Here Comes Bush With His Excuses Again.
BlackPlague
Join Date: 2004-02-02 Member: 25990Banned
Join Date: 2004-02-02 Member: 25990Banned
in Discussions
Comments
Because there's quotation marks around the word "facts!" So, his soul is obviously a bucket of lies!
He must be slipping.
However, if there is a link, and we dont find it (no investigation) then who is the idiot?
Police officers have to investigate a lot of inocent people to find the guilty. Just because it is a country in the middle east doesn't make it automatically guilty, but neither does it absolve it from being investigated.
However, if there is a link, and we dont find it (no investigation) then who is the idiot?
Police officers have to investigate a lot of inocent people to find the guilty. Just because it is a country in the middle east doesn't make it automatically guilty, but neither does it absolve it from being investigated. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with you there, I'm just personally commenting, "Isn't it a bit late to be checking for facts?"
Note that it doesn't say Bush is preparing a nuke to fire at Iran. Note that it doesn't say he is gathering troops to deploy in Iran. He's not making any threatening moves to Iran. Yet he is a "warmongering monster"?
I just don't know what you folks want Bush to do. We were attacked on September 11 by terrorists. On September 12, few said "it's okay, let's not find those responsible." Yet that's what I'm hearing here, right now. Afghanistan was targeted, and Al Queda was cleaned out of there. Next came a long-standing issue with Saddam, who, according to all credible sources, had weapons of mass destruction. Now there is a chance that there is a link between September 11 and Iran, and you folks here want Bush to drop it? Good grief, Americans are complacent. We were attacked only three years ago, yet already (actually, it's been a while now), few seem to care. The terrorists were in America, what... five years before the attacks? But three years after a terrorist attack on American soil - bah, they're done attacking us now, they'll never return! Right?
I know you guys here like to pull over the blindfold of "tolerance" - but please tell me how tolerance solved the issue with Saddam and the UN inspections. Wait. It didn't.
Can this be moved to Discussions?
Note that it doesn't say Bush is preparing a nuke to fire at Iran. Note that it doesn't say he is gathering troops to deploy in Iran. He's not making any threatening moves to Iran. Yet he is a "warmongering monster"?
I just don't know what you folks want Bush to do. We were attacked on September 11 by terrorists. On September 12, few said "it's okay, let's not find those responsible." Yet that's what I'm hearing here, right now. Afghanistan was targeted, and Al Queda was cleaned out of there. Next came a long-standing issue with Saddam, who, according to all credible sources, had weapons of mass destruction. Now there is a chance that there is a link between September 11 and Iran, and you folks here want Bush to drop it? Good grief, Americans are complacent. We were attacked only three years ago, yet already (actually, it's been a while now), few seem to care. The terrorists were in America, what... five years before the attacks? But three years after a terrorist attack on American soil - bah, they're done attacking us now, they'll never return! Right?
I know you guys here like to pull over the blindfold of "tolerance" - but please tell me how tolerance solved the issue with Saddam and the UN inspections. Wait. It didn't.
Can this be moved to Discussions? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, discussions.
The thing is though, Bush has already screwed himself over. He started a war on Iraq with no reasoning behind it, other than they were "Suspected" to have weapons of mass destruction, which in the US law system STILL isn't enough to convict a man, let alone start a war.
And frankly, I'm glad he's "Investigating" this- I want the bastards to pay. But the thing is, he said he was "Investigating" Iraq before it, along with the UN, then this whole business started. The whole thing is just **** me off royally- we need to stay out of a war. Frankly, the AMERICAN MORALE is NOT up to a war. We right now are almost a perfect copy of the 60s American public, other than clothing styles. Otherwise, were like the same republic. Right now, America does NOT want a war, and frankly, this business of having a war once every 10 years isn't doing us too well, and people are getting worn down. Ever since WW2 we've been policing the world, keeping communism out, and the such- why should we? Why is it our job? It isn't, especially when we don't have the means for it. Were like the LAPD- were trying, but no one likes us but the rich folk(aka powerful in the scheme of the world. And most of them are **** off at us too!).
I'm a firm believer in "Innocent Until Proven Guilty"- and frankly, from what I've seen, thats falling out the window with everything our Government is doing- I'm still waiting for some evidence that Osama Bin Laden had anything to do with it, 'cause all I've seen on TV and news web sites is that he is Suspected, even though everyone is saying he did it.
Right now I think the only guy who needs it is that Zarqawi idiot. We need to fry his ****.
You just figured this out now?
Besides Osama never plotted 9/11, He's not that good, Al-Zarqawi on the otherhand is quite capable of handling out such tasks and has significant realations with the Iranian regime.
Along with the fact Iran is the largest supporter of state sponcered terrorism in the world. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
That and since this war all of global terrorism is down 45% but no one cares to look at that.
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/04/29/terror.report/' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/04/29/terror.report/</a>
*sorry for the correction 45% down since 2001*
Note that it doesn't say Bush is preparing a nuke to fire at Iran. Note that it doesn't say he is gathering troops to deploy in Iran. He's not making any threatening moves to Iran. Yet he is a "warmongering monster"?
I just don't know what you folks want Bush to do. We were attacked on September 11 by terrorists. On September 12, few said "it's okay, let's not find those responsible." Yet that's what I'm hearing here, right now. Afghanistan was targeted, and Al Queda was cleaned out of there. Next came a long-standing issue with Saddam, who, according to all credible sources, had weapons of mass destruction. Now there is a chance that there is a link between September 11 and Iran, and you folks here want Bush to drop it? Good grief, Americans are complacent. We were attacked only three years ago, yet already (actually, it's been a while now), few seem to care. The terrorists were in America, what... five years before the attacks? But three years after a terrorist attack on American soil - bah, they're done attacking us now, they'll never return! Right?
I know you guys here like to pull over the blindfold of "tolerance" - but please tell me how tolerance solved the issue with Saddam and the UN inspections. Wait. It didn't.
Can this be moved to Discussions? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, discussions.
The thing is though, Bush has already screwed himself over. He started a war on Iraq with no reasoning behind it, other than they were "Suspected" to have weapons of mass destruction, which in the US law system STILL isn't enough to convict a man, let alone start a war.
And frankly, I'm glad he's "Investigating" this- I want the bastards to pay. But the thing is, he said he was "Investigating" Iraq before it, along with the UN, then this whole business started. The whole thing is just **** me off royally- we need to stay out of a war. Frankly, the AMERICAN MORALE is NOT up to a war. We right now are almost a perfect copy of the 60s American public, other than clothing styles. Otherwise, were like the same republic. Right now, America does NOT want a war, and frankly, this business of having a war once every 10 years isn't doing us too well, and people are getting worn down. Ever since WW2 we've been policing the world, keeping communism out, and the such- why should we? Why is it our job? It isn't, especially when we don't have the means for it. Were like the LAPD- were trying, but no one likes us but the rich folk(aka powerful in the scheme of the world. And most of them are **** off at us too!).
I'm a firm believer in "Innocent Until Proven Guilty"- and frankly, from what I've seen, thats falling out the window with everything our Government is doing- I'm still waiting for some evidence that Osama Bin Laden had anything to do with it, 'cause all I've seen on TV and news web sites is that he is Suspected, even though everyone is saying he did it.
Right now I think the only guy who needs it is that Zarqawi idiot. We need to fry his ****. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
American Moral hasn't been with a war since World War II and before then we were quite isolationist.
If anything it's not the president's doing it's your congress for approving the war. The CIA has been in need of reform for a long time. How does Clinton miss up chances to capture Osama, a figurehead of his like SERVERAL TIMES. Along with ignore the fact Saddam was not complying with the UN.
As for the UN. It's a inept body of cutthroats who would rather use it for their own good. I don't think getting it's approval from France (who was obveously benefitting from the Saddam Regime when it wasn't suppost to) Russia (who did tons of weapons business) China (same) were going to vote against approval for the war.
You have to be incredibly stupid to believe the whole "war for oil" thing.
Same retarded rhetroic from the Gulf War.
Please leave your answer in reply form. If you realize that you don't know anything, congratulations.
Quick note here... Congress never declared war. Iraq, like every recent military action by the US, is defined as a "police action." IIRC, the US hasn't "gone to war" since WWII. Go fig.
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/04/29/terror.report/' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/04/29/terror.report/</a>
*sorry for the correction 45% down since 2001* <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, they don't care because they've actually been paying attention to the follow up on that report, which proclaimed that the original printing was incredibly faulty. The revised report said (and here I will quote the hardly liberal Washington Times)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Tuesday's report said 625 people were killed in 208 acts of international terrorism in 2003. The number of those wounded was 3,646. Significant attacks -- those in which there is a loss of life or injury and property damage of more than $10,000 -- were at their highest levels since 1982 and stood at 75.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rest of the article is <a href='http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040622-034256-6271r.htm' target='_blank'>here</a>, and you can check out Colin Powell's famed 'I am not a happy camper' mea culpa <a href='http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/13/powell.report/' target='_blank'>here</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for the UN. It's a inept body of cutthroats who would rather use it for their own good. I don't think getting it's approval from France (who was obveously benefitting from the Saddam Regime when it wasn't suppost to) Russia (who did tons of weapons business) China (same) were going to vote against approval for the war.
You have to be incredibly stupid to believe the whole "war for oil" thing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, so let me get this straight: You have to be incredibly stupid to believe that our government pressed for war based on profit motives, yet it is 'obveous'[sic] that every country that <i>opposed</i> the war did it solely and selfishly based upon . . uh . . profit motives.
Osama had meetings with Osama during Clinton administration? What the... ? I'm seriously confused. Care to elaborate on this statement?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Besides Osama never plotted 9/11, He's not that good, Al-Zarqawi on the otherhand is quite capable of handling out such tasks and has significant realations with the Iranian regime.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you making this stuff up as you go? Al-Zarqawi is a minor nuisance with no real political ambitions and only the fact that he is quoted as the major resistance leader in Iraq lends him any kind of stature among international terrorists. His greatest proven achievement so far has been converting the kurdish Ansar al-Islam into a radical islamist terror group. This is small beans, really, since Ansar al-Islam has no power outside Iraq, and had very little to begin with prior to the US invasion. All information provided by the US government and their allies on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is highly suspect, since they can't even agree on whether he's lost a leg or has both intact. He had been reported as a cripple prior to the Nick Berg video, his leg residing currently somewhere in Afghanistan in or around a USAF bomb crater. After the video it was suddenly stated that al-Zarqawi was the prime suspect of being the person that actually decapitated Mr. Berg. The only problem is that the decapitator has both legs, so the cripple statements stopped appearing.
The persons most directly responsible (as far as can be asserted) for the 9/11 attack are Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, since they conceived the original plan, sometimes referred to as Project Bojinka. The execution of the original attack plan would have caused much more devastation and casualties, but apparently bin Laden was the person that ordered the plan to be scaled down in order to make the possibility of success greater.
Naturally everything concerning the go-ahead-orders of 9/11 is somewhat speculative, but since the Bojinka plan was actually unearthed before 9/11 in an incident that forced Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi Yousef to flee the Philippines, it is more than probable that since the plan's core is the same, these two are the main men behind the 9/11 plan as well.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That and since this war all of global terrorism is down 45% but no one cares to look at that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You haven't been following the news since April 29th, I guess? That's where the article dates from. This very summer, about a week or two ago, the administration itself admitted that they had not added the attacks from the end of last year onwards to the report, thus making it flawed. They called it a human failure, I'd say it was purposeful. Here's the first google piece I found on it, but most of the respectable news papers carried the article as a top story. Get your facts straight.
<a href='http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/06/09/MNGUG734ER1.DTL' target='_blank'>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGUG734ER1.DTL</a>
<i>"Several U.S. officials and terrorism experts familiar with that revision effort said the new report could well show that the number of significant terrorist incidents actually increased last year, perhaps to its highest level in 20 years."</i>
By the way, does anyone else have the nagging feeling that we have in the last few years become a real-life version of Terry Gilliam's Brazil with it's imaginary terrorists, all-pervading paranoia and Information Retrieval Offices?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you sure about that?
<a href='http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm</a>
Scroll down and compare 2001-2003 with the years previous to them. Doesn't seem like a decrease at all. Food for thought.
<a href='http://projectbillboard.com/billboards.html' target='_blank'>http://projectbillboard.com/billboards.html</a>
(it's on topic, really, check out the link)
i still clinton the pimp should be re-elected because kerry has the same thoughts on the war on iraq. so it doesnt really change anything. but if SOMEONE ELSE ran for president, such as a person who know much about the government and such, then i think we are in good hands.
if you still think bush is smokin da crack-pipe. raise ur hand.
/me raises my hand.
[EDIT]
the only reason why we went to war all these years is because the government knew about saudis owning MILLIONS of oil grounds that had embargo acts on them. for those who dont know what an embargo act is, it is a system where it says that the chain system can not have this product or products in the share line.
they only wanted to get rid of the act, get the oil, and raise gas prices higher.... like they havent gone higher any way. i pay 30$ a anyday given for gas.
Yes but that one is moving in an intelligent direction; they cant throw in their 2 cents about Bush being stupid there, without arguement.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The thing is though, Bush has already screwed himself over. He started a war on Iraq with no reasoning behind it, other than they were "Suspected" to have weapons of mass destruction, which in the US law system STILL isn't enough to convict a man, let alone start a war.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No reason except for the CIA telling them that Iraq had wmds, and was looking to by radioactive materials from africa. The later information turned out to be true, despite France earlier saying it was in err. All intelligence aside, I guess a foriegn leader trying to assassinate an ex-president is not enough. Nor is the fact that he was shoting at our air force dialy, despite the cease fire he agreed to.
As for Iran.
It was an independent commision that found the link, and Bush is simply following up on it. He would not being doing his job if he didn't. If later it turns out to be true and Bush had done nothing, you would be bashing him for doing nothing. We are not going to go to war with Iran. If Iran is in fact safeguarding terrorists, than the administration will appeal to the UN for sanctions. France won't be against it, they can always break the sanctions in secret to make some extra money on the side.
i still clinton the pimp should be re-elected because kerry has the same thoughts on the war on iraq. so it doesnt really change anything. but if SOMEONE ELSE ran for president, such as a person who know much about the government and such, then i think we are in good hands.
if you still think bush is smokin da crack-pipe. raise ur hand.
/me raises my hand.
[EDIT]
the only reason why we went to war all these years is because the government knew about saudis owning MILLIONS of oil grounds that had embargo acts on them. for those who dont know what an embargo act is, it is a system where it says that the chain system can not have this product or products in the share line.
they only wanted to get rid of the act, get the oil, and raise gas prices higher.... like they havent gone higher any way. i pay 30$ a anyday given for gas. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I could waste my time explaining the Clinton administration's agressive stance toward Saddam's Iraq but I'd rather bang my head on my desk for a few hours.
Instead, I'll do a little homework for everyone and give you another choice for the next president that represents the views of so many here:
<a href='http://www.badnarik.org/Issues/IraqWar.php' target='_blank'>Michael Badnarik - The Libertarian Candidate</a>
<a href='http://www.badnarik.org/Issues/IraqWar.php' target='_blank'>Michael Badnarik - The Libertarian Candidate</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow, that guy rocks. I did not expect to be so impressed. If I didn't live in Ohio I would probably vote for him.
I agree with Spooge? . . . folks, if you play the lotto, today's your day.
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
CIA got its information primarily from Ahmad Chalabi's group of expatriate iraqis, and Chalabi was known for sketchy and unconfirmed information. Even the "45 min. to destruction" claim was lifted from an operating manual of an old Soviet missile (ref: last week's Newsweek). The info was sketchy, and the CIA knew it. However, it seems that under pressure from the administration George Tenet folded and reported the rumours as facts. There has been a lot of arguing about the uranium claims, but at least the one presented before the war has been proven false.
As for the alleged George HW Bush assassination attempt, see here:
<a href='http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?020930fr_archive02' target='_blank'>http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?020930fr_archive02</a>
(The original article dates from 1993.)
And let me say that I'm about sick and bloody tired of the Bush Bashers. Lay off, sign up to vote, and get your beloved Kerry in office. Election's coming up in November, people, let's not be late!
I agree it was probably a bad move to go into Iraq. But it's done now. You can either whine and **** here about your president's apparent idiocy, or realize that if we pulled out now that entire country would simply fall apart. Right now we're the only thing standing between what's left of the civi's and hordes of murderous opertunist sects who thrive in disgracing the great religion of Islam.
And if you're still GOING to be bash our president, at least have the common curtiousy to come up with a better argument than "Man, he's stupid."
It's about time America dislodged its head from its **** and got behind something with all its heart. I'm so sick and tired of fad patriotism, fad anti-patriotism, and fad indifference that I could scream. How did it come to this?
<!--QuoteBegin-Discussion forum rules+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Discussion forum rules)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<b>6.: Read through the other posts.</b>
It can be frustrating to come late into a fifteen page discussion of a pet peeve, but do nonetheless take the time to read and consider each post. It is just downright rude not to honor the effort that went in them, not to mention that you are easily coming in the danger of repeating already discussed items - which can lead to us deleting posts to keep the thread from going in circles.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> . I'm not trying to be a **** here, but you'd probably be less angry if you had read more of the replies.