Bush Speech

[biker]

Without waiting for the pundits to weigh in, my opinion is that this was a very good speech.

Especially at the end: "Our enemies are brutal. But they are no match for the men and women of the US military."

[citymouse]

While that may be true, speeches don't bring back the dead boys and girls or stop their mothers from crying.
It's not very comforting to know that your child died freeing a people who use that same said freedom to kill somebody elses kid with a road side bomb.
Kind of takes the glory out of it.

[biker]

Those brave men and women died protecting America from an evil which will visit our shores again if it's not eradicated.

[Chancellor Qu'noH]

Freedom isn't free! It has always been and always will be payed for in Blood.

If we were not over there do you think for one minute they would not be over here. Now I do not agree with the methods they are using but fighting them outside of our borders is much more perferable.

Ok Dove's its open season..... I am not a war monger, But I do certainly believe their is a line you cross and get you *ss kicked. Also that this country sould be doing '' A LOT" more of it!

[biker]

During last year's Presidential campaign, the main stream media was all giggly over those surveys saying most Americans didn't support the war in Iraq. They must've had a new one every week.

Every time, I wondered how many of the "don't approve" were those who thought we weren't aggressive enough?

How many thought we should have finished the job in Fallujah in April instead of pulling the Marines out?

So, if you combine the "support the President" with the ones who wanted him to be even more aggressive in eliminating the terrorists, I bet the poll would've showed over 75% supporting the overall strategy.

But strong support for the President on anything wasn't on their agenda last year.

Fortunately, the only poll that counts came out right.

[Riven37]

Look guys, America want blood, revenge after 9/11 now that we are getting what we wanted you cry about it. I don't care who we hit after 9/11 so long we hit someone and iraq was in our way so, live with it. And for all you young boys stop crying and go join the Amry and go fight....

Bush's speech was all about telling you we are there and we are staying there until the job is done...what Bush needs to do is to close all those boarders in iran and seria to stop those fighters from coming into iraq..if I could go back I would in fact, I asked to be sent back but the Marine Corps said that's but no thanks. At least I tried to get back into the RUSH !!!!

Stop crying and start supporting your troops or you will see more emotional boys damaged beyond repair like I am.:mad:

[biker]

The open borders with Iran and Syria continues to puzzles me.

Two weeks after the war was over, noises were being made about how maybe we should keep going inot Syria and finish the job.

But Colin Powell, firmly captured by the white shoe crowd in the State Dept, went out of his way to travel there and say "No, we won't."

Too bad. We wouldn't have half the terrorist problem in Irag we do now. We would have captured the rest of the "Deck of Cards" Ba'ath scum. And we probably would have found the WMD that have been missing.

[speaker]

Originally posted by biker
The open borders with Iran and Syria continues to puzzles me.

Two weeks after the war was over, noises were being made about how maybe we should keep going inot Syria and finish the job.

........ And we probably would have found the WMD that have been missing. \

....into Syria and then Pakistan and Egypt and then Turkmenistan and then Tajikistan

Oh look, there's the WMD right here in the US.

[speaker]

Originally posted by speaker
\

....into Syria and then Pakistan and Egypt and then Turkmenistan and then Tajikistan

Oh look, there's the WMD right here in the US.

..and I'm not just talking about bombs.

[biker]

Maybe Bauerle's show today might be of interest to you.

He's disclosing that Terry Nichols is admitting a Middle East link for the first time with the OK City bombing.

I guess your post was more accurate than you thought.

[avet]

While that may be true, speeches don't bring back the dead boys and girls or stop their mothers from crying.
Words are cheap - and so is his treatment of ex-veterans.

(The V.A. recently reported a $1 billion deficit in the FY '06 budget.)

______________________________________


Do you really think he can write his own speeches?.

Ever hear him talk live, or without a teleprompter, answering questions live?

Some more memorable excerpts of a few of his live, unrehearsed speeches.


"I want to make sure everybody who has a job wants a job"
--George Bush, during his first Presidential campaign

"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."
—Greater Nashua, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, Jan. 27, 2000

"I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot easier to answer questions. I can't answer your question."
—Reynoldsburg, Ohio, Oct. 4, 2000

"We ought to make the pie higher."
—South Carolina Republican Debate, Feb. 15, 2000

"I'm a uniter not a divider. That means when it comes time to sew up your chest cavity, we use stitches as opposed to opening it up."
-- Bush, on David Letterman, March 2, 2000. (the audience booed)

"It's amazing I won. I was running against peace, prosperity, and incumbency." — George W. Bush, June 14, 2001. Speaking to Swedish Prime Minister Goran Perrson, unaware that a live television camera was still rolling.

"If a person doesn't have the capacity that we all want that person to have, I suspect hope is in the far distant future, if at all."—Remarks to the Hispanic Scholarship Fund Institute, Washington, D.C., May 22, 2001

"Well, it's an unimaginable honor to be the president during the Fourth of July of this country. It means what these words say, for starters. The great inalienable rights of our country. We're blessed with such values in America. And I--it's--I'm a proud man to be the nation based upon such wonderful values."—Visiting the Jefferson Memorial, Washington, D.C., July 2, 2001

'I had the opportunity to go out to Goree Island and talk about what slavery meant to America. It's very interesting when you think about it, the slaves who left here to go to America, because of their steadfast and their religion and their belief in freedom, helped change America. America is what it is today because of what went on in the past.'

'It's hard to be successful if you don't make something somebody doesn't want to buy.'

"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."

'Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.'

'Drug therapies are replacing a lot of medicines as we used to know it.'

"I firmly believe the death tax is good for people from all walks of life all throughout our society."

"One of the common denominators I have found is that expectations rise above that which is expected."

'This case has had full analyzation and has been looked at a lot. I understand the emotionality of death penalty cases.'

'Sometimes, Washington is one of these towns where the person - people who think they've got the sharp elbow is the most effective person.'

"Sometimes things aren't exactly black and white when it comes to accounting procedures ... I still haven't figured it out completely."
- Bush when asked for details about his dealings with Harken Energy Corp., of which he was on the audit committee. G.W. Bush's father was in office in 1990 when he sold his Harken stock and the SEC did not pursue a case. -Jul 8th, 2002

"Do you have blacks too?" - Bush ignorantly asked Brazil's President Fernando Henrique Cardoso. Reported by the reputable German publication Der Spiegel. Rumor has it, Condoleza Rice interupted the president and explained in brief the African history in Brazil.

"And so, in my State of the -- my State of the Union -- or state -- my speech to the nation, whatever you want to call it, speech to the nation -- I asked Americans to give 4,000 years --4,000 hours over the next -- the rest of your life -- of service to America."" -
G.W. Bush. April 9th, 2002. Reported by the San Francisco Gate (among others)

"There's nothing more deep than recognizing Israel's right to exist. That's the most deep thought of all. ... I can't think of anything more deep than that right."-March 13th, 2000, Washington, D.C.

"{waves hello}"- G.W. Bush waves to the blind musician, Stevie Wonder, as reported by the Washington Post, March 6th, 2002

"It also makes sense for New York State to have a governor whose phone calls will be returned from the White House." -February 2002, at a fundraiser for New York's Republican governor, George Pataki.

"When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive."—September 19th, 2001

''I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe—I believe what I believe is right."—Rome, July 22, 2001

It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas. [now we know why US attacked Iraq.]

The most important job is not to be governor, or first lady in my case.

Natural gas is hemispheric. I like to call it hemispheric in nature because it is a product that we can find in our neighborhoods. [I wonder what he would call the "foreign oil" - trans-hemispheric?]

I have a different vision of leadership. A leadership is someone who brings people together. [duh! and huh?]

I understand small business growth. I was one.

We don't believe in planners and deciders making the decisions on behalf of Americans. [no wonder US is where it is now]

This is Preservation Month. I appreciate preservation. It's what you do when you run for president. You gotta preserve.

Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do it, that's trustworthiness. [i wish my boss thought so too]

You can't put democracy and freedom back into a box. [i agree. you can only blast it out of existence]

[biker]

Wowee, there's a fresh angle: Republican Presidents are idiots.

[avet]

In a recent report the Lovenstein Institute *1 of Scranton, Pennsylvania detailed its findings of a four month study of the intelligence quotient of President George W. Bush. Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has published its research to the education community on each new president, which includes the famous "IQ" report among others.

According to statements in the report, there have been twelve presidents over the past 50 years, from F.D. Roosevelt to G. W. Bush who were all rated based on scholarly achievements, writings that they alone produced without aid of staff, their ability to speak with clarity, and several other psychological factors which were then scored in the Swanson/Crain system of intelligence ranking.

The study determined the following IQs of each president as accurate to within five percentage points:

147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)

132 Harry Truman (D)

122 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)

174 John F. Kennedy (D)

126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D)

155 Richard M. Nixon (R)

121 Gerald Ford (R)

175 James E. Carter (D)

105 Ronald Reagan (R)

98 George HW Bush (R)

182 William J. Clinton (D)

91 George W. Bush (R)

[biker]

Imagine, a dummy like that getting an MBA from Harvard.

His Daddy must've bought it for him.

[yokes]

www.snopes.com

Just search for any of Avets posts you'll find they are as credible as that internet virus warning you get from your aunt everyday.

[avet]

Republican Presidents are idiots

"{waves hello}"- G.W. Bush waves to the blind musician, Stevie Wonder, as reported by the Washington Post, March 6th, 2002

:D :D

[ERIEMAN]

Originally posted by yokes
www.snopes.com

Just search for any of Avets posts you'll find they are as credible as that internet virus warning you get from your aunt everyday.

so i dont have a virus? I deleted all of my family pictures for nothing?

What about that guy in Zimbabwe that needs someone to retrieve $4.7M from an account in Israel? Should I do that?

[yokes]

Originally posted by ERIEMAN
so i dont have a virus? I deleted all of my family pictures for nothing?

What about that guy in Zimbabwe that needs someone to retrieve $4.7M from an account in Israel? Should I do that?

Actually I can help you with the guy in Zimbabwe, he is my college roomates ex sister inlaw's new husband. Ive started a foundation contact me offlist so I can get your money all you're support is greatly appreciated

[speaker]

Originally posted by biker
Wowee, there's a fresh angle: Republican Presidents are idiots.

Not altogether a "fresh angle" in Bush's case.

[ERIEMAN]

Originally posted by yokes
Actually I can help you with the guy in Zimbabwe, he is my college roomates ex sister inlaw's new husband. Ive started a foundation contact me offlist so I can get your money all you're support is greatly appreciated

excellent....just give me your SSN, and ill be happy to oblige

[granpabob]

notice how this unbiased study found all the dems to be smart and only nixon was smart on the rep side ,studies like these can find what ever the person paying the freight wants it to find

[speaker]

Originally posted by biker
Imagine, a dummy like that getting an MBA from Harvard.

His Daddy must've bought it for him.

Yes, indirectly---as a president's son--lots of prestige there. That happens with Ivy league, too, something like the basketball players who usually, in their case, end up having made a real contribution to the university.

Maybe the same people who got him into Harvard (grades please) bought him that full uniform with the leather jacket and all for going to meetings (sometimes) of the National Guard. Or did he get that outfit for his birthday.

[biker]

Speaking of grades.......

When John "nuanced" Kerry belatedly released his a couple of months ago, they weren't so hot, were they.

But I don't dump on him cause he's dumb.

I dump on him 'cause he's on the wrong side of almost every issue.

IMO and those of 61 million like-minded souls.

[watchdog]

I think your on the wrong sid eof just about every issue biker...

You probably still believe iraq had something to do with 9/11

Tell it to bauerle....


moron

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by biker
Without waiting for the pundits to weigh in, my opinion is that this was a very good speech.

Especially at the end: "Our enemies are brutal. But they are no match for the men and women of the US military."


Sounds like you're ready to enlist. What's the hold up?

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by Chancellor Qu'noH
Freedom isn't free! It has always been and always will be payed for in Blood.

If we were not over there do you think for one minute they would not be over here. Now I do not agree with the methods they are using but fighting them outside of our borders is much more perferable.

Ok Dove's its open season..... I am not a war monger, But I do certainly believe their is a line you cross and get you *ss kicked. Also that this country sould be doing '' A LOT" more of it!

You're not a war monger? You're joking, right?

Reading your post, I ask myself yet again why people so intent on us being in Iraq don't enlist and go there themselves? Go fight Bush's war. I'm sure he'd appreciate it. Maybe you can convince him to send his daughters too.

[Linda_D]

There was nothing in GWB's speech that was either new or specific, and certainly no plan or process to eventually end the US occupation of Iraq. That means that the Bush administration has exactly the same exit strategy for Iraq today as it had more than two years ago: nada.

Will somebody tell GWB's speechwriters that the Iraq invasion-9/11 link is a pretty dead horse after all this time? It might work with the true believers, but most of the American public is getting tired of hearing that lie over and over again.

[biker]

The biggest wealth transfer program in history has been oil. Dwarfs the Marshall Plan.

Primarily going to the Middle East. And what have they done with it? What have they spent the money on? The best use seems to have been making the ruling family of some countries very rich. The worst seems to be spending it on arms and state terrorism, not on improving the lot of millions of their citizens.

Iraq, like fellow oil-rich nations like LIbya and Iran, chose to spend the money on arming, training and harboring terrorists for actions world wide. In this, they were helped by many of our so-called allies. Often in violation of UN resolutions which they themselves voted for. For a detailed discussion of this, see Treachery by Bill Gertz.

People who have reviewed the evidence and thought about it have come to the conclusion that the former Iraqi posed a clear and present danger to the United States. People in and out of government. The US went to war for self-defense reasons, not oil or fostering democracy.

We support someone willing to take pre-emptive action. Not waiting for another domestic attack spurring yet more toothless UN and Congressional resolutions.

[speaker]

Originally posted by biker
The biggest wealth transfer program in history has been oil. Dwarfs the Marshall Plan.
...........
Primarily going to the Middle East. People who have reviewed the evidence and thought about it have come to the conclusion that the former Iraqi posed a clear and present danger to the United States. People in and out of government. The US went to war for self-defense reasons, not oil or fostering democracy.

We support someone willing to take pre-emptive action. Not waiting for another domestic attack spurring yet more toothless UN and Congressional resolutions.

Seems to me we've heard that phrase "pre-emptive" once before.

Why don't we just send every able bodied person between the ages of 13 to 55 over there to pre empt. Just go and we'll send uniforms, weapons and food later. Forget boundaries--just land and preempt. Today the middle east-tomorrow half of you get Russia and east and the other go on towards India, China and Japan and then what's left can all go to Hawaii for R and R.

See ya!

[biker]

You've heard "pre-empt" before, all right. Used reluctantly and at just the right moment.

Consider the alternative. We could've been treated to a President Gore (isn't that a sobering thought) moaning and sighing that "that gosh-darn United Nations won't approve anything."

No, I don't think we should willy-nilly jump into every country we think may be a threat (although our supremely capable military could do this). But where intelligent, thoughtful, informed men and women decide there's a probable threat, I'm glad they're willing to take action.

The security of the United States is not to be decided by a group of third-world petty dictators pretending to be statesmen.

[speaker]

I liked Al Gore and I think we would've been well out of this quagmire, as many call it, if he was president.
We should have concentrated our efforts on helping Afghanistan rehabilitate, kept a firm presence in that whole area, and never made an unprovoked attack on another country. But it's been proven that Bush and his manipulators planned this invasion of Iraq many years before, no matter what the real circumstances were, and still you rave on.
No wonder the world doesn't trust us. We have a president who does not have the best interests of his people at heart, only the avaricious interests of his little group and the wealthy of the US.
And you call people unpatriotic when they stand up for the original principles of this country.
Read the Declaration of Independence, all of you dittos, and repeat it over and over, if that's what does it for you.

[biker]

Originally posted by speaker
.
And you call people unpatriotic when they stand up for the original principles of this country.
Read the Declaration of Independence, all of you dittos, and repeat it over and over, if that's what does it for you.

Since you quoted me, I presume you're talking to me. Where in that post did I call people unpatriotic.

I do read the Declaration. The Constitution too. Which this so-called "conservative" court should do before they say the government can take our homes for any ****-eyed scheme they dream up.

You don't know anything about me. Ditto to you too.

[granpabob]

speaker in case your interested the pentagon has plans to attack many countries its a job requirement to be prepared at all times. if they had one for iraq it just means someone is doing their job
they also have plans to defend our borders and any bases we have arround the world. once again part of the job. just because they made the plans does not mean we are ready to attack just prepared if the need arrises

[speaker]

Originally posted by biker
Since you quoted me, I presume you're talking to me. Where in that post did I call people unpatriotic.

I do read the Declaration. The Constitution too. Which this so-called "conservative" court should do before they say the government can take our homes for any ****-eyed scheme they dream up.

You don't know anything about me. Ditto to you too.

Oh, just generalizing, biker:)

[Riven37]

Oh look a ditto person, a rushy person, those are the people from what the Valley Times, "Oh, gag me witrh a spoon.":rolleyes:

[Riven37]

And someone needs to bring that borad we've been banging on about troops, veterans, Nam etc... and bring it HERE because the COUNTEROFFENSIVE is coming. I can't see us banging on two board about the same crap ...so say I !!!!

[Linda_D]

Originally posted by biker
The US went to war for self-defense reasons, not oil or fostering democracy.

We support someone willing to take pre-emptive action. Not waiting for another domestic attack spurring yet more toothless UN and Congressional resolutions.

Self defense? Biker, you are letting partisanship blind you. Saddam Hussein was NOT a threat to the US.

Fact 1: Hussein had no more, and probably a lot less, contact and dealings with al-Qaeda and other Middle East terrorists than any other leader in the area, and certainly much less than our "allies" the Saudis. In the specific case that was supposed to "prove" Iraqi dealings with al-Qaeda, the info was like most of the "intelligence" the Bush Administration used to justify the Iraq invasion -- specious at best and possibly outright lies on the part of the "sources".

Fact 2: Under Saddam, Iraq was NOT a major source of terrorism, either in terms of fostering Islamism or being a source of recruits. Bin Laden and al-Qaeda despised Saddam Hussein, and Saddam was too busy staying in power and wasting Iraq's wealth on palaces to bother with a bunch of religious/cultural zealots.

Fact 3: Despite GWB's references to 9/11, no links between the 9/11 attacks and Iraq have been found, although plenty of links have been found between 9/11 and Saudi Arabia, starting with the fact that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis and none were Iraqis.

Fact 4: Iraq had no WMD, and no, they weren't shipped off to Syria, either. They never were for ten years or so. Even if Iraq had had WMDs, it had no way of delivering them against the US. The max range of Iraqi missiles was less than 150 miles.

Fact 5: The Bush I and Clinton Administrations successfully kept Saddam Hussein penned up and away from his neighbors for 12 years with a minimum amount of loss of life on either side. Bush II filled his staff with advisors who wanted Saddam Hussein out of power at any cost -- these were among the group that tried to get Clinton to commit to removing Saddam Hussein in 1998.

[biker]

You are seriously delusional.

"IF Saddam had WMD.

Of course he did.

He used them on Iran and the Kurds.

Duh

[biker]

Originally posted by Linda_D

Fact 1: Hussein had no more, and probably a lot less, contact and dealings with al-Qaeda and other Middle East terrorists than any other leader in the area,



Wowee, you must be on a first name basis with these guys. Or maybe your intel is better than most of the Administration?

Oops, I forgot. From the other posts, I can easily learn that liberals are generally more intelligent than the rest of the population.




Fact 4: Iraq had no WMD, and no, they weren't shipped off to Syria, either. They never were for ten years or so.



Why are you wasting this talent for inside information in Jamestown. You should hop on down to Washington with this. It would've saved the CIA and the UN a lot of dough.




[COLOR=Blue]Fact 5: The Bush I and Clinton Administrations successfully kept Saddam Hussein penned up and away from his neighbors

I would guess that nasty little Gulf War I had something to do with that. And the daily air patrols.[I]

[Linda_D]

UN Finds No Long-Range Iraqi Missiles
By Charles J. Hanely
Associated Press
February 27, 2003

The U.N. inspectors swarming over Iraq's missile industry found an infraction last week: The short-range Al Samoud 2 sometimes flies a few miles farther than allowed. But the experts have reported no sign of any longer-range missiles that could strike Israel or neighboring oil nations as Washington fears.

In fact, after three months' intensive work, the U.N. teams are looking ahead to ending their current investigative phase, and moving on to long-term monitoring via electronic "eyes and ears." Such a system could rein in missile development for years, experts say.

Chief U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix gave Iraq until Saturday to begin destroying the Al Samouds, and Baghdad was reported Thursday to have agreed in principle to go ahead with their elimination - via explosives, crushing, cutting or other means.

Blix called it an important test of Iraq's cooperation with U.N. disarmament efforts. The Iraqis must also eliminate the design data and equipment to build the weapons - a damaging blow to their young missile industry.

Under the U.N. arms control regime that followed the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq was forbidden to have missiles that could travel beyond a 150-kilometer range - 93 miles. That's considered the outer limit of short-range or "battlefield" missiles.

Blix reported the newly developed Al Samoud 2 exceeded that limit on 13 test flights, by no more than 20 miles. On 27 of 40 flights, the missile tested short of the permitted threshold, Blix told U.N. diplomats behind closed doors.

The Al Samouds' technical violation "isn't particularly worrisome ... isn't dramatic," said Victor Mizin, a former missile inspector in Iraq. He said he saw Blix's ban, announced last week, "more as a political move" - to assert U.N. control in Baghdad at a time when the Bush administration, threatening war against Iraq, contends U.N. inspections are ineffective.

The Iraqis protested the ban, contending the flights would come up shorter when missiles were fully loaded with warheads and guidance systems.

"They have a point," said Aaron Karp, a missile proliferation expert at Virginia's Old Dominion University. "I'm sure there's a heavy version and a light version."

"All missile experts will tell you it's very difficult to precisely find the range," said Mizin, a Russian former arms negotiations adviser who served three tours as an Iraq inspector. "It depends on how it's launched, the flight profile. There are all kinds of trade-offs between payload and actual range."

The slender white Al Samoud is not part of some hidden Iraqi arms program. It was under U.N. scrutiny from its first rollout, in 1997, when inspectors probed and tested it with gauges and scales to check its capabilities.

When the U.N. teams returned last November after a four-year absence, they again descended on the Al Samoud factories, copied design files, observed engine tests and held long meetings, day after day, with Al Samoud production team leaders behind the 9-foot-high walls of their Karama Company compound in north Baghdad.

It was the Iraqis, however, not the inspectors, who declared the technical violations of the range limit - violations the U.N. experts then confirmed via computer modeling.

At the same time, inspectors were making dozens of other unannounced visits to design, production and test sites to check for more serious violations. Reports by the U.S. and British governments, based on satellite photos showing expansion of missile industry sites, said the Iraqis might be developing missiles with ranges over 600 miles.

But after the on-the-ground inspectors looked under the roofs in those photos, they reported no violations.

Similarly, after three months of unfettered U.N. access in Iraq, no signs have been reported of "up to a few dozen" longer-range Scud missiles the U.S. and British intelligence reports speculated were illegally hidden by the Baghdad regime. Those reports contended, without offering evidence, that the Iraqis saved some of the imported, Soviet-made missiles from U.N. destruction in the 1990s.

Both Mizin and Karp believe inspectors should focus suspicions on the possibility Iraq will upgrade missile guidance by incorporating technology that uses Global Positioning System satellites. This could make primitive "cruise missiles" - airplanes converted to bomb-laden unmanned drones - much more accurate.

Along those lines, in February alone the U.N. inspectors have paid at least a half-dozen surprise visits to installations making guidance-and-control systems. They're also inspecting sites where unmanned aircraft are developed.

In February, the missile inspectors began unspecified preparatory work for the long-term monitoring system envisioned under U.N. resolutions. That system will include around-the-clock cameras and other monitoring devices inside and outside plants, along with regular oversight visits to missile-industry sites.

Missiles, with their test facilities, test flights and large pieces of gear, are especially susceptible to monitoring, the experts agreed. "There are things you ultimately can't hide," Karp said.

In any U.S. war, the Al Samoud missiles might threaten advancing American forces, although they might also be knocked out in pre-emptive U.S. airstrikes.

Now Iraq faces the painful order to destroy its 50 or more Al Samouds, along with stocks of engines, liquid fuel, production and launch equipment, design and production software and documents.

In the 1970s and 1980s, Iraq was believed to have wasted $10 billion of its oil money in a failed bid to build missiles. It finally succeeded with the Al Samoud in the 1990s, and went on to build a second line of short-range missile, the solid-fuel al-Fatah. Losing the Al Samoud program now would be a major setback to its military-industrial complex.

So, how was Saddam Hussein an "imminent" threat to the US, biker?

I'll plead mea culpa on the range of the Iraqi missiles' range. Their range was 150-kilometers or 93 miles, not 150 miles.

[ERIEMAN]

Originally posted by Linda_D
So, how was Saddam Hussein an "imminent" threat to the US, biker?

I'll plead mea culpa on the range of the Iraqi missiles' range. Their range was 150-kilometers or 93 miles, not 150 miles.

Silly Linda! Don't you realize what havoc those ALUMINUM TUBES they found could cause?!?!

[WestCoastPerspective]

Originally posted by Linda_D
There was nothing in GWB's speech that was either new or specific, and certainly no plan or process to eventually end the US occupation of Iraq. That means that the Bush administration has exactly the same exit strategy for Iraq today as it had more than two years ago: nada.

Will somebody tell GWB's speechwriters that the Iraq invasion-9/11 link is a pretty dead horse after all this time? It might work with the true believers, but most of the American public is getting tired of hearing that lie over and over again.

K- I now officially believe Linda when she says she is a true independent!

[biker]

Wowee

Criticizing Bush=="true independent"

Now that's what I call a "true believer"

[Boost Buffalo]

seems "true independent" has become synonymous with "weak and embarrassed liberal"

[Linda_D]

Originally posted by biker
Wowee

Criticizing Bush=="true independent"

Now that's what I call a "true believer"

biker, I AM an independent, even though I'm an enrolled Democrat. On some issues, I'm left of center and on others I'm right of it. On a few, I'm downright radical. I've been in your corner on numerous issues but not all of them. I've been on WestCoast's side a few times. Heck, I've even been on Jim Ostrowski's side occaisionally (but not on the cell phone while driving issue)!

I don't like George W. Bush, but it has less to do with conservative (Bush is a neocon, not a real conservative anyways) or liberal than with the man himself. I don't like his pandering to the Religious Right because I take the First Amendment, and the entire Bill of Rights, very seriously. I think his fiscal policies -- can you say the largest deficit in history? -- are reckless and dangerous to the future well-being of the country. I don't like it that once he decides something, he refuses to reconsider or compromise, even when changing situations or facts call for doing something different. I also don't like Bush's hypocracy. He's for limiting government all right -- except when it suits his purposes to expand its powers, and the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights be damned.

I am not a pacifist. I am a believer in a strong military and in taking military action when necessary and appropriate. I supported GWB's decision to clear the Taliban out of Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attacks, but I could not support action against Iraq in 2003, particularly a "pre-emptive action", because 1) Saddam Hussein was never an "imminent threat" to the US; 2) Saddam Hussein was not involved in 9/11; 3) military resources were diverted from pacifying Afghanistan and hunting down bin Ladin; 4) removing Saddam would destabilize the entire area and possibly lead to an ethno/religious civil war in Iraq; 5) the US weakened itself diplomatically and militarily against emerging nuclear players like Iran and especially North Korea (which does have missiles capable of delivering a WMD to the West Coast of the US!).

I am also NOT in favor of an immediate withdrawal of US troops because of the damage the US has done to the Iraqi infrastructure (and the Iraqi people); because of the threat of civil war in the country; and because of the problems that an immediate US withdrawal would cause in the region. There needs to be a reasonable time table, however, for the end of large scale American troop presence in Iraq. If a goal is never set, it can't ever be achieved. That's what Bush failed to address in his speech.

[speaker]

Originally posted by Boost Buffalo
seems "true independent" has become synonymous with "weak and embarrassed liberal"

???????????????

running kind of thin there, aren't you, boost?

[Linda_D]

Originally posted by Boost Buffalo
seems "true independent" has become synonymous with "weak and embarrassed liberal"

What am I "weak and embarassed" about, BB?

I've not only stated my opposition to the war, I've given my reasons for my opposition -- reasons that war supporters have only been able to counter with distortions, subject changes, or Clinton-bashing.

So, BB, since biker has dodged this question, I challenge you, "strong and proud" Bush supporter that you are, to answer it. Since Iraq had no connection with 9/11 and could not launch a WMD (even if it had any) attack on the US in 2003 because its longest range missile only had a range of 93 miles, how was Iraq an "imminent threat" to the US?

[biker]

No dodging; just getting tired of repetition.

Read the chapters on Iraq in Treachery by Bill Gertz. You'll get all the reasons you need.

Trouble is, documentation in books or congressional testimony is too dull to capture the public's mind.

[ERIEMAN]

Originally posted by biker
No dodging; just getting tired of repetition.

Read the chapters on Iraq in Treachery by Bill Gertz. You'll get all the reasons you need.

Trouble is, documentation in books or congressional testimony is too dull to capture the public's mind.

I'm getting confused over who to believe anymore. Gertz, Moore, O'Reilly, Coulter, Franken, etc...

All these conflicting reports, I honestly have no idea who to believe. I'm sure it's somewhere in the middle, but that cannot be discerned by reading books anymore. Either you hate Clinton or you love him. Either you hate Bush or you love him. All presidents have stuff to hide, and nobody seems to be reporting anything worth believing anymore. I once thought Michael Moore was telling the truth, until I started listening to Michael Savage. They both make sense SOME of the time.

I'm not even sure Iraqis want us there. Some reports say they love us. Others say they hate us. All I know is that if Canadian soldier were walking through my neighborhood, I'd be shooting at them. Would I be a patriot or an insurgent?

I don't think anyone REALLY knows why we went to war. Speculation, maybe. Nobody can say for sure that we went to Iraq "for the oil". Nobody can say we went to Iraq "to defeat terrorism".

I'm not agreeing with any of you, nor am I disagreeing with any of you. I just think the answers are not as straightforward as they seem to some.

[biker]

Triangulate.

Read, listen, think.

The truth will come to you.

[WestCoastPerspective]

Originally posted by biker
Triangulate.

Read, listen, think.

The truth will come to you.


ROFLMAO!

What you read and who you listen to doesn't matter?
And it has no bearing on how you think? Hmmmmmmm.

Interesting concept that triangulation thingy!

[biker]

I don't love George Bush.

I don't think he's a candidate for the Mensa society.

But I think he reacted appropriately to the attack of 9/11.

Our enemies are very wily. They know how to hide in the shadows, to operate as a stateless entity in friendly states.

He's pursuing them in ways they never thought possible. These guys are fanatics. They attacked America without provocation and will do so again. With or without provocation.

I think he's also made good economic moves, particularly in taxation. His proposals have generally backed investment and not consumption. If he had the Congress of 1994, the progress we would have made the past four years would have been astounding.

To those who contend that a President Gore would have gotten us out of this "quagmire", let's be very clear: we would never have been in either Iraq or Afghanistan. We'd have heard complaints about the UN not willing to do anything, the limits of American power and perhaps a speech on malaise.

To some, Bush seems obstinate on some issues. To others, he has the courage of his convictions. Either way, you don't wonder what he'd do. He tells you what he'll do and he does it.

[ERIEMAN]

Originally posted by WestCoastPerspective
ROFLMAO!

What you read and who you listen to doesn't matter?
And it has no bearing on how you think? Hmmmmmmm.

Interesting concept that triangulation thingy!

I don't think that that's what he meant. I took it to mean

Read anything you can
Listen to everyone
Think about everything you've taken in.

[WestSideJohn]

Originally posted by biker
Triangulate. Read, listen, think. The truth will come to you. This is unreal. The guy who accepts newspaper endorsements in 2004 as proof of bias for one side while dismissing the very same factor in 2000 as either false (I don't believe the premise) or meaningless (it must have been an aberration) because it would indicate bias for the other side is telling <i>us</i> to read, listen and think? O, irony.

I agree with your advice... I just wish you took it yourself.

[biker]

Oh man.

There goes the neighborhood.

[WestSideJohn]

Why? A neighborhood can't sink much lower if a hypocrite already lives there.

[speaker]

Originally posted by WestSideJohn
This is unreal. The guy who accepts newspaper endorsements in 2004 as proof of bias for one side while dismissing the very same factor in 2000 as either false (I don't believe the premise) or meaningless (it must have been an aberration) because it would indicate bias for the other side is telling <i>us</i> to read, listen and think? O, irony.

I agree with your advice... I just wish you took it yourself.

Originally posted by biker
Triangulate. Read, listen, think. The truth will come to you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What wsj says is the truth. I have rarely ever gotten into a conversation with a conservative about politics where I'm ever allowed to get my opinions out. They shout at me, call me names, are patronizing, insinuate I'm stupid, and ignore my comments. And usually end up trying to have the last word. And I'm polite and all ears and my ears get hurt in the process. Why is that?

[WestSideJohn]

Thank you Speaker, but for myself I don't want to frame it as a Liberal vs. Conservative issue. Biker's hypocrisy reflects on himself only, not Conservatives in general. I know plenty of Liberals who are just as hypocritical.

And yes, I know I'm being snarky. But I won't sit here and be lectured on how to "read, listen and think" by a guy who won't take his very own advice.

Now I'm off to begin my holiday fun... have a safe, relaxing holiday everyone.

[ERIEMAN]

Originally posted by WestSideJohn

Now I'm off to begin my holiday fun... have a safe, relaxing holiday everyone.

you too...hope nobody protests you!

[Linda_D]

Originally posted by biker
No dodging; just getting tired of repetition.

Read the chapters on Iraq in Treachery by Bill Gertz. You'll get all the reasons you need.

Trouble is, documentation in books or congressional testimony is too dull to capture the public's mind.

The same Bill Gertz whom Rush Limbaugh fawns over and calls "one of our favorite authors here and one of America's most prized reporters in the area of foreign policy"?

RUSH: We've go got to welcome back to the program one of our favorite authors here and one of America's most prized reporters in the area of foreign policy: Bill Gertz in the Washington Times. Bill, great to have you back here. How are you?

GERTZ: Hi, Rush. Good to be with you.

RUSH: He's got a new book. You know, you've got a thing going with your titles here: Betrayal. Treachery. They all have subtitles, but you come up with these titles that are instant grabbers. This is "Treachery: How America's Friends and Foes are Secretly Arming Our Enemies," and I've got a summary here of all the chapters, but can you give me just an overview here first? Why did you want to do this? I think I can figure it out, but why did you want to do this? What led you to it and give us some of the bombshells, if you will, particularly about France and Germany since -- -- Rush about Gertz (www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/ estack/bill_gertz_interview.guest.html)

While Googling on Bill Gertz, I also found this interesting article:

10/28/2004
Bill Gertz and the sword of darkness

Above: National security reporter Bill Gertz has been described by employer Reverend Moon as an agent of prophecy.

Bill Gertz, Washington Times reporter and devout member of the Unification Church, has recently drawn an awful lot of attention for stories no one but the Times will print: stories about Chechen terrorists sneaking across the Rio Grande, Russians pilfering the missing Iraqi explosives, and other marvels. Says Joshua Marshall: "You can't make this stuff up. Or, I guess, actually you can."

In a December 10, 2000 sermon, Washington Times founder Sun Myung Moon described Gertz as playing a special role in working towards a time when "the world will follow me."


I have a double-edged sword, the darkest dark and lightest light. Which came first, dark or light? [Dark.] Light! [Dark.] Light! The time is coming in which the world will follow me. When the sun rises, no matter how dark the world is, it will light up. When the time comes, it may just take a week to change the world. That’s why I have been securing the media arm, radio, television and even the wire service. Imagine the five major media organizations opening their hearts and competing to broadcast my teachings. The world would be changed.
America is the most powerful country in the world. But its powerful leaders listen to the Washington Times. A statement from the Times can affect them dramatically. The government of other nations also listen to the Washington Times. Who at the Washington Times is having the biggest impact? [Bill Gertz.] Bill Gertz. How old is he? He is young. He only graduated from high school, joined the Washington Times and became famous.

Actually, Josh, you were right the first time.

P.S. It's interesting to compare the Washington Times with counterpart Moonie papers in Japan and South America, similarly known for alarming "exclusives." In 1987, the Asian affairs journal AMPO claimed that Moon's Tokyo World Daily News was whipping up fears that the government was on the brink of being destroyed by Communist spies -- unless Japanese Diet members, affiliated with Moon's anti-Communist group, pushed through an emergency, and reactionary Anti-Espionage Act.

P.P.S. In this essay from a Moon-related site, Bill Gertz's wife describes feeling "abused," "treated like cattle," but ultimately inspired -- after being ritually hit during a 21-day religious retreat in Korea, meant to dispel bad spirits from herself and others. According to this participant, the first time hurts the most. Says Debra Gertz:

"One thing I really repented for in the prayer chapel in [South Korea] is fallen, immoral, American women that are influencing all the world with immorality. That felt great. To pray tears of repentance and to feel it really having an impact." --More on Bill Gertz (http://iapprovethismessiah.com/2004/10/bill-gertz-and-sword-of-darkness.html)

BTW, it seems the Rev Moon isn't particularly truthful ... Gertz graduated from Washington University and was a Hoover Institute Fellow. He didn't become a reporter for the Washington Times until 1985 -- when he was 32 or 33 years old (born 1952).

[biker]

I guess that's your version of smearing someone: Rush and Moonies.

I read a book review and bought the book.

[Linda_D]

Originally posted by biker
I guess that's your version of smearing someone: Rush and Moonies.

I read a book review and bought the book.

I didn't make it up, biker. I expected to find that this guy Gertz was some writer from a think tank. Apparently, he was at one time, although he apparently didn't write anything newsworthy (perhaps too scholarly?). For the last twenty years he's been a "reporter" for a newspaper that's little more than a mouthpiece for the views of a cult leader -- and only this newspaper prints his most "famous" stories. Any author's biography and job history are public information.

:confused:

[speaker]

Now isn't that strange. The website, newcenturyamerica, which contained the 1998 letter imploring Pres. Clinton to invade Iraq and "topple" Saddam Hussein, has been yanked! Among the signers of the letter are people who work with Bush today.
That website was there yesterday.:confused:
Bet it comes back up minus the LETTER.:mad:

[steven]

-Bush has cut Va funding almost ever chance he could get.

-He hasnt passed one decent pay raise for soldiers since being in office despite deploying soldiers in various hot spots in the world.

-But worst of all Bush threatened to veto the dsiability bill (CRSC)and congress (in one of the few shows of bipartisanship) had to attach the bill to something else Bush wanted before he was forced to sign it. Even then it was approved as a "phased in" meaning many vietnam and Korea era vetrans will never live to see that what was rightfully thiers. Even worse disabled vets rated at 50% and below still dont get it.

When I hear people mentioning support Bush and the troops in the same breath I shudder. When will he Support the troops?

For that matter I see a lot of vetrans or people that say they are vetrans supporting Bush. Do you my fellow vetrans have any clue about how he has acted on the legislation that affects you? CRC Retired pay. etc? Or are all of you one or two tour vetrans with no disabiltys that his actions have had no effect on?

[steven]

Anyone?
I really would like to hear a reply on this from a vetran that supports Bush.

[speaker]

Originally posted by biker
I guess that's your version of smearing someone: Rush and Moonies.

I read a book review and bought the book.

That's not all you bought.:D

[Linda_D]

Originally posted by speaker
Now isn't that strange. The website, newcenturyamerica, which contained the 1998 letter imploring Pres. Clinton to invade Iraq and "topple" Saddam Hussein, has been yanked! Among the signers of the letter are people who work with Bush today.
That website was there yesterday.:confused:
Bet it comes back up minus the LETTER.:mad:

it's back. GOOGLE "letter to clinton" and it's the first hit. If you highlight it and copy it, you can paste it into WORDPAD with all the formatting intact (it must have been written in WORD originally).

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by Linda_D
The same Bill Gertz whom Rush Limbaugh fawns over and calls "one of our favorite authors here and one of America's most prized reporters in the area of foreign policy"?

-- Rush about Gertz (www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/ estack/bill_gertz_interview.guest.html)

While Googling on Bill Gertz, I also found this interesting article:

--More on Bill Gertz (http://iapprovethismessiah.com/2004/10/bill-gertz-and-sword-of-darkness.html)

BTW, it seems the Rev Moon isn't particularly truthful ... Gertz graduated from Washington University and was a Hoover Institute Fellow. He didn't become a reporter for the Washington Times until 1985 -- when he was 32 or 33 years old (born 1952).


Hey biker. Looks like you've been outed. This is the guy you're relying on for unbaised information? Jeeze.....

[biker]

Don't think so yet.

I think before you dump someone, try reading what they've written.

But you guys aren't interested in that.

Amazing how you circle.

But go ahead, bring it on.

[biker]

Will you all follow me to the next thread I start?

I feel like I've got a fan club!

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by biker
Don't think so yet.

I think before you dump someone, try reading what they've written.

But you guys aren't interested in that.

Amazing how you circle.

But go ahead, bring it on.

Sadly, I already know a lot about the guy, and the newspaper he has worked for.
I'm not even sure of his sanity, let alone his competence as a journalist.

I really had no idea you were using him as a conduit for information. Biker, you've really got to work on your "news" sources if you want to be seriously informed -- or be taken seriously.

[speaker]

Originally posted by Linda_D
it's back. GOOGLE "letter to clinton" and it's the first hit. If you highlight it and copy it, you can paste it into WORDPAD with all the formatting intact (it must have been written in WORD originally).

Thanks, Linda/ The whole list of search results is interesting, not that I've read them all, yet.

[biker]

Originally posted by atotaltotalfan2001
Sadly, I already know a lot about the guy, and the newspaper he has worked for.
I'm not even sure of his sanity, let alone his competence as a journalist.

I really had no idea you were using him as a conduit for information. Biker, you've really got to work on your "news" sources if you want to be seriously informed -- or be taken seriously.

By you guys?

I won't lose much sleep.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by biker
By you guys?

I won't lose much sleep.


By anyone you present your opinions to. Your "source" of information in this case would be akin to me using Mother Jones as an impartial source upon which to base my thoughts and opinions.