'President Bush You Killed My Son'

[heyjupiter678]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

I also think to say this is a "holy" war is incorrect. I would never bring any sort of Godly connotation into it, then you're asking for more trouble.

Well, Bush said that God told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and so he did. He's the one that brought the godly connotation into it.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

I was just responding to the articles in general. I didnt realize a question had been asked. At any rate...I am anti war myself. I also think to say this is a "holy" war is incorrect. I would never bring any sort of Godly connotation into it, then you're asking for more trouble. But I also feel that bringing down someone like Hussein is a good thing. The people in the Middle East are suffering and have been for many many years. It would be a shame for us, the most privelged nation on earth, to sit idly by while Hussein not only threatens us but his own people as well. The world is and will be a better place because of what has been accomplished there. Imagine how badly things might have gone if Bush had chosen to NOT invade? Imagine what things could have happened to this nation? I know "what ifs" come into play quite often and then its a question of semantics. Whether Bush went about it the right way or not IS perhaps in question. But I do feel choosing to stop Hussein and terrorist organizations is the right thing to do. I'm not condoning the war, and I'm not supporting it either. Which may be even worse that choosing a "side"...

Don't take my word for it - do a google search for Bush, Holy War, Iraq, etc., and you can read it from his own lips. AND - it really is not a holy war to stop all terrorists, it is a holy war against Muslims because I have yet to see the WH raise a hand to Christian terrorist groups like the Klan, the countless Christian ministers who have proclaimed all Muslims the enemy, etc.

Also, please tell me exactly how SH was a direct threat to us as W asserted as justification for the invasion? Almost everyone except W now admits SH had no WMD and the intelligence was wrong - and yet the current WH said they knew where they were and SH had ready access to them. Thus, a lie. Then, the WH said SH was trying to build a nuclear bomb - this was based on evidence that they knew was a lie BEFORE W asserted it as a fact in his State of the Union address. Then, we rush to war without a plan to win the peace, with far less troops than just about every military advisor said was necessary, an inadequately trained National Guard that subsequently abused prisoners, an inadequately protected military (their relatives or they had to buy them additional protection, Humvees were not adequately bulletproofed, etc.). All of that is a fact. AND - all of this is while Iran and N. Korea actually have intact nuclear programs if not the actual bombs. But, they can fight back as opposed to SH - which I assert was a comparable turkey shoot.

In any event, to answer your question about what would have happened had we waited to invade Iraq, well:

1. The UN inspectors, like the subsequent US inspectors, would have determined that there were no WMD and loose programs that with a little effort possibly could have been converted to possible WMD programs, which hardly constitutes the direct and exigent threat W relied on to rush to war.

2. THOUSANDS of lives probably would have been saved by avoiding this unnecessary war - and we though SH was ruthless

3. The world would not hold us in contempt for lying to rush to war without the UN's consent.

Now - I will fully agree SH brought this on himself and his people by refusing until the end to cooperate with the 1991 accord that he prove he had disarmed. But, in the end he was cooperating and W would have none of it and when the world did not buy the actual evidence, which was not that strong and based on criminals as we later found out, he like a snotty nosed pugnacious spoiled brat lied to get his way and now tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, the very people we were trying to protect, are dead and/or wounded, over 1,000 U.S. soldiers are dead with countless wounded, the WH's own intelligence suggested last week that Iraq will be in a state of violent chaos for who knows how long, and the world hates us even more.

In fact, the only people who benefited from this have been the payees of Halliburton, who have made collectively hundreds of millions.

It disgusts me - period. AND - if we follw your logic, let's go right now into China, North Korea, Iran, The Sudan, and about 500 other countries AND let's rid ourselves of the Const. protections offorded to the Christian U.S. organizations that foster hate if not promote all out terrorism through hate crimes. When that is brought up, suddenly everyone is silent

[mylittledemon]

I was saying I would not use the word "holy" war if I was Bush. That would be an "incorrect" thing to do. I wasnt saying that you were misquoting. I didnt make myself clear there.

As for your commments about the radical "Christian" groups...the reason nothing is done is because no one cares. No one will ever care, and these things continue to happen because this world is in a downward spiral. There are more "important" things going on in the world rather than trying to uproot supposed Christian organizations who proclaim Muslims as infidels. thats the way people think. It's a constant state of apathy and I dont think we'll recover from it.

And for Saddam Hussein...do you HONESTLY believe that he is not a threat to the known world? If you say no to that, then you're blind to whats going on over there. I believe a dictator should always be torn down.

Lastly, I don't feel that the US needs to answer to the UN. In my opinion, consenting to the UN's wishes will be the beginning of a weaker America in which politicians will become puppets. (Ahem, JOHN KERRY!) Moreso than they already are. I'm not supporting Bush here either, he's screwed up quite grand I might say.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

And for Saddam Hussein...do you HONESTLY believe that he is not a threat to the known world? If you say no to that, then you're blind to whats going on over there. I believe a dictator should always be torn down.

Well, then let's get rid of them all starting with N. Korea. That will NEVER happen for a variety of reasons one of which is they can actually fight back.

And - I am not the one saying SH was not a threat - the facts say that. If you know of different facts and/or facts that suggest as W stated that we had no choice but to go to war because SH was a direct and exigent threat, let's see them. I submit there are none to justify the rush to war before the UN inspections ended.

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

Lastly, I don't feel that the US needs to answer to the UN. In my opinion, consenting to the UN's wishes will be the beginning of a weaker America in which politicians will become puppets. (Ahem, JOHN KERRY!) Moreso than they already are. I'm not supporting Bush here either, he's screwed up quite grand I might say.

True - and many Presidents have ignored it. BUT, the US put the Iraq situation squarely before the UN in 1991 and W sought its approval starting in 2001. When he did not get it and when the UN offered a viable alternate plan than immediate war (wait a few months for the inspections to end) - W could not be bothered and reasserted the lies to rush to war - all of which have been proven to be lies

I am not making this up - I wish I were - but I am not

[strandinthewind]

from www.nytimes.com

OP-ED COLUMNIST
No Stars, Just Cuffs
By MAUREEN DOWD

Published: September 19, 2004

WASHINGTON — In World Wars I and II, gold star mothers were the queens of their neighborhoods, the stars in their windows ensuring that they would be treated with great respect for their sacrifice in sending sons overseas to fight and die against the Germans and Japanese.

Instead of a gold star, Sue Niederer, 55, of Hopewell, N.J., got handcuffed, arrested and charged with a crime for daring to challenge the Bush policy in Iraq, where her son, Army First Lt. Seth Dvorin, 24, died in February while attempting to disarm a bomb.

She came to a Laura Bush rally last week at a firehouse in Hamilton, N.J., wearing a T-shirt that blazed with her agony and anger: "President Bush You Killed My Son."

Mrs. Niederer tried to shout while the first lady was delivering her standard ode to her husband's efforts to fight terrorism. She wanted to know why the Bush twins weren't serving in Iraq "if it's such a justified war," as she put it afterward. The Record of Hackensack, N.J., reported that the mother of the dead soldier was boxed in by Bush supporters yelling "Four more years!" and wielding "Bush/Cheney" signs. Though she eventually left voluntarily, she was charged with trespassing while talking to reporters.

The moment was emblematic of how far the Bushies will go to squelch any voice that presents a view of Iraq that's different from the sunny party line, which they continue to dish out despite a torrent of alarming evidence to the contrary.

Aside from moms who are handcuffed at Bush events and the Jersey 9/11 moms who are supporting John Kerry after growing disillusioned with White House attempts to suppress the 9/11 investigation, the president is doing very well with women. The so-called security moms, who have replaced soccer moms as a desirable demographic, are now flocking to Mr. Bush over Mr. Kerry, believing he can better protect their kids from scary terrorists.

In the new Times poll, 48 percent of women supported the president, compared with Mr. Kerry's 43 percent - a reversal from July, when Mr. Kerry had the women's vote 52 to 40 percent. This is an ominous sign for the Democrat, who lost his gender gap advantage after his listless summer and the G.O.P.'s convention swagger.

How did the president who has caused so much insecurity in the world become the hero of security moms? He was, after all, in charge when Al Qaeda struck, and he was the one to send off Mrs. Niederer's son and other kids to die in a war sold on a false premise. And that conflict has, despite what Mr. Bush claims, spurred more acts of terror and been a recruiting bonanza for Osama bin Laden.

In the Times poll, half of all registered voters said they had a lot of confidence in Mr. Bush's ability to protect the nation from another terrorist attack, compared with 26 percent who felt that way about Mr. Kerry.

While Mr. Bush managed to duck service in Vietnam and let Osama get away, he has been relentless in John Wayning the election and turning war hero John Kerry into a sniveling wimp.

Last week, Mr. Kerry finally tried to change the subject from Mr. Bush's mockery of Mr. Kerry's tortuous stances on Iraq to the awful reality of what's happening in Iraq.

He got an assist from the president's own intelligence community, which issued a gloomy report that gave the lie to the administration's continued insistence that Iraq is a desert flower of democracy.

This was followed by a report by Charles A. Duelfer, the top American weapons inspector in Iraq, that found no evidence that Iraq had begun any large-scale program for weapons production by the time of the American invasion last year. To rationalize its idée fixe on Iraq, the administration squandered 15 months, with 1,200 people - at a time when our scarce supply of Arabic experts should have been focused on the Iraqi insurgency and Al Qaeda - just to figure out that Saddam would have loved to have dangerous weapons if he could have, but he couldn't, so he didn't.

Even with the help of his new Clintonistas, Mr. Kerry is nibbling around the edges of the moral case against W(rong) and Dark Cheney. He charged that the president was living in "a fantasy world of spin" on Iraq.

But the Bushies are way beyond spin, which is a staple of politics. These guys are about turning the world upside down, and saying it's right side up. And that should really give security moms the jitters.

[strandinthewind]

Speaking of W and his God given fantasy world

Bush 'pleased with the progress' in Iraq
President says 'free Iraq' possible, despite intelligence report

KENNEBUNKPORT, Maine (CNN) -- In a phone interview with a newspaper, President Bush played down a U.S. intelligence forecast painting a pessimistic picture for the future of Iraq, including the suggestion that civil war could erupt there.

The National Intelligence Estimate was sent to the White House in July with a classified warning predicting that the best case for Iraq was "tenuous stability" and the worst case was civil war, a source confirmed to CNN. (Intelligence report: Iraq prospects bleak)

The 50-page report, completed in July, was commissioned internally within the intelligence community and contained classified and declassified portions.

President Bush talked about the report in an interview published Saturday by The Union Leader of Manchester, New Hampshire.

"The Iraqis are defying the dire predictions of a lot of people by moving toward democracy," Bush told the paper. "It's hard to get to democracy from tyranny. It's hard work. And yet, it's necessary work. But it's necessary work because a democratic Iraq will make the world a freer place and a more peaceful place.

"I'm pleased with the progress," Bush said. "It's hard. Don't get me wrong. It's hard because there are some in Iraq who want to disrupt the election and disrupt the march to democracy, which should speak to their fear of freedom."

The president described the best-case scenario for Iraq as "elections and a free Iraq emerging."

"But I fully understand how hard it is for democracy to grow in a country that has been under a leader that tortured and killed and maimed his people," he said.

On Thursday, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry told members of the National Guard Association of the United States meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada, that Bush knows "the mission in Iraq is in serious trouble."

"That is the truth, as hard as it is to bear," Kerry said. "I believe you deserve a president who isn't going to gild that truth or gild our national security with politics, who is not going to ignore his own intelligence, who isn't going to live in a different world of spin, who will give the American people the truth, not a fantasy world of spin."

Kerry, the junior senator from Massachusetts, said he still believes "it's not too late to turn things around" in Iraq.

Kerry said he would bring in more allies to help train Iraqi forces so that U.S. troops could come home.

Kerry voted for a congressional resolution authorizing Bush to use military force in Iraq but said that if he had been commander in chief, he would have made vastly different decisions with that authority.

"When it comes to Iraq, it's not that I would have done just one thing differently," Kerry said. "I would have done almost everything differently."

CNN's Suzanne Malveaux contributed to this report.

Find this article at:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLIT...raq/index.html

AND PEOPLE WANT TO VOTE FOR THIS TWIT

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

I
And for Saddam Hussein...do you HONESTLY believe that he is not a threat to the known world? If you say no to that, then you're blind to whats going on over there. I believe a dictator should always be torn down.

Well, ****, we've got one right off the coast of Florida. Let's go. It'd be a hell of a lot less expensive than the Iraq war. The DOD gets ot conduct their war games and everybody's happy. [/sarcasm]
We had Saddam boxed in pretty damn good. He wasn't about to harm anyone. Instead, we've turned a stable dictatoship into an unstable cesspool that's about to descend into civil war, whether we are prsent or not. We're losing and our fearless leader has no, I repeat NO plan on getting us out. On the contrary, military bases are being constructed for our long term presence. And for what I ask you? To depose some third rate gang banger?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Well, ****, we've got one right off the coast of Florida. Let's go. It'd be a hell of a lot less expensive than the Iraq war. The DOD gets ot conduct their war games and everybody's happy.
We had Saddam boxed in pretty damn good. He wasn't about to harm anyone. Instead, we've turned a stable dictatoship into an unstable cesspool that's about to descend into civil war, whether we are prsent or not. We're losing and our fearless leader has no, I repeat NO plan on getting us out. On the contrary, military bases are being constructed for our long term presence. And for what I ask you? To depose some third rate gang banger?

Again, from what I can see, Halliburton is the ONLY person or entity to profit from this - well, I guess removing an enemy of the Saudi's and it not costing them a dime or life, which also will bring Halliburton money, counts as well.

They make me sick - all of them.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

I was saying I would not use the word "holy" war if I was Bush.

Day late and a dollar short. Maybe you can email that suggestion to him. I doubt it will help though. He thinks he's been put here to bring on the rapture.

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Again, from what I can see, Halliburton is the ONLY person or entity to profit from this - well, I guess removing an enemy of the Saudi's and it not costing them a dime or life, which also will bring Halliburton money, counts as well.

They make me sick - all of them.

60+ miles from our home to Duncan, OK you will see the heart of the cesspool corporation that is known as Halliburton...Seems Halliburton was founded in Duncan (Saw a statue of their founder in the city park, Thought I would projectile puke on the steering wheel as I drove by) and the people of Duncan love to kiss their "oily/greased" asses.

Glad I wasnt hired for a job down there by an unrelated small retail company, cause that town made me ill by the number of places/things/etc named for that cesspool corporation.

Brian j.

[irishgrl]

Jason, do you recall our discussion on the BN board where I said THERE the same thing you are saying HERE? interesting...

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Jason, do you recall our discussion on the BN board where I said THERE the same thing you are saying HERE? interesting...

I am so not getting into it again with you - because you can never ever admit being wrong and get nasty when called out

I said the same thing here as I said there - After 9/11 the US could no longer afford to let a terrorist like SH linger in limbo and in defiance of the 1991 and sebsequent UN Resolutions - and this was true even though SH had nothing to do with 9/11. He had mild ties to Al-Q and other terrorists groups, he had invaded other countries, gassed his own people, etc. So, he was a risk and he would not let anyone know whether he still had the capability to be a threat. Thus, W's logic (and Clinton and Kerry's logic BTW) is true up to this point and the UN agreed with it with that final Resolution 1441, which can be found here http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm - and which found Iraq in material breach of its UN imposed duty or face serious consequences.

My problem is W could not sell immediate war with this, so he lied to get his way and he has made a mess of it to say the least. I never said anything differently than that. If I did, let's see it