Guest slamminshaun Posted October 8 Report Share Posted October 8 Ask Israel why they don't have nearly the same number of suicide bombings they used to. Something about Saddam not being around to pay $25,000 to the bomber's families anymore. War on Terror doesn't necessarily mean War on Osama. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest endymion Posted October 8 Report Share Posted October 8 Do you agree with his policy that nothing is wrong and no mistakes have been made and that we need to stay on exactly the same course that got us into this?Because his own people don't agree with that policy. They are showing signs of dissent. His administration is showing weakness to the world and he can't control them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest web_norah Posted October 8 Report Share Posted October 8 Ask Israel why they don't have nearly the same number of suicide bombings they used to. Something about Saddam not being around to pay $25,000 to the bomber's families anymore. War on Terror doesn't necessarily mean War on Osama. they still get blasted on a weekly basis Israel attacks PalestiniaPalestinia fires backand they will continue to fight until someone with some sense tries to reach for an agreement..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest web_norah Posted October 8 Report Share Posted October 8 Ask Israel why they don't have nearly the same number of suicide bombings they used to. Something about Saddam not being around to pay $25,000 to the bomber's families anymore. War on Terror doesn't necessarily mean War on Osama. i thought we invaded Iraq because of WMD, Al Qaida and terrorism? you are making no sense. isnt Osama the person responsible for 9/11? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest endymion Posted October 8 Report Share Posted October 8 i thought we invaded Iraq because of WMD, Al Qaida and terrorism? you are making no sense. isnt Osama the person responsible for 9/11? Why we invaded Iraq:1) WMD2) Al Qaeda3) Financial gain4) (addendum) Uhh, some weak new stuff that's not even clear enough for a sound byte. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgibson Posted October 8 Report Share Posted October 8 Do you agree with his policy that nothing is wrong and no mistakes have been made and that we need to stay on exactly the same course that got us into this?Because his own people don't agree with that policy. They are showing signs of dissent. His administration is showing weakness to the world and he can't control them.Admit something even smells like a "mistake" during an election campaign and you're screwed. Of course that won't happen.I don't like either of these guys, but I have bought in to the belief that we are in danger - rightly or wrongly, that is something I believe. Convince me that I'm not in danger and I might think otherwise, but Kerry isn't the one I want protecting me. Bush will (I think). At least when I look at both candidates, he's convinced me he will... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slamminshaun Posted October 8 Report Share Posted October 8 Nothing is wrong? That's where Bush goes wrong. I agree that we need to stay the course, but he should also admit that they've learned from mistakes they've made to set a better course for peace. While I don't always agree with Bush on principal, I usually know where he stands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest web_norah Posted October 8 Report Share Posted October 8 Do you agree with his policy that nothing is wrong and no mistakes have been made and that we need to stay on exactly the same course that got us into this?Because his own people don't agree with that policy. They are showing signs of dissent. His administration is showing weakness to the world and he can't control them.Admit something even smells like a "mistake" during an election campaign and you're screwed. Of course that won't happen.I don't like either of these guys, but I have bought in to the belief that we are in danger - rightly or wrongly, that is something I believe. Convince me that I'm not in danger and I might think otherwise, but Kerry isn't the one I want protecting me. Bush will (I think). At least when I look at both candidates, he's convinced me he will...so in essence you're saying that admitting a mistake is a sign of weakness. you know that's a very bold thing to say. Bush can at least apologize, there isnt anything wrong in doing so. and what should he apologize for? for misleading and for taking the country into war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgibson Posted October 8 Report Share Posted October 8 Do you agree with his policy that nothing is wrong and no mistakes have been made and that we need to stay on exactly the same course that got us into this?Because his own people don't agree with that policy. They are showing signs of dissent. His administration is showing weakness to the world and he can't control them.Admit something even smells like a "mistake" during an election campaign and you're screwed. Of course that won't happen.I don't like either of these guys, but I have bought in to the belief that we are in danger - rightly or wrongly, that is something I believe. Convince me that I'm not in danger and I might think otherwise, but Kerry isn't the one I want protecting me. Bush will (I think). At least when I look at both candidates, he's convinced me he will...so in essence you're saying that admitting a mistake is a sign of weakness. you know that's a very bold thing to say. Bush can at least apologize, there isnt anything wrong in doing so. and what should he apologize for? for misleading and for taking the country into war. No...what I'm saying is that you don't say words like "mistake" and "apology" during a political campaign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slamminshaun Posted October 8 Report Share Posted October 8 Apologizing is tough when you still have troops under your command in the middle of the desert. This has been one of Bush's arguments against Kerry. How will the troops respond under his command knowing he voted the way he did, said what he said, and flip-flopped as much as he did. I'm also not sure how Kerry is going to build all these alliances he's talking about building when he refers publicy about the allies we do have as the "bribed and confused". If this election is about Iraq, then stick with what's there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgibson Posted October 8 Report Share Posted October 8 there are other issues within these borders that are 100000 times more important. and this whole "security" and terrorism threat is one of them - how has the war in Iraq changed this?Why do you think they did it then, if not to attempt to quash a terrorist-sponsoring hotbed (where they were told there was an imminent attack threat)?i fail to see a direct connection to the imminent attack? if you still think that the men that were on those 9/11 planes were Sadam recruits, you're sadly mistaken. so Sadam is now the terrorist not Osama? The imminent threat was in Iraq. That's what the intel told them then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slamminshaun Posted October 8 Report Share Posted October 8 And who saw to it that our intel program was in the shambles by ripping apart the organization? (hint: not dubya) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgibson Posted October 8 Report Share Posted October 8 And now it's being fixed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slamminshaun Posted October 8 Report Share Posted October 8 Yes. Some former President objected to the fact that the CIA had warlords and thugs on their payroll, among other things. So what did he do? He had them all fired and replaced with Boy Scouts. Heh!! You don't hire a Boy Scout to infiltrate thugs and warlords.....You hire thugs and warlords!! I always try to show my sources, but I don't have time to look for it this time...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JB2unique Posted October 9 Report Share Posted October 9 This is a lesson in “If you pay the right people enough money, laws will be changed so that your corporation can own more than a fair share of the market.†Bush Connection to Clear Channel (yes, they also own Avalon in Hollywood, New York and Boston... corporate clubbing people )In 1998, George W. got an excessive amount of money from a guy named Tom Hicks. Here’s how: Tom Hicks purchased the Texas Rangers from George W. Bush and other investors for $250 million. From an initial investment of $600,000 George W. profited $14.9 million on the transaction. On January 22, 2001, (un-) President Bush designates Michael Powell, son of Secretary of State Colin Powell as Chairman of the FCC. Tom Hicks then becomes Vice Chairman of Clear Channel Radio. One dog says to the other, “I licked your ass, now you can lick mine.†On June 2nd, 2003, FCC Chairman Michael Powell voted to further loosen media ownership rules. Clear Channel goes from owning 36 radio stations (two below the legal limit at the time) to over 1200! So easy! Now, you know what this means, right? If one media corporation owns more and more of the market, we the public get a narrower news perspecive. How are we as citizens supposed to make up our own mind when we’re not given all sides of the story? Sounds like fascism to me. Who could support an administration that supports this kind of a policy? As for the people who think the media is already liberal enough: Maybe the Journalists, Reporters and News Readers are, and maybe even the Program Directors, but not necessarily true for the CEO’s and owners of those huge corporations. They are the ones in charge, and they support the party that supports the corporations. That’s not the same as supporting the people now, is it?Source: Punk Voter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slamminshaun Posted October 9 Report Share Posted October 9 How come the big "suits" at CBS didn't throw Dan Rather out on his ass for negligently using forged documents to create news against the corporate-friendly president? I guess Ted Turner over at CNN is a Bush fan too right? If I'm not mistaken, ABC is owned by Disney, who's CEO is NOT at all friendly toward conservative ideals. Face it, liberals control what's on TV, and are able to manipulate emotional and uneducated voters AND non-voters. The only edge conservatives have as a comeback is AM radio.....WOW!! AM Radio vs. Network News, and its tag team partner, Hollywood along with Print Journalism in its corner offering moral support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest becha Posted October 9 Report Share Posted October 9 Do you agree with his policy that nothing is wrong and no mistakes have been made and that we need to stay on exactly the same course that got us into this?Because his own people don't agree with that policy. They are showing signs of dissent. His administration is showing weakness to the world and he can't control them.You know what kills me.. is that post 9/11 basically the entire Senate/Congress approved us going to war in Iraq based on CIA intelligence and the fact that the U.N. had issued 12 years worth of empty threats. Think about when this information was compiled. During the Clinton years and into the beginning of the Bush administration. It really pisses me off that you can hear all of these Liberals supporting our war in Irag previous to the invasion ... and now since we haven't found any WMD .. they want to say the war wasn't justified. That's a crock of shit... That really shows the type of character of someone like Kerry... Leaving his wingman..All these dem liberal's were cool before going to war, stating Saddam was a gathering threat and if he was not dealt with immediately we could face some major problems here and abroad. It would be different if I didn't hear these exact words come out of the mouths of Bill Clinton and John Kerry.And another thing.. the war in Iraq is not a mistake, so Bush has no business saying it was. We are making incredible progress there. He had a plan and we are executing it. And this weak rebutle of he has no plan to win the peace.. I still don't know what the hell that means.. Did anyone hear the interim prime minister of Iraq speak to congress? We are making good progress. Schools, hospitals and businesses are being built; 90% of all children have been vaccinated, yet we hear only of the beheadings and car bombs. There is nothing Kerry can do differently. Don't give me that BS that he is going to create a greater coalition... Try telling France & Germany that we want to pull troops out of harms way and put your troops at risk...They already said that if Kerry were elected they wouldn't join the coalition..I'm in the belief that if you didn't join us on our mission initially then you have no business helping rebuild Iraq.That's Kerry's plan.. to try and win approval of the rest of the world by letting other countries profit off of helping rebuild Iraq. What a pussy mentality.. you have to stand up for something... Bush says , screw you if you aren't with us when the times are tough.... don't come around when all the hard work is done...Another point .. is that I believe the people in Iraq want freedom. The problem is that world news is like local news.. if it bleeds it leads...Do you think that there is a possibility that the people in Iraq might really desire something different than what they had for the last 30 years... something like freedom.. Ultimately they control their own destiny... we are providing them the opportunity to do that...It really kills me that we as Americans have lost our post 9/11 passion about destroying terrorism. It's almost as if we need another attack on our soil to slap these weak liberals in the face to say wake up... look what they want to do to us.. have you forgotten... We all forget things too quickly... if Dem's have their way we will fall back into a place of complacency until it happens again... I'm not of that thinking... give me a cowboy from Texas who stands for the morals and principles this country was built on and has the conviction needed in time like now.. He does what he says he's going to do... and follows through.. i.e. IRAQGiven time Bush will be remembered for being someone who accomplished the immpossible... it's up to the Iraqi people to remain focused on what they truly want in their hearts..FREEDOM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bcnjunkie Posted October 9 Report Share Posted October 9 spin spin spin spinyou're right faleen, it is exactly what Bush is doing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.