shrug:

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 03:19 PM

Duh... Why insist that he would then? How can you even consider that if Kerry had been president at the time the situation would have presented itself? It's outside the realm of possibilities, my friend.

Also, I agree with you that Kerry is not much different from Dubya as far as foreign policy and the war on terrorism goes. Which is why I won't vote for him. Will you join me in seeking a better, third alternative?

No - because any vote for Nader is a vote for W :laugh: Fortunately, you live in NY and I live in GA - so our votes will have no effect on the almost assured outcome in both states :cool:

dissention

05-26-2004, 03:19 PM

I know - and again so there is no confusion - I will never vote for W. I just do not think Kerry is very different when it comes to the war on terror. I do think Kerry may have been able to figure out a way to make the French and Russians comply with us - perhaps hiding their, along with the head of the U.N., openly taking bribes from SH in the form of reduced price oil. So, that would have been a plus on the making America not so hated outside of the Middle East front. But, the end result is the same in that we would have invaded Iraq :shrug:

I think that Kerry's "staying the course" BS is just that: bull****. Once he's in office, he'll pull us outta there so fast that our heads will spin.

And Kerry would never have invaded Iraq as president. That's just crap. (No offense :laugh: )

CarneVaca

05-26-2004, 03:20 PM

No - because any vote for Nader is a vote for W :laugh: Fortunately, you live in NY and I live in GA - so our votes will have no effect on the almost assured outcome in both states :cool:

Then we're stuck with mediocrity for a long time to come.

Really, Kerry ain't going to change a thing in Iraq.

There's only one answer to the Iraq situation: Pull out. Pull out now.

Johnny Stew

05-26-2004, 03:21 PM

Remember, polls rules these poeples' lives and America was solidly behind W's invasion of Iraq, which again Kerry allowed, believed in, and supported until it backfired on W. So, I submit, we would be in the same situation if Kerry was in office.

The invasion of Iraq didn't simply "backfire" on Bush... US citizens and politicians alike, supported the invasion because they were lead to believe that it was necessary, when it was not.

If people had known then what they know now, I doubt a majority of people would feel that our troops should be in Iraq.

Kerry may have supported it then, but... like the rest of us... he made the mistake of trusting what the President of the United States told us to be true.

dissention

05-26-2004, 03:22 PM

No - because any vote for Nader is a vote for W :laugh: Fortunately, you live in NY and I live in GA - so our votes will have no effect on the almost assured outcome in both states :cool:

Exactly. But I live in MA and Mutt Romney is trying to turn this into a hot spot for neocons, so I'll be out of town on election day so that I can submit an absentee ballot. I don't trust the vote tallying at all in MA these days. I'm going to fill it out, take it to a notary public, have it copied, then I'm going to send it in via signature receipt.

dissention

05-26-2004, 03:24 PM

There's only one answer to the Iraq situation: Pull out. Pull out now.

That's why I supported Braun, until her campaign went belly-up. Then I went with Kucinich. I started off as a Kerry fan, then fell in love with those two, but now I'm back with Kerry. :laugh:

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 03:24 PM

Johnny Stew

05-26-2004, 03:25 PM

Pull out. Pull out now.

Wait, now I'm confused... are we still talking politics, or have we changed the subject to the Catholic church's stance on birth control? ;)

CarneVaca

05-26-2004, 03:25 PM

Exactly. But I live in MA and Mutt Romney is trying to turn this into a hot spot for neocons, so I'll be out of town on election day so that I can submit an absentee ballot. I don't trust the vote tallying at all in MA these days. I'm going to fill it out, take it to a notary public, have it copied, then I'm going to send it in via signature receipt.

I can't imagine Massachusetts not giving at least 60 percent of the vote to Kerry. Romney is a mere grain of sand slipping through the hand of the history of the great Bay State. He's insignificant.

CarneVaca

05-26-2004, 03:26 PM

That's why I supported Braun, until her campaign went belly-up. Then I went with Kucinich. I started off as a Kerry fan, then fell in love with those two, but now I'm back with Kerry. :laugh:

Well, we've already established nobody's perfect. ;)

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 03:27 PM

I think that Kerry's "staying the course" BS is just that: bull****. Once he's in office, he'll pull us outta there so fast that our heads will spin.

And Kerry would never have invaded Iraq as president. That's just crap. (No offense :laugh: )

I disagree - we cannot pull out now. That would create another Afgan and another breeding ground for Al-Q and other organizations to be free in. Like it or not, we are there for a long time.

Again, Kerry sure did not put up much of a fight - in fact he put up no fight - to stop W :shrug: So, it is not a huge step to get to he would have done it himself, esp. when for years he had been saying SH had WMD, was a threat to the world, and should be removed from office. I mean what does anyone have that suggests he would not have invaded Iraq? I am all ears.

CarneVaca

05-26-2004, 03:27 PM

But, people villify W and let Kerry get off for free.

Dude, you're going to have to decide what camp you're in... You're confusing the crap out of me.

dissention

05-26-2004, 03:28 PM

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 03:29 PM

The invasion of Iraq didn't simply "backfire" on Bush... US citizens and politicians alike, supported the invasion because they were lead to believe that it was necessary, when it was not.

If people had known then what they know now, I doubt a majority of people would feel that our troops should be in Iraq.

Kerry may have supported it then, but... like the rest of us... he made the mistake of trusting what the President of the United States told us to be true.

Kerry did not trust Bush to go to the corrupt UN and wait for their blessing. Does anyone here really believe that. I mean does anyone here think a 30 year vet. of Wash. politics did not know exactly what he was voting for? If, so, then I gotta bridge in Brooklyn for sale :laugh:

CarneVaca

05-26-2004, 03:30 PM

I mean what does anyone have that suggests he would not have invaded Iraq? I am all ears.

Jason, Jason, Jason. :shrug: What's so hard to understand? The idea of invading Iraq simply would not have come up had Kerry been in the White House at the time. Unless you think Kerry would have appointed Wolfowitz, Perle, Condi, Cheney, etc., to the posts they hold in the Dubya duncefest of an administration.

dissention

05-26-2004, 03:30 PM

I can't imagine Massachusetts not giving at least 60 percent of the vote to Kerry. Romney is a mere grain of sand slipping through the hand of the history of the great Bay State. He's insignificant.

We shall see. The latest is that if Kerry's elected, Romeny will step down, let that sow Healey become governor, and then have her appoint him to the Senate.

dissention

05-26-2004, 03:31 PM

I disagree - we cannot pull out now. That would create another Afgan and another breeding ground for Al-Q and other organizations to be free in. Like it or not, we are there for a long time.

Again, Kerry sure did not put up much of a fight - in fact he put up no fight - to stop W :shrug: So, it is not a huge step to get to he would have done it himself, esp. when for years he had been saying SH had WMD, was a threat to the world, and should be removed from office. I mean what does anyone have that suggests he would not have invaded Iraq? I am all ears.

Ummmmm...he was opposed to the Gulf War? ;)

Johnny Stew

05-26-2004, 03:32 PM

But, Johnny - what was the alternative. We could have killed every living soul in Afgan. or we could have never invaded Afgan. (which many liberals still suggest :shrug: ). So, do you honestly think anyone could have handled it any better. I mean W and crewe are FAR more hawkish than any D. So, I think they did a good job. Yes, they should have caught OBL (shut up Dissention :laugh: ) - but they did not. Instead, they destroyed or captured most of the upper eschelon of Al-Q. That is a good thing. I mean it is not like we are fighting one country here. Al-Q is everywhere and in every country. So, again, what is a better plan than what W did? And, more importantly, what would Kerry do that is better? I submit nothing. They are essentially the same. But, people villify W and let Kerry get off for free.

I'm not exactly sure what Kerry has done that is deserving of vilification. Is it because he supported his President? Hell, if he hadn't, he'd have been written off as another traitor like anyone else who opposed the war was.

And again, I can't say what Kerry would do... the man isn't even in the White House (yet). Hopefully though, he wouldn't have overlooked evidence, and/or invented other evidence, to support an unnecessary war against his family's arch-enemy.

I have to say that I was not against the War On Terrorism in theory. I think 9/11 made it all too obvious that this a very real threat, and something needs to be done.
However, in execution I believe they have totally bungled things and have only made matters worse.

CarneVaca

05-26-2004, 03:32 PM

Kerry did not trust Bush to go to the corrupt UN and wait for their blessing. Does anyone here really believe that. I mean does anyone here think a 30 year vet. of Wash. politics did not know exactly what he was voting for? If, so, then I gotta bridge in Brooklyn for sale :laugh:

That I agree with. Kerry is disingenuous. He voted for the war out of political expediency. He was short-sighted. SOme of these lunkheads might have actually believed it would be a cakewalk. But when it turned into the disaster that had been predicted by the real experts, Kerry started to retreat. This is the story of his sorry-ass campaign. He's going to lose this election because he's been too stupid on this issue.

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 03:37 PM

Jason, Jason, Jason. :shrug: What's so hard to understand? The idea of invading Iraq simply would not have come up had Kerry been in the White House at the time. Unless you think Kerry would have appointed Wolfowitz, Perle, Condi, Cheney, etc., to the posts they hold in the Dubya duncefest of an administration.

Then why was Kerry so intent on it. Again, way before 9/11 - Kerry was all about SH is bad, he had WMD, he needs to be removed. I think that if Kerry had been in office instead of W, his past statements and his actions in almost rabidly supporting W's removal of SH suggest he would have done the same. I mean I understand W's cabinet pushed for the war. But, Clinton wanted to oust him as well, but did not because it would have been political suicide. 9/11 changed that. So, the U.S.' official policy was ousting SH. 9/11 made that goal achievable. So, I cannot think Kerry would not have done the same even if Condi, Rummy, and crewe were not there.

Also, I am no huge fan of Kerry. I just hate W's attempt to create a theocracy. I really am not hugely bothered by the invasion of Iraq. I just do not like the was W went about it. He lied about the exigency of the threat - and for that he should be impeached. The problem is no politician is going to try and impeach him because pretty much everyone from Hillary C to Billy C to Kerry to Diane F. all have harped on the threat of SH at one point or the other over the last five to seven years. So, yes W lied, but I think these politicians know their words will haunt them if they try to impeach W for lying. But, that is my opinion - others will disagree.

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 03:39 PM

Ummmmm...he was opposed to the Gulf War? ;)

Irrelevant IMO.

Again, he vehemently cried for the ousting of SH. Then, he gave W and crewe carte blanch military power to do it based essentially on the same intelligence he had seen for years. Sorry, just because he did not lead the fight, Kerry is no different than W on this issue IMO :cool:

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 03:45 PM

I'm not exactly sure what Kerry has done that is deserving of vilification. Is it because he supported his President? Hell, if he hadn't, he'd have been written off as another traitor like anyone else who opposed the war was.

Yet, he is supposed to have the sand when he is office to go againt the voting masses when they are incorrect? This is why I am no huge fan of Kerry's. But and again, I will vote for him to avoid the Pentacostal state we are headed toward if W wins.

dissention

05-26-2004, 03:45 PM

Irrelevant IMO.

Again, he vehemently cried for the ousting of SH. Then, he gave W and crewe carte blanch military power to do it based essentially on the same intelligence he had seen for years. Sorry, just because he did not lead the fight, Kerry is no different than W on this issue IMO :cool:

No, it's not irrelevant.

Methinks you're exaggerating his vehemence. I've lived in MA all my life (minus short stints in France and Florida :laugh: ) and I've never heard him talk about Iraq and Saddam so vigorously. Yes, he's said Saddam should be removed, but those things are far from vehemently arguing about his ouster.

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 03:48 PM

No, it's not irrelevant.

Methinks you're exaggerating his vehemence. I've lived in MA all my life (minus short stints in France and Florida :laugh: ) and I've never heard him talk about Iraq and Saddam so vigorously. Yes, he's said Saddam should be removed, but those things are far from vehemently arguing about his ouster.

Yes, it is irrelvant because that was then and this is now. Do a google search for Kerry's statements from 1995 to 2003 on SH and his threat to the world. I think you will see he was fully supportive of Clinton's policy of removal of SH. Then, he supports W in removing SH. So, any prior 12 year old vote is irrelevant IMO, esp. considering Kerry was not running for Pres. then.

Then why did he give W carte blanche to do it? I mean Kerry was for the ousting of SH. I have no problem with that. I just think the D's attempt to spin it to where he was caught off guard by W's sudden actions once the vote was cast BS. Kerry knew exactly what he was doing IMO. I mean after 30 years in the beltway how could he not know. Yet, he is spinning it pretty hard now.

dissention

05-26-2004, 03:52 PM

Then why did he give W carte blanche to do it? I mean Kerry was for the ousting of SH. I have no problem with that. I just think the D's attempt to spin it to where he was caught off guard by W's sudden actions once the vote was cast BS. Kerry knew exactly what he was doing IMO. I mean after 30 years in the beltway how could he not know. Yet, he is spinning it pretty hard now.

Hey, I don't disagree at all. The thing I disagree with is your assertion that Kerry, as president, would have invaded Iraq. Not only is that ridiculous, but it's laughable. It would've never happened and the idea wouldn't have even been tossed around.

And, NO, it isn't irrelevant. You're saying that Kerry was vehement and dead-set on ousting Saddam, yet he disn't support his ouster when he had the chance. Therein lies the hole in your argument.

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 03:56 PM

Hey, I don't disagree at all. The thing I disagree with is your assertion that Kerry, as president, would have invaded Iraq. Not only is that ridiculous, but it's laughable. It would've never happened and the idea wouldn't have even been tossed around.

I will never buy that, esp. when the D.'s would have removed him under Clinton if they could have. Clinton kicked around the idea - so why is it illogical to assume Kerry would not have, esp. after 9/11, which afforded him the chance to do it. Granted it is not cut and dry and is all an assumption, but Kerry's prior statements do not, at the least, negate the possibility to wit:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

BTW - these are from http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php (know thine enemy :laugh: )

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 03:58 PM

And, NO, it isn't irrelevant. You're saying that Kerry was vehement and dead-set on ousting Saddam, yet he disn't support his ouster when he had the chance. Therein lies the hole in your argument.

No it is not. After the first Gulf War, Kerry, not surprisingly, changed his stance as the quotes above clearly demonstrate. So, I guess if he suddenly changed back to the 91 stance, then yes, he would not have invaded Iraq :laugh: :cool:

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 04:05 PM

and if the rabid right wing site was not enough - here it is from the horse's mouth http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html

dissention

05-26-2004, 04:16 PM

I will never buy that, esp. when the D.'s would have removed him under Clinton if they could have. Clinton kicked around the idea - so why is it illogical to assume Kerry would not have, esp. after 9/11, which afforded him the chance to do it.

Clinton had an Iraq regime change policy, but it was regime change from within. It wasn't changing regimes by invading their country and bombing the **** out of them.

dissention

05-26-2004, 04:20 PM

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

BTW - these are from http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php (know thine enemy :laugh: )

And...what do those quotes prove? Nothing. Yeah, it reaffirms that he kissed Shrub's ass when Shrub wanted to go to war, big deal. I've already said that I agree with that assessment. But as for the letter, show me the whole thing. That quote is so vague (what are the "suspect sites"?) that nothing can be gathered from it. :cool:

dissention

05-26-2004, 04:21 PM

No it is not. After the first Gulf War, Kerry, not surprisingly, changed his stance as the quotes above clearly demonstrate. So, I guess if he suddenly changed back to the 91 stance, then yes, he would not have invaded Iraq :laugh: :cool:

Supporting Bush is '02 and '03 simply does not give any credence to your theory that Kerry himself would ahve invaded Iraq. It simply doesn't and I don't understand why you do not get that!!!! :laugh:

DeeGeMe

05-26-2004, 05:15 PM

I know, and I appreciate the concern. But on some things, I stick to principle.

I salute your strength and courage. I love NYC and all that but there is no way that I could stay there with that many Repugs in one place at one time! Screw the terrorists--these days the Rethugs scare me a hell of a lot more than OBL & Company!

GypsySorcerer

05-26-2004, 05:32 PM

dissention

05-26-2004, 05:42 PM

I disagree that the US should pull out of Iraq now. I believe that will only WORSEN the situation. Al-Qaida groups are already there...they are responsible for the killing of Nick Berg. Are we supposed to pull out at now and let these militant groups run rampant all over the country? Whether or not someone supported this war is irrelevant. We are over there, and we have to finish the job. Just because it isn't happening over night doens't mean we should pull out and quit.

No, what needs to happen is a new president who will mend relations between us, the UN, and other countries that don't support us. Then, once the fences are mended, we need to turn over responsibility to the UN and share the mess with the rest of the world. Only then will the prospects of installing democracy in Iraq look less daunting and grim. One nation cannot do it alone and it's silly for Shrub to think that it can. Sovereignty being turned over on June 30th? I think not. Sovereignty is being turned over to the Iraqi interim government, which is populated by officials hand-picked by the US. Of course, the interests of the US will be of top priority; they would never appoint people that would ask us to leave Iraq because we'd have egg on our face and less oil. We will not finish this alone and we need the suppor tof the rest of the world. No more hoarding the oil and not sharing it, it isn't our oil to that with. Repair relations and make a REAL coalition.

dissention

05-26-2004, 05:47 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040526/pl_nm/security_threat_politics_dc_1

Analysts Say U.S. Threat Warning Is Back-Covering

1 hour, 19 minutes ago Add Politics to My Yahoo!
By Caroline Drees, Security Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A vague new U.S. warning that al Qaeda may be planning a massive attack smacks of political back-covering and campaigning, not just a call for heightened vigilance, analysts and former government officials say.

Stung by accusations that the Bush administration ignored key intelligence in the run-up to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, officials may now be issuing warnings to prove to Americans they are on the ball this time, say terrorism analysts on both sides of the political fence.

"Apparently there were warnings over 9/11 and nothing came out to the public before that, and they've paid a dear price for that," said Jonathan Schanzer, a terrorism analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

"They need to alert the public that there could be something coming down the pike, in which case, don't say we didn't tell you," he said.

One former national security official in the Bush administration told Reuters: "This is more butt-covering than anything else."

Critics say the new threat warnings may also just be a ploy to shore up the president's job approval ratings or divert attention from the increasingly unpopular Iraq (news - web sites) campaign.

But some analysts say the announcement on Wednesday that the United States had credible but unspecified information on possible terror attacks in the next few months would lead to tighter security and could act as a deterrent to militants.

U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) said several upcoming events -- which include two major American holidays, a Group of Eight summit, political party conventions, and U.S. elections in November -- could be attractive targets for al Qaeda.

"It is certainly an appropriate cry for all of us to remain vigilant," said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism analyst at the RAND think tank.

Asked whether he worried about skeptics who say "you're just protecting your behind," Ashcroft told a news conference: "I just don't think my job is to worry about what skeptics say. My job is to do everything I can to protect the American people and to help the American people protect themselves."

SEEKING MORE GUIDANCE

But beyond urging citizens to be on their guard, officials failed to suggest what Americans should do to help mitigate the threat. They said the government had no plans to raise the terror threat level or announce new precautions, and gave no details on when, where or how it might occur.

New York and Los Angeles, two of the biggest U.S. cities, said they had not been briefed on any new threats.

"Most people feel that just a generalized 'be concerned about things' is not that useful," said Randall Yim, head of the homeland security division at the government's General Accounting Office (news - web sites), the investigative arm of Congress.

"It's like the old Wendy's (fast food) commercial: 'Where's the beef?"' the former Bush administration official said.

Some critical voices say the government may also be hoping the warnings could score political points on national security that could boost President Bush (news - web sites)'s flagging popularity ahead of the November elections.

Schanzer said the administration was probably aware that the threat warning could help lift ratings, but said "they are not exploiting this in a way they probably could."

Still, "there's no doubt that increased activity on this front, leading up to the election, could strengthen the president's position," he said.

One prominent terrorism expert, who would only speak on condition of anonymity, said Bush may also be trying to staunch increasing criticism of the Iraq campaign by underlining the link in the public's mind between Iraq and security at home.

"The president is running as a war president, so the timing is interesting," he said, pointing to a speech by Bush on Monday that made frequent references to terrorist threats.

"I wonder if there's not a connection to the president's speech when he mentioned terrorism 18 times in the context of Iraq. Isn't this a very convenient way of linking back to the United States that Iraq is part of the broader war on terrorism?" he said.

GypsySorcerer

05-26-2004, 05:50 PM

No, what needs to happen is a new president who will mend relations between us, the UN, and other countries that don't support us. Then, once the fences are mended, we need to turn over responsibility to the UN and share the mess with the rest of the world. Only then will the prospects of installing democracy in Iraq look less daunting and grim. One nation cannot do it alone and it's silly for Shrub to think that it can. Sovereignty being turned over on June 30th? I think not. Sovereignty is being turned over to the Iraqi interim government, which is populated by officials hand-picked by the US. Of course, the interests of the US will be of top priority; they would never appoint people that would ask us to leave Iraq because we'd have egg on our face and less oil. We will not finish this alone and we need the suppor tof the rest of the world. No more hoarding the oil and not sharing it, it isn't our oil to that with. Repair relations and make a REAL coalition.

Diss, what you said sounds great in theory. Unfortunately, the UN is possibly the wimpiest organization in existence right now, which is really too bad.

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 05:58 PM

dissention

05-26-2004, 05:59 PM

Diss, what you said sounds great in theory. Unfortunately, the UN is possibly the wimpiest organization in existence right now, which is really too bad.

But the question is, why is it wimpy? Because they're sick of us and our schtick. If a real leader would go to the UN with open arms and ready to embrace and listen, it would work like a charm. The US needs to get rid of the ego and the politics and be willing to make the effort to make Iraq work. It's going to take a miracle to establish democracy in Iraq, which is why one country CANNOT do it whatsoever. We don't have the manpower, the will, or the right leader to do it.

dissention

05-26-2004, 06:01 PM

Oh so now you're pissed at him for endorsing Dean? Cripes, anything but putting the blame squearely where it belongs-on Howard. :p

:nod: Howard Dean killed his campaign because he only catered to the left-wingers, not democrats. While I liked some of the things he said because I'm quite the lefty ( :laugh: ), his schtick was not going to work in battleground states and the primary voters knew it. So they voted for Kerry.

He can go to Oregon, he can go to California, he can go to West Virginia, he can go to New Mexico, he can go all the way to Washington DC ("Yeeeeeaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaw!"), but that doesn't mean he's going to appeal to the people.

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 06:02 PM

It sounds to me like they only made matters worse, by half-heartedly going after bin Laden, leaving the job unfinished, and then changing their course to go after Hussein at the first possible opportunity.
I am bugged to no end by the fact that billions have dollars have been spent... and far more importantly, hundreds and hundreds of LIVES have been lost... and we still haven't stopped the man who orchestrated the events that spurred this War On Terrorism in the first place.

DING! DING! DING! DING! Give the man a cigar.

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 06:04 PM

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 06:08 PM

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 06:16 PM

I have to say that I was not against the War On Terrorism in theory. I think 9/11 made it all too obvious that this a very real threat, and something needs to be done.
However, in execution I believe they have totally bungled things and have only made matters worse.

I think we need to get to the bottom of the "who" the threat is.

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 06:18 PM

Yet, he is supposed to have the sand when he is office to go againt the voting masses when they are incorrect?

The voting masses? Who are you talking about?

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 06:22 PM

dissention

05-26-2004, 06:22 PM

de-Bushing ( :laugh: I just made that up)

LUV IT!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: I'm committing that one to mem'ry. :nod:

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 06:23 PM

But the question is, why is it wimpy? Because they're sick of us and our schtick. If a real leader would go to the UN with open arms and ready to embrace and listen, it would work like a charm. The US needs to get rid of the ego and the politics and be willing to make the effort to make Iraq work. It's going to take a miracle to establish democracy in Iraq, which is why one country CANNOT do it whatsoever. We don't have the manpower, the will, or the right leader to do it.

Worked in Bosnia.

dissention

05-26-2004, 06:25 PM

Worked in Bosnia.

:laugh:

You never fail to make me laugh, doll!

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 06:26 PM

:nod: Howard Dean killed his campaign because he only catered to the left-wingers, not democrats. While I liked some of the things he said because I'm quite the lefty ( :laugh: ), his schtick was not going to work in battleground states and the primary voters knew it. So they voted for Kerry.

He can go to Oregon, he can go to California, he can go to West Virginia, he can go to New Mexico, he can go all the way to Washington DC ("Yeeeeeaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaw!"), but that doesn't mean he's going to appeal to the people.

Howard wasn't up to it, no matter how good he sounded to people. The pols in Washington would've eaten his lunch.

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 06:29 PM

:laugh:

You never fail to make me laugh, doll!

Bows. Thank you. :) :wavey:

CarneVaca

05-26-2004, 06:53 PM

Eh... this thread has become tiresome.

Shall we dance?

sparky

05-26-2004, 07:15 PM

ANOTHER terroroist act...I can't keep track of all of them. I can scarcely leave the house, there are so many raining down upon us.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling !!!

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 07:28 PM

Supporting Bush is '02 and '03 simply does not give any credence to your theory that Kerry himself would ahve invaded Iraq. It simply doesn't and I don't understand why you do not get that!!!! :laugh:

I support my statement and conclusion by citing Kerry's own statements om his website that he would have gone to war just not the way W did it. So, chide me all you want, but Kerry said it himself :shrug: Agaion, I do not understand why you do not get that 9/11 changed everything including our nation's formerly and comparatively passive insistence on regime change in Iraq. Again, everyone in politics and the U.N. by unanimous vote thought SH had WMD and SH never lifted a finger to prove he did not have them, as he was required by the U.N. resolutions for 11 years to do. Then, on his webdite, Kerry says exactly what I just said and then says he supported W's efforts to remove SH, but he would have done the invastion differently - then he spins it beyond reason :shrug: I mean I am not making this up. If you can find where Kerry says "I would never ever have invaded Iraq" let's see it. I do not think you can, because he says he would have on his own website and had been calling for military action (which was far beyond Clinton's policies) in 1998.

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 07:31 PM

No, what needs to happen is a new president who will mend relations between us, the UN, and other countries that don't support us. Then, once the fences are mended, we need to turn over responsibility to the UN and share the mess with the rest of the world. Only then will the prospects of installing democracy in Iraq look less daunting and grim. One nation cannot do it alone and it's silly for Shrub to think that it can. Sovereignty being turned over on June 30th? I think not. Sovereignty is being turned over to the Iraqi interim government, which is populated by officials hand-picked by the US. Of course, the interests of the US will be of top priority; they would never appoint people that would ask us to leave Iraq because we'd have egg on our face and less oil. We will not finish this alone and we need the suppor tof the rest of the world. No more hoarding the oil and not sharing it, it isn't our oil to that with. Repair relations and make a REAL coalition.

The same UN that SH bribed (along with France and Russia) to keep himself in power and us at bay :shrug: I think the UN needs a major ass kicking to prevent that from happening again :cool:

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 07:34 PM

The voting masses? Who are you talking about?

The 80 something percent of Americans who fully supported the initial invasion of Iraq. That's who :cool: Again, if W had not screwed it up because he was in such a hurry and the rebuilding had been done with care, aforethought, and properly trained national guardsmen, W would be walking around with a 70% approval rating despite the lack of WMD findings. Do not think for one minute Karl Rove is not keenly aware of that and is trying every minute to spin it back to that focus. For the moment, that is what it will take for W to win in Nov.

dissention

05-26-2004, 07:36 PM

The same UN that SH bribed (along with France and Russia) to keep himself in power and us at bay :shrug: I think the UN needs a major ass kicking to prevent that from happening again :cool:

Yup, that same UN. You don't think that they'd cooperate with our new management? Of course they would, they want a piece of the action, especially now that they can't steal money from the Oil For Food program!

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 07:39 PM

Again and for the record, all I am saying is all of this no one but W and crewe wanted the ousting of SH through military action and W did it solely because SH threatened Bush I makes for good copy, but it is 100% factually incorrect for the reasons I cited above. I am just setting the facts straight. Again, people can believe anything they want, but I am here to tell ya, even though W may have gleefully dreamed of a war with Iraq, the facts clearly indicate the abovementioned conclusion is just flat out wrong :cool:

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 07:40 PM

Yup, that same UN. You don't think that they'd cooperate with our new management? Of course they would, they want a piece of the action, especially now that they can't steal money from the Oil For Food program!

As I fall on the floor, are you advocating partnering with a known corrupt organization just to save our ass? Are you sure you are not a Republican :laugh:

dissention

05-26-2004, 07:53 PM

As I fall on the floor, are you advocating partnering with a known corrupt organization just to save our ass? Are you sure you are not a Republican :laugh:

That makes two of us who are going to fall on the floor. :cool:

Are you seriously suggesting that we should no longer deal with the UN because of that? Should we just disband the UN and say "Forget it, we're going to go it alone from now on, no need for your help ever again."? C'mon now! The fact that you believe we should stay in Iraq for however long it takes with no help from the outside (Blair doesn't count because he'll be gone soon) is shocking enough, but the fact that you think we should have nothing to do with the UN is just amazing to me.

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 07:55 PM

Eh... this thread has become tiresome.

Shall we dance?

Sure. Now we'll fight over what music to play. :cool:

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 07:56 PM

That makes two of us who are going to fall on the floor. :cool:

Are you seriously suggesting that we should no longer deal with the UN because of that? Should we just disband the UN and say "Forget it, we're going to go it alone from now on, no need for your help ever again."? C'mon now! The fact that you believe we should stay in Iraq for however long it takes with no help from the outside (Blair doesn't count because he'll be gone soon) is shocking enough, but the fact that you think we should have nothing to do with the UN is just amazing to me.

We could start be calling for the ousting of Kofi A. - since he was one of the bribe takers :shrug: not to mention Chirac and the Russian Pres. I am not saying the UN should not come in and help. Of course they should. I am just pointing out that without the corruption within the UN and of France and Russia, SH could have been removed perhaps in a more peaceful manner. I mean if France and Russia had come on board along with Kofi A. and therefore the UN, SH may have even stepped aside. But, instead they sold out.

And - W called for UN help on Tues. didn't he :shrug:

dissention

05-26-2004, 07:57 PM

Sure. Now we'll fight over what music to play. :cool:

My vote goes to "Bounce Your Boobies."

Come on everyone, bounce 'em up and down!

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 08:00 PM

The 80 something percent of Americans who fully supported the initial invasion of Iraq. That's who.

We never voted. You're talking polls, that's all. Even the NYT admits that it's coverage was slanted and ignored the peace movement. How Nixonian. Like I said, it's going to take a few years to begin to process all of this.

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 08:03 PM

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 08:05 PM

We never voted. You're talking polls, that's all. Even the NYT admits that it's coverage ws slanted and ignored the peace movement. How Nixonian. Like I said, it's going to take a few years to begin to process all of this.

Well, in a sense we did, look at the interim 92 elections. Clearly, they we hawkish :shrug: Plus, every songle poll by every single newspaper, tv show, etc., showed well above 50% support for the ousting of SH by use of force. So, it is not a stretch to conclude more than 50% of America supported the use of force :shrug:

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 08:07 PM

Well, in a sense we did, look at the interim 92 elections. Clearly, they we hawkish :shrug: Plus, every songle poll by every single newspaper, tv show, etc., showed well above 50% support for the ousting of SH by use of force. So, it is not a stretch to conclude more than 50% of America supported the use of force :shrug:

Your previous post said 80%. Which is it?

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 08:11 PM

Who's saying that? Stay off the wignut sites, baby. They're as bad for your health as cigarettes. :(

I believe in this very thread the handsome and talented Johnny Stew said W went to war because SH threatened his daddy and I am sure Dissention has said it more than once - so . . . :cool:

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 08:13 PM

I believe in this very thread the handsome and talented Johnny Stew said W went to war because SH threatened his daddy and I am sure Dissention has said it more than once - so . . . :cool:

I've said it. However, I don't think that is the sole motivation. I didn't think anyone was saying it in this thread.

dissention

05-26-2004, 08:13 PM

I believe in this very thread the handsome and talented Johnny Stew said W went to war because SH threatened his daddy and I am sure Dissention has said it more than once - so . . . :cool:

Liberalism is a big part of every healthy diet. Once you go with the Rethugs, you have no hope, brother, and you're bound to choke on the venom eventually.

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 08:13 PM

Your previous post said 80%. Which is it?

I does not matter - the point is it was way OVER HALF. i GOT THE 80% from memory. Then you asked about it. So, I did a little research. If you have numbers to disprove mine, let's see them. Perhaps you can call Max Cleland and ask him for some since he is out of a job because Georgians voted out a triple Vietnam amputee because he spoke out against W and the war in Iraq and other anti-terrorism causes :shrug: :xoxo:

dissention

05-26-2004, 08:14 PM

I've said it. However, I don't think that is the sole motivation. I didn't think anyone was saying it in this thread.

Of course not. A big pile of greenbacks is better than revenge any day of the week. The revenge is simply the icing on the cake.

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 08:15 PM

I've said it. However, I don't think that is the sole motivation. I didn't think anyone was saying it in this thread.

If not and if no one ever said it, then let me rephrase "Again and for the record, all I am saying is all of this no one but W and crewe wanted the ousting of SH through military action and W did it [B]in significant part because SH threatened Bush I makes for good copy . . . " Better :laugh:

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 08:16 PM

Of course not. A big pile of greenbacks is better than revenge any day of the week. The revenge is simply the icing on the cake.

Yea, just ask the UN, Russia, and France - oh wait they are too bust wiping the American and Iraqi blood off of their hands and their bribe money :eek: You certainly cannot say they are all good guys in this? I think they aere worse than us because they could have possibly prevented an all out invasion - at least that is what Kerry thinks :shrug:

dissention

05-26-2004, 08:16 PM

If not and if no one ever said it, then let me rephrase "Again and for the record, all I am saying is all of this no one but W and crewe wanted the ousting of SH through military action and W did it [B]in significant part because SH threatened Bush I makes for good copy . . . " Better :laugh:

We finally got you to admit that your Kerry theories about Iraq were wrong. You are one Rethug that I have respect for, my man.

dissention

05-26-2004, 08:18 PM

Yea, just ask the UN, Russia, and France - oh wait they are too bust wiping the American and Iraqi blood off of their hands and their bribe money :eek:

That's nothing. At least they weren't the ones to send those American's in to kill the Iraqi's. Nice to know that you think they're responsible for that. Shrub was simply making an investment, right?

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 08:18 PM

I does not matter - the point is it was way OVER HALF. i GOT THE 80% from memory. Then you asked about it. So, I did a little research. If you have numbers to disprove mine, let's see them. Perhaps you can call Max Cleland and ask him for some since he is out of a job because Georgians voted out a triple Vietnam amputee because he spoke out against W and the war in Iraq and other anti-terrorism causes :shrug: :xoxo:

Had a little help from Diebold.

dissention

05-26-2004, 08:19 PM

You certainly cannot say they are all good guys in this? I think they aere worse than us because they could have possibly prevented an all out invasion - at least that is what Kerry thinks :shrug:

This is one case where I would endorse the use of anti-psychotic drugs.

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 08:20 PM

Of course not. A big pile of greenbacks is better than revenge any day of the week. The revenge is simply the icing on the cake.

War profiteering. The Carlyle Group. How many times...

dissention

05-26-2004, 08:20 PM

War profiteering. The Carlyle Group. How many times...

Over and over...over and over...

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 08:21 PM

We finally got you to admit that your Kerry theories about Iraq were wrong. You are one Rethug that I have respect for, my man.

No - there is no doubt in my mind that if Kerry or anyone else had been in office after 9/11, they would have called for the ousting of SH through military use. I mean do you think all of that call for his ousting and use of force against him to make him comply with the UN resolutions, in which we found him in material breach during the Clinton admin. was just bravada? I don't. That is why I think Kerry would have maybe done it differently, but he would have if required used force against Iraq when they ONCE AGAIN did not comply with yet another UN resolution. You are the one that is wrong - and that does not happen often so I am reveling in it :woohoo: :shrug: :xoxo:

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 08:22 PM

Yea, just ask the UN, Russia, and France - oh wait they are too bust wiping the American and Iraqi blood off of their hands and their bribe money :eek: You certainly cannot say they are all good guys in this? I think they aere worse than us because they could have possibly prevented an all out invasion - at least that is what Kerry thinks :shrug:

Could we stay on one point at a time please? We went from war profiteering to "Old Europe." WTF? :)

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 08:23 PM

That's nothing. At least they weren't the ones to send those American's in to kill the Iraqi's. Nice to know that you think they're responsible for that. Shrub was simply making an investment, right?

No, they did send them. They could have stopped it by giving the UN a unified front from which, according to Kerry, SH would probably have backed down. But, instead, they chose to sell us out. They knew we would go anyway. So, the deaths are on their hands just as much :shrug:

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 08:25 PM

Could we stay on one point at a time please? We went from war profiteering to "Old Europe." WTF? :)

Explain yout point. I am talking about SH selling oil for food oil at a HUGE discount to France, Russia, and circuitously to Kofi A. - who then resold it at market rates for a HUGE profit. That was four or so years ago until recently and that is why Russia and France refused to make SH comply with his obligations they voted for through the UN.

dissention

05-26-2004, 08:25 PM

I mean do you think all of that call for his ousting and use of force against him to make him comply with the UN resolutions, in which we found him in material breach during the Clinton admin. was just bravada?

Yup. :wavey:

Kerry would not have gone to war. No way, no how. There's no doubt in my mind that he wanted Saddam gone, but he would never be the man to lead us into a war, especially an unjust one. If he had known that there were no weapons, as the Bush admin did, or attempts to gather weapons, he wouldn't have supported Saddam's removal. However, he believed that this stuff existed, he thought Saddam was dangerous, so he used his vote as an opportunity to do something that never would have done himself as president: launch a pre-emptive attack on one of the smallest, most inspected nations in the world. ;)

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 08:26 PM

Had a little help from Diebold.

Prove it? I submit you cannot. Plus, the polls and exit polls supported the numbers :shrug:

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 08:28 PM

Yup. :wavey:

Kerry would not have gone to war. No way, no how. There's no doubt in my mind that he wanted Saddam gone, but he would never be the man to lead us into a war, especially an unjust one. If he had known that there were no weapons, as the Bush admin did, or attempts to gather weapons, he wouldn't have supported Saddam's removal. However, he believed that this stuff existed, he thought Saddam was dangerous, so he used his vote as an opportunity to do something that never would have done himself as president: launch a pre-emptive attack on one of the smallest, most inspected nations in the world. ;)

And the Bush admin. did not know he had no WMD. If you evidence to the contrary, let's see it. I mean don't you think that secret would have been a little hard to keep :laugh:

He said he would have with the right coalition. If you do not believe me, look on that link to his website I posted. SHEESH :laugh:

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 08:28 PM

Prove it? I submit you cannot. Plus, the polls and exit polls supported the numbers :shrug:

Just like your war polls. :cool:

dissention

05-26-2004, 08:28 PM

Prove it? I submit you cannot. Plus, the polls and exit polls supported the numbers :shrug:

You're gonna get her started with her articles! Watch out! :lol:

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 08:29 PM

Just like your war polls. :cool:

Lord Child - you are being silly. I am not looking up al of those polls because you know I am right! :p

dissention

05-26-2004, 08:30 PM

He said he would have with the right coalition. If you do not believe me, look on that link to his website I posted. SHEESH :laugh:

Yeah, and Bush said he denounces interracial marriage. Maybe we should start taking all politicians at their word, eh?

He wouldn't have done it, he's simply saying that if he had, he wouldn't have gone in with his dingleberries blowing in the wind like Bush.

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 08:31 PM

You're gonna get her started with her articles! Watch out! :lol:

I do not know why I bother when you crazy people believe whatever the hell you want to no matter what the facts are :laugh: :woohoo:

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 08:31 PM

No - there is no doubt in my mind that if Kerry or anyone else had been in office after 9/11, they would have called for the ousting of SH through military use. I mean do you think all of that call for his ousting and use of force against him to make him comply with the UN resolutions, in which we found him in material breach during the Clinton admin. was just bravada? I don't. That is why I think Kerry would have maybe done it differently, but he would have if required used force against Iraq when they ONCE AGAIN did not comply with yet another UN resolution. You are the one that is wrong - and that does not happen often so I am reveling in it :woohoo: :shrug: :xoxo:

Bush was going with or without Congress. Hs father and advisors finally convinced him to go through the motions for the sake of public opinion.

dissention

05-26-2004, 08:32 PM

Bush was going with or without Congress. Hs father and advisors finally convinced him to go through the motions for the sake of public opinion.

And look at where it got him. :lol:

Like father like son, one term and you're done!

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 08:32 PM

Yeah, and Bush said he denounces interracial marriage. Maybe we should start taking all politicians at their word, eh?

He wouldn't have done it, he's simply saying that if he had, he wouldn't have gone in with his dingleberries blowing in the wind like Bush.

If he was just saying that and that was just bravada, then he does not deserve to be President because he, like W, is a lying sack of ****e and sent men and women to their deaths based on political gain. Crazy Nader is looking better every minute!!!!! :laugh:

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 08:32 PM

Prove it? I submit you cannot. Plus, the polls and exit polls supported the numbers :shrug:

Like in Florida?

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 08:33 PM

Like in Florida?

:p :p :p :p :p :laugh:

I am not taking the bait! :cool:

dissention

05-26-2004, 08:34 PM

If he was just saying that and that was just bravada, then he does not deserve to be President because he, like W, is a lying sack of ****e and sent men and women to their deaths based on political gain. Crazy Nader is looking better every minute!!!!! :laugh:

Yeah, and Nader isn't full of bravada? The man is an egomaniac on the scale of all the Bush's combined.

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 08:34 PM

And the Bush admin. did not know he had no WMD. If you evidence to the contrary, let's see it. I mean don't you think that secret would have been a little hard to keep :laugh:

He said he would have with the right coalition. If you do not believe me, look on that link to his website I posted. SHEESH :laugh:

Joe Wilson?

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 08:35 PM

Lord Child - you are being silly. I am not looking up al of those polls because you know I am right! :p

You're spewing. :p

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 08:36 PM

Yeah, and Nader isn't full of bravada? The man is an egomaniac on the scale of all the Bush's combined.

At least he sees his thought through, unlike Kerry who you just said was just talking sh*t when he was advocating the ousting of SH via military force :shrug: Are you ready to concede defeat yet? I clearly have won this one and you know it :angel:

dissention

05-26-2004, 08:36 PM

And the Bush admin. did not know he had no WMD. If you evidence to the contrary, let's see it. I mean don't you think that secret would have been a little hard to keep :laugh:

Uh...they were told before the war even started that Saddam never tried to acquire uranium form Africa. And common sense says that it's sheerly impossible for every single piece of intelligence to be false and still be believed by the entire US government.

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 08:37 PM

And look at where it got him. :lol:

Like father like son, one term and you're done!

Amen brotha. Only Daddy had a few more brain cells. We're cursed for the next 8 months I tell you.

dissention

05-26-2004, 08:37 PM

At least he sees his thought through, unlike Kerry who you just said was just talking sh*t when he was advocating the ousting of SH via military force :shrug: Are you ready to concede defeat yet? I clearly have won this one and you know it :angel:

I haven't been defeated. You have no way of proving that the next president of the Untied States would have gone to war.

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 08:38 PM

Joe Wilson?

well, to the contrary, the UN, Clinton, Kerry, England, Russia, France, and about 200 more ALL thought SH had the WMD. Agreeing how to make SH get rid of them or prove he already got rid of them is another matter. Again, Russia, France, and the UN all took a bribe from SH. So . . . .

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 08:39 PM

Yeah, and Nader isn't full of bravada? The man is an egomaniac on the scale of all the Bush's combined.

Mostly funded by the right.

dissention

05-26-2004, 08:39 PM

Amen brotha. Only Daddy had a few more brain cells. We're cursed for the next 8 months I tell you.

:wavey:

Bush the 2nd had some brain cells, but snorted them all away back in the early seventies.

dissention

05-26-2004, 08:40 PM

Mostly funded by the right.

Not to mention that pig bastard Newman and his cult of Newmanites. Scary ****, sister.

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 08:41 PM

well, to the contrary, the UN, Clinton, Kerry, England, Russia, France, and about 200 more ALL thought SH had the WMD. Agreeing how to make SH get rid of them or prove he already got rid of them is another matter. Again, Russia, France, and the UN all took a bribe from SH. So . . . .

David Kay.

dissention

05-26-2004, 08:42 PM

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 08:42 PM

I haven't been defeated. You have no way of proving that the next president of the Untied States would have gone to war.

I have already said I cannot prove it and never tried to argue I could. What I am arguing is that Kerry's record since 1998 called for use of force against SH to make him comply with the UN resolutions (which Kerry voted SH ha materially breached) and Kerry not only supported W's use of force, he advocated it. So, all of those together negate your conclusion that Kerry was just talking bull. Rather, they fully support my conclusion that Kerry would have used force against Iraq. And then we have Kerry on his own website saying he would have put together a better coalition to do so. What is your evidence again. Oh that's right - Kerry voted against the first Gulf War 12 years ago :laugh: I mean come on - you gotta admit I have the upper hand here ya stubborn liberal - and that is coming from an equally stubborn socially liberal fiscal conservative :wavey:

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 08:42 PM

:wavey:

Bush the 2nd had some brain cells, but snorted them all away back in the early seventies.

Can't ride a bike but they let him fly a plane. :shocked:

dissention

05-26-2004, 08:43 PM

David Kay.

Disguntled employee!

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 08:43 PM

Uh...they were told before the war even started that Saddam never tried to acquire uranium form Africa. And common sense says that it's sheerly impossible for every single piece of intelligence to be false and still be believed by the entire US government.

Okay - so that is one of 1,000 bits of intelligence that, once again, the entire world via the UN believed for over 11 years and SH did nothing to meet his burden of proving he did not have them.

dissention

05-26-2004, 08:44 PM

Can't ride a bike but they let him fly a plane. :shocked:

:lol: Then he pulled an Amelia Earhart and disappeared for a year.

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 08:44 PM

Not to mention that pig bastard Newman and his cult of Newmanites. Scary ****, sister.

Former Perot gang. :shocked:

dissention

05-26-2004, 08:45 PM

Okay - so that is one of 1,000 bits of intelligence that, once again, the entire world via the UN believed for over 11 years and SH did nothing to meet his burden of proving he did not have them.

But...the coutnry that launched the invasion knew that it was false...before they launched the invasion...

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 08:46 PM

David Kay.

who advocated the war and said we did the right thing when interviewed by Congress after the initial invasion because SH had plants and other facilities that could have converted in a hurry to produce WMD. Next :wavey:

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 08:46 PM

I have already said I cannot prove it and never tried to argue I could. :wavey:

I'll give you $50 for that sentence. :laugh:

dissention

05-26-2004, 08:46 PM

Former Perot gang. :shocked:

WHAT?! I can't hear you! My ears aren't big enough! What's that you said?!

Newman is the second coming of Jim Jones.

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 08:47 PM

Disguntled employee!

:lol: George Tenet

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 08:48 PM

But...the coutnry that launched the invasion knew that it was false...before they launched the invasion...

They knew that one peice of evidence was false. That was not the sole reason W extolled. Granted, I think he should be impeached for lying about that, but that is an academic argument becuase countless other evidence, which Kerry and Clinton, the UN and everyone else accepted as true.

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 08:48 PM

:lol: Then he pulled an Amelia Earhart and disappeared for a year.

LMFAO! :lol: :lol:

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 08:49 PM

I'll give you $50 for that sentence. :laugh:

Your on!!!!! :laugh: You are so reminded the "when I see you again" "will Jason say" "50 bucks baby - (higher) 50 bucks baby - 50 - 50 50" :laugh: :wavey:

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 08:50 PM

WHAT?! I can't hear you! My ears aren't big enough! What's that you said?!

Newman is the second coming of Jim Jones.

This is :nod: fun.

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 08:50 PM

WHAT?! I can't hear you! My ears aren't big enough! What's that you said?!

Newman is the second coming of Jim Jones.

Poor Ross Perot "YOU PEOPLE" should be kinder to him :cool:

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 08:51 PM

They knew that one peice of evidence was false. That was not the sole reason W extolled. Granted, I think he should be impeached for lying about that, but that is an academic argument becuase countless other evidence, which Kerry and Clinton, the UN and everyone else accepted as true.

Richard Clarke.

dissention

05-26-2004, 08:53 PM

:lol: George Tenet

Clinton-ite!

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 08:53 PM

Your on!!!!! :laugh: You are so reminded the "when I see you again" "will Jason say" "50 bucks baby - (higher) 50 bucks baby - 50 - 50 50" :laugh: :wavey:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 08:54 PM

Richard Clarke.

Hmm which version of his should we believe. The one he got paid for, oh wait a minute, he got paid for them all :lol: I mean come on, he is hardly a credible source. Moreover, he never said W fabricated WMD evidence or anything like that. He just said OBL caught America off guard and the govt. should have connected the dots.

dissention

05-26-2004, 08:54 PM

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 08:55 PM

Poor Ross Perot "YOU PEOPLE" should be kinder to him :cool:

He helped our cause. :shrug:

dissention

05-26-2004, 08:55 PM

Hmm which version of his should we believe. The one he got paid for, oh wait a minute, he got paid for them all :lol: I mean come on, he is hardly a credible source. Moreover, he never said W fabricated WMD evidence or anything like that. He just said OBL caught America off guard and the govt. should have connected the dots.

Compared to how credible ChimpCo is, he's as reliable as Helen Thomas (bless her heart).

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 08:56 PM

Poisoned fruit of a rotten tree.

I guess Shrub never read the bible. Ha!

Ya Schmuck :laugh: - the legal term is "fruit from the poisonous tree" and it pertains to evidence that is excluded because the govt. obtained it illegally (usually in a Miranda or Fourth Amend. violation) Here, it would not apply because the US and the world had lots of other evidence notwithstanding the Niger stuff.

dissention

05-26-2004, 08:57 PM

He just said OBL caught America off guard and the govt. should have connected the dots.

John O'Neal connected the dots, but they refused to listen to him and threw him out. Watch Frontline once in awhile, you'l learn something!

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 08:57 PM

Hmm which version of his should we believe. The one he got paid for, oh wait a minute, he got paid for them all :lol: I mean come on, he is hardly a credible source. Moreover, he never said W fabricated WMD evidence or anything like that. He just said OBL caught America off guard and the govt. should have connected the dots.

Only government official to EVER apologize on behalf of the U.S. Government to the 9/11 families.

dissention

05-26-2004, 08:58 PM

Ya Schmuck :laugh: - the legal term is "fruit from the poisonous tree" and it pertains to evidence that is excluded because the govt. obtained it illegally (usually in a Miranda or Fourth Amend. violation) Here, it would not apply because the US and the world had lots of other evidence notwithstanding the Niger stuff.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Bush is invading my brain, man.

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 08:58 PM

He helped our cause. :shrug:

I was referring to when he told a group of African American "YOU PEOPLE should be kinder to me as I have always supported YOU PEOPLE" or something like that. It was at the time widely regarded as the moment his campaign became a non-event, much like Dean's WE ARE GONNA GO TO >>>>>> :laugh:

dissention

05-26-2004, 08:59 PM

Only government official to EVER apologize on behalf of the U.S. Government to the 9/11 families.

Only governemnt official with any testicles of real substance.

Bush is too busy clearing brush to worry about those lowly families.

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 08:59 PM

John O'Neal connected the dots, but they refused to listen to him and threw him out. Watch Frontline once in awhile, you'l learn something!

Look where he wound up.

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 09:00 PM

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Bush is invading my brain, man.

STAY OUT DA BUSHES!!!!!!!!!!! Lord love Al S. :cool:

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 09:00 PM

I was referring to when he told a group of African American "YOU PEOPLE should be kinder to me as I have always supported YOU PEOPLE" or something like that. It was at the time widely regarded as the moment his campaign became a non-event, much like Dean's WE ARE GONNA GO TO >>>>>> :laugh:

Like I said, he helped our cause. :lol:

dissention

05-26-2004, 09:01 PM

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 09:01 PM

Like I said, he helped our cause. :lol:

Poor Bush I - I bet he HATES RP as much as Gore (bless his boring heart) HATES Nader :laugh:

dissention

05-26-2004, 09:02 PM

Look where he wound up.

Under the rubble that Bush stood perched on after he came out of hiding. :distress:

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 09:03 PM

Poor Bush I - I bet he HATES RP as much as Gore (bless his boring heart) HATES Nader :laugh:

Don't forget "Go Pat Go" Buchanan.

dissention

05-26-2004, 09:03 PM

Poor Bush I - I bet he HATES RP as much as Gore (bless his boring heart) HATES Nader :laugh:

I wonder what the reaction would have been to a thirty second Tripper/Ross match of tonsil hockey.

Would've made for a nice TV spot, eh?

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 09:04 PM

Don't forget "Go Pat Go" Buchanan.

Bless his heart, DIssention actually agrees with Patty B. on Iraq. Patty B. thinks we should never have gone there and should leave there and every other Middle East country that asks us to.

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 09:04 PM

Under the rubble that Bush stood perched on after he came out of hiding. :distress:

I know. There really are no coincidences, are there?

dissention

05-26-2004, 09:05 PM

Bless his heart, DIssention actually agrees with Patty B. on Iraq. Patty B. thinks we should never have gone there and should leave there and every other Middle East country that asks us to.

Yeah, but Patty also thinks we should become an isolationist country. Where would I get my French products? And my Russian vodka? Huh?!

dissention

05-26-2004, 09:07 PM

I know. There really are no coincidences, are there?

Nope. Cheney's bunker was probably under the field where one of the planes crashed.

"It's only groundhogs, Dick. Stay away from the microwave."

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 09:07 PM

Yeah, but Patty also thinks we should become an isolationist country. Where would I get my French products? And my Russian vodka? Huh?!

Since you do not drink, I assume the vodka is for my lush ass!!!!!! :thumbsup:

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 09:07 PM

Bless his heart, DIssention actually agrees with Patty B. on Iraq. Patty B. thinks we should never have gone there and should leave there and every other Middle East country that asks us to.

I've often said, we agree on a lot of things but get there by very different roads.

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 09:08 PM

Yeah, but Patty also thinks we should become an isolationist country. Where would I get my French products? And my Russian vodka? Huh?!

Yep. He's completely wack in that regard.

dissention

05-26-2004, 09:08 PM

Since you do not drink, I assume the vodka is for my lush ass!!!!!! :thumbsup:

I know you love Stevie and want to emulate her, but I certainly am not blowing vodka up anyones lush ass, babe.

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 09:08 PM

I've often said, we agree on a lot of things but get there by very different roads.

I seem to remember that conversation over dinner in Madison!!!!!!!!!! I was, however, distracted :woohoo:

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 09:09 PM

Nope. Cheney's bunker was probably under the field where one of the planes crashed.

"It's only groundhogs, Dick. Stay away from the microwave."

LMAO! I had to stand up for that one. :lol:

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 09:09 PM

I know you love Stevie and want to emulate her, but I certainly am not blowing vodka up anyones lush ass, babe.

tonic and a lemon will do - in fact, we can just put a nipple on the bottle :cool:

dissention

05-26-2004, 09:12 PM

tonic and a lemon will do - in fact, we can just put a nipple on the bottle :cool:

Or we could always go for bleach. :lol:

dissention

05-26-2004, 09:14 PM

LMAO! I had to stand up for that one. :lol:

This is the best time I've had in awhile, doll. :xoxo:

dissention

05-26-2004, 09:21 PM

Gee, Jason, we must've beaten you into submission. :lol:

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 09:41 PM

Gee, Jason, we must've beaten you into submission. :lol:

Never - I had to get some tea!!!!!!!

dissention

05-26-2004, 09:43 PM

Never - I had to get some tea!!!!!!!

Aww, your throat hurts from screaming at the monitor.

Tough ****. :laugh:

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 09:49 PM

Aww, your throat hurts from screaming at the monitor.

Tough ****. :laugh:

IN YOUR DREAMS YOU PINKO COMMIE BASTARD ;) :p

:wavey: :laugh: :laugh: :wavey:

(for the innocent - I am joking with Dissention)

dissention

05-26-2004, 09:51 PM

IN YOUR DREAMS YOU PINKO COMMIE BASTARD ;) :p

:wavey: :laugh: :laugh: :wavey:

(for the innocent - I am joking with Dissention)

This coming from a facist right-wing neocon masquerading as a liberal!! Go back to the gulag!! :laugh:

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 09:52 PM

This coming from a facist right-wing neocon masquerading as a liberal!! Go back to the gulag!! :laugh:

I would but you and you pinko friends tore it down under the pretense of supplying the poor with firewood, when in reality you are using them as weapons!!!!!!

BTW - that is the nicest thing you have ever said to me!!! :woohoo:

dissention

05-26-2004, 09:54 PM

I would but you and you pinko friends tore it down under the pretense of supplying the poor with firewood, when in reality you are using them as weapons!!!!!!

:lol:

Our next mission is to bomb your church and muzzle your teachers who make their students recite "Under God."

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 09:55 PM

:lol:

Our next mission is to bomb your church and muzzle your teachers who make their students recite "Under God."

Go ahead and try - I have alerted the secret militia!!!!!!! Thank goodness for the second amendment and the g-d given right to have a semi-automatic weapon for deer hunting :) :nod: :laugh: :wavey:

dissention

05-26-2004, 09:55 PM

BTW - that is the nicest thing you have ever said to me!!! :woohoo:

You ass. :laugh:

dissention

05-26-2004, 09:57 PM

Go ahead and try - I have alerted the secret militia!!!!!!! Thank goodness for the second amendment and the g-d given right to have a semi-automatic weapon for deer hunting :) :nod: :laugh: :wavey:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I can't top that! Brilliant!

strandinthewind

05-26-2004, 09:59 PM

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I can't top that! Brilliant!

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

I am off to bed after, I think, exhausting this thread and steering it toward the absurd!!!! ONLY US :cool: :wavey: :xoxo: :angel: :angel:

gldstwmn

05-26-2004, 10:05 PM

I would but you and you pinko friends tore it down under the pretense of supplying the poor with firewood, when in reality you are using them as weapons!!!!!!

:woohoo:

Bbbut we named it Camp Redemption first.

darklinensuit

05-26-2004, 11:24 PM

I haven't read through this entire thread, but if nobody has mentioned it, the news reports down here are that Houston is the top target again. Damned oil.

- Jake

gldstwmn

05-27-2004, 12:57 AM

Prove it? I submit you cannot. Plus, the polls and exit polls supported the numbers :shrug:

Start here:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00078.htm
The Truth About the Rob-Georgia File

http://www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=28
No One Certified the Patches —
No One is Explaining the Files called "rob-georgia"

http://www.americanfreepress.net/08_01_03/Electronic_Voting/electronic_voting.html
"Although most Georgians expected incumbent Sen. Max Cleland to win, the Diebold voting system declared the dark horse Republican candidate Saxby Chambliss the winner. Chambliss won 53 percent of the vote, according to the Diebold-generated tally. A similar upset occurred in the gubernatorial race in which a Republican candidate won for the first time in 130 years. The upset in Georgia was of national significance. As Chambliss says on his web site: “With our win on Nov. 5, we returned control of the U.S. Senate to Republicans and gave President Bush the tools he needs to implement his agenda for America.”

Because the Diebold system is paperless and the “counting” of the votes is done out of sight, within a networked computer system, there is no way for any voter to know if his or her vote was counted correctly."

http://home.earthlink.net/~acisney4/id19.html
"Among the files, Harris also found one titled “Rob Georgia,” which contained instructions for replacing voting system files for the 2002 congressional elections.

“I knew it was illegal because I had done enough research on how they do the certification,” Harris says. “Georgia had several upsets and was using 100 percent Diebold touchscreen machines. After seeing that file, I knew we had a problem.” ...

http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-nontech/200302/msg00021.html
Georgia: 22,000 Voting Machines Got a Program Fix, Right Before theElection

http://www.opednews.com/voting.htm
Did E-Vote Firm Patch Election?

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/02/09/voting_machines/index_np.html
Will the election be hacked?

http://www.larryflynt.com/notebook.php?id=27
Who's Counting Your Vote?

Nothing to see here. Move along. :wavey:

DeeGeMe

05-27-2004, 07:15 AM

The 80 something percent of Americans who fully supported the initial invasion of Iraq. That's who

Yeah---and at the time, the American people had been fed a stream of deceptions and flat-out lies by Bush & Co. that made them honestly believe that SH was somehow a threat to us. Now that the sheeple have figured out that they were lied to, you can see the corresponding drop in approval for the Iraq war and in Bush's popularity rules. How does that old saying go. . . You can fool some of the people some of the time. . .

And a special shout-out to Goldie for her excellent research abilities!

strandinthewind

05-27-2004, 08:37 AM

Yeah---and at the time, the American people had been fed a stream of deceptions and flat-out lies by Bush & Co. that made them honestly believe that SH was somehow a threat to us. Now that the sheeple have figured out that they were lied to, you can see the corresponding drop in approval for the Iraq war and in Bush's popularity rules. How does that old saying go. . . You can fool some of the people some of the time. . .

And a special shout-out to Goldie for her excellent research abilities!

Well that may very well be true - and BTW "sheeple" :laugh: But, are you willing to turn that powerful insight and loathing of deception on Kerry, Clinton, Pelosi, and other prominent D's? They also believed and touted essentially this same information about Iraq. In fact, Kerry and many other D's voted to find Iraq in material brieach of the UN resolutions and urged Clinton to act with a military response to make SH comple - sounds like W to me :cool: Kerry also officially stated on his website in 2002 that he would have formed a coalition immdiately after 9/11 to force SH to comply with the UN resolutions (I guess just by asking SH nicely :rolleyes: ), and then gave W carte blanche to do so. So, my point is D's holler at W and claim he is the anti-christ, a revolving liar, and hoodwinked the American people - and the D assert they are above it all and would NEVER consider doing what W did, when CLEARLY that is not the case. Yet, D's will NEVER admit that. They just throw hypocritical recrimminations at W and the R's, act pious when the light of truth is turned on them to explain their actions, and then spin it back on W by calling W an idiot and a liar for doing exactly what they had been calling for since 1998 :shrug:

strandinthewind

05-27-2004, 08:52 AM

Nothing to see here. Move along. :wavey:

While all of that may be true:

1. Why has the national press not picked up on it

2. the exit polls in GA by all news sources clearly substantiated the wins

3. Where is the smoking gun? I suppose all of the thousands of people in that branch of the state gov. are in on the conspiracy, they are all R's, and they are all able to keep their mouths shut when opening them would be highly lucrative

4. Perdue wond because Barnes pissed off the teachers and tried to take the Confed. symbol off the GA flag without a popular vote, thereby pissing off pretty much everyone in GA, esp. when we hd fat a$$ Sonny Perdue promising to allow Geogians to be able to vote on the flag issue (which in the end he weasled out of :rolleyes: ). NOTE: I make no comment on the flag; I am just stating a fact.

5. Cleland lost because W came here like 10 times to support Chambliss and, more to my point, America was experiencing a wave we support W at any cost then. Max also voted against several of W's big anti-terror policies. So, the R's slime machine labeled him as a non-patriot (as if the D's would not have done the same thing to a R :shrug: ).

So, cry about the voting machines in GA all you want, the forgoing facts do not demonstrate that these two D candidates have a chance in hell of winning reelection at that time. Sadly, today would be a different story, which was my original point to wit: America was SOLIDLY behind W in everything he did, including the invasion of Iraq. To assert otherwise is to ignore the facts :shrug: Fortunately, America is not so solidly behind W now :cool:

Hippocampus

05-27-2004, 09:02 AM

The same UN that SH bribed (along with France and Russia) to keep himself in power and us at bay :shrug: I think the UN needs a major ass kicking to prevent that from happening again :cool:

I find this reasoning amusing. France, Germany, Russia and the rest, not to mention the UN inspection teams, were not convinced by the "WMD threats" (please don't laugh) that the US obsessed about and they didn't believe there was a case for war. They refused to authorize an unjust war so they were corrupt? No, they dared to simply disagree with the almighty and righteous US and they were vilified for it. Were they expected to swallow everything up, shut up and follow the US' lead unquestioningly? I certainly don't think so and they were proven right in the end.

Please back up your claims of corruption with serious evidence and not just hearsay and propaganda invented to punish the "traitorous" nations and drag them through the mud.

strandinthewind

05-27-2004, 09:12 AM

I find this reasoning amusing. France, Germany, Russia and the rest, not to mention the UN inspection teams, were not convinced by the "WMD threats" (please don't laugh) that the US obsessed about and they didn't believe there was a case for war. They refused to authorize an unjust war so they were corrupt? No, they dared to simply disagree with the almighty and righteous US and they were vilified for it. Were they expected to swallow everything up, shut up and follow the US' lead unquestioningly? I certainly don't think so and they were proven right in the end.

Please back up your claims of corruption with serious evidence and not just hearsay and propaganda invented to punish the "traitorous" nations and drag them through the mud.

Okay - here ya go -

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7454

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000080&sid=a3_wYO8bdfBs&refer=asia

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/archive/040426/20040426044199_brief.php

http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20040503-123158-1229r.htm

______________________________________________

There are MANY more - do a search on google and you will see. So, I guess France and Russia repeatedly agreed that SH had WMD for 11 or so years and then, in the final resolution, further agreed that he had WMD and unless he disarmed or prove that he had disarmed (a burden with which he calculatedly did not comply) or face serious consequences that everyone and their dog knew meant war. Then, I guess France and Russia suddenly changed their minds for no apparent reason when asked to perform on the resolution they agreed to. Hmmmm - could it be that they did not want egg on their face? I mean come on - again hate W all you want, I do too, but to say this is all his fault and he suddenly came of of left field with this against the intentions of the world is rubbish and clearly not supported by the facts.

BTW - David Kay was convinced and later said he was glad we went into Iraq because SH had the means to dev. WMD - who am I to argue with him. He seems like a straight shooter to me :shrug: to wit: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/25/sprj.nirq.kay/

dissention

05-27-2004, 09:31 AM

Bbbut we named it Camp Redemption first.

Leave it to religious wackos to go with a religious name.

strandinthewind

05-27-2004, 09:32 AM

Leave it to religious wackos to go with a religious name.

AND it would have to be said with a South Ga accent

KAYMMMPPPPUH REEEEEEDUUUEEEMMMMMMMPPPPSSSHHHHHHHEEOOOONNNN!

by a lady in a cheap Chanel knock off suit with huge hair. :D

dissention

05-27-2004, 09:32 AM

Start here:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00078.htm
The Truth About the Rob-Georgia File

http://www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=28
No One Certified the Patches —
No One is Explaining the Files called "rob-georgia"

http://www.americanfreepress.net/08_01_03/Electronic_Voting/electronic_voting.html
"Although most Georgians expected incumbent Sen. Max Cleland to win, the Diebold voting system declared the dark horse Republican candidate Saxby Chambliss the winner. Chambliss won 53 percent of the vote, according to the Diebold-generated tally. A similar upset occurred in the gubernatorial race in which a Republican candidate won for the first time in 130 years. The upset in Georgia was of national significance. As Chambliss says on his web site: “With our win on Nov. 5, we returned control of the U.S. Senate to Republicans and gave President Bush the tools he needs to implement his agenda for America.”

Because the Diebold system is paperless and the “counting” of the votes is done out of sight, within a networked computer system, there is no way for any voter to know if his or her vote was counted correctly."

http://home.earthlink.net/~acisney4/id19.html
"Among the files, Harris also found one titled “Rob Georgia,” which contained instructions for replacing voting system files for the 2002 congressional elections.

“I knew it was illegal because I had done enough research on how they do the certification,” Harris says. “Georgia had several upsets and was using 100 percent Diebold touchscreen machines. After seeing that file, I knew we had a problem.” ...

http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-nontech/200302/msg00021.html
Georgia: 22,000 Voting Machines Got a Program Fix, Right Before theElection

http://www.opednews.com/voting.htm
Did E-Vote Firm Patch Election?

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/02/09/voting_machines/index_np.html
Will the election be hacked?

http://www.larryflynt.com/notebook.php?id=27
Who's Counting Your Vote?

Nothing to see here. Move along. :wavey:

I TOLD YOU, Jason!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

PS: I love Larry Flynt. He's done some fabulous things for American politics. :thumbsup:

strandinthewind

05-27-2004, 09:34 AM

I TOLD YOU, Jason!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

PS: I love Larry Flynt. He's done some fabulous things for American politics. :thumbsup:

When did you tell me the voting machines could be hacked :shrug:

While Larry F. has indeed and the Diebold machines may be awful, Chambliss and Perdue's wins in GA were valid. Again, the exit polls correlate with the them. And, I am not going to argue the validity of their victories, my point was the vast majority of America was solidly behind W at this point in time and that included invading Iraq. Interestingly, up until we decided to invade Iraq, the UN was behind us too.

dissention

05-27-2004, 09:36 AM

AND it would have to be said with a South Ga accent

KAYMMMPPPPUH REEEEEEDUUUEEEMMMMMMMPPPPSSSHHHHHHHEEOOOONNNN!

by a lady in a cheap Chanel knock off suit with huge hair. :D

Ha. More like a spiffy Susan Graver on sale from QVC and permed hair with blue and gray accents.

"That there, uh, Booooosssshhhhh is one fi-en spec'men of mayn."

dissention

05-27-2004, 09:38 AM

When did you tell me the voting machines could be hacked :shrug:

While Larry F. has indeed and the Diebold machines may be awful, Chambliss and Perdue's wins in GA were valid. Again, the exit polls correlate with the them. And, I am not going to argue the validity of their victories, my point was the vast majority of America was solidly behind W at this point in time and that included invading Iraq. Interestingly, up until we decided to invade Iraq, the UN was behind us too.

Put down the dope! I was talking about Chris and her articles, dumbass! :laugh:

strandinthewind

05-27-2004, 09:44 AM

Put down the dope! I was talking about Chris and her articles, dumbass! :laugh:
Ah Ha!!!!!!! :sorry:

BTW - I, too, am appalled that there is no paper record of votes in Ga. I think they should make a paper print out of your vote and have you initial it before you leave. Or, keep the old punch card system and have it punch directly into the computer, etc. But, the non-accountability of the paperless system scares me, esp. considering it is not foolproof, etc.

Hippocampus

05-27-2004, 09:52 AM

There are MANY more - do a search on google and you will see. So, I guess France and Russia repeatedly agreed that SH had WMD for 11 or so years and then, in the final resolution, further agreed that he had WMD and unless he disarmed or prove that he had disarmed (a burden with which he calculatedly did not comply) or face serious consequences that everyone and their dog knew meant war. Then, I guess France and Russia suddenly changed their minds for no apparent reason when asked to perform on the resolution they agreed to. Hmmmm - could it be that they did not want egg on their face? I mean come on - again hate W all you want, I do too, but to say this is all his fault is rubbish and clearly not supported by the facts.

So these countries had oil contractors in Iraq which means their position in the final hour was solely based on greed? I find that to be a bit simplistic especially in light of the recommendations of the UN inspection teams. IMO, I don't think these articles prove anything in that regard and some of them are so biased that they cannot be taken seriously. This one is especially rich:

In a broader sense, the United States has a chance to show a doubting world how little money and oil mattered in our decision to invade Iraq. By refusing to regard Iraq's oil as patronage to be passed out to American companies and, equally, declining to honor Saddam's corrupt contracts, we can demonstrate a degree of selflessness which will stand in sharp contrast to the corrupt diplomacy of France and her friends.

That's propaganda for you. The righteous liberators are selling out the war to the public and dismissing the opposition as greedy nations with no morals. We know how it all turned out in the end... no WMDs, the liberation is a joke and the coalition is now in full control of the oil wells.

strandinthewind

05-27-2004, 09:57 AM

So these countries had oil contractors in Iraq which means their position in the final hour was solely based on greed? I find that to be a bit simplistic especially in light of the recommendations of the UN inspection teams. IMO, I don't think these articles prove anything in that regard and some of them are so biased that they cannot be taken seriously. This one is especially rich:

In a broader sense, the United States has a chance to show a doubting world how little money and oil mattered in our decision to invade Iraq. By refusing to regard Iraq's oil as patronage to be passed out to American companies and, equally, declining to honor Saddam's corrupt contracts, we can demonstrate a degree of selflessness which will stand in sharp contrast to the corrupt diplomacy of France and her friends.

That's propaganda for you. The righteous liberators are selling out the war to the public and dismissing the opposition as greedy nations with no morals. We know how it all turned out in the end... no WMDs, the liberation is a joke and the coalition is now in full control of the oil wells.

Whatever you want to believe you go right on ahead. But, you cannot negate the fact that SH sold oil at a discounted price to these people. I suppose he was doing that becuase he was a nice guy. You go right on ahead and think that if you want. I, of course, will never believe that :cool:

BTW - if we went there solely for oil, why did we give, not loan, Iraq billions of dollars. Hmm France and Russia loaned them the money. I mean I get that we should not have been so quick to go to Iraq. Time would have been our unbiased ally. But, to say W got on his horse and went into Iraq on a whim is just flat out and unequivocably wrong. Again, the WORLD thought he had WMD and that he was a threat.

strandinthewind

05-27-2004, 10:39 AM

Here is an article that is not exactly realted to this topic, but it illustrates my point of both R and D's are lying sacks of feces and they say and do whatever will get them elected even if they say the complete opposite thing the next time :rolleyes:

Thursday, May 27, 2004
By David Boaz

Republicans are criticizing a decorated Vietnam (search) veteran, Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry (search), while liberals are denouncing President Bush for avoiding service in what liberals called an illegal and immoral war.

That sort of reversal might seem odd if it wasn't so reminiscent of other partisan battles over the past decade. Washington has become mired in a Red Team-Blue Team battle that leads partisans on both sides into rank hypocrisy.

Just think back to the Clinton years: Conservatives used to think that sexual harassment laws were a good example of big government trying to regulate everything under the sun. Feminists, they thought, wanted to criminalize normal flirting and dating. Feminists pushed a law through Congress that allowed plaintiffs in a sexual harassment suit to examine the defendant's personal life in search of examples of similar behavior. It was the sort of thing that led Rush Limbaugh (search) to call them femi-Nazis.

Then Bill Clinton (search) -- who perhaps unwisely had signed that law -- was accused of making sexual advances to a low-level employee of the Arkansas state government when he was governor. Suddenly the conservatives were born-again femi-Nazis. Hang him, they said. It just can't be lawful for a powerful man to make a vulgar advance at a woman who works for him, however distantly. And then when the legal pursuit of that accusation uncovered a case of actual sexual involvement with a young woman in the White House, they were ready to lynch him.

And the feminists? Suddenly they discovered the virtues of laissez faire. Consenting adults, they said. Intrusive regulation, they cried. No one should be asked such questions, they insisted -- the questions they had earlier insisted powerful men must be asked in investigations of sexual harassment charges.

Would the switch be permanent? Would conservatives become the new avenging angels of shocked young ladies? Would feminists learn to say, "lighten up, flirting can be fun, women like sex, too, you know"?

It didn't take long to find out. When Arnold Schwarzenegger (search) was accused of serial groping in 2003, conservatives and feminists resumed their old positions. Feminists were shocked, shocked to discover that a powerful and testosterone-laden movie star had touched women without their consent. Republicans, meanwhile, tossed aside both their old traditional values and their newfound quasi-feminism to dismiss the charges. The allegations were old, they said, and they were just the women's word against Arnold's, and the women were Democrats, and besides, lighten up -- movie sets aren't Grandma's parlor.

Now we're seeing another example of the same Red Team-Blue Team partisanship on the issue of draft dodging in the 1960s. A dozen years ago Bill Clinton was the first Vietnam-era candidate for president. He famously evaded the draft, and conservatives and Republicans hammered him mercilessly for it. But Democrats, like wounded Vietnam veteran Sen. Bob Kerrey (search), defended Clinton, saying that Bush should "put the Vietnam memory behind us" and that politicians like Bush were responsible for the system that allowed privileged young men to duck military service. Voters didn't seem to mind whatever Clinton had done in his youth, as he defeated George Bush in 1992 and Bob Dole (search) in 1996, both of whom had served honorably in World War II.

But this year providence has delivered the Democrats a presidential candidate who had a sterling record in Vietnam -- three purple hearts, a Bronze Star, and a Silver Star. So liberals are badgering the younger George Bush about his own avoidance of Vietnam. For good measure, they've noted that Vice President Cheney (search) and other leading Republicans also managed to avoid the military when it counted. They're hammering away at the question of whether Bush showed up for National Guard duty in Alabama.

And the Republicans? They're not just dismissing Bush's service record as old news. With amazing chutzpah, they've gone on the attack against Kerry: Was he really wounded all that seriously? Did he leave Vietnam earlier than he should have? Did he lie about throwing away his medals when he got back?

It's Red Team-Blue Team time again. Liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans throw away their principles and policies at a moment's notice to help a particular candidate. Politics ain't beanbag, and I have nothing against attack ads. But such rapid switches of position make it hard to take these charges seriously.

David Boaz is executive vice president of the Cato Institute (www.cato.org) and author of "Libertarianism: A Primer."

from - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121029,00.html

dissention

05-27-2004, 11:05 AM

feces

OMG, that word is just sickening. :laugh: It sounds so disgusting (although not as offensive as the word Falwell). It's too clinical. Just like vagina. Ugh.

gldstwmn

05-27-2004, 11:24 AM

While all of that may be true:

1. Why has the national press not picked up on it

I am truly disappointed that I spent time researching this and you dismissed it out of hand without reading any of the articles I posted. To answer your question:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/15/opinion/15SUN1.html?ex=1085803200&en=e9e4bd2232dc6c11&ei=5070
How America Doesn't Vote

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0E12F935580C7A8EDDAB0894DC404482
Editorial Observer; The Results Are in and the Winner Is . . . or Maybe Not

Los Angeles Times, May 16, 2004 Sunday, Home Edition, CALIFORNIA; Metro; Metro Desk; Part B; Pg. 1, 1513 words, A Bad Run for Elections Firm; Diebold was on track to capitalize on electronic balloting. But March primary woes and civil, criminal probes have put its prospects at risk., Stuart Pfeifer, Times Staff Writer

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania), May 9, 2004 Sunday, FIVE STAR EDITION, Pg.A-10, 669 words, DOUBTS ON ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES; MANY OFFICIALS PULL BACK AFTER HEARING OF GLITCHES AND GOOFS, KAVAN PETERSON, STATELINE.ORG

The Denver Post, May 6, 2004 Thursday, FINAL EDITION, Pg. B-01, 484 words, State no closer to election safeguards "We can't trust results," critic says But Secretary of State Donetta Davidson says officials have no reason to doubt the security of electronic equipment., Susan Greene , Denver Post Staff Writer

The International Herald Tribune, May 5, 2004 Wednesday, FINANCE; Pg. 13, 824 words, A professor's pastime: hacking the voting system; Computer expert is Diebold's worst enemy, John Schwartz, BALTIMORE:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/12/10/hln.wired.voting.machines/index.html
E-voting: Yes or no?
High-tech methods examined at national conference
By Daniel Sieberg
CNN Headline News
Wednesday, December 10, 2003 Posted: 10:19 AM EST (1519 GMT)
Some benefits of high-tech voting are that it's easier for people with disabilities, potentially more cost-effective and there's minimization of errors.

(CNN) -- "The U.S. presidential election is less than a year away, but some tech experts have lingering and deep-rooted concerns about the way electronic voting is being handled.

In 2000, several counties used high-tech machines for the first time, such as touch screens, though most places still relied on punch card or paper ballots. During the 2002 election, an increasing number of counties deployed the automated machines, partly in response to the hanging chad debacle in Florida. For example, the entire state of Georgia used machines from a company called Diebold."

The Augusta Chronicle (Georgia), February 9, 2004 Monday,, FINAL EDITION, NEWS,, Pg. A01, 576 words, VOTERS HAVE CONFIDENCE IN MACHINES GEORGIA OFFICIALS CONSIDER GETTING SECURITY UPGRADE, Heidi Coryell Williams< Staff Writer

Palm Beach Post (Florida), January 22, 2004 Thursday, FINAL EDITION, Pg. 19A, 181 words, APOLOGIST FOR (AND OFFICER OF) DIEBOLD UNTRUSTWORTHY

The Seattle Times, December 30, 2003, Tuesday, Fourth Edition, ROP ZONE; Business;, Pg. C1, 484 words, Electronic-voting firm reveals hacker break-in, Monica Soto Ouchi; Seattle Times technology reporter

Austin American-Statesman (Texas), December 7, 2003, Sunday, News; Pg. A1, 1141 words, Fears hang like a chad over electronic voting systems, Scott Shepard, WASHINGTON BUREAU

Akron Beacon Journal (Ohio), November 5, 2003 Wednesday 4X EDITION, D; Pg. 1, 768 words, Diebold's machines embattled; Restraining order sought against firm. Calif. panel isn't giving certification, By Erika D. Smith; Beacon Journal staff writer

The Washington Post, September 28, 2003 Sunday, Final Edition, METRO; Pg. C08, 509 words, Ehrlich Seeks Probe Over Ballot Machines; Contractor, Reviewer Used Same Lobbyist, Ovetta Wiggins, Washington Post Staff Writer

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/05/13/dented.diebold.ap/index.html
Voting machine business stormy for Diebold

Plain Dealer (Cleveland, Ohio), August 20, 2003 Wednesday, Final / ALL, BUSINESS; Pg. C1, 281 words, Voting-software analyzer may have been biased, Alison Grant, Plain Dealer Reporter

Virginian-Pilot, August 18, 2003, Monday, VP-VOTING-MACHINES, 1148 words, Touch-Screen Voting Machines Criticized by Computer Scientists, By Christina Nuckols

Akron Beacon Journal (Ohio), August 15, 2003 Friday 4X EDITION, D; BRIEF; Pg. 1, 1815 words, E-voting becomes touchy topic; Concerns over security of Diebold system prompt legislators to take 2nd look, By Erika D. Smith; Beacon Journal staff writer

The Baltimore Sun, July 25, 2003 Friday, FINAL Edition, Pg. 1A, 1136 words, Defects reported in voting machines; Hopkins researchers say Md.'s electronic terminals are vulnerable to hackers, Michael Stroh

gldstwmn

05-27-2004, 11:28 AM

gldstwmn

05-27-2004, 11:33 AM

BTW - if we went there solely for oil, why did we give, not loan, Iraq billions of dollars. Hmm France and Russia loaned them the money.

Becasue it's a drop in the bucket compared to what the boys and their constituents are making off of Haliburton, Kellog Brown & Root, et al. Now we're running out of bullets. Someone will get paid a fortune to produce those in a hurry.

dissention

05-27-2004, 11:38 AM

Becasue it's a drop in the bucket compared to what the boys and their constituents are making off of Haliburton, Kellog Brown & Root, et al. Now we're running out of bullets. Someone will get paid a fortune to produce those in a hurry.

:nod: :nod: :nod:

Does anoyne here actually believe that ChimpCO and all the other war profiteers care what happens to the money that they use? I think not. They aren't the ones who are going to suffer the after effects of a huge deficit. Only us little peons will.

gldstwmn

05-27-2004, 11:44 AM

:nod: :nod: :nod:

Does anoyne here actually believe that ChimpCO and all the other war profiteers care what happens to the money that they use? I think not. They aren't the ones who are going to suffer the after effects of a huge deficit. Only us little peons will.

Cheney made more money from Haliburton last year than his vice presidential salary. His tax cut alone was half my yearly earnings. Think about that for a minute.

strandinthewind

05-27-2004, 12:30 PM

I did read those articles. My point was if it is so easy to prove that it happened, why has it not been proven? In other words, why has the State Attorney General of GA not investigated this. The State Attorney General of GA is a Democrat who has openly and with valour bucked our R govenor (who he apparently cannot stand) before and fought a law suit to resist the R Gov.'s pressure to drop and bring suits - his position Iwhich I think is correct)is he is an elected official and his office is indep. of the Gov - he does not take orders from the gov. like the appointed Ashcroft does from W. So, I just do not get that a provable conspiracy/malfeasance exists - I think he would have relished in finding and exposing it. Again, I think it is horrible that we are going paperless.

gldstwmn

05-27-2004, 04:23 PM

who advocated the war and said we did the right thing when interviewed by Congress after the initial invasion because SH had plants and other facilities that could have converted in a hurry to produce WMD. Next :wavey:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/29/iraq/main596595.shtml

Kay: 'We Were Almost All Wrong'

WASHINGTON, Jan. 28, 2004

Kay: Saddam Had No Weapons

(CBS/AP) Former top U.S. weapons inspector David Kay told members of the Senate Wednesday that the failure to turn up weapons of mass destruction in Iraq exposed weaknesses in America's intelligence-gathering apparatus.

"We've had a number of surprises," Kay told reporters after meeting behind closed doors with the Senate Intelligence Committee. "It's quite clear we need capabilities that we do not have with regard to intelligence."

Later, he told the Senate Armed Services Committee that "we were almost all wrong — and I certainly include myself here," in believing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

gldstwmn

05-27-2004, 04:24 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm

U.N.: Iraq had no WMD after 1994
By Bill Nichols, USA TODAY
UNITED NATIONS — A report from U.N. weapons inspectors to be released today says they now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994, according to two U.N. diplomats who have seen the document.
The historical review of inspections in Iraq is the first outside study to confirm the recent conclusion by David Kay, the former U.S. chief inspector, that Iraq had no banned weapons before last year's U.S-led invasion. It also goes further than prewar U.N. reports, which said no weapons had been found but noted that Iraq had not fully accounted for weapons it was known to have had at the end of the Gulf War in 1991.

Vianna

05-28-2004, 07:30 AM

a) I wish I thought Kerry could be elected. Unfortunately I perceive him as not being different enough from Bush to win. I'm really bummed about that. Bush is a disaster for this nation in more ways than one.

b) as to the current warning: "The sky is falling, the sky is falling !!!" as someone has already said. They keep "crying wolf" and nobody will believe it when the real thing does happen-if it does. It just makes sense to be concerned about huge public events such as the political conventions. No need to raise a big stir about it.

c)Bush lied about the WMD. Many people believed him because they did not use logic in evaluating the comment that SH had the weapons. Where would he get them, for instance? At one time the Russians were giving him stuff but that's was a long time ago, and I don't think they've given him anything since the first Gulf war. How would he make more if he used them, if, indeed, he had any? He doesn't have the technology to make them.

d) My theory on why he invaded Iraq? Poor Bushie was frustrated. He can't seem to find Osama so he invents this other thing so he can attack somebody, anybody, so he can get it out of his system. He probably did think SH encouraged terrorism. He's not known for his use of logic either.

e)Bush's support of these right wing born again Christian political groups scares me even more than the Iraq thing. These people are fanatics. I've nothing against born again Christians as people, I just don't think any religion should be mixed up in politics the way they are.

f) Iraq? We need to get out of there, as fast as we can. We shouldn't have gone in in the first place.

CarneVaca

05-28-2004, 08:43 AM

f) Iraq? We need to get out of there, as fast as we can. We shouldn't have gone in in the first place.

Vianna, I agree with just about everything you said. But I differ on one point: I don't believe going into Iraq was out of frustration. Rather, it was a calculated move by this administration, which was just waiting for an excuse to invade, and that is why they made a sloppy connection to the 9/11 attacks and conjured up fantasies about WMDs and cynical ploys to install democracy in a country where democracy is not likely to work any time soon.

Why invade Iraq? We can talk around it all we want, and there will always be apologists who claim it ain't true, but it's very clear: It's about the oil. By taking control of those oil fields and installing a puppet democracy, the neocons in government thought they would secure a relatively large supply of oil for years to come. This way, the companies whose main business revolves around oil wouldn't have to flip over backwards trying to figure out alternatives to oil. Let's keep in mind that oil isn't just used for heating and gasoline. It also is the basis for a mindboggling amount of products, particularly polymer-based products. Which, as an aside, always gives me a a bit of a chuckle. You know all those animal-rights people who think wearing leather is bad? Well, the subsitutes for leather are almost invariable made with oil products.

The fact is oil is a finite resource and no one knows how long it will last. Some scientists predict that the resource will peak in about 10 years, with a downward supply curve to follow. Some of the direst predictions have the supplies lasting not much more than another 70 years. Demand for oil in the US, meanwhile, is expected to double in years to come if we keep buying up SUVs and other low-MPG vehicles and relying so much on polymer-based products. Meanwhile in China, they are adding hundreds of thousands of cars yearly to their roads as that country hastens to catch up with "first world" economies.

These guys that got us into the Iraq war knew all this. How could they not? They were cynical and sinister in getting us into this misadventure. The problem is that their plan has not worked because they just assumed the Iraqis would roll over and die as we took control of their country--this despite all the warnings that what has actually been occurring would happen. They were too shortsighted and singular-minded to truly consider all the possibilities. They forgot the lessons of Vietnam, the British empire and countless other colonial adventures throughout history. Their recklessness is truly mindboggling at this point.

They are sinister bastards, it's true.

But what excuses John Kerry's support for the war and his subsequent insistence that we stay the course? At least I can understand the neocons' greed and shortsightedness. But Kerry? Really, the only explanation I can think of is that he and and rest of the Democratic establishment were playing politics during and after the Iraq war started. To be sure, that shouldn't be shocking. But it is disturbing. Disturbing because the Democrats and the Republicans are playing a game, a game so dangerous with such huge, complex implications that no one really wants to address but instead would rather totter around them and focus on the circus atmosphere of the here and now of presidential elections every four years.

I know people are going to jump to respond how Kerry is not as bad as Bush and we'll be better off, and Iraq will be handled better, and so forth. Maybe so. But there's absolutely no way that I will ever believe that Kerry's recipe for staying the course and bringing in the UN will work, especially since his approach to the Palestine issue at times seems to the right of Bush's. The road to Baghdad leads through Jerusalem. Muslim extremists are going to continue to opportunistically use our biased support of Israel against us. John Kerry is wrong about Palestine and he is wrong about Iraq. And next to the environment, I can't think of any other issue about which being wrong is more dangerous at this juncture. Some might say the economy is just as important, and that's correct to some extent. But the economy is intricately tied in with these issues and, therefore, whatever we do in these areas is also going to have a huge impact on the economy.

But as I've been saying lately, while we distract ourselves with the wars on the terrorism, the real and the fictional one, Mother Nature is gunninng for us. Some experts predict that within a decade or two there will be such fundamental climate changes that everything else we've been worrying about will pale in comparison.

Have a good day.

Vianna

05-28-2004, 01:48 PM

CarneVaca

05-28-2004, 02:28 PM

That's a good question. I'm sure there is an explanation specific to the Iraq situation and the unrest must play a significant part.

But, overall, cheap oil seems to be coming to an end. Part of it is that oil gets harder to find. For instance, in Canada, they have found immense fields, but the oil has to be extracted from a sandy substance through a very expensive process. It also carries a steep environmental cost. In the Gulf of Mexico, BP is drilling for oil in a recently discovered field. But the oil field is something like 4,000 to 5,000 miles below sea level. It's amazing they can get to it, but that's technology for you. Still, drilling for these very deep fields without completely ruining the Gulf of Mexico, then transporting and processing the oil is all very expensive. Siberia and a couple of the former Soviet Republics also have some large fields, as do a handful of African countries. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia's supply has been tapped quite extensively, and some experts are predicting that the supply from there may already have peaked.

So if I understand it correctly, and I'm no expert, the oil gets harder and more expensive to extract and process. Paying $2 to $3 a gallon is probably going to become the norm. Don't expect prices to drop that much unless the Russians start to produce like crazy, triggering a price war with OPEC. But even that would be shortsighted because it is a finite resource.

strandinthewind

05-28-2004, 03:06 PM

My question then becomes, why has this misadventure in Iraq not gotten us cheaper oil? If the invasion was to make our oil supply secure, why are gas prices what they are-it's insane down here in DC what those prices are. I am assuming OPEC is holding out on us, but I read somewhere-Time maybe or Newsweek that our conquering Iraq makes us sort of honorary memebers of OPEC-is there any truth in this? Why can't we bring down the price of crude oil over there if we are in charge? I really don't get it...

That is because, with respect, you are incorrect is assuming that is the sole reason we went to Iraq, just ask Bill Clinton and John Kerry ;)

Seriously, China is consuming more oil that expected right now and for the foreseeable future. The demand is exceeding the supply. SO, the prices are going up. And - its not just oil, it is many other commercial commodities.

Johnny Stew

05-28-2004, 03:12 PM

But as I've been saying lately, while we distract ourselves with the wars on the terrorism, the real and the fictional one, Mother Nature is gunninng for us. Some experts predict that within a decade or two there will be such fundamental climate changes that everything else we've been worrying about will pale in comparison.

Silly man... that wasn't an actual news report on climate changes you were watching, it was an extended trailer for 'The Day After Tomorrow.' ;)

dissention

05-28-2004, 03:15 PM

That is because, with respect, you are incorrect is assuming that is the sole reason we went to Iraq, just ask Bill Clinton and John Kerry ;)

Bill Clinton has nothing to do with this. Stop with the freeper tactics, babe.

strandinthewind

05-28-2004, 03:30 PM

Bill Clinton has nothing to do with this. Stop with the freeper tactics, babe.

Bless your heart, it is hard to hear you over me playing the audio tape of Clinton and Kerry giving full support for the invasion of Iraq by W - all they perhaps argued against was the way W did it. So, if W went solely for oil, then the past and immediate head of the D party is right there with him. Any more questions? :shrug: :cool:

dissention

05-28-2004, 04:16 PM

Bless your heart, it is hard to hear you over me playing the audio tape of Clinton and Kerry giving full support for the invasion of Iraq by W - all they perhaps argued against was the way W did it. So, if W went solely for oil, then the past and immediate head of the D party is right there with him. Any more questions? :shrug: :cool:

It's hard for you to understand that Bill Clinton had no influence in the invasion of Iraq or its policies. He didn't vote on it, he had nothing to do with it and you know it. But, of course, you'll bring up his Iraq regime change policy, which I've already told you you've interpreted the wrong way.

gldstwmn

05-28-2004, 04:33 PM

That is because, with respect, you are incorrect is assuming that is the sole reason we went to Iraq, just ask Bill Clinton and John Kerry ;)

Seriously, China is consuming more oil that expected right now and for the foreseeable future. The demand is exceeding the supply. SO, the prices are going up. And - its not just oil, it is many other commercial commodities.

Like concrete.

strandinthewind

05-28-2004, 05:13 PM

It's hard for you to understand that Bill Clinton had no influence in the invasion of Iraq or its policies. He didn't vote on it, he had nothing to do with it and you know it. But, of course, you'll bring up his Iraq regime change policy, which I've already told you you've interpreted the wrong way.

Sighes - revisionist historian is what you are :laugh: Do I have to haul out that Larry King interview where Pres. Clinton said invading Iraq to remove SH was the right thing to do :cool: Seriously, I am not saying W only did it because Clinton said it was okay or that, unlike Kerry who voted for it (before he voted against it :laugh: ), Clinton had any say in it or significant effect over W's decision at all. I was responding to Vianna's (who I like and respect :wavey: :cool: ) allegation that W went to war solely solely for oil. I pointed out that if that is true, then Clinton and Kerry (even more so) fully supported invading Iraq solely for oil. I mean Vianna's point was the whole WMD thing was a charade and patently false on its face. So, that means that Clinton and Kerry and Bush all lied and went in solely for oil. I was making this conclusion to point out that oil clearly was not the only reason we went. Once again, we went because for 11 or more years, the world thought SH had WMD, etc., and the world ordered him to disarm or prove he had disarmed, which he never did. So, I conclude this whole W went to war on a false pretense so we should elect a D because they WOULD NEVER EVER have done THAT - just BS, esp. considering in 98 Kerry, the presumptive D candidate, called for military action in 98 and gave W carte blanche to do so. Any questions? :cool:

strandinthewind

05-28-2004, 05:14 PM

Like concrete.

and steel. China will probably be by far the world's largest industrial nation in a decade if it keeps this pace up.

gldstwmn

05-30-2004, 04:27 PM

and steel. China will probably be by far the world's largest industrial nation in a decade if it keeps this pace up.

Pretty frightening, isn't it?

gldstwmn

05-30-2004, 04:30 PM

I was responding to Vianna's (who I like and respect :wavey: :cool: ) allegation that W went to war solely solely for oil. :

Apparently he just wanted Saddam's pistol:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&e=1&u=/ap/bush_saddam_s_gun

Bush Keeps Saddam's Pistol As Trophy

WASHINGTON - President Bush keeps in his White House offices a trophy of one his high points in the Iraq war, the pistol that Saddam Hussein held when soldiers pulled him from his underground hideaway.

Military specialists mounted the sidearm, and soldiers who helped in the deposed Iraqi president's capture presented it to the president, the White House said Sunday. The president keeps the gun in a small study adjoining the Oval Office.

"The president was proud of the performance and bravery of our armed forces and was honored to receive it on behalf of the troops involved in the operation," said White House spokesman Jim Morrell.

Maj. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander of 4th Infantry Division, said the Saddam had the loaded pistol on his lap but didn't move to use it against the Americans who surprised him in what the military described as a spider hole near his hometown, Tikrit, on Dec. 13.

Soldiers from Odierno's division conducted the raid that ended Saddam's seven months on the run.

Time magazine first reported the story in its edition on newsstands Monday.

DeeGeMe

05-30-2004, 06:21 PM

Apparently he just wanted Saddam's pistol:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&e=1&u=/ap/bush_saddam_s_gun

Bush Keeps Saddam's Pistol As Trophy

WASHINGTON - President Bush keeps in his White House offices a trophy of one his high points in the Iraq war, the pistol that Saddam Hussein held when soldiers pulled him from his underground hideaway.

Military specialists mounted the sidearm, and soldiers who helped in the deposed Iraqi president's capture presented it to the president, the White House said Sunday. The president keeps the gun in a small study adjoining the Oval Office.

"The president was proud of the performance and bravery of our armed forces and was honored to receive it on behalf of the troops involved in the operation," said White House spokesman Jim Morrell.

Maj. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander of 4th Infantry Division, said the Saddam had the loaded pistol on his lap but didn't move to use it against the Americans who surprised him in what the military described as a spider hole near his hometown, Tikrit, on Dec. 13.

Soldiers from Odierno's division conducted the raid that ended Saddam's seven months on the run.

Time magazine first reported the story in its edition on newsstands Monday.
Sweet Jesus--knowing how stupid our unelected leader-in-chief is, that's probably the real reason why we invaded Iraq-so Bushie boy could get really cool souveniers!