transfer from Rumors Board - Stevie and Lindsey for Kerry
 

Point of Order :wavey:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources say military is mapping operation to strike inside Pakistan

By Christine Spolar
Tribune foreign correspondent
Published January 28, 2004

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Joe

The Draft Question
 

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

"the nation must be prepared to conduct a draft"

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

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

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

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

This site also has excellent links to document their position.

Re: The Draft Question
 

That website needs to get their facts straight.

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

Re: Re: The Draft Question
 

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

Re: Re: Re: The Draft Question
 

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

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

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

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Draft Question
 

The bill that they introduced is dead. The Bush administration are the ones pushing for the draft boards, not the Dems.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Draft Question
 

Someone posted the link bushdraft.com as evidence that he wants to reinstate the draft, and they had those bills as "proof." That's what chapped my arse. I don't care if the bills are dead or not, it's false information.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Draft Question
 

No, I said "This site also has excellent links to document their position." What's false about that?

The rest of the page reads:

"Articles about the recruitment drive for draft board workers can be found here

A Copy of the DefendAmerica page

Bush drives to fill draft board positions
Draft Board Vacancies Prompt Questions of a Draft
Is the Draft on the Drawing Boards?
Talk of a Draft Grows
Will US Bring Back the Draft
Selective Service Notice Spurs Worries about Draft
US Raises Spectre of Conscription
Will Bush Reinstate The Draft?
Appeal for Draft Board Volunteers Revives Memories of Vietnam"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Draft Question
 

I wasn't referring to you in my post. I meant the bushdraft site linked to the Democrat-sponsored Senate and House bills, when the site, as I understood it, was documenting Bush's action to bring back the draft. It was not Bush who began the legislation, so I felt that information was misleading. Sorry I didn't articulate my point more clearly.

And the page I was looking at was this: http://www.bushdraft.com/proof.html

That's where I got the Senate/House stuff. I apologize if that wasn't the page you were referring to.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Draft Question
 

Since when does a president introduce legislation?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Draft Question
 

Never. I was just saying that the site doesn't need to use Democrat introduced bills as evidence that Bush is wanting to reinstate the draft. It's confusing and misleading. And you pointed out that they bills are dead, and the site says they are "currently in Congress." I just don't get why those proposed bills are even ON the site. They don't belong there.

This got waaay too confusing. :wavey:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Draft Question
 

It points out on the site further down in the referneces that the bill is dead. They are on there in reference to this statement: "There are also CURRENTLY bills in the Senate and in the house that, if passed, will make military service a requirement for all men, women (including college students) between the age of 18 and 25."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Draft Question
 

I don't see that on the page I am viewing. But my whole point is that they shouldn't have been on there in the first place, which obviously, I didn't state very well. :laugh:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Draft Question
 

If you look at when the bill was introduced, about a year ago, then I think the motive is clear. The bill states that ALL men and WOMEN ages 18-25 should be eleigible for military service. What was getting ready to happen a year ago? Who has two daughters that would be eligible?
In short, while Rangel continues to support this, I believe the others introduced it to send a message to the Oval Ofiice that, if you're going to start a war, then you'd better be willing to send everybody's kids, including your own. JMO.:)

If by "doing something right," you mean lying to American citizens (and the world), getting our young men and women killed while carrying out his family's vendettas, and denying American citizens their right to marry whomever they choose... among countless other things... then yep, he's doing a bang-up job! :laugh:

But you know I love ya, Joe! :nod: :wavey:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Draft Question
 

Touche. :)

Brian, I just don't agree with your assessment of the President. As for your first point about the President "lying", I would suggest this read:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...sprj.nirq.kay/

"It was the consensus among the intelligence agencies that Iraq had such weapons that led Bush to conclude that it posed an imminent threat that justified the U.S.-led invasion, Kay said.

"I actually think the intelligence community owes the president rather than the president owing the American people," he said.

"We have to remember that this view of Iraq was held during the Clinton administration and didn't change in the Bush administration," Kay said.

END QUOTE

And to think that the President of the U.S would send in American soldiers, risking their lives, for a personal vendetta is just incredulous to me. I'm sorry, I just cannot buy that one. You'll never convince me that a president of this country, whether he's Republican, Democrat, liberal or conservative would be THAT cold hearted.

As far as denying American citizens their right to marry, you need to look a little further than Bush. It seems to be a very popular opinion held by most citizens in this country. Clinton himself signed the "Defense Of Marriage Act" AND John Kerry does not believe in gay marriage either.

I myself am a very strong supporter of gay "civil unions".

As for the last comment in your post, right back at ya! :)



Joe

I'm still not sure how anyone believes the "Powers That Be" still thought they'd find WMDs there.
Doesn't anyone remember the months and months the UN inspectors searched Iraq, and came up with absolutely nothing... before the current administration insisted they did indeed have them, and we must send troops in?

So do we believe that we were lied to, or merely that they're just that foolish?
Either way, it's not a very flattering commentary on the current presidency.

I also realize that gay marriages aren't "widely" supported... and I was extremely disappointed that Clinton signed the Defense Of Marriage act. But I think Bush's "save marriage" battle-cries are even more offensive, because he's making himself look like some sort of hero, who's going to save the sacred institution of marriage from all of the deviant, immoral, homosexual sinners, who are out to pervert it and make a mockery of it.
And, quite honestly, that offends me.

If they wish to only allow "civil unions," so be it... I can live with that. But I don't appreciate being told that what I am, is something that should be equated with perversion and sin... and something that the good, upstanding, moralled citizens of the USofA need protecting from.

This affects my future and the futures of many of my friends, and I'm sorry, but this is just a subject I can't be dispassionate about.

I do remember that there was a general feeling that the inspectors were being given the run-around. Everyone believed Saddam had them, and if he didn't have them any longer, he wasn't forthcoming on what he did with them. He provided no documentation or proof of what happened to them. Once again, the intelligence indicated that he had them. At least that's the way I'm taking what's being reported in the news now.


Actually I think it's his job to uphold the laws of the land as president. Like it or not the "Defense Of Marriage Act" is a law signed by William Jefferson Clinton himself. I don't believe George Bush has ever said anything to give one the impression that he believes homosexuals are sinners, deviant, and immoral. But I definitely understand how you would feel with the likes of Pat Robertson close by. I do feel your pain.


Joe

Name it, funny guy.

We are living in New Roman Times. If you don't know what happened to the Romans, you'd better bone up now. It might give you some clues to prepare for what's to come.

No world power ever lasts forever, and we ain't any different. The Romans, the Ottomans, the Brits, Spain, the Chinese dinasties, the Nazis, Genghis Kahn, etc., all thought they could rule the world (or what they perceived as "the world"). Can't be done, not even through corporations. Our undoing will be our perpetual misunderstanding of the Muslim world and the extremist contingent that's causing most of our problems. We have the technology but they have the numbers. Look back at history and you will see that the most technically advanced societies invariably failed and got embroiled in conflicts in which they repeatedly underestimated their enemies.

I hate to bring you this piece of bad news, but hey, don't shoot the messenger.

Re: Re: The Draft Question
 

I see the the Democrats support of the draft is an attempt to discredit and take down W. I think few would be so gung ho on the war if they were faced with a draft. But, that is my opinion - others may differ. Also, Rumsfeld has repeatedly stated, and correctly so IMO, that an army of volunteers performs better than an army of draftees. So, despite the current talk of reinstating the draft after the election (assuming a win by W), I remain skeptical.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Draft Question
 

????? All Presidents introduce legislation r at least sed bills to Congress. Don't you remeber Michael Douglas in the "The American President" syig "I am dending a bill to Congress that calls for a ban on all assault weapons . . . . " :cool:

Only in Mass. and since the Goodrich decision does the right for homosexuals to "marry" exist in any state and then only under the Mass. Const., not the U.S. Const. This could change if the state legilature amends the Mass Const.

Also, the statement "American citizens their right to marry whomever they choose" implies support for polygamy. I mean in theory why are gay rights more important that the rights of polygamists to coose without govt. interference? That is why I say the govt. should not sanction marriage in any way, shape or form. Leave it to the churches! :cool:

Also, I believe the Defense of Mariage Act, which interestingly enough Kerry did not sign because he believed it was a hate filled wedge issue, only prohibits one state from having to recognize the validity of a non one man and one woman marriage from a sister state as all states would be required to do under the "good faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Const. and related U.S. Sup. Ct. decisions.

More religious zealot CRAP from R's and D's.!!!!!

Gays lose challenge to Florida adoption ban
Wednesday, January 28, 2004 Posted: 8:24 PM EST (0124 GMT)

MIAMI, Florida (AP) -- Four gay men lost a federal challenge Wednesday to the only blanket state law banning homosexuals from adopting children, a statute passed at the height of Anita Bryant's anti-homosexual campaign.

full story at http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/28/ga....ap/index.html

:rolleyes:

He lost him. OBL was trapped in a cave and they let him escape.

And Daddy Bush was having breakfast with the Bin Laden's the morning of 9/11. ;)

My word.

Our country is split down the middle when it comes to gay marriage. Bush has turned it into a religious thing when it ISN'T. He has no right to ammend our Constitution to further his religious views. I find it insulting, offensive, and despicable.

Clinton wasn't much better about gay marriage.

As for John Kerry, get your facts straight. His personal belief is that he isn't for gay marriages, but he's clarified that as his personal belief. He isn't for using the government to prevent people from marrying. Personally, he doesn't like it, but he said he won't use his personal beliefs to support legislation that discriminates against it.

Amazing post, Johnny. Very heartfelt and so true. :nod: :D Maybe you should move to MA in four months when gay marriage will be legal. ;) They already have some marriage cruises planned! :)

And I remember Kay saying that Saddam was taking steps to comply with the resolutions. Then ChimpCo pounced on him.

The thing that mystifies me about your position is that you don't seem to believe that ChimpCo should be held accountable for the faulty intel (if that's what it was and not complete fabrication like the African uranium joke). It is THEIR JOB to dig around and make abolutely sure that the intel was good. Instead, the supposedly just took it at face value. That makes the alarms go crazy because it shows they didn't do their job.

Blaming all of this on the intel communit is offensive. This admin takes no responsibility for anything it does. None at all.

If two people love each other and they want to marry, why have legislation to prevent them from doing so on the basis of their sexuality?