GTAVercetti 0 #251 November 17, 2005 Quote He did, we went to Afghanistan, and from that point on Al-Qaida an OBL are on the run. Yeah, Al Qaeda has no power these days. We really did a good job sticking around in Afghanistan to really get THAT job done.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #252 November 17, 2005 QuoteQuote He did, we went to Afghanistan, and from that point on Al-Qaida an OBL are on the run. Yeah, Al Qaeda has no power these days. We really did a good job sticking around in Afghanistan to really get THAT job done. A lot of my brother soldiers are all over Afghanistan, still.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #253 November 17, 2005 >We really did a good job sticking around in Afghanistan to really get THAT job done. We are multi tasking, some do it better than others. But one thing is for sure, Senators Kenndy, Reid, Rocker@*&%)!... have done more harm to the Men and Women of our Arm Forces than good. I spit upon them flea bitten, yellow belly, cheese eaten weasel rats. OK spit is not really all that nice, so maybe a pie to the face (liberals like that kind of thing). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #254 November 17, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuote He did, we went to Afghanistan, and from that point on Al-Qaida an OBL are on the run. Yeah, Al Qaeda has no power these days. We really did a good job sticking around in Afghanistan to really get THAT job done. A lot of my brother soldiers are all over Afghanistan, still. Of course. My friend lost an arm there because of a suicide bomber last spring. He was driving an unarmored truck. Imagine what we could have done if we had finished one fight before starting another.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #255 November 17, 2005 Quote>We really did a good job sticking around in Afghanistan to really get THAT job done. We are multi tasking, some do it better than others. But one thing is for sure, Senators Kenndy, Reid, Rocker@*&%)!... have done more harm to the Men and Women of our Arm Forces than good. I spit upon them flea bitten, yellow belly, cheese eaten weasel rats. OK spit is not really all that nice, so maybe a pie to the face (liberals like that kind of thing). We should arrest them and give them a special color license plate for terrorist threat denial.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #256 November 17, 2005 >But one thing is for sure, Senators Kenndy, Reid, Rocker@*&%)!... > have done more harm to the Men and Women of our Arm Forces > than good. IIRC correctly, Reid was one of the people who started making a stink about our troops missing body armor. Cheney defended the existing (inadequate) armor. So Cheney would be on the "hurt the troops" side of things there. Also, sending a man to his death is an example of harming him, despite the best spin efforts of the right. Bush has sent more then 2000 men and women to their deaths. His estimates of zero (or minimal) casualties turned out to be dead wrong. And while he does not bear the responsibility for their deaths, he does bear the responsibility for putting them in harm's way. So I'm thinking the GOP should probably steer clear of blaming soldier's deaths on democrats. That might make people start thinking about who bears most of the responsibility for this war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #257 November 17, 2005 QuotePresident Bush Fires Back Against Critics That's like a jackass holding up a big fat "SAY NO TO SECOND HAND ASS GAS" sign, while passing gas at an anti-farting rally!!! That's how out of place Bush firing back at his critics is. It makes about the same amount of sense. lol Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #258 November 18, 2005 Quote>But one thing is for sure, Senators Kenndy, Reid, Rocker@*&%)!... > have done more harm to the Men and Women of our Arm Forces > than good. IIRC correctly, Reid was one of the people who started making a stink about our troops missing body armor. Cheney defended the existing (inadequate) armor. So Cheney would be on the "hurt the troops" side of things there. I know what you're talking about and you are only partially correct in your recollection. QuoteAlso, sending a man to his death is an example of harming him, despite the best spin efforts of the right. Bush has sent more then 2000 men and women to their deaths. His estimates of zero (or minimal) casualties turned out to be dead wrong. And while he does not bear the responsibility for their deaths, he does bear the responsibility for putting them in harm's way. Okay, I'm going to ask this as calmly as I can: When, on God's green earth, did the President ever, ever, say casualties will be zero? You are wrong, Bill. This all-volunteer-force is told, time-and-again, about the life-threatening risks that are taken both on-mission and off-mission. It is written down in more places than I can remember before you even sign the dotted line. These people sacrifice a great deal to serve. They sign up for it. We know. QuoteSo I'm thinking the GOP should probably steer clear of blaming soldier's deaths on democrats. That might make people start thinking about who bears most of the responsibility for this war. That is not what Channman said. When I hear the blather coming out of these guy's mouths, it boils my blood. And now, Rep. Murth (D-PA), an outspoken hawk for the war, is "suddenly" calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops. If Murth had his way, we would change the colors of our flag from RED WHITE and BLUE, colors that DON'T run, to PINK CREAM and AQUA, colors that run fast. The fact that these people are able to get away with such a blatant 180 degree change in what they say, never mind what they do, in such a short period of time... President Bush may not have had 100% of the information he wanted or needed. His advisors, the same. Military leadership, again, for them too. However, the judgment was made, the plan executed and we are following through, consistent with our goal. You may not agree with it, but at least he's staying on track for God's sake. These other clowns wouldn't know how to do that if it meant sitting still while taking a sh*t.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #259 November 18, 2005 QuoteQuote Okay, I'm going to ask this as calmly as I can: When, on God's green earth, did the President ever, ever, say casualties will be zero? Depends if you think Pat Robertson is more honest than Bush: www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136107,00.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #260 November 18, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuote Okay, I'm going to ask this as calmly as I can: When, on God's green earth, did the President ever, ever, say casualties will be zero? Depends if you think Pat Robertson is more honest than Bush: www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136107,00.html I don't know anyone who thinks Robertson is any thing but a religious kook. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,649 #261 November 18, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Okay, I'm going to ask this as calmly as I can: When, on God's green earth, did the President ever, ever, say casualties will be zero? Depends if you think Pat Robertson is more honest than Bush: www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136107,00.html I don't know anyone who thinks Robertson is any thing but a religious kook. Kook, yes, but is he a LIAR?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SudsyFist 0 #262 November 18, 2005 Gentlemen, Please close your tags. Thanks you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #263 November 18, 2005 QuoteI don't know anyone who thinks Robertson is any thing but a religious kook. Kook, yes, but is he a LIAR? You see a difference? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,649 #264 November 18, 2005 Quote QuoteI don't know anyone who thinks Robertson is any thing but a religious kook. Kook, yes, but is he a LIAR? You see a difference? I know a few kooks who appear to be completely honest and truthful. GWB, on the other hand.... If it came to a lying contest between him and Robertson, I know who I'd put my money on.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,435 #265 November 18, 2005 >When, on God's green earth, did the President ever, ever, >say casualties will be zero? -------------------------- Bush Predicted No Iraq Casualties, Robertson Says By Alan Cooperman Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, October 21, 2004; Page A09 The Rev. Pat Robertson said President Bush dismissed his warning that the United States would suffer heavy casualties in Iraq and told the television evangelist just before the beginning of the war that "we're not going to have any casualties." Robertson related the conversation during an interview with CNN late Tuesday. He said he spoke to Bush before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and urged him to prepare the nation for heavy casualties. While Bush's response was a mistake, Robertson said, God has blessed the president anyhow. -------------------------------- >This all-volunteer-force is told, time-and-again, about the life- >threatening risks that are taken both on-mission and off-mission. I'm not talking about what military folks sign up for. Are you arguing with someone else here? I am talking about what the administration said. Cheney predicted six days or six weeks for the war; he said he doubted it would take six months. He repeated this several times. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Powell all said we would be welcomed as liberators; there would be no occupation. Wolfowitz said that estimates of hundreds of thousands of troops were "way off the mark." They fired an analyst who estimated the war would cost $100 billion; of course the bill is now over $200 billion. So why did they ignore the potential costs and play up the ease of this war? Either they are fools or they desperately wanted to sell this war to Congress and the people of the US. And based on public polls around that time, the public bought the story. And now our soldiers are paying that price. It is a price they agreed to pay when they joined, but still I think the president has a responsibility not to throw lives away carelessly on a war started under false premises. >If Murth had his way, we would change the colors of our flag from >RED WHITE and BLUE, colors that DON'T run, to PINK CREAM and >AQUA, colors that run fast. Good one! Perhaps you could call him a pinko commie faggot too. That would be a really good emotional zinger. Would make no more sense than your thing above, but it might make republicans feel good. >The fact that these people are able to get away with such a blatant > 180 degree change in what they say, never mind what they do, in > such a short period of time... Indeed. Bush is now saying that WMD's were NOT the primary reason for the invasion - and republicans are buying it! The general public, alas, is not. Bush's solution seems to be to attack as hard as possible, and with as much misleading information as possible, to avert attention from his own changes in direction. >President Bush may not have had 100% of the information he wanted or needed. He had the information he wanted, but it did not SAY what he wanted. He was very careful to present all the evidence that indicated Saddam had WMD programs, and very careful not to bring up any doubts about that evidence (of which there are plenty.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,649 #266 November 18, 2005 Quote And now, Rep. Murth (D-PA), an outspoken hawk for the war, is "suddenly" calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops. If Murth had his way, we would change the colors of our flag from RED WHITE and BLUE, colors that DON'T run, to PINK CREAM and AQUA, colors that run fast. Lets compare: MURTH: After serving in the Marines in the early 1950's, he re-enlisted in 1966, at the age of 34, and served in Vietnam, earning a Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross for Gallantry, according to The Almanac of American Politics. When he won his House seat in a special election in February 1974 he became the first Vietnam veteran to serve in Congress. BUSH: Got his path greased into the National Guard to avoid serving in Vietnam. Seems to have missed quite a bit of his service. CHENEY: 5 deferments to avoid serving in Vietnam. He said: "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #267 November 18, 2005 Don't foget, you left out John Kerry, he served too (he was in Vietnam, but not very many people know that). John McCain was in the Navy too. Oh yeah, didn't you hear? The President did serve, and in fact, did show up. Those "memos" were fake. A lot of people lost their jobs, no investigations, no trials, no special prosecutors (I'm surprised there isn't an outcry for "something to be done!"). Leslie Clark served too. So did Colin Powell. Oh, and while you're comparing, let's not forget about our President's predecessor, who left the country to avoid serving. This is a circular discussion. There's points and counter points. I keep seeing the same pattern from the opposition: Bush lied. Bush didn't serve. The intel is bad. It couldn't possibly be that anyone ever believed the intel besides Bush. Cheney worked for Halliburton. Wolfowitz is a hawk. Rice is stupid. So is Bush. Rumsfeld is old. The defeatist mentality emanating from the left is not going to help the morale of the troops, their families at home, or the rest of America. What it does help is provide excellent anti-US footage for al Jazeera, Syrian and Iranian TV. These congressmen and women voted overwhelmingly in favor of this action, having viewed, and understand the information available. Now they're acting as if they never saw anything and never supported the idea. Which is the bigger shovel? One shovel (the President), versus the 100+ shovels in Congress that claim they're the innocent victims of a manipulation scheme. Who's shoveling more sh*t? It's a matter of physics right? Now, let's add this: the opposition crying about how dumb, and stupid the President is. If that's so, and everyone was "duped", how could someone so inept pull it off? Who's dumber then? The President needs to remind everyone that these sacrifices were warned about. This would be a difficult, and long campaign. In the face of the difficulty, it should be pointed out that the effect is farther reaching than just "Iraq". One example: Libya. They did have a vibrant weapons program. Those weapons are now in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Why? Because Qaddafi saw what happened a little ways to his east and pretty much said, "Not me. Here, take them, they're yours." LA Cops could only dream of a gun turn-in program so successful in the mean streets. What about Syria? The jury's still out on that. Bashir doesn't have the "charisma" his father did, but they too overplayed their hand apparently in Lebanon. They're now out. Lebanon is running itself. Iran is further isolated. Egypt, Saudi Arabia each held elections. Not exactly democracy in action, but compared to what they used to have (nothing) it's a step. Even if WMDs were eventually found in Iraq, it wouldn't convince you at this point. So, why continue to harp on the issue. Coalition forces and Iraqi police are still uncovering weapons caches at a dizzying pace. Saddam was still armed to the teeth and was using every tool at his disposal to get more, of anything and everything he could. He sponsored terrorism everywhere. Tried to have a former US President assassinated, and harbored and provided some influence in the "first" WTC bombing. That's enough for me and we haven't even scratched the surface. Now, I know you think the President lied, I got it. I got it. I know you think the war is wrong, I got it. I got it. Knowing what you know about the region, its civilization in a state of decline, its resources vital to the "health" of the US, Chinese, and pretty much the world economies (oil, just in case you thought I was dancing), where would you take it from here?So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,147 #268 November 18, 2005 QuoteI don't know anyone who thinks Robertson is any thing but a religious kook. Really? Then why did your President take time out of his busy schedule to meet with him personally before invading another country? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,649 #269 November 18, 2005 QuoteThe defeatist mentality emanating from the left is not going to help the morale of the troops, their families at home, or the rest of America I AM "family at home", and what would boost my morale most would be not having a liar who surrounds himself with conniving weasels for CinC of the military.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #270 November 18, 2005 QuoteQuoteThe defeatist mentality emanating from the left is not going to help the morale of the troops, their families at home, or the rest of America I AM "family at home", and what would boost my morale most would be not having a liar who surrounds himself with conniving weasels for CinC of the military. You prove my point then. You've wrapped yourself completely in the precept that there is zero honesty coming from the leadership, spinning yourself into a state of despair, believing only in the "negative" horror of being a parent with a loved one overseas. Surrounded by that kind of energy, an Iraqi could kiss your feet in thanks and you'd still think it was all a pack of lies and deceit. I have members of my own family that are feeling what you may feel to some extent. Based on what we're being told, and what's being reported in the press, I've reinforced with my family to broaden their news sources drastically, and treat all of it with a grain of salt. If you refuse everything that is not congruent with what your believe, you corrode what you do believe to something that resembles nothing of what you intend.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,649 #271 November 18, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe defeatist mentality emanating from the left is not going to help the morale of the troops, their families at home, or the rest of America I AM "family at home", and what would boost my morale most would be not having a liar who surrounds himself with conniving weasels for CinC of the military. You prove my point then. You've wrapped yourself completely in the precept that there is zero honesty coming from the leadership. What a load of bollocks! The preponderance of evidence is that the leadership is dishonest. About the economy, about poverty, about Iraq, even about their own prior statements. And, at last, a majority of Americans realize it. I am sure our troops are doing wonderful things in Iraq, but "lions led by donkeys" comes to mind, a common phrase from 90 years ago.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #272 November 18, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe defeatist mentality emanating from the left is not going to help the morale of the troops, their families at home, or the rest of America I AM "family at home", and what would boost my morale most would be not having a liar who surrounds himself with conniving weasels for CinC of the military. You prove my point then. You've wrapped yourself completely in the precept that there is zero honesty coming from the leadership. What a load of bollocks! The preponderance of evidence is that the leadership is dishonest. About the economy, about poverty, about Iraq, even about their own prior statements. And, at last, a majority of Americans realize it. I am sure our troops are doing wonderful things in Iraq, but "lions led by donkeys" comes to mind, a common phrase from 90 years ago. The American people have also realized what morons the Democrats in Congress are considering their approval rating is only 25% Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #273 November 18, 2005 QuoteQuoteI don't know anyone who thinks Robertson is any thing but a religious kook. Really? Then why did your President take time out of his busy schedule to meet with him personally before invading another country? He met with a lot of people before invading including the Democrats in Congress. I guess your theory is true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,435 #274 November 18, 2005 > You've wrapped yourself completely in the precept that there is >zero honesty coming from the leadership . . . As you have cloaked yourself in a mantle of Bush infallibility. All critics of Bush hate the US. If you speak out against US policy, you're harming the troops. You're either with us or against us. All democrats do is lie, cheat and kick puppies. The real world has a lot more shades of gray than that, and understanding requires more than seeing in black or white. A democrat extremist might think the US torture going on in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere means all our soldiers are evil. A republican extremist might think it's just a tiny minor problem that is best not spoken about; heck, it's probably already solved! A moderate will likely take it as a serious problem and want a solution, one that's a little better than "oh, it's not a problem once we punish some soldier." This war is a quagmire, one that is going to take every bit of diplomatic and military skill we have to extricate ourselves from. Labeling anyone who wants to talk about doing that as a coward, or blind, or "making america run" will lead to more dead soldiers, poorer outcomes and a more divided nation. The time has come to listen to alternate solutions. Bush and company have run this war without listening to anyone but their staunch supporters for almost three years now, and violence continues to escalate. It's time to bring in new ideas and new perspectives - at least, if we don't want to still be losing 1000 soldiers a year in Iraq in 2015. Time to start really supporting the troops by figuring a way out of this mess. Time to stop using them as frangible bullet sponges, pawns in a political power game. >If you refuse everything that is not congruent with what your believe, > you corrode what you do believe to something that resembles > nothing of what you intend. Indeed. That is true of both blind support and blind denial. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #275 November 18, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe defeatist mentality emanating from the left is not going to help the morale of the troops, their families at home, or the rest of America I AM "family at home", and what would boost my morale most would be not having a liar who surrounds himself with conniving weasels for CinC of the military. You prove my point then. You've wrapped yourself completely in the precept that there is zero honesty coming from the leadership. What a load of bollocks! The preponderance of evidence is that the leadership is dishonest. About the economy, about poverty, about Iraq, even about their own prior statements. And, at last, a majority of Americans realize it. Like I said, you're completely immersed in the zero-honesty in the administration framework, refusing to allow other perceptions to supplement your own.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next Page 11 of 18 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Gravitymaster 0 #260 November 18, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuote Okay, I'm going to ask this as calmly as I can: When, on God's green earth, did the President ever, ever, say casualties will be zero? Depends if you think Pat Robertson is more honest than Bush: www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136107,00.html I don't know anyone who thinks Robertson is any thing but a religious kook. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,649 #261 November 18, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Okay, I'm going to ask this as calmly as I can: When, on God's green earth, did the President ever, ever, say casualties will be zero? Depends if you think Pat Robertson is more honest than Bush: www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136107,00.html I don't know anyone who thinks Robertson is any thing but a religious kook. Kook, yes, but is he a LIAR?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SudsyFist 0 #262 November 18, 2005 Gentlemen, Please close your tags. Thanks you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #263 November 18, 2005 QuoteI don't know anyone who thinks Robertson is any thing but a religious kook. Kook, yes, but is he a LIAR? You see a difference? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,649 #264 November 18, 2005 Quote QuoteI don't know anyone who thinks Robertson is any thing but a religious kook. Kook, yes, but is he a LIAR? You see a difference? I know a few kooks who appear to be completely honest and truthful. GWB, on the other hand.... If it came to a lying contest between him and Robertson, I know who I'd put my money on.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #261 November 18, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Okay, I'm going to ask this as calmly as I can: When, on God's green earth, did the President ever, ever, say casualties will be zero? Depends if you think Pat Robertson is more honest than Bush: www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136107,00.html I don't know anyone who thinks Robertson is any thing but a religious kook. Kook, yes, but is he a LIAR?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SudsyFist 0 #262 November 18, 2005 Gentlemen, Please close your tags. Thanks you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #263 November 18, 2005 QuoteI don't know anyone who thinks Robertson is any thing but a religious kook. Kook, yes, but is he a LIAR? You see a difference? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #262 November 18, 2005 Gentlemen, Please close your tags. Thanks you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #263 November 18, 2005 QuoteI don't know anyone who thinks Robertson is any thing but a religious kook. Kook, yes, but is he a LIAR? You see a difference? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #264 November 18, 2005 Quote QuoteI don't know anyone who thinks Robertson is any thing but a religious kook. Kook, yes, but is he a LIAR? You see a difference? I know a few kooks who appear to be completely honest and truthful. GWB, on the other hand.... If it came to a lying contest between him and Robertson, I know who I'd put my money on.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #265 November 18, 2005 >When, on God's green earth, did the President ever, ever, >say casualties will be zero? -------------------------- Bush Predicted No Iraq Casualties, Robertson Says By Alan Cooperman Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, October 21, 2004; Page A09 The Rev. Pat Robertson said President Bush dismissed his warning that the United States would suffer heavy casualties in Iraq and told the television evangelist just before the beginning of the war that "we're not going to have any casualties." Robertson related the conversation during an interview with CNN late Tuesday. He said he spoke to Bush before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and urged him to prepare the nation for heavy casualties. While Bush's response was a mistake, Robertson said, God has blessed the president anyhow. -------------------------------- >This all-volunteer-force is told, time-and-again, about the life- >threatening risks that are taken both on-mission and off-mission. I'm not talking about what military folks sign up for. Are you arguing with someone else here? I am talking about what the administration said. Cheney predicted six days or six weeks for the war; he said he doubted it would take six months. He repeated this several times. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Powell all said we would be welcomed as liberators; there would be no occupation. Wolfowitz said that estimates of hundreds of thousands of troops were "way off the mark." They fired an analyst who estimated the war would cost $100 billion; of course the bill is now over $200 billion. So why did they ignore the potential costs and play up the ease of this war? Either they are fools or they desperately wanted to sell this war to Congress and the people of the US. And based on public polls around that time, the public bought the story. And now our soldiers are paying that price. It is a price they agreed to pay when they joined, but still I think the president has a responsibility not to throw lives away carelessly on a war started under false premises. >If Murth had his way, we would change the colors of our flag from >RED WHITE and BLUE, colors that DON'T run, to PINK CREAM and >AQUA, colors that run fast. Good one! Perhaps you could call him a pinko commie faggot too. That would be a really good emotional zinger. Would make no more sense than your thing above, but it might make republicans feel good. >The fact that these people are able to get away with such a blatant > 180 degree change in what they say, never mind what they do, in > such a short period of time... Indeed. Bush is now saying that WMD's were NOT the primary reason for the invasion - and republicans are buying it! The general public, alas, is not. Bush's solution seems to be to attack as hard as possible, and with as much misleading information as possible, to avert attention from his own changes in direction. >President Bush may not have had 100% of the information he wanted or needed. He had the information he wanted, but it did not SAY what he wanted. He was very careful to present all the evidence that indicated Saddam had WMD programs, and very careful not to bring up any doubts about that evidence (of which there are plenty.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #266 November 18, 2005 Quote And now, Rep. Murth (D-PA), an outspoken hawk for the war, is "suddenly" calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops. If Murth had his way, we would change the colors of our flag from RED WHITE and BLUE, colors that DON'T run, to PINK CREAM and AQUA, colors that run fast. Lets compare: MURTH: After serving in the Marines in the early 1950's, he re-enlisted in 1966, at the age of 34, and served in Vietnam, earning a Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross for Gallantry, according to The Almanac of American Politics. When he won his House seat in a special election in February 1974 he became the first Vietnam veteran to serve in Congress. BUSH: Got his path greased into the National Guard to avoid serving in Vietnam. Seems to have missed quite a bit of his service. CHENEY: 5 deferments to avoid serving in Vietnam. He said: "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #267 November 18, 2005 Don't foget, you left out John Kerry, he served too (he was in Vietnam, but not very many people know that). John McCain was in the Navy too. Oh yeah, didn't you hear? The President did serve, and in fact, did show up. Those "memos" were fake. A lot of people lost their jobs, no investigations, no trials, no special prosecutors (I'm surprised there isn't an outcry for "something to be done!"). Leslie Clark served too. So did Colin Powell. Oh, and while you're comparing, let's not forget about our President's predecessor, who left the country to avoid serving. This is a circular discussion. There's points and counter points. I keep seeing the same pattern from the opposition: Bush lied. Bush didn't serve. The intel is bad. It couldn't possibly be that anyone ever believed the intel besides Bush. Cheney worked for Halliburton. Wolfowitz is a hawk. Rice is stupid. So is Bush. Rumsfeld is old. The defeatist mentality emanating from the left is not going to help the morale of the troops, their families at home, or the rest of America. What it does help is provide excellent anti-US footage for al Jazeera, Syrian and Iranian TV. These congressmen and women voted overwhelmingly in favor of this action, having viewed, and understand the information available. Now they're acting as if they never saw anything and never supported the idea. Which is the bigger shovel? One shovel (the President), versus the 100+ shovels in Congress that claim they're the innocent victims of a manipulation scheme. Who's shoveling more sh*t? It's a matter of physics right? Now, let's add this: the opposition crying about how dumb, and stupid the President is. If that's so, and everyone was "duped", how could someone so inept pull it off? Who's dumber then? The President needs to remind everyone that these sacrifices were warned about. This would be a difficult, and long campaign. In the face of the difficulty, it should be pointed out that the effect is farther reaching than just "Iraq". One example: Libya. They did have a vibrant weapons program. Those weapons are now in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Why? Because Qaddafi saw what happened a little ways to his east and pretty much said, "Not me. Here, take them, they're yours." LA Cops could only dream of a gun turn-in program so successful in the mean streets. What about Syria? The jury's still out on that. Bashir doesn't have the "charisma" his father did, but they too overplayed their hand apparently in Lebanon. They're now out. Lebanon is running itself. Iran is further isolated. Egypt, Saudi Arabia each held elections. Not exactly democracy in action, but compared to what they used to have (nothing) it's a step. Even if WMDs were eventually found in Iraq, it wouldn't convince you at this point. So, why continue to harp on the issue. Coalition forces and Iraqi police are still uncovering weapons caches at a dizzying pace. Saddam was still armed to the teeth and was using every tool at his disposal to get more, of anything and everything he could. He sponsored terrorism everywhere. Tried to have a former US President assassinated, and harbored and provided some influence in the "first" WTC bombing. That's enough for me and we haven't even scratched the surface. Now, I know you think the President lied, I got it. I got it. I know you think the war is wrong, I got it. I got it. Knowing what you know about the region, its civilization in a state of decline, its resources vital to the "health" of the US, Chinese, and pretty much the world economies (oil, just in case you thought I was dancing), where would you take it from here?So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,147 #268 November 18, 2005 QuoteI don't know anyone who thinks Robertson is any thing but a religious kook. Really? Then why did your President take time out of his busy schedule to meet with him personally before invading another country? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #269 November 18, 2005 QuoteThe defeatist mentality emanating from the left is not going to help the morale of the troops, their families at home, or the rest of America I AM "family at home", and what would boost my morale most would be not having a liar who surrounds himself with conniving weasels for CinC of the military.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #270 November 18, 2005 QuoteQuoteThe defeatist mentality emanating from the left is not going to help the morale of the troops, their families at home, or the rest of America I AM "family at home", and what would boost my morale most would be not having a liar who surrounds himself with conniving weasels for CinC of the military. You prove my point then. You've wrapped yourself completely in the precept that there is zero honesty coming from the leadership, spinning yourself into a state of despair, believing only in the "negative" horror of being a parent with a loved one overseas. Surrounded by that kind of energy, an Iraqi could kiss your feet in thanks and you'd still think it was all a pack of lies and deceit. I have members of my own family that are feeling what you may feel to some extent. Based on what we're being told, and what's being reported in the press, I've reinforced with my family to broaden their news sources drastically, and treat all of it with a grain of salt. If you refuse everything that is not congruent with what your believe, you corrode what you do believe to something that resembles nothing of what you intend.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #271 November 18, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe defeatist mentality emanating from the left is not going to help the morale of the troops, their families at home, or the rest of America I AM "family at home", and what would boost my morale most would be not having a liar who surrounds himself with conniving weasels for CinC of the military. You prove my point then. You've wrapped yourself completely in the precept that there is zero honesty coming from the leadership. What a load of bollocks! The preponderance of evidence is that the leadership is dishonest. About the economy, about poverty, about Iraq, even about their own prior statements. And, at last, a majority of Americans realize it. I am sure our troops are doing wonderful things in Iraq, but "lions led by donkeys" comes to mind, a common phrase from 90 years ago.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #272 November 18, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe defeatist mentality emanating from the left is not going to help the morale of the troops, their families at home, or the rest of America I AM "family at home", and what would boost my morale most would be not having a liar who surrounds himself with conniving weasels for CinC of the military. You prove my point then. You've wrapped yourself completely in the precept that there is zero honesty coming from the leadership. What a load of bollocks! The preponderance of evidence is that the leadership is dishonest. About the economy, about poverty, about Iraq, even about their own prior statements. And, at last, a majority of Americans realize it. I am sure our troops are doing wonderful things in Iraq, but "lions led by donkeys" comes to mind, a common phrase from 90 years ago. The American people have also realized what morons the Democrats in Congress are considering their approval rating is only 25% Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #273 November 18, 2005 QuoteQuoteI don't know anyone who thinks Robertson is any thing but a religious kook. Really? Then why did your President take time out of his busy schedule to meet with him personally before invading another country? He met with a lot of people before invading including the Democrats in Congress. I guess your theory is true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #274 November 18, 2005 > You've wrapped yourself completely in the precept that there is >zero honesty coming from the leadership . . . As you have cloaked yourself in a mantle of Bush infallibility. All critics of Bush hate the US. If you speak out against US policy, you're harming the troops. You're either with us or against us. All democrats do is lie, cheat and kick puppies. The real world has a lot more shades of gray than that, and understanding requires more than seeing in black or white. A democrat extremist might think the US torture going on in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere means all our soldiers are evil. A republican extremist might think it's just a tiny minor problem that is best not spoken about; heck, it's probably already solved! A moderate will likely take it as a serious problem and want a solution, one that's a little better than "oh, it's not a problem once we punish some soldier." This war is a quagmire, one that is going to take every bit of diplomatic and military skill we have to extricate ourselves from. Labeling anyone who wants to talk about doing that as a coward, or blind, or "making america run" will lead to more dead soldiers, poorer outcomes and a more divided nation. The time has come to listen to alternate solutions. Bush and company have run this war without listening to anyone but their staunch supporters for almost three years now, and violence continues to escalate. It's time to bring in new ideas and new perspectives - at least, if we don't want to still be losing 1000 soldiers a year in Iraq in 2015. Time to start really supporting the troops by figuring a way out of this mess. Time to stop using them as frangible bullet sponges, pawns in a political power game. >If you refuse everything that is not congruent with what your believe, > you corrode what you do believe to something that resembles > nothing of what you intend. Indeed. That is true of both blind support and blind denial. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #275 November 18, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe defeatist mentality emanating from the left is not going to help the morale of the troops, their families at home, or the rest of America I AM "family at home", and what would boost my morale most would be not having a liar who surrounds himself with conniving weasels for CinC of the military. You prove my point then. You've wrapped yourself completely in the precept that there is zero honesty coming from the leadership. What a load of bollocks! The preponderance of evidence is that the leadership is dishonest. About the economy, about poverty, about Iraq, even about their own prior statements. And, at last, a majority of Americans realize it. Like I said, you're completely immersed in the zero-honesty in the administration framework, refusing to allow other perceptions to supplement your own.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
